profession. It would be treated with contempt by those
who are protected by organized industrial trade unionism.
And qualified young doctors experience increasing difficulty in establishing themselves in practice. They find it
almost impossible to secure appointments, and no less
difficult to obtain practices.
On the one hand, appointments directly obtainable
through the Ministry of Health ancl its regional representatives are inevitably limited by the fact that the Ministry
is noxv at its wits' end to devise new and effectix'e instruments for its enforced economy drive. In the circumstances, new medical appointments are not popular in
On the other hand, young doctors are discovering that
the older and established general practitioners are themselves in most cases in such a financial predicament that
then- cannot, even if they wished to do so, accept their
young colleagues as assistants. If they did so they would,
under the terms of remuneration laid clown in the National
Health Service, suffer financial loss because they must
share their gross per capita fees with their assistants.
Today, many medical practices do not provide adequate
incomes even on the basis of one doctor for one practice.
It is a poor lookout for the new generation of medical
men and women who may, or may not, have optimistically
assumed that nationalized medicine would offer economic
security to the professional strata of society.
The doctors have a lot to answer for in every aspect of
nationalized medicine. For all practical purposes they eliel
not sell themselves and their patients to the socialized government; they presented the profession and the public
on a plate as a gift. It is both lamentable and scandalous
that the profession now finds itself in the ignominious
position of haggling with the authorities for an extra
shilling or two increase in the per capita fees; ancl that it
has had to acknowledge publicly that, without an increase-.
the majority of doctors cannot continue to meet their
There is something grand, even majestic, about the
word "democracy." It implies so much that is good in
human behavior. It also conceals so much that is thoroughly bad. In its worst interpretation it gives verisimilitude to the concept that all men are equal whereas, in
terms of politics, it merely recognizes that all men have
You cannot legislate unsuccessful people into prosperity
merely by legislating successful people out of it.
Nationalized Industry and Utilities
It is a major technique in the Socialist effort to disrupt
anel ultimately destroy the private enterprise system of
capitalism. Both socialism ancl communism stress the
social ancl economic advantages of public ownership of
industry. Both promise the workers partnership and participation in industry at managerial ancl even at proprietorial levels. Socialism proceeds on the installment plan;
communism grabs the whole economic outfit with strategic
finality. At journey's end, socialism is in liquidation inside
the accommodating belly of the Communist tiger.
Monopoly is a word repeatedly used in Socialist propaganda. Why the Socialists dare exploit it is one of the
mysteries. They are supermonopolists themselves. The
alpha to omega of socialism is the creation of the all-
powerful State which, at maturity, monopolizes everything
and everybody. Nationalization is monopoly rampant.
Although Socialist and much trade' union propaganda
persisted over the years to stress Marx-Communist aspiration of "ownership by the workers of the means of production, distribution, ancl exchange," the Fabian-Socialist
intellectuals, obsessed with their theories of political and
social planning, gradually evolved a new formula that was
intended to preserve some of the choicest plums of planning for themselves. "Ownership by the workers" wee-
subtly changed to "ownership by the State as trustee of
The amazing fact about this radical amendment of one
of the commandments of labor-class socialism is that the
trade-union movement utterly failed to realize the signifi'
cance of the changed nomenclature and its ominous implications. Today, I think there are not many trade unionists
in Great Britain who have not discovered that in getting
rid of the capitalist as employer they have merely placed
their destinies in the control of an impersonal employer-
Nationalization is an essential feature of a planned
economy; and a planned economy, in the long run-
depends upon planned human beings.
Workers have discovered that the nationalized industries
emel utilities are being run uneconomically and ineffr
ciently; that their very security, as workers in these State"
controlled undertakings, i.s precarious. The nationalization
boards possess vast powers and authority. A coal iniii'''
for example, discharged from one pit, finds it extreme!)
difficult to sell his services to another — the boss in e""'
pit i.s almost certain to be the boss in another, over a very
wide region. The working-classes, who naively assume1
that nationalization would make them owners of indusV/'
are left low and wet on the planners' beach.
\J\i-: of the big talking points exploited by the advocate*
of nationalization was that State-owned industries won"
insure cheaper and more efficient production and service*
and that the elimination of costly competition would res11
in financial prosperity. This argument, exposed tei the fief-
light of practical experience, has been thrown overboaTy
Now the argument is that paying its way is not essentia''
a major consideration in nationalization technique. Pub"
service, according to the Socialists, must now take Piej
dence over such mundane considerations as profit si
loss. If this is the new economies, the already °v( |
burdened taxpayer can look forward to some new' "'
highly disagreeable impositions. Nationalization in Pri'
tice is becoming more anel more dependent on State su,
sidy or loan or arbitrary price increases — new final"-'
obligation which the consumer, as taxpayer, cannot eva'
Nationalization is socialism. In full economic opera"' I
it place's the State in absolute command anel control
the whole resources of the nation. The 25 per cent "f J
industrial activities already landed in the State's ",.
embraces almost all the key industries anel utilities; th1
fore, the remaining 75 per cent at present operating un ,
private enterprise is greatly dependent on the nation-'!''"
25 per cent for its very existence.
In Britain's economic- development over the cent"* I
coal has contributed more to it than any other single h*~5
trial activity xvith the possible exception of our i"v'*\,i,
exports which, in any case, are fundamentally commefj
Coal is certainly our main source of home-grown e'1" .j,.
and will inevitably continue ett this high level of ,n I
pensability until atomic energy can be diverted lien" " ,.
applied economically to civil serV
tary priorities and applied
I \i is Forum News. June,