continuous organism with a character of its own. They have alse taught us   
in the economic plane that unregulated individual liberty to deal with   
money, in other words with an instrument of power over others, may be only   
a new form of feudalism and tyranny for the masses. Socialism and   
Communism are, if I may say so half-baked reactions against Nineteenth   
Century individualism. They want to get rid of its economic injustices,   
but by a method which still perpetuates the individualist conception of   
the State as simply a number of individuals exercising political power by   
means of majority decisions after rational argument. But the real   
revolution in men's minds has gone a great deal deeper. It is a   
revolution which emphasises, possibly over-emphasises, the organix   
conception of the community and thinks of individuals, not so much in   
terms of their equal individual rights, as of the functions which they can   
best fulfil for the benefit of the whole community. Above all, it   
emphatically rejects the Nineteenth Century divorce between economics and   
politics, and, indeed, regards economics, whether frem the point of view   
of external defence er internal welfare, as the mest essential subject   
                    matter of politics.                     
 
                                                            
 
 
All this general trend of ideas has, as is inevitable in revolutions,   
shown itself in various extreme forms, in Germany, in Italy, in Russia.   
These will, ne doubt, be purged away with the defeat of their external   
manifestatiens in the shape of Hitler and Co., and their analogues   
elsewhere. On the other hand a large sub-stratum ef the new thought has   
come te stay, both as a necessary corrective to the evils of unregulated   
individualism, and as a step forward in the general development of mankind.   
To ignore that aspect of the question, and to think that by destroying the   
menace of Hitlerism to the peace of the world, and to all conceptions of   
freedom, justice and decency, means going back to Nineteenth Century   
           Liberalism would be a dangerous error.           
 
                                                            
 
 
More particularly, it seems to me that it would be very dangerous to   
assume that the world can ever return to that division between politics   
and economics which characterised the last century. The Nineteenth   
Century ideal of a world forming a single ecenomic unit within which   
individuals are free to trade and invest, subject only to such minor   
barriers as local tariffs, and treated equally as individuals without   
discrimination as to their ceuntry of origin, seems to me one which there   
is no possible chance of restering. The economic and political life of   
states in future will always be so bound together that not only internal   
economic activities, but external ones, will inevitably be in large   
measure guided and controlled, and that not from the point of view of   
world trade in the abstract, but from the political and economic interest   
                of each particular country.