But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth
threatened the destruction—indeed, in some sense was the
destruction—of a hierarchical society. In a world in which
everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a
house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a
motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps
the most important form of inequality would already
have disappeared.
If it once became general, wealth would
confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine
a society in which WEALTH, in the sense of personal possessions
and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while
POWER remained in the hands of a small privileged caste.
But in practice such a society could not long remain stable.
For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the
great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by
poverty would become literate and would learn to think for
themselves; and when once they had done this, they would
sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no
function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run,
a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty
and ignorance.
To return to the agricultural past, as
some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century
dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It
conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which
had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole
world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially
backward was helpless in a military sense and was
bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more
advanced rivals.