Business Organized as Power: The New Imperium in Imperio

Alpheus T. Mason

American Political Science Review, 1950, vol. 44, issue 2, 323-342

Abstract: President Truman's stubborn determination to build on the New Deal's embattled foundations an imposing edifice called the Welfare State is stirring the business community and its spokesmen to renewed and outwardly bold hostilities. This present outcry for “welfare,” it seems, is not what it used to be: “The irresponsible clamor of the mob for bread and circuses.” “Welfare” is now recognized as “a justifiable demand, consonant with the necessities of social evolution,” and in keeping with our political tradition. The old jungle economy, at long last, must be discarded. All this is now cheerfully conceded. But whose responsibility is it to bring order out of chaos, whose business is it to formulate and administer the welfare program? There is the rub. Certainly not government's, business leaders assert, for ultimately that would spell not a glorious welfare society but an inglorious welfare state. This ignominious prelude to statism, to totalitarianism, to despotism, must be avoided at all cost. That is why certain publicists, ex-New Dealers, industrial leaders and university officials are alerting the business community to a fresh responsibility, the unique venture of capitalism today—“the greatest opportunity in the world,” Russell Davenport calls it, and peculiarly the concern of Free Enterprise. Harvard's Business School Dean, Donald K. David, also points ominously at “The Danger of Drifting,” and sharply differentiates between “freedom to” and “freedom from,” between “equality of opportunity and equality of results,” etc., etc. These refinements are important, Dean David decides, because in them lies the crucial difference between welfare society (which he approves) and welfare state (which he deplores). How easy it is, he warns, to drift into the lethal arms of the welfare state. To foil the octopus of welfare, businessmen must be vigilant and aggressive. “Responsibility for this program,” Dean David concludes, “is going to be placed in the hands of the businessman, because we have, whether some people like it or not, an industrial civilization; and the businessman, whether he likes it or not, has to assume new responsibilities.”

Date: 1950
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:44:y:1950:i:02:p:323-342_05

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in American Political Science Review from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().