THIS QUARTER
9
of industry · every month in the sumptuous pages of
Fortune,
of
which he
is
an associate editor.
The most elaborate exposition of
his
new theory was an article
Mr. Chamberlain published in a recent issue of
Common Sense
under the explicit title: "It's
Your
State." We might note in passing
that this magazine's evolution somewhat parallels that of Mr. Cham–
berlain: starting life in 1932-3 well to the left of the New Deal, it
has ended up as one more "critical supporter" of Roosevelt and
only slightly to the left of the Communist Party-which it tirelessly
denounces as "Marxist". In his article, Mr. Chamberlain denies that
the State
is
necessarily the instrument of a ruling class, and puts
forward another theory: that it
is
rather "a fulcrum to be fought over
by rival groups", a neutral agency which can and should "play an
effective brokerage role between the claims of owners and non–
owners." To better their condition, therefore, the masses need not
resort to anything so desperate and unpleasant as the overthrow of
the capitalist State. They have only to bring sufficient pressure to
bear, and the State will give them all they want. This, indeed, is just
what they have been doing since 1932, and Mr. Chamberlain, at
least, is well satisfied with the results.
We doubt if the masses are. Living standards may be higher
than they were in 1932, but they are still far below 1928. Nor is
there much prospect that they will ever be that high again. No
amount of political pressure can wring higher wages out of a de–
clining capitalist economy, nor can it force entrepreneurs to employ
workers when they see no chance for profits. But the New Deal, we
imagine Mr. Chamberlain would answer, puts human welfare be–
fore profits, and so the State can be used by the masses to do away
with the profit system if they choose. But he forgets that the New
Deal is not the
State,
but rather the
Government
which at the moment
happens to be operating the State. Governments come and go, but
the State- -·the basic legal framework which defines property relations
and
provides for courts, policemen, and armies to implement this
definition-
~oes
on forever. Or at least until it is shattered by revo–
lution and a new State is erected on its ruins. Mr. Chamberlain,
however, assumes a certain neutral, inert, odorless, colorless entity
which hovers above the class war, now blessing this side, now that.
But the State- our own, at least- is
not
neutral, it is
not
odorless
and inert. It reeks of capitalism.
Mr. Chamberlain talks a good deal about politics, but he says
practically nothing about economics-a common failing of liberals,
by the way. It does not seem to bother him that 20% of the American
people have 80% of the American wealth, and will not cheerfully
