To a Mitigated Socialism

October 15, 1951

LONDON—Even if, in accordance with most forecasts, the Conservatives win this month’s elections, the outlook at the moment is not very promising for a return in England to a free-enterprise system as Americans still use the term. What seems much more likely is a mitigated socialism, administered by the very people who declare that they do not believe in socialism.

There are many bold and excellent phrases in the Conservative manifesto: “The attempt to impose a doctrinaire Socialism upon an island which has grown great and famous by free enterprise has inflicted serious injury upon our strength and prosperity. . . . Freedom and abundance—these must be our aims. . . . Confidence and currency are interdependent. . . . The Conservative aim is to increase our national output.” And so on. But when it comes to details, the manifesto promises merely not to carry socialism any further. The Conservatives, in effect, promise to operate existing socialism much better than those who introduced it.

The Conservative manifesto does promise definitely to “stop all further nationalization.” This means repeal of the law to nationalize steel. But the manifesto also promises that “coal will remain nationalized”—though the Conservatives have been repeatedly asserting that coal nationalization has been an utter failure. Quite as important as what the manifesto says is what it does not say. It says nothing about denationalizing the railroads, nothing about denationalizing gas and electricity, nothing about denationalizing telephone and telegraph service, nothing about denationalizing the Bank of England, and nothing about abandoning the National Health Scheme or exchange control. It merely promises to run a few of these schemes more efficiently, to “simplify” and “decentralize” administration, and to “prune waste and extravagance.”

In some respects the Conservatives even try to outbid the Labour Party in socialism, statism, protectionism, and restrictionism. “Housing,” they declare, “is the first of the social services.” And they offer a “target” of 300,000 (mainly government-built) houses a year, compared with Labour’s 200,000. They promise to maintain “guaranteed agricultural prices and markets and protect British horticulture from foreign dumpers.” They warn that: “Food subsidies cannot be radically changed in present circumstances.” And they call for an excess-profits tax—which is hardly calculated to encourage new firms, efficiency, or increased output.

On their side the Labourites contrast the “mass unemployment, mass fear, and mass misery” under the Conservatives in the inter-war years with the miracle of “full employment” that they have brought about. They support this with statistics that are very impressive if taken at face value.

Why, then, are most British voters nonetheless expected to vote Conservative on Oct. 25? One reason, of course, is that they will not be voting on economic issues alone: Many are disgusted by what they regard as the humiliating conduct of the government in the Iranian crisis, for example. Another reason is that, though the Conservatives do not promise them release from socialism, they at least promise not to believe in it, while the Labourites threaten to make it even worse. They threaten to “take over concerns which fail the nation and start new public enterprises wherever this will serve the national interest”; to “limit dividends by law”; to put still more punitive taxation “on the small minority who own great fortunes,” and to “stop all excess profits”—whatever that may mean. (Incidentally, the Labour manifesto’s boast of economic achievements gives not a single line of credit to American aid.)

But one of the chief reasons why many will vote Conservative does not reflect a flattering estimate of the party’s candor. These voters suspect that the Conservatives, particularly if they get a substantial majority in the new Parliament, will proceed to liquidate socialism to a larger extent than they now dare to promise. But whether the Conservatives are in fact prepared ideologically to do this is still an open question.