Greed, robbery and oppression
Greed, robbery and oppression
"We are selfish in economic matters because we all live in terror of poverty."
An argument that Socialists ought to be prepared to meet, since it is brought up constantly both by Christian apologists and by neo-pessimists such as James Burnham, is the alleged immutability of ‘human nature’. Socialists are accused—I think without justification—of assuming that Man is perfectible, and it is then pointed out that human history is in fact one long tale of greed, robbery and oppression. Man, it is said, will always try to get the better of his neighbour, he will always hog as much property as possible for himself and his family. Man is of his nature sinful, and cannot be made virtuous by Act of Parliament. Therefore, though economic exploitation can be controlled to some extent, the classless society is for ever impossible.
The proper answer, it seems to me, is that this argument belongs to the Stone Age. It presupposes that material goods will always be desperately scarce. The power hunger of human beings does indeed present a serious problem, but there is no reason for thinking that the greed for mere wealth is a permanent human characteristic. We are selfish in economic matters because we all live in terror of poverty. But when a commodity is not scarce, no one tries to grab more than his fair share of it. No one tries to make a corner in air, for instance. The millionaire as well as the beggar is content with just so much air as he can breathe. Or, again, water. In this country we are not troubled by lack of water. If anything we have too much of it, especially on Bank Holidays. As a result water hardly enters into our consciousness. Yet in dried-up countries like North Africa, what jealousies, what hatreds, what appalling crimes the lack of water can cause! So also with any other kind of goods. If they were made plentiful, as they so easily might be, there is no reason to think that the supposed acquisitive instincts of the human being could not be bred out in a couple of generations. And after all, if human nature never changes, why is it that we not only don’t practise cannibalism any longer, but don’t even want to?
Another brain-tickler.1
A businessman was in the habit of going home by a suburban train which left London at seven-thirty. One evening the night-watchman, who had just come on duty, stopped him and said: ‘Excuse me, sir, but I’d advise you not to go by your usual train tonight. I dreamed last night that the train was smashed up and half the people in it were killed. Maybe you’ll think I’m superstitious, but it was all so vivid that I can’t help thinking it was meant as a warning.’
The businessman was sufficiently impressed to wait and take a later train. When he opened the newspaper the next morning he saw that, sure enough, the train had been wrecked and many people killed. That evening he sent for the night-watchman and said to him:
‘I want to thank you for your warning yesterday. I consider that you saved my life, and in return I should like to make you a present of thirty pounds. In addition, I have to inform you that you are sacked. Take a week’s notice from today.’
This was an ungrateful act, but the businessman was strictly within his rights. Why?
First published in Tribune, 21 July 1944.
Orwell would occasionally end a column with a little ‘intelligence test’.
The businessman was within his rights to sack the night-watchman because the night-watchman's job is to protect the premises, not to sleep on duty. By dreaming, the night-watchman demonstrated that he was sleeping during his shift, which is a dereliction of duty. Therefore, despite the night-watchman's good intentions and the fortunate outcome, the businessman was justified in dismissing him for not performing his job properly.
I take your point about where such attitudes belong but I think it may be a libel on the Stone Age to make them responsible for such attitudes.