Socialism and International Economic Order

SOCIALISTS HAVE CONCLUDED that something is fundamentally wrong with the “society” in which they live.1 Consequently, they feel compelled to change it.2

This uncompromising will to reform is directed toward a thorough transformation of existing social and political institutions. Concurrently, it postulates a basic change in human character in the sense of “freeing” men from their narrow, egoistic outlooks. To arrive at lasting happiness and justice, it is thought that human beings must be taught to place more value on the well-being of the community, of which they are but subordinated members, than on personal comfort. A third element is added by the socialist’s contention that history moves in the direction of ever more perfect social conditions—even though it is generally agreed that this development must be aided and accomplished by a restricted group of individuals (aristoi) who possess the indispensable insight into what is just and right and what is therefore in accordance with history. Most socialists are convinced that such absolute knowledge and wisdom really exist. Hence, they demand that all “command positions” of society be transferred to men of superior capacity and character and that these men be given the necessary freedom to carry out their designs. At the root of this postulate is the belief that mankind has been granted the ability to create a near perfect social order on this earth.

The main target of socialist criticism, therefore, is the liberals’3 stress on individual freedom and utility. Such freedom and utility, it is argued, lead to particularism and chaos. Since the profit motive is founded on considerations of individual as distinct from collective welfare, it is, in the opinion of socialists, totally unsuitable as a means of regulating the economy. Unlike the liberals, therefore, the socialists are primarily preoccupied with the exaltation of the community, and the subordination of the individual to it.

The desire to abolish private property has often been identified with socialism. But this is true only to a very limited extent. The authors advocating such a system, from Plato to Owen and his followers (the “communistic” authors as they came to be called) have always constituted a minority among socialist writers. Moreover, the motives underlying their theories were by no means uniform in character. Most socialists, however, while leaving the share of consumer goods allotted by the community to the exclusive enjoyment of the individual, have advocated the collectivization of the means of production. Two major reasons have been advanced in support of this measure: (1) it was alleged to be a requirement of “distributive justice” and (2) it was said to constitute the necessary prerequisite for a rational and sagacious control of the production process. A particular group of socialists was not slow to perceive that this control could be achieved equally well without legally abolishing the private property of capital goods. This group knew it was sufficient to replace individual with centralized decision-making to arrive at the same result. Hence, the essence of socialist doctrine, despite divergence of detail, is the demand for the collective and centralized control of the economic process.

Socialists usually speak of “society,” “community,” or “collectivity” as the basic units of their proposed order. But where are these units located, and in what way are they to share the world’s geographical surface and natural resources? How do the authors whose views will soon be examined deal with the problem of territorial delimitation? We shall encounter four major methods of looking at these questions.

The first group of authors devote their attention to the construction of an abstract, ideal commonwealth and place special emphasis on the internal setup of that commonwealth. The prototype of this imaginary state is a happily ordered island situated in the midst of an ordinary, defective world. Relationships with this world are consequently regarded as undesirable and to be minimized in order to safeguard the achieved standard of social perfection. This Utopian approach is treated in Chapter I.

A second group of socialists simply ignore the existence of national states and conceive the future world as consisting of small, socialistically organized communities whose relations are governed by brotherly love and mutual interests. Such a community can then be thought of as extending to cover the whole world under one single, hierarchically organized body which will guide economic activity and distribute its fruits to those who have the greatest need. These ideas are the subject of Chapter II.

A third group of authors start with the assumption that the greatest evil is to be seen not in the existence of distinct political units, but in the division of mankind into two classes—the exploiting and the exploited. Abolish exploitation and the system on which it rests, say these authors, and you will create an order of perfect harmony and justice. Representatives of this order will consciously combine man’s efforts with the world’s abundant resources to achieve plenty for everyone and universal peace; this age-long dream of all peoples will at last become reality. This is the Marxist approach, dealt with in Chapter III.

Chapter IV is devoted to the practical proposals and implications which socialists advance midway between the realm of ideology and concrete reality. The authors reviewed in this chapter, and indeed in the entire first part, need by no means be “officially” recognized socialists. Their writings or opinions were selected because they appeared relevant to this context, and not because of the author’s political affiliations.

Finally, some writers consider the area within which collective control is to be exercised over economic, as well as political, matters to be identical with the territory dominated by an existing State. This group represents most modern socialists including Marx and Lenin. Their theories on the dictatorship of the proletariat and the international economic implications of the collectivist state are described in Chapter V. The same chapter also contains a section which illustrates the “national socialist” approach.

Socialism is usually regarded as a profoundly internationalist movement. This is because of its emphasis on human equality, solidarity, and brotherhood—ideals which suffer no human division lines. But is collective (that is, centralized economic and political) control, whatever the territory on which it is exercised, compatible with a true international economic order? Let us seek an answer in the writings of the socialists themselves.

NOTES TO PAGES viii-xi

NOTES TO PAGES 1-4

4.“Socialism, then, will flourish in proportion as the consciousness grows that there is something vitally wrong in the industrial organization of society.” Guthrie, W. B., Socialism Before the French Revolution. New York, Macmillan, 1907, p. 68. As Robert Owen expresses it: “Until society can be made to understand the impracticability of improving its conditions under the existing circumstances and can be induced to change these circumstances in toto, no real advantages can be obtained for mankind.” Lectures on an Entire New State of Society. London, 1820, p. 138.

5.Cf. Karl Marx’s 11th Thesis on Feuerbach. In Borkenau, F. (ed.), Karl Marx. Frankfurt/M., Fischer, 1956, p. 42.

6.The term “liberal” is used here in its original European sense. “Liberalism is a belief in the value of human personality, and a conviction that the source of all progress lies in free exercise of individual energy; . . . it therefore involves a readiness to use the power of the state for the purposes of creating the conditions within which individual energy can thrive, of preventing all abuses of power, of affording to every citizen the means of acquiring mastery of his own capacities and of estabhshing a real equality of opportunity. . . .” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. XIII, 1959, p. 999d.

• 1.“Socialism, then, will flourish in proportion as the consciousness grows that there is something vitally wrong in the industrial organization of society.” Guthrie, W. B., Socialism Before the French Revolution. New York, Macmillan, 1907, p. 68. As Robert Owen expresses it: “Until society can be made to understand the impracticability of improving its conditions under the existing circumstances and can be induced to change these circumstances in toto, no real advantages can be obtained for mankind.” Lectures on an Entire New State of Society. London, 1820, p. 138.
• 2.Cf. Karl Marx’s 11th Thesis on Feuerbach. In Borkenau, F. (ed.), Karl Marx. Frankfurt/M., Fischer, 1956, p. 42.
• 3.The term “liberal” is used here in its original European sense. “Liberalism is a belief in the value of human personality, and a conviction that the source of all progress lies in free exercise of individual energy; . . . it therefore involves a readiness to use the power of the state for the purposes of creating the conditions within which individual energy can thrive, of preventing all abuses of power, of affording to every citizen the means of acquiring mastery of his own capacities and of estabhshing a real equality of opportunity. . . .” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. XIII, 1959, p. 999d.
• 4SOCIALISTS HAVE CONCLUDED that something is fundamentally wrong with the “society” in which they live. Consequently, they feel compelled to change it.
• 5SOCIALISTS HAVE CONCLUDED that something is fundamentally wrong with the “society” in which they live. Consequently, they feel compelled to change it.
• 6The main target of socialist criticism, therefore, is the liberals’ stress on individual freedom and utility. Such freedom and utility, it is argued, lead to particularism and chaos. Since the profit motive is founded on considerations of individual as distinct from collective welfare, it is, in the opinion of socialists, totally unsuitable as a means of regulating the economy. Unlike the liberals, therefore, the socialists are primarily preoccupied with the exaltation of the community, and the subordination of the individual to it.