Capitalism, Socialism, or Both?

   "Democracies are better suited for a more socialist economic system than they are for a capitalist system." Such a statement is bold, for anyone to say. The nature of political science is that of uncertainty, because of the variables involved with the study, culture, history, religion, can all cause major differences in an outcome. Therefore, I would address this statement with the idea that neither of the opposing views, a socialist, or capitalist market being better suited for democracy, is necessarily true, but rather I will seek to find which is more commonly the best suited.

   First we will lay out the foundation, and define democracy, so that we do not have different interpretations of this basic idea leading to confusion. “Democracy then, can be fully defined as political power exercised either directly or indirectly through participation, competition, and liberty.”  (O'Neil, p. 110) Now with such necessities aside, let’s define and explore the relationship of Capitalism to democracy. And I will choose this first, because as, “Joseph Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942) states flatly, ‘History clearly confirms . . . [that] . . . modern democracy rose along with capitalism, and in causal connection with it . . . modern democracy is a product of the capitalist process.’” (Almond p.468) And capitalism is, “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods” (Merriam Webster 2011)

      Having set our definitions out, and come to the understanding that “modern democracy is a product of the capitalist process”. Let’s look at Capitalism and democracy and see their relation, does one support or suppress the other, or is capitalism just a step in the evolution and perfection of democracy. While we established that democracies are a common bi-product of a capitalist market, we have not seen why this is so. “If capitalist development is successful in generating economic growth from which a sizable proportion of the population benefits, pressures toward democracy are likely to appear.” (Almond, p. 469) So it is when a large portion of the population begins to benefit, and wealth not just for some but many increases that democracies tend to begin. While the author above does not state this. It could be that the increase in wealth bringing people out of poverty, as in a feudal system that were to change to a capitalist economy, may cause the newly accomplished citizens to desire with their new financial status equal political status, leading to a desire for a democratic state. So it can be said undeniably that Capitalism is a very strong indicator of a democracy to come. Though we must remember as, “Peter Berger in his book The Capitalist Revolution (1986),” says,”..Capitalism is a necessary but not sufficient condition of democracy under modern conditions.” (Almond p. 468-469) So while Capitalism may be the green house, there are other necessary tools and conditions for democracy to grow.

    While capitalism and it’s ability to aid a democracies conception, is historically proven. The next question is, do the ideas and values of capitalism in the long run end up undermining democracy? And to put it in relation to the original statement. Would it be better for a socialist economy to carry on after a capitalistic one has set the foundation? At this time, I would like to again bring in a definition, that of socialism, so their is no confusion. Socialism, “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” (Merriam Webster 2011) When we hear socialism, we tend to think of the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea, which were/are communist nations. Though these terms are similar, they do differ. Communism is, “a theory advocating elimination of private property“ (Merriam Webster 2011) While this definition is true it could be better stated. A political theory advocating the elimination of private property. Communism falls under the definition of Socialism, and contains a socialist economy. However, a socialist economy  is not exclusive to communism and can be under a wide array of government structures. But what we seek to know is whether such an economy can occur under a democratic government, and if so what effects would it have?

   “Marx argued that as long as capitalism and private property existed there could be no genuine
democracy, that democracy under capitalism was bourgeois democracy, which is to say not democracy at all......... Only the elimination of capitalism and private property could result in the emancipation of the working classes and the attainment of true democracy.” (Almond, p. 469) Though Capitalism was the spark of democracy, Marx believed that the inequalities caused by Capitalism, defeated the purpose of democracy. The Magna Carta was a big step for England towards democracy, and, “Although the Magna Carta was limited in it’s goals in application, it presented the idea that no individual, not even the king, was above the law.” (O'Neil, p. 113) The underlying idea behind the Magna Carta was not simply no one being above the law, but more specifically, the nobleman sought equality with the king under the law. And this is the same thing that Marx is looking for in democracy, equality. And because Capitalism causes economic classes and inequality, he sees such an economic system as incapable of promoting true democracy, true equality.

     As Marx sees capitalism as the undoing of democracy, so also, others see poor democratic rule  as the undoing of capitalism, and ultimately the democracy itself. “For Milton Friedman.... the principal threat to the survival of capitalism and democracy is the assumption of the responsibility for welfare on the part of the modern democratic state.” (Almonds, p. 471) And the importance of the states non intervention was emphasized capitalism's it’s first big proponent, Adam Smith. “one of the dominant traditions of economics from Adam Smith until the present day stresses the importance for productivity and welfare of an economy that is relatively free of intervention by the state............. For Smith good capitalism was competitive capitalism, and good government provided just those goods and services which the market needed to flourish. could not itself provide, or would not provide. A good government according to Adam Smith was a minimal government, providing for the national defense, and domestic order.” (Almond, p. 470-471) The Welfare state of health benefits, guaranteed employment, and other policies aimed at benefiting those underprivileged by redistributing wealth, is the cause of the destruction of capitalism. “If a capitalist economy is subjected to increasing degrees of state control, a point (not precisely specifiable at this time) will be reached at which democratic governance becomes impossible. If a socialist economy is opened up to increasing degrees of market forces, a point (not precisely specifiable at this time) will be reached at which democratic governance becomes a possibility. (Almond, p. 469) And ultimately with the loss of capitalism, we will lose democracy.



     “Historically there can be little doubt that as the suffrage was extended in the last century, and as mass political parties developed, democratic development impinged significantly on capitalist institutions and practices.” (Arnold, p. 472) This idea we have already discussed and acknowledged, that capitalism causes a strong bent towards democracy. But would it work the other way? Would a country with a democratic regime, automatically generate an capitalist society? “Since successful capitalism requires risk-taking entrepreneurs with access to investment capital, the democratic propensity for redistributive and regulative policy tends to reduce the incentives and the resources available for risk-taking and creativity. Thus it can be argued that propensities inevitably resulting from democratic politics, as Friedman, Olson and many others argue, tend to reduce productivity, and hence welfare.” (Arnold, p. 472) So because of the welfare state redistribution of wealth, and the regulations brought about in democracy, a democratic state is not likely to instigate a capitalist economy. but like socialism and communism, democracy needs capitalism, but capitalism is not exclusive to democracy.


    So how do we reconcile all we have seen, and what conclusion can we make on our original statement? "Democracies are better suited for a more socialist economic system than they are for a capitalist system." We have seen that, Capitalism, most often leads to democracy, but our opposing views are these. Marx believes, that Capitalism undermines democracy, whereas Adam Smith believes that socialism and government intervention will undermine democracy. Smiths belief is based on the idea that Democracy needs capitalism, however Marx had a different view of what makes a true democracy, equality. It is here that we reap the benefits of defining such key terms as democracy at the start. “Democracy then, can be fully defined as political power exercised either directly or indirectly through participation, competition, and liberty.”  (O'Neil, p. 110) While we recognize both have legitimate points, and, “democracy and capitalism are both positively and negatively related, that they both support and subvert each other.” (Almond, p. 473) We must, however, acknowledge that Marx was not properly displaying true democracy, for democracy is not only about equality, but rather participation, competition, and liberty. Leaving me to conclude that, Democracies are better suited for a more capitalist economic system than they are for a socialist system

Refrences,

1)Patrick H. O'Neil, Essentials of Comparative Politics, 2010

2) Gabriel A. Almond, Capitalism and Democracy, PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 24, No. 3. (Sep., 1991), pp. 467-474. Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1049-0965%28199109%2924%3A3%3C467%3ACAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

3)Merriam Websters Online Dictionary, 2011, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

Comunism Defeated 2,000 Years Before Marx.

“Is it better for a city-state that is to be well managed to share everything possible? Or is it better to share some things but not others?” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 384-385) This is the question Aristotle seeks to answer in book two of Politics. He is specifically referring to Plato’s Republic, where Socrates states, “If a city is to achieve the height of good government, wives must be in common, children and all their education must be in common, their way of life whether in peace or war, most be in common.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 276) Socrates idea was a preventative move on his behalf, by each having everything in common, and no personal belongings, their would be no want or desire of gain, and therefore reduce injustice in the rulers. Going over a few of Aristotle's arguments against a communal based system we will first look at some possible negative effects to it’s implementation, and also aside from these sidefects, is such a city-state even possible?

This idea of sharing all in common is a extreme communist view, though Marx was roughly 2,000 years away from writing The Communist Manifesto. Yet these disadvantages are almost prophecies of latter communist attempts. The first year of James towns settlement, all food was grown by individuals and shared in a common pot, being distributed as needed. And in talking about this exact thing, a common food store, Aristotle says, “If the citizens happen to be unequal instead of equal in the work they do and the profits they enjoy, accusations will be inevitably made, against those who enjoy, or take a lot, but do little work by those who take less and do more.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 387) So in this attempt for unity, we would be causing strife between, persons, a divide in the members of the city state, and in all reality the opposite of what we were attempting to create, disunity. Also, implementation of this ideal would lead to neglect, and laziness, “What is held in common by the largest number of people receives the least care. For people give most attention to their own property, less to what is communal, or only as much as falls to them to give. For apart from anything else, the thought that someone else is attending to it makes them neglect it the more.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 386) And this exact thing happened in James town which almost caused the failure of the colony, until John Smith divided the land among the settlers, and restored property rights. At which point the colony began to flourish, because as Smith said, “He who does not work shall not eat.”

And lastly we will look at, disadvantages aside, whether this kind of city-state is even possible. First we will present what a city-state is. According to Aristottle this is, “A complete community, constituted out of several villages once it reaches the limit of total self-sufficiency, practically speaking is a city state.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 378) also Socrates states, “I think a city comes together because none of us is self-sufficient, but we all need many things.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 1870 So a city-state comes to be when, and is for the purpose of self-sufficiency. So now understanding what a city-state is, is this city-state Socrates has built even possible? “The end he says his city-state should have is, impossible..... I am talking about the assumption that it is best for a city-state to be as far as possible all one unit; for that is the assumption Socrates adopts. And yet it is evident that the more of a unity the city-state becomes, the less of a city state it will be.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 385) Oddly enough, it appears Aristotle believes unity is the very demise of this city state. “For a city-state naturally consists of a certain multitude, and as it becomes more of a unity it will turn from a city-state into a household and from a household into a human being.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 385) so because this unity is only possible in a household or more likely an individual, but impossible in a city state due to it’s diverse individuals. “Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or does not need to because he is self sufficient, is no part of a city-state.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 379) So this communal city-state would digress to a household or individual, no longer being a city-state. And moreover, this digression would not prove beneficial or good since, “We regard something as Self-sufficient when all by itself it makes a life choice worthy and lacking nothing; and this is what we think happiness does. Moreover, we think happiness is most choice worthy of all goods.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 364) So by having this communal system which at best digresses to a household, we lose happiness the most choice worthy good since in this digression we lose the self-sufficiency of the city-state.





References:

1)Peter J. Steinberger, Readings in Classical Political Thought, 2000

Where Do You Stand On The Globalization Debate?

Globalization is at best a controversial issue, and to add to the controversy are the number of facets by which this topic can be debated. From the nation state perspective, sovereignty and trans cultural feasibility, to universal individual rights, and the world economies effects on the local economies. I would like to focus on this issue from a political, andeconomic standpoint, and whether the benefits, or disadvantages outweigh the other.

“A widening gap between the richest 10 percent and the poorest 10 percent in recent years, with a significant part of the reason related to different abilities to reap gains from globalization.” (Lairson and skidmore, 2003, p. 131) this many people see as a problem because it seems the rich keep getting richer, and the poor poorer. But like any issue, the real problem is usually hidden. This inequality is designated as, bad, because it is, unequal, and unfair, but before the conclusion of this being unfair, there is the preconceived idea, that equality is a right. However, while all being created equal, we were not all created with wallets. While this may at first humor it does hold truth, a preset, equal income is not a right, but rather our income is an occurrence brought on by our circumstances. Which none can guarantee will be the same for all. Equal rights, are based on universal human attributes, but true equality can and will never occur, for the simple reason that, I will never be the same as you.

Another argument against Globalization is, that it costs jobs, but once again we must find the underlying why, why does globalization take jobs from some countries? And the answer is comparative advantage. “The country with the lowest opportunity cost has a comparative advantage and should specialize in the production of that good or service.” (Swanenberg, 2005, p. 10) By contry (x) having a comparative advantage in Corn production over country (y), country (x) should therefore switch to a concentrated corn production. And as equal and opposite, country (Y) has a comparative advantage in producing oranges over country (x) . And like wise, country (y) shifts it’s production to oranges. So that each comes out with the benfits of more of each product.

Sounds good, right? Well hear is the problem. By country (x) bringing cheaper corn to country (y)’s market than the corn growers in that country can afford to sell their corn for, , it consequently, puts the corn farmers in that country out of work. However, remember the comparative advantage, all that needs to happen is the corn farmers need to convert to Orange farms, and then recieve an advantage over there former occupation due to the new market. So the real problem is the begining change and the shock it will bring, but in the long run, globalization, can increase world productivity.

11/01/11

References:

1) Thomas D. Lairson, and David Skidmore, 2003, International Political Economy, Globalization and the World Economy

2) August Swanenberg, 2005, Macroeconomics Demystified, Introduction to Economics

My Run for Governor

  Record unemployment, high prices, unbalanced budgets, a Recession. In 2009, our nation was seemingly plunged into an economic frenzy, which was later discovered to be here all along and it was just at this point which we noticed our economies weaknesses. At this time the publics attention was turned from social, international and education policies, to an enhanced focus on economic policy. One of the main economic problems the public, and myself included see is the unbalanced budgets, and the deficits. on the national and state level this is a problem, so what can we do? I will look at my home state of New York, and what they have attempted to solve this looming problem.

       In his State of the State adress Governor Cuomo, said, “We’ve been focusing on this year and the deficit this year, which is a very large deficit about $10 billion,” and to make matters worse, the deficit if left unattended will get worse as the Governor continues, “what’s worse, is it’s not just about this year. Next year, the problem goes to $14 billion. The year after, the deficit goes to $17 billion. This is not a one year problem my friends. This is a fundamental economic realignment for the State of New York.”  With this amount of a budget defecit, we can see how we are spending, way outside our means, and if we don’t stop, we will end up with problems. First this debt will be layed on the future generations to bear, and second, at some point the lenders will cease loaning, and instead of a weaning off of deficit spending, we will have to quit cold turkey style.

       Acorrding to usgovernmentspending.com, New York states total spending for 2011, will be $108.3 billion, with $10.9 billion going towards pensions, $42.7 billion going towards Health care, with another $11.5 billion going towards education. Welfare constitutes $ 8.4 billion, protection is another $7 billion, also transport costs $10.9 billion, with 22% of the budget remaining for other.  While this seems large, Governor Cuomo’s budget proposal, is, “historic for its 2 percent cut in total spending and for eliminating a $10 billion deficit.” acorrding to WRGZ News. I commend both the Governor and the legislature for a timely, budget. And also as stated on the NY Governors web page, “This budget reaches its financial goals with no new taxes and no borrowing, and will also cut next year's projected budget deficit from $15 billion to about $2 billion.”

      “The approximately $132.5 billion budget will reduce spending overall by over 2 percent from the current year, eliminate 3,700 prison beds” Acording to Cuomos Governor web page. Getting a deficit under control is not an easy thing, but an essential thing. 2% is a lot but if we all sacrifice a small part we can collectively make up the 2%. I believe California Governor Arnold Schwarzenagger  in his 2009 State of the State address, said it best, “There is no course left open to us but this: to work together, to sacrifice together, to think of the common good - not our individual good. No one wants to take money from our gang-fighting programs or from Medi-Cal or from education. No one wants to pay more in taxes or fees. But each of us has to give up something because our country is in an economic crisis and our state simply doesn't have the money.” As hard as some of these cuts may be we each must willingly sacrifice for the good of the whole.

$10 billion seems astronomical, and even unreal to think about. And the idea of paying off a debt like this is seemingly more impossible. But here in the state of New York, we have seen the impossible accomplished, the incomprehensible solved, and in a speedy amount of time. aAnd this was accomplished by the Governor and legislature working together, for the greater good. All odds against, and all impossibilities looming, a great feat was accomplished, and a budget deficit eliminated. I believe that if all of our states start tackling these problems, by everyone sacrificing a little for the greater, then we can follow this formula and also balance our National Budget.


REFERENCES.

1) New York State from http://www.governor.ny.gov/sl2/stateofthestate2011transcript, 2011

2) by Christopher Chantill http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/New_York_state_spending.html#usgs302a, 2011

3) “New York State Passes Budget; Closes $10 Billion Deficit” WRGZ News, Mar 31, 2011, http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/116272/13/Lawmakers-Poised-for-On-Time-Budget-Protestors-Clog-Capitol

4) New York, state’s Governors page at http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/032711agreementstatebudget, 2011

5) “Governor Schwarzenegger's 2009 State of the State Address
Prepared Text of Governor Schwarzenegger's 2009 State of the State Address” ,
Published on Jan 15, 2009 http://yubanet.com/california/Governor-Schwarzenegger-s-2009-State-of-the-State-Address.php

Does the Fed Gov't Owe $$$ with rules?

Should the Federal government pay for policies that it mandates to states? Or should the responsibility of funding these policies come from the states? Ultimately the question at hand is this, is the body which mandates a policy, responsible to fund it’s policy or, should the beneficiary of the policy fund it?


By passing unfunded mandates such as the No Child Left Behind act, is the Federal government usurping the states power? Before we can ask this, we must ask, is the Government usurping power by passing laws regarding education? And, the answer is yes. The federal government is usurping the states power, by reaching beyond it’s enumerated powers, and violating the tenth amendment. no where’s in Article 1 section 8 “The Powers of Congress” in the Constitution does it speak of federally mandated education. And as stated in the tenth amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (The Constitution),. Since the federal government is not given power to mandate education, such responsibilities are left to the states. So just by implementing the NCLB (No Child Left Behind act) the Federal Government is unconstitutional, and usurping the states power.

Now putting aside the fact that some Federally mandated policies are unconstitutional, we will return to whether or not unfunded mandates are a usurpation of states power. Our first ten amendments known as ‘ “The Bill of Rights” lists rights guaranteed to the American people and, states. Though, it does not state, that states have a right to be absolved from unfunded Federal mandates, the ninth amendment has a very unique wording. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Constitution) Forcing the states or people to pay for a federal policy is wrong, since the states and people already pay taxes to fund our government, why then should we be required to pay to fund a government, and also pay more separately to fund there policies which the government implements? One of our inalienable rights is that of property, you have the right to your money, the government has the right to tax us, however an unfunded mandate is not taxation, it is a form of legal plunder. A law that gives them right to use your already taxed money for their own purposes. Plunder is wrong, and legal plunder is just a usurpation of the States Power or right to there funds.



Aside from the constitutionality of some unfunded mandates and the fact that they usurp state powers there can be negative effect of unfunded federal mandates including the cost to states. “Hurson, who also serves as president of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said that federal regulations could wind up costing the states $30 billion in the fiscal 2006.” (Capital News Service) These astronomical costs to states, especially now in this time of economic trouble and unbalanced budgets are far from beneficial. In H.R.373 -- Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2011 Section 2, “Findings” sub-part 5, 6, and 7 shows further negative economic effects, “(5) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in part by consumers, in the form of higher prices and reduced availability of goods and services;
(6) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in part by workers, in the form of lower wages, reduced benefits, and fewer job opportunities; and
(7) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in part by employers and small businesses, in the form of hiring disincentives and stunted economic growth.” (The Library of Congress). With such side effects as higher prices, lost wages, decrease in jobs, increased prices to employers and small businesses, and $30 billion cost to our states. I believe we can agree that unfunded mandates, reap a bad harvest.

Ultimately what is wrong with unfunded mandates? If they were constitutional, and if they did not have such large negative impacts, would they be all that bad? Fredrick Bastiat once said concerning legal plunder, "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it" Over time, this will become an acceptable act, legal plunder, and if stealing becomes acceptable, what else will become acceptable and glorified. So yes, the Federal Government, should pay for policies that it mandates, and let the states do with there funds as they see fit.

10/25/2011

References:

“Constitution” from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5 2011

“Local governments struggle with unfunded federal mandates” By Megan McIlroy Capital News Service 3/31/2005, http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=441088

The Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~mdbsK6ULAU:: 2011.

Frederick Bastiat from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/380618 2011