Book Revies

British Individualism In his byplay Berger introduces several other concepts than the one of "moderniza tion. " The English of pre-and post-Magna Carta times were feudalists, taking title to their lands from a Plantagenet king, but they were "individualists," too. They could afford to be because they were separated from continental Europe by water which made invasions diffi cult. (William the Conqueror, the last man to get away with an invasion of Britain, had con siderable luck on his side.) The individualism of the British set the stage for the "glorious revolution" of 1688, the year in which John Locke codified the natural rights of men to life, liberty, and property, mean while asserting that property originated in the "mixing" of one's labor with the offerings of nature. Berger is especially interested in what he calls "a second case." This is the development of capitalism in East Asia after World War II.

The East Asian "case," he says, "discon firms" the old thesis that early economic growth under modern capitalism must "neces sarily" increase income inequality. The East Asian case has also "falsified" the thesis that ,'a high degree of state intervention is incom patible with successful capitalist develop ment. " What Berger seems to be saying here is that the Japanese decided to go capitalist by edict. He gets himself out of some hot water by adding that' 'the values of individual autonomy are undermining East Asian communalism. " Socialism still has a mythic appeal, particu larly to so-called intellectuals who want to be part of a permission-granting elite. Schumpeter thought this might do capitalism in. But it isn't working out that way. The "neo-capitalists" among the intellectuals are increasing night and day. D A REVIEWER'SNOTEBOOK 79 Will It Liberate? Liberation Theology and The Liberal Society by Michael Novak Paulist Press, 997 MacArthur Blvd., Mahwah, NJ 07430' 1986' 320 pages, $14.95 cloth Reviewed by John K. Williams M ichael Novak's Will It Liberate? is a volume all men and women com mitted to liberty should purchase and read. The work's subtitle-Liberation The ology and The Liberal Society-might deter potential readers for whom theology holds little appeal, but such a reaction would be sadly shortsighted. It would deprive them of an in valuable resource in the ongoing struggle for a free market economy in a free society. Novak in this work addresses what, in both secular and religious circles, is perhaps the most strident contemporary criticism of economic and indi vidual liberty.

The phrase' 'trickle-down economics" refers to a caricature of free market economics. The phrase "trickle-down mythology," however, accurately describes a familiar and important phenomenon. Ideas conceived in academic heights "trickle-down" to more earthy levels, taking simplified form in slogans scrawled upon walls and in allegedly self-evident truths assumed by journalists, television and radio commentators, and indeed by "ordinary" people. One such idea goes back to the Austrian Marxist Rudolf Hilferding, who in 1906 penned a volume entitled Finanzkapital. The central thesis of this work also informs Lenin's infamous 1906 essay Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, and since this volume's appearance, has been an essential component of orthodox Marxism-Leninism. Crudely, it is claimed that the abundance en joyed in developed nations was and is acquired by the systematic exploitation of developing nations. The so-called "North" has prospered and continues to prosper by plundering the so called "South." "They" are the victims of ex ploitation; "we" are the exploiting imperial ists.

80 THE FREEMAN. FEBRUARY 1987 This claim has permeated Western thought. It has found popular expression in countless newspaper articles and has been disseminated from innumerable pulpits. Contemporary "po litical theology," represented by the writings of Jiirgen Moltmann and Johannes Metz, and "liberation theology," typified by the many volumes penned by Latin American thinkers such as Gustavo Gutierrez and Juan Luis Se gundo, are characterized by an uncritical accep tance of the myth of "neo-colonialism." Little matter that Lenin's original statement of the theory is widely discredited in academic circles. The myth has "trickled down" to the multitude. It is this myth which Michael Novak tackles head-on in his latest and, in this reviewer's opinion, most cogent volume. Whether readers typically meet this myth in its nakedly secular form, or more frequently encounter it dressed in religious garb, they will be grateful to Novak for his painstaking analysis and decisive refuta tion of beliefs uncritically accepted by so many critics of the free society.

Chapters 7 ("What Is Dependency? Who Are The Poor?"), 8 ("What Do They Mean By Socialism?"), and 9 ("What Is The Inner Will Of Socialism?") display the awesome factual knowledge and psychological acuity Novak brings to his writing. Succinctly but accurately, Novak summarizes the massive literature which grew up in the 1960s and 1970s dealing with the idea of "dependency theory, " a contempo rary variant on the old Leninist, neo-colonial theme. He clears the tangled linguistic under growth characterizing much confused and con fusing arguments about poverty. He documents the changing meanings ascribed to "socialism" by men and women who seem more committed to a word than to any specific economic or po litical objectives. And he isolates with almost embarrassing precision the drives that charac terize the pro-socialist mentality. These three chapters alone are worth the price of the book.

Will It Liberate? is not without its flaws. While Novak displays in this volume a greater appreciation of classical liberalism and Aus trian economics than was the case in either The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism or Freedom With Justice, he quotes with approval Pope John Paul II's condemnation of "unfettered capitalism. " He advocates sufficient interven tion to establish a modest, welfarist "safety net" yet, although drawing on the insights of Ludwig von Mises and Israel Kirzner, does not consider the economic case against such inter vention. More significantly, he does not note the moral considerations which lead many clas sical liberals to oppose any form of coerced wealth or income transfers. Similarly, Novak carefully and correctly dis tinguishes a free market economy-in his ter minology, a "democratic capitalist economy" - from many states popularly described as "capitalist, " such as Mexico. Yet he later seemingly ignores that distinction when dis cussing a case of impropriety by a major com pany, and justifying governmental regulation of the market by reference to that case (pages 61-62). If the facts are as Novak describes them, the company in question conspired with the means of coercion to get what it wanted the easy way-by short-circuiting the market pro cess.

It would be singularly unfortunate, however, if what many of us would regard as lapses from a principled classical liberalism led us to ignore Novak's volume. Novak has become a leading critic of socialist thought, meeting with and challenging quasi-Marxian theologians in Latin America and soft-socialist bishops in North America. He is imaginatively forging links be tween traditional Catholic social ethics and the classical liberal vision. He has provided stu dents of liberty with valuable data which fal sifies significant claims of both the secular and religious Left, and brings to his exploration of the classical liberal tradition an enthusiasm which proves infectious. I unreservedly recommend that readers pur chase this volume. Indeed, I urge those who can afford to do so to purchase a second copy and give it to a minister or priest enthused by or sympathetic to "liberation theology." If Mi chael Novak is unable to sway the thinking of such theologians, I doubt if anyone can. D (The Reverend Dr. John K. Williams is a free lance writer and lecturer in North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.) THEFREE IDEAS ON LIBERTY 84 The Home Schooling Movement Clint Bolick Parents have the responsibility-and the right-to direct and control the education of their children.