Search

In the article, the author comments on the paper "Private Sector Asset Management and the Effectiveness of Monetary Policy: Theory and Practice," by Hyman P. Minsky, published in this issue of the journal. The author comments on the separate sections of Minsky's paper such as whether a capitalistic economy is inherently unstable or not, and whether mild inflation is accepted as a satisfactory trade-off against a deep depression. The author argues that there is no complete system for analyzing the behavior of the economy and the U.S. Federal Reserve System. The author states that Minsky's framework did not present evidence for the 1966 credit crunch or the threats to the financial integrity of mutual savings banks and savings and loan associations in the U.S.

The title of this paper presumes that we should be teaching courses called Investments. Before we address ourselves to the subject title, it appears to be of some importance to ask the question--Why should we teach an Investments course? The answer to this fundamental question should lead to some conclusions as to where in the curriculum a course or courses in Investments should be offered and what the course content should be. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the use of double-entry accounting for the solution of problems in business organization and administration. The contributions of economist Werner Sombart is discussed. Sombart is largely responsible for the thesis that systematic or scientific accounting has played in generating the rationalistic pursuit of unlimited profits by capitalists. The author notes that the calculation of an enterprises' profits and capital is central to the development of Sombart's thesis. In continuing enterprises, knowledge of the total or aggregated profitability or rate of return on capital is not relevant to decisions on changes in the use of firm resources.

The article presents information about articles published in various journals. "The Estates of the Cobham Family in the Later Thirteenth Century," described by Teresa May in Archaeologia Cantiana, LXXXIV, show a large demesne and numerous very small tenancies paying rents in money, kind, and services. About two-thirds of the holdings in Cobham changed hands in one generation at the end of the thirteenth century and over the same period there is evidence of increased activity on the demesne. The special role that business capital with its unusual flexibility played in the economy and, on the debit side, the impermanence of such capital are emphasized by Richard Grassby in a further valuable paper on English businessmen, "English Merchant Capitalism in the Late Seventeenth Century. The Composition of Business Fortunes," Past & Present, XLVI. The diverse ways London businessmen held their wealth at their careers' end are considered in some detail, as are the ways it had been obtained, the conclusion here being that great wealth derived more from financial dealings and capital gains than from trade.

In this paper an attempt has been made to show that the economic structure of a society can be determined directly by taking account of its defined properties (that is, the economic structure reflects the way in which the means of production are owned and the social relations between men which result from their connection with the process of production), instead of selecting the most differentiating form to represent the economic structure from an indirect process of examining several socio-economic groupings recognized in a society. To study only the internal variations of a society, by keeping the external factors at a fairly constant level, the data for this study were collected from one socio-economically homogeneous area but with the two villages representing the two main variations of the state of the productive forces within the area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on sociologist Max Weber's treatment of American Puritanism. According to the author, Weber's essays on the "Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism," represents a highly fruitful, though controversial, encounter between history and sociology. Weber's argument does not concern itself with the rise of capitalism as such and even less with accounting for the existence of human acquisitiveness. Both of these had existed long before Calvinism or Puritanism. The historical phenomenon to be explained is modern western capitalism with its economic rationalism, formally free market and formally free labor. Further, what Weber sees in this capitalism is that it includes, among other dominant traits, a particular quality of mind, a set of attitudes towards economic activity. In Calvinism and more especially in Puritanism, it is found that the formation of a character structure exists, which is explicitly religious in intent but which nevertheless could contribute to the formation of an economic ethos.

The article focuses on productivity changes that took place in American colonial shipping during 1675-1775. The purpose of this article is to determine with reasonable accuracy the productivity change which occurred in shipping engaged in colonial waters, 1675-1775. The available evidence clearly indicates that substantial improvements were taking place. Despite the variation in rates among commodity routes, the general trend is unmistakably downward. It is concluded that the uncompounded increase per annum in shipping productivity ranged between 0.6 per cent and 3.1 per cent by commodity route with a general index suggesting an overall increase of approximately 1.35 per cent per annum. Improvements taking place in shipping were fundamental to the growth of trade and the development of an integrated market economy. Since transportation costs by land were prohibitively high for most items, the bulk of goods traded went by water, both among regions in the American colonies and among the colonies and Europe, the West Indies, and elsewhere. An important aspect of increased shipping productivity was the effect it had on the extensive development of the colonies.

In January 1972, the EEC concluded and signed agreements with the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, and Ireland for admission of the four countries to the Community on January 1, 1973. This paper provides estimates of the effect of EEC enlargement, as it is envisioned in mid-1972, on international trade flows. The estimates are based on policy assumptions that appear plausible at the time of writing although some of them may be modified (or even invalidated) by events.[1] As in all cases of ex-ante estimation, the figures should be regarded as rough orders of magnitude.
Table IV summarizes the effect of EEC enlargement on the exports of nonmember countries to the Community. The export loss to the developed market-economy countries is estimated at 15 to 21 percent of their 1970 export to the enlarged Community. In turn, for the developing counties the export loss is put at around 13 percent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the relationship between accounting and the rise of capitalism. Experts say the emergence of double-entry bookkeeping played an important part in activating, stimulating, or accentuating the rational pursuit of unlimited profits associated with capitalism. Double-entry refers to a system recordkeeping in which real and nominal accounts are integrated within a coordinated and internally consistent structure capable of simultaneously producing reports on accounting's status and progress. Experts say the system does have the capability of making a positive contribution towards economic growth.

The controversy about how money affects the economy is deeper and more fundamental than is evident in the current literature. From the current literature it seems as if the dispute is over either the definition of money and the specifications of the variables in a demand function for money or whether stable monetary growth is a) capable of being defined, b) obtainable, and c) superior, as a stabilization technique, to active discretionary monetary and fiscal policies. In truth the above are peripheral or secondary issues. The fundamental issue in monetary theory is whether a capitalist economy is inherently stable or whether, due to its very nature, it is unavoidably unstable; that is whether unsustainable booms and deep depressions are due to essential characteristics of capitalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a discussion of the Keynesian economic views regarding the free-market economic structure and its intrinsic risk of overproduction leading to depression. The value of emphasizing or ignoring a business-cycle based theory of economic development is explored. Several economic theorists are cited regarding their views on the debate. The economic goals of maintaining investments and maximizing employment toward full-status are analyzed in regards to the proper implementation of fiscal and monetary policy for government security and control over possible recession activity.

Investigates the nature of gain and loss from trade in capitalist economies within the context of long-run stationary equilibrium. Analysis on the role of production in the factor market distortions; Correlation between international price and the gain generated in the trade; Impact of autarky on equalization of consumption.

The article examines the views of R.H. Tawney, an economic historian on the origins of capitalism. Tawney argued that it is equally over-simplified and one-sided to argue that capitalism had to wait until the Protestant ethic had produced a capitalist spirit or that the Protestant ethic was itself merely the result of the development of capitalism. He never discounted the impact of economic changes on religious thought and practice. But, at the same time, he insisted that the impact of religion upon economic life and behavior could not be dismissed either. Puritans, as well as Catholics, attempted the formidable task of formulating a Christian casuistry of economic behavior. By the 18th century, the pursuit of economic self-interest has been proclaimed the law of nature by the philosophers. The consequent repudiation of the social character and responsibility of religion, aided the development of individualism in all areas of society-economic, social, political. Hard work, frugality, the pursuit of riches as a disposition of man, was created by the historical transformations of the l6th-l8th centuries.

Examines the causes of high and low rates of economic growth under capitalism. Impact of demand structure on allocation of resources; Effect of competition and mobility on factor prices; Influence of demand on rate of industrialization growth.

The article presents a short survey of literature on Hungarian economic history. Historiography in Hungary can look back on a distinguished past. It had inherited relatively rich but unevenly exploited sources from predecessors and a relatively ample but disproportionately worked-out literature which was predominantly conservative in its attitude and methods. Economic history, however, was a particularly weak branch of Hungarian historiography. The research work of Hungarian historians has been focused on the following themes: the formation and consolidation of the feudal relations of property; the problems of the transition from feudalism to capitalism; the characteristics of the capitalist system in Hungary; the question of the industrial revolution in central Europe; investigations on demography and social structure. This research has resulted in new trends in historical writing that have developed in Hungary in the course of the past twenty-five years. A significant proportion of research into economic history was focused on the history of agriculture. It was there that the relevant peculiarities of Hungarian economic development became most apparent.

The article traces the history of the British economy under the Tudor monarchs in the 16th century. The period has been greatly influenced by the rewriting of the economic history of both the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries during the last thirty years. Population change had displaced both an emergent capitalism and an expanding money economy as the dynamic factor influencing economic trends and this change in interpretation has led to a marked contrast being drawn between the England of Lancaster and York. Throughout most of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the population is said to have declined, whilst in the late sixteenth century there seems to have been a marked expansion. Between these two eras has stood the early Tudor age when the economy is said to have felt the first effects of the population increase which characterized the later sixteenth century. It has now largely been accepted that the population began to grow in the 1470's and a recent article has suggested that there was a considerable increase in the 1540s.

This article deals with the social distribution of land in England. The distribution of land in England has been subjected to the probes of historical scholarship in two distinct phases. Although all these studies have been in some measure concerned with the causes and consequences of the distribution of land in various periods, their aims have usually been to use this approach along with others to illuminate some more general historical event or situation. Thus in the earlier phase of inquiry the sympathy and conscience of historians were engaged on behalf of the sufferings and conscience of the exploited class, the peasantry, whether in the sixteenth or the eighteenth century, and indignation was vented by ascribing these miseries to the injustices of capitalism and capitalists. In the second phase the studies of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries have been marked by a concern with the origins of the Civil War, and a desire to bring to bear analysis of broad economic and social movements.

What tools are best suited to serve our economic and social needs? This question has been debated for more than a century, usually in the name of the virtue of capitalism, which lauds the market system, and socialism, which favors, in effect, state administration. Each ideological system has sought purity in its guiding principles, despite the fact that they are not mutually exclusive. Thus, private enterprise plays a significant role in the production and distribution of goods and services in socialist republics, but this activity is considered an exception, a residue, a transitory element, or a concession to the old-fashioned something to be eliminated later. Similarly, in the United States, the existence of large-scale government business is viewed as exceptional, and either undesirable or to be condoned for special purposes, such as security or lack of profitability in a vitally needed service. Moreover, even this picture-i.e., the notion of a private economy with a public ingredient, and a public economy with a private factor-does not get close enough to the societal reality to allow careful analysis of the main options for economic, social, and domestic efforts, nor does it reveal the proportion or direction that the mixes will change.

One of the most sociologically intriguing issues highlighted by the recent debate on the convergence of industrial societies is that concerning differences in the class system of socialist and capitalist countries as of December 1969. Sociologists have summarized a number of arguments in support of the view that class stratification in totalitarian systems of the communist variety is fundamentally different from that typically found in modern western capitalist societies. Taking the Soviet Union as their model, writers have argued that communist states are not properly thought of as being stratified in the usual sense, for a variety of reasons. One of the most important is that the major social cleavage in this kind of system occurs between party and non-party personnel. Because of the coercive nature of the police state, differences in income or occupation or social background do not give rise to sentiments and behaviour of a class kind amongst non-party members of the population. Thus, although material inequalities could be expected to stem from the occupational hierarchy, there would be no horizontal clustering of groups similarly located in the rewards structure. Different sectors of the population would exhibit no sharp variations in values and outlook such as people typically find between classes in western capitalist society.

According to sociologist R.H. Tawney, the triumph of capitalism was the failure of Protestantism. Capitalism was, in his view, a reaction to the social revolution begun by Reformation but which it was unable to control or complete. Capitalism succeeded, according to Tawney, in spite of the protestant ethic, not because of it. Unlike sociologist Max Weber, who contrasted modern capitalism with earlier and pre-rational forms, Tawney juxtaposed capitalism with feudalism. Sociology texts on collective behavior have viewed Reformation as a social movement. But they are apt to neglect the interpretation of a specific social change, i.e., they abstract the movement from its historical context. Accordingly, they do not deal with the problems raised by Tawney, Weber and their critics concerning the relationship of the Protestant ethic to capitalism. The approach outlined in the article aids the examination of many modernizing countries today and consideration of the empirical question of whether capitalism is, as Tawney assumed, a less stable social system than socialism.

Marxism is still the main ideological issue nowadays. The past few decades witnessed a growing interest for scientific research in the Social Sciences and its institutionalization as a legitimate field of academic inquiry in several Western countries. These very decades also witnessed the transformation of Marxism from a sociological and economic theory into the official ideology in several countries and into the prevalent socioeconomic doctrine in certain academic subcultures in Western countries as well. As a result of circumstances over which social scientists have limited or no control, the controversy about Marxism went from theoretical and academic grounds to political and ideological ones. Ironically, this transition took place when the Social Sciences first began to develop instruments and coherent theoretical frameworks capable of settling the dispute on academic terms. Many Western social scientists unconsciously played an important ideological role by taking Marxism as a scientific theory. The scientific analysis of Marxism had negative consequences for Marxism itself. Several specific Marxist predictions, as the ones dealing with increasing misery, the proletarization of the middle classes, the end of social mobility and the growing revolutionary activities as consequences of industrialization under capitalism, all were mercilessly turned down by subsequent historical events and modern Social Science.

This article compares interpretations made by sociologists Max Weber and Karl Marx concerning the emergence of capitalism in western society. Less than half a century separated Weber from Marx. Perhaps the fullest presentation of the latter's views on the genesis of capitalism in the west appeared in the famous twenty-fourth chapter of Capital, published in 1867. Weber's views crystallized as early as 1904, when he first published The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Both Marx and Weber were deeply influenced by the historicist tendency of German social thought. This tendency held that social existence is process, that each historical epoch and social structure is unique, to be understood by laws referable only to itself. Marx and Weber, each in his way, broke with these postulates. Marx rejected historicism's predominantly idealistic interpretation of the content of social process, asserting that the decisive events were in the realm of social relationships, not in the sphere of the evolution of ideas. And in fashioning a theory which insisted on underlying regularities in social change, Marx also rejected the notion of the total uniqueness of historical epochs and social structures. Yet Marx retained historicism's sense of process and transformation. Both thinkers, moreover, labored on problems that had some special immediacy for Germans.

It is a commonplace belief in the U.S. that the export of the free enterprise ideology should be made an integral part of United States foreign policy. This is in line with the American commitment to spread this mode of economic organization in the world. Thus, it is often proposed that foreign aid to less developed countries should be made conditional upon their acceptance of the free enterprise system for their national economic organization. The assumption is made that it is the best ideology for them to adopt, because it will achieve for them the economic affluence it has produced for the U.S. The adoption of the system of free enterprise by the less-developed countries is contingent, primarily, on two considerations. First, it must be more effective than a centrally controlled system of economic organization to achieve a speedy initiation and acceleration of the growth process. Throughout the world countries have adopted various systems of economic organization to promote their economic well-being. Growth patterns in these countries have been varied.

The article discusses the role and significance of organized labor as vehicle for powerful movements in social change. Organized labor has been traditionally viewed as an anti capitalist social movement oriented to the transformation of the system. The article points out that workers in the United States were concerned not about class interests but job security, not about socialism but dynamic capitalism. With the closing of the economic frontier in the late nineteenth century and the rise of national monopolies, the ideology of the worker shifted in line with the changed economic conditions. It was at this time that labor disassociated itself from petty bourgeois schemes reflecting the interests of small craftsmen, small farmers, shopkeepers, private practitioners, and utopian intellectuals. Trade unionism in the U.S. is more narrowly self-interested, more conservative, and less class-conscious politically. The working class is an entrapped mass conveniently directed by the middlemen of power, the labor bureaucrats. The power elite and powerless mass constitute the unitary stability of oligarchic capitalism. Trade unionism in the U.S. is losing its basic membership as a result of the new technology.

Traditionally, economist John Locke has been regarded as the John the Baptist, if not the Founding Father, of laissez-faire capitalism and rugged individualism. Such a view ought to have been expressed with caution since the Lockian corpus contains no treatise on economics comparable to, say, economist Adam Smith's book "Wealth of Nations." The author suspects that these labeling of Locke were often based on fragmentary, out-of-context readings. It is the author's view that a reading of the whole of Locke's writings will incline one to a quite different interpretation of his economics. Not that he was a socialist. But neither was he a laissez-faire individualist. Rather his pronouncements on matters economic anticipate in a remarkable way the practical principles of the mid-century American capitalistic society. In an earlier article to which this is a companion piece, the author described and defended Locke's theory of property in a state of nature. Since Locke's critics are chiefly disturbed by the disparity they find between his account of property in the natural state and his account of property in civil society, the author proceeds now to an examination of these charges of inconsistency as well as duplicity and crass materialism.

The article analyzes whether capital accumulation is compatible with economic progress and stability. Institutionalism is a way of thinking to which many thinkers within the last generation have been shifting. It is essentially a movement away from the classical conception of the economy toward a scientifically oriented set of doctrines which emphasizes and develops the machine as being the material basis of production. There is evidence that supports the thesis that there are two distinct brands of institutionalism, the basis for distinguishing between them being the extent to which certain economists were obviously influenced by philosopher Thorstein Veblen and disseminated the tenets of his philosophy in their own works. Such a distinction is not as arbitrary as it may appear. The problem of institutionalism then is basically the problem of influencing society to do something unpleasant, to give up cherished and long-held notions in order to effect a cure. The real problem is the neurosis of the complex of capital which supports the arbitrary institutional structure of capitalism. The accumulation of funds makes no creative contribution to the progress of society.

This article presents information on the French Socio-economic environment in the eighteenth century and its relation to the physiocrats. A close inspection of eighteenth century France will reveal an underlying rationality to the ideas and practical propositions of the physiocrats. Given a depiction of certain qualitative aspects of the French socio-politcal and economic environment, the physiocratic contribution as a whole is consistent with itself if viewed from the vested interests of two groups: the wealthy peasants and hybrid agrarian capitalists. Both groups will henceforth he referred to as agrarian entrepreneurs or capitalists, since their interests more or less overlapped. Discussions which relate the total environment to the physiocratic school of thought generally suffer from various weaknesses. First, their theoretical contribution is often seen to emerge from the environment in a relatively vague manner. Sociologist Adam Smith, for example, accounted for the development of physiocratic ideas as a reaction to the excesses of Colbertism,

The article discusses about towns of New England and the beginning of the American capitalist democracy there. A general view has been that New England colonies were the cradle of modern American society and its significance has long been affirmed by such writers as Alexis de Tocqueville and James Bryce. However, this early evaluation was incomplete for it was made only in terms of the origin and development of local self-government and democracy. This general view still prevails to this day. Actually the town was the starting point of modern American society not only in the political and administrative sense but in an economic sense as well. It is capitalism, of course, which is the economic foundation of modern society; therefore when discussing the economic significance of the town, the main question is how it relates to the origin and early development of American capitalism. The author propose to explore this point, limiting his citations as far as possible to well-known works from which somewhat neglected points will be taken up and systematized. The author discusses general and basic form of land settlement, town grant in New England. The result of the town grant was a system of small land holdings. Finally the author suggests that free land ownership in New England has been basis of the American Capitalism.

The article discusses doctrines of Marxism, which are utterly irreconcilable with free private enterprise. The first is that private income from capital is surplus value and is exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Capital which depreciates or which becomes obsolete can be replaced only as there is private saving. Thus the doctrine that private income from capital is unjust leads inevitably to State ownership of capital, compulsory saving through a five-year plan or a four-year plan, State construction of capital, State repair of capital, State and, therefore, compulsory provision for replacement of capital. The second doctrine is the doctrine that the State should take from each according to his capacity and give to each according to his need. Those professed defenders of income from efficiency and thrift who are unwilling to suggest any substitute for taxes that heavily penalize incentive, except increased burdens on the comparatively poor, are adopting a strategy that is certain to appear, in the minds of many of those they seek to persuade, the reverse of disinterested.

The article reports that the emergence of modern India as the great neutral and middle-of the- way state in international affairs has somewhat obscured the contribution in the field of economic development which this great country is making. India's Five Year Plan is based on a middle-of-the-road economic philosophy. It views the economy as divided into a public and private sector which share economic activity as equals. Springing from forces deep in the culture of India, this economic philosophy stresses the partnership of public and private sectors, working together in harmony. Moreover, the plan also conceives of "numerous points of contact and interaction between the two sectors" and units worked on the principal of joint participation." In line with this thinking, in the ground between the two sectors, India has made use of some interesting politico-economic devices. The world of the nineteenth century drew a sharp distinction between business and government. Mixed enterprise is treated by many Western writers, especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries, as simply a vague case of nationalized industry, not essentially different from the case where the public authority held all claims to ownership.

The article reports that there is theoretically an ultimate horizon which limits the outlook at any given time of practically all entrepreneurs, i.e., the decision makers in capitalistic enterprises existing at the time. This one ultimate horizon, however, is not the horizon of every entrepreneur then in business and it may be the horizon of none of them. In fact it embraces a great number of narrower horizons which can be seen as quasi-concentric and excentric circles varying according to the nation, the group of coevals, and the social stratum to which an entrepreneur belongs or according to his individual experience, education, and the like. Especially are there sets of quasi-concentric horizons typical of entrepreneurs in certain geographical areas and they overlap with those of entrepreneurs in other areas. But at any time and within the geographical range dominated by capitalism there must be a theoretical, imaginary outer-horizon which embraces the existing total of individual and group horizons.

This article focuses on equality of opportunity in society. The physiocrats, who advocated an economic system of laissez faire, were a clear-thinking body of men. It was not until long after the enclosure acts had depopulated the countrysides of England and driven men into the towns that the term laissez faire was applied to industry. But at no time since the discovery of coal and steam has there been such a condition as a fair field and no favor. Indeed, it was a denial of laissez faire which produced a capitalism that throve on low-paid labor. In the U.S. an industrial system of laissez faire has not existed since the birth of trade unionism. Protective tariffs, factory laws, social legislation, and trade union demands for higher nominal wage and fewer working hours are contrary to all the ideas that were held by the physiocrats. It is not a question of whether these expedients were necessary to ameliorate the economic distress. The consequence of such legislation shows clearly that as more of these measures are put upon the statute book, more are required to bolster them.

The article focuses on the future of free enterprise. Free enterprise has built America; it has become the focal point of the American tradition. Critics too easily forget how much the system of political liberty owes to free enterprise. It is free enterprise which pushes back political tyranny by exempting one most important section of human activities from the jurisdiction of government. Political liberty is a product of the bourgeois world, and it is not by mere chance that the present grave danger to political liberty all over the world coincides with a parallel danger to the system of free enterprise. Truthfulness and fairness demand that this be emphatically stated by way of introduction to considerations of a much more critical nature/ It is no less true, however, that free enterprise also destroys liberty. For the unrestrained liberty of the strong cannot fail to violate the liberty of the weak, both of weaker competitors and of dependent employees. The defenselessness of the weaker competitors ultimately makes them dependent employees. This is the social problem of capitalism, and it is not simply solved, as too many advocates of free enterprise would have it, by larger outputs. Justice is not a mere byproduct of efficiency. It follows that Liberty must not be regarded as the exclusive and supreme value, but must be subordinated to Justice.

The article presents information on the meaning of capitalism and free economy. Dr. Glenn E. Hoover's definition of capitalism is an economic system characterized by a predominance of privately owned wealth, individual initiative, freedom of contract and a free market system. However, There is no universal freedom of contract in capitalism and no free market system throughout. The contracts between workers and capitalists are made "under duress," under the pressure exerted by a monopoly. The scientific definition of free competition is, in Adolf Wagner's splendid formula is that free competition obtains where every one who wants to participate in some production, is able and permitted to do it. If he is not able, there is a natural monopoly; if he is not permitted, there is a legal or artificial monopoly. Wherever a monopoly obtains, there is, by definition, a so-called monopoly gain; viewed from the monopolist's side; a monopoly tribute, viewed from his victim's side. Economic theory has the task of explaining capitalism completely, and this means of reducing all its characteristics or symptoms to its fundamental conditions of existence.

This article inquires into John Stuart Mill's beliefs concerning alternative economic systems; that is, the systems popularly called capitalism, socialism, and communism. It also examines the influence and effect of Mill's thought in these controversial areas. The view of the article is that only by the very broadest definition of socialism can one properly describe Mill as a socialist. A consistent theme of the article is the thesis that Mill's criticisms demanded only minor modifications in the economic system--modifications which Mill suggested for the purpose of retaining and re-vitalizing the basic institutional framework of capitalism. To describe Mill as a socialist and mean much more than one who protested against certain existing defects would be to commit a misleading error. Contemporary texts, however, seem to suggest that Mill was a socialist in the original sense, but rather in the contemporary sense which requires an abandonment of the institutions of capitalism in favor of a new order. Mill was a man of perception open to new ideas. He was receptive to change and urged an attack on the ills of his day. As a reformer, however, he was most interested in working within the established framework rather than abandoning it.