The Farmville herald. (Farmville, Va.) 1957-current, 1963-03-08
Teaching OF Economics In Public Schools

great event of 1776 was the pub
LEGATION of Adam Smiths Wealth
of Nations. This book was the
principal cause in the crumbling
of mercantilism hich had
grown to its full development in
the seventeenth century. The
hard core of mercantilism was
the laying of the hand of all
powerful government over all
the economic life of England.
Prices were stabilized; wages
and hours of labor fixed. pro-
duction regulated; and foreign
trade, both exports and imports,
completely dominated by the
state. The policies of mercantil-
ism were devoted to the aggran-
dizement of the state which
was conceived. in terms of
Machiavellian political thought.
to be W h out ideals. Adam
Smith was intent on exploding
what he considered erroneous
apd harmful ideas. Let me
pause here to say that Smith
was an historian before he was
an economist. He was stepped
in the knowledge of history, and
he understood what Santayana
meant when he said that those
who do not learn from the past
are condemned to relive it. My
own theory is that the Wealth of
Nations and its doctrines OF
laiSSeZfaire would have had a
fuller life in it's true sense had
mankind in practice coupled it
with Smiths Theory Of Moral
Sentiments. Smith never intend
ed that economic actions were to
be in a vacuum. He realized
the need for moral restraint. He
understood human nature and
that unless greed and ava1ice
were self restrained. tn EN-
laissez-faire would be spoiled of
its maximum fruition.
And now we come to the state
ment of a prominent man in
1947, Ill years later, and l
quote:
Neither communism with its
despotism, nor capitalism with
its instability. nor fascisn with
its combination of the two. pro-
vide attractive solutions to the
problem of how to live with
modern industry in the modern
state. Is there another posi-
bility? Has noncommunist, lib
ertarian socialism a future? Alb
stracting the question for a mo-
ment from current political &C
Invites one must answer that
there is no inherent reason why
democratic socialism should not
be possible.
IF socialism lie. the owner
ship by the state of all Signifi-
cant means of production is to
preserve democracy. it must be
brought about step by step in
way which will not disrupt the
fabric of custom, law, and mu-
tual confidence upon which per
sonal rights depend. That is, The
transition must be peicemeal; it
must be parliamentary; it must
respect civil liberties and due
process of law ~
The author of this article is
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. writ
ing in the Partisan Review in
l947 and now one of the Presi-
dents key advisers. This is the
sort of insidious, unhinged think
ing which frightens me and
gives me a feeling of urgency.
Let me raise just three questions
out of many which might be
promulgated from this quotation.
Mr.. Schlesinger refers to
capitalism with its instability"
as not providing an attractive
solution to the problem Of how
to live with modern industry in
the modern state. Is mortal man
so puSillanimolis, is tranquil eX-
iSteTce so dear that instability
is a state of affairs most to be
feared? Is not lost freedom a
greater fear? Is there anything
in the history of British mercan-
tilism or French democratic So
cialiSfn as prachced by Blum
in the 1905 or the socialism
which preceded the rise of Hit
Ter which would cause us to feel
tifdt IL Id OH CNOiiOllilC way VI
life and a political way Of life
which are more attractive than
the American way? Of course,
in the modern state a deep-cut-
ting depression of the type wit
messed in 1929-1932 has come to
be thought unbearable, but 1929
1882 is not the hallmark of the
enterprise system. Look at this
ration in all its power today and
think of this nation in 1918.
much less in l776. Then you will
get the truly great perspective
of our history under an econo-
my where the market price, as
manifested by the needs of the
people in the market place, de-
ternineS what is to be produced
as contrasted with decisions by
all pervading government on
what is to be produced!
Secondly, the author says
g. there is no inherent reason
why democratic socialism should