第34章

Itmayberemarkedbythewaythat，whilethechargeofpartialityorcorruption，oftenheardasagainstthesehighertribunals，mayinafewscatteringinstancesbefounded，thatisafterallnotmuchtothepointasregardspracticalconsequences。Thegreaternumberofthecourts，indeedvirtuallytheentirejudiciary，arenodoubtabovesubstantialsuspicioninthepremises。Andafterall，iftheywerenotincorruptible，-ifthecommonrunofthetribunalswerecorruptlyworkingintheinterestoftheemployersorowners，-thatneednotseriouslyaffecttheoutcomeasregardsthegeneraltenorofthedecisionshandeddown。Iftheyarecorruptorbiassed，theywilldecideinfavoroftheowners，whocanaffordtopay，andtheywillbeunderthenecessityoffindingplausiblereasonsinlawforsodoing。Suchreasoncanbefoundonlyinthemetaphysicalnaturalrightsbasisofthelaw；andifitcanbefoundbythehelpofsuchlegalratiocination，thenitisavalidgroundofdecision，thatbeingthepeculiarmeritofmetaphysicalgroundsofdecision。Ontheotherhand，ifthecourtisa“learned，uprightjudge，“hewilllookforthegroundsofdecisioninthesameplaceandfindtheminthesameshape。Necessarilyso，sincethepointindisputeisalmostinvariablyaquestionofthelegalrightsofpropertyasagainstthematerialrequirementsofcomfortoroflivelihood；andtherightsofpropertyarethefoundationofmodernlawandorder，whiletherequirementsofcomfortorlivelihoodpassedoutofthescopeofthelawontheabrogationoftheoutwornsystemofmandatoryprescriptionsgoverningindustrialandtraderelationsinearlymoderntimes。 Sincethedisputesinquestionrarelyifeverariseoutofabreachofcontractonthepartoftheemployer-owner，thedecisioncanordinarily，inthenatureofthecase，notgoagainsthim，inasmuchasthefoundationofeconomiclawandorderisthefreedomandinviolabilityofpecuniarycontracts。Itshould，infact，benearlyamatterofindifferencetothe“popular“sideofthisclassoflitigationwhetherthecourtsarecorruptornot。Thequestionhaslittleelsethanaspeculativeinterest。Inthenatureofthecasetheowneralonehas，ordinarily，anystandingincourt。Allofwhicharguesthatthereareprobablyveryfewcourtsthatareinanydegreecorruptorbiassed，sofarastoucheslitigationofthisclass。Effortstocorruptthemwouldbeaworkofsupererogation，besidesbeingimmoral。 ThisisnottrueinnearlythesamedegreeforthemercantilepoliciesofEngland，eveninearlymoderntimes。InEnglishpolicy，undertheinchoateconstitutionalsystemofthemercantilistera，theulterior(avowed)endisalwaysthe(business)advantageofthe“commonwealth。“Theprincecomesinratherassecondthanasfirstclaimantonthesolicitudeofthemercantiliststatesman。 11。Thelineofdescentofthepreconceptionofpatriotismorchauvinism，asitfindsexpressioninthislivelysenseofpecuniarysolidarity，maybeoutlinedasfollows:Undertheclan(gentileortribal)systemoutofwhichtheWest-EuropeanpeoplespassedintotheregimeoffeudalChristendom，agivengroupstoodtogetherinaunionofoffenceanddefence，warlikeandeconomic，onthebasisofaputativebloodrelationship。Whenthemanororthe(essentiallyservile)markcametoreplacetheclangroupastheeconomicandcivilunit，thebondofputativebloodrelationshippersistedinaslightlymodifiedformandforce，theincidenceofthesenseofsolidarity，the“consciousnessofkind，“thenshiftingtothenewgroupunit，withallegiancecentringonthefeudalheadofthegroup，insteadof，asformerly，ontheseniorlineofputativedescent。Whenthestatecameforwardinmedievalandearlymoderntimesandtookoverthepowersandprerogativesoftheheadofthemanororthefeudallord，ittookoveralsotheincidenceofthissenseofallegiance，andthesenseofsolidaritycametocoverthelargergroupofthenationwhichhadsucceededtotheautonomyofthemanor。Wherethelineofinstitutionaldescentrunsthroughtheindustrialtown，withguild，handicraft，andlocalgovernment，thetransientfeaturesofthegrowtharesuperficiallydifferentbutineffectmuchthesame。Thedisciplineofwarfare，whichkeptupthepracticeofjointactionandhadtheappearanceofjointenterprise，servedtokeepthesenseofpatrioticsolidarityfirmandvigorousandenabledittocoverotherinterestsaswellastheprincelyenterpriseofwarfareandstate-making。Whereverunbrokenpeaceprevailedforanappreciableperiod，soastoaffectthegrowthoftraditions，thesenseofnationalsolidarityshowedsymptomsofslackening。Forpurposesofeconomicsolidaritythecommonwealthisconceivedafterthemannerofanovergrownmanor。Itfiguresassuch，e。g。，inEnglishmercantilistwritingsofthesixteenthtotheeighteenthcentury，aswellasinthepatriotictradepoliticsofthepresent。 Inpassingitmayberemarkedthatthefactofthissenseofsolidaritybeingananachronismmustnotbetakenasimplyinganythingfororagainstthesubstantialmeritsofsuchaframeofmind。 Thetwocomplementarysentiments-patriotismandpecuniarysolidarity-arefoundinunequalmeasureamongtheseveralnationsofChristendom。Thedisparityinthisrespectcorrespondsroughlywithadisparityinpastnationalexperience。TheContinentalpeoples，e。g。，have，onthewhole，areadierandfuller，moreunequivocal，patrioticconviction，astheyhavealsohadalonger，moresevere，andlaterdisciplineinthefealtythatgoeswithasystemofdynasticwarfareandgradedservitude； whereastheEnglish-speakingpeoplesareanimatedwithamoresecureconvictionthatmoneyvalueisthechiefendofseriousendeavorandthatbusinesssolvencyisthefinalattributeofmanhood。Butineithercasetheoutcomeistheprimacyofbusinessinthecounselsofnations，anditsempireisnonethelesssecureforitsrestingmoreononeortheotherofthesetwosupports。 ForEnglandthelasthalfoftheeighteenthcentury，forContinentalEuropeandAmericathelasthalfofthenineteenth。 IncolonialcommercethedateforbothEnglandandtheContinentismuchearlier。 “Ring“ishereusedasadesignationofthislooseorganizationofbusinessinterestsfortheguidanceofpolicy，withoutimplyingcriticismoftheringorofitsaimsandmethods。 Armamentsandlargemilitaryandnavalestablishmentshavealsoasecondaryattraction，ofamoreintimatekind，forenterprisingbusinessmen，inthattheyaffordopportunitiesfortransactionsofapeculiarlylucrativecharacter。Oneoftheparties(thegovernmentofficial)concernedinsuchtransactionshaslessthantheusualincentivetodriveaclosebargain。Hisownprivategainandlossisnotimmediatelyinvolved，sothatheislessgiventopettyhucksteringandclosesurveillanceoftheexecutionofthecontractsmade。Whataddsforcetothisconsiderationisthefactthatmilitaryandnavalestablishmentshabituallyarewhatthevulgarwouldcallcorrupt。ThepecuniaryinterestoftheofficialsdoesnotcoincidewiththatoftheestablishmentThereisanappreciable“marginoferror“whichasagaciousbusinessmanmayturntoaccount。 Thegreatbusinessinterestsarethemoreinclinedtolookkindlyonanextensionofwarlikeenterpriseandarmaments，sincethepecuniaryadvantagesinuretothem，whilethepecuniaryburdenfallschieflyontherestofthecommunity。Itis，tosaytheleast，highlyimprobablethatthebusinessgainswhichaccruefromawell-conductedforeignpolicyever，inmoderntimes，equalthecostatwhichtheyaresecured；butthatconsiderationscarcelyenters，sincethecostsarenotpaidoutofbusinessgains，butoutoftheindustryoftherestofthepeople。Thepeople，however，areanimatedwithanuncriticalpersuasionthattheyhavesomesortofaresiduaryshareinthesegains，andthatthisresiduaryshareinsomemannerexceedsthewholeofthegainssecured。 SeeChapterX。above。 Cf。Hobson，Imperialism，pt。I，ch。VII，pt。II，ch。I，andVII。 Ontherelationofbusinesstowarlikeexpenditureinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，cf。，Ehrenberg，ZeitalterderFugger。 TheTheoryofBusinessEnterprisebyThorsteinVeblen1904 TheCulturalIncidenceoftheMachineProcessSofarasregardsthenon-mechanicalfactorsofculture，suchasreligion，politics，andevenbusinessenterprise，thepresentisinaverylargedegreecomparablewiththeschemeofthingsthatprevailedontheContinentofEuropeintheseventeenthcentury。Andsofarastheworkingoftheseculturalfactorsisundisturbedbyforcesthatwerenotpresentintheolderdays，theyshouldlogicallyagainworkoutinsuchasituationascametoprevailinCentralEuropeinthecourseoftheeighteenthcentury。Themodernsituation，ofcourse，isdrawnonalargerscale；butthatisduetotheintrusionofanewtechnology，adifferent“stateoftheindustrialarts，“andnottoasubstantiallyalteredrangeofreligious，political，orbusinessconceptions。ThepitchofsqualorthatcharacterizedvulgarlifeinthebusierContinentalcountriesatthecloseofthegreateraofpoliticscouldprobablynotbereachedagain，butthatagain，isdue，nottothesespiritualfactorsofculturalgrowth，buttothealteredstateoftheindustrialarts。Thefactorinthemodernsituationthatisalientotheancientregimeisthemachinetechnology，withitsmanyandwideramifications。 BusinessconceptionsandbusinessmethodswerepresentinvigorousgrowthinCentralEuropeinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，astheyhadbeeninSouthEuropefromaslightlyearlierdate；althoughthelargesweepofbusinessenterpriseisnothaduntilalaterdate，beingconditionedbythemachinetechnology。Businessmethodsandtheapparatusofbusinesstrafficdevelopverypromptlywheneverandwhereverthesituationcallsforthem；suchistheteachingofeconomichistory。(1*)Thereisnothingreconditeaboutthem，littlethathastobeacquiredbyaprotracted，cumulativeexperiencerunningovermanygenerations，suchasisinvolvedintechnologicaldevelopment。Thisbusinessdevelopmentinearliermoderntimes，togetherwiththeaccumulationsoffundedwealththatcameofthisbusinessenterprise，rantheircoursetoafinishinContinentalEurope，leavingnobasisforanewstart。Thenewstartfromwhichthecurrentsituationtakesitsrise，inEuropeandelsewhere，wasgiventotheContinentalpeoplesbytheEnglish，ready-made，intheso-calledIndustrialRevolution。Thenatural-rightsmetaphysics，towhichtheeventualbreakdownoftheoldContinentalsystemoweditsspecificcharacter，camealsofromtheEnglish。(2*) InpointofbloodandculturaldescentthepopulationofGreatBritaindidnotdiffermateriallyfromtheirneighborsacrosstheChanneloracrosstheNorthSea。(3*)ButfromthebeginningofthemodernculturaleraGreatBritainstoodoutsideofthegeneralEuropeansituation，byforceofitsphysicalisolation。Sothatduringthemodernera，downtothecloseoftheeighteenthcentury，theBritishcommunitywasinthepositionofaninterestedthirdpartyratherthanaparticipantinthepoliticalconcertofEurope。Theeraof“statemaking，“socalled，isanerainwhichEnglandinterferes，butis，onthewhole，notgreatlyinterferedwith，sofarasherownhomeaffairsareconcerned。England，andpresentlyGreatBritain，beingreducedtolawandorderunderonecrownandlivinginaconditionofisolationand(relatively)ofinternalpeace，theculturalgrowthofthatcountrytookarelativelypeaceabledirection。Thedominantnoteofeverydaylifewasindustryandtrade，notdynasticpoliticsandwar。Thisnationalexperiencegaveasitsoutcomeconstitutionalgovernmentandthemodernindustrialtechnology，togetherwiththeanimusandthepointofviewofthemodernmaterialisticscience。Thepointofdepartureforthemorerecent，currentsituation，therefore，isatwofoldone:(1)theBritishpeaceablevariantoftheWesternculturehascontributedconstitutionalmethodsandnaturalrights，togetherwiththemachinetechnologybroughtinundertheheadofthe“industrialrevolution“；and(2)therearethepatrioticidealsandanimositiesleftasaresidueofthewarlikepoliticaltrafficinContinentalEurope。 Sincethenewdeparture，madeonthebasisofnaturalrightsandmodernindustrialandscientificmethods，thecomplexofnationsandofinternationalrelationsisasingle，notatwofoldone。Thestageoverwhichaffairs，political，industrialandcultural，runtheircourseisnolongerContinentalorBritish，butcosmopolitan，comprisingallcivilizedcommunitiesandallcivilizedinterests。Sothatthereisnotnow，astherewasinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，anisolationhospitalfortechnology，science，andcivilrights，setapartfromthegeneralcurrentofculturaldevelopment。Whatevertheforcesatworkinthemodernsituationmayeventuallybringtopass，therefore，theoutcomemusttouchallcommunitiesinthesamewayandinapproximatelythesamedegree。Iftheoutcomeisdynasticpoliticsandarmamentagainplayedtoafinishinpopularsqualor，aristocraticvirtues，anduniversalbankruptcy，therewillbenopeaceablecommunityofmatter-of-factmechanicsandshopkeepersleftinreservefromwhichtomakeanewculturalandindustrialstart。Themoderntechnologyhas，inamanner，cutawaythegroundoutofwhichitfirstgrewandfromwhichitgatheredforcetoreshapethecourseofhistory。Ithasmadeitimpossibleforanycommunitytostandpeaceablyoutsideofthegreatcomplexofnations。 Butwithinthecomprehensivesituationofto-daythereisthisnewfactor，themachineprocess。Inanearlierchapter(II)