Does Democracy = Capitalism? and/or vice versa?

[Postman]

When in communist China, if you want a haircut, you pay for it. If you want a bicycle, you pay for it. If you go out to eat at a restaurant, you pay for it. Same as Cuba and as the old Soviet Union.

The difference being I suppose, is that one is state capitalism the other, "free enterprise." But is it "free enterprise" when gov't offers "incentives" to business? Or is that also state capitalism?

I notice that some people use those two words, capitalism and democracy, as if they are one and the same. Does anyone else notice this?

[JVS]

1. No

Democracy= public appointment of officials
Capitalism= Private ownership of productive property
not the same thing

[Selwynn]

20. Democracy <> Capitalism. In fact...

I would agrue that Capitalism is actually a challenge to democracy. I will not go as far as saying that Captialism and Democracy cannot go together, however the more free and unregulated "captialism" is the more deterrance of democracy occurs. Capitalism is inherrantly a system that continually consolidates wealth in the hands of a priviledged few and does so of the backs of an exploited many. If a "free" market and democracy are truly to be wed, they must be web under careful regulation controlled directly by the will of the people.

Part of the reason the United States is in so much trouble is becasue the prevailing ideology is the lie that Captialism does in fact equal Democracy, and the priviledge few who benefit most from Captialism control the government and thus continually reinforce anti-democratic but pro-capitlaistic ideals.

However, having said all that, the real enemy is not a kind of regulated , what I will loosely call "socialist" captialism. The real enemy of Democracy is a lassez-faire doctrine. Lassez-faire is a myth anyway, but its principle is at the heart of everything that is against a democratic state. True democracy requires more economic regulation, not less. A very, very, very large role of goverment is to PROTECT the least amoung society. Lassez-faire results in not the protection of the least, but the exploitation of the least. A Democratic governments ultimate role should be to keep power in check, and provide a balancing equalibrium between the power, money and influence of the most priveledged and that of the least priviledged. That means that it is frequently the resonsibility of a democratic government to take from those who have and give to those who have not. We may not like hearing that, but its a truth.

Sel

edit - sorry, no time for spell check :(

[leftofthedial]

2. quite the contrary

capitalism is ultimately contrary to democratic principles.

that's why the USA is so fucked up right now. Capitalism is winning the conflict.

[Nederland]

3. No

In democracy, political power is determined by a process that gives every person an equal voice. Regardless of class, race, religion or gender, every person only gets one vote.

In capitalism, economic power is determined by a process that gives people power according to their ability and/or level of effort. If you are smarter or work harder than someone else, you get more money.


Needless to say, those are theoretical statements. Reality isn't quite so neat.

[dodger2371]

6. Democarcy can is is bought

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled money is speach it disenfransized millions of people.

Money is legal tender not speach. It can purchase it but that dosen't make it speach.

It's a simple fact the more money you have to purchase speach the more likely you are to win.

Nothing is all of course but the probability percentage wise is in favor of the wealther class.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. total crap

"In capitalism, economic power is determined by a process that gives people power according to their ability and/or level of effort. If you are smarter or work harder than someone else, you get more money."

I think our current President is a good example of why this statement is completely false.

[Iverson]

27. (cough)

The writer to whom you replied was careful to distinguish between theory and practice.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. It's not only incorrect in practice, but incorrect in theory as well

"economic power is determined by a process that gives people power according to their ability and/or level of effort"

Nope, not at all. Economic power is determined by capital that you own or control, and ability and effort have NOTHING to do with capitalism.

"If you are smarter or work harder than someone else, you get more money."

That's just silly.

[IrateCitizen]

30. Not quite, my jaded friend...

In capitalism, economic power is determined by a process that gives people power according to their ability and/or level of effort. If you are smarter or work harder than someone else, you get more money.

If that is the case, then why are there so many people out there working two jobs just to keep their heads above water? Are you going to tell me that they don't work as hard as the CEO earning $15 million per year for running their company into the ground?

The reality, when you get beyond the fantastic "theories" of which you speak, is that MONEY is what helps you get more money. Your definition is the one of socialism as laid out by the likes of Eugene V. Debs. If you don't believe me, read through some of his old speeches. For example, he stated that a coal miner should be directly paid for the coal that he mined, rather than the majority of the profit being funneled to the mine stakeholders (who weren't the ones actually doing the work) and the worker receiving a pittance wage.

Additionally, the "market" that you revere so much operates on the principle of "one dollar, one vote". IOW, who has the most dollars gets the most votes. Hard work has nothing to do with it -- and many times, luck has EVERYTHING to do with it.

[RichM]

4. In the US, "democracy" is the pretty costume capitalism wears, to mask

its ugly reality. It's a phony, purely superficial facade.

[The Zanti Regent]

5. Three words--"Chile under Pinochet"

Full blown Chicago school KKKapitolism and a repressive government, living proof that Milton Friedman was the biggest intellectual fraud of the 20th Century.

Friedman repeatedly argued that Freedom and Capitalism were inseperable. Tell that to the millions killed by Pinochet!

[Kamika]

7. democracy leads to capitalism

When humans are free to create business etc it will ultimately lead to capitalism. The only thing that can prevent it is the state or someone with more power

[rucky]

9. The extent to which is limited by...

The country's natural resources. This is why democracies like Sweden and Canada tend towards more socialistic forms of democracy. the only exception to the rule that I can think of is Japan - whatever limitations they have with land and resources they make up for in technology development. that's my theory, at least.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. no, false

"When humans are free to create business etc it will ultimately lead to capitalism."

No. Capitalism cannot exist without a strong state to enforce the rule of capitalists.

[regnaD kciN]

14. The fallacy in that statement...

When humans are free to create business etc it will ultimately lead to capitalism.

When humans are free to do whatever they want, it will ultimately lead to anarchy.

When humans are not constrained by law, you will see a society where robbery and even murder will be used to "forcibly redistribute income." The same can be said for the old tradition of "marriage by capture" (or, as we now call it, rape). After all, what could be more "natural" than to take what you need or want, if you have the (fire)power to do so, and can be assured of being able to do so with impunity?

The point is that there are many forms of "natural" behavior that are considered by most people to be destructive, and we have no problem with drawing up and enforcing laws to stop these behaviors, no matter how "natural" they seem to be. I see no reason why the business realm should be immune from this, in the sense of claiming that, since capitalism is "natural," it has a moral right to exist in its laissez-faire state, no matter the consequences.

[regnaD kciN]

11. Ah, the great conservative myth...

Virtually all of modern conservative economic philosophy is based on spreading the notion that "there can be no democracy without capitalism," with the implication that the reverse is true, i.e. that capitalism only really works well in a democracy, and that a capitalist society inevitably leads to democracy as well.

One need only look around the world to see that this is not true. In particular, as one semi-liberal publication (it may have been the Atlantic Monthly) several years ago pointed out, the new trend in Asia is the rise of "strongman capitalism," laissez-faire economies combined with a government that keeps strict if not dictatorial control over everything except economic activity. The article pointed out that many have observed that what are essentially capitalist dictatorships run more efficiently than capitalist democracies, and noted that a number of economists and political philosophers now speculate that democracy, far from being a necessary condition to capitalism, is merely a transitional phase from the monarchism/feudalism paradigm that lasted through the Renaissance to the eventual authoritarianism/capitalism paradigm that is really destined to be the "new social order" of the future.

In other words, if capitalism is to be considered the "natural" order of things, it shouldn't be surprising that a society based on capitalism should come to divide itself into a strictly-controlled hierarchy, just as companies in a capitalist world divide themselves into levels of managers and workers (or, as Hegel put it, the "lordship/bondage" structure), with the corporation able to wield almost total control over the employee's life during business hours. Except, in the new "strongman capitalism" model, almost all of us would be "employees," and "business hours" would never really end.

:-(

[Nikia]

12. Nothing to do with one another

Yes, in a complete totalitarian regime, capitalism would be rather limited. There is usually some trade amongst individuals even where it is illegal. A totalitarian regime might also allow people to own businesses and keep money but control every other aspect of life. A Democracy could also give every civil liberty to its citizens but be socialistic.

[Mairead]

13. No, they're 2 different axes

Democracy: the political system in which decision-making power is fully distributed over the population.

Capitalism: the principle that wealth not consumed for daily maintenance should be made available to create more wealth. The usual suspects try to pretend that 'capitalism' is a synonym for 'private-profit capitalism', but that's not so. A capitalist can be an individual using wealth for hir own enrichment, or it can be a social entity using wealth for social enrichment. Or, depressingly often in our world, a social entity (e.g. the SBA) using our wealth for private enrichment.

[poskonig]

15. Capitalism *is* tied to Democracy

Since economic phenomena are tied to the legal substructure of a nation, I can see why both words (democracy and capitalism) are often muddled. What capitalism itself provides is what Friedman calls unanimity without conformity, while governments classified as "socialist" tend to promote conformity in economic decision making without unanimity. Hence under capitalism I can by my Brahms CDs and everyone else can purchase Spears or whatever junk they listen to. Under a "socialistic" government, in contrast, where the economy is theoretically "democratized," we take a vote, Spears wins a majority, and everyone gets Spears. Yuck.

[Mairead]

16. You should really read someone sensible instead of Friedman

because that's the silliest thing I've read recently. If anything, socialist shops bend over backwards to cater to all wishes. They can do that because their whole purpose in existing is to meet needs, not maximise profit.

(If you don't believe me, become an owning member of a socialist grocery)

[poskonig]

17. Historically this is not the case.

Socialist governments historically have a horrible record supporting economic freedom. Those which have socialist superstructures on capitalist bases do not.

Secondly, Friedman is not the issue. I agree, monetarism went out of style after the FED tried trying the discount rate to the M1 aggregate in the early 80s, causing chaos. Nevertheless, he makes a good point about the effects of "democratizing" an economy.

[Mairead]

24. Historically it IS the case!

The mistake you persist in making is calling a government 'socialist' simply because it claims to be one. The closest anyone has yet come to a socialist government at the national level has been 'social-democrat-ism'. National governments claiming to be socialist have implemented state socialism, which is no more socialism than it is capitalism. It is NOT socialism when those in charge can behave as though they were sole owners.

If you want to experience real socialism, become an owner-member of a co-op.

[lancemurdoch]

23. different forms...

Actually there are different forms of government, and different quantities to various aspects of them. Sweden's economy is pretty much a social democratic economy - do people not get Brahms there because of votes or whatnot? In the USSR people could purchase Brahms or other classical music.

Also, capitalism tends towards monopoly. I don't have much of a choice except to use Con Edison electricity, and Verizon telephone service. I'm using a Microsoft computer right now, as are you probably. Look at the zipper on your pants - does it say "YKK" on it? Even things like breakfast cereal are nearly monopolized - Post (Kraft), Quaker Oats (Pepsi), General Mills and Kelloggs dominate the market. Capitalism does not prevent conformity, in my mind it virtually mandates it. It reminds me of that scene in the movie Crumb where he draws a location in the US from settler days up to today where it is just another strip mall with a Quizno's, McDonald's and ExxonMobil station. He could have been drawing any street in any state in the US.

You also seem to focus on government - although of course, I know of know socialist nor social democratic economy where one could not procure Brahms. But anyhow, a non-capitalist, small-s socialist economy does not have to involvement government heavily, if at all. The government more or less disappeared from half of Spain from July 1936 until Franco aided by the Nazis retook all of Spain a few years later. They had a socialist economy running without need of government.

If socialist economics derive from Marx, he cares more about the surplus labor value expropriated from workers than what commodities are manufactured. The only important thing about a commodity in a socialist economy would be the same thing as in this one - that it be exchangable for another commodity.

[Touchdown]

31. If that's true...

Then how come I can't purchase widescreen DVDs of...

Kindergarten Cop
Death Becomes Her
Remo Williams
Chitti2 Bang2
Christmas Story
Dave
Frantic
Outland
...and numerous others, where continental Europe (eminently more socialist) has all those in widescreen?

How come Ann Coulter's bile is always prominently displayed at the front of book stores, and Joe Conason's work is buried the "Current Events" section, with only the spines showing.

Why does the financial channels (CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN Financial) worship at the altar of Chicago Schools, and say nothing about Keynes' much more successful policies?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

34. Your example of socialism is ridiculous

"Under a "socialistic" government, in contrast, where the economy is theoretically "democratized," we take a vote, Spears wins a majority, and everyone gets Spears. Yuck."

Please, can you point to an example of ANY socialist government, or even quasi-socialist government, where consumer items like Spears albums are voted on, and then everyone has to buy the most popular record.

Your post is so over the top ridiculous it's hard to know where to begin.

[lostnfound]

18. Think: landless peasants enslaved by a well-armed elite

which is often the case in Central and South America.

Weren't we all taught the capitalism mantra in school: it's an efficient and just system, the only alternative to communism, and the cure-all for 'big government'?

Where is justice in the following example: Imagine a village where a few families force people off their land at gunpoint, until 90% of the people in the village are landless and impoverished. If this occurred last week or last year, justice probably would mean getting the land back to the previous owners, right? But what if it happened last generation? In a democracy, the landless peasants might vote for a president who promised to redistribute the land. If you happen to be that president, be forewarned that the slightest moves in this direction will lead to CIA (or now, MPRI) folks showing up in your backyard, training and arming your successors. Likewise, don't start thinking about taxing your oil revenues or your banana output, regardless of the circumstances of their acquisition.

Capitalism crushes democracy in the real world.

[Nazgul35]

19. I think the question is which "type" of capitalism you are talking about..

Market capitalism is uncontrolled and destructive....the whole purpose is to make money, with whatever is at hand...

Consider yourself to be an individual who buys product from a dock off a ship, the maket capitalist will sell whatever shows up (hairbrushes, washing machines, cokca-cola) to make as much profit as possible....

The other type of capitalist is interested in creating a company that sells a product, they try and secure a niche of the amrket place, grow productivity by 3% per annum, build customer loyalty....

The first is corrosive and destructive...think of a locust storm of snakeoil salesmen descending on you village, selling you their wares, and than moving on, never to come that way again versus the mom and pop stores that settle in the town, developing a cleintel, hiring locals to work in the company, paying taxes, investing in the community....

which do you think helps or hinders democratic development...

[RichM]

22. These aren't two separate types. The second of your 2 types always

evolves, in time, into the first type. Not necessarily the same individual, of course... But sooner or later, in whatever industry the second "nice & hardworking" capitalist is in, some companies will start to dominate. They will buy out the weaker firms, or merge with them, or destroy them one way or another. In time, the dominant firms will become giants, & will be able to buy influence, re-write laws to suit themselves, & eventually buy congressmen. Pretty soon they buy the whole government... Then you've come back to "uncontrolled and destructive."

[dolstein]

21. Democracy depends on diffusion of resources and power

Democracy is much harder to sustain in a society where the government controls the means of production, because it removes amd effective counterbalance to those in power.

In addition to private business, I would suggest that labor unions, independent media, opposition political parties and organized religion contribute significantly to the fostering of democracy. If all the major institutions in society are government entities, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to sustain democracy.

Of course, concentration of wealth in the hands of a very small number of people can lead to an imblanace of power in favor of the private sector, which can lead to oligarchy, in which the government is "captured" by business.

[Mairead]

26. Agreed. Any time a small group controls wealth and wealth generation

the society is in deep trouble. It doesn't matter what label is on, it's oligarchic despotism.

[classics]

25. Democracy and Capitalism are directly opposed.

Capitalism seeks to place the power of all decisions in the hands on those with the money. Democracy seeks to preserve each persons right to take part in decisions regardless of economic power.

From the perspective of 'pure' extreme capitalism, the kind Her Bushco practices, Democracy is a form a communistic power sharing.

[quaker bill]

28. No, the terms are somewhat unrelated

An authoritarian government can practice capitalism. A democratic government can practice socialism to some extent.

Relatively unfettered crony capitalism is practiced under some quite authoritarian regimes, some countries in Central America have provided examples.

Some vastly more democratic governments in europe practice a much more socialist approach to economics.

There appears to be points on either extreme end of the capitalist-socialist economic axis where government in a truly democratic sense ceases to exist. On the socialist end, if levelling of economic outcomes is too extreme, it denies something about human nature and must be imposed in an authoritarian manner. On the capitalist end, if income disparity is allowed to become too extreme, force is needed to maintain social order (prevent a peoples revolt).

[Terwilliger]

32. allowed by democratic process?

On the capitalist end, if income disparity is allowed to become too extreme...

Allowed? Why, capitalism IS democracy in this country, which was why the original poster posted the thread, and why your argument is undercut.

We're seeing today that in America, if you have the money and power (corporations, business types, self-made millionaires) then you get to decide what's truth and democracy. Have you seen the blind acceptance of what this country does around the world? What it does to its own people?

Democracy is great...let's get us some today! Death to the capitalist feudal lords!

[rman]

29. capitalism is the issue of 'who controls the capital'

democracy is about 'who's boss (officially)'

the fact that currently the bosses (both official and non-official) control the capital does not mean that democracy=capitalism.

democracy could be used relieve the bosses of control over capital.