Ⅱ(続き)
ミルは,予言においても希望においても,大規模な組織の増大しつつある力(権力)を予見できなかったことによって,誤った方向に進んでしまった。このことは経済においてばかりでなく他の領域についてもあてはまる。たとえば彼は,国家は一般教育の重要性を強調すべきであるが,国家自身は教育(活動)自体を行うべきではない,と主張した。初等教育に関するかぎり,国家に代わる唯一つの重要なものは教会であるということを彼は決して悟らなかった(注:ラッセルは宗教を否定するので、ここはもちろん、「教会になってしまう」といったニュアンス)。そして教会が初等教育の主体になるようなことは,彼がほとんど好まなかったことであろう。 |
To readers of our time, who take it as part of the meaning of Socialism that private capitalists should be replaced by the State, it is difficult to avoid misunderstanding in reading Mill. Mill preserved all the distrust of the State which the Manchester School had developed in fighting the feudal aristocracy; and the distrust which he derived from this source was strengthened by his passionate belief in liberty. The power of governments, he says, is always dangerous. He is confident that this power will diminish. Future ages, he maintains, will be unable to credit the amount of government interference which has hitherto existed. It is painful to read a statement of this sort, since it makes one realize the impossibility of foreseeing, even in its most general outlines, the course of future development. The only nineteenth-century writer who foresaw the future with any approach to accuracy was Nietzsche, and he foresaw it, not because he was wiser than other men, but because all the hateful things that have been happening were such as he wished to see. It is only in our disillusioned age that prophets like Orwell have begun to foretell what they feared rather than what they hoped. Mill, both in his prophecies and in his hopes, was misled by not foreseeing the increasing power of great organizations. This applies not only in economics, but also in other spheres. He maintained, for example, that the State ought to insist upon universal education, but ought not to do the educating itself. He never realized that, so far as elementary education is concerned, the only important alternative to the State is the Church, which he would hardly have preferred. |