Daily I am impressed by the short-sightedness bordering upon tragic stupidity of many who fancy themselves to be the greatest believers in and supporters of capitalism (or a free competitive economy), but who blindly support measures and conditions that cannot fail in the long run to destroy any free economic system.
Lenin held, of course, that capitalism contains within itself what he calls "contradictions" which not only makes certain of its inadequacy as a basis of government, but which he claimed are certain to bring about revolution of the proletariat.
The first of these contradictions he called the capital-labor contradiction. He claimed that there were no restraints upon the power of the capitalist--the great corporations and the syndicates--to confront the masses with the choice between the extremes of abject acceptance of a condition of slavery on one hand or bloody revolution on the other.
The second contradiction in the capitalistic system he described as the inevitable conflict between separate groups of capitalists each struggling for the sources of raw materials and other means of production. In essence, of course, this meant capitalistic wars between capitalistic states for the domination of the world's surface.
His third contradiction was the inherent conflict, as he argued, between the advanced, industrialized nations of the world and the dependent masses of backward peoples. He saw in the unequal advances made by peoples in industrialization only opportunity for exploitation by the stronger and more advanced. This he regarded as inhuman, brutal, cruel, and another factor certain to cause the world revolution.
Any material contemplation of the points raised by Lenin could easily show that his intentions had plausibility only when considered in terms of extremist. All human experience tends to show that human progress, where advanced numbers of people and intricate relationships are concerned, is possible only as extremes are avoided and solutions to problems are found in a great middle way that has regard for the requirements, desires, and aspirations of the vast majority.1 Consequently, the inevitability of the results of the so-called contradictions in capitalism is open to question. In fact, we flatly deny that they have to become so serious as to cause the destruction of competitive form of enterprise and a free government based upon it.
Of course, in an exhaustive study of some of the Communist writings, the kind of reasoning sketchily illustrated by the examples given above leads them to their fundamental conclusion that free systems of government cannot possibly exist in the world. Conflicts among pressure groups--in short, the intimate selfishness of men--are cited by the Communists as evidence that man is really incapable of self-government. Indeed in Lenin's arguments it is interesting to note that he flatly rejected the theory of some of the early Communists--those represented in the second internationale, that a majority of citizens in any country would necessarily be converted to Communism before the Communistic theory could be successfully applied in that country.2 He scorned such a doctrine and insisted that any circumstance or accident that gave a group of devoted Communists an opportunity to seize positions of power was really all that was necessary. Thereafter, the Communistic theory in its entire scope would and should be quickly applied to the entire country.
Of course, there have been happenings in history that would seemingly give a certain validity to some of these Communistic arguments. But I believe that, no matter what were the true basic causes of deterioration of democratic systems established among the citizens of ancient Athens and Rome, it is safe to say that the principal contradiction in the whole system comes about because of the inability of men to forego immediate gain for a long time good. I believe that the educational process has convinced the vast majority of Americans, for example, that the true interests of labor and capital within our society follow courses that are far more nearly parallel than conflicting. I believe that capitalistic--that is to say, self-governing--nations have long ago foreseen that any kind of war is too high a price to pay for the hope of a piece of additional territory. I believe, also, that, in the high average of cases, industrialized countries approach the problem of relationships with backward areas on the basis of mutual benefit and advancement.
But when it comes to the making of decisions as between the immediate and selfish interest of a nation, a group, or an individual on the one hand, and on the other the long-term good of the world, the nation, or the individual, we do not yet have a sufficient number of people who are ready to make the immediate sacrifice in favor of a long-term investment.
Specifically, our country has depended for decades on a system of tariffs designed originally to protect infant industries and, in latter days, to protect an American industry against cheap labor to be found abroad. This doctrine was undoubtedly a good one to follow as long as we were a debtor nation; since we had to acquire currencies of foreign countries to pay for the imports we bought, it was to our interest to keep them of the lowest possible aggregate value. Otherwise, all our gold reserves [would] have been gradually draining away with disastrous consequences on our own economy.
As the years and two World Wars passed across the stage, America became the greatest creditor nation the world has ever known. No longer is it to the interest of America to keep imports down and exports up just to preserve the financial soundness of our whole system. In certain instances, it is possible that particular industries should be protected because of their importance to us in the event of war.3 For example, I suppose that there is no substitute for a small but competent watch industry in our country because, in time of war, the skills and facilities of such an industry would be available for the making of fine instruments of all kinds. Similar arguments can be made in the case of certain other industries. But, by and large, the case for lowered American tariffs is so generally valid that to see so many so-called enlightened people opposing such a trend leads me almost to repeat again the sentence with which I opened this memorandum.4
Industries, big and little--sheep growers, pipe makers, silk scarf manufacturers, miners of tungsten, and so on, and so on--all these people are so concerned for their own particular immediate market and prosperity that they utterly fail to see that the United States cannot continue to live in a world where it must, for the disposal of its products, export vast portions of its industrial and agricultural products unless it also imports a sufficiently great amount of foreign products to allow countries to pay for the surpluses they receive from us.
Along with this main proposition go a number of corollaries. An important one springs out of the continuous struggle going on in the world between the Communistic theory and free systems of government. Since Communism is aggressive, it reaches out to absorb every area in which can be detected the slightest discontent or other form of weakness. Where men and women and their children suffer the pains of hunger and exposure, Communism quickly makes great headway. Consequently, unless the free world espouses and sustains, under the leadership of America, a system of world trade that will allow backward people to make a decent living--even if only a minimum one measured by American standards--then in the long run we must fall prey to the Communistic attack.
Another item in this particular phase of the situation is the American complete dependence upon other areas for certain types of materials such as tin, cobalt, uranium, manganese, natural rubber and, increasingly, crude oil. There are countless others. Unless the areas in which these materials are found are under the control of people who are friendly to us and who want to trade with us, then again we are bound in the long run to suffer the most disastrous and doleful consequences.
The general conclusion of these meandering thoughts is that leadership must find a way to bring men and nations to a point where they will give to the long-term promise the same value that they give to immediate and individual gains. If we could produce clear and dispassionate thinking in this regard, if we could get today the questions of world trade and world cooperation studied and settled on the basis of the long-term good of all, we could laugh at all the other so-called "contradictions" in our system, and we could be so secure against the Communist menace that it would gradually dry up and wither away.
As it is, the danger is very real and very great that even the so-called enlightened areas of Western Europe, Britain, United States, and the other English-speaking peoples will, by stubborn adherence to the purpose of achieving maximum immediate gain, actually commit suicide.
In this situation, we find a reason to say that, even if the free government were not originally based upon some form of deeply felt religious faith, then men should attempt to devise a religion that stresses the qualities of unselfishness, cooperation, and equality of men.
In the facets of our resources--material, scientific, human, and spiritual--there is ample assurance not only of security but of continued advance for all the free world in living standards if only we have sense enough to learn to cooperate for the long-term benefit of all of us.
