Full text of "Democracy, capitalism, and their competitors"

See other formats

Oooiai SUidlei^

I' I

DEMOCRACY
CAPITALISM

and

Their Competitors

> ' « ^ ',1

PRUDEN

^.,

OXFORD BOOYi

COMPANY

y«%

DEMOCRACY
CAPITALISM

and Their Competitors

DURWARD PRUDEN, Ph.D., Associate Professor

of Social Studies, School of Education,

New York University

New York

OXFORD BOOK COMPANY

1952

All rights reserved. This book, or
any part thereof, may not be re-
produced in any form without the
written permission of the publishers.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA

PREFACE

This pamphlet is the outgrowth of the author's experience,
over a period of several years, in trying to help students and
others discuss calmly and analytically some of the basic prob-
lems confronting the modern world in the sphere of gov-
ernment and economics. It need hardly be said that these
problems have become the focal points of intensely emotional
reactions. Such emotional reactions, unfortunately, are not
likely to be critical or rational. Time and again, in the course
of his professional and personal experience, the author has
been shocked and depressed by the extremely loose use of all
sorts of terms, labels, epithets, and stereotypes, and by the
almost robot-like repetition of the most obvious propagan-
distic cliches. It has been particularly discouraging to find
serious-minded students and otherwise well-informed adults
falling into such semantic traps.

Participation in many classes and discussion groups has
convinced the author that when people clearly understand the
terms that are being used (and misused); when they are able
to express exactly what they are for and what they are against
—then bitterness has a tendency to fade away, and the under-
lying factor of common humanness and brotherhood has a
chance to come to the surface. It is only then that discussion
of controversial issues can be really profitable and men can
approach their pressing social problems with some hope of
reaching rational solutions.

The philosophy on which this pamphlet is based is pro-
democratic in several distinct but interrelated senses. In the
first place, it is written from the viewpoint that people— all
people— have the capacity to grasp the crucial problems of
our day, and that they can and will make the right decisions
in the dangerous years ahead, provided they understand them-
selves and each other. Second, in analyzing the different forms
of government, the author has committed himself unreserv-
edly to the basic institutions of political democracy. He has
tried to underline effectively the truth that so long as ultimate

iii

political power is vested in all the people, they will have a
free hand to solve their problems by whatever methods and
devices seem, in their considered judgment, to be best adapted
to the purpose. As an extension of this concept, the pamphlet
emphasizes that a democratic society must not only tolerate
but actively promote a "free marketplace" for the discussion
of ideas.

This pamphlet has been written primarily for the use of
social studies classes in high schools. The language, method
of presentation, original cartoons, exercise material, and all
other features have been designed with the needs of such
classes held clearly in mind. On the other hand, it is believed
that the pamphlet may also be helpful to college classes,
adult study groups, and individual readers seeking a better
understanding of the controversial issues of our day.

D. P.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1. Introduction 1

Less Heat, More Light 1

Three Kinds of Terms 2

2. The Kinds of Government 6

Government by One Person 7

The Myths of Monarchy 7

Evaluation of One-Man Government 8

Oligarchy— Government by a Few 9

Evaluation of Oligarchy 10

Life Under an Oligarchy 10

Democracy— Government by All the People 11

Development of Democracy in the United States 13

3. Types of Economic Systems 16

What Is an Economic System? 16

Two Types of Economic Goods 16

Capitalism 17

Socialism 18

Do We Have Any Socialism in the United States? 20

Communal Enterprises 21

What Type of Economic System Should We Favor? 22

Where to Draw the Line? 25

Some Common Misunderstandings 26

4. Trade Names 28

Introduction 28

Conservatives 28

Liberals and Radicals 29

The Republican and Democratic Parties 31

Karl Marx and the Doctrine of Social Revolution 33

The Russian Revolution 34

Communism in the Soviet Union 36

What Should Be Our Attitude Toward the Soviet Union? 38

International Communism 39

The Communist Party in the United States 41

The Socialist Parties 42

The National Socialist (Nazi) Parties 43

The Fascist Party in Italy 44

"Fascism" Becomes an International Term 45

5. Other Terms in Current Use 48

Totalitarianism 48

Police State 49

Authoritarianism 50

Welfare State 51

Bureaucracy 53

Right- Wingers and Left-Wingers 54

Propaganda 54

Conclusion 56

'») •>>) o:>^ •») ») •») ») 0^) •»; ») •»> -^XCC- CCC- CCC- CC<- C<C- C«- CCC- CCC- C<0 CCC- ccc- ccc-

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

"Until we clear up our political nomenclature,
our political oratory and journalism can come
to nothing but the pot calling the kettle black
without either of them knowing what they are
talking about. We all lack a common and exact
dictionary, and are at dangerous cross pur-
poses over imaginary diflFerences and delusive
agreements that are only verbal."

—George Bernabd Shaw

HLess Heat, More Light
AVE YOU ever heard an argument which involved a
heated exchange of name-calling, something like this?

''You're a Communist!"

'7 am not! And, what's more, you're a Fascist!"

Have you ever seen a newspaper headline like the follow-
ing which appeared in many American newspapers recently?

Russia Labels American Comic Books "Fascis+ic"

Or have you ever listened to speeches in which our political
leaders (or would-be leaders) unburdened themselves of
statements such as these?

''Compulsory health insurance is nothing but socialism."

"Closer control of labor unions— Why that's pure fascism!"

"A full-employment law is an idea that comes straight from
the Soviet Constitution!"

"Are we going to bow down to the rule of Wall Street capi-
talists?"

This process of labelling and name-calling goes on end-
lessly. Terms such as democracy^ communism, socialism, fas-
cism, capitalism, are flung about freely in praise and in
condemnation. Sometimes, the terms seem to be used soberly
in honest debate; more often, unfortunately, the purpose
seems to be to "smear" some person or some idea, or merely
to arouse emotions.

In the pages that follow, we are going to try to get behind
the emotions and the heated partisanship and determine what
these words really mean. Expressed differently, we are going
to try to cast "less heat and more light" on some of the most
important and explosive issues of our day.

Three Kinds of Terms

Before we set about defining such terms as democracy,
fascism, capitalism, etc., we must realize that they fall into
three large types or classifications. These may be labelled
(I) governmental terms, (2) economic terms, and (3) trade
names. You may ask why is it so important to classify these
terms correctly. The answer is that in any attempt at sys-
tematic or scientific thinking, classification is required, and
that if the classification is wrong, the thinking cannot pos
sibly be valid or fruitful. A biologist, for example, classifies
all living things as animals or plants. If worms are classified
as plants, or if trees are classified as animals, the results will
be confusion and wrong conclusions. This seems obvious
enough. Yet it often happens in discussions of present-day
problems that economic and political terms are confused with
one another to such an extent that it is almost impossible
to clarify the issues involved. Let us see now what each of
these types of terms means.

Governmental terms deal with the wielding of political au-
thority or power— with the control of the police and the
military forces; with the making of laws and their enforce-
ment; with courts, trials, and prisons. The famous freedoms
of speech, press, religion, etc., fall within the realm of gov-
ernment. It is the type of government we have that deter-
mines whether we enjoy guarantees of personal liberty, or

Do They Know What They're Arguing About ?

GOVERNMENTAL
TERMS

ECONOMIC
TERMS

SoclaJiUn.

TRADE
NAMES

Comnucni4>t /a/c^

JA~

may be yanked out of our beds in the middle of the night by
a GestapOj or secret police, and then be tortured or perhaps
murdered by a gang of ruffians representing the state.

Economic terms deal only with the manner in which we
produce^ distribute, and consume goods and services. Eco-
nomics is not concerned with freedom of religion or with
methods of enforcing laws. It involves, rather, problems and
questions such as these: Are there jobs for able people who
want to work, or is there mass unemployment? Are there
plenty of goods on the market at prices which people can
afford to pay? Do landlords take an unfair advantage of their
tenants, or vice versa} Are workers receiving fair wages from
their employers, and are they doing a fair day's work in ex-
change? Whenever we use economic terms, whether in praise
or in criticism, we should bear in mind that we are referring
only to relationships such as these.

Trade names, as used in this discussion, refer to labels
which have come to be conventionally accepted as representa-
tive of certain beliefs and attitudes. You know, for example,
that in everyday life we all recognize readily such trade names
as '*Du Pont," **Buick," or "Del Monte." Each of them is a
sort of "signal" that we have learned, through many repe-
titions, to associate or tie up with a particular type of product.
Similarly, in this country, "Democratic Party" and "Re-
publican Party" are trade names that have come to be asso-
ciated with certain political programs. At any given time,
there may be considerable uncertainty as to what the pro-
gram really is, but the average person feels that he has a
reasonably good idea of what the party stands for and that
the trade name means something to him.

In other countries, there are other trade names, such as
Labor Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party, and so forth.
Those trade names which are most significant for an under-
standing of our present-day world will be discussed later.

IF YOU ARE AMBITIOUS

1. Obtain from the library a book entitled The Tyranny of Words,
by Stuart Chase, or a "must" pamphlet entitled A B C's of Scapegoating,
by Gordon W. Allport. Read and report to the class.

2. Suggest to your teacher that a committee be organized to make a
report on Edgar Dale's How To Read a Newspaper. Have a panel dis-
cussion by the committee before the class, and prepare a mimeographed
summary of the highlights of the discussion. Give a copy of this mimeo-
graphed material to each member of the class; then let the class
evaluate one or more newspapers in terms of Mr. Dale's suggestions.

3. Divide a page in your notebook into three columns and label
them with the headings Governmental Terms, Economic Terms, and
Trade Names. Place each of the following terms in its appropriate col-
umn: free enterprise, civil liberties, free trade, democracy, socialism, trial
by jury, capitalism, liberty. Republican Party, public ownership. Demo-
cratic Party, universal suffrage, cartel, monopoly.

Can you fill the page with other terms?

4. Select one "battle" from the book. Twelve Decisive Battles of the
Mind, by Gorham Munson. Write it up in your notebook and exchange
views with friends who have chosen to read other decisive "battles"
from the same book.

5. No doubt you have often heard this old jingle:

Sticks and stones

May break my bones—

But names will never hurt me.

Do you agree with the implications of this adage? Or do you think,
perhaps, that name-calling can sometimes be as harmful and as danger-
ous as assault with physical weapons? Arrange for a group in class to
discuss or debate this issue.

6. Play "literary detective" and try to find out just what Alice in
Wonderland and Huckleberry Finn have to say about name-calling and
the use of words to hide one's thoughts.

CHAPTER ^

THE KINDS OF GOVERNMENT

"The democratic system, in which the state is
truly responsive to the will of the people, in
which freedom and individuality are pre-
served, will prevail in the long run, for it is
not only the best system, the most worthy of
allegiance that the mind of man has built; it
is the strongest in a harsh contest."

— Vannevar Bush

.s SOON AS human beings appeared on the earth, they
were faced with the problem of setting up forms of social or-
ganization in order to satisfy their primary needs. At first,
there was only the rough, rugged anarchy of the jungle, with
the stronger taking what they wanted and treating the weaker
individuals as they liked. There was no one to control the
stronger few— unless, in time, one person stronger than all
the others made his appearance. No one had any rights, free-
doms, privileges, or property that he could not himself de-
fend in fierce, personal combat with others. Even if a man
was exceptionally strong, several others might "gang up" on
him and take everything he had— his property, his children,
his wife, even his life.

Eventually, it is believed, one particular man fought his
way to the top in each group or tribe, and took control over
the others. Usually he was simply the strongest and toughest
person; sometimes he was the most ruthless, or the shrewdest;
occasionally he was even the kindest and the most widely
respected. In times of crisis, such as an attack by another

tribe, this chief rendered valuable leadership as head warrior.
In times of peace, however, he often abused the others,
selfishly demanding everything for himself that was desirable,
and punishing or killing any who opposed him. He and his
wishes were the law. He was the government!

As you can see, this situation was what we now call dictator-
ship in government. Dictatorship is not new; indeed, it is
almost as old as the human race. The dictators of the old
days, however, are usually referred to as monarchs. The
prefix, mono, as you probably know, means "one" or ''first,"
as in the word "monoplane." Archy means "rule." Thus,
the word monarchy means simply "rule by one," or "one-man
government."

The Myths of Monarchy

As time went on, rulers naturally learned to enjoy their
position of power and privilege. They wanted to be sure that
they would retain this enviable status. Accordingly, they
"dreamed up" all sorts of peculiar ideas to support their
position and to intimidate the lesser folk over whom they
ruled. One of these ideas was the myth that the monarch and
his family were of "superior blood." In other words, they
had a "natural right" to rule over the "inferior" common
people and to be supported by them— in royal style, of course.

Another trick often used by the dictator, or monarch, was
to claim to be related to whatever god the group worshipped,
and to make himself the high priest of the tribal religion.
Sometimes he even claimed to be the god himself, or at least
descended from him. At a time when everyone was illiterate
and very superstitious, this gave the ruler tremendous psycho-
logical power over his followers. The ruler could do no wrong
because he decided what was right and wrong. One could not
oppose him with an appeal to logic or common sense, because
he was a god, and gods naturally could not be bound by the
ordinary standards of what is or is not reasonable.

Somewhat later in human history, when the idea that
monarchs were divine could no longer be accepted, the
rulers claimed that even if they were not actually gods, they

were at least God's representatives on earth. In other words,
they ruled by * 'divine right." For all practical purposes, this
was as effective as being divine.

Gradually, however, all the myths which supported the
institution of monarchy began to break down. As enlightened
ideas became widespread, the common people first questioned
the monarch's ancient privileges and then took action to
modify or eliminate them. In the British colonies in North
America, George Washington and his countrymen decided
that they would do without a king altogether. The American
Revolution was the opening gun of a movement which led
to the abolition of monarchical governments in most parts
of the world.

Dictators, however, are still with us. Such latter-day despots
as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Stalin have not gone quite
so far as their earlier predecessors in creating a mythology to
support their one-man rule. However, they have been able
to exercise a power just as absolute, principally by the utiliza-
tion of new techniques of propaganda and by the employ-
ment of the overwhelming physical power of the modern
state to crush all opposition.

Evaluation of One-Man Government

In evaluating monarchy, or one-man government, we can-
not go so far as to say that it was always completely bad.
Sometimes there were benevolent or enlightened monarchs
who tried to rule fairly and justly. In critical situations, when
firm leadership was a life-or-death necessity, the ruler fur-
nished such guidance. And, although the monarch sometimes
abused the people, he did supply authority that usually pre-
vented them from abusing each other. Thus, one-man gov-
ernment may have served some useful purpose far back in
the history of mankind. Today, however, nearly all of us
will agree that it has long since outlived any useful purpose
it may have had, and that it is not a proper type of govern-
ment for modern man and his society. We have seen recently
in Hitler's Germany what awful consequences can follow

when a dictator goes berserk and unites his millions of fol-
lowers in a barbaric program of persecution and aggression,
culminating in the nightmare of world war.

Oligarchy— Government by a Few

Sometimes the monarch was not able to bring certain
powerful smaller leaders completely under his control and
had to accept a position as head monarch above a group of
lesser rulers— a sort of chief dictator over a group of petty
dictators. Or, sometimes, a group of powerful nobles from
various localities in the country got together and informed
the king that his powers were no longer absolute, and that
he would have to "cut them in" on the privilege of ruling
over the common people. In England, a group of nobles
forced King John in 1 2 1 5 to grant such concessions through a
document known as Magna Carta. Signing this document was
the price King John had to pay for keeping his throne. These
lesser but powerful leaders were known as dukes, lords,
barons, etc. Like the king, they told the common people (and
probably believed themselves) that they were of "superior
blood" and that their powers and privileges represented the
will of God.

These titled aristocrats, in order to hold their wealth and
their privileged position intact, had a law known as "primo-
geniture," whereby only the oldest son inherited the title of
nobility and the land. Sometimes a younger brother would
become a high dignitary in the church, thus keeping the
ecclesiastical influence close to the power of the aristocrats.
Each aristocrat w^as the supreme ruler in his particular
manor, dukedom, or principality, subject only to a few re-
strictions from the monarch.

Thus, in various parts of the world, government by one
man was converted into government by a few men. This type
of government is referred to as an oligarchy. (The prefix oli
means "few," and archy, as we have already noted, means
"rule.")

Evaluation of Oligarchy

Oligarchy, like one-man government, probably served a
useful purpose in the evolution of society, since it furnished
organizational assistance to the monarch in carrying out the
functions of government. Moreover, it did represent a broad-
ening of the base of government, and may be regarded as a
necessary transitional stage in the development of better
political institutions. Most of us today, however, will agree
that oligarchy has long since outlived any worthwhile pur-
pose it may once have had. We do not like the idea of govern-
ment by an elite— a. **select" few, who claim the right to rule
because of their "superior" birth, wealth, training, or wis-
dom. We have seen all too often that concentration of power
in the hands of a few leads to abuses and persecution as
flagrant as those which characterize an absolute monarchy
or dictatorship.

Life Under an Oligarchy

A good example of what life under an oligarchy is like
can be seen in 18th-century France, just before the Revolu-
tion of 1789. In those days every aristocrat carried in his
pocket a pad of warrants for arrest, already signed by the
king. They were called lettres de cachet. If, for any reason,
the aristocrat wanted to punish or get rid of a commoner,
all he had to do was to write that unfortunate individual's
name in a blank space on the lettre de cachet, and give it to
a policeman. The commoner was then subject to arrest and
imprisonment. It was taken for granted that the "superior"
noble would use this power with discretion, and that in any
disagreement with an ordinary person, he would necessarily
be in the right. The injustices and abuses to which such a
system inevitably led can easily be imagined.

No— we do not like an oligarchy, whether it be an oligarchy
of titled aristocrats, an oligarchy of the Nazi Party, Fascist
Party, or Communist Party, or even an oligarchy of million-
aires!

Democracy— Government by All the People

In the late 1500's and throughout the 1600's, there was a
tremendous expansion of human knowledge in Europe. This
movement was known as the Renaissance. The modern
sciences of astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, and higher
mathematics began to take shape. There was a new spirit of
rationalism and critical thinking abroad. Men were relying
more on their own reasoning processes and powers of observa-
tion, and less on traditions and superstitions inherited from
bygone eras.

Naturally, this attitude spread to the realm of government
and economics. First, scholars and philosophers and then the
common people began to question the age-old powers and
privileges of monarchs and nobles. Soon Western civiliza-
tion was seething with ideas of liberty and equality. Philo-
sophical justification was sought for revolution against kings
and aristocrats when they were clearly unjust to the common
people.

In the eyes of the ruling classes, of course, this was a highly
"subversive" trend. They tried hard to suppress the new ideas
of equality and to hang on to their ancient privileges. Often
there was bloody warfare between the king and the aristo-
crats on one side, and the people and their leaders on the
other. In England such wars were waged during the middle
1600's, with Cromwell and the House of Commons finally
defeating the king and his cavaliers. This is not to say that
Cromwell, a despot, set up a democratic regime, but he did
successfully combat the idea of divine-right monarchy.

About a century later, when another British king and his
followers had regained control, George Washington, Samuel
Adams, Patrick Henry, and other American-Englishmen led
another successful revolt against the monarchy and set up a
republic based on the equality of men. A little later, the
powerful monarchy and oligarchy in France was overthrown
by a violent revolutionary upheaval. The general effect of
these and other revolutionary movements was to transfer
governmental power from a relatively few kings and nobles
to the people as a whole. In spite of some serious reversals,

this movement toward more and more democracy in govern-
ment has been the dominant trend of the last 150 years.

Our word democracy comes from the Greek root demos
meaning "people." Thus, democracy means literally "govern-
ment by the people." What this has meant in practice is an
elected government, chosen by all the people and subject to
removal by them. Democracy did not spring into existence
fully developed. It was a new idea in human relationships.
Many mistakes were made in putting it into effect, and are
still being made. Certainly, no one maintains that the po-
litical institutions and devices which have been developed
in the United States and elsewhere provide a perfect or in-
fallible expression of the popular will. Very often the popular
will may be frustrated or misled. But so long as the ultimate
instruments of power do lie in the hands of the people as a
whole, we are justified in referring to the government as a
democracy.

Development of Democracy in the United States

Even in the United States, the ideas and institutions of
democracy have not gone unopposed. By the time the United
States gained its independence, there was already a well-
defined "upper class"— a well-to-do elite, living along the
Eastern seaboard, principally in Boston, Philadelphia, New
York and Charleston. The members of this upper class felt
that they were best qualified to control the new government.
They did not use the word oligarchy, but what they really
wanted was a government controlled by the few primarily
for the benefit of the few. This movement made considerable
headway until it was halted by a new democratic movement
headed by Thomas Jefferson in the national election of 1800.

Meanwhile, out West along the frontier, democracy was
soon in full swing. Out there the only thing that counted
was whether or not a man could shoot straight, clear the
wilderness, build a log cabin and take care of himself and
his family. Background, wealth, culture— all the traditional
trappings of aristocracy meant little or nothing. Every man
had to demonstrate his worth in the rugged day-to-day strug-

gle to remain alive and improve conditions. One man was
no better inherently than another. As these Western terri-
tories began to enter the Union as states, they brought with
them such democratic ideas as universal manhood suffrage
and free public education. (The pattern for admitting new
states on an equal and democratic basis was set up in the
Northwest Ordinance of 1787.) Naturally, there was a sharp
conflict between these democratic tendencies and the program
of the Eastern aristocrats. Under the leadership of Andrew
Jackson, the proponents of democracy gained control of the
government in 1828, and democratized it greatly.

THE UNITED STATES IN 1789

EXECUTIVE POWER [ | UGISLATIVE POWER 1 | RESTRICTED SUFFRAGE {

THE CONSTITUTION

PRESIDENT REPRESENTATIVES SENATORS

INDIRECTLY DIRECTLY INDIRECTLY

ELECTED ELECTED ELECTED

PROPERTY, RACIAL
AND SEX RESTRICTIONS

Soon another oligarchy of native aristocrats was arising in
the great slave-holders of the Southern plantations, who lived
in luxury amidst their large numbers of toiling Negro slaves.
It took a costly and bloody Civil War to end the system under
which this sectional oligarchy flourished. In the confusion of
the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, another
oligarchy of big business men and financiers attempted to
take over the government for their own personal advantage.
In time, however, the American people asserted themselves
and through their representatives in Congress and in the state
legislatures passed many laws designed to prevent a small
group of monopolists from exercising undue power over our
democracy.

The struggle still goes on. It is a never-ending one. We
become more and more convinced that the finest form of
government is one of, by, and for "all the people," with every-
one free, everyone equal, and all adult citizens sharing in the
responsibility of selecting and controlling the various gov-
erning officials. In spite of all the imperfections and limi-

tations of our democratic institutions, experience has con-
firmed the faith of our forefathers that this is the one type of
government most likely to afford the greatest amount of
freedom and happiness to the largest number of people, with
the least amount of pain to the fewest people. And people all
over the world are also beginning to think this way and to
win their struggles for a government of their own choosing.

THE UNITED STATES TODAY

LEGISLATIVE POWER |

PRESIDENT CHOSEN

DIRECT ELECTION

THE CONSTITUTION BY ELECTORAL COLLEGE- OF REPRESENTATIVES

POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM

AND SENATORS

UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE |

IF YOU ARE AMBITIOUS

1. Devise a diagram or cartoon that will illustrate the oft-repeated
statement, "Democracy is a process, not an event."

2. Can you figure out from the discussion of oligarchy in this chapter
what the distinguished American statesman Elihu Root meant when he
spoke of "the invisible government"?

3. Read Chapters 2 to 10 inclusive from Our Changing Government,
by Steinberg and Lamm (Lippincott). These chapters deal with the
growth and functioning of democratic institutions. Prepare a report
for your class on the essential ideas contained in this discussion.

4. Try to get your class to see these four-star films:

Our Constitution (20 minutes, sound)
Our Bill of Rights (20 minutes, sound)
Prelude to War (30 minutes, U. S. Army film)

The first two deal with democracy; the third throws light on dic-
tatorship.

5. Discuss in class Lord Acton's famous saying: "Power corrupts^
absolute power corrupts absolutely."

6. Compare the techniques used by a dictator to g^t into power with
the methods employed by a person who aspires to become President of
the United States.

CHAPTER O

TYPES OF ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

"Seven-eighths of our system is private capi-
tahsm; and the rest is Government/'— Emil
ScHRAM, President New York Stock Exchange

What Is an Economic System?

HE SUBJECT MATTER of economics, as we have explained
above, is the way in which we produce, distribute, and con-
sume goods and services. An economic system, accordingly,
is the broad framework of institutions, laws, and customs
which determine in general how these economic activities are
to take place. Thus, the economic system under which you
live determines how you make a living and spend your
money. It does not determine, however, how you are gov-
erned and whether or not you enjoy freedom of speech and
religion. This is an important distinction to bear in mind.

Two Types of Economic Goods

In order to understand the distinction between the differ-
ent types of economic systems, we must first understand that
there are two types of economic goods— capital goods and
consumer goods.

The word capital is often used to refer only to money. In
economics, however, the term has a much broader meaning.
It refers to the resources which are used to produce goods and
services. These resources may be in the form of money which
is invested in a business; or they may be in the form of
capital goods, such as machines, factories, and raw materials.
Capital goods, in other words, are not used directly to satisfy
human wants but rather to produce other goods which will
serve this purpose.

Articles and services which satisfy human wants directly
are known as consumer goods. Obviously the clothes you are
wearing are all consumer goods. So are the foods which you
ate at your last meal. So is the radio or television set which
may be entertaining you tonight.

Notice that in every case the consumer goods could not
exist unless capital goods had already been in existence to
produce them.

What does this distinction have to do with economic sys-
tems? Simply this: the name which we give to an economic
system (the way in which we classify it) depends on the an-
swers to two questions:

Who owns the capital goods— the materials and facilities
used for production?

Who owns the finished consumer goods?

Capitalism

The type of economic system under which both the pro-
ducing plant and the finished goods are owned by private
individuals (rather than by the state or government) is
known as capitalism. The General Motors automobile plants,
for example, are owned by a large number of stockholders-
private individuals. The cars which they produce are pur-
chased and owned by private individuals. Each private owner
can do pretty much as he pleases with his car, provided he
does not break any of the laws enacted to protect the interests
of the public as a whole. This is capitalism in action.

These days, we often hear capitalism referred to as "free
enterprise" or "private enterprise." The name is not impor-
tant. What is important is to understand what the system in
question means and also what it does not mean. Capitalism
is neither more nor less than a way of producing and owning
goods. It has nothing to do with civil liberties, religion,
family institutions, or moral standards. As soon as we leave
the sphere of economics, we are no longer talking about
capitalism.

We can have capitalism (private enterprise) combined with
democratic government or with dictatorship in government.

The supporters of private enterprise sometimes speak as
though the economic system they advocate were synonymous
with democratic political institutions. The critics and oppo-
nents of capitalism talk as though the opposite were the case.
Neither the advocates nor the opponents of capitalism are cor-
rect in this respect. Capitalism is a set of economic arrange-
ments—nothing more.

It is true that in the United States and in a number of
other countries a large degree of private enterprise has been
combined successfully with democratic political institutions.
On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that in Nazi
Germany and in Fascist Italy private enterprise in the eco-
nomic sphere was combined with the most rigid type of
dictatorship in government.

In this connection, it is important to consider the specific
character of a capitalist economy. When the means of pro-
duction are widely distributed among a great many small
property-owners, it is likely that they will insist on, and get,
democracy in government. On the other hand, if wealth is
concentrated in the hands of a few very powerful individuals,
they may form an oligarchy or may make a deal with a dic-
tator in order to protect their privileged position. To a large
extent, this is what happened in Fascist Italy and Nazi
Germany.

In the last analysis, however, a country is not democratic
because of private enterprise or the lack of it, but because
of other factors. These include its historical background, its
ancient customs and traditions, the moral ideas which are
generally accepted, and the educational level of the people.

Socialism

As one would suppose, the word socialism is based on the
word social J which is just another way of saying "public."
Socialism is an economic arrangement under which the capi-
tal plant is owned not by private individuals, but rather by
society— the public as a whole. Customarily, the finished
goods or consumer products are still privately owned. Re-
ferring to the example used above, suppose that the General
Motors automobile plants were owned, not by private stock-

THREE TYPES OF ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE
IN THE UNITED STATES

CAPITALISM (Private Enterprise)

GENERAL MOTORS
ASSEMBLY PLANT

OWNERSHIP
OF PLANT:

USE OF PRODUCT:

SOCIALISM

OWNERSHIP OF PLANT;

wmm^K

OF PRODUCT:

OWNERSHIP
OF PLANT:

USE OF PRODUCT:

holders, but rather by the city of Detroit, or by the state of
Michigan, or by the United States government. This would
be a socialistic arrangement. Private citizens would still buy
and own the cars and use them as they pleased.

Socialism, like capitalism, is an economic term and should
be used to apply only to the sphere of economic activities. It
has nothing to do with the question of how laws are made,
or whether or not citizens enjoy civil liberties. These are
government concepts and are determined by our political or
government institutions, not by the economic system. Social-
ism may be combined with tyranny and dictatorship in gov-
ernment, or with an advanced degree of democracy.

Do We Have Any Socialism in the United States?

We have today, and have long had, a considerable degree
of socialism in the United States, probably more than you
think. For instance, many local governments own their own
water supply systems, but individual citizens purchase their
water privately from these governments. The same arrange-
ment is often found in municipal ownership of other utilities,
as electric power and gas. Quite a few municipalities own
and operate local transportation systems, such as street car and
bus lines. In New York City, the subway system was socialized
a few years ago when the city purchased the system from its
private owners. Citizens, however, still purchase the trans-
portation service individually by dropping their coins in the
turnstiles.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TV A) is a socialistic
enterprise, owned by the United States government, which
undertakes a wide range of activities, including the produc-
tion of electricity from water power, the manufacture of
fertilizers, flood control, soil conservation measures, and many
others. The electricity produced is sold to local governments
(who resell it to private individuals), and also to privately
owned utilities, and to private industrial plants which need
the power to carry on their work. Thus we see an example of
a socialistic enterprise and various private enterprises co-
operating with, and helping, each other. The vast majority

of the people living in the Tennessee Valley have benefited
from this collaboration.

Still another example of a socialistic enterprise owned by
the Federal government is the postal system. Each of us pri-
vately purchases the consumer service which this system pro-
vides by attaching stamps to our letters or packages.

Communal Enterprises

In some cases, not only the producing plant, but also the
consumer goods or services which it turns out are publicly
owned. This is a more completely socialized economic arrange-
ment, sometimes referred to as a communal enterprise. An
example is our public school system in the United States.
The school plant, of course, is owned not by the superin-
tendent, or principal, or school board, but rather by the com-
munity as a whole. Yet, the consumer service which the
school "produces"— education— is not purchased individually
by the children or their parents but is made available freely
for their use. A child does not pay for his seat in a school
room, as he pays for a seat in a privately owned moving
picture theater. The scat in the classroom "belongs" to the
child as long as he needs it; when he no longer needs it, the
community turns it over to another child.

There are many other communal enterprises in the United
States, including public parks, highways, city streets, public
libraries, and so forth. The police forces maintained by cities,
counties, states, and the Federal government are also com-
munal. Several centuries ago, there were no public police
forces at all. The average citizen living in a city scarcely
dared to go out after dark unless he were wealthy enough to
maintain his own private troop of guards. There are still
private police forces today, such as the Holmes Patrol and
the Pinkerton Detective Agency, which sell special types of
police protection to persons who require them. But almost
all of our regular day-to-day police protection is provided
by socialized, communal organizations. This applies to the
Police Department in your city or county, to the various or-
ganizations of State Police, and to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).

Another prominent example of communal enterprise in
the United States is seen in the various public health services,
operating on local, state, and national levels. Note that all
such organizations and the services which they provide are
both publicly owned. These services— such as inspection of
food and water and control of contagious diseases— would
generally not be profitable undertakings for private enter-
prise.

Some large cities, such as New York, have communal gar-
bage and waste collection systems, under which both the
garbage trucks and the collection service are publicly owned
and are paid for from tax funds. Other cities, particularly
small ones, have private enterprise garbage collections; the
trucks are operated by private business men, and the citizens
pay them a specified amount per month to remove the gar-
bage. Most sewer and disposal systems are communal enter-
prises.

Which Type of Economic System Should We Favor?

You will recall that in our discussion of governmental
terms we definitely committed ourselves in favor of democ-
racy and in opposition to dictatorship or oligarchy in gov-
ernment. Human freedom, we firmly believe, is possible only
under democracy; and without the widest possible area of
freedom, life is scarcely worth living.

The question now arises: What type of economic system
should we favor? This is a question that must be approached
with a calm and open mind, with a willingness to examine
all the evidence and, if necessary, to shed preconceptions that
we may have accepted uncritically for many years. Our atti-
tude should be something like that of a good doctor who
comes to treat a patient. A doctor does not decide in advance
what is wrong with the patient and what treatment must be
rendered. He does not mumble even before seeing the sick
person, "Ah, this is a surgery case. I must operate immedi-
ately!" What he does, rather, is to conduct a painstaking
examination, gather all the relevant information he can, and
then decide on the basis of all his knowledge and experience

what should be done for the patient's good. Note that phrase
—the patient's good. Medical science is not an end in itself.
The only reason for its existence is to help sick people get
well as quickly and easily as possible, and to keep them well
by trying to prevent bodily ills.

So it is with economics. Man does not exist for the purpose
of serving any economic system, whether it be private enter-
prise, socialism, or any combination of the two. Rather, the
only justification for the existence of any economic system
is that it can lead to a high standard of living and maximum
satisfaction for the greatest possible number of people.

Thus, provided we maintain basic democracy in govern-
ment as a fixed point of our social organization, we can
approach the question of choosing an economic system with
an open mind. We must examine the evidence and arrive
at our conclusions on the basis of that evidence, not of
emotions.

What does the evidence tell us? There is no doubt that
during the last two or three centuries, private enterprise
has released tremendous energies; that the profit motive of
capitalism has driven many capable men to produce a great
volume and variety of goods at reasonable prices; and that
the standard of living (in the United States, at least) has
risen because of this. Wherever private enterprise demon-
strably has worked and is working well (particularly where
private producers compete against each other for public
favor and patronage), we should certainly keep and encourage
this method of organizing our economic activities. The auto-
mobile industry is an excellent example of an industrial field
in which private enterprise has worked extremely well.

On the other hand, it is equally clear to thinking people
that there are some kinds of activities which private enter-
prise either cannot or should not undertake. A few such
activities about which there now can be no debate are public
health services, the system of public education, and the
operation of our military forces. All of these essential services,
and numerous others, are necessarily owned and operated by
society as a whole— that is, socialized. An enterprise such as
the TV A, discussed above, has caused considerable difference

"DRAWING THE LINE"
IN THE PUBLIC INTERES

of opinion, especially in the early days of its operation. Some
people believe sincerely that it was an encroachment on
private enterprise and a deviation from the traditional Amer-
ican way of doing things. Today, however, most observers
will agree that the manifold activities of TVA, representing
nothing less than the transformation of an entire river valley
inhabited by millions of people, would have been far too
big an undertaking for any private business. Only the United
States government had the resources and the incentive for a
job of this scope. Thus, a project such as the TVA may be
considered a legitimate field for socialized economic activity.

Where to Draw the Line?

The real problem arises in deciding exactly where to draw
the line between what should be private enterprise or capi-
talism on the one hand, and public enterprise or socialism on
the other. There may not be much debate about the auto-
mobile industry or police services. But how about coal-
mining, medical services, the food industry, the housing
industry, and many others? The only answer is that each
question of this type must be decided on its merits. We must
try to find out which way works best for us in regard to pro-
ducing the most goods and services of the highest quality at
the lowest prices.

Thus far, the American people have decided to use capi-
talism, or private enterprise, for the bulk of their economic
activities. Soviet Russia, on the other hand, is using socialism
and communal enterprises for most of her production of
goods and services. None the less, as we have seen, the United
States has some socialism, while Russia has some capitalism.
Great Britain has been somewhere in between. While adhering
firmly to Britain's ancient democratic traditions, the govern-
ment elected in 1945 embarked on a far-reaching program of
socializing such basic industries as the manufacture of steel,
coal-mining, electric power, and medical services. Private
ownership was to be maintained in small and medium-sized
industries, or in industries not intimately tied up with the
Dublic welfare, such as luxuries and amusements. It is inter-

esting to note that this shift to socialism was decided on by
democratic methods, for Britain's national election of 1945
was based very largely on this issue. Whether rightly or
wrongly, a majority of the British people had evidently come
to feel that a transfer to public ownership and operation
would be in the best interests of the nation as a whole. This
decision, however, was not final and irrevocable, as it prob-
ably would have been under a dictatorship. In 1951, the
Conservatives under Churchill won a close victory in a
national election and initiated a program to halt and, in some
cases, to reverse the process of socialization.

Some Common Misunderstandings

Why is there so much confusion in the use of the important
terms that we have been defining above? The ideas involved
seem relatively clear and simple. The answer is that various
persons with "axes to grind" have consciously or uncon-
sciously been using these terms in such a way as to mislead
and confuse the general public.

The term capitalism^ for example, properly applies only to
economic institutions. Yet bitter opponents of capitalism,
particularly the Communists, try to tie up this term with
governmental systems which they dislike, such as the tyranny
of Hitler in Germany. In this way, they hope to discredit
capitalism in the public mind. Similarly, the supporters of
free enterprise often speak of capitalism as though it were
the equivalent of democracy in government; also, purely
economic terms such as socialism are tied up by them with
the idea of dictatorship in government.

Bear in mind that any of the types of government men-
tioned above may be paired with any of the economic systems.
In the history of the world, all sorts of combinations have
made their appearance and many still exist today. It is un-
doubtedly true that a predominantly socialized economy is
more closely and consistently related to its government than
a theoretical free-enterprise economy would be; but the point
is that the government in question may be dictatorial, oli-

garchic, or democratic, depending on the various factors we
have considered. Moreover, it is not true that private enter-
prise is always entirely independent of government. In our
own national history, private enterprise has actively sought
government intervention and aid in the form of tariffs, subsi-
dies, building of public improvements, and in many other
ways. Much of this aid to private business may have been in
the public interest, but it does illustrate vividly how any
type of economy necessarily depends on the governmental
system under which it functions. The distinction between
socialism and free enterprise in this respect, as in so many
others, is one of degree, not of absolute, hard-and-fast differ-
ences.

IF YOU ARE AMBITIOUS

1. Analyze Emil Schram's statement at the beginning of this chapter.
Give ten examples to illustrate what Mr. Schram means by; ". . . the
rest [one-eighth] is Government."

2. Procure the following pamphlets for your private library shelf
from the Public Affairs Committee, 22 East 38th St., New York City
16, N. Y.:

Arnold, T. W., Cartels or Free Enterprise
Carskadon, T. R., Workers and Bosses Are Human
McWilliams, C, Small Farm and Big Farm

After reading these pamphlets, consider the following question:
What economic arrangements or conditions under a basically capitalistic
set-up are most favorable to political democracy? Write a report express-
ing your opinion on this problem.

3. Review for your class or school paper these companion books:

Faulkner and Starr, Labor in America (Harper)
Huberman, Leo, The Truth About Labor Unions (ReynaJ,.
Hitchcock)

4. Do some research on the progress that has been made thus far in
setting up a Missouri Valley Authority and a Columbia River Authority..
Report to class.

5. Hold a class debate (pro and con) on the proposition: "Material
progress can be achieved only through material incentives."

6. Arrange for a showing in class of the film entitled. Consumer Co-
operation in Sweden. (30 minutes, sound).

•»;o>;'>^;->^»>;»>-»)»^-;>;o>;»^o^xcc cccccc-ccccco ccc ccc ccc ccc ca c^cc^c-

CHAPTER

TRADE NAMES

*ln handling political controversy, our age is
at once anti-intellectual and dehumanized. It
has come to hate and despise ideas as such, no
longer examining them for validity, but attach-
ing dirty names to them, and reducing them to
a label and a personal attack. But even on the
score of personality, it has stripped human
beings until they have become either saints or
devils/ —Max Lerner

^^ Y Introduction

V V E ARE NOW ready to consider some of the trade names
used in discussions of political and economic problems. These
trade names, as we have mentioned, are merely labels which
have come to be associated with certain movements and pro-
grams. Among the most important trade names are the labels
applied to political parties in the United States and elsewhere.

Before we discuss these political parties, however, we will
do well to familiarize ourselves with two contrasting terms
which play a prominent part in contemporary political de-
bate. These terms are conservative and liberal.

Conservatives

In every society, no matter when or where it may exist,
there are always some people who are pretty well satisfied with
things as they are (the status quo). Usually, these individuals
have more money and enjoy a higher standard of living than
most of the other people in their society. At any rate, for
various reasons (psychological, as well as political and eco-
nomic), they do not feel that they would benefit from any
far-reaching changes in the existing state of affairs. Since

they wish to conserve (keep) the status quo, such people are
known customarily as conservatives.

Very often, there are some people who are anxious not
merely to keep things as they are, but actually to go back to
a state of affairs that existed many years ago. In our own
country today, for example, there are a few people who quite
frankly would welcome a society organized on the feudal
principles of aristocrats and serfs. Others, not quite so ex-
treme in their point of view, would like to move back to
the period before there were any labor unions. Extreme con-
servatives of this type are known customarily as reactionaries.

Many different trade names have been applied to groups
supporting conservative political principles. In England, for
example, they have been called "Cavaliers" and "Tories."
In the United States, they have been known as "Federalists,"
"Whigs," and "National Republicans." Note that these
names, in themselves, tell us nothing at all about the prin-
ciples which the groups support. As a matter of fact, there
is a fairly conservative political group in France known as
the "Radical Socialists." No wonder their party emblem is a
radish, which is red outside and white inside!

One important point to bear in mind is that conservative
ought never be used as a term of derision or condemnation.
In a democracy, it is only natural that some people should be
generally conservative in their point of view. They have a
useful function to perform in our political life, by preventing
too hasty abandonment of methods and institutions which
have been developed and have proved their worth over loiig
periods of time. Of course, an over-rigid conservatism cannot
be regarded as an intelligent attitude, but the same is true of
the other extreme— an undiscriminating readiness to throw
overboard everything that we have inherited from the past.

Liberals

In the whole history of the human race, there has probably
never been a society where there was not some injustice,
poverty, misery, and insecurity. There are always those who,
through no fault of their own, seem to be getting a "raw

deal" from life. Accordinglyr there have always been, and
are today, people who feel that our political and economic
institutions should be changed in various ways in order to
help these underprivileged classes. People who think along
these lines are known as liberals.

There are some persons who feel that the present situation
is so bad that the only way to remedy matters is to make
fundamental changes quickly, so as to build a more equitable
and efficient order. Those who support such an extreme point
of view are known as radicals.

As is true of conservatism, a great many trade names have
been applied at various times and places to the program of
liberalism. In England, liberals have been known as "Round-
heads," "Whigs," "Liberals," and "Laborites." In America,
they were called "Rebels" in. Revolutionary days, and later
received such labels as "Anti-Federalists" and "Democratic
Republicans." In our time, as we shall see, the Democratic
Party, or rather a particular wing of the Democratic Party,
has become the main rallying point of liberalism.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that conservatism
and liberalism are diametrically- opposed attitudes, and that
any given person or movement can be classified in a hard-and-
fast way as belonging to one or the other. There are innu-
merable inconsistencies, qualifications, blendings. A person
who is conservative on most issues may take a liberal attitude
toward control of child labor. Another person generally
regarded as a liberal may be conservative in his stand on such
a proposed reform as compulsory health insurance.

In general, however, the conservative believes that the
welfare of society will be best served by holding on to most
of our present-day institutions and by changing them slowly
and warily, if at all. The liberal thinks more in terms of bold,
aggressive action to remedy faults.

In an earlier section, we warned that conservative should
not be used as a term of derision or as a "smear word." The
same warning might well be issued in regard to liberal. In a
democracy, such as ours, it is only natural that many people
should take a generally liberal point of view. Just as we need
conservatives to guard against over-hasty changes, so we need

liberals to keep our society from "getting in a rut" and failing
to respond to new needs and conditions. The great strength
of a democracy is that it can tolerate, and actually benefit
from, both these points of view.

The Republican and Democratic Parties

Of the two major parties in the United States, the Re-
publican Party has been the party of conservatism. On the
whole, it has been less inclined than the Democratic Party
to bring about changes in our political and economic insti-
tutions. In particular, it has been inclined to support
measures which are backed by the dominant business and
financial interests in the nation. That is why the Republican
Party has been called the "party of big business." Of course,
not all of those who vote Republican are wealthy, or even
moderately well off. It is probably true, however, that most
people in the upper-income brackets do support the Re-
publicans.

On the other hand, throughout the history of the Repub-
lican Party, it has contained a liberal or progressive element.
Senator Robert M. La Follette led this faction for many
years; in our day Wendell Willkie expressed the spirit of
Republican progressivism. But the main current of Republi-
can thinking and policies has undoubtedly been conservative.

The Democratic Party, in terms of our classification, has
been the party of liberalism in the United States. As such,
it has generally attracted the support of the less prosperous
workers and farmers and of other groups who feel that all
is not right with the world, and that it is the job of govern-
ment to bring about improvements. In general, the Demo-
crats have been more willing than the Republicans to go
against the wishes of the dominant economic interests and
to adopt regulatory legislation.

However, the Democrats, even more than the Republicans,
contain conflicting and contradictory elements. In particu-
lar, our Southern states almost invariably vote Democratic
by a very wide margin, but the men whom they send to
Congress are mostly very conservative in their point of view
and actually line up with the Republicans.

The explanation for this political twist lies in the history
of the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War. During
this period, the defeated and prostrate South was occupied
by a Federal army. Like every other conquered people in
history, the Southerners bitterly resented this occupation by
a "foreign" military force. This resentment was directed
against the Federal government in Washington, completely
controlled by the Republican Party. Remember, too, that the
Republicans had controlled the Federal government during
four years of bloody warfare. Thus, it is not surprising that
the Republican Party (or at least, the name Republican)
became extremely unpopular in the South.

Long after the Reconstruction Period, the Republican
Party was still considered "anti-Southern," and to this day
it has practically no following in the states of the former
Confederacy. Under this situation, the segment of Southern
society which was conservative in regard to economic and
social issues had no party to which it could logically adhere.
Accordingly, it went into the more popular Democratic
Party, thus establishing what is in effect a "one-party system."
This system has been very unfortunate in a way because the
population of the South includes both rich and poor, satisfied
and dissatisfied, conservatives and liberals. Instead of sup-
porting separate conservative and liberal parties, these op-
posing groups are all in the same party. As a result, the real
political contest in the South is between a conservative and
a liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Very often in the
Democratic primary elections, a liberal and a conservative
will oppose each other, both calling themselves "Democrats."
Since the conservatives are usually stronger financially and
politically, the candidates elected to Congress on the Demo-
cratic ticket are usually those with a markedly conservative
point of view. That is why nominally Democratic Congress-
men from the South are often found voting with the Re-
publicans on economic issues and against the policies of a
Democratic administration.

At the other extreme of the Democratic Party, we find the
forces which have provided the leadership for Franklin D.
Roosevelt's "New Deal" and President Truman's "Fair

Deal." This group is the major branch of the Democratic
Party; it gives the party its predominantly liberal direction.

Karl Marx and the Doctrine of Social Revolution

Of all the political trade names used in the modern world,
there are few which are used more often and arouse more
violent reactions than Communist and Communist Party. It
is important for every intelligent person to know what these
terms mean and what they do not mean. Before we can
analyze these trade names, however, we must know some-
thing about the teachings of Karl Marx, a German scholar
who lived approximately a century ago.

Marx attempted to make a thorough-going analysis of the
form of industrial capitalism which existed in Europe in his
day, to explain how it had developed, what was wrong with
it, and how it would have to change. In such writings as The
Communist Manifesto and Capital, Marx developed the idea
that the type of social and economic organization existing
in any historical era contains within it the cause of its own
destruction and the seeds of the next era. He taught, for
example, that the ancient world, which was based on the
exploitation of slaves, had been forced to give way to the
feudal age, based on the exploitation of serfs. Feudalism, in
turn, had been replaced by industrial capitalism, based on a
machine economy and on the exploitation of wage-earners.

Capitalism, according to Marx, had certain weaknesses or
contradictions which would inevitably bring about its dis-
appearance. The capitalists or employers were motivated
only by a desire for profits. Thus they would pay their workers
the lowest wages possible. But this would cut purchasing
power to such an extent that the workers would not be able
to buy the products pouring out of the factories. This, said
Marx, was the basic cause of the periodic crises or depres-
sions which all capitalistic economies seemed to go through.
In the struggle for markets and new fields for investment,
the various capitalistic powers came into conflict with each
other, thus leading to wars. This, in turn, merely deepened
the misery of the working classes.

Thus, argued Marx, capitalism would inevitably fall and
would be succeeded by a new era in which all productive re-
sources were owned and operated by the workers themselves.
Since these workers would have no one to exploit they would
produce for use instead of profit. Under such conditions,
the potentialities of modern science and technology could be
fully realized. A great new age of plenty, individual freedom,
and lasting peace would begin for all mankind. However,
Marx said, since no ruling class ever voluntarily gives up its
powers and privileges, the workers would have to use force
or the threat of force to "expropriate" (take over) the prop-
erty of the capitalists. The change could not be brought
about gradually and peacefully.

From the very beginning, debates have raged about
Marx's theories. They have been violently attacked, and just
as violently defended. Regardless of the merits of this intel-
lectual controversy, it can be said safely that time has exposed
some of the basic shortcomings of orthodox Marxism. For
example, Marx failed to foresee the rise of strong labor unions
which would not only force employers to pay higher wages
but also influence governmental policies in favor of the work-
ing classes. Since he believed that every government was
simply an instrument by which one class dominated another,
he did not have a realistic understanding of how democratic
governments, controlled by the people as a whole, may be
made to serve the interests of all classes and eliminate some
of the most glaring social injustices. He underestimated the
extent to which improved methods of production in the most
advanced nations would raise the standard of living of the
common people and thus eliminate the need and the desire
for revolution.

The Russian Revolution

The idea of a socialized economy, of course, did not begin
with Karl Marx. A great many people believed in socialism
hundreds of years before Marx was born. However, the writ-
ings of Marx formed the basis of a new school of "scientific
socialism," whose followers firmly believed that they had the

key (the only key) to an understanding of modern society
and to its transformation in the interests of the great masses
of the people.

In all the nations of Europe, political parties were formed
to preach the doctrines of Marx and put them into practice.
Prominent among these was the Communist Party of Rus-
sia. Now, we must understand that at this time Russia was
an extremely backward country, ruled by dictatorial czars
and an oligarchy of aristocrats. Most of the people were
peasants, living on the soil in misery and ignorance. As late
as 1861, most of them were serfs, and even after the "emanci-
pation" in that year, their status actually improved very
little, if at all.

As democracy advanced in Western Europe and the United
States, the czars and aristocrats of Russia became more and
more determined to hold on to their ancient feudal privileges.
Occasionally, when it was considered necessary, a concession
might be made, such as the calling of a Duma or parliament
in 1905. But this was only a gesture to satisfy the growing
demands for reform, particularly among middle class liberals.
Actually the rulers of Russia had no intention of yielding
their power. Stirrings of discontent among the people were
brutally repressed, on several occasions with mass killings.

Under such conditions, most proponents of reform in Rus-
sia had to go underground. There were literally scores of
secret organizations working to make the country more demo-
cratic—or at least to get rid of the czars and the aristocrats.
One of these many secret groups was the Communist Party.
The Communists accepted Marx's doctrine of the inevitable
triumph of socialism over capitalism and of the need for a
revolution to bring this change about. It is not hard to under-
stand why these men, living under the czarist tyranny felt
that Marx's ideas were sound. There seemed to be a funda-
mental conflict between the aristocrats and the masses of
impoverished peasants and workers. Achieving reforms by
democratic processes, as advocated by more moderate social-
ists in the West, appeared little more than a grim irony in
Russia, where no democracy existed. The only solution, said
the Communists, was revolution, as taught by Karl Marx.

The doctrine of the inevitability of socialism heartened these
revolutionaries and encouraged them to carry on their work
in the face of niost formidable difficulties.

As happens so often in radical movements, the Communist
Party in Russia suffered an internal split. One faction be-
lieved that since Russia was still largely feudal and agricul-
tural, it would have to go through a stage of industrialization
and^ private capitalism before socialism could be achieved.
Others felt that a direct transition from feudalism to social-
ism was possible. This latter group was in the majority and
was therefore known by the Russian word for "majority"—
Bolsheviki. The other group was called the "minority" or
Mensheviki.

The First World War, during which Russia suffered ter-
rible losses, gave the Bolsheviki their opportunity. By 1917,
the Russian people were utterly war-weary. The corrupt and
inefficient autocracy, which had ruled for so many centuries,
was on the verge of utter collapse. After the czar was forced
to abdicate, a group of moderate reformers tried to take over
the government and continue the war. This regime lasted
only a few months; in November 1917, the Bolsheviki , led
by Lenin, gained control of the government, made peace
with Germany, and set about the task of converting Russia
into a Communist state.

Communism in the Soviet Union

We cannot attempt to summarize here, even in barest out-
line, the long and involved history of Communism in the
Soviet Union, as the country came to be known. We must
note, however, that in order to achieve their goal of socializa-
tion in the teeth of bitter opposition both within and outside
Russia, the Soviet leaders felt it necessary to set up a dic-
tatorship. To be sure, this was called a "dictatorship of the
proletariat" (working man)— but in practice this meant a vast
concentration of power in the hands of the leaders of the
Communist Party. Opposition to these leaders was not toler-
ated, and is not tolerated today. Elections are held for some
offices but they mean little or nothing, in view of the fact

that no political parties or groups other than the Communist
Party are allowed to exist. Although the Soviet spokesmen
claim to be in favor of democracy (indeed, they say, the only
genuine proponents of democracy), they evidently are using
the word in a sense that is very different from our under-
standing of political democracy.

Thus, if we are trying to understand what Communism is
and is not, we must be careful, first, to avoid confusing it
with the concept of communal enterprises, such as our public
school system. Communism (spelled with a capital "C") may
be defined as a Russian trade name for a system of social
organization that amounts to dictatorship in government and
principally socialism in the economic sphere. The leaders of
the Communist Party in the Soviet Union theoretically look
forward to the day when all economic activity will be on a
completely communal basis, so that the production and dis-
tribution of goods will be "from each according to his ability
to each according to his needs." But that is merely theory.
The reality today is not in any sense equality, either political
or economic, but rather dictatorship in government, public
ownership of the means of production, and vast differences
in the economic status of various elements of the population.

What Should Be Our Attitude Toward
the Soviet Union?

It need hardly be said that the Soviet Union is not very
popular in the United States today. Russia is criticized con-
stantly and severely in many quarters, especially in our press.
There are adequate reasons for this unpopularity; we need
not go into them here. One point which should be made,
however, is that we should not condemn Russia merely be-
cause of her collectivized (socialized) economy. This is not
to say that we want over-all socialism here in the United
States. Very probably, the vast majority of Americans do not
want public ownership extended much beyond the limited
fields in which it exists at present. But the fact that we do
not want socialism for ourselves does not mean that it is in-
herently wrong or immoral as a system of economic organiza-

tion. Other nations may prefer it, and they have a right to
do so. Russia is not the only one. Great Britain, as we have
seen, already has considerable socialism, and plans to have a
great deal more. Sweden, too, has a wide area of public
ownership.

On the other hand, we are on much firmer ground if our
criticism of the Soviet Union is directed against the dicta-
torial form of government, the denial of personal liberties,
and the repression of all dissent, political and otherwise.
These things, we firmly believe, involve fundamental human
values which are applicable regardless of the type of economic
organization. We cannot admire a country in which de-
mocracy and freedom do not prevail, regardless of whether it
has capitalism, socialism, or a combination of the two.

International Communism

When Lenin, the leader of the Russian Revolution, died
in 1924, two men vied for control of the Soviet Union,
Trotsky and Stalin. Both these men, as Marxists, believed
that it was only a question of time before the rest of the
world would be **communized." They differed sharply, how-
ever, in their concept of how this was to be achieved. Trotsky
maintained that Communism would not survive in a single
nation, surrounded by hostile capitalistic states. He felt that
the unsettled postwar years offered a good opportunity to
organize and encourage social revolutions in all the leading
countries of the world. Stalin, on the other hand, believed
that the immediate task was to build and strengthen socialism
in the Soviet Union, while taking only preliminary steps
toward bringing about Communism in the capitalist nations.

As we know, Stalin won out in this controversy and Trotsky
went into exile. In accordance with Stalin's ideas, the empha-
sis was shifted away from active encouragement to revolution
in the major capitalist powers. However, Communist Parties
were organized in all the important nations of the world. Each
of these parties was composed of citizens of the nation in
question, who disliked capitalism and wanted to work toward
a completely socialized state, under the leadership of Stalin's

D I CTATORSHIP

Much the Same Under Any Economic System

Russia. Before World War II, all these Communist Parties
were joined together in a Moscow-directed organization,
known as the Communist International (Comintern). During
the war, the Comintern was dissolved as a gesture of good will
toward Russia's allies, but it was revived shortly after the
war in a slightly disguised form as the Communist Informa-
tion Bureau (Cominform),

The program of international Communism has not achieved
any notable success, except in a number of states in Eastern
Europe, lying on or near Russia's borders, and in China. The
reasons for the spread of Communism in these areas differs
somewhat from country to country. In a number of cases,
tyrannical governments and widespread poverty caused the
masses of the people to lose faith in the system under which
they had suffered for so long. With the chaotic conditions
caused by World War II, the existing governments broke
down completely, and Communism moved in to occupy the
"vacuum." In China, the inefficiency and corruption of the
Chiang Kai-shek regime and its apparent indifference to
badly needed economic reforms undoubtedly paved the way
for the Communist triumph. In Czechoslovakia, however,
the Communists staged what was essentially a military coup.
The people of Czechoslovakia enjoyed a democratic govern-
ment and a comparatively high standard of living under
a "mixed" economic system, in which the dominant position
was occupied by private enterprise. There is no reason to
suppose that they would have embraced Communism if they
had been allowed to make a free choice.

Are all these Communist governments today completely
subservient to Russia? Until quite recently, the answer to
this would probably have been Yes. However, Tito, dictator
of Jugoslavia, has broken with Moscow and is following his
own policies, without paying any attention to criticism and
thinly veiled threats from Russia. The government of Jugo-
slavia is none the less dictatorial, and its economic system is
none the less socialized or collective (except in agriculture,
where there are still many individual peasant landholders).
The final attitude of the Chinese Communists toward Mos-
cow is still to be determined.

The Communist Party in the United States

The Communist Party in the United States is numerically
an extremely insignificant group. Under its own emblem, it
has never been able to get more than about 50,000 votes in
any local, state, or national election. There is reason to be-
lieve that at one time, the Communists had some influence
in certain sectors of the American labor movement, but this,
it would appear from all the available evidence, has declined
sharply in recent years.

Why, then, all the excitement about the Communists?
Why do they get such a tremendous amount of publicity?
There are several answers to this.

In the first place, Americans are aware that the Communist
Party here is completely committed to the program advocated
by the Soviet Union and followed religiously by Communists
all over the world. Thus, American Communism, while
feeble in itself, is the local representative of an international
movement that is far from feeble.

Second, the legality of the Communist Party has been under
attack. In 1949, eleven top Communist leaders were indicted
under the Smith Act and convicted of conspiring to teach and
advocate the overthrow of the United States government by
force and violence. In June, 1951, the Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of this conviction by a six-to-two vote.

Third, it would appear that feeling against the **Reds" and
their philosophy has been deliberately whipped up by some
newspapers, radio stations, and other instruments of pub-
lic opinion in order to discredit not merely Communism but
any type of liberal or progressive doctrine. It is unfortunate
but true that a good many persons whose whole pattern of
thinking is basically opposed to dictatorship or revolution
have been publicly branded as ''Reds" because they advocate
certain economic or social changes to which powerful con-
servative forces are opposed. Conservatives, of course, have a
perfect right to oppose any measures which they consider
unwise, but the indiscriminate use of the smear words "Red"
and * 'Communistic" in order to rouse public opinion, has
become a menace to clear thinking and to common fairness.

The antidote to Communism is not hysteria, but trie per-
fecting of our democratic institutions and economic progress
that will give every American security and a decent standard
of living. In the international sphere, of course, we must
adopt policies toward the Soviet Union that will protect our
legitimate national interests and will help to strengthen inter-
national collaboration in order to achieve a lasting peace.

The Socialist Parties

In various nations of the world today, there are political
parties which, while firmly supporting democracy and per-
sonal liberty, also want to bring about socialism in the realm
of economics. They believe that public ownership of the
means of production can be achieved by democratic methods
without violence or revolution. Usually, they put their faith
in a gradual or evolutionary process, over a considerable
period of time.

The most familiar name given to political groups of this
persuasion is "Socialist Party." However, they have also been
referred to by many other trade names. On the continent of
Europe, they have been known historically as "Social Demo-
crats." Within the British Commonwealth, the term "Labor
Party" is used. In the United States, we have a small "Social-
ist Party" under the leadership of Norman Thomas, per-
petual candidate for the Presidency.

The Socialists all over the world were for many years
bitterly opposed by the dominant political and economic
interests within each nation. In fact, the term Socialist once
had much the same stigma that Communist has today. In re-
cent years, however, the Socialists' support of democratic
institutions and the general moderateness of their program
has won them considerable "respectability." In Great Britain,
as we have noted above, the Labor Party, with the backing of
the labor unions, won the national election of 1945 and insti-
tuted a program of socialization of basic industry. As a result
of the election of 1951, in which the Conservatives won a close
victory, the future of this program is now considered highly
uncertain.

The National Socialist ( Nazi ) Party

One of the outstanding facts in the political history of
Europe during the last century is that democracy did not
succeed in taking root within Germany. Even when popular
self-government was spreading throughout Western Europe,
Germans continued to accept "leadership" from kings, aristo-
crats, and military heroes.

It is true that, after the First World War, the German
monarchy was abolished and a republic based on a genuinely
democratic constitution was set up. This Weimar Republic
as it was called (after the city where its constitution was
written) was born in the shadow of a military defeat, and it
was opposed from the very beginning by powerful elements
within Germany. The landholding Prussian aristocrats,
known as Junkers, were used to a feudal organization of so-
ciety; they rejected the very idea of equality. The military
men, always an important factor in German life, despised
democracy, which they felt was weak, inefficient, and paci-
fistic in its philosophy. The big German industrialists and
financiers feared the rise of labor unions, reform movements,,
and revolutionary radicalism. Finally, the common people,
who should have been the main support of the young de-
mocracy, were disillusioned and embittered by the defeat in
the war, the depressed economic conditions, and the general
atmosphere of hopelessness that pervaded the country. Some
Germans supported the Communist Party. Many more were
not sure what they wanted, but were convinced in any case
that they were not satisfied with the Weimar Republic.

This situation was "made to order" for the utterly un-
scrupulous, ranting demagogue, Adolf Hitler. Back in the
1920's, Hitler had organized a movement known as the
National Socialist (Nazi) Party. The origin of this name is
interesting and significant. The conservative and reactionary
forces within Germany, who were always emphasizing "super-
patriotism," liked the word national. It had the military and
flag-waving flavor which they valued so highly. On the other
hand, socialism was also a popular word to many millions of
people in Germany. Powerful parties, such as the Social

Democrats and the Communists, campaigned on the issue of
ending capitalism and setting up a socialized economic sys-
tem. So Hitler, needing a "catchy" trade name for his party,
combined these two terms, largely contradictory in their ap-
peal and implications, and named his movement the National
Socialist Party. This was commonly abbreviated to Nazi.

Supported directly and indirectly by the various anti-
democratic forces mentioned above. Hitler came to power in
1933. He overthrew the Weimar Republic and set up a com-
pletely dictatorial regime, with himself as supreme leader
{Fuehrer). In spite of the inclusion of the word "socialist" in
the party name, the economic organization of the Nazi state
was primarily capitalistic. It was, however, a capitalism which
emphasized huge, monopolistic organizations (such as Krupp
and I. G. Farben), working in close collaboration with the
governmental dictatorship. The economic power of these in-
dustrial giants was enhanced by the dissolution of all inde-
pendent labor unions and the outlawing of strikes.

The other distinctive features of Nazism, such as persecu-
tion of Jews, denial of civil liberties, and glorification of
militarism and war, were of course basically opposed to demo-
cratic principles. They had no particular connection with the
^economic system of Nazi Germany.

The Fascist Party in Italy

Italy, like Germany, lacks a tradition of genuine and suc-
cessful democratic government. After the First World War,
however, the country was a constitutional monarchy, with a
popularly elected parliament as the national law-making
body.

Unfortunately for this democratic government, economic
conditions were very bad. Italy had always been a poor
country, and in the confusion and dislocation of the postwar
period, poverty and unemployment became widespread. In
many fields, there was virtual paralysis of economic activities.
Discontent led to strikes and to the expansion of militant,
radical movements. Many business men became demoralized

and seemed unable to operate their enterprises. In some in-
stances, workers took over the plants and tried to run them,
generally without much success.

At this point, Benito Mussolini appeared on the scene. A
former socialist, with a gift for crowd-pleasing oratory, he
claimed to have a program that would straighten out every-
thing. This program was frankly anti-democratic. It stressed
extreme nationalism, discipline, and leadership from the top
down. The leader, or dictator, needless to say, was Mussolini
himself. In spite of a great deal of murky "double talk" about
the sins of capitalism, his economic program depended pri-
marily on private ownership.

Mussolini, anxious to apply an attractive label to his move-
ment, went back to Roman history for it. In ancient Rome,
there was a symbol or badge of authority, known as the
fasces, which was always borne before important officials on
public occasions. This consisted of a bundle of rods surround-
ing an axe, with the axe blade projecting. You will find the
fasces represented on the back of a dime. At any rate, Musso-
lini, felt that the fasces would be an effective emblem for his
movement. Not only did it symbolize unity and authority,
but it was connected with the glories of ancient Rome and
thus had a strong psychological appeal to the Italian people.
Accordingly he adopted the fasces and named his movement
the Fascist Party or Fascism. This was merely a trade name.
The reality behind the symbol and the oratory was dictator-
ship in government, capitalism in the economic sphere, with
a very close tie-up between government and industry.

''Fascism" Becomes an International Term

The program which Mussolini developed in Italy found
many admirers and imitators in other nations. In some
countries, such as Nazi Germany, Hungary, and Spain, where
democracy had never been firmly established, these pro-
fascist groups were able to take over the government. In
democracies such as the United States, and England, they re-
mained small but noisy minorities. Since Mussolini's move-

ment was the first of its type to appear after World War I,
the term fascism came into general use to describe this kind
of program and ideology (system of ideas).

Because of the intense emotions that surround the word,
fascism, it is not easy to "pin down" its meaning satisfactorily.
It has often been used in vague and contradictory senses, by
both its supporters and its opponents. On the basis of his-
torical experience, however, it appears that the essential
characteristics of a fascist state are as follows: (1) The govern-
ment is a dictatorship or oligarchy. (2) The economic life of
the nation is dominated by large, privately owned, monopo-
listic enterprises in industry and finance (or by large landed
proprietors). (3) There is a close tie-up between the govern-
ment and the dominant economic interests. (4) Virtually all
aspects of the nation's life are closely regulated or controlled
by the state. There are also certain "secondary phenomena"
usually connected with fascism, such as extreme nationalism,
militarism, teachings of "racial superiority," and anti-
Semitism.

Unfortunately, the defeat of the fascist powers in World
War II has not meant the disappearance of fascist ideas from
the world. It appears that there are still many people in Italy
and Germany who accept the fascist ideology, even though
they may have lost faith in Mussolini and Hitler as leaders.
Also, there is reason to believe that admiration for fascist
ideas and methods exists to some degree in democratic
countries. Such supporters of fascism may not admit this
sympathy; they may not even be aware of it. But in this
disguised form, it is probably all the more dangerous.

On the other hand, it must be pointed out that fascism,
like communism, has become a common smear word in con-
temporary political debate. Some radicals and even liberals
have a tendency to pin the label of "fascist" on any individual
or group whose ideas they believe to be too conservative.
Anyone who accepts the basic ideas of democratic govern-
ment and personal liberty cannot be considered a fascist,
regardless of his attitude toward various social and economic
problems.

IF YOU ARE AMBITIOUS

1. Any one of the following books deserves to be read and discussed
with your friends:

Hoover, Calvin B,, The Coming of the Third Reich

Smith, Walter B., My Three Years in Moscow

Viereck, Peter, Conservatism Revisited

Seldes, George, The People Don't Know

Key, V. O., Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups

2. During each of the following periods in American history, "third
parties" made their appearance on the national scene: 1800-1860, 1870-
1900, 1920-1950. Choose one of the periods and discuss the new party
or parties that emerged, indicating their programs and the conditions
that called them forth.

3. It has often been said that Communism and Fascism are "basically
the same thing under different names." Do you think that this state-
ment is justified? How do the two movements resemble each other?
Wherein do they differ? How does each of them compare with
Socialism?

4. Get your school assembly to show the film The Roosevelt Story
(80 minutes, sound). Review it for your school paper or class magazine.

The film may be rented from Brandon Films, 1600 Broadway, New
York City 19, N. Y.

5. Write an essay on the topic, "The Economic Basis of Politics."
Use as references some of the works on government and history by
Charles A. Beard.

0>>>>>>^>>>>>>>^>>>>>?>>>^;0>>?>^>>x<<-c<:cccccccc<:cc^cccccccc<<c^cccc-ccc-

CHAPTER

OTHER TERMS IN CURRENT USE

"More and more, as I think about history, I am
convinced that every thing that is worthwhile
in the world has been accomplished by the
free, inquiring, critical spirit, and that the
preservation of this spirit is more important
than any social system whatever. But the men
of ritual and the men of barbarism are capable
of shutting up the men of science, of silencing
them forever."— Sinclair Lewis

Totalitarianism

>talitarianism is merely another word for dictatorship.
It comes from the word "total" and thus implies that the
total energies and resources of the nation are controlled
and directed toward a single goal— the power and glory of the
dictatorship. The area of individual freedom is reduced to
the vanishing point.

In Nazi Germany, for example, every phase of German life
was expected to play its part in glorifying Hitler and Nazism.
The rigid controls extended to industry, labor, agriculture,
newspapers, magazines, radio programs, schools, books, sci-
ence, even religion. The total culture was regimented in a
single direction. Even the most casual everyday customs were
affected. Thus, instead of saying "Hello," and "Goodbye,"
good Nazis were supposed to greet each other with "Heil
Hitler!" This may seem funny to us, but the purpose behind
it was anything but funny, as the bomb-ravaged cities of
Europe still eloquently testify.

In Soviet Russia, there is much talk about "Communist
Music," "Communist Art," and even "Communist Science."
Artists or scientists who refuse to conform to orthodox Marx-

ist principles (as interpreted by the leading Communist
politicians) are likely to lose their jobs or to suffer other dis-
advantages. The dictatorship overlooks nothing in its attempt
to enlist the wholehearted support of the nation for its
program.

A democracy such as ours is inherently anti-totalitarian.
The government is supposed to exist for the good of the
people, not the other way around. The rights of the individ-
ual (which the government has no right to take way) are
clearly defined and vigorously defended. There is no "official"
set of ideas or ideology which everyone is supposed to accept.
There is room for dissenters, non-conformists, and "her-
etics," no matter how bizarre their ideas may seem to the
majority. In time of war, to be sure, there is a greater degree
of regimentation and control, including the conscription of
men into the armed forces. These measures, however, are
understood to be temporary and are abandoned as soon as
the emergency is over. During the last war, our essential
freedoms of speech, press, religion, etc. were kept intact
throughout the conflict— and evidently without impairing
our fighting power.

We should always be extremely wary of anyone who, in the
name of super-patriotism, social reform, or any other "cause,"
wishes to discipline everyone into a single pattern of thought
and behavior. This is the beginning of totalitarianism— and
of dictatorship.

Police State

-The term police state also means essentially the same as
dictatorship. This should certainly not be interpreted as a
slur on our own police, who perform a very necessary service
for society. In a dictatorship, however, the authority of the
state extends into every phase of the individual's life; and
the police (often a secret force) are used to make sure that
everyone conforms completely to the prevailing ideology.
There are practically no limits on the power of such totali-
tarian police and no restraints on the punishments which
they may inflict, without trial or any other democratic safe-
guards. Under such conditions, the police are not just an-

other agency of society working to help and protect the great
mass of law-abiding citizens, but rather an independent force
above every control except the will of the dictator.

Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is also sometimes used as a substitute for
dictatorship. This term implies that "authority" is concen-
trated in the hands of the man or the few men who control
the government. They decide what everyone else is to do and
not to do.

It must be admitted that since every government wields
authority, it is "authoritarian" to some extent. In the United
States, for example, our government does not "request" us to
pay our income taxes; it orders us to do so, on pain of severe
penalties. Thus, in a democracy, the authority of government
is very real— but it is limited and regulated by the laws and,
ultimately, by the people. In a dictatorship, the authority of
the government over the individual citizen is, for all practical
purposes, unlimited.

We also find authoritarianism outside the sphere of gov-
ernment itself. An army, for example, is necessarily organized
on authoritarian lines. Orders issued by a commanding officer
pass down the "chain of command" until they reach the
lowest-ranking soldiers. At every point, there must be abso-
lute obedience. There is sometimes a degree of authoritarian-
ism in schools, in business organizations, in the family, in
religious orders, and elsewhere. Within limits, this may be
necessary and beneficial. But the all-enrompassing authori-
tarianism of the dictatorial state violates the basic principles
of human freedom.

Welfare State

All civilized governments try to provide for the welfare of
their citizens in various ways. Public education, police and
fire protection, protection of workers against unsafe or un-
heal thful conditions, and hospitals and other health facilities
are only a few of the services which are universally considered
necessary and proper.

TWO POINTS OF VIEW ON THE
" WELFARE STATE "

In recent years however, there has been a considerable ex-
tension of the welfare activities of government. Many lawG
have been passed in the United States to protect all of us,
especially the lower income groups, against various uncer-
tainties and hardships of modern life. Among these in-
novations have been old-age pensions; unemployment
compensation; more help for widows, orphans, blind persons
and other unfortunates; public housing; and expanded edu-
cational services. There is a lively demand for still more
governmental aid along these lines.

Is this trend a good one or a bad one? Many would say
unhesitatingly that it is good because it helps people to pass
their lives in greater comfort and security. Others feel, how-
ever, that it has now reached the stage where people are
beginning to depend too much on the government and not
enough on themselves as individuals or on private collective
efforts. This latter point of view is often expressed by the
label "welfare state." The welfare state, it is said, is not in
accord with the traditional American reliance on individual
efforts and private enterprise. Too much dependence on gov-
ernment, the argument goes, will weaken us as individuals
and as a nation.

The controversial point here lies in the phrase "too much."
Some forms of governmental welfare work, as noted, are es-
sential. Our Constitution states that one of the aims of our
government is to "provide for the general welfare." Each
generation must decide for itself just what welfare activities
are to be carried on at public expense. In general, it would
appear that poorer people, who will benefit most directly by
expanded welfare measures, usually demand such laws, while
the people who are rich enough to care for themselves are
often skeptical of the value of these measures or are actively
opposed. The decisions must be made by democratic means.

In this connection, it should be noted that a "welfare
state," whether good or bad, can be combined with either
democratic government or dictatorship. As in the case of
capitalism, socialism, and other economic terms, the question
of democracy, although often introduced for propaganda
purposes, is not really involved.

Bureaucracy

In its literal sense, bureaucracy means simply the adminis-
trative machinery which an organization must have, in order
to function. The administrative machinery of the Federal
government is very complex, consisting of departments, bu-
reaus, commissions, and other organizational units. On a
smaller scale, every organization, (whether it be a club, a
school, a charitable foundation, a religious order, a hospital,
a private business corporation, or anything else) must have its
own bureaucracy if it is to carry on its normal operations.

Thus defined, bureaucracy seems harmless enough. The
term, however, is customarily employed in a rather deroga-
tory sense. Those who rail against bureaucracy complain of
too much government and too much interference in the
everyday affairs of citizens. The charge is made or implied
that many government employees are not really needed, that
officials tend to act in an arbitrary and high-handed manner,
and that the whole system is so tied up with "red tape" that it
functions at a low level of administrative efficiency.

Now, it is generally admitted that our national govern-
mental machinery, in some departments at least, is not as
efficient and as well-coordinated as it should be. But this
certainly does not justify the charge that all or most of the
administrative personnel of government is inefficient, waste-
ful, lazy, arrogant, and unnecessary. Private businesses too,
have their bureaucracies, and they are not always "super-
efficient" as some would have us believe. Whether in private
industry or in government, the remedy is to seek practical
improvements, while retaining essential services.

In any case, there is no doubt that in an era of "big busi-
ness," and "big labor," to say nothing of international re-
sponsibilities on a global scale, "big government" is an
absolute necessity. In order to do its job well, "big govern-
ment" must have a complex administrative organization,
staffed by large numbers of employees. To seek greater ef-
ficiency and economy in this system is commendable. But
blanket condemnation by means of phrases like "swollen and
meddlesome bureaucracy" is illogical and unfair.

Right-Wingers and Left-Wingers

You will recall our discussion of conservatives and liberals
in Chapter 3. The terms right-wing and left-wing are simply
synonyms, respectively, for conservative and liberal.

These terms originated during the French Revolution. In
one of the national legislative bodies formed in France dur-
ing that period, the more conservative group sat on the right
of the assembly hall, the radical elements sat on the left, and
the moderates sat in the center. This physical arrangement
has become customary in legislative bodies throughout the
world. Even in our own Congress, in both the Senate and
the House of Representatives, the Democrats sit on the left
of the main aisle and the Republicans on the right. Of course,
we use the terms right-wing and left-wing today to describe
the political complexion of anyone, not just members of a
law-making body.

There are all degrees of "leftism," from extreme radicals
who want to change most of our fundamental institutions,
to very moderate liberals who wish to introduce reforms
slowly and cautiously. Similarly, there are all degrees of
"rightists," ranging from rabid reactionaries, thinking mainly
in terms of the past, to moderate conservatives who recog-
nize the need for some change and are often very close in
their ideas to the moderate liberals. Sometimes, both mod-
erate liberals and moderate conservatives are said to be the
"center groups." President Franklin D. Roosevelt often said
of himself that he was "slightly left of center."

Propaganda

Propaganda means simply a deliberate, organized effort to
induce people to believe, or not to believe, something. Al-
though many people seem to regard propaganda as a rather
sinister activity, it may be either good or bad, depending on
the nature of the ends which it tries to advance. There may
be propaganda for a cause which almost everyone considers
socially desirable, such as stimulating greater interest in gov-
ernmental affairs; there may be propaganda for an inherently
bad cause, such as racial and religious intolerance; and there

may be propaganda for ends which are "morally neutral,"
such as most of the commercial advertising that implores us to
buy various products.

In an age of mass-communication devices, such as the press,
radio, television, and moving pictures, propaganda tech-
niques are extremely powerful and important. In the sphere
of government and economics, particularly, we are constantly
exposed to subtle, high-powered propaganda, seeking to pro-
mote various causes and ideas. Some of this propaganda
is honest, in the sense that its sources and purposes are clearly
identified, and that it tries to prove its points without dis-
tortion or concealment. But too much propaganda is deliber-
ately deceptive, employing a variety of techniques which
students of the subject have catalogued under the following
headings: name-calling; card-stacking or editing; the glitter-
ing generalities device; the bandwagon device; the plain
folks or appeal-to-humility device; the testimonial device;
and the transfer device.

Intelligent citizenship today requires the ability to see
through such ''phony" propaganda appeals. At a time when
so many ''public relations experts" are trying to play on our
emotions, it is more important than ever to think critically
and to base our judgments on facts and logic.

Conclusion

This survey of governmental and economic terms is, of
course, far from exhaustive. However, we have examined and
defined the most important terms used in contemporary de-
bates and discussions. Now that you have a generally clear
and valid idea of what each of these terms means, don't allow
yourself to be befuddled or panicked into mixing them up
with one another. If a speaker or writer refers to fascism or
democracy when it is obvious that he really means capitalism,
you should know that he either is confused himself or is
deliberately trying to confuse you. In either case, you should
be extremely wary of his ideas and conclusions.

We have said that the one "fixed point" in our social struc-
ture about which there can be no doubt or compromise is

democracy. So long as we have a government that is con-
trolled by the popular will, we can always make changes in
our other institutions. If the changes don't work out well,
they can be abandoned or modified. But once democracy is
lost, the people no longer have control over their own des-
tinies. The dictator or oligarchy will decide what changes are
to be made (in our economic system, for example)— and these
rulers will very probably be concerned with their own in-
terests, not those of the people.

Remember, too, that in a democracy every point of view
must be allowed to "have its say"— provided, of course, it
operates within the framework of democratic action. In a
democracy, the basic freedoms are not a favor or privilege
which the government grants to its citizens, but rather an
innate right of all of us, existing even before the government.
To be sure, there are many opinions and ideas which the
great majority of citizens (especially the richest and most
influential) may find highly distasteful. But it is precisely the
right to these unpopular points of view which must be most
vigorously defended. No one is threatening the civil rights
or the freedom of those who conform to the popular and
"respectable" patterns. The real test, the only test that mat-
ters, lies in our attitude toward the unpopular non-conformist
—in economics, religion, social relations, or any other field.
As a great advocate of democracy, the late Supreme Court
Justice Holmes, once declared: "True tolerance is tolerance
for the opinions that hurt J' Another much-quoted statement
of Holmes which bears directly on the question of free speech
is: "The only cure for bad advice is better advice."

In a free society, there must be "free competition in the
market place of ideas." We have confidence that, in the course
of this competition, false, vicious, or ill-considered ideas will
be discredited, while sound ideas will stand up. It is this
faith in intellectual freedom which, more than any other
single feature, distinguishes a democracy from a dictatorship
or regimented society.

IF YOU ARE AMBITIOUS

1. In his first inaugural speech in 1801, Thomas Jefferson made the
following magnificent statement: "If there be any among us who wish
to dissolve this union, or to change its republican form, let them stand
undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion
inay be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Consulting your history books if necessary, summarize the world
situation that prevailed when Jefferson made this statement; compare
it with the situation today.

2. Evaluate three radio or television news commentators according
to the following criteria:

(a) What general political viewpoint does each express?

(b) What propaganda techniques does he employ?

our democracy?

3. Hold a class debate (pro and con) on the proposition: "The Com-
munist Party should be outlawed in the United States."

4. The following statement was once made by Huey Long, a political
leader from Louisiana with marked dictatorial leanings: "If fascism
comes to the United States, it will come in the guise of democracy and
100% Americanism." Discuss this statement with your classmates and
teacher.

5. Suggest that the film The House I Live In (10 minutes), starring
Frank Sinatra, be shown and discussed in your class.

This is Pamphlet Number 2 of the

Oxford Social Studies Pamplilets

No. 1: PEACE IN THE MAKING, Steinberg
No. 2: DEMOCRACY, CAPITALiSM, AND THEiK

COMPETITORS, Pruden
No. 3: OUR STAKE IN THE FAR EAST, HurwHz
No. 4: MINORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, Irwin
No. 5: CONSERVING OUR RESOURCES, Steele
No. 6: THE SOVIET UNION, Lengyel
No. 7: RELIGION IN AMERICA, Salisbury
No. 8: THE MIDDLE EAST, Lengyel
No. 9: PUBUC HEALTH, Timmel
No. 10: GEOGRAPHY AND HUMAN AFFAIRS, Roeder
No. 11: EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS AND

POLITICS, Steinberg
No. 12: HUMAN RIGHTS IN AMERICA, I. Starr
No. 13: GRASS-ROOTS POLITICS, Downes
No. 14: LABOR AND THE AMERICAN WAY, Starr
Ni. 15: THE FARMER AND THE AMERICAN WAY, Danbar
No. 16: BUSINESS AND THE AMERICAN WAY, Korey

(Ofhw Tff/«s in Pfparafion)

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Democracy, capitalism, and their competitors"

See other formats