Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1942-07-09
Fact And Opinion
More About Our Peace Aims.
BY E. C. Stengelsen.

More About Our Peace Aims.
Last week, this column discussed
the highlights in the Roosevelt-Wal-
lace peace program.
One of the points mentioned brief
ly was that having to do with the
exploitation of the weak nations by
the strong.
Our idealists are agreed that it is
a nefarious practice and that it must
be ended After the war, the weak
nations are to be helped by the
strong, not exploited.
It sounds fine. But I'm not sure
that I know what it means. Not that
its important whether l do or not,
so long as Messrs. Roosevelt and
Wallace know. The trouble is that
I don't believe that they do either.
The way they used the word, ''ex-
ploitation," we are, presumably, to
understand that it is something
pretty wicked.
But is it? Instead, isn't it the
actual fact that it is the active agent
in private enterprise? Without it,
how could a capitalistic economy,
such as ours, be maintained? What
| incentive would there be to indi-
vidual effort? Shorn of this ele-
ment, would not our economy become
socialistic instead?
My employer exploits me in that
he makes money on me. At least
| I hope he does. The more profitable
1 am to him, the more secure my
| job is and the more money he'll
be able to pay me.
If he pays me all that he makes
on me, and if the same is true of
the rest of his employees, he may as
well close up shop. He'll go broke
eventually anyway.
Ali of us are exploiters-or try to
| be. We try to save margin above
what we spend. 1t represents earn
ings in excess of cost of operation.
The hired man is worth more to
a farmer than he is paid. If he
isn't, there is something wrong with
the farmers method of operation.
The storekeeper exploits his Gus
toners. If he doesn't, he's in busi-
ness only for his health.
Capitalism, or private enterprise,
rests on exploitation. And democ-
racy rests on private enterprise. Do
away with the profit motive and you
have socialism. You have also done
away with democracy. If you chal-
lenge this, see if you can name a
single country which is a democracy,
but hasn't capitalistic economy.
Don't tell me Russia is democ-
racy. It isn't. 1t lacks the chief
basic element, namely freedom of
enterprise. They may have a gov
eminent that is in every way equal
to ours, or even better; but so long
as they have regimented economy,
they're not democracy.
| So I do not know what Messrs.
Roosevelt and Wallace mean, unless
they mean that strong nations must
not hereafter deal with the weak in
a manner profitable to themselves.
If so, English or American BUSH
nessmen are no longer going to sell
to or buy from India, China, Malaga,
the African colonies or other back
ward peoples; for, if they're not to
make profit, what's the sense in it?
If Roosevelt and Wallace are not
aiming at making the whole world
socialistic, do they intend that we
shall finance the development of these
backward nations so they can ex-
plot back?
If that is the plan, our taxpayers
are the ones who'll be exploited; for
the cost of the development will then
come out of their pockets, that OPP
portunity may be created for our
businessmen to continue dealing pro-
fitably in those areas.
Churchill solemnly subscribed to
the principle. If he had been asked
to concur in the proposition that the
moon is made of green cheese, he'd
probably have done that, just as read
lily. Promises are cheap. And Brit
ain needed, desperately, everything
she could get out of America. Church.
ill knew he could safely promise.
He knew that at the peace table, his
government would brush aside the
promises he had made.
For what would become of England
if she could not buy her raw ma
terials from her colonies and sell the
manufactured articles back to them.
Her whole economy is built on it.
If the plan proposed by Messrs.
Roosevelt and Wallace, and con-
CURED in by Churchill, were put into
actual practice, it would destroy the
British Empire just as certainly as
defeat in the war.