Advance to the Rear

Mr. Skidmore is a free-lance writer in Spring­field, Missouri.

If the title of this article seems self-contradictory, it is in keeping with the political and economic language of the times. Such is the present state of semantic confu­sion that even the most devout atheist would be sorely tempted to accept a literal interpretation of the story of the tower of Babel. The problem may be seen in other areas perhaps, but nowhere with more disastrous results than in the conflict between individualism and collectivism.

Those who advocate varying degrees of collectivism are labeled, in the news media and in every­day speech, as "liberal," "radical," or "progressive," all of which im­ply eagerness to change. From the labels often applied to the increas­ingly socialistic trend in our "mixed economy," one might con­clude that it is something new and beneficial for freedom lovers everywhere. Alas, such is not the case. The direction in which most of our "social" legislation is carry­ing us, is not forward, but back. If we attempt to follow the "lib­eral" road far enough, we shall be attempting to go back to the days of serfdom and outright slavery.

Perhaps it seems unfair to say that the ideals of collectivism are identical to those of slavery. I have drawn this conclusion, how­ever, not from the statements of its opponents, but from those of its supporters.

Consider, for example, the slo­gan of socialists (and of many "liberals") the world over: "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." How would this slogan, as a policy, differ from slavery? The fruit of a slave’s labor is taken from him according to his ability, as judged by his master, and refusal or fail­ure to produce for the master ac­cording to his need (again decided by the master) results in punish­ment for the slave.

Socialism demands a system of punishments, but not rewards, since rewarding effort does not take "from each according to his ability." True, some socialist na­tions do reward superior produc­tion in specific areas, but even these are only sporadic attempts to imitate the "evils" of capital­ism. The second part of the slo­gan, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need," assumes that the slav­ery implied in the first part will produce enough to satisfy all needs. The periodic famines in the communist countries indicate that this assumption is tragically wrong.

Social legislation is often por­trayed as a boon to mankind whereby the means of production are taken from the hands of capi­talistic "robber barons" and placed under central control for the good of all. Here again, our language shows signs of serious deteriora­tion. Those advocating centralized control of the means of produc­tion are called "progressive" and "liberal," although they recom­mend, implicitly if not explicitly, a return to the times when people were considered primarily as re­sources.

What, exactly, are the means of production for human beings? A factory produces, but the build­ing and operation thereof require a process of thought. The opera­tion of a farm, a mine, a fishery, or an oil field requires systematic, rational, intellectual procedures. The basic human means of produc­tion, upon which all other human means of production depend, is the mind. The collectivist demand for centralized control of the means of production, is a demand for control of the human mind. The war on private property is in reality an attempt to destroy the distinction between people and property.

Those who advocate individual initiative, the free market, and in general, the radically unconven­tional notion that Man, the indi­vidual, belongs to himself as an individual, are labeled — and too often accept the slander — as "re­actionary," "anachronistic," or less severely, "conservative." Admit­tedly, the last epithet is not in­variably derogatory, although lately it has come to suggest an idolater of the Status Quo. The others, however, would seem to imply that competitive enterprise is an attempted return to a bygone era of "robber barons" which is better forgotten.

The opposite is true. Competi­tive enterprise or capitalism is the one economic system which is not dominated by coercion or beggary, but by voluntary production and voluntary exchange. The element of choice which distinguishes a free society from an unfree one is an individual phenomenon rather than a collective one; a slave by majority rule is still a slave, and no less so because slaves may constitute a majority. The distinguishing characteristics of capitalism are free trade and its prerequisite, private property.

Although there are various ways by which you or I can take ad­vantage of the efforts of another, they all fall into one of two cate­gories; we can gain at his expense, or we can gain, but not at his ex­pense. Obviously, if we rob or de­fraud him, our gain is his loss. Likewise, if we beg from him, our gain is his loss, even though it is voluntarily accepted. Only if we trade is our gain also his gain. Trade, however, must be volun­tary; when forced, it becomes just another form of robbery.

Competitive enterprise is based upon free trade, and is therefore the one economic system which does not require victims. This, the self-named "liberals" would have us believe, is an attempted return to a cruel, tyrannical past. I sub­mit that the "wave of the future," if freedom is to have a future, is capitalism.

***

Conflicting Policies

Policies of interventionism and socialism tend to immobilize the population and capital of the world, thus bringing about or main­taining the world divergencies of productivity, of wealth and in­come. A government that nationalizes efficient industries produc­ing for the world market and then mismanages them not only hurts the interests of its own people but also those of other nations living in a world community.

These international conflicts are inherent in the system of inter­ventionism and socialism and cannot be solved unless the systems themselves are abolished. The principles of national welfare as conceived by our progressive planners conflict with the principles of international cooperation and division of production.

HANS F. SENNHOLZ, How Can Europe Survive?