organizations built up during the war, if they prove efficient, will not
be abolished. Hours of labour and wages in the co-operative League of
Nations will gradually be equalized, and tariffs will become things of
the past. "The axiom will be established," says Mr. Webb, "that the
resources of every country must, be held for the benefit not only of its
own people but of the world . . . . The world shortage will, for
years to come, make import duties look both oppressive and ridiculous."

So much may be said for the principle of Democratic Control. In spite of
all theoretical opposition, circumstances and evolution apparently point
to its establishment. A system that puts a premium on commercial greed
seems no longer possible.

The above comments, based on the drift of political practice during the
past decade and a half, may be taken for what they are worth.
Predictions are precarious. The average American will be inclined to
regard the program of the new British Labour Party as the embodiment of
what he vaguely calls Socialism, and to him the very word is repugnant.
Although he may never have heard of Marx, it is the Marxian conception
that comes to his mind, and this implies coercion, a government that
constantly interferes with his personal liberty, that compels him to
tasks for which he has no relish. But your American, and your
Englishman, for that matter, is inherently an individualist he wants as
little government as is compatible with any government at all. And the
descendants of the continental Europeans who flock to our shores are
Anglo-Saxonized, also become by environment and education individualists.
The great importance of preserving this individualism, this spirit in our
citizens of self-reliance, this suspicion against too much interference
with personal liberty, must at once be admitted. And any scheme for a
social order that tends to eliminate and destroy it should by Americans