XX. The Counterrevolution
Appendix B, by E.C. Harwood
America's Unknown Enemy: Beyond Conspiracy
Editorial Staff of the
American Institute for Economic Research
[1993]
Current wisdom seems to hold
that the collapse of communist rule and disintegration of the
Soviet Union represented a final triumph of Western political
and economic democracy. In our view, however, the survival of
the attributes of Western civilization that have contributed
most to human progress is today gravely imperiled. Almost 40
years ago, AJER's founder, E. C. Harwood, warned in the article
reprinted below that in whatever guise they may appear, the
forces of counterrevolution pose the greatest threat to advances
in human welfare. In reference to the then-ruler of the Soviet
Union (Stalin), he observed: "Regardless of what happens to
him or to Russia in the next several years, the long-run problem
of the counterrevolution will remain." That problem has
remained and continues to remain. Some of the specific events to
which his discussion refers are now long-distant -- and some of
his phraseology may appear dated (e.g., "men and women"
or "humans" would today replace his use of "men").
Even so, his discussion remains as pertinent today as it was
when he wrote it. Indeed, given the subsequent successes of the
counterrevolution, it is a message that must not be ignored. --
Ed.
|
The struggle against communism is not an attempt either to destroy
Russia or to preserve the United States; it is not merely another of
the numerous rivalries between nations that have crowded the pages of
history. The struggle against communism is a crucial one for the
survival of Western civilization. Whether this struggle will mark the
decline and fall of Western civilization or will set the stage for a
new, great advance comparable to that of recent centuries remains to
be seen.
Because this is not merely a struggle between jealous or greedy
monarchs nor solely a war for empire and trade nor a religious war
between ignorant and intolerant tribesmen, we must seek below the
surface and behind events of the day for the fundamental causes of the
conflict within Western civilization. At least briefly we must sketch
the outline of developments on a broad front and in the perspective of
recent centuries.
Several hundred years ago Western civilization consisted of many vast
feudal estates, innumerable peasant holdings of small farms, uncounted
villages and towns, and a few cities, small by today's standards. For
the most part, men lived as their fathers and grandfathers before them
had lived; folklore and superstition were generally considered the
intellectual keys to understanding, and scientific knowledge as we
think of it today was almost unheard of; class distinctions were rigid
in many parts of the civilized world; village industry was controlled
by the guilds and other authorities; progress was not generally
expected and often was not tolerated; most men were slaves, seemingly
held in perpetual bondage by custom, fear, ignorance, and
superstition.
Nevertheless, within that civilization an idea began to find
increasing acceptance. In a word, this was the idea that individuals
might be free; but its scope developed gradually, and even today we
are not sure that we grasp its full implications. Men are free to the
extent that the culture or society in which they live permits them to
plan and choose their goals, provides equality of opportunity to act
effectively in pursuit of those goals, and permits them to retain the
fruits of their labors. Throughout this discussion we shall use the
word freedom as a blanket label for these circumstances and such
others as may be necessary to constitute optimum conditions for the
economic welfare of men in society. We realize that such use of a term
is loose characterization rather than scientifically accurate
specification or naming, but it will serve the purpose here.
Aided by many circumstances that need not be described in detail,
this idea of freedom found more and more disciples. It attributed
worth and dignity to the individual man; and, as men gradually and
almost reluctantly accepted this new idea, they likewise accepted many
increased responsibilities that fostered individual growth in
countless ways.
Intellectual freedom opened new frontiers of science. As a result,
technological progress rose like a giant from sleep to aid the
wealth-producing activities of men. Here in America circumstances were
most propitious for a civilization based on the idea of freedom. The
results we are familiar with; but the magnitude of them sometimes is
overlooked, because to us they have become commonplace.
Freedom found acceptance in parts of Europe also. Major social
changes marked its advent, and great material progress was one result.
However, in much of that area this great revolution never was so
successful as it was in the United States.
Even here in the United States, however, complete freedom was not
reached. Conditions here differed greatly in many respects from those
in the Old World; but we now realize that various laws and customs
that were carried over from the Old World had the effect of denying
freedom, at least in some degree, to many of the people of our own
Nation.
The results of imperfect or partial freedom were disappointing to
many. Great material progress came, but the greatly increased
production of wealth was not equitably distributed to those who
produced it. As a result, 12- and 14-hour days for women and children
were common in the factories of England, more extensive and more
degrading poverty pervaded the slums of Europe, and urban and rural
slums developed in the United States.
So striking did the increasing maldistribution of wealth become that
many men abandoned the battle for freedom and turned back; thus the
counterrevolution within Western civilization was born. For the past
hundred years the counterrevolution has been gaining strength. Its
basic ideas were developed earlier by the Utopian Socialists and were
organized as counterrevolutionary doctrine by Karl Marx and his
followers. These ideas are the roots from which modern communism,
socialism, fascism, the New Deal, and the welfare state all have
grown.
In Russia the counterrevolution has reached the apparently inevitable
goal; a new despotism has replaced the old. In this fact there is a
lesson for all who desire to learn it. Marx and Engels predicted
success for communism (the militant branch of socialism) first in the
great industrialized nations where they expected the proletariat to
unite and cast off its chains. But communism succeeded first, not in
the more advanced industrial nations, but in Russia, where the
progress of the great revolution had been retarded. The reason is not
difficult to understand. The counterrevolution is fundamentally a
retreat from individual freedom, from responsibility and authority for
each individual, to the sheltering arms of an all-powerful state.
Naturally, communism succeeded first where the progress of the great
revolution had been least; and it still achieves success most readily
in the backward nations of the world, where the substitution of a new
despotism for the old is relatively easy.
The Source of Communism's Strength
The fact that communism succeeded first in Russia and that it gains
ground most rapidly in the more backward nations of the world should
not be permitted to encourage a false sense of security. The basic
principles of communism have been widely accepted; and the
counterrevolution has gained strength during the past century in
nearly all nations of Western civilization, including our own. In
order to grasp the significance of these gains, we must first
understand the source of the strength of communism.
Although the hopes it offers are known by many to be illusory and
although its promises are vain, communism derives its strength from
those who, because of the inequitable distribution of incomes, have
become the underprivileged of all lands. What other hope have those
who are denied a substantial part of the fruits of their labor (in
order that the perquisites of the privileged may be preserved) than
that someone will somehow redistribute currently produced wealth in
accordance with men's needs? The Marxian slogan, "From each
according to his abilities; to each according to his needs,"
offers to the poor a hope comparable to the hope of a better world
offered by many religions. Communism has the added advantage of
promising to provide in this world now or in the immediate future what
some religions offer only in the next world at some future time.
The strength of communism's appeal results from its promise to
eliminate special privilege for the few and the inevitably
corresponding inequality of opportunity and obvious inequity of reward
for the many. Communism has grown in strength as special privilege has
grown; the farther the nations of Western civilization have departed
from equality of opportunity, one ingredient of freedom, the more they
have drifted toward communism.
Fascism often is discussed as though it were the opposite of
communism, but such is not precisely the case. Hitler, Mussolini, and
Stalin were different in many respects; but the principles of their
economic ideologies were the principles of socialism; their initial
appeal was to the underprivileged; and the final result, a new
despotism, was the same in all three instances.
In view of the foregoing, we may summarize the present situation
somewhat as follows: Western civilization as we know it today is the
outcome of a great revolution that followed the acceptance of new
ideas and that accompanied the progress toward individual freedom
including equality of opportunity and economic justice[1] for all men.
However, virtually complete freedom as herein described has not yet
been reached except in relatively small areas of the world and even
there only for brief periods.
Perhaps primarily because we of this civilization have stopped short
of the goal, the results have in part been an inequitable distribution
of currently produced wealth. In the minds of many, not even the
material progress made possible by the great revolution can offset
results that seem so evil. Either not realizing that the goal had
never been reached or not understanding that the evils they deplored
were attributable to imperfect freedom, many leaders in thought and
action sought to turn back; thus the counterrevolution was born.
The counterrevolution is in progress throughout the world. It is
clearly recognized as communism; but fascism, various Socialist
governments, the New Deal, and the welfare state all have grown from
the same roots.
Such is the situation at this point of the 20th century. American
foreign policy, if it is to be successful in the long run, must cope
with the counterrevolution in Western civilization.
Lesson of the Immediate Past
Before proceeding to a discussion of American foreign policy, a brief
review of recent developments will be helpful. A valuable lesson can
be learned from mistakes of the recent past.
Germany and Russia were enemies in World War II, not because their
ideologies differed, but because there was not room on the same
continent for their ambitious rulers. We were allied with Russia not
because Russia was one of the democracies fighting for freedom, but
because Russia happened to be fighting Germany and could be induced to
fight Japan.
However, Americans are sometimes thought by their political leaders
to be squeamish and unwilling to face the facts of life. Consequently,
the wartime administration sought to "sell" the American
people the notion that Stalin was a respectable companion in arms.
They were not content to use him to the extent that he was useful,
while keeping in mind that he was the leader of the counterrevolution
threatening Western civilization; they insisted on adopting Russia
into the family of peace-loving nations. In their preoccupation with
winning World War II, the Nation's leaders apparently closed their
eyes to the important long-term developments that have been described
here.
Our foreign policy during and immediately after World War II was a
series of blunders precisely because we dealt with successive
short-term situations as though there were no long-run fundamental
conflicts of aims or as though we were blind to other than immediate
pressing developments. Such was our major error, and the lesson should
not be forgotten.
Prior to World War II, American foreign policy had to cope with two
classes of potential enemies. The first included Germany and Japan as
potential enemies for the same reason, ambition for power, that
nations have so often been enemies throughout history. The other class
of potential enemies may be roughly designated Communists or, to be
more specific, the counterrevolutionary elements within Western
civilization.
Fortunately, the problem of formulating an adequate foreign policy is
simplified in some respects by the fact that, in coping with Russia as
our only potential enemy of substantial strength in the first class
(having a ruler whose ambitions for more territory and power make him
a potential enemy), we shall be coping to some extent with the
worldwide counterrevolutionary movement.
On the other hand, the situation is complicated by the fact that, in
choosing a foreign policy intended to cope with Russia's ambitions for
more territory and power, we may erroneously assume that the long-run
problem of the counterrevolution is automatically solved merely
because we associate the long-run problem also with Russia. Actually,
the ruler of Russia is not the long-run problem; he is merely its
temporary figurehead or symbol. Regardless of what happens to him or
to Russia in the next several years, the long-run problem of the
counterrevolution will remain.
What Can Be Done About Counterrevolution?
We now come to the question, "How can the foreign policy of one
nation deal with counterrevolution within a civilization?" A
nation faced with such a counterrevolution must choose one of three
courses.
The first possible course is to join the counterrevolution. To a far
greater extent than many people realize, the United States already has
chosen this course. Many internal policies, especially (but not by any
means solely) some of those adopted in the past 3 decades, conform to
the principles advocated by the counterrevolutionists. In our foreign
policies also we have not hesitated to give extensive financial aid to
the political parties in control of various governments that are
aiding and abetting the counterrevolution.
It should be apparent that the first possible course, which we have
already chosen in part, will be self-defeating in the long run. If we
encourage the counterrevolution in other nations and yield to its
wiles at home, we shall end by joining wholeheartedly, while Western
civilization declines and falls as others have done before.
The second possible course is to attempt to preserve the status quo,
that is, neither to press on with the original revolution nor to join
the counterrevolution. This apparently was an objective of the Truman
policy. Al-though the Truman policy appeared to be somewhat
inconsistent for several months, including as it did the extension of
military aid to Greece and Turkey and the denial of military aid to
Nationalist China and Korea, subsequent actions and announcements
indicated that the policy had become firm. In essence it appeared to
contemplate preservation of the status quo as of June 1950
indefinitely.
This second course, preserving the status quo, would seem to us
impossible if we may legitimately deduce from history something other
than that men never learn from history. And, aside from the lessons of
history, we know that the conditions in which communism is rooted and
from which it derives its strength have become increasingly favorable
to communism; this trend seems destined to continue unless progress
toward the goals of the great revolution is resumed. Preserving the
status quo would become increasingly costly and increasingly difficult
as the years pass. Such a policy is only a slower, not a less certain,
road to destruction in the long run than the first possible course.
The third possible course is to oppose communism, but what effective
means are there for opposing communism? An answer is not difficult to
find if one remembers that communism is the ideology of the
counterrevolution. Only if Western civilization presses on toward the
goals of the great revolution will the circumstances that have
fostered the counterrevolution be changed. Only as the source of its
strength is reduced and finally eliminated will the counterrevolution
be weakened and finally defeated in the long run.
Only the third course, to oppose communism by pressing on toward the
goals of the great revolution within Western civilization, appears to
be a practicable means of coping with the counterrevolution.
Fortunately, no other great nation is as well prepared as our own to
undertake this task. In order to reorient our aim, we should study
again the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United
States, the writings of Jefferson, and other documents, such as
Lincoln's emancipation address, that have described the goals we once
sought so eagerly. Then, we must ascertain why the goals have not been
reached, why inequality of opportunity and an inequitable distribution
of currently produced wealth became so marked even in the United
States as well as in the rest of Western civilization. Only then shall
we be in a position to correct the fundamental errors in our procedure
that have delayed progress toward the goals of the great revolution.
The United States has become a great nation, a tower of industrial
strength in Western civilization, primarily because the goals of the
great revolution were more nearly approached here than they were in
Europe. In the greater material progress here in the United States, we
have all around us tangible evidence that should more than justify the
faith needed to press on. Surely we of all peoples of the world should
know that freedom for the individual (not merely freedom from outside
domination for a nation), equality of opportunity, and economic
justice are among the important goals to be sought.
We have concluded that the only sound foreign policy for the United
States in the long run is to resume our former place in the vanguard
of the great revolution, to press on toward the goals of more nearly
complete individual freedom, and to encourage other nations to follow.
However, we shall be ill-prepared for such a position of leadership
until we have reoriented the policies that we apply at home.
Too long have we yielded to the urgings of those who have joined the
counterrevolution. Alger Hiss and others like him may not be traitors
in the ordinary sense of the word, implying betrayal of their country
in order to give advantage to a foreign enemy; perhaps they are merely
miseducated men whose good intentions have led them to join the
counterrevolution within Western civilization. We shall underestimate
the potential danger if we fail to realize that such men are not
misanthropic freaks but the legitimate products of some of the
Nation's leading educational institutions.
Domestic Policy
Coping with the counterrevolution at home will not be easy. In order
to regain the road toward the goals of the great revolution, we shall
have to retrace some steps taken in recent years and turn aside from
other goals toward which considerable progress has been made.
Specifically, corrective action will be needed along at least three
general lines. First, the distortion of and interference with free
market relationships must be reduced as rapidly as possible and
ultimately ended; second, all special privileges must be eliminated;
and, third, the activities of the Federal Government must be reduced
to the role of national defense and prevention of license or abuse of
freedom.
Restoration of free markets is essential if progress is to be made
toward the goals of the great revolution. If men are to choose wisely
among possible economic alternatives, they must be free to buy and
sell at prices agreed upon among themselves without government
intervention, subsidies, or controls; they must be free to select,
hold, and exchange the money or standard of value that they deem most
suitable for the purpose (with men's customs and views as they are,
the gold standard must be restored); and such abuses of the monetary
system as inflation must be eliminated. For more than 4 decades
Government intervention and "management" of the Nation's
money-credit mechanism have resulted in progressively greater
distortions and more extreme interference with free markets. The
counter-revolutionists throughout the world have long regarded
inflation as their most potent weapon; and events in Russia, Germany,
France, and elsewhere have confirmed their judgment.
Holders of special privileges, especially those related to monopolies
of natural resources (including land), under existing customs and laws
acquire, at the expense of the producers, an expanding portion of the
wealth currently produced. This situation results in increasing the
number of underprivileged members at the base of society from whom
communism derives its voting strength (but not, of course, its
intellectual "front"), and it diverts from producers some of
the means that could be used to increase production. Because the
situation in this respect is more acute in various other countries,
for example Italy, many observers see the problem there more clearly.
Nevertheless, this problem is evident here in the United States and
seems destined to become far more acute as the temporarily stimulating
effects of prolonged inflation diminish.
Reduction of the role of the Federal Government to national defense
and to the function of umpire for the purpose of preventing license or
abuse of the principles of freedom is essential to the efficiency of
the Government in performing its primary functions. United States
Senators, who should have time for analysis and study of important
policy matters such as those described here, spend their valuable time
bickering over price-support levels for peanuts and innumerable other
trivialities that have become the day-to-day business of an
elephantine bureaucracy. A republic need not be as inefficient as a
totalitarian form of government that attempts to control all economic
activities; but, if we continue adding to the functions of our Federal
Government as we have during recent decades, the fundamental
efficiency of free men functioning in free markets will be replaced by
the lumbering and creaking performance of a vast bureaucracy. We
shall then be as inefficient as our totalitarian enemies.
NOTES
- Economic justice refers to the
third part of the definition of freedom previously given. Men who
are free to plan and choose their goals and who enjoy equality of
opportunities to seek their goals may he said to receive economic
justice if they are permitted to retain the fruits of their
labors.
|
