.

THE whole world has suddenly come together. The contact has taken the form of conflict. We have in the past neglected the increasing trend toward world-wide associations and their attendant problems -- and the fact is now forcing itself upon our attention rather unpleasantly.

Societies have at last developed to the point where they can no longer continue isolated from one another. Our social and economic life has been steadily weaving a world pattern; the natural associations of men, commercial and cultural, have been naturally expanding. But our political systems have been far behind. Up to now we have allowed ourselves to think in terms of self-sufficient political units. We have not expanded our concepts and conformed our governments to the natural developments of social evolution -- and the consequences have caught up with us.

It is true that in various ways the fact of a world society has been reckoned with. There are various international agreements and "laws," an international postal system, etc." And there have been some attempts to assemble the high contracting parties of nations, such as the League of Nations and the World Court. But it is evident that such half-hearted concessions are not enough.

Things have come to a point where the nations of the earth are ranged on either side of one great potential world order. The stakes/indeed, are globe-wide, and one or the other side , must emerge as the globe-wide governing factor.

Most of us believe that the totalitarian nations will be defeated and that the democracies will emerge victorious. Our feeling is that those governments based upon tyranny, and whose very philosophy is force, might, dotmination, aggression, control, must finally fall; and that government based upon respect for the individual and a just social order must triumph. We can no longer be content with a spot on earth where government based upon equality and justice holds sway, and tolerate governments based upon tyranny and aggression elsewhere. In a world that has come together, a world government is, in the course of things, inevitable. We must see to it that it is the right kind.

Indeed, because we were content to allow democracy to be passive, we have left it to the Axis to take the initiative in planning a world order. We don't want it -- but what were we doing while it was being planned? We wanted to be left alone. This apathy is being knocked out of us. We have already learned that a defensive war is not enough, but that the enemy has to be counter-attacked. We have yet to learn that the enemy's ideology and planning have also to be counter-attacked -- that there must be an offensive of planning and propagation of democracy on our part. We must plan for a democratic world government as the alternative to a fascist world order.

A world government can be democratic. Such a government extending its sway throughout the earth does not mean a centralized bureaucratic control of all things. It does mean a code of laws under which all peoples will live and be guaranteed certain rights. Such a code must be supreme over all other autonomous bodies and there must be formed the proper organization to make it effective. The League of Nations was ineffectual because it offered no joint authority upon which all might agree and it did not at all curb the autonomy and imperialism of its member nations.

The Anglo-American system must be the basis of the pattern for a democratic world order. Under this system political democracy has evolved, and under this framework the durable achievements in man's struggles toward freedom have been made. Certainly, of all forms of government, it is the one most capable of evolving toward a fuller realization of the rights of man. It promises much if proper use is made of it. It is an organic thing, capable of great mobility and adaptation, simply because it is the framework for the guarantee of rights and freedom and rule by the people. And only under such a form can the will of the people express itself. The only alternative is an autocracy, or some oligarchy, in which the will of some is imposed on the rest of the people.

The United States of America supplies us with a model government for a United States of the world. Following its example, the nations of the earth would play the same role as the states of our nation, exercising autonomy of their own within specified limits; but a federal government, with its legislative, executive and judicial branches, under democratic control, would be supreme in order to make effective the world code of laws.

This is not so far-fetched. Already, influential groups are studying the cherished documents of .democracy in a quest for an "international Bill of Rights" for the post-war world, If this is to be more than a pleasant scholarly pursuit, the means for effecting such a code must also be probed.

The spiritual atmosphere today is more favorable for the idea of a world government than it was during World War I, for instance. There seems to be more realization, happily, that we are not fighting the people of the enemy nations, but their governments. There is not even any noticeable tendency, formerly so general, to be contemptuous of the cultural and social heritage of the enemy nations. The people of those countries are human, and they have a place in the world -- they and their culture. We are not fighting that they may be crushed. Indeed, it is only under a government that guarantees rights and liberties that any sort of culture can thrive. It is for them, too, that we are fighting -- if we are prepared to take the next step.

But we must also be prepared to make the democratic way a reality to the people that are already under our control. Large sections of humanity which have hitherto been, neglected or abused, such as those of Asia, must come in for more general respect and consideration in the world order to come. Elementary rights must be restored to these people. Just as we feel that the totalitarians are sealing their own doom by their frightful violations of human rights, so must we expect calamity to the extent that we abuse these rights. As a matter of fact, are we not, in the case of India, witnessing the results of these abuses? Would it not have been better for the Allied cause if freedom had been trusted there?

Among all peoples, including those who today enjoy the rights of democratic government, democracy must be made more functional and vital. There are privileges and monopolies to be gotten rid of, and economic freedom to be established. Under the democratic form, privileges have before been overthrown and freedoms established, and the process must continue.

As a result of the privileges and monopolies that democracy is now carrying like a dead weight, a factor has entered the scene which must be reckoned with -- a factor that will indubitably play its role in the world of tomorrow. This is the increasing trend toward communization, or mass-organization, within the democracies. It would, of course, be rash to say that privilege is the sole cause of this trend. It may well be part of the drift toward a world order -- the integrating of the entire social organism -- that assumes the forms it does because of economic arid social malformations. These forms -- labor unions, cooperatives, increased socialization by government, etc. -- might be regarded as a "governor" in human nature making an effort to restore some sort of equilibrium, or equality, from which we have strayed as a result of "rugged individual ism" and neglect and abuse of human rights.

There is a very real and qualitative difference between this sort of communization and the centralization one observes in fascist countries. (It would be but candid to admit, too, that there is a difference between communism and fascism.) Fascism is control from the top. In its very inception it is the result of fear of mass control -- of the sort of communization that is growing in the democracies. It was born in an attempt to crush the proletariat. It is the last bulwark against the surge of the people. Nor is the trend being ignored by our own fascists. It is a matter of record that the privileged classes in the democracies have been, and are still, looking to some sort of fascism as a protection against the masses. And there are many who, from less sinister reasons perhaps, fear communism more than fascism and would sooner turn to the latter than the former if the choice were inevitable.

But there is little doubt that the trend toward mass organization and communication will increase after the war, assuming an Axis defeat. If it is able to gain ground in a democratic government, without violation of democratic codes, that indicates that it is in the nature of a social force, close to the will of the people. In the coming world government, this force will unquestionably play a part -- hence, it is a factor we must reckon with.

The function of leaders is to understand and accept as realities the social forces around them; to work with it and strive from it toward the norm. Our leaders surely ought to under stand that an extreme collectivism is not toward the norm of a Good Society. They ought to know that the goal is freedom. And those who cherish that goal ought certainly to reckon with the realities that do exist.

Herein a balance must be struck. Many leaders of thought have indeed perceived the trend toward socialization in the world today, but have been derelict in their duty by being so "objective" as to lose sight of the norm; indeed, many of them, to their shame, have built schemes which go in the opposite direction from the norm. On the other hand, followers of Henry George, possessing the key to economic freedom, have been too inclined to concentrate on the distant goal without reckoning with realities.

If Georgeists can but understand and accept the social forces about them, and adjust their tasks to these forces, the Georgeist philosophy cannot help but become a guiding philosophy in the reconstruction of the world of tomorrow.

Taking the world as they find it, they must choose between a democratic world order with its communizing tendencies, or a fascistic world order with its totalitarian tendencies. Their choice must lie with the former. The probable outcome of this war is the triumph of such a social order, and it must be accepted as the vehicle through which Georgeists may inject their ideology.

This does not mean acceptance in any passive sense. It means being prepared for a fait accompli, for the sort of society that will probably emerge as a result of the state of mind of the people, as a reflection of what people have learned so far. The function of Georgeists must be one of guidance -- to lead humanity toward a better world by opening up the possibility of a better world. They will be better equipped for this task by coming to terms with the world that is.