• Foreword
• Sanity or Starvation
• The General Irrationality and Immorality of the Old Order
• The Characteristics of the Old Order

      There is a story told of a waiter who served a boiled egg which, when opened, was promptly rejected. In a short time he returned with an apparently new egg, but when it was opened it proved to be the same one turned up the other way.

      We hear much today about a new order, but one fears that many are not really convinced of the need of a new one. Touch up the old a little here and there and all will be well. The great danger is that we shall receive the old order again merely presented in another way. It would seem too that many dream of a material paradise without moral and spiritual foundations.

      A new order will be created only if we have a mind, a heart and a will for it. We shall gain this mental and moral momentum only as we are convinced of the need of something new. This booklet is an attempt to give a brief, simple analysis of the old order in the light of Christian principles, written so that he who runs may read; to show the need of a new structure; and to point to the truth that a new world demands not only a new architecture but also new men.

E. L. W.      

      A story is told of a group of men who were discussing the first profession in the world. A doctor said that the medical profession was first, for a surgical operation was performed in the Garden of Eden. "No," said an architect, "architecture was first, for order was brought out of chaos." "Oh, no!" protested a politician, "the politicians were first--they caused chaos."

      Fixing the blame is one of the most popular of games, but probably the least profitable. Whoever is responsible, there is no doubt about the chaos.

      Prior to the war it could be said that the modern world was wealthier, or potentially wealthier, than it had ever been before, and yet we were over head and ears in debt, we feared financial collapse and bankruptcy, and millions were under-nourished. We were so wealthy as to be in danger of starvation. We produced such a surplus of goods that we could not supply a large part of the world's population with more than the bare necessities of life. We feared to produce too much wheat and cotton and to breed too many sheep lest we want for bread, meat and clothes.

      We were faced with the dual problem of overproduction and unemployment. To stimulate employment we were advised to restrict output or destroy surplus production. We were to cure our poverty by destroying God's bounty and making ourselves really poorer. Creditor countries found it necessary to take strenuous measures to prevent others from paying them. The orthodox cry was in plain language, "Foreign producers want to sell us goods so cheaply that we shall be ruined if we buy them."

      This presents to us the so-called dilemma of the modern world, in which we are not faced with a real problem, for it is really impossible for us to be so wealthy as to be in danger of starvation. Rather does it bring us face to face with irrationality and immorality.

      As the crowning point of this irrationality and immorality the world went to war, and today we hear it groaning in travail, and see it smoking in ruins. Devastation, desolation, death and depravity surround us.

      The material devastation of the war convinces all of the need of reconstruction; but the smoking ruins are symbols of a deeper collapse, and they reveal the urgent need of a reconstruction beyond that of bricks and mortar.

      The destruction of Hitlerism is not enough. Bad men may be the occasions of war, but not necessarily the causes. A century ago Napoleon was the bad man. The world got rid of him, but it did not get rid of war. If it be argued that other bad men arose, we agree, but hasten to point out that bad men are consequences rather than causes--consequences that become the occasions of war. There is a set of circumstances and a structure which lie behind bad men and wars.

      War is not an isolated event to be detached from the structure of modern civilisation. It must be regarded as a symptom of a disease which holds the world in its grip. To discover and root out this disease, to remove the causes of war, is a task more

fundamental and more difficult than the overthrow of Hitlerism. If this greater task is not achieved, then, though Hitlerism be conquered, another bad man will arise, and after another period of "suspended hostilities" the battle will have to be fought all over again.

      It is the whole structure of our life--individual, social, economic, political and international--that has collapsed. Behind the collapse we see the rejection of God in practice, if not in thought. Man in his own capacity has been regarded as sufficient to build an abiding civilisation. Material values have been made the predominant goal of the world's activities. Material considerations have stimulated and guided the policies of the nations, and their trust has been placed entirely in material means. A unit of loyalty less than humanity has been accepted, and has given rise to a narrow conception of rights and morality. What is wrong in relation to a fellow national is right in relation to those beyond the national circle. Men have lost their hold on spiritual realities, and too often have not realised their need of them. They have been brought to accept as substitutes the supremacy of material values, class, nation or race, and have rejected the sovereignty of God and the brotherhood of man as taught by Christ.

      The economic factor is not the only one making for war, but with reason it can be called the chief one. We turn then to an analysis of the economic system.

      (1) It is a competitive system.

      The right of private enterprise establishes groups of competitors. Competition may be all right if there is enough for all, if all start off the same mark, and if all have the same ability. But if there is not enough for all, and if some have a start, and if ability is unequal, some will go short and others will gain control and become economic dictators, handing out

a share to others--if there is any share left. Even if there is enough for all we may have a similar situation as a result of uncontrolled competition. We have only to imagine a group of men with different speeds, on different marks, racing one hundred yards to secure a supply of apples sufficient or less than sufficient for all in the race, to have a simple picture of the process and the results of a competitive system. The result is a division into "haves" and "have-nots" irrespective of moral worth, needs and rights.

      Competition provides a stimulant, but a system of uncontrolled competition is one organised around the hunger motive and does not rise above the law of the jungle. It means the survival of the fittest--the materially fittest--among individuals and nations. It both lives on and stimulates selfishness.

      Furthermore, it means duplication and waste in the attempt of one competitor to outdo another in advertising, agencies and transport. The race for markets ultimately turns into an armaments race, and war finally destroys the very things, both material and spiritual, about which we fight. A. W. Palmer writes: "Is not the basic tension an economic one, in that we have by our inventions made the world an economic unity and left it in control of fifty separate governments, each with its own army and navy, its tariff walls, and power to erect trade barriers and block other people's access to the raw materials and markets of the globe? "

      (2) It is a system based on private property and control.

      Wealth is subject to the limits of taxation, but the right to hold, use, and dispose of all forms of wealth is unlimited.

      It is necessary to distinguish between consumption goods and production goods, or capital goods, as they are commonly called. The former consist of the house in which one lives, the land on which one's home is built, one's motor car, clothes, etc. None would question the right of private property in

these goods. Production goods, on the other hand, consist of the agents of production such as land and capital in the form of machines, implements, buildings and the like. The right of private ownership in these goods means that the owners have the right to say whether the land shall be farmed or not, and whether the machines shall be worked or not.

      Competition, with its resultant division into "haves" and "have-nots," plus the right of inheritance which belongs to the right of private property, means that production goods (land and capital) are held and controlled by the few who secure the right and power to say whether the many shall work with these agents of production. Private property in production gives the few control over the lives of the many. Naturally the few will control in their own interests. Individual and national monopolies are the fruits of competition and private property.

      This brings us to the third feature of the old order.

      (3) It is characterised by gross inequality.

      Democracy is an ideal which is shouted from the housetops in opposition to totalitarianism. We enjoy political democracy to the extent of the franchise. That is about as far as it goes. Social and economic democracy are beyond the pale of our experience. Under our old order many have been free to starve. In a materialistic world economic inequalities have been the foundation of inequalities in the matters of security, medical services, education, travel, culture and leisure.

      Unjust inequalities are obvious to anyone who has eyes to see. If we have not observed them, statistics will force them before us.

      English census figures for 1934 showed that 6% of the people owned 80% of the capital. The remaining 9470 shared 20% between them. Ten per cent. of the people drew 50% of the national income. In the U.S.A. the figures reveal even greater inequalities. But what of Australia? The Statistician's

figures for 1933 will serve as a guide. In that year the basic wage for the Commonwealth was £3/4/2 a week. This wage is based on what was known as the Harvester Wage awarded by Mr. Justice Higgins in the Arbitration Court of 1907. It was regarded as the wage sufficient to meet the normal needs of an employee "living as a human being in a civilised community". On this basis variations are made according to changes in the cost of living figures. This wage has always been regarded as an inadequate minimum. It is certainly inadequate for a married man with a family of more than one child. The 1933 figures showed that about one-fourth of the married men in Australia received less than £1 per week, a little more than one-third received less than 62 a week, half received less than £3 a week, about two-thirds received less than £4 a week and a little more than three-quarters received less than £5 a week. This reveals that at least half of the married men in Australia were receiving less than the basic wage. It is estimated that at least 62% of all the adult male workers were receiving less than the basic wage.

      Gross inequality causes maldistribution of industry in that some lack the necessities, and necessary industries that should exist give place to less essential and luxury industries which are brought into being by the surplus expenditure of others. This can be very simply illustrated. We will take bread to represent all necessities of life, cake a less essential commodity, and ice cream a luxury. We will suppose the community consists of but three people, A, B, and C; that £5 worth of bread per week is necessary for each member of the community; that the total income is £16 per week, and that it is divided as follows: £8 to A, £5 to B, and £3 to C.

will not be able to spend more than £3 on bread and B not more than £5. A will be able to buy his full sufficiency of bread, i. e., £5 worth, and also spend, say, £2 10/- on cake and 10/- on ice cream. Following demand, which is determined by individual spending power, production would be as follows:

      £13 worth of bread, £2/10/- worth of cake and 10/- worth of ice-cream. The necessity of each member of the community required that £15 worth of bread be produced and only £1 worth of cake and ice cream. It is true that A can afford to spend £3 on cake and ice cream, but the community as a whole cannot. The expenditure of more than £1 is at the expense of C, who is compelled to go short of bread by his limited income. Non-essentials and luxuries are enjoyed by some before all enjoy the necessities. The illustration could be varied and other factors taken into account, but in a simple way it presents the essential outworking of gross inequality. Bacon was right when he said that wealth is like muck--it is no good unless it is spread.

      In addition to its inherent injustice, gross inequality promotes class distinction, and often a false sense of values. The materially prosperous come to be regarded as the socially elite. Their artificial and superficial social etiquette assumes an importance before which the basic virtues of love, unselfishness, honesty, purity, humility, friendliness and magnanimity slip into the background. Inequality of the kind we experience panders to that materialism which, producing an aristocracy of its own, becomes blind to the true and humble aristocracy of character.

      (4) The dynamic of the old system is the profit motive.

      The financial gain which may be secured is the incentive to production. No doubt this appeal to self-interest serves as a great stimulant. But the profit motive enslaves as well as stimulates.

      Profit is the residue that goes to the entrepreneur after all costs have been paid. It is a payment for undertaking organisation, initiative and responsibility. It is an unfixed amount which is received by the few. Only the few are fitted and willing to be organisers, to take initiative and bear responsibility. The margin between costs and price determines profit. [N. B.--The economist regards general profit

as itself a cost and pure profit as a residue beyond that. Here we are not treating profit as a cost, but are thinking of it as the residue after all costs have been met.] A margin will be secured by low costs and, or, high prices. If costs can be kept low, then prices may be low; if prices are high, then there is not the same pressure on costs. Obviously, if costs can be reduced and prices remain high, the margin will be greater. The profit urge is then towards low costs or high prices, or both.

      In our present economy price depends upon a certain balance between supply and demand. If supply exceeds demand, price falls. Over-production means a fall in price. The former may be due to various causes. One is the profit urge within an unplanned economy. Anxious to reap the reward of production various entrepreneurs forge ahead as far as possible in certain fields until in their competition with one another they glut the market. A price collapse in one field affects others and repercussions and maladjustment spread. Of course, supply may exceed demand, because the latter contracts. Under-consumption results in a price collapse with all its repercussions. This is commonly mistaken for overproduction, and we have seen a reduction of production when people were under-nourished. One cause of contraction in demand is reduced spending power--a shortage in the supply of money and a maldistribution of it. But this is another problem.

      As price depends on a certain balance between supply and demand, it is easy to see that scarcity is in the interests of high prices and profits. It is easy to get one's price in conditions of scarcity. Past days of scarcity provided a great opportunity for the profit urge. In such conditions it served to solve the problem of scarcity. But with the advance into an age of plenty our old economy found itself in difficulties. Profit was no longer easily served by relative scarcity and high prices or sufficiently high prices. The first reaction was to destroy commodities in order to maintain the relative scarcity, prices and profits. The next step was the less offensive technique of restricting production--a planned

economy in the interests of price and profit. We see, then, that in a situation of potential plenty the profit motive, within the framework of the old order, leads to restriction of production. During the depression of the thirties, figures show that in the United States of America production was down to about 50% of capacity while people were going short--some desperately short of the things that could have been produced. Such a state of affairs was obvious in Australia and most other places. People were in need of food and clothes, raw materials were available, machines were ready to turn over and produce, effort was available to work machines, but raw materials remained unused, machines stood idle and labour suffered unemployment, and men, women and children went desperately short of the necessities of life. Why? Because it was not profitable to produce the needed commodities. Nobody could condemn the individual producer for not producing when it was unprofitable to do so. None can keep on producing at a financial loss. Everyone was caught within the framework of an irrational and immoral system.

      We need to grasp this fact, that we now live in a world of potential plenty. A concrete evidence of it lies near at hand. At present, in Australia, our normal requirements are not far from being met with only 40% of our effort engaged in supplying civilian needs--60% of our effort is absorbed in the demands of war. What plenty there would be with 100 % effort given to the supply of our normal, civilian needs. Yet it would be possible under the old order, after the war, for people to be told that there was no work for them, and consequently no food and clothes except what could be secured by a dole.

      If price cannot be maintained in the market conditions of an age of plenty, and if competition forces price down, one alternative is combination and monopoly, enabling the fixation of supply and price in the interests of profit. This is an alternative which has been commonly chosen.

      On the side of costs the profit urge is to keep them low. In so far as costs are reduced by efficient organisation and management, and that reduction is shared by the community through a reduced price, it is to the good of all. It is in this way that combinations may serve the community, although they force out the less efficient, small man. But if costs are reduced by forcing wages down it is not to the good of all. In such a case the entrepreneur has an incentive to produce, but the wage earner has lost his. Wages and profits are in competition. The former are generally fixed, the latter are not. The greater the production the greater the profit, but not necessarily the greater the wages. Hence the worker's attitude will tend to be to do as little as possible for his fixed share.

      If material reward is the incentive to maximum production it must be shared by all, and the conflict of interests must be left behind. Profit-sharing may serve as a good ameliorative, but we doubt whether it goes far enough. It does not get rid of the control of the many by the few, and the power to dictate is always open to abuse, and is exceedingly dangerous.

      Profit, as a reward for organisation, initiative and the bearing of responsibility is just as legitimate as the reward for baking bread. It is an essential charge on industry. Every service must be rewarded and every person must have a share of the production of the community. Basically that share should be according to each one's needs. Prices and incomes should be so related as to ensure such. As total production renders it possible, probably none will deny an extra reward to those who render extra service to the community by reason of extra skill and sacrifice. Such extra rewards would provide material incentive and call forth needed and valuable service to the community.

      Our criticism of the profit system is that while it is put forward as the great stimulant of industry, profit is an unshared incentive. Admitting that extra rewards for skill and sacrifice are in order, the

unfixed reward of profit in a private, uncontrolled system is too great and leads to gross inequalities, and places those who receive profits in a position of undue control over industry and the lives of others. In this position of control the way is open for direction in the interests of profits, which are the interests of the few, rather than the needs of the whole. It becomes the dominant and determining motive of production.

      There is a great need for a change from our individualism to a sense of community. The present system fosters the unhealthy individualism, which is ever concerned with "what I am going to get out of it materially for myself." It sets up competitive interests. The incentive of the good of the whole must be developed, and part of the educational programme in developing that is a new system of economic organisation.

      The profit motive as a dynamic leads to depression. Money-capital is ever seeking a field of profitable investment. When new countries are being discovered and developed there is a wide field for investment and capital renders a great service. But when development comes nearer to saturation point the field narrows and capital is hard put to it to find a profitable return. Hence it ceases to flow, and financial restriction follows. This is followed by reduced activity, unemployment, shrinking profits, and so the vicious circle goes on with boa-constrictor action until we are in the depths of a depression. There is plenty of labour, plenty of raw materials, plenty of everything except profits, and so we sit down and starve.

      Capital in search of profit is ever reaching out to new fields of investment. It flows out from rival sources and this competition of capital eventually leads to the blood red competition of war. As Kenneth Ingram writes: "Free competition inevitably produces combines and monopoly; monopoly inevitably produces economic nationalism; profit-making inevitably produces imperialist expansion; imperialist expansion inevitably produces

war".

      In "Soviet Strength," Dr. Hewlett Johnson puts it this way: "Capitalism tends to stall, and struggle against its fate. It puts the screw on labour, lessening still further the home market. It combs the world for markets in other lands. Markets for consumable goods, markets for machines to make goods, markets for cotton and markets for looms. Finally it sends money to enable the foreigner to pay for the goods already dispatched. Capital exports itself and then demands fleets and armies for its protection Every country does the same, and with appalling consequences. War is the inevitable sequel. Capitalism always ends in war. The 'haves' fight to retain; the 'have-nots' to gain. Empires expand. Empires collide. War becomes total war."

      The profit motive panders to the acquisitive instinct and serves to emphasise materialism. Linked with the fourth feature of the old order is the fifth.

      (6) It is subject to financial or money dictatorship.

      A market exists when there is both a supply and a demand. One is useless without the other. But quite commonly we speak of the market being determined by demand. If there is no demand we say there is no market, and if there is a demand we say there is a market. Supply, as we have seen under the old order, is dependent upon the hope of profit. Profit demands a market. The market in the above sense is determined by demand. Demand, under the old order, is determined by the possession of money, that is, by spending power. The supply of money then determines demand. It holds a key position, and in the old order money is partly under private control and is sold as a commodity. It becomes another commodity bidding for profit, and we must remember that scarcity is an essential condition of profit. The restriction of the money supply means a restriction of demand, which means a restriction of the market. This in turn means a restriction of profit on production and consequent restriction of the latter. Under restricted production we go short for the simple reason that our demand

is determined by money, and the supply of money is restricted and unequal to both our consumption and production capacity.

      The real market is determined by people's stomachs and backs, but in the old order it is determined by money supply. There is plenty of hunger, plenty of bare backs, plenty of need, plenty of raw materials, machines, effort to repair and make machines and work raw materials--plenty of everything but money.

      So often we go abroad in search of markets when a real and abundant market in the form of human need exists at our own doors. But these human needs do not constitute a market in the old order because they are not demands, simply because there is no money. Spending power is not in the hands of the people. They cannot pay a price which is profitable to producers. Then we go to war with others as a part of our competition for markets abroad.

      The supply of money determines our demand instead of our needs determining our demand and the supply of money. Money, instead of human need and capacity, is the dictator. It is our master instead of our servant. The tail wags the dog.

      There are really only two limitations to production and the satisfaction of wants. They are raw materials and human capacity. So long as there are raw materials and we have the ability and energy to work them, produce and distribute them, there is no need for us to be in want. And yet, with raw materials and human capacity abundantly available many have been in want because a third limitation is imposed by our old system--the limitation of money. Taking water as the representative of all necessary, raw materials, we can say that if there is water across the field and we have the ability and energy to draw it there is nothing to stop our having it But in the old order we have been prevented from drawing it, because the limitation of the money supply has restricted us. Again, there has been plenty of raw materials, ability and energy, plenty of everything but money, and we have suffered want.

      The supply of money has determined production and production has determined consumption instead of consumption determining the supply of money and production.

      In the present crisis need is the determining factor. We need war materials, and the only limits are raw materials and human ability and effort. Production is determined by need or consumption, and money follows after as a servant instead of dictating what shall be produced. This is as it should be, and if it can apply in wartime it can surely do so in time of peace.

      (6) It is an unplanned economy.

      Under the old system production is determined by the supply of money and its distribution. Prices are the indexes and profits the incentive. Experience has shown us that prices and profits are subject to devastating fluctuations and results.

      Each producer with the liberty of private enterprise may enter any field and produce as he will irrespective of others and other factors. The guiding and determining factors are prices and profits. With each one pursuing his own way irrespective of the whole, the result in terms of both "money-demand" and human need, is over-production in one thing and under-production in another. The result of an unplanned individually determined economy is general malproduction. The promise of high profits will sooner or later lead production in certain lines to overshoot "money-demand"; and production determined by "money-demand" and profits may be quite out of touch with "need-demand."

      If anyone ask, "Why a new order?", this is our answer. The old is shot through with irrationality and immorality. It has meant restriction of production, and destruction of commodities, periodic depressions and long-term unemployment with its inevitable demoralisation, insecurity, poverty in the midst of potential plenty, inequality, privilege and every material opportunity enjoyed at the expense

of those who suffer shortage and insecurity, and finally war. These are the things which we have seen and tasted. They are the indubitable facts of experience. If they do not convince us, neither shall we be persuaded though one rose from the dead. It is no answer to these facts to argue that man will not do his best without the incentive of the reward of private enterprise and the prize of private property. Both that point of view and the psychological characteristic referred to are largely due to the social structure in which we have been compelled to live and trained to think. Neither is it sufficient to point to some glaring blunder or evidence of inadequacy and inefficiency in the bureaucratic control of our present National Security Order. This is but a hurried attempt to control an emergency situation, carried on while the old structure still stands and while we still breathe the old atmosphere. It shows purpose without adequate planning and expert direction. Such cannot be taken as a criterion of the possibilities of a properly controlled economy under the direction of commissions comprised of expert representatives of consumers, producers and distributors. Again, we do not dismiss these facts or the need of a new order by saying that man is essentially evil and a perfect system impossible. We admit man's imperfection and the consequences of that, but the fact of his sinfulness argues the need of a system less open to his ruthless selfishness and individualism, and which will help to change his outlook and way of life.

      A new structure is imperative. None will deny that there will be difficulties in the introduction and operation of any new order. But difficulties are not arguments. We must think with large vision and in terms of basic principles. The old order is manifestly bankrupt. Its structure and principles are inadequate, and irrational and immoral in their outworking. Of any new order that is suggested there will be many who will say, "But that will not work." We would remind them that we know from experience

that the old order does not work; then let us be willing to try something new, and discover by experience whether it will work. What ought to be must be and can be. We can do the things we really vacant to do. In general, a new order must be one in which moral and rational principles prevail, and in which human rights are recognised and responsibilities accepted.

      A more definite note will be struck by briefly mentioning the rights which must be guaranteed by a new order.

      (a) The right to live. This demands an adequate income or share of the national wealth and income throughout the whole of life.

      (b) The right to full life. This means birth into and life in a healthy and satisfying environment, education according to capacity, need and aptitude, adequate leisure and health services.

      (c) A voice in the direction of industry in which one serves and on which one is dependent.

      (d) Liberty to think, speak and act according to conscience and reason without offence to the rights (not the likes) of others. Christianity demands these rights for everyone born into this world and must unequivocally call for an order in which these are guaranteed.

      Regarding the particular shape of such an order Christian opinion will differ The above rights may be secured within differing social structures and the Church cannot be expected to provide a final, blueprint system. If it be asked what the Church is to do or is doing, the answer is that it is doing something vital in presenting the redeeming gospel and reforming principles of Christ and calling for their acceptance in individual and social life. Things inconsistent with the principles of Christ are pointed out and condemned, while a new structure is demanded. No man's Christian faith and sincerity are judged or called in question by his acceptance or rejection of this or that social system, be it conservative or radical.

      Following our analysis we suggest further that the new order should be one with the following characteristics:

(a) Co-operation rather than competition its basic principle.

(b) The agents of production ultimately owned and controlled by and for the people.

(c) A just distribution of wealth.

(d) Human need and not profit the dynamic and determining factor. Profits may fade,
      but need is ever present. Production must follow constant need and not
      inconstant profits.

(e) Money humbly serving consumption and production as a mere medium of
      exchange ultimately owned and controlled by the people.

(f) A rationally planned economy according to human need, the supply of raw
      materials, and human ability and energy.

      Of course, there can be no perfect system without perfection of mind, heart and will. We need both a new structure and new cells within it. These are interdependent. A new order demands new men. What hope is there of peace and reconciliation if you and I will not be reconciled to those within our own homes, next door, at business, and in social spheres? What hope of a new world without passion and strife if you and I will not control our passions and resolve our conflicts? What hope of a new world without lustful impurity if you and I do not control our appetites and keep our desires from degenerating into lusts? What hope of a new world without grasping greed and blood red competition if you and I do not overcome grasping greed and exploiting competition in our own lives? What hope of a new world without dishonesty, pride, jealousy, lying, deceit, hate, unless you and I cast these things out of our lives? What hope of love, liberty, brotherhood, peace and joy unless you and I are loving, brotherly, tolerant, patient, confident, and glad?

      Christianity demands both a new system and new men. It provides the principles and the dynamic of a new system and is the only hope of new men. "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." The Master of life with His usual insight into reality has said: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."