Ayn Rand, On Ending War by Using Actual Capitalistic Economics

>In regard to Woodrow Wilson, Proffessor Ekirich writes:



"Wilson no doubt would have preferred the growth of United States foreign trade to come about as a result of free international competition, but he found it easy with his ideas of moralism and duty to rationalize direct American intervention as a means of safe-guarding the national interest."


And: "He (Wilson) seemed to feel that the United States had a mission to spread its institutions--which he conceived as liberal and democratic--to the more benighted areas of the world." It was not the advocates of capitalism who helped Wilson to whip up a reluctant, peace-loving nation into the hysteria of a military crusade--it was the "liberal" magazine "The New Republic." Its editor, Herbert Croly, used such arguments as: The

American nation needs the tonic of a serious moral adventure."



Just as Wilson, a "liberal" reformer, led the United States into World War I, "to make the world safe for democracy"--so Franklin D. Roosevelt, another "liberal" reformer, led it into World War II, in the name of the "Four Freedoms." In both cases, the "conservatives"--and the big business interests--were overwhelmingly opposed to war but were silenced. In the case of World War II, they were smeared as "isolationists," "reactionaries," and "America-First'ers."



World War I led, not to "democracy," but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War II led, not to "Four Freedoms," but to the surrender of one-third of the world's population into communist slavery.



If peace were the goal of today's intellectuals, a failure of that magnitude--and the evidence of unspeakable suffering on so large a scale--would make them pause and check their statist premises....Observe that the "haves" are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the "have nots" have not.


So long as men are subjugated by force, they will fight back and use any weapons available. If a man is led to a Nazi gas chamber or a Soviet firing squad, with no voices raised to defend him, would he feel any love or concern for the survival of mankind? Or would he be more justified in feeling that a cannibalistic mankind, which tolerates dictatorships, does not deserve to survive?



If nuclear weapons are a dreadful threat and mankind cannot afford war any longer, then MANKIND CANNOT AFFORD STATISM ANY LONGER. Let no man of good will take it upon his conscience to advocate the rule of force--outside or INSIDE his own country. Let all those who are actually concerned with peace--those who do love MAN and do care about his survival--realize that if war is ever to be outlawed, it is THE USE OF FORCE that has to be outlawed."

-------------------from "The Roots of War," by Ayn Rand; CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL