"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/
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/
