On Growth

20. Sicco L. Mansholt

Sicco Leendert Mansholt was born in Ulrum, in the Netherlands, in 1908. He studied tropical agriculture at Deventer and worked on tea estates in Java, the former Netherlands East Indies, from 1934 to 1936. He became minister of agriculture in the first cabinet after the Netherlands was liberated in 1945 and presented in 1953 his by now famous Mansholt Plan for Agriculture within the context of the European Economic Market. From 1958 to 1967 he was vice-president of the European Common Market. January 1, 1973, he

[p. 126]

resigned as interim president of the EEC. He ranks among Europe's leading statesmen.

Do you believe a multinational world management will be achieved in the foreseeable future?

I do not see that as yet happening. Not in the near future, at least. The one organization on a global scale up till now, the United Nations, is no doubt of very great importance, but it has hardly any political or real power at all. For many years I have suggested that a democratic, world assembly, responsible to mankind as a whole, should be founded. It could function within the United Nations framework, somewhat comparable to the commission of the European Community, be independent, have a mandate from the General Assembly and be empowered to take executive decisions. That would mean some real power. In that way, such a UN commission could perhaps tackle some real urgent and serious problems before us, such as pollution, population and rampant economic growth. We would need such solutions most urgently. Do I see it in the near future happening? Certainly not. Perhaps mankind will not be ripe for practical steps until some near catastrophic situation threatens it.

You have expressed amazement that an Italian industrialist like Aurelio Peccei¹ took the initiative to have computers figure out what to do in the world.

It is no doubt a shame that we leave these most urgent matters to be solved by a private organization like the Club of Rome, and that nations have not reached the wisdom of realizing that it has become imperative to begin to organize the planet as a whole. But when I take into consideration the present attitudes of governments, of politicians, and also, when one observes the utter weakness of the United Nations, we cannot expect positive changes of any importance in the immediate future.

Is not European unity progressing at an extremely slow rate as well?

Yes. That is a great difficulty. Do we have the time to make such

1 See conversation no. 70.

[p. 127]

slow progress, that is the question. In my opinion the time element will be of the utmost importance. When we watch a development that takes fifteen years to make even a very beginning of a European monetary union. We are just on the way of mapping out a European social policy. Things are moving irritatingly slow.

But problems seem to be piling up at a terrific speed, also in technology.

Yes. If it would take man another twenty or thirty years to make a first beginning of starting an effective world organization, this would be in my opinion far too late. We would have to begin now, but no one seems to be ready for it.

You said somewhere that Marx already warned that capitalism would collapse, since it was to produce goods no one could afford to buy. The planet is running out of resources. Perhaps, both capitalism and communism or socialism will all collapse from quite another cause: hunger.

Certainly, the first resource we are running out of is food. The second disaster will be the destruction of an ecological balance. The third is linked up with the environment, and will represent the running out of energy. We will be running out of energy, out of thermal and nuclear problems. Over the next fifteen or twenty years this planet has to meet its greatest difficulties, but it seems quite unprepared to squarely face them.

Peasants in Denmark will vote to enter the European Economic Community, only because they realize they will get better prices for their exports, hardly because they are conscious of the need of a united Europe.

Of course, the sole raison d'âtre for selling their cheese and butter is to cash in better prices. Indeed, they probably were not motivated by the creation of a strong united Europe and, I admit, it is not a very good start.

It would be absolutely possible to create a better quality of life in Europe. We have the organization. We have the power. If the political will would arise, we could do it. But instead, I notice a trend into the opposite direction. Decision-making powers are slackening more and more. I see symptoms of a reappearance of nationalism, which clearly reflects in decision-making processes.

[p. 128]

Will socialism bring necessary changes?

What do we mean by the word ‘socialism’? I cannot see that socialism, as it is dealt with in the Soviet Union for instance, will help us a great deal. I am a democrat, as you know. I very well realize the inner weakness of democratic socialism. It lacks decision-making power. It lacks the possibility of manipulating action. We absolutely will have to create a new socialism in which everyone is engaged. We cannot any longer function properly with governments or ruling institutions that decide over the heads of the people.

Governments should be truly inspired by the groundswell of the masses. People should be in a position to truly influence politicians, the representatives of the people. Mankind strove for this kind of thing since the days of Methuselah.

The only solution to meet the problems of the future would be to convince all and everyone that man is meeting the greatest challenge of all times. To deeply convince each man of his individual responsibility for the survival of mankind.

In my opinion our present system of production and consumption, based on a capitalistic society, will not be able to solve these deadly serious problems. It can only be done when the workers in the enterprise themselves are fully responsible for the aims and objectives of the production process, and are actively engaged in it. Man needs the total reform and redesigning of our society. In some respects, this could be achieved by a much greater decentralization of present institutions, a decentralization in which regions would have much greater power to meet and deal with these questions. Every housewife, every worker, every employee in offices or companies should be made aware of his ultimate responsibility. And should be fully cognizant of the dangerous situation on this planet.

When we could achieve a socialism, where not industry or capital is deciding what should be produced, but production will be based on concensus and the common interest of society at large, we could lead ourselves constructively out of the present impasse. I do not think that you should feel that by simply stopping material growth, we will solve any of these problems. I think it will not be possible to turn back material growth over the next decade.

[p. 129]

Robert S. McNamara advocates continued economic growth in order to assist the Third World in raising their standard of living.

That is not true. We do not need growth. Without growth per capita, that means growth in material-consumption per capita, we can better survive and are, too, in a position to help the eighty percent poor in the world. There is an absolute end to material growth. It will be impossible for the developing nations ever to reach the standards of living now prevailing in Europe or North America. In order not to widen the gap between the eighty percent poor people in the world and the rich nations, we have got to stop our material growth. If we would really make some of our wealth available for the developing nations, we could assist them very well in raising their possibilities for a better life. You know as well as I do that we make at present next to nothing available from our wealth to the really poor nations.

Recently, I met in the Netherlands with a group of working youngsters, laborers in their early twenties. I asked them whether they would be prepared to share a larger part of our wealth with the developing nations. And quite rightly they replied that they certainly were ready to share with the poor in the Third World, but objected to do so under present conditions and the western capitalistic system.

G.D. van Gelswijk,² an agricultural laborer from Lisse who replied to you, on your question, also asked you why it was that you, entertaining such progressive ideas, were working at the top of this capitalistic system, as chairman of the European Economic Commission.

That is very simple. There is more I can do to achieve these ideals from within the system than as an onlooker or a critic from the outside.

2 Member of the board of the Dutch union of working youth, NVV Jongeren Contact.