06-26-2003, 12:03 AM
The "free trade" basis of American democracy goes back to the nation's founding roots, and the attitudes of the founding fathers. The exercise of personal sovereignty is enabled by economic self-sufficiency, or so the story goes, but vital social programs are enablers to upward mobility in an "economic meritocracy" that perpetuate that very same goal.
Capitalism unfettered hardly makes for a coherent social framework, as the aristocratic models of the feudal age show us. Those who claim that "pure capitalism" exists anywhere strike me as being overly simplistic, and anyone who argues that pure capitalism can cure social and political ills are, IMO, quite simply wrong for the reason of the failed aristocratic system shown by history. Land, a very old form of capital, was their basis of wealth.
What capitalism provides, in an impure, regulated form, is an engine for possible economic advancement in a 'meritocracy' and a flexibility within an economy to change based on variable forces. Command economies simply don't work, unless being a warfare state and stifling growth are an aim. Capitalism can go hand in hand with democracy, or republican forms of government, just as socialism can, depending on what trade off are made at the ideological level.
The more regluated a capitalist system is, the more likely it is to trip over itself in inefficiency, however, unregulated capitalism holds the pitfall of monopoly control of most markets, which in turn stifles innovation and social mobility. A balance is needed.
Back to wealth as a foundation of democracy. It has been argued that democracy cannot flourish if folks operate at an economic subsistence level, since they are easily influenced by even small 'handouts' of despots or manipulative leaders. See the vitriol regarding the cynical pursuit of the 'Black Vote' by various political parties. Thus, when the "Spread of Democracy" hits an area without an economic engine, or without an artificial economic engine of aid or cheap credit, Democracy struggles due to the influence of well being on the political process. My favorite case in point is Haiti.
I find your juxtaposing freedom and capitalism in your post to be poor fit. They seem, from the historical record, to fit together pretty well, but not in a "pure" form.
Capitalism unfettered hardly makes for a coherent social framework, as the aristocratic models of the feudal age show us. Those who claim that "pure capitalism" exists anywhere strike me as being overly simplistic, and anyone who argues that pure capitalism can cure social and political ills are, IMO, quite simply wrong for the reason of the failed aristocratic system shown by history. Land, a very old form of capital, was their basis of wealth.
What capitalism provides, in an impure, regulated form, is an engine for possible economic advancement in a 'meritocracy' and a flexibility within an economy to change based on variable forces. Command economies simply don't work, unless being a warfare state and stifling growth are an aim. Capitalism can go hand in hand with democracy, or republican forms of government, just as socialism can, depending on what trade off are made at the ideological level.
The more regluated a capitalist system is, the more likely it is to trip over itself in inefficiency, however, unregulated capitalism holds the pitfall of monopoly control of most markets, which in turn stifles innovation and social mobility. A balance is needed.
Back to wealth as a foundation of democracy. It has been argued that democracy cannot flourish if folks operate at an economic subsistence level, since they are easily influenced by even small 'handouts' of despots or manipulative leaders. See the vitriol regarding the cynical pursuit of the 'Black Vote' by various political parties. Thus, when the "Spread of Democracy" hits an area without an economic engine, or without an artificial economic engine of aid or cheap credit, Democracy struggles due to the influence of well being on the political process. My favorite case in point is Haiti.
I find your juxtaposing freedom and capitalism in your post to be poor fit. They seem, from the historical record, to fit together pretty well, but not in a "pure" form.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete