86 p o l i t i e s perhapshecanbecuredintime,bythesocialequivalent ofinsulinshock,butitseemsunlikely).Fortunately,however,ithassuicidaltendencies. The"conquestofpower"bythesocialistsinRussiawas notatriumphbutacatastropheforhumanity.Godforbid thatthesocialistsshouldeveragain"takepower"except overthecompletewreckageofcivilization! In theevent ofanythingshortoftotaldestruction,thislittlesketchmay safelybepredicted: Thesocialistsentertheconqueredpalaceintriumph,and aremetinthemarblehallbythelieutenantsofthemad king,who,fallingprostrate,cry:"Know,0nobleComrades,thatourmasterawaitsthycomingwithajoyful heart!Nolessthanthepeople,hehathgroanedunder thehatefulcapitalistrule.Nowhisburningdesireisto bringsuccourtothepeople.Andwhocandoso,buthe? Hehathsecretgranarieshiddenundertheearth,engines thataccomplishwithasinglestroketheworkoftenthousandmen!Willthoudestroytheseinthyrighteousfury, mistakingfriendforenemy? I f so,beware!thouhast promisedthepeopleplenty,canstthoureturntothemwith lessthantheyhadbefore? "Ourkingsayeth,furthermore:All hisarsenalshe resignstothee;thoumaystcomearmedintohispresence. Thepowerthatheneverhad,hegiveswithreliefintothy hands.Hispurposeoflifeisnow,hesayeth,tolaboras thyhumbleslave." Asthesesocialistsarereallypopularmonarchistsat heart(themachineisnotinitselfevil,butonlymisused wewilluseitproperly)theyarenaturalypleasedatthis cooperativeattitude,althoughtheydonotfail,ofcourse, totakeprecautionsagainsttreachery.Muchtotheirrelief, thearsenalsaresurenderedwithoutahitch,andthingsbe- gintolookrosy. Is itrealynecessary,afteralltheexperiencewehavegained,tofillouttherestofthesketch, endinginthehappySocialistFatherland?* Toreturntoourstartingpoint,thequestionof"responsi- bility." I haveargued,thatbythenatureoftheStateat nopointisthereanyhumaninterventionexceptinthemore orlessexactexecutionofitslaws.Hewhostandsinitspath iscrushed;hewhoatemptstoalteritspathishimself altered. Inthelastinstance,hemayevenhavetheilusion that,becausetherelativepositionhaschanged,hehas impressedhiswillupontheState.Thisisthefallacyof, forinstance,the PM liberals.t "Hewhorules,calhimking."Hereisourking,then, toholdresponsible,madornot:theSuper-brainofthe *Thereintroductionoftheterm"Fatherland",aftersomany years,atfirstcausedsomeconfusion.However,thiswascleared upquickly(infact,thenextday)byComradeBigbertha'sthesis publishedintheofficialorganoftheparty.Bigberthafirstpointed outthepetty-bourgeoisnatureoftheconfusionists,andthende- cisivelydemolishedthem."Canitbesaid,asthese'intellectuals' maintain,thattoloveandhonorourglorioussocialistfatherland, withoutpeerinthehistoryofthehumanrace,detractsfromthe self-respectoftheindividual?No, itcannotbesaid.Whycannot itbesaid? Itcannotbesaidbecausethesesamepetty-bourgeois, lackinginthedialecticalsense,mechanicallytransfertheformer justifiedhatredoftheproletariatforthevilecapitalistnationalinstitutionstooursocialistnationalinstitutions,whichareanentirely diferentthing.Hewhodoesnotunderstandthis,understandsnothingofMarxism." t PM, fromthenaivehumaneenthusiasmofthefirstissuesto thefrenzyofhatredthataccompanieditscoverageoftheentry intoGermany,wouldmakeaninterestingstudyforsomeone. BibliotecaGinoBianco economicsystem,thesocialmachine.Thisdiscoveryis atonceourdespairandoursalvation.For ifwehave torealizethatinourtimeourfateisnotwithinourcon- trol,atthesametime—andthisrenewsourhope-wesee howfalseandsinisterthisconceptof"responsibility"is, thatseekstoplacethesourceofevilwithinthehuman heart. JACKJONES "Laissez-Faire,Planning,andEthics"byS.Moos.The EconomicJournal(London),April,1945 Ananalysisof theethics-eficiencydualityprevalent in themodernapproachtoeconomics andofthedangers ofa non-ethicalbasisforeconomics. Intimesofpoliticaloreconomiccrises,the"what-oughtto-be"ofeconomicstendstoberegardedasaseparatefield fromscientificanalysisofexistingconditions,fortheeconomistwhoasksif thepresentorderisaimedatthegreat- esthumanhapsjpesspossible,isrejectedbytheinsecure society. In t de r n world,inwhichpowerpoliticsand economicfor e thedominatingfactors,theeconomist trained tothinkintermsofethicsisataseveredisadvan- tage,forwhatisdemandedofhimisasolutionofproblems intermsofmater-of-facteficiency.Hencethepresent phenomenonofpainstakingeconomicresearchinisolated fieldswithnoawarenessoftheneedforabroadinterpre- tationandafinalaim. Moostracesthehistoryof therelationshipofethicsto economicsinEnglishthought intermsof thatcountry's leadingeconomists.Thesocietyofthesecondhalfofthe nineteenthcenturyfeltsecureenoughtotolerateandeven welcometheethicalapproachto itseconomicproblems demandedbywriterslikeJ.S.Mill,HenrySidgwickand AlfredMarshall.Towardtheendofthecentury,however, whenthestabilityofnineteenth-centuryEuropebegantobe threatened,hintsof aseparationofthemoralfromthe scientificineconomicsappearedandthistendencyculminatedwithJ.R.Hicks,whodefineseconomicsasthescience ofbusinessaffairs. Andhencetothemoderneconomists,who,whilenot “reactionary-"minded,havenoopportunitytoworkon socio-economiclines;theyhavebecomeashamedoftheir ethicalprinciples,and,attheverymomentwhensocietyis movingtowardapointwheretheapplicationofethicsto economicproblemswouldbepossible,theyhavebegunto losetheirsenseofethicalvalues.Thusintheirplanning forfullemployment,themostimportantmoderneconomic problem,oureconomistsarelikelytoplanasocietywith- outfreedomofthoughtormovementandevenwithouta desireforthese. Moos'conclusionis apersonalchalengetomodern economists:oursenseofhighernon-economicvalueshas benduledandwillbedeadenedbyfurtheracknowledgementofeficiencyastheprimaryguideofrationalaction. Wemustreturntothemoralfervoroftheeconomistsof thepast,fortheGodofeficiencyaloneistooweaktobuild aworldofwork,food,andhomesforall.Andafuture builtonprinciplesofsuperbeficiency-organization,while producingasocietystableenoughtoacceptanethicalapproachtoitsproblems,willoffernoencouragementfora
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==