ȇȇ Partʺ: EconomicsĻe management of purely local business by the localities, and of the
great enterprises of industry by the union of those who voluntarily sup-
ply the pecuniary means, is further recommended by all the advantages
which have been set forth in this Essay as belonging to individuality of
development, and diversity of modes of action. Government operations
tend to be everywhere alike. With individuals and voluntary associations,
on the contrary, there are varied experiments, and endless diversity of
experience. (ȀȇȄȈ/ȀȈȁȈ, p.ȀȂȀ)Modigliani’s Research Commission would hardly be an adequate sub-
stitute for Mill’s “diversity of modes of action,” even if it were staffed
entirely by scientific and technical experts. Ļe very essence of innova-
tion is that it embodies ideas divergent from prevailing thought. Progress
cannot be completely plotted and blueprinted in advance; that is why it is
progress. Often discovery can be identified only in retrospect (cf. Harper
ȀȈȃȈ, pp.Ȇȁ–Ȇȅ). If the government Research Commission decided not to
“waste” resources on some new idea, it would be ruled out; that’s all. But
in a competitive enterprise system, an idea discarded by ninety-nine com-
panies still has a chance with a hundredth company. And no company can
afford to be too rash in rejecting innovations, for fear that its competitors
will “get the jump” on it. In a competitive system, a research worker who
feels frustrated in one job can take his ideas to another employer. Under
socialism things would be different.
With regard to invention, R.L. Hall writes:
there does not seem to be any criterion by which the Socialist state can
decide the amount of resources which it is proper to spend: so that they
cannot rationally create a profession of inventors. On the other hand, if
these matters are left to the chance on which they depend the path of
the innovator will be even harder than it is in the capitalist state. In the
interests of economy it is necessary to discourage cranks; but it is proba-
ble that the leaders of industry will consider that all innovators are cranks.
In the capitalist state the inventor is free to devote any resources which
he inherits, or can earn or can wheedle from patrons, to his researches.
In a socialist state he will get nothing which he does not earn and he
may find himself in a labour camp if he neglects his work. Ļe progress
of spontaneous invention may well be slowed unless care is devoted to
preserving a receptive frame of mind in the higher officials. But if they
are too receptive there may be dissipation of the national resources in
grandiose projections doomed to failure. It is difficult to follow a middle
course when no one knows where the middle is: the socialist state will