488 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
capitalist; syndicalism would amalgamate the interests of producer and capitalists. Neither amalgamates all three, or makes the interests of those who direct industry quite identical with those of the community. Neither, therefore, would wholly prevent industrial strife or obviate the need of the State as arbitrator. But either would be better than the present system, and probably a mixture of both would cure most of the evils of industrialism as it exists now. It is surprising that, while men and women have struggled to achieve political democracy, so little has been done to introduce democracy in industry. I believe incalculable benefits might result from industrial democracy either on the co-operative model or with recognition of a trade or industry as a unit for purposes of Government, with some kind of Home Rule such as syndicalism aims at securing. There is no reason why all Governmental units should be geographical. The system was necessary in the past because of the slowness of means of communication, but it is not necessary now. By some such system many men might come to feel again a pride in their work and to find again that outlet for the creative impulse which is now denied to all but a fortunate few. Such a system requires the abolition of the land owner and the restriction of the Capitalist, but does not entail equality of earnings. And unlike Socialism, it is not a static or final system; it is hardly more than a frame-work for energy and initiative. It is only by some such method, I believe that the free growth of the individual can be reconciled with the huge technical organizations which have been rendered necessary by industrialism”. [9]
It is a common place criticism of the industrial system that it gives rise to compartmental ethics, dwarfs the personality and makes slaves of the workers. To obviate such a result Mr. Russell approaches with a cautious spirit, a breadth of outlook and philosophic grasp of the social effects of the Economic Institutions. I wish the same could be said of his analysis of the mental effects of property. On the other hand his discussion of this aspect of property is marked by certain misconceptions which it is necessary to expose.
The first misconception is embodied in a statement about the “love of money” in which he says “it leads men to mutilate their own nature from a mistaken theory of what constitutes success and to give admiration to enterprises which add nothing to human welfare. It promotes a dead uniformity of character and purpose, a diminution in the joy of life, and a stress and strain which leaves whole communities weary, discouraged, and disillusioned.” [10] This is a sentiment that smacks of the antique and
Principles of Social Reconstruction, pp, 141-42.
Ibid,. p. 113.