Our Responsibility Towards the Future

There is abroad today an "end of the world" feeling. Not literally the end of the physical world, perhaps, but the end of comfort, security, liberty, culture—everything that made civilized life worth living.

Shall we then simply eat, drink, and be merry, since tomorrow we may die? But what of our children—and the community's children?

Let us analyze our plight honestly. The world is changing faster than our intelligence can comprehend, faster than our feelings can adapt. We have gained power without wisdom.

Capitalism is breaking up; the old morality is breaking down. The upshot is injustice to countless individuals, the constant threat of war, and beneath it all a sense of futility—the feeling that nothing we do matters.

Various solutions are offered. Some say Britain should lead—through collective security and gradual reform. Others advocate fascism: order through force. Still others demand communist revolution: a complete overturn of the economic system. And there are those who call for religious revolution, including absolute pacifism.

But is there perhaps no solution? Stanley Casson has studied the fall of early civilizations—they too thought they would endure forever. Perhaps we face the end of our civilization, even the end of the human species. This is possible. We must face it.

What are humanity's most precious assets? Intelligence and imagination—the power to understand and the power to envision what might be.

And sociality—but here we must distinguish. Animal sociality means conformity: the will to conform and to enforce conformity on others. Human sociality at its best means something different: respecting others as genuine individuals, achieving genuine community through mutual enrichment rather than mutual suppression.

What is humanity's real business on Earth? Personality in community: the development of unique individuals who are nevertheless deeply connected. And beyond that: knowledge and creativity—understanding the universe and adding to its beauty.

What sort of world-community might we have? Social justice—no one condemned to poverty while others wallow in excess. A full life for all: comfort, education, travel, meaningful work. Worldwide cooperation instead of cutthroat competition.

The physical means are already to hand. We can produce enough food for everyone. We have communication that spans the globe. Labor-saving devices could free us for creative work—as science is doing in Russia, whatever its political faults. Physical access to knowledge is now possible for all.

What stands in the way? Ourselves. We are creatures of our environment, shaped by circumstances that breed obsession and vindictiveness. Our ideology is out of date—we are educated for capitalism or feudalism, not for the world that is emerging.

Frustration breeds obsession: people thwarted in their reasonable desires become fixated on revenge, on scapegoats, on petty triumphs. And this is exactly what we see all around us.

A miracle is needed. We must excel ourselves—become better than we have ever been. Perhaps the pressure of desperation will accomplish what comfort never could. Under threat, we might wake to higher lucidity and integrity, might grasp the basic values of personality-in-community.

This depends on ordinary people—not leaders, not intellectuals, but the mass of decent folk who ultimately determine what their societies will tolerate. Englishmen in particular occupy a key position: what Britain does matters disproportionately to the world. An awakened public opinion here could tip the balance.

What would the new spirit require? Individual responsibility: each person consulting their own conscience and intelligence, not simply following orders or custom.

Pacifism: the refusal to solve problems by killing. And Britain must be willing to sacrifice privileges—to give up empire, to accept a lower material standard of living if that is what justice requires.

These are the essentials. But what policies would follow from them?

I propose a transition to what might be called "Little Englandism"—not imperialism, not isolation, but a new relationship with the world based on justice rather than domination.

The first step: persuade the public to accept the new ideal. This must be made to look heroic and hopeful—not a retreat, but an advance to higher ground.

Second: bring down the present Government and form a new National Government with its centre of gravity to the Left. This might bring together figures from across the spectrum—Churchill and Eden from the Right, perhaps even Pollitt from the Communist Party?

Third: a revolutionary foreign policy. A solemn declaration of Britain's change of direction. An international conference to set up a commission for gradual transformation of the world order.

Stop rearming—but maintain a firm interim pledge to defend France during the transition. Grant home rule to India at once. Progressive surrender of all dependencies, or immediate conferral of home rule upon them. Tell the Dominions that we shall reduce our imperial responsibilities. Withdraw from Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Singapore, and all our strategic outposts.

This is drastic—but justice demands nothing less.

Fourth: a transformed home policy. Prevent the export of capital—keep British wealth working for British people. A huge intensification of agriculture to make us more self-sufficient—perhaps even "dirtless farming" using the new scientific techniques.

Stimulation of home markets. Massive programs of rehousing, health expenditure, and cultural development. Heavy taxation of large incomes to fund these programs. And above all, educational expansion—to create citizens capable of sustaining the new order.

Fifth: preach the new gospel, with slogans that capture the imagination. Stress humanistic ideals throughout. Capture the middle-class imagination—they are the key constituency.

Be frank: this is a forlorn hope. We need a moral revolution. We must take great risks. But stress what is positive: intelligence and generosity as the guiding principles. This would be Britain's Revolution—not bloody like the French or Russian, but equally transformative.

What if we funk the issue—if we lack the courage for transformation?

Then as an Imperial Power we shall find ourselves with many enemies and no friends. The Empire will be lost piecemeal—not surrendered with dignity but torn from our grasp, with corresponding loss of prestige and honor.

Some will attempt a Fascist recovery—imposing order by force. But this is doomed in the long run. Eventually there would be bloody revolution. Britain would end up dominated by Germany—or sold up to the USA, a junior partner in someone else's empire.

But if we accept our destiny—a doubtful hope, but the only one—what then?

Britain would set a supreme example to the world. This act of voluntary renunciation could change the whole course of world events. We would assume cultural leadership of the world—not through power but through the liberal spirit, through intelligence and charity.

We would rebuild our cities, develop labor-saving technologies. We would become a population of frugal aristocrats—materially modest but culturally rich. There would be no proletariat, but all of us workers, all of us contributing, all of us sharing in the common inheritance.

What does Britain stand for? Two contradictory things: democracy and liberalism on one hand; exploitation and commercial empire on the other. We must choose.

The issue is deeper than politics—it concerns fundamental values. Individual rights, yes—but also individual responsibility. We have stressed the rights and shirked the responsibility. That must change.

Science has been exploited for profit and power, not for human welfare. And liberalism has failed—it stressed rights while responsibility was shirked. The reaction against liberalism was inevitable.

But the reaction has gone wrong. Communism, Fascism, Nazism—all exalt community, but they fail to distinguish between genuine community and the mere herd. They sacrifice the individual to the collective. This is no solution.

Is a democratic revival possible? Perhaps—if we learn from totalitarianism what democracy must become. We must learn that the powerful must be controlled, that individual freedom requires social responsibility.

The policy for Britain might be called "liberal communism"—combining the liberal respect for persons with the communist commitment to shared resources. This must inform our home policy, our empire policy, and our foreign policy alike.

There will be chaos in the transition—that is unavoidable. Revolution is necessary. But what kind of revolution? An individual revolution first—each person transforming their own values and behavior.

"Libertarian communism"—Kropotkin's vision—points the way. Economic change is not sufficient, but it is necessary. The influence of good individuals matters, but individuals cannot transform society alone.

Russia's revolution has gone backward in some ways—but we can learn from both its achievements and its failures. The goal remains: a society that is both free and just.