19··55

The Main Gear in the UNc. M. Chen

Labor Pays

for Services RenderedRev. Edmund A. Opitz

The Bear Smiles AgainEugene Lyons

NEWS! ••• FROM THE FORW'ARD LOOK '56

NEWS IN THE FLIGHT SWEEP! ... The year's freshestand truest new note in car design. In one clean sweep from head­lights to up-swept tail, it clearly and unmistakably wraps up thewhole idea of GO! Accenting the low, long, ground-hugging massof the car ... here's the design that looks completely like today,and points clearly to tomorrow, too!

NEWS IN WONDERFUL SAFETY! . .. Brand new Life­Guard door latches that hold fast under stress as none have everdone before. Chrysler Corporation bodies and frames, strongestand most rigid built. The finest, most responsive Power Steering,Power Brakes and engines on the road. And Safety Seat Belts,if you wish, that meet official airplane specifications!

NEWS IN PUSHBUTTON POWERFLITE! ... Newestdriving advance of the year! Put your finger on a button on thedash at your left for whatever driving range you want. Only thedriver can touch it. Safe and convenient as never before. Andremember ... PowerFlite itself gives the finest blend of smooth­ness and swiftness among all automatic transmissions!

NEWS IN 4-DOOR HARDTOPS! ... Now in Plymouth,Dodge, De Soto, Chrysler and Imperial! . . . finest and mostrugged cars of all in this newest body style! The dashing, long,low line of the true hardtop ... but with fu1l4-door convenience.Full side vision, with full-width rear doors and exclusive full­width rear windows in these cars of THE FOR WARD LOOK!

THE BEST NEW CAR NEWS you'llfind this year is in the cars of THEFORWARD LOOK '56 ••• no matter whatthe price range!Here are cars that are full of new ad­vances. Cars that bring things to youother cars do not yet have. Cars thatdo 'things for you other cars are not yetable to do.Here are cars so new and so wonderful

to own you'll feel a new kind of pridewhen you get one. Cars that literallymake driving or riding a new kind ofjoy and satisfaction.

Right now, well over a million familiesown 1955 cars of THE FOR WARD LOOKfrom Chrysler Corporation. Theseowners tell us they have discovered amotoring experience that simply can­not be found anywhere else today. And

now comes the second year of chal­lenge from THE FOR WARD LOOK. Now,for '56, the differences between thesecars and all others become sharper still!

Dealers everywhere are now showing,with great pride, the new Plymouth,Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial.See them, drive them, compare themand you'll agree the biggest and best carnews is from THE FORWARD LOOK '56.

Copyright 1955 by Chrysler Corporation

J. CHRYSLER CORPORATION/.'.<i\??r~ PLYMOUTH. DODGE · DE SOTO · CHRYSLER · IMPERIAL

Tops in TV Drama-"Climax!"-CBS-TV, Thursdays

Keeping America on the GO... with ITIMIErrl Tapered Roller Bearings

Wheat field near Four Lakes, Washington.

How 21J2 million fewer farmers feed 30 million more people

Two and a half million fewerfarmers now have to feed

30 million more people. Injust fifteen years, that manyfarmers have left America'sfarms to work at other jobs.How does a dwindling numberof farmers meet a growing pop­ulation's demand for more andmore food?

Mechanization, that's how!By harnessing millions of ma­chines, they've increased farmproduction 30%, despite alabor loss of two billion man­hours a year.

And trouble - free operationof all this machinery is whatmakes it possible. That's why

every make of farm tractor usesTimken® tapered roller bearings-and why more and more im­plements are using them, too.Timken bearings reduce break­downs because they roll theload, virtuallyeliminate friction.They also mean higher towingspeeds, easier operation, lesstime lost for maintenance. And,in most cases, they last as longas the machines themselves.

Timken bearings are designedto have true rolling motion, andthey're made with microscopicaccuracy to conform to theirdesign. To give them addedtoughness, we make them withnickel- rich steel. And we're

the only American bearingmanufacturer that makes itsown steel.

These are just a few of thereasons why machines equippedwith Timken bearings are pre­ferred by farmers. And that'swhy farm machinery manufac­turers choose Timken bearingsto help keep America on the go.The Timken Roller BearingCompany, Canton 6, Ohio.Canadianplant:St.~~_~_Thomas, ~ -o n tar i 0 • - --

Cable ad- \ /dress:HTIM- Timken bearingsROSCO". on tractor axle

COPYRIGHT 1955 THE T R B co.

OnlyITIMIEN"I bearings roll so true, have such quality thru-&-thru

Editorials

Laws the Government Cannot Make...... 723"Liberalized" 'Trade.................................................................. 724On Brainwashing 725

Tht:; FREEMAN is published monthly at New York, N.Y., by the Irvington Press, Inc.,Irvmgton-on-Hudson, N.Y. Copyrighted in the United States, 1955, by The IrvingtonPress, Inc., Leonard E. Read, President; Fred Rogers Fairchild, Vice President; ClaudeRobinson, Secretary; Lawrence Fertig, Treasurer; Henry Hazlitt and Leo Wolman.

Re-entry as second class matter pending at Irvington, N.Y. with an additional entryat New York, N.Y.

RATES: Fifty cents a copy; five dollars a year; nine dollars for two years.SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE: Send subscription order, correspondence and instructionsfor change of address to:

Articles

The Main Gear in the UN............ .. ........ c. M. CHEN 726Money............................................... ......ALBERT JAY NOCK 729Labor Pays for Services Rendered .... REv. EDMUND A. OPITZ 730Child's History of the People's America FREDERIC NELSON 733The Bear Smiles Again EUGENE LYONS 735Socialis:m in Bloom COLM BROGAN 740Toward an American Collective wILLIAM H. PETERSON 743The Green-Eyed Monster LUDWIG VON MISES 745

This new department of the FREEMAN comesas a result of a remark made at a meeting ofthe staff: "1£ we get such a kick out of theseletters from students maybe our readers wouldlike to look at them." And so, you are invitedto look over our shoulders as we read thecorrespondence from college li!bertarians. Wecannot print all 'the letters, nor print them intheir entirety, but enough will appear under"On Campus" to give you some idea of theanticollectivist revolt brewing in our institu­tions of higher learning.

These letters come to the IntereollegiateSociety of Individualists. There are at thisw,riting over 3,600 students enrolled in this"onganization of ideas." Everyone of thesestudents "joins" by merely requesting thatlibertarian literature \be sent him. And every­one 'can drop out just as easily-so that lSIis indeed a self-selective group. These studentsare the "educable elite," the nonconformistswho question the current Statist orthodoxy,the intellectually curious 'with a "why" alwaysat the tip of their tongues.

A number of our readers have made it possiblefor about a thousand of these students to getthe FREEMAN regularly. All the others shouldbe on our mailing list and we are making aneffort to raise enough money to make that pos­sible. M!aybe you would like to help; four dol­lars will pay for an annual student subscrip­tion; you can name the student (or students)or we will take care of that.

Book Reviews

On Call1pus (See page 748)

Despite the profusion of books coming off thepresses, we find it difficult at times to picktitles enough for review in the FREEMAN. Thatis because we limit ourselves to those booksthat make some contrilbution to the cause offree enterprise, limited government and thephilosophy of individualism. In that category,for good and sufficient reason, the books thatreach us are few and far between. On theother hand, we get a slew that give aid andcomfort to collectivism; o[ these we reviewonly those that have achieved notoriety andthen only to expose them for 'what they are.We leave it to other review media to adver­tise the inconsequential books of that genre.

In pursuance of this policy, if 'books of thekind we ought to review are not forthcomingwe shall limit our review space accordingly.Or, we shall give more space to titles that de­serve more space in the FREEMAN.

VOL. 5, NO. 17

Libertarians

A Monthly

For

FRANK CHOnOROVELEANOR B. ORSINIM. STANTON EVANSHELEN ,CARTIERIVAN R. BIERLY

. 721. FRANK C. HANIGHEN 738

.......................................... 748............................ 756

NOVEMBER 1955

Edi,torAssistant Ediltors

THE

Business Manager

reeman

Contents

Bool{s

A Reviewer's Notebook...... . JOHN CHAMBERLAIN 749Philosophic Decline............... .. E. MERRILL ROOT 751Not Pretty F. R. BUCKLEY 751The Southern Side JAMES FRANCIS MILLER 752Stalin's 'Triumph WILLIAM HENRY CHAMBERLIN 752Decay, Then and Now. .. F. c. 754Modern Gulliver............ .. SAMUEL PETTENGILL 754Every Man an Island. .. ROBERT . PHELPS 754A New Philistine.. ....... .. M. STANTON EVANS 755Foreign Affairs........... .. EDNA HAAS 755

Departments

Readers Also Write.Washington, D. C..On Campus .Well Worth Reading .

The FREEMANSubscription Department

Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.CHANGE OF ADDRESS: Send old address (exactly as printed on wrapper of yourCOpy) and new address, with zone number, if any.

EDITORIAL AND GENERAL OFFICES: Address the FREEMAN, Irvington-on­Hudson, N.Y. The editors cannot be responsible for unsolicited manuscripts unless re­turn postage, or better, a stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed. Manuscriptsmust be typed double-spaced. Articles signed with a name or initials do not neces­sarily represent the opinion of the editors.

Printed in U.S.A. by Blanchard Press, Inc., N.Y., N.Y.

Newcomers this month to our roster of con­tributors:

c. M. CHEN is a mem:ber of the Chinese Na­tionalist delegation to this country. He usesan obviously anglicized name.

FREDERIC NELSON is an associate editor of theSaturday Evening Post.

It seems to meby Philip M. McKenna

President, Kennametal Inc., Latrobe, Pa.

Discrimination against

U. S. citizens must cease I

THE UNITED STATES TREASURY discriminates againstcitizens of this country by refusing to give you and megold in exchange for dollars, while at the same time itdoes not refuse the demands of non-enemy foreigncentral banks and governments for our gold. Theseforeign claimants are accorded the privilege of exchang­ing their dollar credits for gold at the u. S. legal rateof thirty-five dollars for each troy ounce of gold. Youand I do not have this privilege.

u.s. TREASUR,Y

Of course, the Treasury is forced to discriminate. Thelaw suspending specie payments in gold, which waspassed in 1933, makes it illegal for the Treasury to payout gold to U. S. citizens. The Treasury does not refuseother countries, except enemy countries. Does thatmean the United States Government is at war with itsown citizens?

I t seems to me that this discriminatory law should bedropped immediately. In its place we should have a GoldCoin Standard, which would re-establish for us citizensthe same privilege this country now grants to these

foreign central banks and governments. Don't you agree?The Gold Coin Standard would also re-establish both

a good standard of measurement for all financial, busi­ness and long term borrowing for sound purposes andan honest currency. A good monetary standard and asound and honest currency would place limits on wildextensions of credit. Hence, any savings made possibleby industrial progress-such as with Kennametal*, for

AMERICAN

FAMILY

Let's keep the window open for Americans, too

example--would be reflected in lower costs per unitaccompanied by greater purchasing power on the partof buyers.

Many businessmen and citizens generally will beencouraged when our Congress repeals indefensible lawsnow inhibiting us from legal use of our standard money-gold at $35 per ounce.

I urge you to give this your consideration. You maywish to discuss this vitally important issue with others,not excluding public officials and candidates for office. Iinvite you to write to me, too, whether it is about theGold Coin Standard or about Kennametal ... the hard­est metal man has created to help increase productivityby as much as 10 times. KENNAMETAL INC., Latrobe, Pa.

*Kennametal is the Registered Trademark of a series of hard carbide alloysof tungsten, tungsten-titanium and tantalum, for tooling in the. metal­working, mining, and woodworking industries, and for wear parts inmachines and processing equipment.

9401

One of a series of advertisements in the public interest

c:::::;::7~~ " IN 0 U S TRY AND Q cc==J ®~MINING, METAL AND WOODWORKING TOOLS ~.:.:::::::::., IEHHAM. ETAL AB&ON~RESrDN);.ARTS~ r.ilJ1ii~(IDji) ~ /i) /i) WJ~

WEAR AND HEAT-RESISTANT PARTS • • • u-JatititRA4~ u-'4Of/tM4 PERCUSSION AND IMPACT PARTS

This year for Christmas

Give the FREEMAN to a friend ...

show him what Freedom means!

My loddress ..

Please enter Christmas subscriptions as follows.

Enter gift cards in my name ··· .

------------------------------------,The FREEMAN, Irvington-an-Hudson, New York

1. Name............................ 4. Name .

Rates: One subscription $5.00 Two to nine, $4.50 each. Ten or more, $4.00 each.

If you rehel against the serpentinecreepings of socialism - if yourmind and spirit go forth to sustainthe cause of free enterprise, indi­vidual rights, and limited govern­ment - no doubt you recognizehow necessary it is to share theseviews wit'h others.

Here is a way to do it: for Christ­mas, give your friends subscrip­tions to the Freeman - the onemagazine which most consistentlyand uncomp~omisingly rejectsState intervention in the affairs offree men.

$ enclosed

Street ..

City ..

Zone State.......... .. ..

D Bill me later

Street .

City .

Zone State .

Order several Christmas subscrip­tions now-and then, twelve timesin 1956, you'll give your friendsthis dynamic message of freedomto remember you by!

2. Name ..

Street .

City .

Zone State '"

5. Name .

Street ..

City .

Zone State

City........... City ..

Zone State 1 Zone Stote......... I____________________________________J

P.s. - Besides your personalfriends, you may want to send sub­scriptions to your local library, toteachers, a minister or 'a news­paper editor.

3. Name .

Street ..

.... 6. Name ..

Street ..

Prices postpa'id to a single address

Guaranteeing Your Income

Wall Street: American Symbol

AnticommunismA short article in the September issueentitled "An Editorial Problem" is soapt that I cannot resist a comment.

Unfortunately it is not only you whoread these anticommunist manuscripts,or your subscribers who read them inpublished form, who are aware oftheir negative qualities. On the con­trary, there are many excellent cit­izens-friends of mine among them­who are repell€d by this very qualityin articles, books, and many of thetalks by these few commentators onthe radio who are "conservative."

I wonder if it is not due ... to thefact that the writer or speaker is soidentified with the "true liberalism"that it hardly occurs to him to empha­size the alternative to the heresies thathe sees around him.San Francisco, Cal'if. D. HANSON GRUBB

In regard to your editorial (Septem­ber) in which you explain yourreasons for not publishing more anti­communist articles: in the late thirtiesand on through the war years, mostAmericans became so obsessed with

(Continued on p. 722)

STATEMENT OF THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT ANDCIRCULATION REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESSOF AUGUST 24, 1912, AS AMENDED BY THE ACTS OFMARCH 3, 1933, AND JULY 2, 194>6 of the Free­man Magazine, published monthly at Irvington,New York, for October 1, 1965. 1. The names andaddresses of the publisher, editor, managing editorand business manager are: Publisher, The Irving·ton Press, Inc., Irvington, N.Y.; Editor, F,rankChodorov, Irvington, N.Y.; Managing Editor,Eleanor Orsini, Irvington, N.Y.; Business Man­ager, Ivan R. Bierly, Irvington, N.Y. 2. Theowner is: The Foundation for Economic Educa­tion, Inc. (sole stockholder), Irvington, N.Y. 3.The known bondholders, mortgagees, and othersecurity holders, owning or holding 1 per centor more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, orother securities are: None. 4. Parag,raphs 2 and3 include, in cases where the stockholder orsecurity holder appears upon the books of thecompany as trustee or in any other fiduciary rela­tion, the name of the person or corporation forwhom such trustee is acting: also the statementsin the two paragraphs show the affiant's fullknowledge and belief as to the circumstances andconditions under which stockholders and securityholders who do not appear upon the books of thecompany as trustees, hold stock and securities in acapacity other than that of a bona fide owner.Leonard E. Read, President, The Irvington P1ress,Inc. Sworn to and subscribed before me thisSih day of October, 19'5'5. W. Marshall Curtiss,Notary Public. (My commission expires March30, 1956.)

later we discovered we had the accu­mulated interest to pay in one taxyear.... We were saps; we did notrealize the truth of the old sayingabout "the last refuge of a scoundrel";but the unkindest cut of all is to learnfrom the FREEMAN that W€ have beencontributing only tothe national deficit.How do you propose to avoid stagger­ing debt? By keeping out of wars. Iagree.... I would not have enteredWorld Wars One, T1wo, or Three, andI disagreed with this administration'sattempt to put us into World WarFour (in Indochina).Los Altos, Calif. GEORGE T. KEATING

Right to Be Wrong

The article, "The Right to Be Wrong"(September), seems rather out ofplace in a publication like theFREEMAN. There is, O'f cours€, no rightto be wrong, else right and wrongwould be one and the same thing, andour j ails, prisons, etc. would all beinfringing on that "right."

If you will excuse two subj ects inone letter, I would like to say that thearticle "Revolt of the Classes," by F.R. BuckleY,made me very happy. It isthefiLst I have heard of lSI, but as a"rugged individualist," I say morepower to it.Carmichael~ CaNf. CHARLES T. MENTEN

I was ~xtremely glad to see the sound,crisply written, and quite r€alisticarticle on the segregation issue ("TheRight to Be Wrong," September). Itis particularly com'mendable for itsgrasp of the larger issues that under­lie the South's resistance to the Su­preme Court decision, which in itsimplications is dangerous to the liib­erties of the country as a whole andis a threat to much more than theSouth's biracial system.

Mr. McComb, however, is verymuch in error in classifying the "Cit­iz€n's Councils" movement as belong­ing to the "Ku Klux Klan way." ...I have followed the movement closely,particularly in Mississippi. My under­standing is that the movement devel­oped in order to ,prevent and forestallany tendency toward Ku Klux typesof violence, disguise and secrecy. In­quiry would disclose, I think, that theCitizens Councils are organized on apeaceful, educational and legal basis,and that they are led, at least inMississippi, by very able and responsi­ble people.Nashville, Tenn. DONALD B. DAVIDSON

Re1aderJ3

a so wrlt~

Buy Bonds, Bye-Bye

In your "Well Worth Reading" sec­tion (August) you say, "If John Smithbuys a U.S. bond he shares only increating a national deficit." Well, I amJohn Smith. The government ... ex­horted us to buy these bonds-"de­fense bonds," mind you. Every rank­ing executive of management didlikewise, and paid for advertisementsto that effect. They paid us 21J2 pereent, made it difficult to cash them forseveral years, and when we finallylooked at them t€n or twelve years

100-$ 6.00

500-25.00

1000- 45.00

o,rder direct from

10-$1.00

25- 2.00

50- 3.50

The League of Women Voters

Downtown Socialism

Sailesmen for Freedom Wanted

A Farmer Fights for Freedom

Towtatd a Lahor Government

The FREEMAN

Irvington-on-Hudson, N. Y.

REPRINTS

1I1111~ .'I~"'I.CI••••C Illl C5Member: Tile Council of America

CANTON 2. OHIO

The Power Road to Power

Above the Law

of the following FREEMAN arti­

des from recent issues are still

avarilabl,e:

ROMANY is Real Clay Tile. Notmetal, not, pla~tic, not a paintedsurface. The all Clay body is firedin excess of 2,000 deg. F. to assurestrength and unlimited wear. Thehard glazed face' with its mod­ern "Cushion Edge" is one of theeasiest surfaces to keep clean andsanitary. Acid cannot discolor.Fumes cannot penetrate.

Colors to please every desire.More than 34 lovely fade-proofcolors to choose from, many exclu­sive with ROMANY.

Experienced Ceramic Tile Contrac­tors everywhere are available toinstall ROMANY Tile quickly and

efficiently.

NOVEMBER 1955 721

City Zone State _

Name --..;. _

Street _

$1.76

$31.73

3,369.521

BINDERSFOR THE FREEMAN

NEW-A convenient, handy

way to ke,ep back copiels o,f

the FREE'M.AJN for instant ref­

erence: Attractive high-quality

binders in b~autHul blue i'mita­

tion-Ieather, with THE FREEMAN

imprinted on front cover. No

hole-punching required.

24-issue size $2.5012-issue size $2.00

NOW AVAILABLE

Orde,r direct from the FREEMAN

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

Safeway's total net sales for the first 24weeks of 1955 set an all time high.At mid-year 2011 Safeway Stores werein operation in the United States andCanada. The average weekly per storesales for the 1,868 United States storeswas $18,014. Canadian per store weeklyaverage for their 143 stores was $18,534.In the opinion of Management, Safe­way's long range prospects are excel­lent. Sales and profits are expected tobenefit materially from the Company'sconstruction program, which calls forcompletion of two or three high vol­ume, low operating cost retail storesper week.

FIGURES

Comparison o/first 24 weeks 0/1954-55June 18, 1955 June 19, 1954

Net sales • . $887,210,738 $821,863,404Net income (after

all taxes). 5,553,500 6,615,971Total net

assets . • 168,017,753 165,847,270Total current

assets • . 287,650,991 * 246,826,572Total current

liabilities . 156,733,595* 132,778,901Earnings per share on

Common Stock-afterdeducting preferreddividends . $1.29

Book value per share ofCommon Stock $32.40

Average number sharesCommon Stockoutstanding 3,489,184

Number of storesin operation 2011 2016

*Ratio of current assets to current liabilitiesas of June 18, 1955 was 1.84 to 1.

afeway Stores,Incorporated

War/d's Second largest Retail Food Concern

Half Year Business Briefs

D Bill me later

D Two years ($9.00)

English LiberalsAs, an English Liberal, might I sayhow much I admire your pUblication.You have, however, a tendency toview the Liberal party in England asa home for sentimental socialists andsuper-staters. This is not so; for wehave many sturdy individualists andfree economy men in our ranks andamong our leadership. We may havesome black sheep around, but we arefighting for free trade and againstfarm subsidies! What about theG.O.P.?Kent, England A. J. S. ADDISON

What, indeed?-ED.

Some years ago an astute politicianremarked, "You can always dependon the American voter voting right,but he must be hanging over a preci­pice before he does so."Centerville, Mass. WILLIAM EWALD

Selling FreedomI t is refreshing to read an article suchas "Salesmen for Freedom Wanted"(September). . . . In plain, terse sen­tences it gives the lie to the falsepropaganda which such speakers asTruman and columnists of the ThomasL. Stokes type, continually feed topoorly informed millions of voters.

We seem to 'be in great need .offorceful salesmen who can and will,without fear of political repercussions,answer these propagandists withactual figures and result5 achieved.Toledo, Ohio w. F. MOORE

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York

D Payment enclosed

D One year ($5.00)

Please enter my subscription to the FREEMAN for

A Handy Way to Subscribe

(Continued from p. 721)anti-fascism that they were blind tothe threats of communism. Now they-or I should say some of the,m-areblinded to other threats to freedom bytheir obsession with communism. Ithink thait the real job of the liiber­tarian is to get across the concept thatthere are really only two basic formsof government-freedom of the indi­vidual with restricted government, orrestricted individuals with freedomonly for the government.Falfurrias, Tex. GARDNER B. MILLER

"National Interests"James Burnham in his ... "No Fire­crackers Allowed" (O,ctober) remarksthat "in recent years there does notseem to be much effort to convinceyoung ,men to volunteer, or to explainthe national goals and interests thatmight inspire citizens to enlist of theirown freewill."

Is there not a good possibility thatan attempt to explain our "nationalgoals and interests" might touch off afirst-class debate? H'aving gotten pos­session of the young men, through thedraft, the "me,chanical state" presum­ably does its explaining; although Idid read a newspaper item not longago to the effect that General Hersheycomplained of the Army having toteach men the "why" as well as the"how" of what they were doing, say­ing that "some place our homes,schools, or churches are failing" inthis. matter.

Boston, Mass. RICHARD T. HALL

Please check here if renewal subscription D Safeway Stores, INCORPORATED4th and Jackson Streets • Oakland, Calif.

722 THE FREEMAN

THE

reemanNOVEMBER 1955

Laws the Government Cannot Make

SEVERAL READERS, businessmen, took exceptionto :a remark I made in an editorial on theminimum wage law. I said the law was not

enforceable, !and the impression these men got wasthat ,the FREEMAN 'was edUorially lined up withlawbreaking. 'The misunderstanding was due to agrievous and frequent fault in my writing, thatof assuming that the reader can fill in the reason­ing behind some sweeping remark. That is tech­nically c;alled "tight" writing; H is bad wrLting.

When I said the minimum 'wage law is not en­forceable I implied that it is in conflict with aforce of higher potency and itherefore ,could notbe made Ito 'work. I had in mind what is sometimescalled "natural law." I,t is due time that I spelledout this concept, because the advocacy of the freeeconomy, to which the FREEMAN is dedicated, rests,upon it. We are opposed to socialism, or theplanned economy, not as a matter of taste, butbecause we are eonvinced that the inevitable con­sequences of it are socially undesirable, and thatthese consequences are inevitable because parlia­mentary interventions in the economy run upagainst inexorable natural for,ces which do notbend to the will of men.

'The case for the free economy hangs on thetheory that "natural law" operates in the fieldof economics even as j,t operates in the field ofphysics.! Just as stepping off a high place will befollowed by destructive consequences because thelaw of gravi,tation is at work, so man-made lawsthat do not 'take into account the inexorable lawsof economics must result in economic disorder.

A "natural law" is simply an invariable causalrelationship between events. It is derived fromclose observation of how nature applies meansto ends. Thus, we see that a certain seed willblossom only when it drops on a given soil, with agiven amount of moisture and with proper ex­posure to the sun; na,ture so dictates, and all lawspassed by 'Congress cannot change this causal re­lationship. If we want that kind of flower or vege­table, we make sure that we plant ,that seed in amanner harmonious to nature; we do not try to

get the desired results from ground that does nothave sunlight or water. What we learn fromnature we apply to our own ends, which is thereason we study nature to ascertain her laws.

The progress that man has made in science hasbeen due only to his constant, meticulous and ob­jective study of nature. When he finds "in the na­ture of things" some invariable cause-and-effectrelationship, he ,sets it down in a formula, and callsthat a "natural lalw." He then has a positive guideby which to predict what will happen if he does soand so. He does not ask a policeman or a "medi­cine man" or a golden calf to produce the resultshe has in mind; he knows what will happen be­cause he has ascertained how nature always doesit. Science is, in the final analysis, a search for thelaws of nature-even if the scientist prefers tocall them !by some other name.

Whether he knows it or not, or even if he hasnever given thought to it, the advocate of the freeeconomy assumes that in the field of economicsthere are inexorable laws of nature. He rejectsthe thesis of the planner that economics is merelya branch of politics. He maintains that politics isto production and exchange what sand is to a deli­cate machine-a distuDbing or inhibiting intrusion,a cause of f'riction; if not removed it will ultimate­ly stop the economy. Why? Because poHtics is theart of ruling and can be applied to human behaviorbut not to the operation of economic laws. Theykeep on their appointed way regardless of KingCanute's fiat.

Take the case of the mInImum wage law. Itassumes that the wages of a worker can be po­litically fixed. Yet it is an invariable fact that therate of wages is a ratio 'between the number oflaborers willing to apply themselves to prOduc­tion and the demand for their output. No police­man can change this ratio; no amount of politicalforce has ever been able to change it. When forceis attempted and wages are arbi,trarily raised, theresult is to decrease the demand for the thingproduced, which in turn reduces the demand forlabor; or, the market takes resort to circumven-

NOVEMBER 1955 723

tion .af the arbitrary force, so as to make it in­effective; or, 'the government dist'ributes moremoney, or claims on production, which in turnreduces the purchasing power of the arbitrarilyraised wages. In any ,ease, the ratio between thenumber of laborers and the demand for their out­put remains constant. It is "in the nature ofthings."

In our practical behavior we recognize thisconstant. If the demand for turnips pays lowerwages, we plant less of tha,t ,commodity and turn toraising something wanted more. Then, again, wetry to anticipate the kind of services that will hewanted in directing the training of our children;right now, because engineers are in great demand,and therefore earn high wages, the engineeringschools are well patronized. It is only in our i.m...;practical, or political, behavior that we try toregulate what cannot be regulated, the law ofwages.

Behind the minimum wage law is the admittedfact that the supply of marginal workers is greaterthan the demand for their services. Our sympathyfor these human beings prompts us to forget thelaw of wages and to resort to force. Nevertheless,as consumers, our humanitarianism falls apart andwe refuse to pay the higher price which thearbitrarily imposed wages make inevitable. Wewho pass laws refuse to abide by the consequences.The marginal worker, the supposed beneficiaryof the minimum wage law, is out of work andearns no wages at all. A machine takes his place.

But, the marginai worker must live, and hisurgency to do so leads to lawbreaking. The "blackmarket" comes into ibeing. Since the consumerwill not pay the legally established price for hisservices, he will take less and will resort to allsorts of subterfuges to earn some sort of a livingillegaNy. One device is to work by the week with­out recording the number of hours put in; anotheris to work by the job, not by the hour. I recall thecase of a girl of less than normal intelligencewho was not worth the required minimum wage;her mother, iworking in the same plant, offered togive the employer part of her own wages to makeup the difference between what her daughter wasworth and what the law demanded.

During the OPA days we had what amounted toa maximum wage law. It did not work. Employers(even those producing for the government underpenalty of not delivering on time), were forcedto circumvent ,OPA regulations in order to carryout the terms of their contracts; sometimes a keyworker's rent was paid by the employer andcharged to "business expense," sometimes his non­working 'wife was put on the payroll. The OPAregulations did not regulate it. It is not moral tur­pitude that causes the breaking of the la'w when itviolates the invariable law of wages. The cause isin the legislation.

724 THE FREEMAN

No, the FREEMAN does not advocate laworealnng.But it recognizes the fact that when a law runscontrary to "natural lalw," lawbreaking is inevi­table. And it insists that the free economy-some­thing no people have fully enjoyed anywhere-isin the "nature of things," not in the statutes.2

1 Some economists-of the laissez-faire school-find the "naturallaw" theory repugnant, mainly because it involves a metaphysicalargument which they deem both unnecessary and irr.elevant. Theyhold that the free economy proves itself by its efficiency. its utili­tarianism. Socialism, they maintain, is disqualified ,by the scarcityit produces. But, why does socialism result in an economy ofscarcity? To answer that "why" you must take recours,e to theargument that there are economic forces which operate regoardilessof man-made law.

2 For a full analysis of the doctrine, read The Law, by FredericBastiat. Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson,N. Y. $1.25.

''Liberalized'' Trade

C USTOMERS, according to an old business saw,are of two kinds: those who do not let you eat

and those who do not let you sleep. In this classifi­cation, the politics of buyers plays no part. Suchthings do not count; only their willingness to paya price that will yield a profit and their abilityto pay their bills.

When the State turns businessman, this classifi-cation becomes extinct. To the merchant-State agood customer is a probable ally, or one that canbe bribed into becoming an ally, and a badcus­tamer is a possible enemy. Politics, not profit, is themeasuring stick. A loss can be made up by taxes,and even the nonpayment of the bill is of no con­cern, since the books can (be balanced by a "loan"to the defaulting buyer.

This distinction between private business and abusiness in which the State acts either as principalor as permissive agent will be 'brought out in thecoming session of Congress. The question of "lib­eralizing" trade with Russia is on the agenda; and,from past performances, we can predict that theeconomic plight of England will come up. Let's lookto the Russian question first.

1f a businessman were to consider trading withthe USSR, his first question would tbe: Can I trustthose fellows to pay their bills? On the basis oftheir past performances, the Kremlin would hardlypass muster as a credit risk. Therefore, if the mat­ter were left to the businessman, acting entirelyon his own, all trade with the Soviets would haveto be on a spot cash basis. Under those circum­stances, very little goods would move from thiscountry to behind the Iron Curtain.

'Then there is the matter of profit. All trade isthe exchange of goods for goods; a merchant ac­cepts money for his goods only because he has con­fidence that the money will fetch him more goods.A seller considers the trade profitable because hegives up goods he values less in order to get goodshe values more. So, the question of "liberalizing"

trade with Russia (provided it were left to privatebusiness) rests on the possibility of getting fromthat realm goods we value more than the goods wehave to give up to get it.

What has Russia got in the way of a bargain? Itis admitted, even by the commissars, that produc­tion costs under socialism are high as compared toproduction costs in this country; therefore, hermanufactured goods are not likely to attract Amer­ican buyers. That limits possible trade with Russiato such minerals as may lie in profusion within herborders. Hence, if "liberalization" means permit­ting American concerns to do business with theSoviet crowd, the transactions would be confinedto the swapping of our manuf1actures for her min­erals, on a barter basis. The volume could notamount to much.

Unless, of course, "liberalization" means that theUnited States government (the merchant-State)would handle the transactions. In that case, thevolume would be considerably greater, because thegovernment, minding politics only, would guar­antee American concerns against nonpayment; or,maybe the United States Treasury would handthe Russians its taxpayers' dollars so that they canpay for the goods they "buy" from us.

So much for Russia. Reports from one of ourmost "liberalized" customers, England, are disturb­ing; her export situation is on the downgrade,meaning that she is finding it hard to sell her prod­ucts abroad. The cost of maintaining her social­istic paraphernalia has boosted the price of hergoods beyond that of her less wasteful competitors,particularly West Germany and Japan. Price­conscious buyers won't pay for "welfarism."

,And England, as is well known, must export,simply because she must import food for her wel­farees to live on and raw materials for her pam­pered workers to work on. Her problem could besolved by the simple process of reducing her manu­facturing costs, which means the abandonment ofthe policy of pay for no work. 'That, however, ispolitically dangerous. The prospect is that Englandwill continue on the course that is pricing her outof the world market.

That would mean, for us, the weakening of anally upon whom we rely in the cold war" if not inthe prospective hot one. To prevent such a calam­ity, our merchant-'State will come to the rescueof her socialistic economy by further "liberaliza­tion" of trade with England. Dollars will be madeavailable to her so that she can "buy" our goods­if not with a direct grant or "loan," then withstepped up "offshore" spending for "defense," orsome other device cooked up by our State Depart­ment.

If the reader cannot reconcile the prospect of"liberalizing" trade with a possible enemy and

with a potential ally, it is because the reader istrying to reconcile common sense with politicalwisdom; it can't be done.

On BrainwashingT HE ONLY effective antidote for a lie is the

truth. But you cannot use the truth unless youknow it. In the absence of such knowledge thelie carries weight.

This was the obligato of a recent report by theDepartment of Defense on the brainwashing ofAmerican prisoners by their Chinese captors. Thegist of the report was that the boys had no answersto the arguments of the Communists--ithey knewneither communism, what it really is, nor thephilosophy of freedom. In effect, the report under­lined a deficiency in our current educational cur­riculum: the lack of emphasis on .the doctrine ofinherent rights, the concept of limited government,the proven £act that the politlical establishment cando nothing that individual initiative cannot dobetter. These are axioms in traditional American­ism; the boys had not been exposed to them intheir schooling and therefore could not throwthem at their tormentors. They were easy prey forindoctrination.

Come to think of it, is this ignorance confinedto boys just out of high school or college? Howmany Americans who came into maturity sincethe advent of the American brand of socialism,euphemistically called New Dealism, are familiarwith ,the indigenously American philosophy sothat they can recognize its essential opposition tocommunism? For instance, how many know thatsocial security is in no way akin to insurance, asadvertised, but is in faet a step forward towardStatism,which is the essence of communis.m? Asis so-called unemployment insurance, or "farmrelief," or State-controlled education, or State­sponsored power plants? Do the bankers knowthat they are pushing themselves out of the privatebanking business by buying government bondswith their depositors' money? That they are ac­tually preparing the way for government controlof the economy, even as it is under communism?

The lie has a way of filling in the vacuum cre­ated by ignorance. Communism, or Statism, in­sinuates itself into our consciousness because weare unprepared to oppose it with understanding.If we do not recognize in every measure paradingunder the name of "welfarism" a step toward theenlargement of State power and the consequentdiminution of individual dignity, we are as sus­ceptible as were the boys who fell into the handsof the Communists. And we are being brainwashed-not by doctrinaire Communists, but by power­hungry demoniacs in our midst.

NOVEMBER 1955 725

The Main Gear •In the UN

By C. M. CHENCan "international peace and security" be implementedthrough the UN? Not while terms oj the Charter enableRussia to run the show, a former UN delegate declares.

When Dr. Eelco van Kleffens, chairman of theUnited Nations tenth anniversary commemorativeconference, trJed to silence Cuba's Emilio NunezPortuondo and Nationalist China's George K. C.Yeh for attacking communism, the world got aglimpse of the peculiar climate which character­izes the thinking and action of the UN.

Dr. van Kleffens is neither procommunist norpro-Soviet. But he had to stop criticism of theSoviet Union because the UIN c.annot exist withoutthe participation and the support of Moscow.

'The climate of the UN is the child of the Char,teritself. On the one hand, the Charter contains aparcel of high-sounding clauses reaffirming faithin fundamental human rights and calling for themaintenance of international peace and security.On the other hand, the Charter makes the SovietUnion, one of the mos1t tyrannical and bellicosenations of the world, a permanent member of theSecurity 'Council, endowed with the right of veto.She is in a posiHon to blolck any UN measurewhich might implement the high-sounding clauses.

The idea of the veto was first sugges1ted at theDumibarton Oaks Conversations in the fall of 1944.It was agreed upon in the Yalta conference inFebruary 1945. Thus, long before the San Fran­cisco conference convened in April 1945, the bigpowers had fixed the veto into the unwritten char­ter. Some of the "middle" and "small" powers atSan Francisco protested loudly and vigorously, butto no avail. Stalin's position was unequivocal: noveto, no UN. Since then, the Soviet Union has castsixty~one vetoes. Far from being the "action body"of the UN, the Security Council is paralyzed. TheCharter talks about "the equal rights ... of nationslarge and smalL" The Soviet Union dominatesthe UIN completely.

,Apologists for the UN protest that the situationis not nearly as bad as it appears to be. Concedingthat the Security Council is not wha1t it shouldbe, they assert that the free nations, led by theUnited States, have outsmarted the Russians andhave shifted the center of gravity of the UIN tothe General Assembly in which the veto does notapply. The General Assembly, they claim, hastaken over the task of maintaining internationalpeace and security.

Such talk is unsupported by the facts. However,it requires close examination because it comesfrom high sources, such as Dean Acheson, Trygve

726 THE FREEMAN

Lie, Eleanor Roosevelt and the American Associa­tion for the UN.

'The late Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg oncesaid that the Assembly would be the "Town Meet­ing of the World." Composed of all member na­tions of the UIN, large and small, it is supposed toreflect "the 'collective opinion" of the internationalcommunity. Be that as it may, the Charter itselflimits the Assem1bly to making recommendations,and that's all.

Corrective Measures Sabotaged

In 1947, General George C. Marshall, then Sec­retary of State, sought to overcome the paralyzingSecurity Council by settling up an Interim Com­mittee of the Assembly to sit between the annualsessions of the General Assembly. Andrei Vishin­sky promptly denounced the proposal as "un­constitutional," and announced that the Sov,ietUnion and its satellites would have nothing to dowith it. The Interim Committee, or the LittleAssembly as it was nicknamed, died a-borning.

In 1949, another Secretary of State, Dean Ache­son, proposed a "Uniting for Peace" resolution,permitting the convocation of the General As­sembly on twenty-four-hour notice, setting up aPeace Observation Commission, and recommend­ing that the member nations hold availaible in theirnational armed forces contingents to respond tothe call of the UN" with further amplification ofthe system to be studied by the Collective Meas­ures Committee. This resolution leads many tobeliieve that the Charter is "flexible," and that itwas adopted to overcome the crippling Sovietveto.

I was on the Political Committee of the GeneralAssembly when this proposal came up for debate.Vishinsky was at his best. A,gain he argued thatthe measure was "unconstitutional." The SovietUnion decided to sabotage the whole thing; hislegal arguments were only window-trimming.

Has the Assembly been called in emergencysession? No. Has the Peace Oibservation Commis­sion done anything subs:tantial? No. Has anyoneof the sixty member nations designated militarycontingents to serve UIN purposes? No.

When the 'Chinese Communists set up theirre,gime in Peiping in Olctoiber 1949, Stalin decidedthat Mao's government sh'ould be admitted into the

UN. When the UN showed some hesitation, JacobMalik promptly walked out of all UN meetings.

The Soviet walkout of 1950 rocked the UN toits foundation. Secretary General Trygve L,ie be­came pani.cky. The UN General Council, AlbrahamFeller (who jumped to his death in 1953 duringthe McCarran hearings on communist infiltraNoninto the UN), prepared a memorandum supplyingthe legal arguments in favor of admission of RedChina into the UN. "The quesHon at issue," FeUeropined, "should be which of these governments(nationalist or communist) in fact is in a positionto employ the resources and direct the people ofthe State in fulfillment of the olbHgations of mem­bership." The Charter provision that member na­tions must be "peace-loving st,ates" was completelybrushed aside.

Armed with Feller's memo, Lie toured themajor capitals of the world. Lie, of course, had notrouble with Stalin, whose cause he was cham­pioning. London, which had already recognizedPeiping, presented no difficulty. Paris hesitatedonly because Mao Tse-tung had recognized HoChi-minh, who was fighting French colonialismin Indo China. Washington alone was difficult. Liebelieved this was due to "'Chiang Kai-shek's pow­ful and well financed 'lobby' in the United States,"rather than to the aroused public opinion againstPeiping's barbaric behavior toward Americans inChina.

Lie believed that his campaign was "in thebest interests of the Organization." He wrote theNor1wegian Foreign Minister: "I have no desire tobe sitting here with the sole responsibility, shouldthe United Nations collapse." The Soviets mustbe brought back at any cost. He appeared genuine­ly hurt when somebody called him "a stooge ofthe Reds."

The Climate of the UN

In fairness to Lie, it should be said that hew,as only reflecting the climate of the UN. It ispois'onous and conta,gious. As soon as one getsinto the glass house along New York's East River,his views on world affairs somehow undergo achange. As he walks out, he is likely to leave asubstantial chunk of his common sense behind.

A couple of years ago, I met a member of Con­gress serving on the American Delegation. It be­came clear to me that the climate of the Delegates'Lounge had claimed another victim. "How won­derful it is," my friend said to me, "to have dif­ferent people from different countries of the world,embracing different ideologies and worshippingdifferent gods, come together to talk things over!As I have always said, as long as we keep on talk­ing, we would not be shooting at each other." Hehad been brainwashed by the climate.

The most distinguished characteris:tic of the UNclimate is that the Russians must always be ac-

commodated. This must be done to avoid anotherwalkout or withdrawaL To put it another way,the Russians hold in their hands the power ofblaickmail over the UN.

During the UN's ten-year existence, the Sovietdelegates have attacked practically every noncom­munist ,country in the world. In all that time, onlyone serious attempt was made to bring the SovietUnion to the bar. That was the charge of Sovietaggression against China brought by the ChineseNationalists in 1949. Nationalisit China's case wasso well documented, inclUding 455 cases of Sovietmurders and rapes in Manchuria, that Malik re-

I~JHIIrNfii][DONE

HIEREo

UN Delegates' Lounge

fused to take part in the debate. The pathetic thingwas the fear on the part of the British (Sir Glad­wyn Jebb) and the United States (Philip C. Jes­sup). They just could not bring themselves to sayone harsh word on Russia's atrocious behavior inManchuria. Only the small nations, such as Cuba,Ecuador and Peru, were brave enough to challengethe Russian bear. The so-called big powers de­voted themselves to parliamentary maneuvers tosquash China's charge. In his private conversa­tions with the Chinese delegate (Tingfu F.Tsiang), Philip Jessup even threatened to "attackthe Chinese National Government in the debate."In the final taUy, the United States voted withthe Soviet Union and in the minority.

'The UN war in Korea inflicted 140,000 casual­ties upon the United States, not to mention themillions suffered by the Repuhlic of Korea. In

NOVEMBER 1955 727

the protracted debates in the U,N year after year,scarcely any mention has been made of the tanksand MLG's and military advice supplied by theSoviet Union to the Korean and Chinese Com­munists. Not one word was uttered by the bigpowers condemning Russia's complicity in thecrime. In the end, the UiN, at the suggestion ofIndia, even accepted the Soviet satelHtes, Polandand Czechoslovakia, as members of the NeutralNations Supervisory Commission.

Vi/hen I joined the representatives from othernations to journey across the American continentin April 1945 to attend the San Francislco Confer­ence on a special de luxe train provided by theState Department, our train w'as met at everystop by enthusiastic crowds. When we arrived atSan Francisco, a smiall girl walked up to shake myhand and exclaimed: "Thank you, sir, for bringinghistory to San Francisco." On our way back theCalifornia wine industry supplied us with freedrinks. Jealous Los Angeles provided us with carschauffeured by volunteer housewives. Hollywoodoutdid all the others by assigning to each one ofus .a genuine movie Sitar as a guide. The beautifullady assigned to take me around even asked formy autograph. In return, I asked for hers on myconference identification card whi.ch now bears

three names: the movie star's, mine as bearer ofthe 'card and that of Alger Hiss, the General Sec­retary of the conrference who issued the card.

The enthusiastic hope which characterized thebeginning of the U'N has not abated among Amer­icans. It is rather stronger than ever. And whenone questions the usefulness of the organization,on the hasis of fact, the usual repor.t is that Char­ter revision, due this year, will correct its defects.But will there be any revision? Will anythingsubstantia'l come from the hearings of the SenateForei.gn Relations on Charter revision?

As long as the Russians are in the UN, the UNmachinery will not undergo any change. The Rus­sians like the UN as it is. The Alice-in-Wonder­land climate is congenial to the men from Moscow.What more can they ask for than an organizationthat they can completely dominate? WheneverMolotov, Gromyko, Malik and Sobolev speak, thesessions are always jammed and the galleriespacked. The New York Times will carry storiesof their speeches on the front page and the fulltexts inside. When a delegate from anothercountry wants a photograph as a souvenir, allhe has to do is to walk over to shake hands· orchat with one of the Soviet bigwigs. The Russiansare the stars of the show.

Colonialism a la Moscow

T HE MOST telling event of the past month wasthe walkout of the French Delegation from the

General Assembly of the United Nations. It wasan augury of the eventual crack-up of this inter­national monstrosity. When foreign diplomats un­dertake to debate the "domestic" affairs of a nation-and that is how the French look upon the pro­posed inquiry into its suzerainty over North Africa-it is simply impossible for that nation to recog­nize or take part in the discussion; its sovereigntyis at stake. France is admittedly a second-ratepower and the members of the General Assemblydid not think that offending it would endanger thelife of the United Nations. But, suppose there werean uprising in Czechoslovakia and the Assemblyvoted to look into the matter, how would the Sovietdelegation react? And if it took a walk, a long walk,could the United Nations stand up under theshock?

The question which the General Assembly puton its agenda is French colonialism. The communistbloc voted in favor of the resolution, thus demon­strating that the Kremlin is definitely opposed tocolonialism. Yet one wonders how a clear distinc­tion can be made between a colony and a satellitecountry. In both cases an alien people are putunder the domination of a foreign government andare exploited by it. The difference is in method

728 THE FREEMAN

only. In the old-fashioned colonialism theconquerorimposes its own regime on the conquered, while inthe new styIe colonialism, as developed by thoseclever Communists, native puppets carry out theorders of the conqueror. The satellite nation retainsthe appearance and structure of an independententity, although in reality it must do as it is told.

The Russians have repeatedly given notice thatthe question of satellite states is beyond the pur­view of the United Nations or any other inter­national :body, thus underscoring the ·colonial char­acter of these states; they belong to the Kremlin.And the hypocritical internationalists-"in the in­terest of peace"-have accepted this distinction be­tween a satellite and a colony. But in due time­it has always happened in the past-a Tito on theperimeter of the Soviet Empire will decide to go italone, free from Moscow. When the noncolonialrulers of the Empire meet the challenge by invad­ing the rebellious satellite country', will the Gen­eral Assembly decide to debate the merits of thecase? If they do, how will the United Nationsstand up?

The French did not pull out of the SecurityCouncil. 'There it can use its veto to vitiate any de­cision taken by the General Assembly. Thus theveto becomes an instrument for saving the UnitedNations from collapse.

MoneyBy ~J\lIBERT JAY NOCK

The "hurricane of farcicality" which the Spanishphilosopher Ortega y Gasset speaks of as ragingthrough Western society at this time played in­ordinate tricks with the structure of economic law.Many no doubt remember the "new economics"hatched in the consulship of Mr. Coolidge, wherebyit was demonstrated beyond question that creditcould be pyramided on credit indefinitely, and allhands could become r,ich with no one doing anywork. Then when this seductive theory blew upwith a loud report in 1929, we began to hear of theeconomics of scarcity, the economics of plenty, andthen appeared the devil-and-all of "plans," notionsabout pump-priming, and disquisitions on thepracticability of a nation's spending itself rich.America's economic aberrations during 1920-1942... defied all criticism, surpassed all comment;they stood entirely outside the purview of seriousconsideration. . . .

What Will Money Buy?The oddest of these infatuations is perhaps worth

a word or two because only now, at the time I amwriting this [1943], it seems to have reached itspeak. Ever since 1918 people everywhere havebeen thinking in terms of money, not in terms ofcommodities; and this in spite of the most spec­tacular evidence that such thinking is sheer insan­ity. 'The only time I was ever a millionaire waswhen I spent a few weeks in Germany in 192:3. Iwas the proud possessor of more money than onecould shake a stick at, but I could buy hardly any­thing with it. I crossed from Amsterdam to Berlinwith German money in my bill-fold amountingnearly to $1,250,000, prewar value. Ten yearsearlier I could have bought out half a Germantown, lock, stock and barrel, with that muchmoney, but when I left Amsterdam my best hopewas that it might cover a decent dinner and anight's lodging. One might suppose that a glanceat this state of things would show the whole worldthat money is worth only what it will buy, and ifit will not buy anything it is not worth anything.In other words, one might suppose people wouldbe set thinking, not at all about money, but aboutcommodities.

But nothing of the kind happened. The generalpreoccupation with money led to several curiousbeliefs which are now so firmly rooted that onehardly sees how anything short of a collapse ofour whole economic system can displace it. Onesuch 'belief is that commodities-goods and serv­ices-can be paid for with money. This is not so.Money does not pay for anything, never has, never

will. It is an economic axiom as old as the hillsthat goods and services can be paid for only withgoods and services; but twenty years ago thisaxiom vanished from everyone's reckoning, andhas never reappeared. No one has seemed in theleast aware that everything which is paid for mustbe paid for out of production, for there is no othersource of payment.

Another strange notion pervading whole peoplesis that the State has money of its own; and no­where is this absurdity more firmly fixed than inAmerica. The State has no money. It producesnothing. Its existence is purely parasitic, main­tained by taxation; that is to say, by forced levieson the production of others. "Government money,"of which one hears so much nowadays, does notexist; there is no such thing. One is especiallyamused at seeing how largely a naYve ignoranceof this fact underlies the pernicious measures of"social security" which have been foisted on theAmerican people. In various schemes of pension­ing' of insurance against sickness, accident, un­employment and what-not, one notices that thegovernment is supposed to pay so-much into thefund, the employer so-much and the workman so­,much.... But the government pays nothing, for ithas nothing to pay with. What such schemes ac­tually come to is that the workman pays his ownshare outright; he pays the employer's share inthe enhanced price of commodities; and he paysthe government's share in taxation. He pays thewhole bill; and when one counts in the uncon­scionably swollen costs of bureaucratic brokerageand paperasserie, one sees that what the work­man-beneficiary gets out of the arrangement isa1bout the most expensive form of insurance thatcould be devised consistently with keeping its pro­moters out of gaol.

Tricksters at WorkThe sum of my observations was that during

the last twenty years money has 'been largelydiverted from its function as a mere convenience,a medium of exchange, a sort of general claim­check on production, and has been slily knavedinto an instrument of political power. It is nowpart of an illusionist's apparatus to do tricks withon the political stage-to aid the performer in theobscenities incident to the successful conduct ofhis loathsome profession. The inevitable conse­quences are easily foreseen; one need not speak ofthem; ,but the politician, like the stockbroker, cannot afford to take the long-time point of view onanything. The jobholder, be he president or be heprince, dares not look beyond the moment. Allthe concern he dares have with the future issummed up in the saying, Apres moi le deluge.

From Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (Harper& Bros.) Copyright, 1943, ,by Albert Jay Nock

NOVEMBER 1955 729

Labor Pays for Services Rendered

By REV. EDMUND A. OPITZ

The recent gift of $200,000 from the CIO's PhilipMurray Foundation to the National Council ofChurches (Nee) cannot be described as a bribe.It is more like a part payment for servicesrendered.

'The Federal ICouncil of Churches, a parent or­ganizaNon of the present National Council, wasestablished in 1908 primarily to ,be an instrumentof the Social Gospel. The men of various denom­inations 'who brought it into being had discovereda com,mon ground in polities, not religion. Theyeach held to their separate doctrines and denom­inations. Some were Socialists, others favoredwhat is now called the Welfare State. Christianityin its social application meant, for them, an in­creasing number of government interventions.

A cardinal plank in the platform of the SocialGospel was that the laibor union offered the bestmeans for realizing religion's apocalypHc dreamof an earthly paradise. "If the banner of the King­dom of God is to enter through the gates of thefuture," wrote Walter Raus'chenbush of RochesterSeminary, the leader of the Social Gospel forces,"it will have to:be by the tramping hosts of la-bor."]This expectation was widely shared by thechurchmen who organized the Federal Council ofChurches.'

A sy,mpathetic historian of the Social Gospel,H. F. May, writing a few years ago of its impacton American life, says: "The fullest measure ofvictory [for the Social 'Gospel] was achieved withthe organization of the Federal 'Council of theChu;rches of 'Christ in America in 1908. lIn thisfederation, representing the liberal elements in alldenominations, Social Gospel advocates were ableto put Ame~ican Protestantism officially and re­peatedly on record in comparatively concrete termsas a warm supporter of labor's cause."2

This support ,continues. John C. Bennett, Deanof Union 'Theological Seminary, declares that "thelarge-scale economic group to ,which the churchesduring the past half century have given most sup­port is' the labor movement. ... This interest in thelabor movement has been characteristic of thenational leaders of the denominations, of the Fed­eral 'Council of Churches, and of others who havebeen most art,iculate in interpreting Christiansocial ethics. It has not necessarily representedattitudes that have Ibeen dominant within themembership of Protestant churches."s

730 THE FREEMAN

Protestant churchmen in the ecclesiasticalbureaucracy espouse the currently fashion­able labor movement-and find it pay~ off-

This last sentence suglgests the actual situationin the contemporary religion-laibor entente.Power-hungry men in the ecclesiastical bureauc­racy who do not represent the average clergyman,much less the rank and file church member, havereached an aecord with the power-hungry men incontrol of the huge monopoly unions who do notrepresent the average American workingman.

Ever since Constantine the Church has beenplagued thy power seekers 'within it. These menadopted whatever political camouflage the occa­sion warranted, from monarchy to democracy.They heard God's words only when He spoke asthey 'wanted Him to speak. They put up a goodcase, on religious grounds, [OT slavery and war.During the Gilded Age of the latter nineteenthcentury they paid nauseating tribute to the heavy­handed robber \barons who loomed large on theAmerican scene.

And now that the incidence of power has shiftedso that the ibi1g social fact is "the accession of themasses to complete social power," as Ortega yGasset puts it, the power seekers within the Chur,chattach themselves to mass movements ,for socialrevolution. An item of Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam'screed is: "I am convinced that tomorrow's worldis to be labor's 'world."4 If it is a fact that "to­morrow is to belong to the worker," as BishopOxnam prophesies, then a church which takesthought for the morrow must ,come to terms withthe "'worker" to whom tomo1rrow belongs. But [orthe church which is at home with the ,concept ofeternity, there is not only tomorrow, there is alsonext week, next year, and time Ibeyond that ,whichmust not be compromised lior the sake of an im­mediate program. ReHglion has always sufferedfrom the efforts of some 'churchmen to finesse theChurch into endorsing, under1writing and promot­ing the currently fashionable social concept.

"Labor"s Cause""

1f labor's ,cause is the cause of all humanity, asit appears to be to its partisans in the 'Churches,~hen all who fail to do it homage virtually excom­municate themselves from membership in thehuman clan. As viewed through Social Gospellenses, "labor's cause" is, the sum of everythingnoble and uplifting. It is the way to better hous­ing, finer education; and it is an up-to-date way

of practicing religion besides! Sarah Cleghornwrote in a celebrated poem,

Ah, let no Local him refuse!Comrade Jesus hath paid his dues.Whatever other be debarred,Comrade Jesus hath his red card.

Jerome Davis, formerly of Yale Divinity School,dedicated his book, Labor Speaks for Itself on Re­ligion (Macmillan, 1929), to the labor leaders ofall nations, and went on to say, "In aiding laborthey have been ifollo:w·ers of the carpenter of Naz­areth." And John Ramsay of the CIO, whose jolbis to work with clergymen, pays tribute to thelabor leaders who have left the Church: "I do notfeel," he says, "that they lost their religion. Thelabor movement became the outlet Ifor that re­ligious zeal. 'To me, those men who have built thegreat labor unions in our country have been moti­vated by a spi'ritual zeal. ..."5

One more quotation in this vein will indicatewhy it is so difficult to discuss unionism withchurchmen of that kind on its 'merits. Kermit Eby,a churchman who became an education directorfor the CIO, regards the labor movement as "amilitant effort to bring about the age of the com­mon man and the elimination ot poverty." It is"the alternative to wars and revolutions." It is"the way to produce houses, schools, and play­grounds for happy families and healthy children.Those who stand in the way of such an achieve­ment are sinners, and it i,s our task to convict themof their sin."6

More in the same vein is to be found in thevolume from which these quotations were taken,Labor's Relation to Church and Community, editedby Liston Pope, Dean of Yale Divinity School, fromspeeches delivered at the Institute for Religiousand Social Studd.es.

In the presence of such sentiments as these, the

On the Picket Line

only proper discussion may be an a,we-strucksilence. Simpler than discussion would be to lineup all those who favor wars and revolutions andwho can't stand happy families and healthy chril­dren, and so to dispose of them as to leave nomess to clean up afterward; then the world couldsafely be turned over to the righteous remnant-the la\bor leaders and the supporting churchmen.In actual fact, of course, every 'man of good willwants to see others decently housed, fed, andclothed; he wants them to be healthier, better edu­cated, and 'with fewer prejudices and hates. Thebig question, then, is how to go about achievingthese admittedly desirable ends. But this is to putthe issues on the mundane level of means, opera­tional procedures and techniques-than whichnothing is more irritating to those working time­and-a-half against a deadline to bring in theirKingdom of God on earth.

The Nature of Unionism

To assert that trade unionism is a dev,ice forushering in the millennium is to avoid saying whatunionism really is. The person who approachessocial problems f'rom an ethical base cannot makeup his mind aJbout the right and wrong of union­ism unless he understands the necessary condi­tions surrounding it, as well as the premises uponwhich it is based.

Trade unionism stands or falls on its claim toraise wages. If unions do not improve the materiallot of their members, then every other reason ad­duced for union organization has the rug pulled outfrom under it. In modern times, the general levelof 'wages and well-being has been raised by vastaccumulations of 'capital-by the mult1iplicity ofmachines and industrial processes. These things,which have made the 'worker more productive,have, '£01' that J'eason, raised his wages, for wages

are part of production. Theunions neither seek nor de­serve credit for inventionsor for accumulations of cap­ital; what they claim is thatby an org'anized threat ofviolence they have pried theemployer off his moneybagsso that the share of createdwealth going to the manwho works for wages hasincreased percentage-,wise.Jerome Davis voices thesentiments of many union­ists when he declares that"capitalism, by its inherentnature, tends to exploit theworker." 7 The militantunion is the answer to thisalleged exploitation.

NOVEMBER 1955 731

Have the unions raised the general wage level?If their claim holds water, statistics should show asharp rise in the wage level coincident with theirrise to power. The figures do not show any suchupgrading. The cumulative effect of statistics gath­eredfor more than half a century indicates thatthe percentage return to wage earners of the totalvalue added :bymanU'facture has remained remark­aJbly constant. Some spectacular and temporarygains made by some unions have been at ,the ex­pense of other wage earners, organized and unor­ganized, and too often these spectacular gains putworkers out of jobs. The .general wage level, as aproportion of production, remains 'Constant.

How to Raise Wages

The only way to raise wages is to increase theproductivity of laJbor. But the last thing the unionscan claim is an interest in increased productivity.On the contrary, union strategy, based on the fal­lacy that the economy has only a certain numberof jobs, relies on the slowdown, on featherbedding,on seniority and the .like-every device that slowsdown production. From what souT,ce, then, does theunion expect to draw its increased wages? Ob­viously from accumulated capital. This idea stemsfrom one of the oldest economic Jallacies, the WageFund Theory, the theory that wages are drawn fromcapital. Economists of last century and this haveexploded this notion many times. Recently the jobhas been done again in an ex'cellent little book byW. H. Hutt entitled The Theory of Collective Bar­gaining (Free Press, 1954). Even without intricateanalysis, a moment's thought should convince any­one that if capital is used to pay wages capitalwould have been used up long ago.

These and other union fallacies have been linkedto the violence which is incipient in all union ac­tivity. The ,major union weapon is the strike.Everyone has a right to quit work; but in a strike,the workers do not simply walk off their jobs, theytry to prevent anyone else from accepting the jobsthey have vacated. If a striking union did not havea license to use violence on would-fbe strikebreak­ers it would lack the necessary and ,minimum con­dition for being a union. Violence is not incidentalto trade unionism, it is an essential part of it.

Theological Rationalization

Once the nature of unionism is seen, one is ledto inquire into the climate of theological opinionin which the necessary violence of union activityis rationalized. 'The customary rationalization is interms of the class struggle ideology. A sample ofthis thinking is taken from the writings of John C.Bennett. He says, "... violence is itself one of thethings in this world which is in the long run self­defeating," but then he immediately qualifies thissweeping observation. He goes on to say that while

732 THE FREEMAN

such is clearly the case in war, it does not hold in"direct action which may be accompanied by vio­lence against a class so small in numbers [the capi­talist class] that when once its power of ownershipis taken away it ceases to be a dangerous oppositionand can be treated with ,moderation."8

Is Violence Immoral?

Writing on the same topic, the usefulness of vio­lence in the class struggle, Reinhold Niebuhr, alsoof Union Seminary, says, "'The middle classes andthe rational moralists ... are wrong in their as­sumption that violence is intrinsically immoral."9In deciding. whether or not to implement a policywith violence, he says, the 'Considerations are prag­matic, resting on the answer to such questions as"How great is the immediate and less inclusivevalue which is sacrificed for a more ultimate andmore inclusive one?"lO Apparently, for this theo­logian, there are no other than pragmatic guides,for he says, "It is well to note that even in the com­paratively simple problems of individual relation­ships there is no moral value which may be re­garded as absolute."ll (Italics added) This from areligionist is startling indeed.

In view of such whitewashing of union tactics,such high-sounding support of violence from pro­fessional moralists, the $200,000 gift from the CIato the NiCe was hardly extravagant.

1 Christianizing the Social Order (New York: Macmillan Co.,1912), p. 449.2 Protestant Churches and Industrial America (New York: Harper& Bros., 1949), p. 203.3 Christian Values and Economic Life (New York: Harper & Bros.,19'54), p. 238.4 Labor and Tomorrow's World (New York: Abingdon-CokesburyPress, 1947), pp. 150, 25.5 Liston Pope (ed.), Labor's Relat1'on to Church an-d Community(New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies, 1947'), p. 105.6 Ibid, p. 94.7 Capitalism and Its Culture (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1935),p.418.8 Social Salvation (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1935), p. 207.9 Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: C. Scribner's Sons,19'34), p. 170.10 Ibid, p. 1:70.11 Ibid, p. 174.

A Suggestion to Ministers

CLERGYMEN who are concerned with such mun­dane affairs as foreign policy, including the

UN, would do well to shape a sermon or twoaround the following texts:

"Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbour's house;lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee."(Proverbs 25: 17)

"He that passeth by, and meddleth with strifebelonging not ,to him, is like one that taketh adog by the ears." (Proverbs 26: 17)

Child's History of the People's America

By CEDRIC SILVERFISH, Ph.D

Browder Professor of Social Semantics, People's Yale University

(Published 1984)

Chapter 21: T'he Ten Terrible Years of the McCarthy Terror

The FREEMAN presents herewith a real "scoop"-achapter from a book to be published twenty-nineyears from now for the edification of Americanschool children of 1984. This chapter was broughtto our attention by writer FREDERIC NELSON,who is endowed with the gift of foresight.

The middle two decades of our century were black­ened by a horror which every citizen of our Totali­tarian Liberal Free State would like to blot fromthe pages of its history: McCarthyism and theTerror of the Intellectuals.

Although some written accounts of this shame­ful era ha've been preserved, the great mass of therecord was lost in the Burning of the Books (1951)and the wave of intolerant suppression inauguratedby Gauleiter J. Edgar Hoover. This modern Nerowielded dictatorial power following the burningat the stake of Elmer Davis whose books exposingthe McCarthy tyranny had !been circulated under­ground from hand to hand by brave men willingto risk the fierce vengeance of the SenatorialGestapo.

Even so, despite the martyrdom of Henry SteeleCommager, placed in the stocks as a "commonscold" in New York's Union Square, the terriblestory could not be suppressed. We must rely for atrue record of this disgraceful decade on chronicleswritten on the walls of blood-spattered cells in thecellars of the grim Jenner Jugs in which dissenterswere usually confined.

It is difficult for us in our enlightened socialistera to realize that within the memory of men nowalive, this Totalitarian Liberal Free State was thescene of such brutalizing events as the CarttailFlogging of Freda Kirchwey, the Moll Pitcher ofGreenwich Village; the Defenestration of AdlaiStevenson; and the confinement of Doris Fleesonin a loathsome concentration camp manned bysadistic DAR flagellants. A particularly cruel eventwas the banishment to Sea Island, a desolate pileoff the coast of Georgia, of the brave senators whohad voted to censure Senator McCarthy. Cut offfrom television interviews, committee hearings andfree haircuts, the lot of these unhappy men wasindeed pitiful. This outrage has 'been exposed in a

work which ranks with Uncle Tom's Cabin as anovel of liberation-Ordeal by No Quorum byMarquis Childs.

Although mass publications like Human Events,the Freeman and the American Mercury, with theirreaders numbered in the millions, supported theReign of Terror and did their best to hound honestHberals from public positions, copies of the worksof Elmer D'avis, Owen Lattimore and Alan Barthwere read :by small groups meeting secretly, or inthe guise of Poker Clubs. Portable radio stations,which the Inquisitors seemed never to locate, keptthe truth alive with broadcasts by Edward R.Murrow and Quincy Howe, each of whom had aprice on his head. Despite the best the Reactioncould do, many saw the plays of Arthur Millerand Lillian Hellman. These forbidden works wereproduced in isolated groves and carefully guardedbarns. Despite the shameful dragging of BishopOxnam through the streets of Chicago by a mobled by Pu!blisher Henry Regnery, Progressive Re­ligion was kept alive by heroes who can well becompared to Cranmer, John Huss and the ReverendHarry L. Ward.

Many efforts were made to inform the oppressedpeople of the McCarthy Era of their miseries, butthe masses, beguiled by diversions like baseball,a Bull Market and a magazine 'Called Confidential,seemed indifferent. The Red Book magazine daredto publish articles protesting against the suppres­sion of civil liberties; the Reporter magazine print­ed an article called "What Happens to the Victimsof A Nameless Accuser?"

It was the device of the Award which eventuallybroke the fascist grip on the Totalitarian LiberalFree State. In 1955 the Fund for the Republic, byHutchins, out of Ford-issuing its orders from asecret hideout which the Gestapo was never ableto find-spread it about that an award of $5,000had been made to a Pennsylvania library forcourageously refusing to discharge a femalelibrarian who had deified under torture the inquisi­tion of a fascist investigating committee. Thewoman had refused to say whether or not she wasa member of the Communist Party on the groundthat a truthful answer would incriminate her. In­evitahly, the fascist street mobs did their best to

NOVEMBER 1955 733

harry this courageous woman from her job, butthis modern Edith Cavell stood her ground, andthe library 'Com,mittee stood its. The village with­stood a state of siege until the Fund for the Re­public came to the rescue with its Award of $5,000to those who had refused to yield to mob pressure.

It was now clear that" since there was to befinancial gain from rewarding Fifth AmendmentHeroes for defying the tyrants, public senti­ment would hesitate between the emotionalism setafire by the McCarthyites on the one hand, andthe prolfitmotive on the other. With Free Enterpriseenlisted in ibehalf of freedom, the end of the reignof the Fascist Beasts was clearly at hand.

Inasmuch as the money distributed by the Fundfor the Republic could not be taxed, it has beenaptly said that the American Financial Imperialistswere liquidated with their own money.

Although victory for the People was inevitable,the final break through the clouds came in thesummer of 1955 when V. M. Molotov made adiscreet jest in the Metropolitan Museum ofArt in N,ew York, followed later in Moscow bythe visit of Mr. Khrushchev to the American Em­bassy to obtain a free drink of champagne. Therevelation that Mr. Molotov was "just folks" mightnot of itself have /been sufficient to break the Mc­Carthy spell. But the fact that Mr. Khrushchevwas willing to settle for a single glass of cham-

Loaded Terms

pagne, to be drunk on the premises, instead oftwenty carloads to be charged to Lend Lease, wouldhave melted a heart of stone. The Progressive Acti­vists did the rest, and by the date of President Hiss'inauguration" all but a few remnants of the re­actionary hooligans had been disposed of. Secretaryof State Howard Fast was able to state to awildly enthusiastic press conference: "Our prolblemwas to give them a slight push, and they jolly wellknew who pushed them."

The Reign of Terror was over.

Review Questions and Suggested Exercises

1. Classify MeCarthyism, MeClellanism, Eastland­ism, patriotism and Jennerism in order of theirimportance in the Ten Terrible Years.

2. Organize a debate in your grade on the ques­tion: "Resolved that Elmer Davis gave more livesfor his 'country than Nathan Hale."3. Cooperate with your local chapter of SOFA(Sons of the Fifth Amendment) in celebratingbirthdays of People's Patriots like Alger Hiss,Harry Dexter White, Milton Silverman and HaroldWare.

4. 'Compare J. Edgar Hoover, Himmler and HerbertBrownell.5. Why is the late President Roosevelt now knownas the "Poor Man's Kerensky"?

Making Democracy Work. This phrase, exuding some indistinct promise, isstock usage with the leaders of organized raids on the Treasury. The as­sumption is that "democracy" is a social system-rather than a form ofgovernment, as defined in the dictionary-in which the individual is mergedwith the mass with no rights that the majority must respect. In short,"democracy" is used as a synonym for "socialism," which word is avoidedbecause it is in disrepute in this country. To "make democracy work"­judging by usage-it is necessary to increase federal interventions, federalsubventions and, of course, federal power. The tip-off on what these "demo­crats" have in mind is their use of another gem of vagueness-"socialgains." RANDOLPH VAN NOSTRAND, Los Angeles', Calif.

Expanding Democracy. This phrase is frequently found in the literature ofthe National Citizens Committee for Public Schools, a group hell-bent forthe nationalization of our educational machinery. If they succeed, the in­doctrination of children in the tenets of socialism-beg pardon, "democ­racy"-will hasten the coming of the collectivized heaven on earth.

MRS. WM. B. DODGE, Dallas, Texas

Mixed Economy. An offspring of intellectual miscegenation, the phrase de­scribes an economy that is partly free and partly controlled. Its proponentssee it as a mechanism by which heartless capitalism is held in check bybenevolent socialism. Actually, the tyranny of socialism is kept withinbounds by its own need of capitalism. Every thief needs a victim to stealfrom. ROBERT P. JONAS, Oyster Bay, N. Y.

Suggestions for this column are invited. The FREEMAN winmake a token payment of five donars for each suggestionaccepted for publica,tion. The right to edit is reserved.

734 THE FREEMAN

The Bear Smiles AgainBy EUGENE LYONS

Senator George W. Malone of Nevada, during ninedays of exploring the entire Soviet Union, saw nobarricades and stum,bled into no anticommunistunde,rgrounds. Not one Soviet citizen took himtrustingly aside to denounce communism. In short,as he informed the press, he found "no evidencethe people are going to rise against the Sovietregime."

The Senator therefore recommended that propa­ganda by the Voice of America and other agencies"designed to increase dissatisfaction and promoteresistance" be forthwith called off as "pointlessand wasteful." (The Kremlin thinks the propa­ganda has enough point to justify jamming ourbroadcasts.) He further recommended that thiscountry "review its ban on trade in stragetic ma­terials with the Soviet bloc."

With the unerring instinct of total illiteracy inthis a'rea, Mr. Malone thus put an approving fingeron the objectives of Moscow's current conduct.These are: 1) To obtain access to Western tech­nology, its products and its specialized personnel,by opening wide the slu:iJces of trade and "exchangeof persons." 2) To beat down actual and potentialresistance in the Soviet orbit by demonstrating toits peoples that they cannot hope for free-worldsupport-on the valid theory that without suchhope opposition sentiment must wither and die.

The Senator's readiness to give the Soviets pre­cisely what they want, without so much as a face­saving quid pro quo, cannot be dismissed as oneman's fatuity. Unhappily, it fits too well into theeuphoria and credulity now spreading throughthe non-Soviet world. It is of a piece with theinanities voiced by other hurry-up foreign in­vestigators of Russia; with announcements thatthe cold war is over; with ,the resolute eagernesseverywhere to believe that this time the Redgeniality is sincere.

Only a few weeks after descending from theSummit, President Eisenhower tried to brake therunaway inflation of optimism. In his Philadelphiaaddress on August 24 he warned:

"'There can oe ~p true peace which involvesacceptance of a ,status quo in which we find in­justice in many nations, repressions of humanbeings on a gigantic s,cale, and with const1ructiveeffort pa.ralyzed in many areas by fear.

"The. spirit of Geneva., if it is to provide ahealthy atmosphere for ~he pursuit of peace" ifit is to b,e genuine and n.ot spuriol1s, must inspire

In spite of wishful thinking, the Kremlin's elab­orate charade 01 good will is, according to thisobserver, but preparation for the next big push.

all to a correction of injustice, an observance ofhuman rights and an end to subversion on aworld-lwide scale."

To demand that a totalitarian police state ob­serve human rights, that world communism ceaseto be subversive, is to demand the impossible. ThePresident must know that such conditions cannotbe met, short of a successful anticommunist revo­lution in the Soviet empire. In effect, he was re­pudiating the illusions he had himself helpedgenerate. Secretary Dulles and Vice PresidentNixon then spoke out in the same vein but evenmore emphatically.

Clearly, Washington was alarmed by the tidalwave of uncritical faith in the efficacy of smiles,handshakes and social affability. No doubt itsensed that the ballooning optimism was leavingfree governments disarmed, without the supportof a sober and vigilant public opinion, in theirfurther dealings with Moscow.

But there is small reason to believe that thesurge of wishful thinking can be stemmed even byour government. It is being fed by cold-,warfatigue, by dread of nuclear war, by the normaltendency of officials in democracies to settle fortemporary expedients and let their successorstake the hindmost.

With the hocus-pocus of amiability as their mainweapon, the Communists have won their latestbattle almost before it was well started. Know­nothing optimism has become the fashion, almostliterally: the other night a dress designer ex­plained on television that the new styles willreflect 'the gayer, more relaxed moods in the world!

Moscow's Standard Tactic

The Kremlin's elaborate charade of good wHl isnot as hard to read as those with a talent for for­getting the past assume. The tactic is standardfor Moscow's times of trouble. The same kind ofshow, and for approximately the same purposes,was put on by Stalin in the 1930's, until the erup­tion of the blood purges, and again during the waryears.

In the thirties, peaceful coexistence seemed asettled fact. United and People's Fronts flourished.Western industrial specialists by the thousandswo:rked on the initial Five Year Plans. Foreigntou;rist hordes, delegations and missions rummagedcheerfully among the man-made famines and as-

NOVEMBER 1955 735

sorted horrors (since then fully documented)without recognizing them. They returned homebabbling of improved conditions and signs of anew liberalism, pretty much in the language weare hearing today. There were a new Constitution,"breathtaking" statistics, pictures of a "mellowed"dictator kissing children to fortify their errors.In the League of Nations, Litvinov played the roleof apostle of collective security and pea1ce.

Two thirds of his main industries, Stalin wouldone day tell Eric Johnston, had been built with"material assistance or advice from Americans."Without Western machines and techniques andengineers, Russia would have remained an agrar­ian country offering no direct menace to ourcivilization. Its regime might, indeed, have col­lapsed under the weight of popular hatreds gen­erated by collectivization.

The magnitude of internal opposition in thoseyears was not merely admitted but even ex­aggerat'ed by the Kremlin itself during the blood­lettings of the thirties. What would have happenedif the outside world had supported that opposi­tion, or at least refrained from intervening onStalin's side?

Repeat Performance

During the Soviet-German war, of course, theperformance was repeated. The Kremlin perforceposed as a freedom-loving ally, actually sub­scr1bed to the Atlantie Charter and the FourFreedoms, and "abolished" the Comintern. A newera of Soviet cooperation with the non-Sovietnations was generally taken for granted. Againthe fruits of our free economy were made availableonra gigantic scale to salvage the crumbling SovietState.

Politically, the very fact of alliance with thegreat democracies seemed to the Soviet citizenrya guarantee of some freedom after the victory andhelped reconcile them to the hated regime. Whenthis hope faded, the West's anxious friendship forthe dictatorship, devoid of sympathy for its vic­tims, helped convince the masses of the futiHtyof resistance. Once more we had contributedlavish~y to the survival of the regime.

What is happening today therefore seems, tothose of us who have w;atched Soviet historyattentively, like the unreeHng of an old, boringlyfamiliar film. The principal difference is in theaccelerated pace of the action. It is as if all theactors, by this time letter-perfect in their roles,were able to speed up the proceedings.

The fact is that the Soviet system periodicallyreaches an impasse created by the cumulativepressures of its inherent fallacies, excesses andbureaucratic rigidities. Lack of personal incen­tives,fearof respons1bility, the passive resistancebred by growing discontents, isolation from themain currents· of scientific and technological prog-

736 THE FREEMAN

ress-these chronic faults of the totalitariansociety make stagnation ine'vitable. There is apoint beyond which propaganda and purge, ex­hortation and terror, cease to be effective.

At that point the Kremlin has little alternativebut to turn to the despised capitalist world forassistance. And that world, tragically deficient inthe will to survive, eager for an easy accomoda­tion with evil, always obliges. Indeed, the exist­ence of the noncommunist world, as a reservoirupon which Moscow can draw when necessary, isprobably what has made the survival of a .greatcommunist empire possible. The Kremlin needonly turn on the charm, dangle the twin boon ofprofits and "peace," and the Weslt prompHy doeshandspring.s of joy. One is reminded of the toughboy who came home clutching a quarter. Heearned it, he explained to his mother, for doingTommy a big favor-he had stopped beatingTommy on the head.

There is always an element of plain blackmailin the Moscow tactic of temporary restraint. In thepast it was the threat of intensified communistmischief if the free world refused to play thegame; today there is, in addition, the threat ofunloosing a nuclear war. The fact that the USSR

has as much, and perhaps a lot more, reason tofear war is somehow overlooked. '

Consider a curious revea'ling thing-revealing,that is, about our own state of nerves:

After the demise of Stalin, there was a wide­spread belief that Moscow was liberalizing itsregime. The world press and neutralist statesmenhailed the New Look in Russia. The principalelement in that New Look was the government'spromises of more consumer goods, even jf it

t,

meant curtailing heavy industry. This sa:crificeof capital or war goods in the interest of a betterlife for the masses was the gist of the argument inbooks by Isaac Deutscher, Harrison Salisbury andothers celebrating the new Soviet liberalism.

One would suppose, therefore, that the abandon­ment of the consumer-goods priority would turnthe tide of optimism. But it scarcely rated as news.The dismissal of Malenkov, because it was sen­

sational per se, was played up abroad. The factthat it marked a return to Stalinist concentrationon defense production, without regard to theneeds of the individual citizen, was merely noted inpassing.

·Only a fortnight before the Geneva conference,the Plenum of the Central Com1mittee of theCommunist Par.ty met in Moscow. Its principalspeeches and resolutions ran in Pravda on thevery eve of the conference. Emphasis on heavyindustry and defense marked all these documents----,but our press and experts had their minds onless distressing things.

"The general line of the Party," said Bulganin,"aimed at preferential development of heavy in­dustry, has been and remains irrevocable." Hecalled for "the further upsurge of heavy industry"for "the invincible defense capacity of our Home­land." Those who prated of consumer goods, hesaid, were "sorry theorists" who "would disarmthe Soviet Union in the face of the enemy im­peralisitic camp, would weaken the economic anddefense potential of our Homeland."

How was the outside world to make that jibewith a New Look without puncturing the soaringhopes released at the Summit? Only by self­hypnosis. 'The character of Soviet industrial priori­ties, so recently treated as the very symbol andsubstance of the new Soviet era, was now largelydiscounted or ignored.

Less inhibited analysts of the published mate­rials of that Plenary meeting discern .an "alarmednote" in the proceedings. Bulganin and others wereunusually frank in admitting bottlenecks, gaps,deficiencies in Soviet economy; serious regressionsin science and technology compared with theWest; shockingly low levels of laJbor productivity:bureaucracy and waste.

Ci,ting the Ministry of Fish Industry as an ex­ample, the Premier declared that it had "one ad­ministrative wo~ker for every six workers . . .The number of administrative-managerial person­nel of the plants and trusts exceeds the numberof workers almost two times. Here one really cansay, 'One with a plow-share and seven with aspoon.' "

Such was the tenor of all the speeches andresolutions. The admissions and disclosures, pep­pered with warnings and threats, indicate, in thewords of one highly qualified Soviet emigre, "notbankruptcy but very serioUs organi1c defects ofthe whole communist economic system."

What is true of industry is, as always, doublytrue of Soviet agriculture, despite the simple­minded reports of some of our touring farmexper,ts. The productivity of the Soviet farmerremains alarmingly inadequate, while the numberof mouths to be fed grows apace and the State'sbuild-up of military food reserves takes pre­cedence over hunger.

Moscow Is Worried

Against this background it would be a miracleif the chronic discontents were not at levels dis­turbing to the KremEn crowd. The Red bossesare not risking a relaxation of police terror. Theyare struggling against revolutionary trends inschools and among the youth generally; somerefugees claim that the maj ority of inmates ofthe slave camps are between nineteen and twenty­five years of age.

In the satellites, sabotage and noncooperationhave not abated, and popular hostility to thepuppet regimes cannot be concealed. Meanwhile,the cream has been skimmed from the economyof these captive nations; some are becoming moreof a liability than an asset. Red China's insatiaJbledemands for capital goods and raw materials mustbe met despite domestic shortages.

American psychological warfare, small andUmid though it has been, has Moscow profoundlyworried. The continually stepped-up jamming, thecurrent drive to demoralize the Soviet emigrationthrough an all-out campaign for repatriation, theofficial protests by Moscow and puppet govern­ments against Western broadcasts and balloonbarrages, and against the activities of some emigreorganizations-these are all symptoms of the fearof their own surbjeets that haunts the Soviethierarchy.

'They need time. They need to dig into thefree-,world economic reservoir, to share the West'sprosperity and fast-marching technology. Theyneed to neutralize and if possible cancel ourAmerican cold-war counteraction. In short, thetime has come again for a period of pea'ceful co­existence, in preparation for the next big pushagainst the "degenerate West."

And all the indications are that the purblindcapitalist world will again come efficiently to therescue. A civilization hell-bent for suicide willproceed joyously to strengthen and arm its self­declared enemy. Already its governments are busydisowning and betraying the hopes of its naturalallies-the captive countries and peoples, includ­ing those in Russia proper. Already its businessleaders are tearing at the leash to rush in andsave com,munism from the consequences of itsown follies and fallacies.

Lenin once said that when the time comes tohang capitalists, they will bid against one anotherfor the sale of rope. The bidding is under way.

NOVEMBER 1955 737

WASHINGT ON ,

by Fra.nk C.lianighen

The Dixon-Yates controversy goes on, with theNew Deal Democrats laboriously seeking to wringsome drops of ,political poison out of it. Throughthe forensic smoke screen some facts emerge: theBudget Director talked to a man about the project;that man got no fee out of it, but he had givenadvice to a bank with which he had been connected.Nor did the bank get any fee. Pretty thin stuff.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the myth of TVAseems to have suffered ,considerably as a result ofa thoroughgoing nation-:wide debate on Dixon­Yates in particular and public power in general.Many areas of thecountry have learned - whatthey should have noted from the first - that TVApays little in taxes and does not rhear the amortiza­tion, fiscal and interest burdens which the privatepower companies have to shoulder. In short, thereexists a much wider understanding that TVA is aTennessee boondoggle for which the taxpayers ofthe rest of the nation have to pay.

Surprisingly, a Tennessee paper, the KnoxvilleJournal, recently remarked that "politicians andthe political organization known as Citizens forTVA, Inc., may in fact 'be hastening the end of thepower project which they are ostensibly trying topreserve. This may well come about through fa­miliarizing the people all over the nation with thefinancial details of TVA's operations and the fa­vored spot occupied by its power users." While thefact that the "biggest power empire in the worldwas being (built with Federal funds was completelyignored," this disregard was not realized for a longtime, points out the Journal. But then came theDixon-Yates controversy, and "other United Statescitizens now know, as a result of all the speechesand newspaper interviews, that the rates do notstem from any mystic TVA formula, but straightfrom the federal Treasury."

In Arizona, the Prescott Courier has an editorialentitled, "The T'VA Power Controversy Backfires."The paper says that advocates of TVA want to com­mit the federal 'Treasury to "further give-awaysof millions and millions of dollars for the benefitof one section of the nation. This means that thefarmers, the retailers and all forms of business inother parts of the nation would be required to putup their tax dollars for the benefit of the TVAregion."

Finally, a labor union newspaper, the Jefferson

738 THE FREEMAN

City, Mo., Labor News, explains that the TVA haslow rates for two reasons: "One is that the TVApays no taxes or other charges on a scale compa­rable to those paid by private companies, and theother is that 'TVA pays little or no interest on cap­ital costs, which are met by the United StatesTreasury ... the nation as a whole is helping paythe electric bills of consumers in the TennesseeValley. The fact that TVA electricity is virtuallytax-free means that taxes paid by all the rest ofus are a little bit higher ... and the TVA's call upongovernment financing can be ,costly too. Becauseit helps raise our national debt, it has an infla­tionary effect that reduces the value of our money,our savings and our wage dollar."

With this intelligence spre,ading, if an alert pressdramatizes the controversy, perhaps the generalpublic can a,ccurately appraise the TVA as "bigdam foolishness" and the ,sophisticated public mightsee it, in the perspective of history, as a scandal-as the French under the [Third Republic saw thewaste of money in the Panama Canal affair, whichupset French governments. There is no reason whythe squandering of taxpayers' money by the bu­reaucracy should not ;be viewed in the same lightas the embezzlement of stockholders by a Ponzioperating in the free market.

Before such a state of aroused public opinion isachieved, however, defenders of private enterprisehad better take a careful look at another big publicpower proj ect looming on the horizon-the pro­jected Colorado River dam. Heartless newspaper­men who watch such matters in Washington aredubbing the project, "The Republican Administra­tion's TVA." It is true that the White Housebeamed on this initially. It is also true that sucheager beavers as Sherman Adams did not put theheavy pressure on GOP members of Congress toget it through in the last session. Some Republi­cans on the Hill, therefore, took that to mean thatthe White House merely gave the project formalbacking, as a gesture to the "liberal" public powercrowd, and was not really in earnest.

However, right after Congress adjourned, Presi­dent Eisenhower gave the Colorado proposal verypublic and emphatic blessing. Observers inter­preted the presidential statement as the foundationof earnest 'backing for a "GOP TVA" in the next

session. A,fter all, the GO'P National Committeenurses some concern about the 1956 vote ,in thegreat open spaces of the West. Recently, Demo­cratic Senator Alan Bible of Nevada, no wild NewDealer, issued a considered statement expressingconfidence that the Democrats next year will sweepthe mountain states ('where public power has manysupporters) .

What are the facts about the Colorado dam proj­ect? The Council of State Chambers of Commerce(Room 513, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Washing­ton 6, D. C.) casts a very critical eye on the project.In its bulletin No. 134, the Council points out thatthe Colorado River project 'would operate in aregion which is "one of the greatest sources ofthermal energy to be found any'where in theworld." The resources include vast deposits of coal,reservoirs of oil and natural gas, o.f oil shale andof uranium ores. These could be tapped for steamplant construction.

Combined with the generation of public power,according to government plans, there will be ex­tensive irrigation and reclama,tion work which willcreate hundreds of thousands of ne.w farm acres.It is estimated that the cost per acre of this re­claimed land to the taxpayer would run around$3,5'00, although irrigated farm land in Coloradois at present valued at $150 to $200 an acre.

'The State Chambers of Commerce notes that theU.S. Department of Agriculture studies indicate"that the food needs of the nation for years to comecan be met from existing acreage." But if moreacres are needed, the Department's studies show"that about 20,000,000 acres of present unusedlands east of the Rocky Mountain area can bereclaimed at a fraction of what it would cost peracre in the upper Colorado River basin."

The land reclaimed will provide pasturage forsheep and hay for cows. Thus the production ofwool and dairy products will be stimulated al­though there are large surpluses in both at thepresent time. In consequence the taxpayer will betaxed to furnish more storage space for agricul­tural products in excess supply. CongressmanRalph Gwinn (R., N.Y.) observes tha't the reclaimedland will be developed at altitudes of over 6,000feet where, because of snow and frosts, the growingseason will not last over three months. He says,"We don't have to go to the top of the Rockies tocreate new farms on poor land at fantastic cost."

This project would wipe out, by permanentlyflooding, one of the most beautiful parks in thenation---.E,cho Park, and wild life groups are bit­terly opposed to the Colorado River project on thisscore. It is recalled that the original TVA per­manently flooded an area of choice farm lands ap­proximately equal in size to that of Rhode Island.

Finally, what would it really cost? There is oneestimate around town, which says that the cost willexceed five billion dollars (construction costs plus

interest on the money advanced by the Treasury).Proponents for the Colorado scheme claim thatrevenues from power and sale of reclaimed acreswill eventually repay the cost to the Treasury.That is as it may ibe. But those who know the actualrecord on other public power and reclamation proj­ects where the ,same claim was invariably madethink otherwise. In ,conclusion, it is pointed outthat the Colorado project is for the sole benefit offour states, while the taxpayers of the forty-fourother states will actually pick up the tab.

No wonder that the State Cham/bers of Commerceremarks: "There are good reasons why the taxpay­ers as a group should question the wisdom of thefederal government embarking on this project."

If the Colorado dam wins, another corps of bureau­crats will be added to Big Government, and the jobof checking on their activities will i'mpose addi­tional duties on an already over-burdened legis­lature. It is a byword on Capitol Hill that theorganizational structure of Congress badly needsoverhauling. Members literally wear themselvesout running (not walking) from one committeehearing room to another. Some committees dupli­cate some of the activities and inquiries of others.There are so many committee proceedings going onat the same time that the press finds it impossibleto cover them all. The consequent mood on the Hillis that "something ought to be done about it."

About ten years ago, the ,same mood resulted inaction fervently demanded iby all. Senator LaFol­lette and Congressman (now Senator) Monroneyconstructed a bill to "streamline Congress." It wentthrough with no little support. The CongressionalReorganization Act of 194,6 provided, among otherthings, that a senator could serve on no more thantwo committees and a representative on no morethan one. The A,ct also cut the standing commit­tees frona 81 to 34.

Today, after nearly ten years of the Reorganiza­tion Act, Congress unhappily contemplates somediscouraging statistics. Besides the 34 authorizedstanding committees, there are 10 joint commit­tees (composed of members from both Houses) and5 special committees (rfor example, the House Un­American Activities Committee). In addition thereare 180 standing subcommittees. The total numberof -committees and subcommittees numbers 229. Inshort, although the number of standing committeeswas reduced, subcommittees multiplied in number.

Why did this increase occur? Human nature isone factor. The desire of the humble member of thelower house and of the greenest "freshman" in theSenate is to get on an important committee, or toobtain a subcommittee chairmanship. So ensconced,he would enjoy prestige and power.

But, no one blinks the fact that the fundamentalcause of the trouble is the massive ,growth of theExecutive branch, the increase and proliferation ofagencies and activities of Big Government.

NOVEMBER 1955 739

Socialism In Bloom

By COLM BROGANNationalization in Britain has caused un­told damage to industry; but worse, ithas warped the thinking oj the workers.

Ever since the last General Election, British So­cialists have been sitting back, rubbing their chinsand wondering what hit them. The mere fact ofdefeat was not the source of their woe, for de­feat had been anticipated. It was the drop of onemillion and a half in their popular vote that setthe various socialist factions busily putting theblame on each other. From the catastrophic crisiselection of 1931 untH this year, the Socialistssteadily scored more votes at every time of asking.It appeared that the changing pattern of the elec­torate was working inexorably in their favor.

Needless to say, the Bevanites blamed the anti­Bevanites, who returned the compliment in fullmeasure. Some blamed a scrappy and uninspiringelection manifesto, which was, in any event, issuedfar too late to have eff,ect. A good deal of playhas been made with the superiority of the Torymachine and the shortage of paid socialist con­stituency officials. This last excuse was the mostpuerile of all. If the Socialists wanted more paidofficials, they knew what to do about it: paythem.

The fundamental reason for the severe setbackwas simple enough and obvious enough. The peo­ple were bored with the Labor Party. The oldattitudes and policies inherited from the depres­sion years were as out-of-date as a silent movie.To the younger men who have never known aday's unemployment, the facts and the lavishmythology of the depression had as much con­temporary relevance as the mismanagement of theBoer War. This is a fact which vexes Mr. Bevan,who has publicly rebuked the younger men fortheir lack of interest in the ancient wrongs; theyare still not interested.

Nor are they interested in nationalization, forthe massive experiments in that direction havenever produced any marked improve'ment andhave often produced a spectacular decline. Thepanacea of socialism has been an even biggerfailure than its severest critics foretold. The menin the nationalized industries would mostly opposeany change back to private enterprise, but for rea­sons of simple self-interest. Under naltionalizationthey have a political as well as an econom~c leverto employ for the extraction of more money andother benefits. Nationalization makes life easierfor the nationalized worker, but correspondinglyharder for everybody else. Yet, it is psychologically

740 THE FREEMAN

impossible for the Labor Party to produce anelection manifesto without making some piousgestures toward further extensions of' the commonownership of the means of production, distribu­tion and exchange.

The Labor Party tried to stir the fading emo­tions evoked by half-forgotten wrongs, and clungstubbornly to a principle which had proved itselfa total and manifest failure. No wonder they werebadly beaten. The most sensible socialist election­eering came from Hugh Gaitskell, the formerChancellor of the Exchequer. He sharply criticizedhis successor, R. A. But,ler, for sunshine economicsand gave warning off serious approaching trouble.He had a solid case to make, but he struggledagainst a fatal handiicap. Nobody wanted to listen,not even the Sociali'sts. The reason was simple.

Money to Spend

This year and last year, ordinary Lancashire millgirls have spent on a ten-day holiday in Black­pool more than the bloated rich are allowed totake out of the country for a continental holiday.A motor show was held in the Midltands for theminers alone, and 'brisk business was done inshiny and expensive cars. The Coal Board is nowacting as travel agent to arrange Riviera holidaysfor the downtrodden toilers of the pits. The dock­side warehouses are jammed to bursting pointwi,th eXlcellent imported meat which the working­~lass housewife indignantly rejects as "scrag";nothing but the prime home cuts will satisfy her,whatever they cost.

With all this money to spend, people were inno mood to listen to prophets of woe. Indeed, thesocialist campaign made no impa!ct at all, and thedrop of one and a half million votes was muchless than the true measure of the lack of publicinterest.

The Tories sailed home on a flowing tide ofprosperity, but that did not mean that they wouldbe either able or willing to carry out a thorough­going antisocialist policy. There 'was no suggestionthat coal, gas, electricity, railroads or air transportwould be denationalized. Indeed, some of the Toryleaders showed distinct nervousness when theirfollowers talked too loudly about the failure ofnationalization.

But that failure rs manifest to all, and it is a

heavy burden on British industry. Heavy capItalinvestment and great increases in wage rates havetotally failed to get any response from the miners.Expectations that miners would work zealouslywhen they knew they were working for the com­mon good have been shatteringly disproved. Tothe miners themsel'ves the change of ownershipmeans that they are no longer working for the eap­italist but for the State bureaucracy instead, andtheir traditional dislike of the white-collared officialwas by no means softened by a great increase inthe number of officials. Del:iJberate absenteeism ismore than twice what it was before the war, thereis a large and scandalous traffic in unjustifiedmedical certifi,cates, and wildcat strikes are nearlya daily occurenrce.

In the Coal Industry

'This has meant, among other things, the deathof one historic British trade. As late as 1938, coalexports provided work for one hundred thousandBriUsh miners. Recently the Coal Board has beenf,or,ced to extinguish almost the last of the exporttrade with the exception of trade with Eire andDenmark. It was a gesture of defeat. On the otherhand, imported coal is now causing a loss of twen­tymillion pounds a year, and home production isgetting steadily worse.

'The miners never wanted socialism as theFabians understood it. Socialist propagandistsworking on their hostility to the owners madethem campaign for public ownership, but theydid not induce them to accept the inevitable con­ditions of public ownership. Propaganda turnedthe miners into syndicalists, not socialists. Britishminers are not merely hostile to capitalism. Eversince the general strike the rank and file havebeen hostile to the nation and to other tradeunionists, who, they assert, betrayed them in theirhour of trial. There are long and bitter memoriesin the mining areas, and there is also a great dealof provincial narrow-mindedness and corporateconceit. British miners have so long been toldthat they are the spearhead and the elite corpsof the proletariat that they have come to believeit and are fiercely resentful of any criticism.

A large number of them are quite deliberate intheir restriction of production. They are not merelydisinclined to work steadily and hard, but arepositively determined to maintain a shortage ofcoal to strengthen their bargaining position. Theirleaders understand the gravity of the situationand the folly of the miners' recalcitrance, but themen are obdurate.

The socialized railways are in not much bettercase. The two main railway unions compete witheach other in putting in extra wage claims with­out any pretense that the railway economy canmeet the bill. The losses rise briskly year afteryear, there is scarcely any attempt to get rid of

surplUS staff, and bitterness between the twounions is sharper than it has been for thirty years.There is an immense long-term plan of moderniza­tion; but already some critics are asking if thereis any sense in spending more than a thousandmillion pounds in i'mproving efficiency, if thesyndicalist spirit among the men will defeat theeconomi,cal working of the improved system.

A strike of the locomotive footplate men didserious damage to the national economy, but notso much as the dock strike which affected part o[London and some large northern ports. The set-upin the British commercial docks is a strange ex­ample of semisocialism. It would be tedious toexplain the system in detail, butit is a mixtureof State paternalism, syndicalism, union bureau­cracy and handcuffed capitalism, with a touch ofanarchy thrown in for good measure. Since thissystem was introduced there have been five thou­sand strikes in dockland, most of them partial andshort-lived affairs, but some of them very serious.

The latest strike was a faction fight betweenthe members of one union and the members ofanother. The strike made enemies of neighborswho had lived socially in each others' pockets forgenerations. It even split families. In London pubswhere men were accustomed to drink together inamity, it has happened more than once that onedocker would point his argument by pushing hisglas1s hard into another man's face. There werebattles in the picket lines, and the atmosphere insome of the docks is now poisonous. Disciplinevaries, but jn some places it is nonexistent. Equip­ment is old-fashioned, and the pace of work isoften funereal, while large-scale pilfering is rife.Yet at the mention of a committee of inquiry torecommend improvements in dock working, therewas an instant threat of a national strike. Thedockers dislike the existing system, but they willtake the field to defeat any attempt to make itmore efficient.

The Overtime Habit

It would be wrong to imagine that the entireBritish economy is a theater of lethargy, recal­citrance and inefficiency. The steel and the auto­mobile industries are highly modernized andefficient, and so are many more. But costs areevery,where shot up by overtime. It is the estab­lished trade union tradition that overtime shouldbe regarded as an unwelcome and occasionalemergency measure, not to be considered in nego­tiations on standard wage rates; these negotia­tions should be conducted on the assumption thata man has right to a living wage for a norm,alweek's work. This is still the view of the leaders,but the men who are up to the ears in installmentdebts have different ideas. The younger men,newly married or about to be married, will goto no plant except with a guarantee of plentiful

NOVEMBER 1955 741

overtime. (There are firms which go so far as toadvertise Sunday work as an attraction!) Thishas led to the artHicialcreation of overtime by aslow pace of work during the normal hours.

The overtime habit is socially as well as eco­nomically mischievious, for it is unfair to theworking housewife. Enough of the old traditionremains to induce men to regard overti'me andbonus payments as extras, apart from the basicwage from which household needs must be met.As a result, many wives get a much smaller pro­portion of the husband's total income than theydid before the war. That is not to say that all thehusbands spend the money selfishly. They mayspend a lot of it on a fur .coat for the wife or ona holiday for the family, but it does mean thatmany families with a considerable income are ona tight rein for 'basi'c essentials-and it also meansthat these sa'me families snatch at every Welfareadvantage.

Economic Instability

There is no sign of any halt in the rise of Britishproduction costs, but they are already having aserious effect on economic staibility. In the firstseven months of this year the trading deficit asof exports against imports was in the region ofsix hundred million pounds. World trade has ex­panded remarkably, but Britain's share in thattrade has shrunk from one quarter to one fifth,while Germany's share has doubled.

'The most important reason for the decline isthe easy conditions of the home consumer market.Manufacturers are not much inclined to fight fororders overseas when they can easily dispose oftheir goods at home. Added to this, the uncertaintyof British costs and the equal uncertainty of de­livery dates constitute a steadily increasing burdenwhich will be highly advantageous to Ger,manyand Japan.

The postw'ar picture in Britain is one of mount­ing and apparently irresistible inflation. Even ifthe official production figures can be accepted,wages and salaries have risen at t,wice the rateof production. Pressure for still higher wages isglathering at a time when it must become increas­ingly difficult to keep production rising and sellgoods abroad.

In the foreground of the British scene there isevery evidence of a'bounding prosperity. Motorcars pour in a flood off the assembly line. Thereare shops in shabby Lanca'shire cotton towns offer­ing the kind of tweeds formerly the exclusivewear of the exclusive county ladies. Childreneverywhere are well and expensively dressed andfed. The great sporting events are packed to suf­fOlcation. There are loud grumbles about the costof living, but the spending spree goes merrily on.

B'ehind the scenes an anxious Chancellor studiesthe yawning gap in his finances. He is wondering

742 THE FREE'MAN

how much more will have to be paid out forforeign coal to keep the nation from freezing. Hemust deal with the confederation of shipbuildingand engineer,ing worker,s whose chairman has justgiven him an ultimatum. If the Chancellor's po}ilciesdo not bring down the cos1t of living, then nosooner will one pay claim be granted than anotherwill be put in. The chairman speaks for threemHlion workers.

What Do Bigger Wages Mean?

For ten years the British workers have beenceaselessly told by men of all parties, except theCommunist, that every increase in wages withouta corresponding increase of production can meanonly a rising cost of living, which will completelyw,ipe out the value of the wage increases. Afterten years of sulbj ection to sermons the men stillrefuse to believe this,and for the best of reasons.It is not true.

If the organized workers obtain an increase inwages, then the consequential increase in pricesis spread over the entire com,munity. It will beshared among those who got the increase andthose who did not. The burden will fall on thepensioners, the fixed income groups and a highproportion of the salaried class. The wage-earnersknow quite well that when their increase takesits due effect, they wHl lose something of thevalue of their money, but not so much as they willgain by the increa'se. The more helpless sectionsof the 'Com,munity will also lose and will gainnothing. It is not an altruistic calculation, but it issound.

But the organized workers are now moving fasitinto dangerous waters. Every upwlard t,wist of theinflationary spiral means that the weaker Britishcitizens accept a lowered standard of living tosubsidize a higher standard for the stronger. Theyaccept this beeause they cannot help themselves.But foreign buyers can help themselves. When therising British cost of living reflects itself in non­competitive export prices, then the consequenceswill fall most heavily on those who are primarilyresponsible for the situation.

What is the answer of the more comlhativespokesman of the workers to do this self-evidentfact? Indoctrinated by socialist teaching and con­ditioned 'by socialis,t practice, they say it is thejob of the Chancellor to bring dOrwn the ,cost ofliving. How this is to be done while they them­selves are pushing it up they consider not to betheir affair. "It's up to the government." Thiswidespread attitude of abdication and dependenceon State action for al'most everything is the mostunhealthy feature of British life today, and it isthe most evil legacy of socialist rule. The damagedone Iby nationalizing great undertakings has beensevere, but far worse is the damage done bynationalizing the mind.

Toward an American Collective

By WILLIAM H. PETERSON

"What do Americans mean, 'free enterprise'?"'That's a question that Vladi,mir V. Matskevich,

Russia's First Deputy Minister of Agriculture, andthe eleven other members of the Soviet farmdelegation to the United States might ask as theymull over their impressions of American farming.

For while the American farm is a far cry fromthe Russian collective, there is an affinity betweenthe two--.-,both are produots of government inter­vention. For the American farm, the degree ofintervention is much less but, viewed in historicalperspective, is yet substantial and growing.

The United States government, through thou­sands of its agents in !county seats, buys most ofthe grain. It lets farmers know how many acresthey may plant, with inspectors checking in thefields to make sure there is no "overplanting." Itinsures crops. It stores crops. It plans and partlyfinances soil conservation. It lends money tofarmers for equipment, livestock, planting, fer­tilizer and harvesting. And through tariffs it barsforeign competition. This is hardly "free enter­prise."

Other incongruities doubtlessly have beenspotted by the visiting Russians. While Russianintervention produces scarcities, American inter­vention produces gluts. Mountainous gluts. Evencaves, abandoned faetories, hangars, oil tanks,World War T,wo moth-haIled merchant vesselsand shut-down movie houses have outrun normalterminal and elevator space for grain storage. Thecurrent wheat carry-over has topped the one­billion bushel mark, over four times the surplusof just three year.s ago. Now, as huge combinescut a swath through the nation's ripened wheatfields, the Department of Agriculture is franticallyseeking new storage facilities. The department,already spending more than a million dollars aday for storage costs alone, has just taken bidsfrom contractors to build some 14,000 more newbins to hold 47 million bushels of grain. If pasthistory is a guide, the addition will be too littleand too late.

For one thing weight-conscious Americans areincluding fewer grain products in their diets. Foranother, wheat farmers have just voted over­whelmingly for acreage restrictions in return forgovernment price suppor,ts at 76 per cent of parity.This means that the giant wheat surplus will bepractically as large or, barring a major crop disas-

Fantastic farm surpluses in the United Statesmay have puzzled the Soviet farm delegation. What·are the implications for the American farmer?

tel', even larger than it is today. The surplus floodwill not be limrited to wheat alone. Just beforeit adjourned, Congress increased the "loan" au­thority of the Commodity Credit Corporation from$10 billion to $12 billion. The corporation, whilchas of June 30 had $8.7 billion of taxpayers' moneytied up in surplus crops, must now be preparedfor still greater hoards of rye, wool, cottonseedoil, butter, cheese, tobacco leaf, powdered milk,oats, sorghum, hay and pasture seeds, barley, soy­beans, flaxseed, feed corn, linseed oil, cottonlinters, peanuts, gum resin and cotton.

Despiite these apparently unconsumable gluts,the Russian farm experts may shock their Sovietplanning bosses by reporting that the UnitedStates government will further aggravate thesurplus problem by its huge land reclamation pro­gram. For with the obvious situation of far toomuch American land under cultivation, suchreclamation and power projects as the UpperColorado River Project will put still more acreageto the plow and hence more crops into governmentinventories.

Should the visiting Russians do research on thebackground of the American farm problem, theycould well start with the unsuccessful McNary­Haugen agricultural bills of the twenties. Thesebills sought to cure depressed prices caused byWorld War One overproduction by a two-pricesystem-low foreign prices would be offset byhigh government-administered domestic prices. Inthis way, according to the authors of the bills,industry's advantage of tariff protection would bein effect shared by agri'culture. The reason forthe failure of the McNary-Haugen bills, whichtwice cleared Congress, was plain: President Cal­vin Coolidge. President Coolidge, a rock-boundVermonter, anticipated the repercussions fromwhich we suffer today in his veto messages:

"Government price-,fixing, once started, hasalike no justice and no end. It is an economic follyfrom which this country has every right to bespared.... There is no reason why other industries-copper, coal, lumber, tex,tiles and others-inevery occasional difficulty should not receive thesame treatment by the government. Such actionwould es!tablish bureaucracy on such a scale as todominate not only the economic life but the moral,social and political future of our people."

Coolidge out of the way, pressure for farm ac-

NOVEMBER 1955 743

tion mounted. Ironically, it was the Hoover Ad­ministration which signed into existence theFederal Farm Board armed with a $500 million"price stabilization fund." 'The Board, set up inSeptember 1929, was soon wiped out by the de­pr2ssion. To bat came the Democrats. With themcan1e such farm schemes as "parity," "marketingagreements," an "ever-normal granary," "surplusfood stamps," "loans without recourse" and the"Brannan Plan." None of the schemes reallyworked, and surpluses dogged the New and FairDeals as they did the Republicans in the twen­ties and do now. The Brannan Plan, a sort ofGuaranteed Annual Wage for farmers, would havelet the free market set prices while the Treasurypaid direct cash subsidies to the farmers. It nevergot out of committee.

The Farm Bloc

Masterminded by Secretary of Agriculture EzraTaft Benson, Republican strategy to beart the glutproblem is to cut down the amount of subsidythrough a program semantically camouflaged as"'flexible supports." This is a ticklish business;Republicans are painfully aware that the farm volteprobably cost them the 1948 election. Moreover,the farm bloc, composed of both Democra'ts andRepublicans, is so powerful that the range of "flex­ibility" is almost as narrow and as high as thehigh rigid support level it was to replace. Andto make matters worse, last May the Democrati­cally-controlled House voted 206 to 201 to junk"flexible SUPPOTits" in favor of a high rigid supportlevel. The bill never reaehed the Senate floor.

Politics being what i:t is, the farm problem isapparently here to sltay. The visiting Russianscan rightly be amused. Where is this free enter­prise American farmer?

He exists all right. Not all American farmersfind shelter under price supports. Far from it. O'fthe approximately six million farmers, only two­and-a-half million are recipients of the govern­ment's largess. The rest-fruit, vegetable andlivestock farmers, for example'-are generallyfacing the rigors of a substantially free marketeconomy, and prospering by it. Without SUppODts,these farmers do not face what economists call"disequilibrium"-a prolonged imbalance betweenproduction and consumption.

For the cause of disequilibrium in supportedcommodi'ties, it would do the Russian farm expertslitltle good to consult Marx. Better they dip intothe classical economics of David Ricardo and hislaw of rent. Ricardo explained that as populationincreased, demand for food increased and moreand more land, previously marginal and submar­ginal, had to be put into cultivation. Naturally,the working of this addiltionalland was dependenton h1igher crop prices.

The United States support policy works the

744 THE FREEMAN

Ricardian law in reverse. Before population anddemand increase, crop prices are forced up beyondwhat the market would have set. The higherprices simul'taneously stimulate production andrepel consumption, with farmers openly admittingthey are producing for, government loan and notfor the market. For example, 1955 wheat is sup­ported at $2.08 a bushel against average produc­tion costs of $1. 70; corn at $1.55 against averageproduct1ion cosits of $1.20. Little wonder that theCommodity Credit Corporation owns or holds non­recourse loans on enough wheat and corn to fillfreight cars standing five abreast from San Fran­cisco to New York.

'The Russians have probably noted other reper­cussions besides gluts plaguing our farm planners.To stem the flood of crops heading for governmentstorage, the planners resort to acreage limitatior,~

and marke1ting quotas. Marketing quotas violatt:..the spiri.t if not the letter of our anti-trust laws.Acreage limitations are especially inept, forfarmer;::; then cultivate intensively, using such newwonder fertiI.izers as anhydrous ammonia to boostper-acre yields, and thereby nullify the acreagelim1iltations. Many farmers, moreover, choose todefy the federally-imposed restrictions-eitheropenly or cover!tly. Last year, for example, some45,000 farmers were forced into litigiation or pay­ment of $8.5 minion in cash penalties for acreageor marketing infractions.

International complica.tions are also exace~bated.

Our freer trade policy inconsistently includes hightariff walls aga1inst crop imports attracted to theU.S. by our supported domestic prices. Recurrentproposa1ls that we "dump" part or all of our sur­plus aibroad alarm and antagonize scores of ex­porting nations feamul that we will undercutworld prices and disorganize world markets.

A Solution?

Perhaps the exchange of farm delegations be­tween the U.S. and the UiSSR will work out toeveryone's benefit. Com,munist planners see thebountifulness 01: the incentive system, even ifgovernment-stimulated, in American agriculture.American planners see the sparse diets of Russiansocialism. M,aybe both sets of planners will con­clude that the only workaJble solution is the freemarket.

The one bar to the solution is political. In Russiathe Communists would have to deny their basiccreed of Marxian socialism. In America the farmbloc would have to deny the principle of reciproc­ity in the web of A1merican intervention. For ifin the web the workingman gets a minimum wage,the veteran free schooling and cheap loans, theunion boss anti-trust exempt,ion, the industrialista government contract and tariff protection, what,asks the farmer and the farm bloc, does the farmerget? Or is he· the orphan of socialism?

The Green-Eyed Monster

By LUDWIG VON MISES

~4 new book by European economist William E. Rappardanalyzes American prosperity and suggests a way toimprove economic conditions and raise the standardof living of peopies of "underdeveloped nations."

The United States is today the world',s most pros­perous nation. There is no need to dwell upon thisfact. Nobody contests it.

But, in the present-day political and ideologicalclimate, riches are held in evil repute. By and large,people look upon the more prosperous with un­concealed envy and hatred. The New Deal phi­losophy assures that an individual's fortune whichexceeds that of the much talked-about commonman is ill-gotten and that ilt is the task of govern­ment ,to equalize wealth and inco/mes by confisca­tory taxation.

Foreigners View American Prosperity

Most Americans fail to realize that the sameideas that shape the anticapi/talistic bias of Ameri­can domestic policies also determine foreign na­tions' at,titudes toward the United States. The av­erage European-not to speak of the Asiatics andAfricans-looks upon the United States with thesame envy and hatred which the American "pro­gressive" displays toward American business. Hefinds fault with America because it is more pros­perous than his own country. In his opinion allAmericans are bad for the s:imp'le reason that theyenjoy a higher standard of living than he does. Andjust as the A!merican "progressive" disparages asbr~bed "sycophants" of the exploiting bourgeoisiethose few economists who have the courage toraise their voices against the New Deal, so ,theEuropean "progressive" condemns as traitors allstatesmen and writers supporting his government'spro-A'merican policy in the Cold War.

The many billions of dollars that the Americangovernment has distributed all over the wor1dhave not tempered these anti-American sentiments.This aid, say the Socialists, is H mere pittance, aquite insufficient payment on the immense debtthat America owes to the rest of mankind. For, byrights, all the wealth of the United States ought tobe equally dirtributed among all the nations. Inthe opinion of foreign radicals it is an infringe­ment of divine and natural law that the averageAmerican lives in a nice gadget-equipped home,and drives a car while millions abroad lack thenecessities of a decent existence. It is a shame, theysay, that the scions of the peoples who have cre­ated Western civilization are living in straitened

conditions, while the Americans, mere money­makers, lead a luxurious life.

In the opinion of the typical foreign "intellec­tuals" mankind is divided into two classes: the ex­ploiting Americans on the one side and the exploit­ed have-nots on the other side. The com'munist"intellectuals" put all their hopes on "liberation"by the Soviets. The moderates expect that theUnited Nations will one day evolve into ,an effec­tive world government that by means of a pro­gressive world income tax will try to hring aboutmore equality in the distribution of incomes allover the world, just as national income tax lawstry to do within their respective countries. Bothgroups agree in rejecting what they call a pro­American policy on the part of their nation andfavor neutralism as the first step Itoward the world­wide estalblishment of a fair social order.

This blend of anticapitalistic and anti-Americansentiments plays an ominous role in present-day\i\Torld affairs. It excites sympathies for the causeof the Soviets and jeopardizes the best designedattempts to block the further advance of Russianpower. It threatens to overthrow Europe's civili­zation from within.

Rappard Views American Prosperity

Sober-minded European patriots are worried.They are aware of the dangers that the neutralistideology generates. They would like to unmask itsfallacies. But they are checked by the fact thatthe essential content of the anti-American doctrinefully agrees with the economic-or rather, pseudo­economic-----.:theories that in their own countries aretaught at universities and are accepted by all po­litical parties. From the point of view of the ideasthat determine the domestic policies of most Eu­ropean nations-and, for that matter, also thoseof the United States-the cause of a man's penuryis due to the fact that some people have appro­priated too much to themse'lves. Hence the onlyefficacious remedy is to bring about by governmentinterference a more equal distribution of what iscalled the national income. No argument whatevercan be discovered to show that this doctrine andthe practical conclusions derived from it ought tobe limited to conditions within a nation and shouldnot also be applied in international relations in

NOVEMBER 1955 745

order to equal1ze tne QIStrlOutlon of world income.The ideological obstacles that stand in the way

of a European who wants to attack the prevailinganti-American mentality seem therefore almost in­surmountable. The more remarkable is the factthat an eminent author, braving all these diffi­culties, has published an essay that goes to theheart of the matter.

Professor William E. Rappard is not unknown tothe American public. An outstanding historian andeconomist, this Genevese who was born in NewYork, gradua1ted from an American university andtaught at Harvard, is the world's foremost expertin the field of international political and economicrelations. His contributions to political philosophy,first of all those expounded in 1938 in his book TheCrisis of DemocracY,will be remembered in thehistory of ideas as the most powerful refutationof the doctrines of communism and nazism. Thereare 'but few authors whose judgment, competence,and impartiality enjoy a presUge equal to that ofRappard.

In his new book* Professor Rappard is neitherpro-American nor anti-American. With cool de­tachment he tries to bring out in full relief thefactors that account for the economic superiorityof the United States. He starts by marshaling thestatistical data and proceeds with a critical ex­amination of the explanations provided by someolder and newer authors. Then comes his ownanalysis of the causes of American prosperity. AsProfessor Rappard ,sees it, these causes can be puttogether under four broad headings: mass produc­tion, the application of science to production, thepassion for produotivity and the spirit of compe­tition.

'The political importance of Professor Rappard'sconclusions is to be seen in the fact that theyascribe American prosperity fully to factors oper­ating within the United States. America's present­day economic superiority is a purely Americanphenomenon. It is an achievement of Americans. Itis in no way caused or furthered by anything thatwould harm foreign nations. There is no questionof exploitation of the "have-nots." No non-Ameri­can is needy because there is welI-:beiIl!g inAmerica. Professor Rappardcarefully avoids anyallusion to the heated controversy concerning theEuropean nations' attitudes toward the UnitedStates. He does not even mention the exploitationdoctrine and the complaints of the self-styledhave-nots. But his 'book demolishes these counter­feit doctrines and, !by implication, the politicalprograms derived from them.

It can hardly be disputed, says Professor Rap­pard, "that the wealth of a 'country very largelydepends on the will of the nation. Other thingsbeing equal, then, a country will be richer and its

*William E. Rappard, The Secret of American Prosperity, trans­lated from the original French by Kenneth A. J. Dickson, with aForeword by Henry Hazlitt. New York, Greenberg-A CorwinBook. $3.50

746 THE FREEMAN

economy ,will be more productive in proportion asits inhabitants want it to be." America is prosper­ous because its people wanted prosperity and re­sorted to policies fitted to the purpose.

Prosperj'ty and Capital

The operation of the four fa'ctors to whichProfessor Rappard attributes the superior produc­tivity of labor in the United States is certainlynot confined to the United IStates. They are char­acteristic features of the capitalist mode of pro­duction that originated in Western Europe andonly later !came to the United States. Mass pro­duction was the essential innovation of the In­dustrial Revolution. In earlier ages craftsmenproduced with primitive tools in small workshopsalmost exclusively for the needs of a limited num­ber of well-to-do. The \factory system inauguratednew methods of production as well as marketing.Cheap goods for the many were and are its ob­jective. It is this principle that-combined withthe principle of Icompetition-accounts for theexpansion of the most efficient ente~prises and thedisappearance of inefficient ones.

It is true that these tendencies are today morepowerful in the United States than in Europeancountries this side of the Iron Curtain. But thisis principally due to the fact that political an­tagonism to big business and its superior com­petitive power set in earlier and is more drasticin Europe than in the United States, and has there­fore more vigorously curbed "the rugged individ­ualism" of lbusiness. 'The difference which in thisregard exists (between Europe and America is adifference of degree, not of kind.

With regard to the application of science toproduction and the passion for productivity, thereis Iittle, if any, difference Ibet1ween America andEurope. There is no need to stress the fact thatthe passion to make his outfit as productive aspossible is strong in every businessman. Concern­ing the application of science to production,Professor Rappard observes that the most knowl­edgeaJble and sincere A'merican writers recognize"that the most fruitful investigations of recentyears have nearly all 'beencarried out by Euro­peans 1W0rking either in their own countries or inAmerican laboratories." Not the discovery of newtheoretical truth, Monsieur Rappard :goes on tosay, but the rapid and Iconstantly improved appli­cation of discoveries of any origin whatsoeverexplains the industrial lead of the United States.

In enunciat,ing this fact, Professor Rappard givesus the decisive answer to the problem he 'has in­vestigated. America's industrial superiority is dueto the ,circumstance that its plants, workshops,farms and mines are equipped with better andmore efficient tools and machines. Therefore, thema~ginal productivity of laJbor and consequentlywage rates are higher than anY'where else. As the

average quantity and quality of goods producedin the same period or! time by the same numberof hands is greater and 'better, more and bettergoods are available for consumpt;ion. Here wehave the "secret" of American prosperity.

With some insignificant exceptions, there is nosecrecy whatever about the best modern methodsof production. They are taught at numeroustechnological universities and described in text­books and technological magazines. Thousands ofhighly gifted youths from economically backwardcount:vies have acquired full knowledge of themat the educational institutions and in the work­shops of the United States, Great Britain, France,Germany and other Western countries. Besides, agreat many American engineers, chemists andagriculturists are prepared to offer their expertservices to the business of the so-called under­developed nations.

Every intelligent businessman-not only inwestern Europe, but no less in all other countries-is obsessed by the urge to furnish his enterprisewith the most effircient modern equipment. Howis it then that in spite of all these facts the Ameri­can (and Canadian) firms alone make full use ofmodern technological achievements and iby faroutstrip the 'industries of all other countries?

It is the insufficient supply of capital that pre­vents the rest of the world [from adjusting itsindustries to the most efficient ways of production.Technological "know how" and the "passion forproductivity" are useless ilf the Icapital requiredfor the acquisition of new equipment and the in­auguration of new ,methods is lacking.

What made modern ,capitalism possible and en­abled the nations first of western Europe andlater of central Europe and North America toeclipse the rest of mankind in productivity ,was thefact that they created the political, legal and in­stitutionalrcondit:ions that made capital a'ccumula­tion safe. What prevents India, for example, fromreplacing its host of ineffi,cientcoib!blers with shoefactories is only the lack of capital. As the Indian

What Is a Semantic?

government virtually expropriates foreign capital­ists and obstructs capital formation by natives,there is no way to remedy this situation. Theresult is that minions are barefoot in India whilethe average American buys several pairs of shoesevery year.

America's present economic supremacy is dueto the plentiful supply of 'capital. The allegedlyprogressive policies that slow down saving andcapital accumulation, or even bring about dis­saving and capital decumulation, came later tothe United States than to most European countries.While Europe was being impoverished 'by excessivearmaments, colonial adventures, anticapitalisti1cpolieies and finally by wars and revolutions, theUnited States was 'committed to a free enterprisepolicy. At that time Europeans used to stigmatizeAmerican economic policies as socially back!'ward.But it was precisely thi,s alleged social ba'ckrwa~d­

ness that accounted for an almount of capital ac­cumulation that by far surpassed the amount ofcapital available lin other countries. When later theNew Deal began to imitate the anticapitalisticpolicies of Europe, America had already acquiredan advantage that it still retains today.

Wealth does not consist, as Marx said, in acollection of commodities, but in a collection ofcapital goods. Such a collection is the result ofprevious saving. The antisaving doctrines of whatis, paradoxically enough, called New Economics,first developed by Messrs. Foster and Catchingsand then reshaped by Lord Keynes, are untenable.If one wants to improve economic 'conditions, toraise the productivity of labor, wage rates and thepeoples' standard of living, one must accumulatemore capital goods in order to invest more andmore. And there is no other way to increase theamount of capital available than to expand savingby doing away with all ideological and institutionalfactors that hinder sav1ing or even directly makefor dissaving and ,capital decumulation.

This is what the "underdeveloped nations" needto learn.

If you have been reading much lately, you no doubt have come across theword "semantics," and you have probably wondered just what a "semantic"is. A semantic is very important. Skill with the semantic and a consequentability to destroy the English language have been necessary for the successof the New Deal liberal. As an example, consider the tef'ms "politicaldemocracy" and "economic democracy." Because the "political" varietynurtured freedom, "democracy" became a prestige word. It meant theabsence of governmental controls. The New Deal grabbed off the wordand came panting forward with something called "economic democracy."This meant the imposition of governmental controls. Don't try to conjureup a definition for "democracy" on the basis of these tlWO usages. It can'tbe done. In the one case it means "freedom," in the other it means "slavery."That's a semantic. M. STANTON EVANS

NOVEMBER 1955 747

This month marks the first ap­pearance in the FREEMAN of an"On Campus" section - sum­maries of ideas and activitieswritten by college students. Wehave begun it in recognition ofthe uprising which, in variousguises, is taking place on Amer­ican campuses. Protesting vigor­ously against the still-fashionableorthodoxy of collectivism, today'srebels style themselves in manyways-as conservatives, libertari­ans, individualists. All of thes'elabels signify one important thing-a common feeling of frustrationat the ethical and intellectual im­potence of the liberal conformism.

NOTRE DAME (Notre Dame, Ind.):-There is an obvious lack of inter­est here, generally speaking, in anypolitical movement, be it libertarianor collectivist. The only outlet forpolitical discussion is the Academyof Political Science, which presents anumber of very interesting pro­grams, one of which is a mock na­tional convention held every fouryears.

'My own conservative activitiesare limited to informal discussionswith friends who are of the samemind, and they are few. Any at­tempt to organize conservativeswould no doubt be frowned uponfrom all channels, and thus con­servatives at Notre Dame will haveto continue hibernating until a morepronounced interest in politics ap­pears in the student body.

RICHARD V. ALLEN, '56

CARLETON COLLEGE (Northfield,Minn.) :-Libertarians at Carletonare sometimes able to get togetherin our Economics Club, but other­wise there is practically no formalorg,anizationof activities here. Byway of making some headwayagainst the "liberal" climate ofopinion, I am going to try to haveone program every other week on

748 THE FREEMAN

our college radio station (KARL),discussing ideas circulated by theIntercollegiate Society of Individu­alists. I hope it will work out into akind of round-table discussion.

ALDEN M. COHEN, '56

YALE (New Haven, Conn.):-Theconservative program for the 1955­56 session at Yale will, as during thelast year, center about the dualactivities of the Independent Li­brary (newly remodelled and con­taining over 2'00 libertarian and Icon­servative books) and the CalliopeanSociety. The latter organization, adebating group, will hold a series ofmeetings at which members willmeet and discuss political and eco­nomic problems with leading liber­tarian speakers and noted membersof the Yale faculty. The IndependentLibrary will continue publication ofThe Independent, the campus news­paper which surveys and criticizescourse and text material from aconservative vantage point. Bothgroups will Ibe happy to ,cooperatein an attempt to establish contactwith similar organizations at othercolleges, and to extend any. possibleassistance to them.

ALAN P. BUCHMANN, '56

(At Harvard University, two con­servative groups are functioning. Oneis the Harvard Conservative League,and the other is the New Conserva­tive Club. Both have projected ambi­ti,ous plans for the future. This monthwe carry a report from the Conserva­tive League, with one from the Con­servative Club to follow in our nextissue.-En.)

HARVARD (Cambridge, Mass.):­The Harvard Conservative Leaguewas formed almost two years ago, inprotest against the variety of speak­ers which were being offered theuniversity audience. Owen Latti­more had spoken here for the fifthor sixth time in a few years. We or­ganized our group to bring con­servative speakers to address the

Harvard community. Last year wepresented John T. Flynn and RussellKirk, both with great success. Thisfall we expect to present SenatorJenner, William F. Buckley, Jr."Carroll Reece, and perhaps SenatorMundt. Our biggest plan for thefuture is to establish a newslettermuch like that at Yale, The Inde­pendent. Before this may be done,however, we shall need to solicitmore active members and also moreoutside financial support.

KENNETH E. THOMPSON, '56

INDIANA (Bloomington, Ind.):­The Indiana Young Republican Clubis again in conservative hands, as ithas been for the last five years. Thisyear we are planning to have guestspeakers periodi,cally. Congressionalcommittee hearings and trips makeit difficult for us to acquire manypersons whom we desire. As of now,however, we have John Beamer,Indiana 5th District, and Ralph Har­vey, Indiana's 10th District. Duringthe second semester, we are thinkingof joining the ,Democrats in sponsor­ing two or three debates between agood conservative and a Ne,w Dealer.Last year Chuck Brownson did agood job against Paul Butler. Thestudents seem to go for programs ofthat nature. JAMES S. RABER, '56

AND FROM HIGH SCHOO,LS:­In Indianapolis, Indiana, a liber­tarian Youth Seminar was held, at­tended by high school students fromall over Marion County. The speak­ers included Senator Jenner, KarlBaarslag, and E. Merrill Root. Thestudents are enthusiastic in theirdesire to understand what, to them,are new and unusual ideas. Out ofthe seminar has grown an organiza­tion called "Young Americans forthe Republic." The vigor and de­termination of these young peopledemonstrate that a conservativerevolution is possible, and-if thefieldwork is done-on its way as areality. -ED.

A Reviewer's Noteboo~By JOlIN CHAMBERLAIN d!'!I1

Alistair Cooke, a British newspapercorrespondent who has never beenparticularly per,ceptive in his under­standing of America (he wrote adull-witted (book on the Hiss-Cham­bers case), has edited a surprisinglygood anthology called The VintageMencken (240 pp., New York:Vintage Books, 95 cents). His aimhas been to present H. L. Menckenmaterial in a way that serves to givea running account of the old fox'slife as he lived and wrote it, be­ginning with the adventures of ajoyous urchin in the Baltimore ofthe eighties and coming on down tothe wearied and urbane reporterwhose last assignment was to coverthe Progressive Party convention of1948, which nominated Henry Wal­lace for the Presidency. SinceMencken never got around to writ­ing about his own boyhood andyouth until late middle life, theCooke schematization naturally putsthe mature Mencken styIe up to thevery front of the anthology. But theearly Mencken made up in gustowhat he lacked in mellowness, sothere is no letdown in any sectionof the book. It is all Mencken, andit is. all wonderful.

Mr. Cooke provides an introduc­tion which notes that Mencken wasa .great humorist and a consummatecraftsman with words. He also saysthat Mencken was overrated in hisday as a thinker. One can agree withMr. Cooke on all these counts, butthe fact remains that Mencken,though not particularly penetratingas a critic of religion or philosophy,was far sounder on politics than hislatest anthologizer supposes. More­over, Mencken had a way of makingpolitical points that provokes thereader to do a lot of thinking forhimself. This is the mark of thegreat teacher, yet Mr. Cooke does

not seem to be particularly awarethat Mencken, the enemy of peda­gogues, was himself one of the mostable of the tribe. He was more thana humorist, more than an artist withwords; he was also a Socratic influ­ence on the young. If a number ofwriters survived the dreadful men­tal collapse of the thirties to takeup with the liibertarianism of theiryouth in the forties and fifties, it isbecause Mencken was around intheir salad days writing those mar­velous things about "The ArchangelWoodrow" and Mr. Justice Holmesas an enemy of the Bill of Rights.

Mencken was a personal journalistwho dealt in invective and abuse,and in being incurably personal inhis methods he ran many risks. Buthe got away with it all by virtue ofthe one thing that sets him apartfrom Westbrook Pegler, who has al­most as many gifts as a humoristand a craftsman. What madeMencken continuously effective asa personal journalist is that he neverallowed himself to become flusteredinto anger. There was no vindictive­ness in him, no rage, no heave andsweat. He was prodigal with hisname-calling, his vituperation, andhis deadly use of the invidious ad­jective. But the personalities werealways delivered with an air of greataplomb, as from an Olympianheight. And there was always thegrin and the dancing points of lightin the Mencken eyes when the lastsentence had been committed topaper.

'The Olympian attitude made himsingularly easy to take, particularlyin his later career when he began toavoid too great an indulgence in hisown particular cliches, many ofthem adapted from the German. IfPegler would go back and read

Mencken it would be the real mak­ing of him, for Pegler has all theMencken abilities, and an even bet­ter change of pace. But to achievethe Menckenian calm involves get­ting a strangle hold on one'sadrenals, which is not an easy thingto do in a time when charlatanshave such power for evil. No doubtlVf.encken's own adrenals workedovertime when he contemplated cer­tain types of social and politicallunacy, but he never betrayed thefact when he sat down to his type­writer. He alw,ays had himself un­der firm control, and the anger, ifit were there to begin with, wasfirmly suppressed. If it emerged atall, it was in the delayed bite of atellingly funny phrase.

The first time one reads Menckenon Calvin Coolidge, for example, onesimply laughs uproariously. Butreading Mencken on Coolidge thesecond time over, one Ibegins to notethe way he gets his effects. The tricklies in praising Coolidge for what,in most men, would be an egregiousfault. Coolidge, says Mencken, "sleptmore than any other President,whether by day or by night. Nerofiddled, but Coolidge only snored.When the crash came at last andHoover began to smoke and bubble,good Cal was safe in Northampton,and still in the hay."

The Coolidge gift for "self-in­duced narcolepsy" was, in Mencken'sestimation, a blessing beyond com­putation. For with a President whowas devoted to drowsing away hisafternoons in the White House, "theideal of Jefferson was relalized atlast, and the Jeffersonians were de­lighted." Says Mencken in perora­tion : "We suffer most, not when theWhite House is a peaceful dormi­tory, but when it is a jitney mars

NOVEMBER 1955 749

hill, with a tin-pot Paul bawlingfrom the roof. . . . There were nothrills when [Coolidge] rei1gned, butneither were there any headaches.He had no ideas, and he was not anuisance."

The bit on Coolidge explains whyMencken's personal journalism was,in the last analysis, not so very per­sonal after all. Actually, Menckenwas not particularly interested inscoring points off "good Cal's" som­nolence. What he really wanted todo was to use Coolidge as a peg onwhich to hang a libertarian's theoryof government. He lured his readerson by staging a show, and the peda­gogue's lesson emerges slyly fromwhat at first blush seems a merewelter of gossip and buffoonery.

The Mencken trick with Mr. JusticeHolmes is to picture the man as alegal conformist who concurred inthe judgment of the Supreme Courtin a ratio of eight or ten to one. Butit is neither Holmes' prevailing con­formity nor his occasional talent forheterodox utterance that interestsMencken. What worried Menckenabout the good Justice was his will­ingness to let the legislative arm ofgovernment, whether in Washing­ton or in the state capitals, violatethe Bill of Rights whenever a ma­jority so decreed. "If this is liberal­ism," says Mencken, "then all I cansay is that liberalism is not what itwas when I was young. In those re­mote days, sucking wisdom from theprimeval springs, I was taught thatthe very aim of the IConstitution wasto keep lawmakers from runningamok, and that it was the highestduty of the Supreme Court, follow­ing Marbury vs. Madison, to safe­guard it against their forays. It wasnot sufficient, so my instructorsmaintained, for Congress or a statelegislature to give assurance that itsintentions were noble; noble or not,it had to keep squarely within thelimits of the Bill of Rights, and themoment it went beyond them itsmost virtuous acts were null andvoid."

So, as in the case of the essay onCalvin Coolidge, Mencken is onlyincidentally writing about a man inhis review of a book called TheDissenting Opinions of Mr. Justice

750 THE FREE'MAN

Holmes. He pays his respects to the"peculiar salacity" of Holmes' opin­ions, he mentions the Justice's con­siderable talent for epigram, he kidsthe "liberals" for their failure to seethat Holmes is, actually, a conserva­tive. But the piece on Holmes is amere excuse for getting acrossMencken's own ideas about the de­sirability of a form of governmentthat will protect individuals in theirrights against the presumption oftheir legisl'ators. Again, the end ofMencken's "personal" journalism isan impersonal lesson, one thatstands true for any place and anytime. The name-,ealling is merelypart of the fun; it is the barker'stitillating cry designed to lure thecrowd into the tent, not the mainpart of the show.

Alistair Cooke has assembled forty­nine Mencken items, some short,some long, and all of them repre­sentative of the man. Long orshort, there is never an ounce ofpadding in the prose. The use of astandard phrase is so rare that itsticks out like the nose on JimmyDurante's face whenever it occurs.Describing a revival meeting whichhe observed in Tennessee during themonth of the Scopes trial, Menckenwrote about a penitent female who"began with mild enough jerks ofthe head, but in a moment she wasbounding all over the place, like achi,cken with its head cut off. Every

H. L. Mencken

time her head came up a stream ofhosannas would issue out of it. Onceshe collided with a dark, undersizedbrother, hitherto silent and stolid.Contact with her set him off as ifhe had been kicked by a mule. Heleaped into the air, threw back hishead, and began to gargle as if witha mouthful of BB shot. Then heloosed one tremendous, stentoriansentence in the tongues, and col­lapsed."

This description was part of a dis­patch tossed off for the BaltimoreSun on a roaring hot Sunday after­noon in a Chattanooga hotel room.What is chiefly remarkable aboutthe dispatch is that the particularphrase "chicken with its head cutoff" is the only cliche in some threethousand words of hot newspapercopy. All the rest is fresh, original,and 100 per eent Mencken.

Alistair Cooke says that Shaw wasMencken's "superior" in intellectand in satirical power, which is en­tirely doubtful. But Cooke does havethe good sense to note that Menckenlacks the "shrill spinster note thatin the end wearies all but the mostdedicated of Shaw's disciples." Any­way, whether it is a matter of merestyle or fundamental intellect,Mencken seems to be wearing betterthan Shaw these days. I personallythink he will be read when Shawis forgotten. The truth is that Shaw'sideas were very ordinary; they weremerely a some-what pointed parrot­ing of the mildewed Fabian gabblethat was on every "advanced"thinker's tongue in England fromthe eighteen eighties to the nineteenforties. Mencken's ideas on religionare not vastly different from thoseof any so-called freethinker of histime, which would put him on a par¥lith Shaw for shallow convention­ality here. But Mencken on politicsis vastly superior to Shaw.

Since his styIe-to quote Cooke­emerged in late years as "purifiedand mellowed ... a style flexible,fancy-free, ribald, and always beau­tifully lucid," Men-eken should lasta long time as pure literature. Whencollege English teachers and profes­sors of journalism begin to useMencken as a model, then we maybegin to get some good writing againin the young.

Philosophic DeclineThe Age of Belief, by Anne Fre­

mantle, 224 pp., $2.75. The Ageof Analysis, by Morton White, 253pp., $3.00. Boston: Houghton Mif­flin Company

The Age of Belief is a beautiful andimportant book. Anne Fremantlehas the depth and scope, the pre­cise yet vivid style, to sum up andproject this great period in humanthought.

She presents the living minds ofthe Middle Ages as they passionate­ly added to life a fourth dimensionof thought. She says: "But neitherSt. Augustine, nor St. Thomas, norany other medieval philosopher, wascontent just to accept what Platoor AriSltotle (or anyone else) hadsaid. The essence of philosophy isthat it must be fresh; it can nevercome out of a can; every philosopherhas to ask the old questions anewand to produce fresh ans1wers. Thuseach new philosopher builds a newstory onto the house he has inher­ited, the house that we all inhabit,the house of hum,an wisdom."

Yet the philosophers of the Ageof Belief worked in the cosmi'cframe of a great 'coherent worldview: Christianity. Tolstoi, in WhatIs Religion?, rightly said that phil­osophy or science discovers in detailonly what was already implicit inthe total religious world view whichwas its premise and controlling de­sign; also, that any philosophy orsoience is retrogressive and partialif it sinks below the highest worldview that is possible in its time. Inthe medieval world Christianitywas the highest possible world view-as it still is. (I do not mean thisethically, I mean it metaphysioally.)The philosophers of the Age of Be­lief had the advantage that, begin­ning with Christianity, they werenaturally creative and profound;whereas most philosophers of theAge of Analysis have no coherentworld vielw: not knowing the livingtree in its integrity of life, they be­gin with the fallen leaves and theamputated twigs which they de­hydrate, and thus inevitably endwith a few dead spUnters that theysuppose a philosophy.

Also the philosophers of the Ageof Belief were not intellects thatonce were men, but men using their

intellects to Ithink. All the greatphilosophers - Heraclitus, Plato,Aristotle, Bruno, Spinoza, Schopen­hauer-never have regarded phil­osophy as a way of dehydrating llifewith intellect, but as a form of cre­ative consciousness that pulses withthe blood of life itself. Philosophy,to them, was not a fraction (intel­lect) abrogating special privilegefor its limited partiality, but life asa whole looking at itself with richconcrete vision in order to discoverand us'e a way of life.

Most of us today have no concep­tion of the richness, depth, variety,of the medieval mind. Anne Fre­mantle helps us to step into thatworld of freer winds and clearersuns, as a noble imaginative adven­ture. She shows us, too, the finalsad collapse of that great world, asphilosophy lost the creative energyof belief and tried to amuse itselfwith quibbles, semantics, analysis.

By comparison, The Age of Analy­sis is brash, small, disappointing.Morton White has neither the trav­elled mind nor the literary sltyle ofAnne Frem1antle; he is unable torise and survey from above thephilosophers he proj ects. His choiceis narrow, into'leralllt, limited. Hedoes not admit a single Christianphilosopher into his book, and hisown preference (among those hedoes choose) is for the bleakly ana­lytical and the baldly empirical.H us'S e r 1, Oarnap, Wittgenstein,moreover, are hardly of a stature tobe called-much less chosen. Of theothers selected for major treatment,Dewey (to any philosophic mind)is not a philosopher at all, WhileJean-Paul Sartre is a cheap-j,a!ckbarker at a literary side show. Ifliterary philosophers are to be ad­mitted, why prefer a nonentity likeSartre to a great man and mind likeMiguel de Unamuno? Why omitl\tIaritain? Or C. S. Lewis? OrCharles Morgan?

White dislikes the transcendentaland metaphysical; he is incapableof understanding either. He dis­misses scornfully the tradition ofEmer,son in American thought, pre­ferring the hasty and use-fixatedpragmatists.

He does not even seem to realizethat the best of his philosophers­Bergson, Croce, Santayana - stemfrom the great tradition that is notanalysis but synthesis. In general,

if he ever finds himself in the pres­ence of a mountain, he turns to thenearest molehill of a G. E. Moore, aJohn Dewey, a Jean-Paul Sartre.

These two books reveal in con­crete terrible reality the devolutionof philosophy from the medieval tothe modern. Ahandoning the high­est (and deepes't) WiOrld conception,Christianity in the metaphysicalsense, the modern mind loses itselfin shadows and illusions, andamuses itself with withered leavesand sapless splinters. This devolu­tion illustrates anew Vergil's greatphrase for the great truth: "facilisdescensus Averno." As always,broad is the road and easy the de­scent into death: it is a popularfour-lane highway for superchaligedphilosophers. The pity is that theyhelp to wreck not only themselves,but also civilization.

E. MERRILL ROOT

Not PrettyBeyond Courage, by Clay Blair, Jr.

247 pp. New York: David Mc­Kay Company, Inc. $3.50

"For a minute, Shadduck satstunned. His mind whirled wildlywith visions of his hand droppingoff into his lap. Then, in a frenzy,he tore at the bandage, ripping it toshreds, pulling off large pieces ofscab and skin with it. He looked inhorror: maggots crawled all overthe burned, rotting, pussy mess thatwas his hand."

Not very pretty-but then neitheris war. Korea was a political battlefought to a standstill defeat by ourpoliticians. Soldiers, of course, didthe dying.

Appropriately, this book is a trib­ute to the soldiers-in particular, tothe men who refused to die. It isexclusively concerned with AirForce pilots shot down behind en­emy lines, but one recognizes in theprot'agonists of these gripping talesqualities universal to the fightingman.

For each of these five pilots toescape, incredible fortitude wasnecessary. Lieutenant Summersillwas wounded. His feet were froz,en.But he walked 43 miles in 40 hours,and in weather more than 40 de­grees below zero. C1aptain Thomasspent 71 days flat on his back incaves not much larger than roomygraves. Week after week, Colonel

NOVEMBER 1955 751

Schinz watched air reSGue planesignore his distress signals as heslowly starved.

These nightmare existences re­quired an endurance animals don'thave. The men were forced to suchextremities of physical and spiritualwant that they were driven to thetwin alternatives: Jim lay down anddied; Shadduck prayed and lived.Animals are confined to their bodies.They cannot transcend the limHs oftheir strength. But man, BeyondCourage reminds us over and overagain, has a resort beyond the lastresort. If he is so ,constituted thathe can make use of this re,sort, hisability to take the most severe bod­ily and mental stresses is unlimited.

The four stories Mr. Blair re­counts deal only with the men who'·,made it." A great part of the ten-sion of the book arises ' thethought which cannot bl .wed:what of the countless nur- whodid not make it? Some of:rnayhav,e had equal attributes of mindand body. Some of them may haveshared a faith in God which heldthem up to the las,t. Many of them,perhaps, endured tortures similar orgreater than those tortures sufferedby these bTave men; only to die.

Repeatedly, as the magnifircentstories are reflected upon, thethought intrudes: for what? Thepity of it is that so much sacrifice,such wonderful, awe-inspiring gritshould have been betrayed at thediplomats' table. A maggot fromone of Lieutenant Shadduck'swounds makes obs'cene the pensvvhich signed the meaning out of hissacrifice. These stories prove thatm'an is noble always, in spite of hismasters; a quixotic beau geste inthe darknesrs which surrounds him.

F. R. BUCKLEY

The Southern SideThen My Old Kentucky Home,

Goodnight! by W. E.Debnam,135 pp. 131:3 Williamson Drive,Raleigh, N. C. $1.00

Despite the volumes written on theracial segregation issue since the1954 school decision of the SupremeCourt there has been, till now, nocomprehensive popular statement ofthe Southern position offered thepublic. At last W. E. Debnam, notedSouthern radio commentator and

752 THE FREEMAN

author, has come forward with acalm, reasoned and carefully docu­mented presentation of that position.N'o apology, but rather a frankavowal, it presents a side of thequestion one should hear beforereaching a final decision. And itdoes the jab in a very readable andentertaining manner.

The theme of this book may besaid to be that "Race consciousnessis not race prejudice; it is a deeplyingrained awareness of a birthrightheld in trust for posterity." Thiswork contains no element of racialhostility. It is sympathetic in it,sapproach to the Negro, and whilefrankly advocating the principle ofsegregation, does so on the premisethat it is the poHcy ultimately mostconducive to the welfare of bothraces.

Debnam accepts and argues forthe Southern assumption, balsic tosegregation, that unrestricted socialintercourse will lead inevitably tointermarriage, and that widespreadamalgamation of such dissimilarraces has been uniformly unsatisfac­tory to all concerned, wherevertried.

While the court deci,sion is theprincipal subject of the book, thereare numerous passages of factualand historical interest dealing withNegro-:white relations in Americaand elsewhere. The history of Ne­groes in America, the record of in­tegrHtion wherever tried, and theeconomic progress and problems ofA'merican Negroes are a few of thesubj ects covered.

The integration decision of theSupreme Court is, of course, round­ly condemned. Numerous anecdotesare given regarding the authors ofthat decision. One of the most illu­minating pass1ages of the entire bookis a description of the backgroundof Dr. Gunnar Myrdal's book onwhich that decision is apparentlybased.

Dlifferences within the Negro com­m unity as to the proper approachto the racial problem are discussed,together with brief histories ofseveral prominent Negro leaders.

'The book is not, however, an at­tempt to whitewash the South. "JimCrowism" is denounced as unjusti­fiable morally and practically. Thecurrent "citizens' council" move­ment springing up in some Southernstates is recognized for the incipient

danger it is. Debnam frankly rec­ognizes that there hals been muchinjusrti,ce to the Negro. in the South,as well as elsewhere. Several wide­spread romanUc myths about theSouth are exploded. The Southerneris portrayed as an ordinary, decentindividual seeking a fair solution toa well-nigh insuperable problem.

Debnam concludes with a con­structive :suggestion for approachingthe school problem, which, if itshould survive probable NAACPcourt attack, would preserve theprinciple of public education andprotect the now endangered rightof the individual to choose freelyhis associates. The proposal is thatthe public schools be racially int'e­grated, according to Supreme Courtfiat, but that the states reimbursewhite or Negro pupils up to areasonable amo for tuition toprivate schools, h 1.11ey preferredthese schools. ~ ') solution de-serving wideSl« ...' detention andprobably would have as good achance of surviving court action asany approach heretofore suggested.

National publishers seem eitherto fear or to object to an out-and­out presentation of Southern racialviews. Including one great Southernpublishing house, they even refusedto read the manuscript of this book!This, although the book is in goodtas,te and the last book by the au­thor has, to date, sold some 210,000copies. J AMES FRANCIS MILLER

Stalin~s TriumphThe Interregnum, 1923-192:4, by

Edward Hallett Carr. 392 pp. NewYork: The Macmillan Company.$5.00

This fourth volume of Mr. Carr'shistory of Soviet Russia covers theperiod from Lenin's second and finalbreakdown in March 1923, until theThirteenth Congress of the RussianCommunist Party in the spring of1924. This was, as the title suggests,a period of interregnum, when therewas no clear replacement forLenin's leadership.

However, by the time of Lenin'sdeath, in January 1924, the firstround of what might be called thevvar of Leninite Succession had beenfought and won against Trotsky,long bracketed with Lenin as one

IF you have a son or daughter at college ...

IF you want to know who is really setting the tone of educationin the universities ...

IF you want to know what can be done to insure true academicfreedom ...

THEN you must read this amazing new book of documented revela­tions on the state of higher education in the United States.

Collectivism on the Campus is no mere essay on politics andeducation. It is a hard-hitting body of facts pointing to a singleconclusion: that for years the colleges of America have beenpowerfully dominated hy the collectivists.

Collectivism on the Campus tells in pungent detail how this hascome about. It tells who and where the most articulate commun­ist, socialist., and totalitarian "liberal'" teachers are., and how theyoperate in and out of the classroom.

John Chamberlain says, "Professor Root has written a most per­suasive hook hecause he is both a man of passionate beliefs anda firm advocate of free and open dehate. He does not ask that'State liberals' or even theoretical Marxists be banished from thecampus.... All he asks is that students should have the opportunityto hear the case for individualism ... on an even-up basis.'"

Publication date, November 3. Order your copy today. Price $5.00.

.Zone State .

of the two supreme leaders of theRussian Bolshevik Revolution, bythe triumvirate composed of Stalin,Zinoviev and Kamenev.

Triumvirates have seldom, if ever,proved durable instruments of rule.One recalls Caesar, Pompey andCrassus in Rome and Robespierre,Danton and Marat in the FrenchRevolution. The time would comewhen Stalin would not only discard

COLLECTIVISMON THECAMPUS

The Battle for the Mind

in American Colleges

By E. M'E'RRILL ROOT

THE DEVIN-ADAIR CO,MJPANY23 East 26th Street, New York 10, N.Y.

Gentlemen: Please send me .CAMPUS by E. Merrill Root

o $5.00 per copy enclosed

Name (please print) .

Street

City .

his partners, Zinoviev and Kame­nev, but would include them and allthe surviving members of the Polit­buro, highest executive organ of theCommunist Party as it was com­posed at the time of Lenin's death,in one vast batch of "liquidations."

But this is a story for futurebooks. Of the four volumes whichMr. Carr has published, this is dis­tinctly the best. The first volume

copies of COLLECTIVISM ON THE

o Please send list of your hooks

was conceived along a very peculiarplan-the personalities, the events,the historical drama of the Revolu­tion being pushed into the back­ground in favor of dry disquisitionson points of Marxist and Leninistdoctrine. The second and third vol­umes were devoted to topical stud­ies of economics and foreign policyin the first years of the Revolution.

In the present work the authortakes up the political, economic andforeign policy aspects of the Sovietregime during a limited period andproduces a much sharper and morecoherent picture. His diligentscholarship is worthy of high praiseand extends to very small details,such as the underground groupswhich sprang up during the NEP.

The pro-collectivist bias whichcould be criticized in the first vol­ume is not to be found in the pres­ent work. The author constructs aplausible and objective narrative ofa period which has been very one­sidedly described by Stalinite andTrotskyite special pleaders.

Apart from the loss of Lenin'sguiding hand, the Communist Partyfaced a severe economic crisis in1923-with the industriaf workers,in theory the rulers of the country,worse off than they had been underthe Tsars, and the peasants sufferingfrom a tremendous spread, to theirdisadvantage, between industrialand agricultural prices.

These two factors helped to bringabout an upsurge of demands fordemocracy within the CommunistParty, especially among studentsand younger party members. HadTrotsky realized that he faced a life­and-death struggle for power, hemight have ousted his rivals, seizedpower and changed the course ofSoviet history. But Stalin out­maneuvered him at every turn; anda mysterious illness, which tookTrotsky out of political activity inthe months before and after Lenin'sdeath, sealed his political fate.

From this conscientious and re­liable narrative the reader maydraw two morals: there is no lastingquality about freedom that isjealously restricted to the member­ship of a ruling party; and if eco­nomic freedom is suppressed by aruling bureaucracy, political andpersonal liberty are certain to beadditional casualties.

WILLIAM HENRY CHAMBERLIN

NOVEMBER 1955 753

Decay, Then and Now

The Years of the City, by George R.Stewart. 567 pp. Boston: Hough­ton Mifflin Company. $4.50

Phrax is a Greek city-state. Youwill not find it referred to in anybook about ancient Greece, eitherhistorical or mythological. It is thecreation of George R. Ste1wart, anovelist who is as much a scholar asa storyteller.

A'ccording to the oracle, whichsent this pioneer fleet on its way tofound a new city, the estalblishmentWlould last for Iittle more than threegenerations. And so, Stewart pro­ceeds to tell the story of Phrax,from its inception,growth, achieve­ment of greatness, decadence and de­cline. When you are finished withthe 567 pages, you have been treat­ed to a good sltory; also a cameohistory of civilization.

If you are so inclined, you will findin this unfoldment of the life of acity-state much that is applicable towhat we know of the rise and fall ofRome and, more particularly, whatwe see about us in America. There iseven a hint of what happens to thebasic la,ws of a political institutionwhen the moral fiber of the peoplebegins to dislint,egrate, and whatStewart says of the Laws of Zenotoris strongly suggestive of the Ameri­can Constitution.

Stewart tells a story and at nopoint descends to didacticism. Nev­ertheless, you can hardly help seeinga parallel with America in the in­crea,se in taxes, the centralization ofpower, the de,cadence of its intellec­tuals, even in the abandonment of avolunteer army for conscription, inthe mythical city-state of Phrax.

F. c.

Modern GulliverThe Dollar Dilemma, by Melchior

Palyi. 208 pp. Chicago: HenryRegnery Company. $2.75

To those who think the European­ization of America is taking place,and wonder how it will turn out,this small book is a gold mine offactual information. It is valuablealso to American businessmen in­terested in foreign trade and invest­ments. To high school and collegelads debating the pros and cons of

754 THE FREEMAN

a free market economy, it is a one­volume libr,ary.

No one is better qualified to reporton ,conditions in the European coun­tries than Dr. Palyi, a distinguishedeconomist born in Hungary, whohad year,s of experience in the bank­ing world abroad and was economicadviser to Germany's largest bankbefore he came to Amerioa in 1933.He knows the score.

His main theme is thalt UnitedStates economic aid to Europeancountries sho1-1.ld be. stopped, bothin our interest and theirs. But col­later.al to this, Dr. Palyi describes infascinating detail the maze of gov­ernmental interventionism and po­litical red tape that strangles thedomestic and foreign business ofboth Brit'ain and the continentalcountries.

If Jonathan Swift had never writ­ten Gulliver's Travels, but waslooking for a giant enmeshed in aweb woven ,by Httle men, he couldhave found ample data for his slatirein this description of Europe twohundred years after his death. Asevery sticky thread encircling oneman is another man's legally pro­tected racket, no one will let go ofhis own little privilege for the sakeof his country. The fatherland be­comes submerged as the slow accre­tion of privilege, subsidized hy theUnited States, gathers momentum.

The dollar dilemma, in Dr. Palyi'sview, boils down to the simple butacute problem of anyone, or every­body, living beyond their means.He pays his respects to the give-it­away propag!andists on both ,sides ofthe Atlantic, including Mr. PaulHoffman, one-time M:arshall Planadministrator, who said it would be"an im:moral act" for the UnitedStates to extend to Europe repay­able loans! Strange is the power ofthis "collective guilt complex," builtup by people who expect to profit byhaving payment for their exportsguaranteed by the American tax­payers.

He quotes the London Times astelling Britons that they "have hada holiday from reality long enough."The economic and moral deteriora­tion of living on perpetual boon­doggles from a rich and fatuousuncle is presented in minute detail.

He tells of a group of islandersw,aiting for a relief boat bringinggoods for which they would not have

to pay. One of them said: "If itwere not for the famine, nobodycould live here!" Every page isstudded with facts and figur,esshowing the effects 01: trying to livev.rithout the sweat of one's o,wnbrow. All of which is contrary tothe teaching of Genesis, chapter 3,verse 19. Would that our s,milingPresident might get away for aweek in a wildernes,s cabin and readThe Dollar Dilemma.

SAMUEL B. PETTENGILL

Every Man an IslandOur Yankee Heritage, by Carleton

Beals. 311 pp. New York: DavidMcKay Co. $4.00

"What is history," asked Napoleon,"but a fable agreed upon?" Andthough he was hardly allowing :forthe degree of policed agreementwhich Pravda's fables would requirea century later, still he was prob­ably right. We do take our historyin :the rough, jus1t as we take ourgeography. For the complex profileof inlets, bays, peninsulas and atollswhich may really m1ake up a coast­line, we let our maps substitute athick, unw1avering line. And in thesame way, :for the bristling enter­prise tha,t went on in New Englandfrom 1620 to the first yealrs of theRepubHc, we sUibst,itute calendartableaux: the Pilgrims Landing, theFirst Thanksgiving, the Boston TeaParty, and so forth.

In Our Yankee Heritage, CarletonBeals very elligagingl,y dilates thisera into keen, lively focus. Withoutever being owlish, he has inter­woven his text with bits, from con­temporary di\aries, town records,famiJly papers that represent long,loving resear'ch. And the stories hetells about the clock industry, thefirst iron foundries, ahout CharlesGoodyear and Eli Whitney and anextraordinary man named AbelBuell, who made the first map ofthe United States ever engraved inAmerica, are all fascinating.

But most moving of all is his re­constructionof the daY-Jhy-dary ex­perience and resourcefulness of theone hundred men and women wecall the Pilgrims, from the bleakNovember day their boat enteredCape Cod Harbor through theirlong, bitter first winter at Plymouth.It is a harrowing story. Reading it,I wished all the s'chool children in

America could hear it this fall. Bet­ter still: I wish they could spend anentire semester discussing its events,people, and human values. I believeit would teach a sO-lcalled "civics"class, or a "social studies" cl'ass,m'ore ClIbout society, government,liibeT,ty, la,w, not to mention courage,endurance, piety, God, agriculiture,self-defense, minority groups, andthe sheer mystery of human pluckthan all the A,merican History Out­lines ever printed.

It would also tea'ch them some­thing aJbout 'communislm, with andw1thout a capita'! C. On December25, six weeks after arriving, the Pil­grims beg/an to ,buHd their firsthouse at Plymouth. It was a com­munal bJouse,caHed "The Rendez­vous." But a week later lots weredra'wn for individual dwellings.Then, reports William Bradford'sjournal, "we agreed that every manshould build his own house," :£or allw'ould "make more haste than work­ing in Common." (my italics.)

This is something which not onlyour school 'children, but our Presi­dent, Congress and Supreme Courtmight ponder. It has become an al­most unquestioned assumptionabout human nature that a manworks better when "working inCommon," and that John Donne wasright when he said that "no man isan i.sland." This isn't wholly true.We are not merely spokes at:tachedto a hub. In a profound, necessaryway, every man is an island. Andeven wi:th hostile Indians, starva­tion' freez,ing weather and an un­known continent surrounding them,the Pilgrims were canny enough,honeslt enough, co~nmonsensical

enough, to know this. A man winbuild his own house better and morequickly than he will build another's.

I wonder if there is an A'mericancitizen who could read this chapter

without feeling not only ashamed,but bored by the goody-goody tame­ness of his own enterprise today.

ROBERT PHELPS

A New PhilistineThe Demon of Progress in the Arts,

by Wyndham Lewis. 97 pp. Chi­cago: Henry Regnery Company.$3.00

It willibe noted with horror in manysectors of the art world that Wynd­ham Leiwis has deserted to the phi­listines. Which is to say, Mr. Lewishas talked some sense about art,about what it should be, and aboutwhat it has to be. His book, TheDemon of Progress in the Arts, isguaranteed to gravel quite a fewpeople, particularly modern artphilosophe Herbert Read, who getsdragged over the coals preciselywhen they are the hottest.

Looking askance at modern art,Lewis constructs a very simple andself-evident thesis. Because hemakes his case by assertion, ratherthan argument, the logical thread isnot alwayrsexplicit. Basically, how­ever, his position may be stated asfollows: if there is no definition ofart, then everything is art---'which isthe same as to say that nothing isart; on the other hand, if there isany definition of art, then there areperforce excesses which must beconsidered beyond the pale of thedefinition. This is the logic of thesituation-yet the moderns refuse togo one way or the other; they willnot say that there is no definition,and yet they will not admit that itis possible for any excess to be out­side of a definition. They remainstatic in meaninglessness. This is, Ithink, what irritates Lewis: the re­fusal of the moderns to choose, toopt for sense or for nonsense. Chosenor not, however, nonsense is theirelement.

Led forward by the art critics­the "word men" who know noth­ing of art-the unintellectualized"painting animals" have swept pastthe point where abstraction ceasesto be art, and are thundering downan inclined plane of sham into whatLewis calls "absolute zero." Lewisdoes not condemn· all extremism; onthe contrary, he ieelsthat some "ex­tremist" work has enriched art,given it a new dimension. But ex­tremism for its own sake, he con-

tends, is quite different from ex­tremism for art's sake.

In an energetic prose style, whichcan best be described as a crossbetween Ezra Pound and IrvingBabbitt, Lewis lays into all vari­ties of sham and pose. Implied inhis assault is a condemnation of thereal sickness of modern society­which is relativism gone wild. Forit is relativism which refuses to al­low, of the existence of any objec­tive standards, either moral or aes­thetic. It is the toxin which hascorrupted our cultural as well as ourpolitical existence. Because it isitself disorderly and soggy, it in­evitably gives rise to some hor­rendous dictatorship. Allow in geverything, it can disallow nothing.Thus it is impotent to crush the har­bingers of malevolence and the des­potism of nonsense. All our trag­edies, as Lewis' book so forcefullypoints out in the field of art, canbe traced to the fact that we havelost our moorings in definition andprinciple. M. STANTON EVANS

Foreign Affairs

Foreign Affairs Bibliography: A Se­lected and Annotated List ofBooks on Inte'rnational Relations,1942-1952, edi,ted by Henry L.Roberts. 727 pp. New York:Harper and Brothers. $10.00

This list of nine thousand titles inthirty-four languages is the latestaddition to a valuable series whichnow includes three volumes, cover­ing the years from 1916 through1952. Inclusion of titles is based onthe bibliographical notes in theperiodical Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Roberts has adopted as hismotto Browning's phrase, "How itstrikes a contemporary." He em­phasizes the importance and the dif­ficulty of compiling a bibliographythat is "international" in a worlddivided by tensions, one that is "re­liable" in a world of conflictingideas, and one that is characterizedby sound judgment in a world ofsvvift and extraordinary changes.

The bibliography's classified ar­rangement adds to its value andreadability. The overlapping oftitles which inevitaJbly results is nota disadvantage because of the ex­cellent indexes and cross references.

EDNA HAAS

NOVEMBER 1955 755

JUSTICEThe flow of "foundation" money andthe uproar of the liberal press makeit clear that only those who arestriving to destroy America, eitherthrough communism or through theconstruction of an internal tyranny,have any "rights" worth defending.Thus it is reasonable that someonewho seeks to oppose tyranny, whodoubts the constitutionality of thedraft law, and who says as much,should be declared insane, given notrial, and thrown into the foulestward of St. Elizabeth's mental hos­pital; and it is reasonable that nocommittees or foundations shouldcome panting to her rescue. LucilleMiller's lonely :battle is a capsulizedhistory of America's moral decay.For the grim irony of today's fustianover "rights" is symptomatic of thefact that our country is dying. Lu­cille Miller will be remembered asa victim of that irony-one who wassacrificed so that the freedom to de­stroy could be preserved.

The Lucille Miller story, by WilliamJohnson and Thaddeus Ashlby. 19pp. Faith and Freedom, September.1521 Wilshire Boulevard, Los An­geles 17, Calif. Single copy .25

COMMUNISMThe fact that modern-day Socialistsand Communists are frequently ateach other's throats should not mis­lead us into thinking that there is areal ideological split between thesetwo varieties of collectivism. "Thecommon blood relationship assertsitself whenever the interests of thesocialist family are endangered."Socialism necessarily merges withcommunism, because the compro­mised Socialists must always sur­render when the Communists areoutbidding them on the left. To theEuropean voter communism stilllooks like socialism getting· therequicker----which it is.

Socialism v. Communism, by Vis­count Craigavon. 2 pp. Freedom,Journal of the Fighting Fund forFreedom, Juily-August. 1, DoverStreet, London, W.I. 6d. (.12)

756 THE FREEMAN

JUST A SECONDBecause the Republicans have goneback on everyone o.f their campaignpromises which served to distinguishthem from the Democrats, the Amer­ican voter is ,confronted by a homo­geneous gray mass of collectivismand anti-anticommunism, disguisedas "our two-party system." Whenonly one set of opinions in a greatcontroversy is allowed a nationalforum, you can be sure that we areto all intents and purposes in thegrip of tyranny. The liberals whoyelp about a "reign of terror" arecorrect, of course; they falsify theirplaints only in concealing the minorpoint that they are the ones whoare honing the guillotine. We don'tneed a third party-just a secondone!

When an American Policy? Eco­nomic Council Letter for Septe.m'ber16; 4 pp. Eimpire State Building,New York 1, N. Y. Single copy .15

POWERLow costs and rates should not enterinto findings of the Federal PowerCommission concerning ,conflictingclaims of public and private power.Underwritten by the whole taxstructure of the United States, freefrom the taxes which private enter­prise must pay, unhindered by highinterest rates on credit to begin con­struction, the federal governmentcan of course put together a phonylow-rate yardstick. The falseness ofthis frequently employed subterfugelays bare the real driving force be­hind the advocates of governmen.tcontrol in Niagara and Hell's Can­yon; they simply believe thatnatural resources should be nation­alized. Why not, the logical implica­tions of the pro-government artgu­mentare, nationalize coal, or· theland? Why not nationalize every­thing? You answer that one.

Private- Enterprise? or Public Sub­sidy? Legislative Daily, June 28,1955; 4 pp. Chamber of Commerceof the United States. 1615 H St., N.W.Washington 6, D.C. Single copy free

HUMI'lITY"The unwary democrats are alwayshumble. They tell themselves that... the truth lies between two ex­tremes. Consequently, they are al­ways ready to make more and moreconcessions. Having lost almost one­half of the world already, they donot realize that in the end the onlysuccessful way is to demand its lib­eration. Instead, some among themthink in terms of giving away stillmore, in order to buy a willingnessfrom the conquerors to give up thetotal goal of world conquest.... Thefree world agrees that we must ne­gotiate from strength. This meansa strength of purpose and a strengthof ideals, as well as a strength ofarms. There is no other way. Evennow strength may save us all."

Freedom through Strength, bySouth Korean President SyngmanRhee; Korean Survey, August-Sep­tember; published hy the KoreanPacific Press, 1828 Jefferson Place,Washington 6, D. C. Single copyfree

THE PRESSAlthough the vicious "closed shop"is now illegal, action cannot be takenagainst a union unless the employercomplains. While newspaper shopsare de facto "closed," the publish­ers have kept mum. This strengthensthe grip of the unions, and in turnthe columns of the newspapers be­come less and less accessible to anti­union opinion, while union acts ofcruelty and violence somehow man­age to go unreported. The AmericanNewspaper Guild and the printers'unions now straddle the newspaperindustry and are its effective mas­ters. This mess can be cleared uponly if the publishers have the cour­age to face down the unions' tyran­nical threat to our principal mediumof communication.

Freedom of the Press and the News­paper Unions, by Joseph C. Wells.3 pp. Spotlight for the Nation, Com­mittee for Constitutional Govern­ment, 205 East 42nd St., New York17, N. Y. T,wo copies free; additionalcopies, .04 each

What happensifwe do awaywith profits?

With his bare hands the averageAmer­ican can't produce any more than anyother person in the world. Yet hisstandard of living is much higher. Heowns a home, a car and enjoys suchluxuries as a telephone, refrigeratorand television set.

The American lives well because of the"tools" he has to work with. They mul­tiply the labor of his hands. Thus, heis able to produce more useful goodswith his day's work.

A good example is the Union Oil em­ployee. Today each man working forthe company has $70,691 worth of"tools" at his disposal, 372 times asmuch as he had in 1927.Because of this,his production of goods has increased2~ times. His wages (including retire­ment,vacation andotherbenefits)haveclimbed from $168 to $484 a month­almost 3 times-yet he works farshorter hours than he did 25 years ago.

the "tools" that make such gains pos­sible are paid for by the shareownersof a business. For putting up theirmoney, these people are offered theopportunity of being rewarded fortheir investment. So when a companymakes a profit, they share it. Lastyear,the 40,302 owners of Union Oil com­mon shares received an average of$261 in dividends.

Now if you destroy the profit incentive,as continued high taxes could even­tually do, you kill the goose that laysthe golden egg. The "tool providers"couldn't be expected to risk theirmoney. Without new "tools," employ­ees couldn't continue to produce more.The flow of new and better productswould dry up. There would be lesswealth to share and a lower standardof living for America. So an economicclimate that encourages profit andsuccess is vital to all of us.

UNION OIL COMPANYOF CALIFORNIA

INCORPORATED I'N CALIFORNIA, OCTOBER 17, 1890

This series, sponsored by the people ofUnion Oil Company, is dedicated to adiscussion ofhow and why Americanbusinessfunctions. We hope you'llfeelfree to send in any suggestions or crit­icisms you have to offer. Write: ThePresident, Union Oil Company, UnionOil Bldg., Los Angeles 17, California.

MANUFACTURERS OF ROYAL TRITON, THE AMAZING PURPLE MOTOR OIL

need never end-

Remember what a treat it was,when you were a kid, to bite into thosefirst ripe strawberries in the spring?Now you can "pick" them at your pleasuretwelve months of the year.

You c;c;pick» them from a freezer-the modern steel storage chest that keepsthem fresh the year round. You enjoy themyour favorite way-perhaps on ashortcake prepared in a kitchen filledwith handsomely styled appliances.

All these modern appliances are yoursto use and enjoy because steels can be shapedso skillfully and economically. Dependablesteels like J&L's Sheet and Strip-ofconsistent high quality-meet the exactingspecifications of the men who make yourI(reezers, refrigerators, sinks and ranges.

JfJ1«!4 .1.1III"f~STEEL CORPORATION -Pittsburgh

Look to J&L ... for the steels that work for modern industry