Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2068

Exchange between Henry D. Hervey, 528 West 11th Street, New York City, May 24, 1936, and Heath at 310 Riverside Drive, New York City,

May 28, 1936.

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Heath,

 

     I am sorry that I cannot be with you tonight, but we are having a number of friends in for dinner.

 

     I do, however, wish to register my doubt as to the soundness of what I gather is the cornerstone of your social philosophy, namely, a free inter­change of services. Desirable as this might be from a purely theoretical point of view, is it at all desirable, or even possible, from a practical point of view?

 

If all men were equal in ability, opportunity and need, an equal interchange of services might be possible, but the world is not built on that plan and consequently a nicely balanced scheme based on quid pro quo is both undesirable and impossible. In our particular world it seems necessary and desirable that the strong should bear the burdens of the weak with no hope of return. It is precisely because this principle is violated by some of the strong that we have social ills. To attempt to cure these ills by a denial of that Christian principle seems to me to point the way to moral, social and intellectual bank­ruptcy.

 

Very truly yours,

 

/s/ Henry D. Hervey

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Hervey:                           May 28, 1936

 

     I must thank you for your kind letter of the 24th expressing your regret that you could not be with me last Sunday night. I should /have enjoyed/having you, and I am sure you and Mrs. Hervey were enjoyed by your other friends. 

 

I note your belief that we should not be permitted to exchange services freely with one another. It is true that this freedom has been seldom or but little enjoyed and that only in primitive or newly settled communities where the cost of government has been but a very small part of the wealth and services produced and created by the community. Wherever wealth has increased, taxation has been permitted to increase in still greater proportion. Finally, both production and taxation decline, but production then declines faster than taxation until there is a political revolution or production comes to an end and the society dissolves; for exchange of services (in all its forms) is the only thing that brings people together in societies and the only thing that holds them together. It is the only means by which any wealth is produced and any culture and civilization created or maintained. It is quite true that this process of exchange of services is the corner-stone, the very keystone without which the arch of civilization must fall.

     Free exchange of services is probably not /at/ all possible under our present so-called “practical” point of view. Nothing is possible until it has become an object of desire and the means for its attainment have become under­stood — however simple these means may be.

     If all men were equal in all respects there would be very much less exchange of services and far lower production of social values, for in all division of labor and specialization this would have to take place between persons who were equally gifted in all directions, and the cultivation of any one faculty or capacity would necessarily leave in that indi­vidual other and just as good faculties entirely neglected. Where we have inequality, advantage can be taken (but only through exchange) of the transcendent gifts with which many are endowed.

It should also be reflected that under free exchange every person would receive in exchange the full equivalent of all the services he performed. This, of course, would leave unprovided for only such persons as might be able to perform no services for themselves or for anyone else through exchange. Such persons, if any, would then as now be a charge upon those most nearly related to them.

     In our particular world it does seem necessary “that the strong should bear the burdens of the weak,” but this is because the politically strong are able to throw the most of their burdens (of taxation) upon the weak. Under free exchange those who were strong (productively) would in large measure support the weak, for their increased pro­duction, by bringing quantity into the exchange markets, would reduce their exchange values in terms of the commodi­ties of weaker persons which would be, relatively to the others, scarce and dear.

     I feel sure that our social ills are due far more to our violation of the exchange relationship, of justice and equity, of quid pro quo, rather than to failure of benevolence. And if we must continue to be constricted in our freedom to exchange with each other, by whom must that restriction be applied and enforced? Does it not necessarily rest in the hands of the only department of society that is authorized to use force, thus turning the politicians, the political officers and employes, into agents of anti-social restric­tion instead of public servants contributing to the facility of exchange.

     To me it is perfectly clear that our increasing social ills come from our increasing practice of this technique of restriction. We have certainly gone far on the road that leads to bankruptcy in the production of wealth and services and have already experienced a large portion of that moral and social and intellectual bankruptcy that must come when even the basis of our subsistence is being destroyed, not to mention any of our higher needs.

     It is impossible for me to consent that in the practice of justice and equity on the basis of quid pro quo there can be any denial of the Christian principle of benevolence and love.

     Please excuse the haste and untidiness exhibited in this letter and let me continue to have your kind consideration.

                            Very sincerely yours,