collectivism, even the futile attempt to return to the agrarian past would be preferable. For the end of such an effort would be death, not the degradation of death-in-life.
The important thing is to determine what is meant by collectivism. Collectivism or socialism can be so defined that the presence of a set of totalitarian techniques of cultural and political rule follows logically from the definition. But we don’t have to define it that way. The problem becomes the empirical one of whether these totalitarian techniques in fact would be required for the functioning of such a socialist system.
It would be unfair both to the question and the author to attempt to settle this problem in a few pages, but since we are using it as purely illustrative of our views on law, freedom, and human action, it is hoped that allowance will be made for the apparent dogmatism of our remarks.
By a collectivist system we mean one in which the basic instruments of production—the great industries, mines, rail-roads, unties, etc.—are owned by the community and operated for public use instead of private profit. This involves a form of planned and continuously planning society in order to provide full employment, equal opportunities of education, and a rising standard of living. The fact that the State or community is the employer gives it a great power over the lives of ordinary citizens, since it can deny them access to the use of these instruments. But the State is not an abstraction but a group of men—clerks, bureaucrats, politicians, statesmen, philosophers—call them what you will. What is to prevent them from becoming the dictators of the community if all political and economic and educational power is concentrated in their hands? Nothing, if such concentration takes place. For any group of men who had such power would, in fact, be dictators, no matter how benevolent they were!
There are those who say that once collectivism in this sense is introduced we have no longer a genuine if but a foregone conclusion. To avoid the conclusion, we have to forswear collectivism. As opposed to this position it seems to us that the collective control of industry is a “foregone” conclusion, that is, “very probable” independent of our efforts to reverse the trend; whereas the if—the total monopoly of power in the hands of the economic planners—depends almost completely upon our faith in democracy and willingness to fight and suffer for it, not only in war but in peace.
