NEW RADICALISM
347
realize
his
potential according to the laws of
his
nature. Since Hentoff,
as far as I can determine, has identified
his
new radicalism more
closely with Robert Theobald's "theories" than with anyone else's,
perhaps we should take a detailed look at Theobald's major work,
Free Men and Free Markets/
and use it to illustrate the intellectual
quicksand upon which Hentoff is building his "new" radicalism.
Robert Theobald is an economic popularizer whose main argu–
ment is that modern economic theory is living in the past; that it
refuses to recognize the era of
abundance
in
which we are all living;
that, as a consequence,
it
views the economic problems of our times
in terms of
scarcity
and hence insists that
all
remuneration be based
on productive work. Theobald is convinced that we now live in a
world of abundance and gives as conclusive evidence of this the
"large-scale agricultural surpluses and . . . [our] ability to produce
more than $60 billion in additional goods and services with our
presently
existing productive capacity." In his opinion, scarcity no
longer exists-"abundance has arrived." Hentoff clearly accepts
this
position in criticizing "the present definition of 'work' and the link
between the traditional definition of production and income" which
obviously ignores our present state of abundance.
All this is based on a weird confusion. So long as we have two
Senators from every state regardless of differences in population
density, we will continue to have the
political
problem of agricultural
surpluses. The problem, in other words, is a misallocation phenomenon
which, in the economist's terms, exists because of political rigidities
which interfere with the optimum allocation of our productive re–
sources. The very objective of an optimum allocation of resources
implies that our productive inputs are not in infinitely elastic supply
at zero cost. And this is precisely what the economists mean by the
word "scarcity." There is an elementary misconception involved here.
"Scarcity" is
not
to be equated with "not enough to eat." An "abund–
ance" of material goods is in no way a denial of the concept of
"scarcity." Every society, whether it be rich or poor, capitalist or
socialist, is faced with the problem of allocating its "scarce" resources
in a rational manner if it is to achieve,
with a minimum of wasted
effort,
the social goals it has set up for itself.
1
Fre. M.n t1.nd Fr,. Markets.
By
Robert Theobald.
C. N.
Potter, Inc.
$5.00.
