|
Presented are transcripts of radio broadcasts by R.L.D.S. President Frederick M. Smith in 1938 on pertinent topics that continue to be of considerable interest in this 21st century.
X. Individualism or Stewardship? I discussed the growing bitterness of laboring man working under conditions which do not promote the joy of working, and also pointed out that the manufacturer as the employer of labor, has a whole group of problems presented to him for solution in the interests of profits, and that profits to him are what wages are to the laborer, a possible means of safeguarding self and family dependency through old age, sickness, or disability. But discontented workmen and distracted employers are both incongruous with the Christian philosophy, which was intended to bring a larger life, and so should not be found in any nation purporting to be Christian. I suggested that the church should be prepared to give an answer to the question raised by these conditions existing. I will go further and say that the church should be found standing for, teaching and working for, some social order in which present maladjustments will be rectified. The Christian Basis of Social Reform For this to be accomplished there must be a distinct movement toward social reform. For such reform the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stands, and we are trying to promote it. We stand for that form of social order in which every person shall have fullest opportunity for the complete development of his chief talents, and then for the exercise of those talents in contributing to the welfare of society. For any social reform to be lasting or general it must be built upon a religious foundation, its spirit must be religious, and its motivation religious, for it must include God. None other will succeed. This, too, has been foreshadowed by the command, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.”—Matt. 6:33 The function of the church, according to this concept, is to create a universal religious social consciousness which shall include our brother in our thinking in terms of weal, a social consciousness based on the Christian philosophy and religion, which seizes the fundamental law, love of God, but recognizes that its manifestation includes our neighbor, which recognizes that consciousness of God makes us aware of our brother, or fellow-man, and that to love God means loving our neighbor and giving service to humanity where needed, and to the extent of our ability and opportunity. This is essentially Christian, and the church which claims to represent Jesus Christ must stand for such social reform. This idea leads away from individualism, and demands the development of a social consciousness as well as terminology which shall include the group of which we are members. That is to say, we must become accustomed to thinking in terms of community weal rather than personal aggrandizement. Many persons hold that a successful industrial organization can be had only where individual initiative, stimulated by promise of personal or individual gain, is the social dynamic, and therefore they look askance at the idea of group activity or the development of a social consciousness which looks only in the direction of group betterment. The False Cry of Individualism Not so long ago there appeared some literature which was in the nature of a protest by prominent individualists against an apparently growing inclination to emphasize group thinking and acting as a fundamental social condition. But this protest may be looked upon as a reactionary movement, and such are always present with reform movements as a deterrent, and as such may be wise provision against both too sudden and extreme changes. I cannot but feel, however, that the movement toward a larger, richer, and more religious social consciousness, one which thinks, moves, and acts in terms of community welfare, is too well started and developed either to move in a circle or to stop. The fear of the individualists that incentive or personal initiative will be less pronounced or less developed, or of less social value in a social order based on the group, I think, is ill founded and due, perhaps, to failure to see what it is, after all, that prompts to the largest activation. Was it the thought of profit or monetary reward which prompted soldiers on either side in the First World War to deeds of valor and dangerous accomplishment, or was it love of country, thoughts of home—patriotism? No greater, finer, or richer sublimation of individual initiative can take place than to change it from a selfish to an altruistic base—from self-aggrandizement to group service. And religion—love of God and man—is the magic wand to make the change. The Answer Is—Stewardship The church I represent has a social philosophy which is calculated to make just that change, and the keystone in the arch of that philosophy is what I term the doctrine of stewardships. As I see it, the social aspects of the Christian religion is crystallized in this doctrine, according to which one is held socially responsible for the manner in which he utilizes whatever property or wealth he may acquire, retaining or holding only that which he can make productive or of service. And what he holds thus is clearly determined by his capacity or managerial ability. It is also clear from this envisagement of social responsibility that talents as well as property shall be directed toward community welfare. Furthermore, talents must be exercised, not permitted to lie dormant. Everybody capable of doing so must contribute to the common weal, and this cannot be enforced by law or statute. Public sentiment must be the compulsion, coupled to a sense of responsibility to God. One of the failures of our present order is idleness, arising from several sources. There are those who will not work, but live on the fruits of the labors of others. And the indolence of those who do not work or contribute because in some way they have come into possession of a competency, inherited or transmitted, is scarcely less reprehensible than the indolence of those who are indisposed to labor, or seek to filch support by hook or crook and who thus become a burden on those who do labor. Sad indeed is idleness brought about by untoward circumstances—by lack of opportunity, or disability. It will scarcely be denied that we have much of both which would easily be preventable if present maladjustments were removed by necessary reformations. In a society founded on the Christian foundation of love and service, all will desire to labor, for through labor alone can contribution to common weal be made. The holding of only what can be utilized (according to capacity or talent) carries with it a very essential concomitant of the doctrine of stewardship, vis., that all surplus property or wealth shall revert to the common treasury or to the group. In other words, all property or wealth not justly desired or needed for the care or comfort or welfare of the steward or needed in the business or stewardship through which the contribution to society is being made shall become the property of the group. Wealth and property are not for personal pleasure according to caprice, but for service and enlarged contribution to common weal or comfort. Riotous or extravagant living is incongruous with the doctrine of stewardships, and luxury is justified only when common. Some time ago I read a defense of American individualism in which it was attempted to show the blessings of the present system by giving figures of the increased production of goods per capita, but the writer was careful to make no reference to the unequal opportunities of the populace to enjoy this increased quantity of goods. It is well known that extreme luxury in some quarters is offset by extreme squalor in others. Some have goods to the point of surfeiting while others are denied even the necessities. This is wrong. Luxury is justified only when commonly enjoyed. No Christian, well within the spiritual influence of the genius of his religion, can be happy in the midst of luxury as long as the knowledge remains that others have not the necessities of life. When needs have been supplied to all and just wants have been fully met, then and then only will private luxury be justified—when it becomes common. And here lies the justification even today for costly, beautiful, and even luxurious public buildings—they are common wealth. And this may explain the psychology of even poor people cheerfully voting taxes for fine public buildings even when their own wants go continuously unsupplied. But this is a digression. Let us return to our subject. A Basic Philosophy In society organized on the stewardship plan, from every man will be expected to produce according to his capacity, and to every man will be given according to his needs as determined by his just wants and his circumstances. Every man, every woman, must contribute in the way nature has best endowed, and the compensation in part is that which will be sufficient to supply needs. This partial compensation may be termed industrial or economic compensation, but to the individual will flow a greater one, vis., satisfaction, soul-satisfaction in seeing the group benefited by the services rendered. The criterion of success becomes not a bank account, not piled up personal wealth, but service and wealth contributed to the community. To appreciate such a social ideal, such a social organization, requires a social consciousness for the development of which we must depend on religion. It is quite foreign to the present social order. What is your thinking? What is the dynamic of your own activities toward economic or industrial contribution? Are you so purely individualistic that you feel justified in getting what you want without regard to how your getting affects the welfare of others? Have you not yet learned that the only justifiable individualism—if individualism is ever justified—is that which in its thinking at least includes others of the group, and is willing to recognize responsibility to others for the end results of his activities upon the community or group as a whole? And that kind of individualism passes easily and logically into something else, with which I shall deal later. |
