Two Paths To Collectivism; R. H. Clinchy

Let us study the American announcement first because our government has stated that its aim is not socialism. The gist of the government's proposal for a long-range agricultural program was a sweeping new system of sub sidies that would guarantee a high price to producers and a low price to consumers on the same product at the same time. This, of course, is one of those promises that bewilder the beholder at first glance, and one asks, "How is it done? How are high prices to be guaranteed to the farmer, and low prices to be guaranteed to the consumer?" The answer is subsidies. A subsidy is money paid by the government, and the only money a government l possesses is that raised by taxing the people in one way or another. Apparently the government hoped that the majority of the people would not understand the device that would take their [ 175] money by taxation to pay the difference between what the farmer wo~ld receive and what the public would pay.

The second of these two announcements was made by the British Chancellor, Sir Stafford Cripps, in his presenta tion of the new budget. In regard to it, he made two state ments: First, he said that the food subsidy program in Britain had grown beyond anything that had been contemplated. The government buys the basic foods from the farmers and producers, and sells them to the people at a loss. The cost of this loss, the subsidy, for the coming year is estimated at two and one-quarter billion dollars. "That," said Sir Stafford, ~~just cannot go on." An Unpleasant Fact Second, he pointed out that "social services expenditures will inevitably increase over the next ten years, and we must recognize the unpleasant fact that the services must be paid for by taxation, direct or indirect." He went on to say, "When I hear people speak of reducing taxation, when at the same time the cost of the social services is rising in response to the demands of these same people, I sometimes wonder whether they understand the old adage that we cannot eat our cake and have it too."

A Lesson From History Then Sir Stafford told the British people that because of these facts there would be a rise in prices, and that the [ 176] tax rate must remain at the same devastating level, 40 per cent of the pay of an average worker. In commenting upon this, The Economist of London stated that no people in history had ever paid out such an amount of their income in taxation and survived. Two observations can be made about this lesson in eco nomics that was presented to the British people by their Chancellor: First, it is an honest, straightforward state ment that subsidies granted from the national treasury must be paid by consumers. Second, it is a forthright affir mation that this program is socialism in action. The subsidy program of the American government par allels that of the British Labor party in almost every detail, with only this difference: The truth about American sub sidies is obscured behind carefully formed phrases which tend to disguise the fact that the subsidy program is, in effect, the creation of national socialism in America as in England.

Truth It is unfortunate that this issue was not presented to the citizens of America in the same open manner that it was presented to the subjects of Britain. Because of this, it be comes necessary for others to proclaim the truth which is missing from these subsidy pronouncements by the Ameri can government: The payment of subsidies is the founda tion of the welfare state, and the welfare state is the foun dation of socialism. The American proposal was a request that Congress, in [ 177 ] effect, give to the administration absolute power to con trol the kind of crops and produce, and the amount of them, that could be raised on American farms. Beyond that, it would have allowed the government to dictate whether the land could be used for farming or grazing, or whether it must remain idle. . Control Of Persons This was a program for a planned economy to an extent never before seriously proposed in America. But it was not merely a plan for the control of farms; it was, of neces sity, a plan for the control of persons, the farmers. Nothing was said about this, but it is actually the first consideration.

Before the government can control the land and its pro duce, it must first control the man who lives and works upon the land. That means control over his mind and spirit. That is exactly what the Soviet leaders found when they decided to collectivize the Russian farms; they had to collectivize first the minds and spirits of those who had been independent kulak farmers. It is also vital for us to remind ourselves that no such plan for the control of farms can stop there. The products of the farms go on to processing and distributing busi nesses, and so control must be extended to those areas if the plan for the control of farms is not to break down. This proposed program contained twin evils-the evil of persons receiving unearned benefits, and the evil of at tempting to control the minds and wills of men by con trolling their actions and property. Both are evils which [ 178 ] can ultimately destroy the spirit of man and his basic in tegrity as a human being. The arrest of a cardinal in Hun gary, and of ministers in Bulgaria, are not foolish moves of a perverted official. They are the logical outcome of the granting of increased power to the state as the price for government-guaranteed benefits. For if the actions and wills of men are to be controlled, how can such controls possibly be maintained if the minds of men are allowed to be free?

The Rights Of Man The American government was founded on moral and nat ural laws by persons who had a deep understanding of the principles and the philosophy of freedom. The concepts of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution were not formed by expediency, but upon the philosophi cal and religious concepts of the rights of man. Jefferson was a student of the principles of Hobbes, Locke, and Mil ton; and his writings, such as the Declaration of Independ ence and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, were founded upon these precepts. He accepted the premise of Hooker that <r<rall authority is de~ived of God and resides in the free consent of the governed," and so the rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not grants of a sovereign or of a state, but are inalienable because they are received of God. Then, as a matter of course, these rights demand the assumption of personal responsibility upon the part of the receiver. And these personal responsi bilities cannot' be allocated to the ruler or to the state [ 179] without the loss of the moral and spiritual integrity of the person.

The Day Of Decision The day of decision is upon us. We must now begin to re trace our way to that place where we missed the road to our destiny. We do not belong on this road to serfdom that leads to a land wherein men sell their souls for what they call security, but which turns out to be a nightmare in which man is a lost soul without a home. Instead, we be long to a land of those who have learned that where the spirit of the Lord is, there also is liberty. Let us determine that we shall not allow the state to be our master, but that we shall be the masters of the state. The long road of history is lined with the ruins of those states which bought the souls and wills of their peoples by the lure of a granted security, and then led them to ruin by that same mirage. The world does not need one more such ruin. It needs, for the first time in all the twenty-four civilizations, a people who will be really secure and endur ing, as far as mortal life is possible-secure and enduring because each member of the society is a person who ac cepts his and her responsibilities as duties" and asks only that the stafe act to keep the avenues of freedom open.

That will come, not by copying the ruins of the past, but by a free people rising to meet the challenge of a free so ciety, putting their trust in freedom because their faith is in God. [ 180] WHEN WE SOCIALIZE KILOWATT-HOURS EDITOR'S NOTE-The following, except the table, is extracted from the proceedings of the New York Public Service.Commission granting a rate increase of 18.84 per cent to the government-owned power system of the City of Jamestown, New York (Case 15896, Dec. 9, 1952 ). There is nothing surprising about this report-many of these same facts apply to the Tennessee Valley Authority and other gov ernment-owned power systems. But so far, most of them have man aged to use their tax exemptions, Congressional grants of capital from the general tax funds, low interest rates or no interest at all, and various other special privileges and subsidies to spread the delusion that government ownership is cheaper than private ownership. # "No product or service so intimately affecting the lives of so many people and so directly influencing the costs of so many products has been more resistant to the inflationary trend of our times than electricity. It is only recently, due mainly to the impact of heavily increased corporate taxa tion, that the trend toward lower rates for electricity has been halted ..."