For years we have been talking about the need for the Economic Democracy Act (EDA) as what we believe has the best chance not merely to offer everyone in the world (at least potentially) a decent material life (and thus the foundation for becoming more fully human and fulfilling one’s potential), but to resolve some extremely pressing problems in the political, social, and domestic realms. This, of course, raises the question as to what we mean by “Economic Democracy” . . . which in turn leads to the question as to what we mean by “democracy.”
 |
| Alexis de Tocqueville |
In the Just Third Way, our analysis is based on the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville in his landmark sociological survey, Democracy in America (1835, 1840). According to de Tocqueville (at least in Jacksonian America at the time he was writing, and in his opinion), in “French” or European democracy, the State is sovereign. In “English” democracy, an elite of “great men” is sovereign. In America — in part — the human person is sovereign.
Of course, de Tocqueville was very careful to note the dangers inherent in how America partially applied its principles of democracy. He declared that if Americans failed to resolve the problem of chattel slavery and treatment of native peoples, what was good about democracy in America could easily disappear. To that we can add the issue of including women and children (born and unborn) among the category of sovereign human persons.
Interestingly, considering current events, in the conclusion of Volume I of Democracy in America, de Tocqueville thought that there were two great nations in the world which started from different points, but which were heading to the same end — a system that would “sway the destinies of half the globe” by deciding which model to follow. Of course, today it is the entire world at stake. Still, as de Tocqueville noted, keeping in mind he spoke of the situation that prevailed two centuries ago,
 |
| De Tocqueville, stage left |
The American struggles against the obstacles that nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russians are men. The former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its arms. The conquests of the American are therefore gained by the plowshare; those of the Russians by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of the people; the Russian centers all the authority of society in a single arm. The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude. Their starting point is different and their courses are not the same, yet each of them seems marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe.
Still keeping in mind today’s situation, i.e., that both the United States and Russia claim to be defending or at least standing for democracy and freedom, and thus equality, we note that in the conclusion of Volume II of Democracy in America, de Tocqueville warned about “false notions of democracy” that could very easily undermine and corrupt the system he saw in America. Yes, it had flaws, but they were correctable. Some have been corrected . . . but have they been replaced by worse flaws that go by the name of virtue itself? As de Tocqueville declared,
The nations of our time cannot prevent the condition of men from becoming equal, but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness.
So, realizing that all which is called democracy is not the same thing, are we to accept Putin’s or Trump’s version of democracy . . . or is there something else? In any event, our concern today is defining democracy, not dealing with specific flaws — and human society being a human construct, we can guarantee there will always be flaws . . . unless some of the rich and powerful elite who have convinced themselves they are the true gods or prophets of freedom and democracy manage to convince the rest of us.
Fortunately, we have a solution, and the solution is Economic Democracy, but not just any Economic Democracy. Collectivist Economic Democracy in which what people get is supposed to be equal is socialism. Individualist Economic Democracy in which opportunity is supposed to be equal (but rarely is) is capitalism.
What we want is Personalist Economic Democracy in which everyone really does have equality of opportunity and access to the means of becoming economically independent and sovereign, but with a social safety net for the unfortunate. That is The Just Third Way of Economic Personalism, especially as applied in the Economic Democracy Act. To explain what we mean, we can take an extract from the book, Economic Personalism:
The Age of Revolution
(Extracted from Michael D. Greaney and Dawn K. Brohawn, Economic Personalism: Property, Power and Justice for Every Person. Arlington, Virginia: Justice University Press, 2020, 9-12, edited.)
Three revolutions led to the alienation of most people from the institutions of the common good by stripping them of power and undermining solidarity. The first two did this almost inadvertently by limiting access to social and technological tools, while the third did it by the nature of the change itself. These were,
· The Financial Revolution, the reinvention of commercial banking in the fourteenth century and the invention of central banking in the late seventeenth century,
· The Industrial Revolution, the invention of machinery that could out-produce human labor at an exponential rate, and
· The Political Revolution, widespread upheavals sparked in reaction to existing conditions and social orders that denied the dignity, rights and powers of every person, and which evolved into three distinct socio-economic philosophies.
At approximately the same time, and combining with the three revolutions, three worldviews gained a new lease on life and began to spread. It is important to note that only the third of these world views is based on both the individual and social aspects of the human person. They were,
· Individualism. Only an elite, a special or favored class of persons, has effective rights and thus dignity, and the ability to realize its full humanity,
· Collectivism. Only humanity has rights by nature and thus dignity applies to the abstraction of the collective, and
· Personalism. Every human person has rights by nature, is of equal dignity, and is fully human; thus, any school of thought, or any intellectual movement that focuses on the reality of the human person and each person’s unique dignity.
Not by coincidence, three political philosophies developed out of and correspond to three views about human beings. All three were called liberal democracy,[1] meaning government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” yet what each meant by “people” and “person” differed significantly from the other two. They were,
· English Liberal Democracy. An elite is sovereign and has power,
· French or European Liberal Democracy. The abstraction of the collective, not every human person, is sovereign and has power, and
· American Liberal Democracy. Every human person is sovereign, and thus political power is spread out among citizens.
Finally, there are three systems of political economy that arose, corresponding to these political philosophies. These are,
· Capitalism. Allows for concentrated private capital ownership and thus concentrated power; thus, only a private sector elite has access to the opportunity and means to be fully productive,
· Socialism. Abolishes private capital ownership and thus personal power; only the collective has access to the opportunity and means to be fully productive.
· Economic Personalism. Spreads private capital ownership, and thus power; it holds that every person is entitled to equal opportunity and access to the means to be fully productive and empowered.
The matrix below outlines the relationship between these three conceptual paradigms, political philosophies, and systems of political economy:
(End of extract.)
So, which vision is the rest of the world to take as a model? The collectivist/statist vision of Putin’s Russia? The individualist/elitist vision of Trump’s America?
Or the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism found in the Economic Democracy Act?
#30#
[1] This discussion covers only political liberalism, not religious liberalism. Religious liberalism is the idea that all religions are equally true, which also means they are all equally false. The analysis of political liberalism is based on that of George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Third Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961, 669-753.
