How to Defeat the Nazis
Charles Joseph Smith
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
November-December 1940]
Let us state it clearly. We want to see the defeat of Hitler and
Hitlerism. Our lot is cast with democracy, albeit over and over again
its processes have disappointed us. We assert that the Georgeist
reform is possible of application only in a society where free speech,
freedom of assembly and popular government prevail. It is therefore
vital that the measure of Freedom we now enjoy be preserved, and
defended against encroachment. Nothing can be more dangerous than the
smug assumption that Freedom will, somehow, take care of itself. Like
all abstractions, Liberty and Justice simply won't work by mere
wishful thinking. Rather must they be translated into a behavior of
living. There must be realistic effort risk, if need be to keep and
enjoy the qualities that alone make life worth living.
Nevertheless, let us recognize that Hitler has offered a challenge
one which not to meet is to succumb to Hitlerism, in one form or
another. The issue is this: The old order has changed. The world is
interdependent. We can no longer presume to enjoy a comfortable
isolation from the misfortunes of other lands. The day of isolation
political as well as economic is past. The onslaught of the dictators
has jarred us into a realization that the boundary lines of the world
are not eternal.
Tyrants, says Henry George, employ current trends for their own
purpose, and he adds, "We who would free men should heed the same
truth." We already have ample testimony of the manner in which
the tyrants are dealing with the current trend of world
interdependence. Does not Hitler boast that he will reduce the entire
world to the Nazi sway? What plan has democracy athwart this
totalitarian threat?
What of internal reconstruction? Hitler has here made another
challenge. After the lightning war is to come the lightning peace,
swiftly organized. Hitler has a plan, and the weary masses are eager
for some way almost any way out of the hell of economic insecurity.
Against this, what plan can the democracies hold out as an incentive
for carrying on the struggle? Typical of the programs proposed for the
post-war period is that of Sir Richard Acland, M. P., in his book,
Unser Kampf, an answer to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Sir Richard
asserts that a goal worth striving for is the common ownership of the
means of production. Yet he senses the danger in this, for he says: "This
leaves now only the biggest problem of all, namely that of political
and individual liberty under common ownership. The problem is a very
real one. Notwithstanding the amount of democratic control over
working conditions which will exist through the many different forms
of workers' meetings, the whole of the economic work will go forward
under one central guiding plan, one organization. ...Over this
organization one man will in the last resort preside. Human nature
being what it is, we must consider how we can make sure that the
political and cultural life of the nation does not fall under the
control of this organization or of its chairman." The author goes
on to deal with this problem, but in a most unsatisfactory way. He
asserts that 100% liberty is impossible, and consoles us with a
counter-assertion that 100% denial of liberty is also impossible. An
international armed police, incapable of being bribed, is apparently
his solution to this "biggest problem of all."
Unfortunately, this is the sort of idea that is stealing upon the
democracies. But is this the thing that democracy is fighting for an
imitation of totalitarianism? Were it not just as well to yield to the
enemy? It seems clear to us that any such concentration of power is a
broad down-hill road to tyrannical dictatorship. Democracy's answer to
Hitler must be something more than, "See, we ourselves are
adopting your plan."
Advocates of the collection of the rent of land by government and the
abolition of all restrictions on the exchange of goods, have the only
workable plan an economic as well as a political democracy. This is
the only real answer to Adolf Hitler. On the other hand, we must
recognize that the idea of common ownership and centralized power
because of its easy acceptance is widespread. Yet, this is not to
despair. We must learn to do our work in the world as we find it.
Social reform cannot be expected to triumph until it becomes instilled
in the minds of the people. The same means and opportunities to effect
such triumph are at our disposal as are available to all other reform
groups. We must not be afraid to face the test of survival of our
principles under a democratic order. While from time to time we may be
disappointed, we shall refuse to be discouraged. We shall always
retain our faith in the Power and final Victor}- of Truth.
|