I. THE LIGHT THAT FAILED
The workings of Socialism have been shocking and surprising -- especially to Socialists.
Most Socialists were well-meaning people. Their theories may not have held water, but their hearts were in the right place. They sincerely believed that Socialism would mean the end of "oppression", the opening of a new era of individual freedom and prosperity, and the permanent attainment of world peace.
They were persuaded of their own theory, and they persuaded other people. Theories often look plausible when their advocates concentrate upon the abuses which they would eliminate, and conveniently ignore the new abuses which they would cause.
But the real test of a theory is the way it works out in practice. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And Socialism in practice has turned out to be very different from Socialism in theory.
In Russia, the Socialists gained complete control, and destroyed all the institutions which Socialists everywhere denounce. The result -- the completest and vilest dictatorship in human history.
In Italy, the Corporate Socialists (Fascists) achieved a partial dictatorship, which, under the influence of its more powerful neighbour, Germany, adventured for world conquest.
In Germany, the woolly-minded Weimar Socialists prepared the way for the National Socialists (Nazis), second only to the Soviet in totalitarianism, and bent upon subjecting the whole world to their system.
Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler -- these are not just imaginary creatures of theory; they represent Socialism in Action, which is something very different from the desires of the Socialist theorists. It was not the Socialists' desires which were at fault -- rather the trouble lay in the unforseen consequences of the application of their well-meant but misguided policy.
Indeed, honest Socialists are appalled at the outcome; and in self-defence they cry "This is not Socialism". It is certainly not what the Socialists intended; but equally certainly it is what happened after Socialists got control. The Socialist, too proud to admit that there is anything wrong with his basic idea, endeavours to attribute these Socialist disasters, not to the nature of the idea, but to the accidents of unworthy ambition and lust for power. The Socialist cannot, however, suggest any way of avoiding these "accidents"; he can only deplore them in retrospect.
DISILLUSION
Socialist disillusion often takes the form of denying that movements are "Socialist" after they reach a certain stage in their development. In Italy and Germany this stage was fairly clearly marked by the seizure of power by the Dictator -- though even after that there were Socialists who paid half-reluctant tribute to the "full-employment" and "social services" policy of Hitler and Mussolini.
With regard to Russia, there was no such clear-cut line of demarcation, because the dictatorship was inherent in the original Socialist set-up; and Socialists tended to judge the regime from the way in which the Soviet system developed. The manner of its development was different even from the desires of the original Russian Socialists; so that opposition appeared even in Russia. But this opposition was quickly and physically liquidated as "Trotskyist", and the Soviet dictatorship proceeded upon its destined way.
Concurrently with the liquidation of these "Trotskyists", overseas Socialists began to lose faith in Russia. Genuine Communists renounced their allegiance and joined the Labour Parties; and gradually the various Labour Parties were forced to abandon their pro-Soviet outlook. But they still called themselves "Socialist" -- and they justified their attitude by asserting that Russia had deserted Socialism. To some extent, their obscure realisation that the Soviet disaster stemmed from the very nature of Socialism made them all the less rational in their reactions.
Because, whatever they said to themselves, they could not deny that, in proportion as a country aimed to become Socialist, in that same proportion it became totalitarian. Russia was the supreme example; but the failures and confusions of the European Socialist regimes, which finally had to abandon their attempt to co-operate with Russia, could not be disregarded. Even in countries such as Britain and Australia there were ominous signs; it was becoming clear that industrial conscription was an essential part of a Socialist State. Nor could Socialists ignore the fact that it was from the Socialist Soviet that the chief threat to world peace was coming.
CONFUSION
The Socialists, then, have been thrown into confusion and bitterness by the failure of Socialism. They started out with good intentions -- but their good intentions were not enough. And since the Socialist organisations -- such as the Labour Party -- are still powerful forces, it is important to analyse just why it is that Socialism is breaking down. It is only by becoming clear upon this point that we can hope to save ourselves from a Socialist disaster.
Socialists work for the public ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. They assert that all economic activity should be carried out in the interests of the State. They demand that the State should take over, more and more, the rights and duties which were considered the prerogative of the individual. At first sight these propositions look harmless and attractive enough. And yet -- the fact remains that the attempt to implement them seems always to end in disaster.
Why is it, then, that Socialism always develops into totalitarianism? What goes wrong? Why do the people who want to create a heaven upon earth end up by creating a Communist or Nazi slave-state? How is it that their peaceful intentions finally forge the instrument of world aggression?
Behind this degeneration of Socialism there are many factors at work; most of them can be classified under two heads: --
- Factors Affecting Production.
- Factors of Authority.
An understanding of the way these factors work will enable us to answer the question: "What's wrong with Socialism?"
II. SOCIALISM JUST CAN'T DELIVER THE GOODS
Socialist production is inefficient. That is why standards of living are so low under Socialism.
Russia, of course, is the best example of this; Socialism has been established there for 30 years, and during that time Soviet living standards have been the lowest of any white race. The Russian productive system, in spite of its immense resources of raxv materials and its access to British and American techniques, has not achieved the output necessary to maintain its own people.
Socialist experiments in Europe have resulted in rationing and run-away prices, both evidences of inadequate output. In Britain, the recovery after the War has been very disappointing -- and for this the policy of the Socialist Government is largely (though not, of course, entirely) to blame.
The history of nationalised industries provides further evidence of the failure of Socialism. State-owned concerns can rarely hold their own in fair competition with free enterprise; unless protected by monopoly or some other unfair advantage, they are regular money-losers.
The "fully-planned economy" may look attractive enough on paper; there are three main reasons for its breakdown in practice: --
- The inflexibility of centralised Socialist plans.
- The progressive corruption of the Socialist bureaucracy.
- The removal of incentive.
INFLEXIBILITY
By this time most people know, from personal experience, the meaning of "Red Tape". There are few of us who have not chafed, sometime or other, at the losses and delays caused by "Regulations". And yet -- if we are fair-minded -- we must admit that the Public Servants, who administer these regulations, are generally doing their best, and are trying to be helpful in so far as the regulations allow. In most cases, too, they are by no means incompetent. Even the regulations themselves are not unreasonably drafted in the great majority of cases.
The fault, then, does not lie so much in the particular nature of the regulations or their administration; rather it lies in the attempt to apply regulations to circumstances which do not admit of being successfully dealt with by such a system at all.
A Socialist system is centralised and fully planned. It has regulations for everything, because Socialism subjects all production to its own "plan". It endeavours to abolish all the ordinary economic controls, which leaves its own authoritarian controls as the only alternative to anarchy.
Consumer-choice dwindles -- your power of spending your money as you like is curtailed by ration-books and coupons. The producer hasn't got to worry about producing an article to meet the consumer's taste -- all he has to do is to produce an article to meet what the bureaucrat (who decides these things) thinks the consumer's task ought to be.
Instead of being served at the counter, you wait in the Socialist queue; and the time wasted in waiting is lost so far as work or enjoyment is concerned. Thus production and living standards fall; continued exasperation leads to hopeless frustration; and the morale of all life suffers another setback. Regulations become fiercer as Socialism develops. Without regulations, there can be no Socialism.
But, against the changing and unforeseeable circumstances of life, regulations sometimes cut a very poor figure. The State's attempt to plan completely every detail of the way you should run your farm or shop, or your job, ends up by making it impossible for you to run them efficiently. Only personal judgment and initiative will enable you to meet your own personal problems effectively -- and Socialism leaves no room for your personal judgment and initiative.
Think of the conscientious Public Servant behind the counter, saying "I know it may not seem very sensible in this case; but it's what the regulations say, and we've got to follow the regulations." That is the fate of every producer -- under Socialism.
No wonder Socialist industry is inefficient.
CORRUPTION
Most Public Servants are honest. The Public Service has a fine tradition, and its functions, until recently, have been pretty much routine. Routine functions do not offer any great temptations.
Under Socialism, however, the Public Service performs many functions which are not of a routine nature. Such functions make the Public Servant the real arbiter of advantage, and therefore do offer considerable temptations.
In recent years, some of these non-routine Socialist functions have already become part of our administrative system. Prices control, import permits, land sales control, timber monopolies, road transport licenses, petrol priorities and things of that character are examples. In relation to these, corruption is inevitable under Socialism. It may be monetary corruption, it may be mere political patronage. The crop of scandals which are coming to light are not just accidental -- they are a necessary and inherent part of Socialism in Action.
Nor need we flatter ourselves that these abuses are confined to politicians and Public Servants. The corrupting influence of the Socialist way of life reaches to all sections of the community. When regulations reach everywhere, there are few of us who can boast that we have never broken any of them. The borrowing of a petrol ticket, the obtaining of a couponless cut of meat, the payment of a few pence above the legal price -- all may seem small matters to the individual, but in sum total they add up to the Black Market. And the Black Market is no small matter -- it is another essential feature of Socialism in Action.
Corruption, carried to its inevitable conclusion, helps further to reduce Socialist production; and is part of the reason for the collapse of living standards under Socialism.
No wonder Labour Governments fear inquiry into the personal activities of their members and officials.
LACK OF INCENTIVE
Socialism reduces incentive. It demands that everyone should work for the State, not for himself -- and, under these circumstances, people lose keenness.
Socialism involves high taxation, which is necessary to pay for the administrative top-hamper of a Socialist system. High taxation reduces incentive still further.
Even in the first stages of the introduction of Socialism the blighting effect is seen. The employer or the man working on his own account will not take the risk of a new venture; for (he says) "If I lose, I carry the loss myself; if I win, the State takes the winnings." Thus Socialist stagnation replaces enterprise; industry falls to progress; and the standard of living is destroyed.
The first phase of Socialism is largely responsible for the tragedy of British production since the war. But even this first phase is not so bad as the second phase -- where no new enterprise or change in method of production can take place except upon the initiative of a Civil Servant. Britain has not reached this stage yet -- the Russian example shows what it involves.
The effects of Socialism upon employees are just as disastrous as upon employers. They lose their prospect of independence, their prospect of bettering themselves by their own efforts. Taxation reduces their earnings, and austerity limits their range of choice of the things they can buy with the remainder. Having little to work for, they are not keen to work at all.
The consequent industrial malaise -- obstructionism, go-slow, the darg -- strangles production. A very real sense of frustration and exhaustion seems to affect everybody as soon as incentive is removed. This exhaustion is not imaginary -- bludging can be very hard work, as anyone who has had any experience of the Army Fatigue system can testify.
On an Army Fatigue everything follows regulations, and everybody tries to find a way of dodging work. At the end of the day, very little has been done, and yet nearly everybody feels really tired.
Socialism puts all production on the footing of an Army Fatigue -- no wonder so little work gets done.
THE SOCIALIST'S REMEDY
The Socialist is thus faced with a very unpleasant problem. As a consequence of the introduction of his system, production starts to fall. Rationing becomes progressively more necessary; shortages develop into bottlenecks; standards of living decline; he is caught in a vicious spiral of austerity; chaos is only just around the corner.
Desperately he searches for a final expedient -- something that will prevent the collapse of his intensifying regulation system. He needs something to take the place of incentive, and he finds it -- in manpower control.
INDUSTRIAL CONSCRIPTION
Industrial conscription is an essential part of Socialism -- it is the only thing which will make Socialism work. Lenin recognised this in April, 1917, when he said --
"Universal Labour Service is something new, something that constitutes part of a Socialist whole -- this is often overlooked by those who fear to face present conditions frankly." (1)
Manpower control, industrial conscription, universal labour service (they are all merely different names for the same thing), emerging as a necessary consequence of Socialism, forms a significant part of the mechanism whereby the Socialist Utopia becomes a Totalitarian State.
The well-meaning Socialists do not at first mean to introduce this measure. It is forced upon them, however, as an unwanted consequence of their own policy. By that time, they have already reduced the nation to such straits that the new servitude is accepted as a "patriotic duty". It is put forward (like so many other measures were originally put forward) as a "temporary expedient". It is called "the only alternative to starvation" -- and indeed Socialism has already made such in-roads upon production that this is very near the truth. Because the nation did not understand the implications of the Socialist policy in time, it is forced to acquiesce in the direction of labour which is its inevitable result.
That is what is happening in Britain to-day, where a Socialist Government has just re-introduced industrial conscription in peace-time. So far, it is only the thin end of the wedge; but unless the Socialist trend is reversed even Britain will, in time, become fully totalitarian. Without industrial conscription, there can be no Socialism.
That is how the factors affecting production operate to turn Socialism into Totalitarianism, quite contrary to the original desires of well-meaning Socialists.
III. VACANCY -- FOR DICTATOR
Socialism involves the concentration of all economic power into a single system. Full socialism means the setting up of a monopoly far more watertight than any of the monopolies which Socialists denounce.
But Socialism goes much further than this. It involves also the integration of economic and political power -- to put it colloquially, it makes the Boss and the Policeman the same person. No private monopoly has ever had one-tenth of the power over its employees and customers that a Socialist monopoly wields. And since the real evil of a monopoly lies in its power, a State monopoly is the worst of all monopolies.
The success of the British constitutional system over the last few centuries has depended to a great extent upon the decentralisation of authority. Legislative, executive, judicial and economic powers have been kept largely separate. Socialism wipes away all this careful decentralisation, and amalgamates all power. It thus destroys the whole basis of the British way of life, and renders the maintenance of British liberty impossible.
Socialists may say "The concentration of power does not matter, because it is concentrated in the hands of the nation." But, of course, it is not concentrated in the hands of the nation -- it is concentrated in the hands of the Government. And there is no guarantee that the Government will carry out the nation's wishes; there is no guarantee that it will not use the power entrusted to it for its own ends -- which may not be the nation's ends.
"But" our simple-minded Socialist may say, "if a Government exceeds its mandate it can always be dealt with at the next Election." He may ignore the possibility of vital and irrevocable changes ("you can't unscramble eggs") -- but dare he ignore the possibility of a Government using its power to falsify the next Elections? Hitler and Stalin had no need to fear the ballot-box while they controlled the electoral machinery; and only in the last few months the system of rigged elections has been extended to Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. "It can't happen here," our Socialist may weakly exclaim -- until he remembers, perhaps, the sliding ballot-box panels and other electoral pressures and frauds which have characterised elections inside certain Socialist Trades Unions in Australia -- until he remembers, perhaps, the discussions on the re-distribution of seats and the deliberate rigging of the Electorates which are going on at present in the Australian Labour Caucus at Canberra.
"SOCIALIST COMPETITION"
Socialism does not eliminate competition. It merely transfers competition from the economic field to the far more deadly field of State authority. Economics can affect a man's livelihood, but State authority controls both his livelihood and his life. Those Socialists who denounce "the evils of economic competition" might do well to consider the fine "non-competitive" nature of an Election, or the fine "non-competitive" debates in the House!
There is only one way to eliminate competition from political life -- and that is to put everything in the hands of the Dictator. And in fact, under Socialism, the bitterness and corruption of political life become so intolerable that people are inclined to accept a Dictator almost with relief. And this, too, is part of the mechanism by which Socialism degenerates into totalitarianism.
Socialist corruption finally expresses itself in terms of power -- which is far more terrible than the mere money-corruption of Socialism's early stages. The early stages may seem bad enough when a Socialist politician has the power to enrich himself by ruining you -- but it is far worse in the later stages, when he can have you "directed to labour" or imprisoned or executed for political reasons.
Perhaps those who recall some of the corruption associated with wartime manpower control will have some idea of the possible line of development. In Britain and Australia, of course, it never went beyond the early stages. But the people of the Balkans, subjected to-day to the continuous process of Stalinist terror, are to-day experiencing Socialist corruption in a highly developed form, involving political imprisonment and political murder. (This may seem highly-coloured and far-fetched the first time you read it -- but, remember, it is actually happening.)
THE DILEMMA OF AUTHORITY
So long as men are ambitious -- so long as the men who rise to the top in politics are ambitious -- the concentration of power must open the door to abuses; and the total concentration of all power, political and economic, into a single Socialist network opens the door to the Dictator. Power obtained on one pretext is used for another purpose -- used to perpetuate itself. This dilemma of authority is the central fact of European and world history in this century.
Theory shows what is likely to happen; practice shows what does happen. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin -- these are not mere theoretical figures of the imagination. They are portents -- but they are part of reality. Each one of them founded his dictatorship upon Socialism. Each one of them concentrated power "in the hands of the nation" -- and made himself the nation's hands.
The dictatorship in each case came about by the destruction of all competing authority and the integration of all authority in accordance with one "plan". The tactics of Stalin and Hitler followed the lines marked out for them by other "men of the people" who have made themselves tyrants. All potential dictators have to face up to the elimination of their rivals -- the pattern is constant. The "Cutting down of the tall Poppies" over 2000 years ago is repeated in Hitler's "Night of the Long Knives" or Stalin's "Purges". We have not yet reached this stage in Britain or Australia, but Socialists, with their doctrine of the class-war, are already busy stirring up the preliminary bitterness -- unconsciously clearing the Dictator's path.
Just as most Socialists start by meaning well, so most Dictators start by believing that they will be benevolent. They feel that they have a "mission" -- and that justifies anything. Even when they are following the own interests, they salve their consciences by reflecting that "their interests are the same as the nation's".
The first stages of this moral deterioration are already apparent in the conduct of Labour leaders after they have been a certain time in office. They quite blatantly act in the interests of the "Labour movement" rather than in the interests of the nation, and quite openly boast that, since they have been given the power, they no longer need a specific mandate for far-reaching and irrevocable Socialist moves. An examination of the developing conduct and character of these Labour leaders shows that there is plenty of dictator-talent among British and Australian Socialists.
SOCIALISM WILL ALWAYS PRODUCE ITS DICTATORS
But, basically, it does not matter whether the forces originally responsible for the Socialistic concentration of power succeed in keeping their grasp upon it -- whatever happens, the final result will be much the same. The original Socialist may be clever enough to seize the concentrated power for himself or his Party's nominee -- or he may only be an innocent catspaw for a more sinister figure lurking in the background. Completed Socialism will certainly produce its dictator. The Kremlin (which, viewed from the back, is only the same as the Brown House) stands at the end of the Socialisation road.
Nor does it matter under what slogan the power-concentration is effected -- because, of course, it is always done under the fairest of all slogans. "Power for the people" -- but once weld all power into a single system, so that it can be controlled by a single person, once create the sensitive pressure-points, and how easily it transmutes itself into "Power over the people".
TRUST BETRAYED
The history of Socialism has always been and must always be the history of trust betrayed. Men claim power to end an abuse, and exercise it to create one. Democracy can only be destroyed in the name of democracy.
The Socialist system conditions people to regulations, so that they accept with lessening protest each new invasion of their liberty. Finally, they are called upon to accept even industrial conscription as the price of survival. The centralisation of all power creates the opportunity -- first for the dictatorship of a Party and then for the dictatorship of an individual. Once the process is started, it is difficult to stop -- it can only be stopped by a conscious effort, based upon an insight into what is happening.
The history of Socialism in Germany was not merely a historical accident -- it sprang from the nature of Socialism itself. Well-meaning Socialists opened the way for the National Socialists; a Party dictatorship was established; and the Party fell under the control of a single man.
The history of Socialism in Russia was no mere accident -- it followed the same inevitable line of development. First came the establishment of the dictatorship of a Communist Party; then the Communist Party became the instrument of a small central clique; and finally, by a combination of murder and cajolery, Stalin established his personal dictatorship over that small clique.
All totalitarian societies tend towards the same final form. Between Nazi and Communist there is no essential difference. If we succumb to Stalin, we shall have beaten Hitler in vain.
Many Socialists do not mean to be re-actionaries -- but Socialism is Reaction. The Factors of Authority always develop Socialism in the direction of the Slave State.
IV. SOCIALISM MEANS WAR
The two great conflicts of modern times have been caused by German aggression. In both cases, that aggression came from totalitarian pressure inside Germany.
It is often overlooked that, although the pre-1914 German State was not Socialist in origin, nevertheless it had developed into the same kind of State towards which all Socialism tends. All authority was concentrated; economic and political power were amalgamated; industries were "nationalised" at least in the sense that they were controlled in accordance with the "interests of the nation". The nation itself was controlled by a single will and in accordance with "plan" -- just as the Socialist State must, in the long run, be controlled.
So while it would be unfair to say that German aggression in 1914 was caused by Socialism it would be entirely accurate to say that it was caused by the kind of set-up which Socialism creates.
German totalitarianism was broken in 1918; but gradually over the next 15 years it was re-fashioned. This time the German State came directly from Socialism, and showed plainly enough the course of Socialistic development; but the Hitler regime only repeated and intensified the same evil features which had characterised the Kaiser's. German aggression in 1939 was the direct sequel to Socialism.
To-day, the chief threat to world peace comes from a Socialist country -- Russia. The Soviet system has developed to a degree of totalitarianism greater even than Hitler's, and is of necessity committed to the same policy of aggression.
Socialism provides both the motive and the means for war. The Socialist dictator naturally sighs for more worlds to conquer; he has no restraint of effective public opinion to curtail his adventures; and the machinery of totalitarian government is particularly fitted to war-time mobilisation.
Socialist dictators seem naturally tempted to spread their own personal rule by force of arms; and just as naturally they justify their aggression by asserting that they are only spreading the idea of Socialism. Thus Napoleon claimed that he was only spreading the idea of the French Revolution; thus the Kaiser and Hitler claimed that they were only spreading the benefits of German thoroughness and organisation; and thus Stalin claims that he has the mission of spreading Communism, and it is now clear that he is preparing to spread it by force of arms.
THE DESIRE FOR CONQUEST
The pathological desire for conquest which seems to afflict these dictators no doubt springs in part from their own personal needs. How can they maintain the loyalty of their own oppressed peoples unless they can attribute their sufferings to some foreign "oppressor"? How can they prevent them becoming aware of the comparative poverty of their own lives, except by erecting a curtain of hostility to shut them off from intercourse with their more fortunate free neighbours? How can they avoid internal resentments without external adventures?
Thus fear strengthens the dictator's natural ambition; and, knowing that he must treat all freedom as hostile, he naturally hopes to have the initiative in attack. He is apprehensive and dangerous in the same way and for the same reasons that a man-eating tiger is apprehensive and dangerous. He knows that his own nature is such that man's hand must eventually be against him.
The world is not big enough for free and totalitarian systems to co-exist indefinitely in peace; nor is it big enough for more than one socialist system. The higher the degree of national integration -- the higher the degree of totalitarianism -- the greater are the occasions of conflict. The totalitarian State, deflecting all normal feelings of decency towards itself, breaks down the individual's moral barriers and natural reluctances to war; meanwhile it remains itself in a moral vacuum. The pressure to expand is irresistible. Once again, practical experience of the warlike natures of Socialist States verifies the theory.
To-day, when Socialist Russia is deliberately creating chaos in Europe to further her own aggressive ends, and is almost openly preparing for her attack on the West, and is only playing for time until she has the technical means for a successful attack, the real nature of Socialism is all too dreadfully illustrated.
It is no use trying to evade the issue by saying that Stalin is only an unfortunate historical accident, for which Socialism should accept no responsibility. The fact is that dictators of the Stalin type (which is basically the same as the Hitler type) must eventually arise under any Socialist set-up. Soviet aggression to-day is an inevitable consequence of Socialism -- though, once again, it is very far from the desires of the original Socialists.
The hope that Socialism on the international scale would usher in an era of world peace is just as fallacious as the hope that Socialism on the national scale would usher in an era of freedom. No doubt both hopes have been honestly held by some -- but both are none the less vain.
The plain truth is -- Socialism Means War.
V. IF THE LIGHT OF THINE EYE BE DARKNESS ...
Socialism, then, has failed on both the national and international stages. The doctrine was framed by idealists, who were irked at the limitations of life; but it has only resulted in new limitations, fierce enough to make life unbearable. It was meant as the antithesis to servitude -- and it has produced the Totalitarian State.
What has been the effect of this disaster upon the outlook of the Socialists? On the great majority of the people who vote Socialist it has, as yet, had no effect. Because most of the people who voted Socialist are not really Socialists at all -- they are only the followers of the active minorities of honest or of political Socialists.
This great passive majority, in fact, not yet even realise that there has been a disaster. They press forward like the sheep at the rear of the flock (the simile is kinder than a reference to the Gadarene swine) unaware that their leaders are already at the edge of the precipice. They still believe that everything is for the best in the best of all Socialist worlds -- do not their leaders tell them so?
But what of the small minority of active and honest Socialists? They see what has happened and what is happening. Why do they continue to press forward along the road whose end is now so clear and so ominous?
Doubtless the first inclination will be to condemn them outright for their folly and for their selfish stubborn pride, which forbids them to admit that they have been wrong. Doubtless they merit condemnation; doubtless, in the interests of our national salvation, they must be exposed -- but is it too much to ask that, along with
INSERT PAGES 26 & 27
can appeal to the bonds of old political associations and old personal friendships.
The Communist exploits the weaknesses of Socialism very cleverly and to their limit. He knows very well that the nature of Socialism is such that it must, if maintained in power, develop a totalitarian Communist State. He therefore plays up the "liberal" features of Socialism -- which must disappear in the event, but which are useful to him in the interim, because they help to keep the waverers in the Socialist camp.
Most of these waverers are honestly opposed to Communism, and do not realise how they are being made to play the Communist game. Even in a national crisis or a general strike, when decent Labor men come out into open opposition to Communism, they fail to see that the forces which the Communists are using only come into existence as a result of principles still endorsed by the section of Socialists which repudiates Communism. Every Socialist is, in fact, a Communist tool -- though in the vast majority of cases they are innocent tools, and do not understand who is using them or the purposes for which they are being used.
The honest Socialist, then, lives in a state of perpetual contradiction; and even the political Socialist sometimes finds it difficult to tell which way to go. Few political Socialists, of course, are honest -- they are men who live on the game, and who constantly remind themselves that they have got to live.
The intellectual difficulties and dilemmas of the honest Socialist do not cut much ice with the Labour politician -- it is votes he needs. But if he is to get votes, then he dare not admit that anything is wrong with Socialism. He, too, must brazen it out; like the honest Socialist (though perhaps from a different motive) he must deny the manifest failure of Socialism. He has a vested interest in it.
THE TRUTH HELD HACK
Thus circumstances conspire to keep the truth from the passive majority of Socialist voters. Their political leaders may hesitate on their Socialist courses, but they will admit no hesitation -- because that would cost them votes. The small minority of honest Socialists is not affected by this self-seeking; but in their case the equally imperious urge of vanity forbids them to admit that they were wrong.
But the truth will out at last; and when it does most of the unthinking Socialist followers will repudiate their erstwhile leaders, who will be left, stranded and not a little pathetic, by the receding Socialist tide.
Socialists have been a hard-working road-gang on the road to Hell. But good intentions are not enough.
Meanwhile, we are watching the end of intellectual Socialism. Either it must repudiate its own nature, or it must go over frankly to the Totalitarians. The contradictions inherent in it are generating tensions which are no longer supportable. The honest Socialists find it progressively more difficult to refrain from admitting the failure of Socialism; and both they and the political Socialists are finding it progressively more difficult to conceal this failure from the masses.
That is why Socialism to-day is in its death-throes. And (as has happened with death-throes before) never was it more dangerous. It is impossible to predict the lengths to which Socialists may go when the collapse of their political machine becomes an immediate prospect. Perhaps already there is a would-be Socialist Dictator preparing to make his Party face this last unwanted child of their old fond beliefs.
VI. LOOKING FORWARD
The Socialist road has turned out to be a dead end, and the disillusioned Socialist is at a loss which way to turn.
There is no need for him to face his problem with a heavy heart. It may be true that the process of sloughing his personal beliefs will be painful, but the potentialities of the future are tremendous. New techniques and vastly improved methods of production give prospect of rising living standards for all.
It would be foolish to pretend that everything will be easy. No doubt there will be difficulties, but, if we face them in co-operation and with goodwill, they are certainly not insuperable.
Some twenty years ago there was a Depression; for many a fearful and unforgettable experience. That Depression arose through ignorance which we have now overcome. To-day we know that, barring sabotage, there need never be another Depression, because we know the way to alleviate it and to cure it.
Barring sabotage -- but that is a big condition. Unhappily sabotage is not impossible -- because Socialists have a vested interest in Depression. The spread of the Socialist system in the 'thirties was largely the result of Depression -- and to-day there are Socialists who see their Party in decline, and argue that another Depression is the only means to revive it.
Allied to these Socialists, there are the forces of Soviet Russia. Stalin wants to ruin the Western world. He has already succeeded in spragging production in Europe, and in reducing it elsewhere by the means of the operations of his various Communist Parties. Half the world now cannot live except on American charity -- and the transfer of resources to fill this Soviet-created gap imposes upon the normal economic system strains which test it to its limits.
Communist Parties (with their half-hearted Socialist allies) are pressing everywhere for measures which impose extra burdens upon all economic systems. The raising of wages and the reduction of production are advocated concurrently, thus deliberately producing an inflationary situation. Socialistic controls are invoked against this, but they only result in the diversion of trade from the open market to the black market. Measures to cure the fundamental causes are bitterly contested by the clever Communist cliques. The Socialists cannot oppose the Communists effectively (even if they want to) by reason of their own internal confusion.
Tremendous and unnecessary economic tensions are thus being generated, deliberately by the Soviet and half-unconsciously by the Socialists; and it is by no means impossible that these tensions will issue in a Socialist Depression. But it would be a mistake to regard such a Depression as inevitable -- we can beat it if we can get rid of the Socialists in time.
THE DISHONEST PAWNBROKER
Of course, even when we get rid of them, we will not immediately get rid of their effects, or even all the effects of the War. During the War, we did, in fact, have to "put our liberties in pawn" -- we lowered our standards as a necessary condition of survival. But perhaps not all of us foresaw that, even after the War, we should have to deal with a dishonest pawnbroker, unwilling to surrender our pledges.
Nevertheless, it should be recognised that controls are still necessary for so long as great internal tensions exist, and it would be courting disaster and condoning injustice to abolish controls without first mitigating the tensions. Prices regulation and similar measures must stay on until there are the necessary goods available to satisfy reasonable demands.
But whereas the Socialist regards these controls as good in themselves (for they increase the power of the Socialist State) the free democrat regards them as a necessary evil. Thus, under a system of Socialism, the general level of control moves upward; but if we can get rid of Socialist governments we can slowly but steadily reduce controls, removing them one by one as they become superfluous.
Under a Socialist Government, of course, they never do become superfluous, because Socialist shortages always keep supply below demand. To-day, an upsurge in production is necessary not only to raise our immediate living standards, but also to make possible the progressive removal of controls, thus ensuring that our living standards continue to move upwards. We cannot hope to abolish all controls overnight -- but it is the general direction of movement in controls which is important, and which to-day provides the line of demarcation between Socialism and Freedom.
The present disequilibrium, arising as a consequence of the War, gives an unique opportunity for Socialist sabotage and the precipitation of a Socialist Depression. Once we can get rid of that disequilibrium, however, we need not have the same fear. We now know quite well how to prevent a Depression such as the last one overtaking us.
People turned to Socialism partly as a blind reaction to Depression. They did not know what Socialism involved; but by now they start to see that the evils of Socialism are far worse even than the Depression evils, and, in fact, they see that Socialism, so far from providing the hoped-for remedy against Depression, is to-day the most dangerous factor operating to cause a Depression. And now that, apart from Socialist sabotage, we know how to prevent Depression, there is not the same temptation for unthinking people to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
If only we can get rid of the Socialist blight and the Soviet menace, then our new production techniques offer us an age of unparalled plenty, and our new economic techniques offer us security for all.
These are not discouraging prospects -- even for a disillusioned Socialist.
ENDNOTES
1. V.I. Lenin -- The April Conference. Speech in favour of the Resolution on the political situation. See Little Lenin Library, Vol. 10, p. 29.
No comments:
Post a Comment