The Fabian Socialist movement, first begun over one hundred years ago, is moving faster today than ever before. The success of their slow evolutionary drive toward central planning was highlighted a few days ago when we presented our Depressing Chart of the Day, shown to the right. It shows that the total of federal, state and local government spending as a percent of GDP has skyrocketed over the past few years, approaching 50% of all GDP.
By coincidence, your intrepid author is in the midst of Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". In the excellent book is the excerpt that follows. TILB highlighted several points below [all emphasis added], but most important is the emphasis on Germany in 1928 (immediately prior to Nazi rule).
Of additional note is the description on how socialism is most effective in a republic or democracy - by taking the power away from elected leaders and handing it to non-elected bureaucrats (a modern day example would be the Federal Reserve's central planning role in determining the amount and price of money).
The words that follow are from Hayek published in 1944.
We can rely on voluntary agreement to guide the action of the state only so long as it is confined to spheres where agreement exists.But not only when the state undertakes direct control in fields where there is no such agreement is it bound to suppress individual freedom. We can unfortunately not indefinitely extend the sphere of common action and still leave the individual free in his own sphere. Once the communal sector in which the state controls all the means, exceeds a certain proportion of the whole, the effect of its actions dominate the whole system. Although the state controls directly the use of only a large part of the available resources, the effects of its decisions on the remaining part of the economic system become so great that indirectly it controls almost everything. Where, as was, for example, true in Germany as early as 1928, the central and local government authorities directly control the use of more than half of national income (according to an official German estimate then, 53 per cent), the control indirectly almost the whole economic life of the nation. There is, then, scarcely an individual end which is not dependent for its achievement on the action of the state, and the "social scale of values" which guides the state's action must embrace practically all individual ends.
It is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning which in its execution requires more agreement than in fact exists. The people may have agreed on adopting a system of directed economy because they have been convinced that it will produce great prosperity.
In the discussions leading to the decision, the goal of planning will have been described by some such term as "common welfare," which only conceals the absence of real agreement on the ends of planning. Agreement will in fact exist only on the mechanism to be used.
But it is a mechanism which can be used only for a common end; and the question of the precise goal toward which all activity is to be directed will arise as soon as the executive power has to translate the demand for a single plan into a particular plan. Then it will appear that the agreement on the desirability of planning is not supported by agreement on the ends the plan is to serve.
The effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.
That planning creates a situation in which it is necessary for us to agree on a much larger number of topics than we have been used to, and that in a planned system we cannot confine collective action to the tasks on which we can agree but are forced to produce agreement on everything in order that any action can be taken at all, is one of the features which contributes more than most to determining the character of a planned system.
It may be the unanimously expressed will of the people that its parliament should prepare a comprehensive economic plan, yet neither the people nor its representatives need therefore be able to agree on any particular plan. The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people will inevitably cause dissatisfaction with democratic institutions.
Parliaments come to be regarded as ineffective "talking shops," unable or incompetent to carry out the tasks for which they have been chosen. The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be "taken out of politics" and placed in the hands of experts-permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies [TILB - see the Federal Reserve for a modern day socialist example].
The difficulty is well known to socialists. It will soon be half a century since the Webbs began to complain of "the increased incapacity of the House of Commons to cope with its work."' More recently, Professor Laski has elaborated the argument:
"It is common ground that the present parliamentary machine is quite unsuited to pass rapidly a great body of complicated legislation. The National Government, indeed, has in substance admitted this by implementing its economy and tariff measures not by detailed debate in the House of Commons but by a wholesale system of delegated legislation. A Labour Government would, I presume, build upon the amplitude of this precedent. It would confine the House of Commons to the two functions it can properly perform: the ventilation of grievances and the discussion of general principles of its measures. Its Bills would take the form of general formulae conferring wide powers on the appropriate government departments; and those powers would be exercised by Order in Council which could, if desired, be attacked in the House by means of a vote of no confidence. The necessity and value of delegated legislation has recently been strongly reaffirmed by the Donoughmore Committee; and its extension is inevitable if the process of socialisation is not to be wrecked by the normal methods of obstruction which existing parliamentary procedure sanctions."And to make it quite clear that a socialist government must not allow itself to be too much fettered by democratic procedure, Professor Laski at the end of the same article raised the question "whether in a period of transition to Socialism, a Labour Government can risk the overthrow of its measures as a result of the next general election"-and left it significantly unanswered.
It is important clearly to see the causes of this admitted ineffectiveness of parliaments when it comes to a detailed administration of the economic affairs of a nation. The fault is neither with the individual representatives nor with parliamentary institutions as such but with the contradictions inherent in the task with which they are charged.
They are not asked to act where they can agree, but to produce agreement on everything--the whole direction of the resources of the nation. For such a task the system of majority decision is, however, not suited. Majorities will be found where it is a choice between limited alternatives; but it is a superstition to believe that there must be a majority view on everything.We are fast approaching a tipping point. In the course of a decade, we have gone from the government representing an already egregious one third of economic outpoint to one that represents 44% of our economy. It seems likely not to shrink as the current administration clearly believes in its just and beneficent wisdom and will impose that wisdom upon us, whether we want it or not.
To be fair, the trend of the graph at the top of this page is party neutral - both donkeys and elephants share the blame - having built over the course of 80 years. The acceleration, though, is perhaps most frightening of all. TILB is not sure what will cause a secular shift back toward freedom and away from centrally planned oppression. We suspect that, in the end, the will of the people must exert itself and reclaim lost liberty.
Lord hear our prayers...
