Both democracy and capitalism give the freedom to choose between alternatives - The Economic Times
I do not know whether any empirical evidence is available to support this! . The relationship between capitalism and democracy can be discussed, in my point. The relation between democracy and capital has always been a tense one, of even total contradiction. Capitalism only feels safe it is ruled by. GUEST BLOGGER | Chris Coyne I BEGAN the week discussing the link between capitalism and democracy. In my initial post, I emphasized the.
Businessmen claim they want to serve the public interest by creating jobs in backward areas, when their actual aim is to get rich. But don't politicians also claim to be promoting the public interest while lining their pockets? Businessmen may adulterate their products. But don't politicians constantly adulterate their supposed policies and principles? Capitalists may wallow in black money.
Both democracy and capitalism give the freedom to choose between alternatives
But are politicians any different? They spend thousands of crores on elections - where does the cash come from? Politics is supposed to be public service. In fact, it has become the shadiest of businesses, in which you invest black money in elections in order to make even more black money through bribes and extortion. Crony capitalisma sadly widespread phenomenonis a perversion of capitalism.
Democracy or Capitalism?
It is a perversion of democracy too. Businessmen use money to promote their interests. Once politicians hired musclemen for dirty work. The musclemen have now entered politics themselves in thousands. Businessmen use influence to get what they want. Politicians are surely ahead of them in this game. In sum, politicians in a democracy are opportunistic rascals.
Yet, democracy is viewed as a highly moral system. Because it empowers citizens through free choice. That makes it superior to any other form of government. Lenin criticised democracy on exactly the same ground that many criticise capitalism.
He said elected politicians were opportunistic rascals representing their own class interest, not the public interest. Europe was devastated by a war provoked by German supremacy and in the East there was a consolidation of the communist regime, which was seen as an alternative to liberal democracy. It was in this context that so-called democratic capitalism emerged, a system that consisted of the idea that, in order to be compatible with democracy, capitalism ought to be strongly regulated.
This entailed the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy, progressive taxation, the imposition of collective bargaining and even — as happened in the West Germany of that era — the participation of workers in the management of firms.
On the scientific plane, Keynes represented economic orthodoxy and Hayek dissidence. This change altered the terms of the distributive conflict, but it did not eliminate it.
On the contrary, it kept all the conditions for inflaming it for the three following decades, when economic growth became paralysed. This much is clear. Yet since early modern times, and especially aftercapitalist markets have been a mixed blessing for democracy in representative form. Equally notable have been their rapaciousness, unequal class-structured outcomes, reckless exploitation of nature and their vulnerability to bubbles, whose inevitable bursting generates wild downturns.
Capitalism, by Arthur Henry Young How can we best summarise the relationship between capitalism and democracy today? The formula is designed to unsettle. It aims to provoke second thoughts and fresh thinking; along the way, it also helps to shed some light on the wildly divergent scholarly and political assessments of the future of capitalism and democracy. Democracy whips up unrealistic public passions and fantasies.
It distorts and paralyses the spirit and substance of rational calculations upon which markets functionally depend; understood as government based on majority rule, democracy is said to be profoundly at odds with free competition, individual liberty and the rule of law.
Other scholars, political commentators, policy makers and politicians stake out the contrary view.
Capitalism and Democracy [part 1]
Well-designed political interventions that draw democratic strength from popular consent are needed to redistribute income and wealth, to repair environmental damage caused by markets and to breathe new life into the old ideals of equality, freedom and solidarity of citizens.
The democratisation of markets has meant different things at different times to different groups of people. For the majority of card-carrying democrats of the past century, the democratisation of markets meant greater state intervention and control of markets.
What is needed, they argue, is the restriction of markets: Inequality Whether such policies and regulations can succeed without straddling borders and through state efforts alone remains an open question. Yet the broad vision is bold, and clear: The priority is to protect people and their ecosystems, to nurture social citizenship rights through a politics of redistribution that includes the defence of public services, raising the minimum wage and enforcing new contract law arrangements that empower workers and consumer citizens.