518
PARTISAN REVIEW
ing heaven on earth it only succeeds in making it a hell- that hell which man
alone can prepare for his fellow-men."
All this applies to the Utopia of the middle way as it does to
all
others.
As
a complete "third system" it remains primarily a system, never mind the
"third" or "fourth" or "fifth." In the conflicts between advocates of systems
and defenders of the open society, it therefore belongs on the side of
illiberalism where all systems have their place. Neither Central Europe nor
Social Democracy nor any other euphemism for the "middle way" must be
thought of as a system, or indeed a Utopia, ifliberty is what we want. The
choice between freedom and serfdom is stark and clear, and it offers no
halfway house for those weaker souls who would like to avoid making up
their
minds.
All this time we have been talking constitutional politics, of course.
It
is
therefore necessary to define more precisely the ingredients of the open so–
ciety. Since at this stage the issue is social and economic, we must ask which
elements of economic organization are constituent parts of the open society
and which others can be left to normal politics. Capitalism has often been de–
fined in this context. Most definitions contain three elements:
private actors
coordinate their economic activity through the
market
in order to achieve ac–
cumulation and
growth.
How much of this is a part of the definition ofan open
society?
The question is extraordinarily difficult to answer, but it is undoubtedly
a legitimate subject of debate and we can have a go at it. Take property.
John Locke and his contemporaries would have had no doubt that private
property is a constitutional requirement. Indeed, it probably is, though that
does not mean that all property has to be private. State-owned railways are
perfectly compatible with the open society. The key is that private property
must be available as an option and it must be protected. Then there is the
market.
It
has many implications, some constitutional and some not. Without
legally protected contracts there can be no market; this is a constitutional
need. Monopolies restrict the market, though this raises, even apart from the
railways, the question of "natural monopolies" - for example, of air and of
water.
It
is a constitutional condition of the open society that the generaliza–
tion of monopolies be prevented. The burden of proof must always be on the
defender of monopoly rather than on the advocate of pluralism and competi–
tion. Further, accumulation and growth. One ancient open society, Great
Britain, has experienced many decades of indifferent or even "negative"
growth without becoming illiberal. One can understand those who worry that
economic growth may have become an almost constitutional postulate in a
number ofcountries. Harold James had made the point for Germany, where
"economic advance" has only too often in the last two centuries appeared to
be the purpose "without which the nation could not exist." The constitutional
requirement in this respect probably lies with the availability of incentives.
