Experience shows that individual businesses are never as successful as companies, and companies are never as successful as trusts and trusts never as powerful as cartels. But companies that are backed or owned by state — as is the case in Russia — could assume power that no individual companies or even weak economies can achieve. Smaller economies, and even bigger economies, can manage to deal with individual private companies, but the state-run collective capitalism is altogether a different matter.

Large industrial countries always sought economic influence in small and weak economies, but it still remained possible for such countries to have their own capitalists. Because competition was between individuals, some businesses in smaller countries could withstand the competition from the bigger and better organised enterprises. Great Britain is one of the most highly industrialized countries, but that did not deter firms in Holland, Belgium and Switzerland to compete with British firms, simply because the competition was between firms rather than countries. To put it differently, the British army can be expected to prevail over (say) Belgium in a confrontation, but every individual British soldier may not be able to overcome every Belgian soldier.

Private capitalism does have its dangers, but it does leave the weak some breathing space. However, when pitted against State Capitalism, the weaker and smaller economies have little chance of survival. This is analogous to an army equipped only with clubs having to take on an army equipped with machine guns. But State Capitalism — under which the entire economic and political might of one country is pitted against individual traders and manufacturers of another country — threatens to destroy the world economic order.

In short, Russian Communism has raised the prospect of a very dangerous form of Capitalism, and there are only two ways to deal with that threat:

1. One possibility is that the entire world adopts the same economic system and becomes a part of the Soviet Union, thereby ending the competition between unequal. Is there any possibility that such a development will take place? Would Great Britain, America and France be prepared to join the Soviet Union so that they could escape the onslaught of Russian competition? Even if that were conceivable, would this ensure that they would gain rights and privileges similar to those enjoyed by Russians themselves? Since that is unlikely, this really is no solution.

2. The other solution could be for each country to adopt the communist system, but retains its independence. If this were to happen, it would mean that state-owned enterprises would be pitted against each other — a situation that would be even more dangerous. While industrial enterprises of one country competed with individual enterprises of another country earlier, the state enterprise of one country would now compete with the state enterprise of another. Were this eventuality to materialise, we would face continuous warfare instead of occasional wars relieved by varying periods of peace. Commercial caravans would move across the globe, but would require armed forces to defend them. Trade and commerce would be conducted between government officials and not company managers. In such a world, smaller and weaker countries would lose their independence and end up turning into hunting grounds for the bigger, more powerful countries. The major industrial powers would continue to compete, but the competition would be between the governments, not their individual firms.

It is no more than a delusion to suppose that when such a stage is reached people everywhere would rise to the occasion and conclude a just and lasting peace. Russia today is not prepared to share its wealth with the less fortunate. There is no reason to expect that things will be different when it becomes wealthier. If it were disposed that way, it would not have set its eyes on controlling Iran’s oilfields.