Harold J. Laski

The equality will be denied, and, with it, the freedom to claim equality.

The new power which seeks its place in the sun is inevitably suspected by the old with whom it claims equal rights.

Who of us but would not feel that a freedom which seeks radical alteration of the contours of existence is perverse and dangerous and worthy only to be suppressed?

Who of us, on these terms, but would find it difficult to accept as valid experience which contradicts our experiences, a system of values which attempts the transvaluation of our own?

Equality, in fact, is a denial of the philosophy of life which is bred into their bones by their way of living.

It means that their wants do not define the ends of production, their standards do not set the objects of consideration, their right to determine the equilibrium of social forces is no longer recognized.

It means parting with the exercise of power and all the pleasures that go with its exercise.

And it is equality that is decried by those who rule.

The penumbra of freedom, its purpose and its life, is the movement for equality.

The freedom that the poor desire in a society such as this is the freedom to enjoy the things their rulers enjoy.

Justice becomes the rule of the stronger, liberty the law which the stronger allow.

Those who are so denied struggle to attain, those who possess struggle to preserve.

It is inevitable, also, that envy should be the nurse of hate and faction.

It is, I think, inevitable that those to whom these things are denied should envy those who possess them.

The possession of wealth means the possession of so much that makes for a happy life, beautiful physical surroundings, leisure to read and to think, safeguards against the insecurity of the morrow.

In a society of economic unequals, gross unequalities make conflict inherent in its foundations.

For if the form of social organization is a pyramid, men are bound to struggle towards its apex.

They will allow freedom in inessentials; but when the pith of freedom is attack upon their monopoly they will define it as sedition or blasphemy.

I cannot believe that, in such an atmosphere, liberty will be a matter of serious concern to the possessors of power.

I think the perception of the early socialists entirely justified when they urged that a society divided into a small number of rich, and a large number of poor persons, will be a society of exploiters and exploited.

I accept the insight Harrington had when he insisted that the distribution of economic power in a state will control the distribution of its political power.

I conclude, therefore, that whatever our mechanisms and institutions, liberty can hope to emerge and to be maintained in a society where men are, broadly speaking, equally interested in its emergency and its maintenance.

To suggest to the average citizen who took part in the Great War that his school-books should abandon the legend that his particular state entered it with the whole-souled motive of serving justice would appear scandalous simply because he…

To explain to a loyal Roman Catholic that he should tell his children that there is grave reason to deny the truth of all he believes is to invite him to shatter the foundation upon which he has built his life.

For them, therefore, the honest publication of facts, the making of free minds, are simply paths to disaster.