Transcribe
Translate
Phanny, v. 3, issue 3, December 1944
Page 2
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
2 P H A N N Y 2 _____________________________ RANDOM THOUGHTS -- ECONOMIC VS. POLITICAL DEMOCRACY There was a time not so long ago when Democracy, simply stated, meant "Government of, by, and for the People." This ideal has never been completely attained, nor is it likely to be soon, if ever; but in a few instances, including that of our own government, a good start toward this ideal of Political Democracy has been made, with results which, however far they may fall short of the perfection of political set-ups in fictional Utopias, have at least surpassed those achieved by other forms of governmental organization of the past. Recently, however, we have been hearing a great deal about another kind of Democracy; Economic Democracy. The Soviet Union is usually cited as the best--sometimes the only--example of this newer Democracy. For the purpose of this discussion, no further definition of these two types of organization will be given, it being assumed that the readers, if any, will be at least as conversant with their principal characteristics as I am. Many FAPA members, of course, are way ahead of me in this respect, and it is from them that I would like to hear, through the pages of their own publications. Economic Democracy is not entirely new, of course, nor is it possible to state that it is diametrically opposed to Political Democracy. In fact, the former seems to have developed largely as a necessary adjunct of the latter. I say "necessary," because economic pressure has long been a major factor in political operations. It is hard to conceive of any type of government, even an absolute dictatorship, in which this did not hold true. But there are differences; differences which, in my opinion, make a complete fusion difficult, if not impossible. That is, a government which is basically a Political Democracy can never achieve the degree of Economic Democracy possible in a state like Russia, and a government like that of the Soviet Union can never attain the degree of Political Democracy possible in a state like ours. The reason is simple and basic. In the Economic type of organization, unanimity of thought and action is essential, if carefully planned, long-range economic goals are to be reached. There can be no dissent, no conflict. The broad, basic principles are laid down and accepted by everyone, either through mutual agreement, or through the application of force. Once established, these principles are not subject to rapid change, but only to slow, carefully controlled evolution. Any conflicting plans must be dealt with promptly and harshly, if the Plan is to succeed. The complete and rapid suppression of conflicting ideologies has been an outstanding characteristic of current regime in Russia. Suspected persons have, however, been granted free and open trials, a situation which is in complete contrast to that applying in countries where the fascist doctrines have been applied. Otherwise, the ruthless elimination of dissenters has been almost as violent as in the fascist states. Democracy of the Political brand, however, is nevertheless present in this seemingly anti-Democratic set-up. Local elections are numerous and frequent, as a means of dealing with purely local matters. Party members are elected to a legislative body, although, to the outside observer, this body seems to have little importance, as far as policy-formation is concerned. Some, at least, of the industrial managers and executives are selected democratically. Just how "democratic"--as we understand the term--these political functions are, I do not know, nor does it matter particularly for the purpose of this article; it is sufficient to note that democratic processes of a political nature are not eliminated, however much they are hampered. It is evident, too, that as long as a substantial degree of agreement exists, a reasonably high standard of Political Democracy is possible. In a Political Democracy, the entire basis of action is diametrically
Saving...
prev
next
2 P H A N N Y 2 _____________________________ RANDOM THOUGHTS -- ECONOMIC VS. POLITICAL DEMOCRACY There was a time not so long ago when Democracy, simply stated, meant "Government of, by, and for the People." This ideal has never been completely attained, nor is it likely to be soon, if ever; but in a few instances, including that of our own government, a good start toward this ideal of Political Democracy has been made, with results which, however far they may fall short of the perfection of political set-ups in fictional Utopias, have at least surpassed those achieved by other forms of governmental organization of the past. Recently, however, we have been hearing a great deal about another kind of Democracy; Economic Democracy. The Soviet Union is usually cited as the best--sometimes the only--example of this newer Democracy. For the purpose of this discussion, no further definition of these two types of organization will be given, it being assumed that the readers, if any, will be at least as conversant with their principal characteristics as I am. Many FAPA members, of course, are way ahead of me in this respect, and it is from them that I would like to hear, through the pages of their own publications. Economic Democracy is not entirely new, of course, nor is it possible to state that it is diametrically opposed to Political Democracy. In fact, the former seems to have developed largely as a necessary adjunct of the latter. I say "necessary," because economic pressure has long been a major factor in political operations. It is hard to conceive of any type of government, even an absolute dictatorship, in which this did not hold true. But there are differences; differences which, in my opinion, make a complete fusion difficult, if not impossible. That is, a government which is basically a Political Democracy can never achieve the degree of Economic Democracy possible in a state like Russia, and a government like that of the Soviet Union can never attain the degree of Political Democracy possible in a state like ours. The reason is simple and basic. In the Economic type of organization, unanimity of thought and action is essential, if carefully planned, long-range economic goals are to be reached. There can be no dissent, no conflict. The broad, basic principles are laid down and accepted by everyone, either through mutual agreement, or through the application of force. Once established, these principles are not subject to rapid change, but only to slow, carefully controlled evolution. Any conflicting plans must be dealt with promptly and harshly, if the Plan is to succeed. The complete and rapid suppression of conflicting ideologies has been an outstanding characteristic of current regime in Russia. Suspected persons have, however, been granted free and open trials, a situation which is in complete contrast to that applying in countries where the fascist doctrines have been applied. Otherwise, the ruthless elimination of dissenters has been almost as violent as in the fascist states. Democracy of the Political brand, however, is nevertheless present in this seemingly anti-Democratic set-up. Local elections are numerous and frequent, as a means of dealing with purely local matters. Party members are elected to a legislative body, although, to the outside observer, this body seems to have little importance, as far as policy-formation is concerned. Some, at least, of the industrial managers and executives are selected democratically. Just how "democratic"--as we understand the term--these political functions are, I do not know, nor does it matter particularly for the purpose of this article; it is sufficient to note that democratic processes of a political nature are not eliminated, however much they are hampered. It is evident, too, that as long as a substantial degree of agreement exists, a reasonably high standard of Political Democracy is possible. In a Political Democracy, the entire basis of action is diametrically
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
