A Voice We RespectnIt is that of Irving Howe, a distinguishednProfessor of Enghsh at the CitynUniversity of New York, editor ofnDissent, one of the most respectablensocial-democrats to walk the streets ofnManhattan. Dr. Howe, liberal as he is,nhas never hesitated to speak out againstnthe Liberal Culture, as if he were awarenof the discrepancy between his ideologicalnheritage and what has beennspawned in its name.nSome time ago, Irving Howe published,nin The New Republic, a resoundingnattack on the conservative mood ofnthe country. He once again showednan understanding that what the victoriousnliberal ethos has implanted in (ornimposed upon) this country, its socialnarrangements and its way of life, hasnnot always worked to the country’snadvantage, or simply has not worked atnall. Nevertheless, he reinstated his faithnin liberal reformism, reaffirmed hisnlong-held conviction that capitalism isnno good (though it has some limited andnredeeming usefulness), while bureaucracynis not a socialist or welfaristndisease but can be found in capitalistncorporations. He even fought for thenappropriation of the “sense of tradition,”nwhich he claims is more at home withnthe liberals than with the conservativesn—an honorable attempt to cling to anvalue that conservatives would benhappy to share with anybody.nWhat he is most adamant about is thenassumption that capitalism is a preconditionnof freedom, or even more—ndemocracy. In his words:n”It is clear that capitalism does notnrequire, nor necessarily encourage,ndemocracy. Elements of the Germannbourgeoisie helped Hitler come tonpower; German capitalism continuednto thrive once the Nazis destroyedndemocracy . . . German capitalismnmanaged to live through the Hohenzollernnmonarchy, the Weimar republic,nthe Nazi years, and the Bonnnrepublic. Nor have capitalist societiesnand their ruling classes shownnany notable reluctance to have democracyndestroyed in Italy, Japan, Argentina,nBrazil or other countries.nWhere capitalism and democracy donmanage to coexist, there are otherncausal factors at work, such as highnlevel of prosperity, an educated public,na national tradition, a vital liberalism.nBut capitalism can get along very wellnwithout democracy.”nThis thrust has been recently repeatednin an article on Max Eastman, innthe New York Review of Books:n”… as we now have occasion to notenagain, that capitalism in variousncountries has managed very wellnwithout democracy, even connivingnin its destruction, that in welfare andnsemi-socialist societies democracy hasnnot only not suffered damage but hasnflourished, and that any effort tonestablish a one-to-one correlationnbetween political ‘superstructure’ andnsocio-economic ‘base’ is illconceivedn…”nWell, we are unconvinced. Germannwealth, dating from the Middle Ages,ndid not come directly from capitalism,nbut rather from the combination ofnfeudal agglomeration of latifundia andnthe economic power of craftsmen guilds;nthis is the reason why the Germannversion of capitalistic industry hasnalways been susceptible to nondemocraticnalliances. American capitalismngrew together with America and is inherentnin the country’s very beginnings.nLiberty and capitalism here have beennwoven into a common fabric. Theirninterdependence, which determines thenpatterns of survival of both, makes fornthe most advanced concept of bothncapitalism and freedom. Perhaps capitalismncan survive without democracyalthoughnwe do not know what Hitlernwould have done to capitalism andncapitalists had he won the war—but wenhave a gnawing feeling that democracynwould hardly remain a democracy ifncapitalism were liquidated. Mr. Howenadds in The New Republic:n”In countries with more ambitiousnnnand comprehensive welfare statesnthan we have in America—Sweden,nHolland, Denmark, England, Israeln— there has been no concurrent erosionnof political freedoms.”nIs that so? We know little aboutnScandinavia, or Holland, but we knownthat in Israel, at the time of BennGurion’s labor union statehood, therenwere some infringements upon thenorderly democratic decision-makingnprocess. But England—that cradle ofnparliamentarian democracy—is a farnbetter case. Together with the growingnomnipotence of the radicalized TradenUnions, and the invincibility of thenLabor Party, came the nationalizationnof economic sectors previously held byncapitalism. Bizarre “democratic” eventsntook place during the ’70s: mail was notndelivered to firms whose policies displeasednthe union stewards, newspapersncould not be printed because their editorialncontent did not find approvalnamong unionized printers with procommunistnsympathies. The venerablenLondon Times had to suspend publicationnbecause of the “democratic” labor’sndemands. We could read about all thatnin the American liberal press, whichnstill enjoys the conjunction betweenncapitalism and democracy. DnJournalismnPersonal Press (Continued)nEvery major change in the patterns ofnhuman thinking is preceded by dynamicnpamphleteering. Since Gutenberg, itnhas been the best way to challenge thenomnipotent establishments of powernand faith. The Renaissance, the Reformation,nthe antifeudal sedition of mindsnand the American Revolution—allnstarted with an avalanche of independentnthinking printed on leaflets. Often innhistory, the pamphleteer has provennhimself to be the vestal guardian ofnreason and independence of mind,nbanned from the official shrines of free-n137nChronicles of Culturen