Democracy = Capitalism?

[Benman]

Assuming a fairly functioning democracy, is there anything wrong with voting for socialism? Put another way, must capitalism necessarily follow from democracy?

[threeonefour]

I think democracy lends itself much easier to socialism.


democracy is all based on majority rule.

market capitalism is all about property rights. individuals ideally have total control over the property they own.


to answer your question directly, the democratic political system (or some variation on it) can operate in conjunction with either a capitalist or socialist economic system.

[edthayer]

Capitalists much prefer a constitutional republic in which their property rights are protected rather than democracy, where their rights are subject to a vote.

[theweatherman]

No way, capitalists are much better off under dictators. Here they can get any laws they want passed and have teh government do what every they want (based on bribs etc.)

This is obvious in Latin america where businesses ran un abaited by theus for years. (now they do the same thing but its leagal under CAFTA NAFTA etc.)

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
No way, capitalists are much better off under dictators.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question wasn't what's better for individual plunderers (which you are mislabeling "capitalists"). Obviously a state-dominated system is better for them.

[theweatherman]

capitalism thrives on deregulation and a truely free market. So whatever system that has the least hand in regulating an economy would be the best system for capitalism to thrive under. Democracy doesnt seem too good for this due to the rule of majority (who are hurt by capitalism)

[lehighguy]

Democracy is about voting. It can be whatever it wants.

You probably think of Democracy as constitutional democracy which place limits on government and asserts individual rights.

Socialism/Communism are a direct anethma to individual rights. They are predicated on the notion that government is more important then the individual. That they serve the state rather then are served by the state. Thus they are at odds with what we would consider constitutional democracy.

I would submit to you that a democracy unbound by constitutional controls is little more then a different kind of tyranny.

[NancyD]

"Socialism/Communism are a direct anethma to individual rights. They are predicated on the notion that government is more important then the individual. That they serve the state rather then are served by the state. Thus they are at odds with what we would consider constitutional democracy."


You are confusing fascism with communism.

[lehighguy]

Not really. They're about the same thing. Only slight economic differences in thier economic policy. The core political policy, that the state is supreme, is in both.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
They are predicated on the notion that government is more important then the individual

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. IMO, socialism/communism are predicated on the notion that the collective (and not the government) is more important than the individual.

Unfortunately, there has been limited success in governments that are socialist or communist that have not got carried away with the notion that the it is the government that is more important. Hence the apparent confusion some have between socialism and fascism.

And of course, it is impossible for anyone to dictate the thoughts or feelings or desires of another. When government try to do so, the government starts to fall under its own weight. Our notion that we can dictate to peoples in other countries may lead to American system going the way of communist Russia (they of course tried to dictate to their own people and met the predictable fate).