An article with a title like this, people are only responding to the question (which is rhetorical anyway). The OP submission has only been up 1 hour at the time of this comment and the vast majority of the 100+ comments here are addressing only the title question or reactions to it. None mention Polanyi and few discuss the author's most salient points at the end of the article.
Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
141–150 of 230 posts
Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a. that's corruption, not capitalism This is the same logic used by people who argue "That's corruption, not socialism." If everywhere there is capitalism, there is corruption, you can't simply wave it away. Edit: I originally asked "How is this argument different from 'that's corruption, not socialism'", which some seemed to interpret as a defense of socialism. I'm just pointing out the flawed logic in both argume…
> How is this any different from people who argue "That's corruption, not socialism"? It’s not at all different. In fact, state socialism and state capitalism are extremely similar systems.
If by "state capitalism" you mean the New Deal, Mussolini's fascism, or postwar UK then I'd agree with you entirely.
Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
#143Short answer: No. You can't have political freedom without economic freedom.
The problem here of cause is that economic freedom being linked to real world property is a limited good that can be owned and inherited.
And if a good can be owned and inherited it can be used restrict other peoples access to said good, And if economic freedom can be used to restrict freedom it can be a tool of oppression.
When Marx talked about how property was the inevitable bane of Smiths ideals he was not just hallucinating but basing his critique on the failed attempt to create equality and freedom through capitalism he was living in.
The problem is of cause that while Marx got the criticism right Engels failed to get the solution right.
Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
#144The only way to fix democracy is to make voting mandatory, but the elites in power have no motive to change the system. In fact they have all the reason to keep the status-quo. The current version of democracy is a treat to democracy itself.
It's an interesting question, and it's commonly debated in the US whether voting should be mandatory. It's been debated since the 1700s whether all eligible voters should be forced to vote.
But there are systems in place where voting is mandatory. Wouldn't studying the political knowledge of these countries in comparison to countries with similar socioeconomic demographics allow you to determine if mandatory voting leads to more effective democracies?
Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For anyone who doesn't have time to read the whole article, the conclusion is pretty much "No, as long as we have a strong social safety net." Well, then the answer is "yes". The whole issue being debated here is whether capitalism inevitably leads to a concentration of wealth which can then be leveraged into political power to create more concentration of wealth in a positive feedback cycle. The theory goes that a…
1) When competition is allowed to enter the market, we eventually have an equilibrium where the right number of competitors is producing a good or a service at the best price and highest quality possible. That is capitalism. When concentrations of wealth are leveraged into political power, you have cronyism in the government. That's not a fault of capitalism itself. 2) The wealthy cutting their taxes does not necessa…
> When competition is allowed to enter the market, we eventually have an equilibrium where the right number of competitors is producing a good or a service at the best price and highest quality possible. That is capitalism.
No, that's a highly theoretical model that doesn't exist in the real world.
> When concentrations of wealth are leveraged into political power, you have cronyism in the government. That's not a fault of capitalism itself.
No True Capitalism eh? Why would a capitalist not use their capital in whichever fashion would lead to gaining even more wealth? Whether that be monopoly, collusion, or political power?
Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
#146Simple answer: No. More nuanced answer: not exactly. Not Capitalism per-se anyway. But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind: a. that's corruption, not capitalism b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism
> But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind:
> a. that's corruption, not capitalism
I can swear there is a name 19th Century critics came up for the politico-economic system then dominant in the developed West where the State, starting with the system of property rights and extending throughout all of its functions, is organized to serve the interests of and reinforce the power of the owners of the means of production, and it wasn't “corruption” (though that would have been a decent name, too.)
Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
#147Simple answer: No. More nuanced answer: not exactly. Not Capitalism per-se anyway. But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind: a. that's corruption, not capitalism b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism
> a. that's corruption, not capitalism This is the same logic used by people who argue "That's corruption, not socialism." If everywhere there is capitalism, there is corruption, you can't simply wave it away. Edit: I originally asked "How is this argument different from 'that's corruption, not socialism'", which some seemed to interpret as a defense of socialism. I'm just pointing out the flawed logic in both argume…
You're right, it's not any different.
But that's the unfortunate consequence of these systems being built for a perfect world filled with entirely rational beings that only do what's in the interest of the common good. Everything from economics systems like Capitalism and Communism to political ones like Democracy have this very same issue; they work fine in theory then completely collapse in the real world due to human selfishness and irrationality.
But I'm not sure what the answer is that problem.
Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If capitalism tends to inevitably lead to corruption of government Everything tends to lead to corruption of government, in fact most forms of government are the corruption we see as the problem here. The key point of liberal democracy is to put mechanisms in place to prevent this from happening.
Well maybe, but there's a question of degree. Free Market / Capitalism proponents, will argue until they are blue in the face about how much more clever and intelligent and better actors in a free and competitive market will behave compared to alternative systems, so why wouldn't these actors also apply that competitive edge to the business of "corrupting the government for personal gain" and end up doing the corrupt…
> end up doing the corruption better than an alternative system would?
Because the same people who advocated free markets also thought long and hard about the problems of corruption.
Lets remember that scottish enlightment thinkers are not just responsable for many of these ideas but also many of the ideas about how to design parlaments and politics in general.
The reason a govenrment in a mostly capitalist state can be resistant is because it can be keeped relativly small and focused a small number of task. There are a large number of safeguards that can be built into the governemnt as long as the government has a limited scope. I also think that as long as government focus on the essentials, a large part of the population will agree that what the government does is good.
The mechanism however to not scale having a government that needs to fight massive wars and plan the economy.
In his book 'Road to Serfdom' Hayek goes into details about the tention between powerful government action and democratic institutions.
Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
#149"Is the freedom to choose what to Sell and what to Purchase a threat to the freedom to choose political leadership?" No. In fact, you cannot have the one without the other.
And what if you are free to purchase that political leadership and use it to curtail the freedom of others? And use it to skew the system and hoard wealth so nobody can ever buy it back? Hm? I swear, an-caps just don't consider the actual consequences of their ideology. Just once I wish y'all would think something through all the way to the end and consider the possibility of non-ideal situations.
No such thing as anarcho-capitalists. Just Neo-Feudalists. The State no longer controls the means of violence, those with the most money become de facto lords capable of hiring their own mercenary protectors and creating small states. Everything becomes monopolies through consolidation or destruction of competition using stronger economic force by exploiting the lack of regulation. The 1300's come back in vogue.
Re: Is capitalism a threat to democracy?
#150Simple answer: No. More nuanced answer: not exactly. Not Capitalism per-se anyway. But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind: a. that's corruption, not capitalism b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism
>b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism A government that is not large enough to upset an even playing field will also not be large enough to level an uneven playing field.
This argument seems to subtly imply that the only efficacious means to "level an uneven playing field" is government regulation, and not some other, non-government process such as boycotts.
Government regulation is, ultimately, only one item in the civic toolbox of society. If it turns out this is flawed, and will in the long run generate more negative outcomes than positive ones, abandoning the tool does not mean abandoning the final goal. Instead, we must utilize alternate means of achieving the same ends... or accept that corruption as the price of our chosen path.