80
ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JR.
3. What about democratic socialism?
I do not know what 'demo–
cratic socialism' means any longer. So far as I can see, the so-called
'democratic socialists' have renounced the objectives of classical social–
ism-i.e., ownership by the state of the means of production and
distribution. They have become proponents of a mixed economy.
If
they derive emotional satisfaction by calling this 'socialism,' this is
an act of rhetorical piety which has little relation to reality-and is,
indeed, as absurd as those who insist on talking about the American
mixed economy as
if
it were an example of unfettered 'free enter–
prise.' In 'socialist' India, the state disposes of 13 percent of the gross
national product, in 'capitalist' America, the state disposes of 20
percent. Where does this leave the argument between 'socialism' and
'capitalism?'
The question is not one of conforming to abstract models but of
meeting practical problems. The way to meet these problems is
through a pragmatic selection among the tools at hand. When the
United States was an underdeveloped country, we had a large share of
public direction and enterprise; we became fanatical laissez-fairists
only
after
the period of take-off. We can assume that underdevolped
countries today will similarly resort to state action before take-off.
Calling state action 'socialism' is only one more example of the use
of words to conceal realities-and this time an example cherished
alike by old-fashioned socialists and old-fashioned capitalists. The
hard fact is that the world has moved beyond both classical socialism
and classical capitalism, and addiction to the old words is an expres–
sion of arrested intellectual development. Here, as everywhere, dog–
matic ideology is the enemy.
4. Are western values dependent on existing western political and
economic arrangements?
We are defending, I take it, the values of
individual dignity and freedom which are the basis and the aspiration
of the open society. In general, history suggests that these values
have the best chance of flourishing when political and economic
power is diversified rather than concentrated.
If
this is so, then a free
society must have freedom of political opposition; and freedom of
political opposition is more likely to exist when there are varieties of
economic ownership. However, one can not conclude that all nations
must adopt western forms of mixed enterprise and parliamentary
democracy. Every country must develop responsible institutions in
terms of its own traditions and values.
