Sir: In Mr Enoch Powell's article on the morality of
profit (6 March) may I challenge the statement: 'It is not difficult to argue—to demon- strate even—that the alternative to the market and the capitalist pro- cess is necessarily inimical to free- dom of thought and action, be- cause centralised judgment and compulsion are the only substitutes for the impersonal and sponta- neous workings of the market.' I am not a Socialist. I believe in the virtue of the hereditary prin- ciple. I realise too that it cannot be eradicated; there are merely periods in the history of a coun- try when it is temporarily suppres- sed. But I do not think that any- body who is even so far over to' the right as myself has to sanction bourgeois, laissez-faire economics. More than anything else in the Middle Ages, the hereditary prin- ciple held society together; yet the economy then was full of controls. These controls did not exercise the restraint on freedom which Mr Powell might suppose.
There are two ways in which we may control our individual destiny and influence the course of public affairs. We may invoke the abstract notion of liberty, which was sanc- tioned by Rousseau and the eighteenth century and is the basis of our present democracy. Every five years our citizens may express their general will in electing a new government to power. This kind of freedom does not have much reality. Between the wars we were so disillusioned by it Sir Oswald Mosley might have risen to power. Under the late government our mood was much the same, and is eloquently described by Mr Foot in his oanerback on the politics of Harold Wilson.
The alternative kind of freedom is more concrete: it consists of liberties, which are really rights and powers. These are an accurate expression of our character. Be- cause, as Christian doctrine in- forms us, ours is a corrupt nature, we enjoy power. In the Middle Ages such liberties were the pre- rogative of such great economic organisations as the guilds. By the exercise of their liberties. members of these guilds were able to frus-' trate the free workings of the economy to their own advantage. Trade unions are the modem equivalent. As members of a trade union, many of our citizens possess a measure of freedom far greater than any afforded to them by parliamentary democracy. As well as negotiating for further pay, which is their own private concern, they are free to make their opinion felt in matters of public interest. 'My attention was drawn to this be- cause Mr Powell complained of it. A few months ago he objected to the demand which the teachers made, through their union, that for the sake of education the size of our classes should be reduced.
Such a letter as this is no doubt expected of me. Mr Powell said in his article that the 'virtues' of a merchant or manufacturer are des- pised by a nobleman like Conings- by.
Sudeley 25 Melcombe Court, Dorset Square, London Nwl
Previous page
