Material Prosperity​—A Universal Goal

“MATERIAL consumption is said to be the national religion. All Americans are supposed to want to be rich, and the culture is one of comfort and pleasure. . . . The materialism of American life is all-pervasive.” Such is reported to be the view of American life currently expressed in French school textbooks.a

Allowing for exaggeration, there is undoubtedly some truth in this assessment. The standard of living in the United States has become the criterion for measuring the economic success of any nation. Only a few other countries (such as Switzerland and Sweden) can boast of having a similar standard of living. These favored few have become the envy of the many others, including communistic countries.

“Higher pay,” “fewer working hours” and “better living conditions.” These are the demands of the working classes in all lands, whether their system of government is capitalistic, socialistic or communistic.

As applied to people’s attitude toward life, the word “materialism” has been defined as “the doctrine that comfort, pleasure, and wealth are the only or highest goals or values.” Who will deny that a large percentage of mankind has adopted such a materialistic outlook on life? For many, material prosperity has become synonymous with happiness. It seems to have become the universal goal to be attained. But by what means?

Many people in industrial countries sincerely believe that the capitalist system offers the best hope of prosperity and happiness. They are for free enterprise, with as little interference from the state as possible.

Millions of others are convinced that capitalism favors the few, to the detriment of the greater number. They prefer communism, an economic and political system based on the ownership of all property by the community or the state. They are willing to forgo certain freedoms provided the state guarantees them material prosperity.

Between these two groups are millions of others for whom the way to material prosperity and happiness is through neither capitalism nor communism. They recognize the disadvantages of the capitalist system, but also the dangers of communism. They hope, by means of reforms, to bring about an equalitarian, democratic society based on state planning and public control of the principal means of production. These are the socialists, variously called Social Democrats, Laborites, Welfare Staters, and so forth.

A brief examination of the history of capitalism, communism and socialism, and of the results obtained by these systems, will help us to see if any one of them can bring true happiness.

[Footnotes]

Can They Bring Real Happiness?

Capitalism? Communism? Socialism?

THE pursuit of happiness by means of material prosperity is not a new idea. It was the way of life of many ancient Greeks and Romans. But it fell into disrepute throughout the entire Middle Ages. Why? Mainly for religious reasons.

Medieval society was dominated by religion in every field of human activity. For the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, poverty was a virtue. It was a “test” that had to be accepted by the poor. The rich were rich and the poor were poor by what was labeled a God-ordained arrangement. Voluntary poverty was considered “holy,” and “usury” (lending for gain) was condemned by canon law.

Yet, while anathematizing Jewish moneylenders, Catholic cathedral chapters lent money at high interest rates. The papacy itself became “the greatest financial institution of the Middle Ages.” This was the setup during much of the period of the feudal-ecclesiastical order.

The Birth of Capitalism

With the breakup of the feudal system, town and intercity trade grew. So did trade between nations. And ideas circulated more freely, particularly after the invention of the printing press. The influence of the Catholic Church began to wane.

Medieval Catholicism had been the greatest obstacle to the development of a new economic system. Yet pockets of capitalistic trading, manufacturing and banking had been growing toward the end of the Middle Ages right within Catholic Christendom. This was true in such Catholic cities as Venice in Italy, Augsburg in Germany and Antwerp in Flanders.

Then the Protestant Reformation broke out in the 16th century. While it would be an exaggeration to say that the Reformation fathered capitalism, it did release ideas that gave a decided boost to it. For one thing, Calvinism relieved legitimate business profit of the stigma of “usury.” Moreover, certain Protestant beliefs provided people with the incentive to work hard so as to succeed in life and thus prove they were among the “elect.” Success in business was considered to be a sign of God’s blessing. The resulting wealth became available “capital” for investment in one’s own business venture or some other one. Thus, the Protestant ethic of hard work and thrift contributed to the expansion of capitalism.

Not surprisingly, the capitalist economy developed faster in Protestant countries than in Catholic states. But the Catholic Church quickly made up for lost time. She allowed capitalism to develop in lands where she was powerful, and became an extremely rich capitalist organization in her own right.a

Capitalism undoubtedly provided an improvement over the feudal system, if only for the greater freedom it brought to the working classes. But it also brought many injustices. The gap between the rich and the poor tended to widen. At its worst, it brought about exploitation and class warfare. At its best, it produced an affluent consumer society in some lands, with material fullness. But it has also produced spiritual emptiness, and has failed to bring true and lasting happiness.

Is Communism the Way to Happiness?

The Protestant Reformation was a revolt against papal abuse of power and privilege. Yet it unleashed a flood of ideas that went far beyond what the original Reformers anticipated. These ideas​—sooner or much later—​were to produce revolutions in fields other than religion. Not only did the revolt against Rome boost the development of capitalism but it also contributed to innovations in the fields of science, technology and philosophy​—leading to godless beliefs.

With the advent of the steam engine and machinery, capitalism spread out from the field of commerce into that of industry. The latter part of the 18th century and the 19th century saw the creation of huge factories requiring a large labor force recruited among peasants, craftsmen and even children. But capitalist “exploitation of man by man” led to the creation of workers’ movements and revolutionary philosophies such as communism.

Theoretically, the term “communism” denotes “systems of social organization based upon common property, or an equal distribution of income and wealth.” In current practice, communism is a system of government based on the holding of property by the state, which controls the economy under a one-party political structure.

For millions of have-nots throughout the world, communism seemed to offer hope for a better life. It appeared to be the best means for leveling off the flagrant social inequalities created by the capitalist system. Many were even prepared to forgo immediate hopes of freedom if, by means of a revolution, better living conditions could be obtained. Freedom would come later, so they thought. But years have gone by. The communist system of government has had time to show what it is capable of in many countries. The results have been disappointing, even with regard to material prosperity, not to speak of freedom and happiness.

For years, in the Western world, many of the young​—and even some not so young—​were attracted by the communist ideology. But persistent bad news seeping out of many communist lands and the one-way flow of refugees have left many disillusioned.

Is Socialism a Better Way?

The word “socialism” comes from the Latin word socius, meaning “companion.” It was first used in England at the beginning of the 19th century, and a little later in France. It was applied to the social theories of Englishman Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Frenchmen Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Charles Fourier (1772-1837).

Owen criticized the capitalist organization of industry, based on competition and on the exploitation of the workers. He recommended a cooperative system in which men and women would live in “Villages of Unity and Cooperation,” enjoying the fruits of their labor in both agriculture and industry. Several Owenite communities were set up in Scotland, Ireland and even in the United States. But they eventually disintegrated.

In France, Fourier advocated the creation of model communities called phalansteries, consisting of people who would work according to their preferences. Unlike Owen, who accepted state intervention to set up his “villages,” Fourier believed his system would work on an entirely voluntary basis. Moreover, members of his communities would be paid according to their efforts and would be allowed to own property. Fourier thought he had discovered a social organization that corresponded with men’s natural desires in their search for happiness. Fourierist communities were actually set up in Europe and in the United States. But they also failed.

Nearer to modern socialism were the ideas of Frenchman Saint-Simon. He advocated the collective ownership of the means of production and their administration by experts in the fields of science, technology, industry and finance. Saint-Simon believed that cooperation between science and industry would produce a new society in which people would have equal opportunity of finding prosperity according to their abilities and the amount and quality of their work.

While none of these early socialist ideologies succeeded, they paved the way for later movements. They were the early voices of modern-day socialism, which has been defined as a system of social organization based on public ownership and control of the principal means of production and distribution of goods. While its fundamental aims are similar to those of communism, present-day social democracy differs from Marxism in that it advocates progressive reforms but not revolution and a one-party system.

Although more respectful of individual freedom than communism, socialism has not succeeded in bringing about international peace and happiness. Why?

Why the Failure?

For one thing, socialism has not proved itself more powerful than nationalism. Concerning the Second International, a federation of Socialist parties and trade unions founded in 1889, we read that it “issued many moving and stirring manifestoes against war, but when war broke out [in 1914] it disclosed its paralysis. Most of its national components sided with their own governments and abandoned the idea of international working-class solidarity.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

Since then, the socialist movement has continued to be fragmented and to mean different things to different people. The name socialist is used by various governments throughout the world, some of which differ very little from progressive conservative governments, whereas others are authoritarian and even totalitarian. The word “socialist” has therefore lost much of its meaning for many sincere people who thought it would lead to a worldwide brotherhood in a classless society of material prosperity and happiness.

Little wonder that French trade-union leader Edmond Maire wrote in Le Monde: “The historic failure of the labor movement in its ambition to build socialism . . . [has] led a number of militants​—both workers and intellectuals—​to give up even the long-term hopes. . . . The young appear to be particularly affected by this weakening of the socialist hope.”

Thus, whether it be by means of capitalism, communism or socialism, mankind’s quest for a system that will bring material prosperity and real happiness has failed. American sociologist Daniel Bell admits: “For the radical intelligentsia, the old ideologies have lost their ‘truth,’ and their power to persuade. Few serious minds believe any longer that one can set down ‘blueprints’ and through ‘social engineering’ bring about a new utopia of social harmony.”​—The End of Ideology.

Yet this quest for material prosperity and happiness is a natural one. Why, then, have human economic and political systems been unable to attain it? The following article will examine that question.

[Footnotes]

[Blurb on page 7]

Many have become disillusioned with communism, as evidenced by the one-way flow of refugees

[Box on page 8]

Capitalism

The economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution of goods (land, mines, factories, railroads, and so forth) are privately owned and operated for profit, the owners (capitalists) hiring the labor services of capitalless persons (workers)

Communism

A system of social organization based on the holding of all property by the community or the state, which plans and controls the economy under a one-party political structure

Socialism

A system of social organization based on public ownership and control of the principal means of production and distribution of goods; distinguished from communism in the Western world in that it advocates progressive reforms within a democratic society

[Picture on page 6]

Child working in a coal mine in Britain in 1842

Is Material Prosperity Enough?

THE desire for material prosperity is not wrong in itself. But is it enough to bring true happiness? Have capitalism, communism and socialism forgotten the primary ingredient for true happiness? And could this important lack explain, at least in part, why these systems have failed to make people really happy?

The sincerity of men who devote their entire lives to efforts aimed at making capitalism, communism or socialism succeed cannot be denied. And each system has succeeded in raising the standard of living in certain countries, for certain people. But have they brought genuine happiness to the majority of those lands? Have they ended crime, violence and war? Has any one of these systems wiped out suicide, drug addiction or alcoholism? Do happy people commit suicide, “escape” by means of drugs, or “drown their sorrows” in alcohol?

The avowed purpose of these various human systems is to further a way of life that is considered to be the best for all or, at least, for “the greatest number.” They attach more or less importance to freedom or to equality as being basic to human happiness. Capitalism is willing to sacrifice equality in favor of freedom. Communism puts equality above freedom. Social democracy tries to make the best of both worlds. But not one of them has succeeded in changing human nature. Human selfishness brings out the worst in capitalists, making many of them unjust exploiters; it has converted communist experiments into state capitalism, the common people being exploited by the state instead of by individual capitalists or huge corporations; it has ruined socialist Utopian dreams.

Technology Is Not Enough

Until quite recently, political and economic ideologists of all tendencies pinned their hopes on scientific progress and technology. We read: “The new technology seemed to fit [free-enterprise capitalism] like a glove and to guarantee the rapid realization of the Utilitarian philosophers’ ideal of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number.’ Even Marx and Engels, approaching from a radically different political orientation, saw in technology nothing but good.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

Yes, from the most die-hard capitalist to the most revolutionary communist, men hailed technology as the key to mankind’s future happiness. New and better machines would do away with drudgery. Working hours would be reduced, leaving people with more leisure time for travel, culture or pleasure. How could this result in anything but happiness?

Nowadays the optimism has subsided. Technology has created as many problems as it has solved, or would you say, even more? The reference work just quoted goes on to speak of the “social defects of technological progress, such as automobile fatalities, air and water pollution, urban overcrowding, and excessive noise.” It also mentions the serious problem of “technological tyranny over man’s individuality and traditional patterns of life.”

Who, today, can seriously claim that technology has improved family life, provided people with satisfying jobs or made the world a safer place in which to live? Undeniably, something more than technology is necessary to make people happy.

“Not on Bread Alone”

As the technological revolution got under way, a few farsighted men foresaw its dangers. British statesman William Gladstone (1809-1898) issued a warning against the “increasing domination of the things seen over the things unseen,” and against the “power of a silent, unavowed, unconscious materialism.” American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) gave this poetic warning against rising materialism: “Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.”

In his book Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, R. H. Tawney denounces the “illusion of progress won from the mastery of the material environment by a race too selfish and superficial to determine the purpose to which its triumphs shall be applied.” He criticizes the idea “that the attainment of material riches is the supreme object of human endeavour and the final criterion of human success.” Additionally, he emphasizes the need of “a standard of values . . . based on some conception of the requirements of human nature as a whole, to which the satisfaction of economic needs is evidently vital, but which demands the satisfaction of other needs as well.”

Yes, for true happiness, man must have a “standard of values.” But the present state of the world shows beyond doubt that human philosophy, political economy, science and technology have all failed to supply man with a valid set of values. People would, therefore, do well not to despise the only book that does supply a reliable standard of values​—the Bible.

In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, we find this basic truth: “Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.” (Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3) The Bible puts the emphasis where it belongs​—on spiritual values. Giving a fundamental prerequisite for happiness, it states: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”​—Matt. 5:3.

Man has proved incapable of filling such spiritual need. By making technology and materialistic goals his top priority, he has come face to face with a crisis summed up as follows: “For all his intelligence, man behaves in communities with a thoughtlessness for his environment that is potentially suicidal. It is debatable, then, whether technology is a blessing or a bane [cause of distress, death, or ruin]. The history of technology has led from the earliest technological achievements of man the toolmaker to the crossroads at which the species now stands, in the last third of the 20th century, confronted by a choice, that of self-destruction or a millennium of adventurous growth and expansion.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

A Millennium of True Prosperity

The Bible not only supplies here and now the spiritual values that are the primary ingredient for happiness but also gives a wonderful hope of a millennium of peace, justice and material prosperity right here on earth. (See page 13.) Well over two million Jehovah’s Witnesses living in 205 countries whose governments represent the whole gamut of economic and political systems​—from capitalism to communism—​have found immediate happiness by the practical application of the Bible’s moral values, while placing their hope of peace and justice in God’s sure promise of a new order.​—2 Pet. 3:13.

In the past, many who are now Jehovah’s Witnesses had put their faith in the political and economic systems invented by men, or thought something could be done to reform them. Some were ardent believers in capitalist free enterprise. Others thought welfare-state socialism would solve mankind’s problems. Still others were militant communists. One of these latter, living in France, writes: “I believed that all working-class people could attain material happiness by practicing Marxism. For about 12 years I was an active member of the Communist Party. I sold L’Humanité [a French communist newspaper] on the streets and pasted propaganda posters on walls late at night. I was very much convinced that communism was the only way to put an end to the exploitation of man by man. But eventually, I became tired of the Party. We were always the same few to be asked to do the work. The rest just bought the Party Card.”

Explaining why he became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he adds: “The Witnesses were able to answer all my questions. I realized that God’s promises were more realistic than those of the Communist Party. I was overjoyed to meet with kind people who really loved one another. I now learned that the paradise I had hoped to see through communism would come through God’s kingdom.”

Other Witnesses have learned the hard way that material prosperity definitely is not enough to bring happiness. They have experienced the truthfulness of this Bible axiom: “The love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things.” (1 Tim. 6:10) This has proved to be true of both rich and poor. Whatever their social level may be, Jehovah’s Witnesses follow the Biblical counsel that says: “Train yourself spiritually. . . . the usefulness of spirituality is unlimited, since it holds out the reward of life here and now and of the future life as well.”​—1 Tim. 4:7, 8, The Jerusalem Bible.

The “future life” that the Bible offers on a paradise earth is an eternity of spiritual and material prosperity, an eternity of life in happiness for those who prove faithful to the “happy God,” Jehovah. (1 Tim. 1:11; Rev. 21:1-5) This is a hope that neither capitalism, communism nor socialism can dare to offer.

[Blurb on page 11]

“Even Marx and Engels . . . saw in technology nothing but good”

Bible Values and Promises That Bring Real Happiness

The Bible is not a book of politics or economics. It does, however, condemn injustice and foretell the end of man-made systems and their replacement by a new order of peace and prosperity under God’s Kingdom government.

SPIRITUAL VALUES ABOVE MATERIAL PROSPERITY:

“Happy is the man that has found wisdom, and the man that gets discernment, for having it as gain is better than having silver as gain . . . Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its roadways are peace. It is a tree of life to those taking hold of it, and those keeping fast hold of it are to be called happy.”​—Prov. 3:13-18.

GREED CONDEMNED:

“Woe to the ones joining house to house, and those who annex field to field until there is no more room.”​—Isa. 5:8.

“Incline my heart to your reminders, and not to profits.”​—Ps. 119:36.

WARNING AGAINST MATERIALISM:

“Men who set their hearts on being wealthy expose themselves to temptation. They fall into a trap . . . For loving money leads to all kinds of evil.”​—1 Tim. 6:9, 10, “Phillips,” Revised Edition.

“A person’s true life is not made up of the things he owns, no matter how rich he may be.”​—Luke 12:15, “Today’s English Version.”

PROMISE OF A JUST NEW ORDER:

“We have his [God’s] promise, and look forward to new heavens and a new earth, the home of justice.”​—2 Pet. 3:13, “The New English Bible.”

THE END OF ALL OPPRESSION:

“The oppressor has reached his end; the despoiling has terminated; those trampling down others have been finished off the earth. And in loving-kindness a throne will certainly be firmly established; and one [Christ, the Messianic King] must sit down upon it in trueness in the tent of David, judging and seeking justice and being prompt in righteousness.”​—Isa. 16:4, 5.

A LIFE OF SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL ABUNDANCE:

“The earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah.”​—Isa. 11:9. “The earth itself will certainly give its produce; God, our God, will bless us.”​—Ps. 67:6.