Ideologies and the World Struggle; L. Madland

Ideologies and the World Struggle LEEG. MAD LAND OUR WORLD, few would deny, is in the throes of a major political crisis, a result of a clash of basic and opposing political-economic ideologies. To denote these ideologies and systems in ordinary speech we casually throw around standard political and economic terms such as capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, "left," and "right" with all the self-assurance and confidence of one to whom the meanings of the words he uses are elementary and obvious. In any event, these terms bring an immediate picture to the minds of most of us, followed by a definite Dr. Madland, currently "between jobs" as professor of geography, finds time to free lance on matters of political economy which long have intrigued him. 684 mental reaction based on that image. For example, we think of socialism and communism as· "left ist" systems or philosophies, while capitalism and fascism are com monly characterized as "rightist."

Some influential 'Nriters and opin ion makers go so far as to imply that fascism <including Naziism) is simply an extreme form of capital ism, or at least an outgrowth of it. Avowed socialists and communists, of course, find this view very con genial to their beliefs and do every thing they can to encourage it, if indeed they did not originate it. As a result, the very word "capitalism" has acquired a sort of vague disrepute in America and the other countries of the West-coun tries which, it is generally acknowl1976 IDEOLOGIES AND THE WORLD STRUGGLE 685 edged, owe much of their progress and prosperity since before the Industrial Revolution to the ascen dancy of capitalism, with its emphasis on the autonomy and worth of the individual human being. In any case, capitalism is today a word almost unused in polite society except in a derisive sense, to the point that even most defenders of Western values hesi tate to use it in describing their ideals of free enterprise and freedom of thought.

Capitalism as a system is thus commonly thought of as decadent or at least passe, and the idea is prevalent that the alternatives to it lie in one of two presumably differen t directions :either fascism on the so-called "right," or socialism or communism on the "left:' It is clear that of these alternatives socialism -communism has gained the upper hand today, with the horrors of Hitler' sNaziism still relatively fresh in people's minds <although those who favor commun ism conveniently ignore the at least equal horrors committed in its name). And anyway,· fascism was defeated in World War II, wasn't it? Are Fascism and Communism at Opposite Poles? How valid are these popular ideas? Do communism and fascism really represent opposite poles, with socialism being· either an intermediate stage on the road to com munism or a less extreme product of leftist thinking which can be stop ped short of communism and thus avoid its excesses? Certainly this is the impression unmistakably given by most segments of the American mass media, and such ideas are prevalent abroad as well. And where does capitalism fit in? Or, more concretely, where do we in America and other Western countries fit into the world political spectrum, and, even more im port an t, in which direction are we heading?

In answering these questions, let us take the currently unusual step of defining our terms, using the most concise and to-the-point dic tionary definitions available. This basic approach is warranted by the fact that these terms have been so consistently misused by well-mean ing people unaware of their true implications. Al~o, a little reflection on them should make it clear to any thinking person on which side of the spectrum each of these poli tical economic systems lies, and thus help put them into a true perspec tive. It should then be clear that the issue being discussed here is far more than a matter of semantics or a debate over words, but a basic question involving the very lives of people and nations.- the answer to which the future and even survival of Western civilization, and for that matter all civilization, may depend.

686 THE FREEMAN November With this in mind let us first define capitalism along with a less used but equally significant con trasting term, statism. capitalism: An economic system characterized by private or cor porate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competi tion in a free·market. 1 stati sm: Concen tration of economic controIs and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government. 1 The principle or policy of con centrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. 2 Note that the above two terms are direct opposites. Capitalism, with its reliance on private decision unguided by government decrees, and statism, with it reliance on government authority in all spheres, are in the long run totally incompatible with each other. While statism as a term is not so widely used as the other terms being dis cussed here, it is nevertheless prob1 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1974.

2 The Random House Dictionary (unabridged), 1973. ably the best word available to describe the political-economic pole opposite capitalism, and ultimately the only alternative to it. Capital ism, with its emphasis on individual liberty, rests on a philosophic base of individualism-while statism, with its denial of individual rights and its vesting of effective control in a collective entity, the state, rests on a philosophic base of collectiv ism. Thus, insofar as the political terms "right" and "left" have any concrete meaning, capitalism repre sents the political right; statism the political left. Let us now turn our attention to the three "ism's" most discussed today, all of which have gained control of major nations in recent times, and at least two of which are con tin uing to extend their area of overt control. socialism: Theory or system of social organization by which the means of production and dis tribution are owned collectively and controlled through the gov ernment. 3 communism: A system by which the means of production and distribution are owned and man aged by the government, and the goods produced are shared by all citizens. 3 3 Thorndike-Barnhart, Comprehensive Desk Dictionary, 1967.

1976 IDEOLOGIES AND THE WORLD STRUGGLE 687 fascism: Any system of govern ment in which property is pri vately owned, but all industry and business is regulated by a strong national government. 3 Note the close similarity in the meanings of the above three terms. All of these systems rely on govern ment force to accomplish their ends, and deny individual rights when ever they conflict with those ends. as determined by the collective-that is, by the state. Thus, all three are simply forms of statism, and politically represent the far left. One should not be misled by the nominal private "ownership" allowed by fascism, since ownership without control is a sham, a con tradiction in terms. (That many people have been so misled, however, is shown by the common but un thinking designation of fascism as "rightist:') Fascism and com munism, far from being opposites, are both direct outgrowths of socialist thought and socialist doctrine. They not only share the same collectivist roots but amount to the same thing in actual practice.

It is no coincidence that Hitier's program for Germany was officially known .as National Socialism, the Nazi party platform being clearly socialist in both form and content. Yes, it is true that fascists, socialists, and communists have often been bitter enemies, even to the point of bloodshed and warfare between them. But the special hatred they reserve for each other, sometimes superficially interrupted by temporary alliances, more resem bles the rivalry of greedy brothers fighting over a large inheritance than that of parties disagreeing over basic principles. They share the same basic principle: the collec tivist notion that the preferences of the mass, exercising control through the state, supersede the rights of the individual. In practice, this leads to only one thing: totalitarian dictatorship, exercised by the individual or small .group most adept at manipulating crowd passions and not hesitating to use force against any who refuse to cooperate.

A Deliberate Deception Statists of all denominations have spread the falsehood that the only alternative to fascism lies in the "opposite" direction represented by socialism-communism, in an attempt to stee'r public opinion in their direction through. fear and hatred of the other. In this they have to a considerable degree succeeded. And since fascism, at least;' is no longer fashionable in today's world, the main beneficiaries of this notion have been the socialists and com munists who have managed to bring huge segments of the Western pub lic around to this view, including 688 THE FREEMAN November many political scientists and economists who should know better. Thus a· deliberately fostered misap prehension of words has, through reaction, helped tilt the scales toward a particular style of· collec tivism which, no less than the style reacted against, stands opposed to the most fundamental human values of Western civilization.

Between socialism and commun ism, it is clearly the more militant communism which is making greater gains today, more through force than persuasion-but the point here is that in the end it makes little difference which of the collectivist creeds may come out on top. If any of them do, the loser will be human freedom and human dig nity, the right of an individual to live his own life in peace without fear of suppression of his abilities and desires and the regulation of his actions by an all-powerful state. In the words of former Bri tish Labourite Ivor Thomas: "From the point of view of fundamental human liberties there is little to choose between communism, social ism, and national socialism. They are all examples of the collectivist or totalitarian state .... In its essen tials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from fascism?'4 4 Quoted by F. A. Hayek in the foreword to the American edition of his classic, The Road to Serfdom.

Almost forgotten in the melee of leftist ideologies is the fact that the real alternative, the true opposite of them all, the political-economic system in which the individual is sovereign and the role of govern ment is specifically limited to the protection of its citizens from fraud, force and violence, which gives free scope to the common sense of the people and provides a climate of liberty and incentive for construc tive social change, is capitalism. Under any true capitalistic system the watchword is liberty, and man-individual man-is given his rightful place at the center of his universe, rather than being an indistinguispable speck in a uniform and controlled crowd. In a system based on individual liberty the main task of government is to insure that it remain so, guarding against state intervention into economic affairs in the knowledge that. the worst type of economic power is state power, and that the most dangerous and uncontrollable form of monopoly is state monopoly!

While the key nation in the Western world, the United States, still describes itself as a nation of "free enterprise," in reality the American system today is a mixture of elements of freedom and statist controls, the latter having been introduced with increasing frequen cy in recent decades. It is a v()latile mixture of elements fundamentally 1976 IDEOLOGIES AND THE WORLD STRUGGLE 689 incompatible with each other, which sooner or later must result in the victory of one side or the other. The currently popular political term "middle of the road" in this sense describes a state of continual inter nal warfare, ideological turmoil, and intellectual confusion. The same kind of mixture, in varying degrees, is present in all Western countries, which largely explains the West's lack of moral courage to vigorously oppose the spread of com munism. America today is at the center of the struggle between capitalism and statism, and in her present mixed economy the statist ingre dients are becoming more and more conspicuous. The important ques tion is not whether this statist trend happens to be more par ticularly towards socialism, com munism or fascism (though ele ments of each are present), or towards another collectivist "ism"

yet to be named - since they all lead to the same end. The vital question is whether we shall continue in the direction we have been traveling which leads to tyranny and slavery, or turn around and move in 'the opposite direction which leads to freedom and dignity. One thing is sure: we cannot stand still, as defenders of the status quo would have us believe. Let uS,pausing only long enough to regain our bearings, choose the way of freedom while we still have the choice, and resolutely proceed in that direction with a clear view of the road ahead. , IDEAS ON 46 LIBERTY A Fundamental Antagonism Is IT'1{ FACT of no significance that robbing the government is everywhere regarded as a crime of less magnitude than robbing an individual, or even a corporation? ... What lies behind all this, I believe, is a deep sense of the fundamental antagonism between the government and the people it governs. It is apprehended, not as a committee of citizens chosen to carryon the communal business of the whole population, but as a separate and autonomous corporation, mainly devoted to exploiting the population for the benefit of its own members ... When a private citizen is robbed, a worthy man is deprived of the fruits of his industry and thrift; when the government is robbed, the worst that happens is that certain rogues and loafers have less money to play with than they had before. The notion that they have earned that money is never entertained; to most sensible men it would seem ludicrous.

H. L. MENCKEN, A Mencken Chrestomathy EDWARD COLESON No, this isn't a misprint, a Bicen tennial article that got the wrong label. There have been other spirits besides the "Spirit of '76"; the familiar German word "Zeitgeist" bears witness to this fact. Let us consider two greatly differing eras which were tied to '46-1846 and 1946. In 1846 the free enterprise princi ples enunciated by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, were finally, and with a mig hty flourish, being put into practice in Victorian England. In 1946 the "Welfare State" became official in America, the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave;' Both events fit the spiri t of their age too, as we shall soon discover. It is hard to imagine a greater contrast than the thinking and Dr. Coleson is Professor of Social Science at Spring Arbor College in Michigan. 690 political activities of 1846 as against those of 1946. Both develop ments were characteristic of their time, .and both were the result of a long historical process. In 1846, with the "Repeal of the Corn Laws"