wutang01 Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Capitalism and Democracy. Can one work by itself? Or do they have to rely on each other? What's your thoughts? I'm interested in hearing them :) Regards, wutang01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Democracy is a very good thing. What I think is getting out of hand somewhat though, it capitalism. Too much emphasis is being placed on possessions, personal wealth, and personal debt, instead of personal happiness... But unless someone can figure out a better way, that actually WORKS, we're kinda stuck with it. At least we have personal freedom, as long as we stay within the rules of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lav-chan Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Of course one can't 'work by itself'. An economic system must be accompanied by a political system (any political system), that's just common sense. If you mean, can they exist without each other, yes, of course. It is completely feasible that a socialist democracy could exist, for example. Several countries in Europe come pretty close to that, in fact (although none of them is a true socialist society, some are close enough that people call them socialist anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlibbyFlobby Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 Labour are quite socialist, at least over here. Whilst in theory it sounds good I really dont think its working here, its just making the rich - poor divide wider and pushing those in the middle to either side. Bring back some capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted August 8, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 8, 2005 you just have to imagine a different type of system. the reason you think capitalist democracy is so unified is because that's all you have to go on right now. it is always possible to look at the overall system from the economic and political perspectives. you can have capitalistic non-democracies and democratic, non-capitalistic systems. whether or not that will work depends on how it is administered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 lol this looks like a first year assesment question from politics at ANU, yet I see your in brisbane still. The terms might have become fused over the period of modernity and post modernity, however we merely need to think back to the systems origins to see that they dont always have to be linked. Democracy was forested all the way back in Ancient Athens, which was far from any capitalist economic structure. In fact all the way back then it was though bad "karma" or bad consciousness to even lend money and charge interest. Interest one of the great drivers of a capitalist economy. And Capitalism whilst often associated with America, still had its roots in Europe and the British Empire, which wasnt the most democratic government at the time at all. And even now, China goes against the grain with an undemocratic political system, yet basically and moving more and more too a neo-liberal capitalist market system. I think the two compliment each other well in our current era. Whilst capitalist ideas can be traced back long before hand the fact is its what we actually consider capitalism didnt kick in till the 1700s in particular Adam Smiths 'Wealth of nations' is often cited as the birth of capitalist ideology. And Democracy has really only been revived in the same time span. So they are relatively new to society, and as such it would be naive to think as some authors do (Francis Fukuyama) to name but one, that Capitalism, Democracy or Neo-Liberalism as it is synonomously called, are the be all and end of all human society. I myself refuse to believe that neo-liberalism is the be all and end all of human social progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wutang01 Posted August 9, 2005 Author Share Posted August 9, 2005 Yea, I'm in Brisbane ... High School Grade 12. I'm planning to go to the University of Queensland next year for Commerce with an Accounting major ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 lol this looks like a first year assesment question from politics at ANU, yet I see your in brisbane still.The terms might have become fused over the period of modernity and post modernity, however we merely need to think back to the systems origins to see that they dont always have to be linked. Democracy was forested all the way back in Ancient Athens, which was far from any capitalist economic structure. In fact all the way back then it was though bad "karma" or bad consciousness to even lend money and charge interest. Interest one of the great drivers of a capitalist economy. And Capitalism whilst often associated with America, still had its roots in Europe and the British Empire, which wasnt the most democratic government at the time at all. And even now, China goes against the grain with an undemocratic political system, yet basically and moving more and more too a neo-liberal capitalist market system. I think the two compliment each other well in our current era. Whilst capitalist ideas can be traced back long before hand the fact is its what we actually consider capitalism didnt kick in till the 1700s in particular Adam Smiths 'Wealth of nations' is often cited as the birth of capitalist ideology. And Democracy has really only been revived in the same time span. So they are relatively new to society, and as such it would be naive to think as some authors do (Francis Fukuyama) to name but one, that Capitalism, Democracy or Neo-Liberalism as it is synonomously called, are the be all and end of all human society. I myself refuse to believe that neo-liberalism is the be all and end all of human social progress. 586347217[/snapback] Captialism and Democracy definately do compliment each other. Democracy basically entails capitalism. I do disagree about your interpretation of neoliberalism. It is similar, but I think neoliberalism has more to do with free trade than just simply Democracy and Capitalism put together. I personally think that neoliberalism as an ideology isn't the be all and end all of human social progress so to speak. I think it is quite literally the end of human progress period, or rather, significant progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 Well interpretation is a big part of politics, but on my side is the fact that neoliberalism in our day and age, is best characterised by the 'washington consensus', which basically advocates free trade and democracy together hand in hand all part of the same consensus. Not to mention the horde of liberal/neoliberal thinkers, (friedman, Hayek, Mises to name but a few) who have always advocated that capitalism leads to democracy hence they are both tied together) Additionally its the same neoliberal agenda the IMF uses (perhaps forces down periphery countries throats, depending on which side of the fence your on) in setting the terms of its loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozric Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Capitalism and Democracy may be the best option at the moment but I firmly believe that this should evolve into a fair system because as we are all aware the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer. I'm not pretending to have the answer but I wish more people were aware of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoDaddy Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 I'd like to point out that at no point has pure capatilism been practiced. In theory it is both moral and the best system. Artificially altering the market creates cost and loses value. Materialism is not inherent in capatilism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 "Its both the moral and best system" - yeah thats not half a contentious statement. theres a reason why ubridled or pure capitalism hasnt been tried, and thats because in pure capitalism there is no government. Therefore we associate capitalism with a more realist paradigm being neoliberalism which advocates full capitalism short of pure with government performing the 3 roles it was originally created for: 1. Preventing citizens from causing harm to each other 2. Enforcing contracts 3. Defence against foreign aggressors. As for materialm not being inherent in capitalism, thats just a technicality and a weak argument. Adam smith described the acqusitivite and egoistic self-interest of man in his description of homo-economicus, acquisitive is basically a synonym for materialism. Ricardo and Pareto offer similar disections of free markets and their materialistic effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_sphinx_ Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Well I'm 16 and I hate economics but I know a lot about that crap since I like politics....and here's what I have to say: No!!!! What put America in the golden age in the first place is its hybrid ideology of capitalism which gave european investors the chance to boom this country into the industrial age from where it took itself to the industrial age aided by democracy which aided in prosperity By the way, I have a question, what;s the difference between capitalism and Facism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palin Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 In theory it is both moral and the best system. 586363491[/snapback] I find that hard to reconcile ? capitalism is based on competition. While it does have its values, like hard work and innovation, it is also fundamentally based on competition, not cooperation. At least in the religious sense of morality, I can't think of one theological model compatible with the idea of kicking one's competitions' collective asses for a living. By the way, I have a question, what;s the difference between capitalism and Facism? I'm assuming you're serious, so if you're being facetious, ignore me. Captialism is an economic model, while Facism is political. Fascism is on the extreme authoritative end of the social axis of a political scale, where civil liberties are exchanged for strong central governmental authority. It's generally associated with very extreme right-wing ideologies. I for one would love a perfect socialism. Since that's not possible, I'll take capitalism until some genius invents a better model ? which I strongly believe will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoDaddy Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 "Its both the moral and best system" - yeah thats not half a contentious statement.theres a reason why ubridled or pure capitalism hasnt been tried, and thats because in pure capitalism there is no government. Therefore we associate capitalism with a more realist paradigm being neoliberalism which advocates full capitalism short of pure with government performing the 3 roles it was originally created for: 1. Preventing citizens from causing harm to each other 2. Enforcing contracts 3. Defence against foreign aggressors. As for materialm not being inherent in capitalism, thats just a technicality and a weak argument. Adam smith described the acqusitivite and egoistic self-interest of man in his description of homo-economicus, acquisitive is basically a synonym for materialism. Ricardo and Pareto offer similar disections of free markets and their materialistic effects. 586363562[/snapback] That was not meant as contentious at all. I could write a defense of capatilism, but I think this article says it a little bit better. Competition is not wrong or counterproductive - it is both fair and just, and promotes cooperation since one firm cannot produce everything. In religious terms, the only model for government is theological, but even God (in the old testament) allowed people to own property and trade for it - that's a rudimentary form of capatilism based on barter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 "Its both the moral and best system" you might not have intended it to be a contentious topic but the very statement by itself in a discussion would spark a variety of opinion and differences as it partly already has. nothing wrong with that but its a contentious statement to make and your not the first to do so. That article is okay, but Adam Smiths theory of moral sentiment touch of some of his economic ideas, and Friedman and Hayek rearticulate the moral sentiment of capitalism much better in their works. I find the moral basis of capitalism to be weak, as it ignores other notions of freedom such as positive freedom. It ignores the inante fact that the market or invisible hand if you will, dont have a memory therefore the flows of boom and bust are inherent with in it, and finally it ignore the role of creation that governments can play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts