Centralized Democracy

Perhaps the most powerful agent in creating the belief in the possibility of a single central direction by democratic means of the economic life of many different peoples is the fatal delusion that if the decisions were left to the “people” , the community of interest of the working classes would readily overcome the differences which exist between the ruling classes. There is every reason to expect that with world planning the clash of economic interests which arises now about the economic policy of anyone nation would in fact appear in even fiercer form as a clash of interests between whole peoples which could be decided only by force.

On the questions which an international planning authority would have to decide, the interests and opinions ofthe working classes of the different people will inevitably be as much in conflict, and there will be even less of a commonly accepted basis for an equitable settlement, than there is with respect to different classes in anyone country. To the worker in a poor country the demand of his more fortunate colleague to be protected against his low wage competition by minimum wage legislation, supposedly in his interest, is frequently no more than a means to deprive him of his only chance to better his conditions by overcoming natural disadvantages by working at wages lower than his fellows in other countries. And to him the fact that he has to give the product of ten hours of his labour for the product of five hours of the man elsewhere who is better equipped with machinery is as much “exploitation” as that practised by any capitalist.

It is fairly certain that in a planned international system the wealthier and therefore most powerful nations would to a very much greater degree than in a free economy become the object of hatred and envy of the poorer ones: and the latter, rightly or wrongly, would all be convinced that their position could be improved much more quickly if they were only free to do what they wished. Indeed, if it comes to be regarded as the duty of the international authority to bring about distributive justice between the different peoples, it is no more than a consistent and inevitable development of socialist doctrine that class strife would become a struggle between the working classes of the different countries.

There is at present a great deal of muddle-headed talk about “planning to equalise standards of life”. It is instructive to consider in a little more detail one of these proposals to see what precisely it involves. The area for which at the present moment our planners are particularly fond of drawing up such schemes is the Danube Basin and South-Eastern Europe. There can be no doubt about the urgent need for amelioration of economic conditions in this region, from humanitarian and economic considerations as well as in the interest of the future peace of Europe, nor that this can be achieved only in a political setting different from that ofthe past. But this is not the same thing as to wish to see economic life in this region to be directed according to a single master plan, to foster the development ofthe different industries according to a schedule laid down beforehand in a way which makes the success of local initiative dependent on being approved by the central authority and being incorporated in its plan. One cannot, for example, create a kind of “Tennessee Valley Authority” for the Danube Basin without thereby determining beforehand for many years to come the relative rate of progress of the different races inhabiting this area, or without subordinating all their individual aspirations and wishes to this task.

Planning of this kind must of necessity begin by fixing an order of priorities ofthe different claims. To plan for the deliberate equalisation of standards of living means that the different claims must be ranked according to merit, that some must be given precedence over others, and that the latter must wait their turn-even though those whose interests are thus relegated may be convinced, not only of their better right, but also of their ability to reach their goal sooner if they were only given freedom to act on their own devices. There exists no basis which allows us to decide whether the claims of the poor Rumanian peasant are more or less urgent than those of the still poorer Albanian, or the needs of the Slovakian mountain shepherd greater than those of his Slovenian colleague. But ifthe raising of their standards of life is to be effected according to a unitary plan, somebody must deliberately balance the merits of all these claims and decide between them. And once such a plan is put into execution, all the resources of the planned area must serve that plan-there can be no exemption for those who feel they could do better for themselves. Once their claim has been given a lower rank, they will have to work for the prior satisfaction of the needs of those who have been given preference. In such a state of affairs everybody will rightly feel that he is worse off than he might be if some other plan had been adopted, and that it is the decision and the might of the dominant powers which have condemned him to a place less favourable than he thinks is due to him. To attempt such a thing in a region peopled by small nations, each of which believes equally fervently in its own superiority over the others, is to undertake a task which can be performed only by the use offorce. What it would amount to in practice is that British decisions and British power would have to settle whether the standards of the Macedonian or the Bulgarian peasant should be raised faster, whether the Czech or the Hungarian miner should more rapidly approach Western standards. It does not need much knowledge of human nature, and certainly only a little knowledge of the people ofCentral Europe, to see that whatever the decision imposed, there will be many, probably a majority, to whom the particular order chosen will appear supreme injustice, and that their common hatred will soon turn against the power which, however disinterestedly, in fact decides their fate.

Though there are no doubt many people who honestly believe that if they were allowed to handle the job they would be able to settle all these problems justly and impartially, and who would be genuinely surprised to find suspicion and hatred turning against them, they would probably be the first to apply force when those whom they mean to benefit prove recalcitrant, and to show themselves quite ruthless in coercing people in what is presumed to be their own interests. What these dangerous idealists do not see is that where the assumption of a moral responsibility involves that one’s moral views should by force be made to prevail over those dominant in other communities, the assumption ofsuch responsibility may place one in a position in which it becomes impossible to act morally. To impose such an impossible moral task on the victorious nations is a certain way morally to corrupt and discredit them.

By all means let us assist the poorer people as much as we can in their own efforts to build up their lives and to raise their standards of living. An international authority can be very just and contribute enormously to economic prosperity if it merely keeps order and creates conditions in which the people can develop their own life; but it is impossible to be just or to let people live their own life if the central authority doles out raw materials and allocates markets, if every spontaneous effort has to be “approved” and nothing can be done without the sanction of the central authority.

After the discussions in earlier chapters it is hardly necessary to stress that these difficulties cannot be met by conferring on the various international authorities “merely” specific economic powers. The belief that this is a practical solution rests on the fallacy that economic planning is merely a technical task, which can be solved in a strictly objective manner by experts, and that the really vital things would still be left in the hands of the political authorities. Any international economic authority, not subject to a superior political power, even if strictly confined to a particular field, could easily exercise the most tyrannical and irresponsible power imaginable. Exclusive control ofan essential commodity or service (as, for example, air transport) is in effect one ofthe most far-reaching powers which can be conferred on any authority.

And as there is scarcely anything which could not be justified by “technical necessities” which no outsider could effectively question-or even by humanitarian and possibly entirely sincere arguments about the needs of some specially ill-favoured group which could not be helped in any other way-there is little possibility of controlling that power. The kind of organisation of the resources of the world under more or less autonomous bodies, which now so often finds favour in the most surprising quarters, a system of comprehensive monopolies recognised by all of the national governments, but subject to none, would inevitably become the worst of all conceivable rackets-even if those entrusted with their administration should prove the most faithful guardians of the particular interests placed in their care. One need only seriously consider the full implications ofsuch apparently innocuous proposals, widely regarded as the essential basis ofthe future economic order, such as the conscious control and distribution ofthe supply of essential raw materials, in order to see what appalling political difficulties and moral dangers they create. The controller ofthe supply of any such raw material as petrol or timber, rubber or tin, would be the master ofthe fate of whole industries and countries. In deciding whether to allow the supply to increase and the price or the income of the producers to fall, he would decide whether some country is to be allowed to start some new industry or whether it is to be precluded from doing so. While he “protects” the standards of life of those he regards as specially entrusted to his care, he will deprive many who are in a much worse position of their best and perhaps only chance to improve it. If all essential raw materials were thus controlled there would indeed be no new industry, no new venture on which the people of a country could embark without the permission ofthe controllers, no plan for development or improvement which could not be frustrated by their veto. The same is true of international arrangement for “sharing” of markets and even more so of the control of investment and the development of natural resources.

Those who pose as the most hardboiled realists, and who lose no opportunity of casting ridicule on the “utopianism” of those who believe in the possibility of an international political order, yet regard as more practicable the much more intimate and irresponsible interference with the lives ofthe different peoples which economic planning involves; and believe that, once hitherto undreamed-of power is given to an international government, which has just been represented as not even capable of enforcing a simple Rule of Law, this greater power will be used in so unselfish and so obviously just a manner as to command general consent. If anything is evident it should be that, while nations might abide by formal rules on which they have agreed, they will never submit to the direction which international economic planning involves-that while they may agree on the rules ofthe game, they will never agree on the order of preference in which the rank oftheir own needs and the rate at which they are allowed to advance is fixed by majority vote. Even if, at first, the peoples should, under some illusion about the meaning of such proposals, agree to transfer such powers to an international authority, they would soon find out that what they have delegated is not merely a technical task, but the most comprehensive power over their very lives.

What is evidently at the back of the minds of the not altogether unpracticable “realists” who advocate these schemes is that, while the great Powers will be unwilling to submit to any superior authority, they will be able to use those “international” authorities to impose their will on the smaller nations within the area in which they exercise hegemony. There is so much “realism” in this that by thus camouflaging the planning authorities THE PROSPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL ORDER 237 as “international” it might be easier to achieve the condition under which international planning is alone practicable, namely, that it is in effect done by one single predominant power. This disguise would, however, not alter the fact that for all the smaller states it would mean a much more complete subjection to an external power, to which no real resistance would any longer be possible, than would be involved in the renunciation of a clearly defined part of political sovereignty. It is significant that the most passionate advocates of a centrally directed economic New Order for Europe should display, like their Fabian and German prototypes, the most complete disregard ofthe individuality and ofthe rights ofsmall nations. The views ofProfessor Carr, who in this sphere even more than in that of internal policy is representative of the trend towards totalitarianism in this country, have already made one of his professional colleagues ask the very pertinent question: “If the Nazi way with small sovereign states is indeed to become the common form, what is the war about?”! Those who have observed how much disquiet and alarm some recent utterances on these questions in papers as different as The Times and the New Statesman2 have caused among our smaller Allies will have little doubt how much this attitude is even now resented among our closest friends, and how easy it will be to dissipate the stock of goodwill which has been laid up during the war if these advisers are followed.