Review of the Book:
Victory and After
by Earl Browder
John S. Codman
[Reprinted from The Freeman, March, 1943]
In a letter to a Communist friend, printed here
by permission, JOHN S. CODMAN, Boston business executive, holder
of degrees from Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, tennis enthusiast, erstwhile professional
vocalist, and long a crusader for freedom, enumerates some basic
human rights, examines them in the light of their possible
attainment under a capitalistic, as compared with a communistic,
economy, and poses some pointed and pertinent questions
concerning present-day Russia which we would all like to have
answered.
Mr. Codman is the author of Unemployment and Our Revenue
Problem, originally published as a series of articles in the old
FREEMAN; How to Secure the German Indemnity, Ground Rent
-- The Natural Municipal Income, and numerous articles. His
writings on how the first World War could have been financed are
as timely today as when they appeared twenty-six years ago in
Forward (Boston) and the Boston Traveler.
|
I am at home again now and I want to thank you for remembering me,
when I was in the hospital, with a copy of Earl Browder's book, Victory
and After. I have read it from cover to cover, and I have great
admiration for the writer's strength of purpose in producing such a
well-written and constructive book under very difficult circumstances.
Browder says little about communism in his book but nevertheless he
says enough for me to realize that I cannot agree with his economic
views and, what may appear strange to you, for much the same reason
that I cannot agree with the economic views of most of those whom you
might call my capitalist friends. What I mean is that they, and you
communists also, seem to me to have lost confidence in individual
liberty. Both of you appear to me to believe that liberty has been
tried and somehow found wanting, and therefore the only hope is to
give much power to a central government whose duty it will be to take
care of the individual citizens on the theory that they cannot take
care of themselves. My own opinion, as I will explain later, is that
true liberty has never been tried even in this country and that,
instead of less liberty, what we need is more.
According to Browder (page 84) you American communists hold as your "most
distinctive programmatic demand -- the advocacy of socialism for our
country," but at the same time, on page 82, Browder makes this
very wise statement: "Such a profound revolution as the change
from a capitalistic economy and social system to that of socialism in
the United States is impossible even to debate on a national scale,
without endangering the effort for victory, until this war has been
won."
Nevertheless, in advocating socialism as the ultimate goal, you
American communists are moving away from true liberty to make
government the master rather than the servant of the people. In this
respect you are aligned with all the other socialists, even though you
may disagree widely over details. In fact from my point of view you
are in the same general class as the Nazis, the Fascists and the
Falangists although you certainly do not contemplate any such harsh
socialist state as they desire, but rather more, I suppose, a
benevolent socialism of the Edward Bellamy type, difficult to secure
and still more difficult to keep. The "New Deal" is also
obviously socialistic and this was true long before the war became an
excuse for it. Even the old stand-pat Republicans are socialistic in
action despite the fact they would maintain that socialism was
anathema to them. They have always advocated government interference
with foreign trade and still support our meddlesome system of taxation
so destructive to industry.
Now you may well ask me how it is that all these groups mentioned
above are turning to some kind of socialism and away from liberty. Can
they all be wrong? Yes, in my opinion they are, and the reason is the
failure to understand the faults in our present social order.
Browder's point of view will do as well as any other to illustrate
this lack of understanding.
On page 173 of his book, Browder says "according to our
understanding of imperialism, its abolition requires the abolition of
capitalism itself." I grant that this may be true, but it all
depends on what is meant by the unilluminating term "capitalism."
The term itself gives no hint of what is really the matter with our
social order. Browder expresses rather vaguely his idea of capitalism
on page 172 as follows: "Such problems are inherent in the
economic, social and political order which dominates Great Britain and
the United States. That order is what is generally known as capitalism
in that stage of development in which monopoly capital holds the
dominating position."
Now I would probably go as far as Browder in denouncing our present
social order which in my opinion is unjust and stupid, buttressed as
it is by economic ignorance, but I am not prepared to discard it with
all its features -- good, bad and indifferent, and to adopt in its
stead some form of socialism which, however benevolent it may be, is
nevertheless a move toward tyranny rather than toward liberty. I
prefer to ask myself what is the matter with our social order and how
can it be corrected? And is it not possible, as I have suggested
already, that the remedy lies in more liberty, not in less?
It is often said that we must preserve in this country equal economic
opportunity for all individuals and our system of free enterprise.
However, we cannot preserve what we have never had. At no time in this
country's history has there been either equal opportunity or free
enterprise. In other words our political freedom has never enabled us
to secure economic freedom and the consequences of our failure are
every day becoming more serious. In what way have we gone wrong?
Without going into detail, I would say that the trouble has been our
failure to recognize the true right to property.
In Mr. Lewis Browne's book, "Something Went Wrong," page
244, he states that Lenin believed that the root of all social ill was
private property. However that may be, I do not know whether such is
now the view of the American Communists. For my own part I believe
that private property is vital to our welfare, but it is essential to
my view that this right should be based on a sound principle.
There are really three basic rights which are essential to true
liberty, namely, the right of the individual to employ himself in
production, the right to hold as private property that which he
produces, and the right to trade freely with all other persons
domestic or foreign. If we fail to base our social order on these
three rights, then the Declaration of Independence which proclaims to
all men the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
becomes a dead letter. That we have failed in every one of these
particulars is my belief. I therefore maintain that we have never had
true liberty and, such being the case, that we have no excuse for
supposing that liberty has failed and that our people must in
consequence be abandoned to the protective custody of a paternalistic,
socialistic state. The following is a brief summary of how in my
opinion we have failed.
- The right of the individual to employ himself in production.
This right is violated by our system of land tenure which permits
private property in land without adequate compensation to the
community for the privilege. By this means the socially created
rental value of land, which should be collected by the community
to defray the expenses of government, is appropriated by private
parties, and thus the government is forced to raise revenue by
taxation which in turn is a violation of the second essential
right, the right of the producer to his product.
- The right of the individual to hold as private property that
which he produces.
This right is nominally protected by the fifth amendment to the
Constitution of the United States which reads: "nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation." It is, however, constantly violated by our
federal, state and municipal methods of raising revenue by means
of a grotesque system of miscellaneous taxes, taking private
property without any relation to just compensation in the shape of
government service. These taxes tend to destroy the incentive to
produce and are a terrible burden on the industry of the country.
They are necessary only because of the failure of our governments
to collect from the title holders of land the full value of their
privilege, namely the socially-created rental value of land.
- The right of the individual to trade freely with all other
persons.
This right is obviously violated by the tariff taxes on foreign
imports whether for so-called protection or for revenue purposes,
and in the domestic field by sales taxes and other taxes levied on
business transactions. And even the free trade between our states,
of which we have rightly been so proud, is now being greatly
interfered with by numerous restrictions by one state against
another in many varied forms.
I wish now to express my entire agreement with Mr. Browder's
statement on page 254 of his book, as follows: "It is the extreme
of unreason to assume that only the unlimited demand of war can bring
forth the maximum production of our economy, while peace must
necessarily be accompanied by idleness and stagnation. This
perspective is entirely unacceptable to the common sense of the
people. If we can produce battleships, tanks, planes, and all the
materiel of war in such quantities, in war time, there is no valid
reason why we cannot produce an equal amount of values in the
peacetime needs of the population when the war is over."
It is liberty, however, not government planning which can best
overcome the absurd, but serious, situation to which Browder calls
attention.
In closing I want to ask for some information which perhaps you may
have about the Russian government. Obviously the world in general has
been entirely mistaken as to the durability of the Soviet Government
and more especially has completely underrated the power of its
military forces. The Soviet Republic has surprised the world. How has
it succeeded? You may answer that it is due to communism, but I would
like more specific information, not so much about the political system
in Russia, but rather about the economic. I would greatly appreciate
it if I could get the answers to the following questions:
What system of land tenure has been adopted? Is private title to land
permitted and, if so, is adequate payment made for the privilege? If
not, does the government secure its revenue by leasing locations on
the land, or does it resort to taxation? Specifically does it levy
taxes on imports from foreign countries?
Since one good turn deserves another and you have done me a good
turn, I am reciprocating by sending you a copy of Protection or
Free Trade by Henry George. I would particularly recommend that
you read the last ten chapters of the book, that is chapters 21 to 30
inclusive.
Professor John Dewey of Columbia University has made this statement
about Henry George. "No man, no graduate of a higher educational
institution, has a right to regard himself as an educated man in
social thought unless he has some first hand acquaintance with the
theoretical contribution of this great American thinker."
|
