When discussing Bush and Iraq… I see quite frequently regurgitated the idea that democracy and prosperity will create a shining example for other arabs to envy… that freedom will make them better.
Discussing US politics with an acquaintance, it suddenly struck me that most americans don't make a clear distinction between democracy and capitalism... and therefore Bush probably too. He would ask me something about Bush regarding politics... and I'd answer something related to economic systems and vice versa (can't remember specifically what now). Some US atitudes are mixing economic and politics.
When they talk of “freedom” its not necessarily a liberal democracy they are talking about. The fact that a real democracy is almost impossible now in Iraq doesn’t bother them much… since they in a way are thinking more of capitalist transformation than base political reform when they talk of a prosperous Iraq. (If the government is a puppet or semi-democratic isn’t that much of a problem?)
The wealthiest countries are in fact democracies… but not all democracies are wealthy. Still I guess for these people its quite synonmous… one entails the other. The fact that Latin America is an example of how democracy doesn’t mean prosperity of course is beyond them… that Asian Tigers authoritarian governments managed economically better either.
Globalization is an economic phenomena mostly… and thinking that democracy (freedom?) is spreading can be quite deceiving.
Am I wrong ? (I know its a generalization but still..) How can this help us analyze certain opinions and discussions of those with conservative mindset ?
What’s your point? It seems to have escaped me. Democracy and capitalism are not synonyms, but they do overlap and complement each other immensely. As for what “most” Americans believe… who knows?
I think that’s an excellent insight. But I don’t know where to start with an answer. So I’ll just throw out the rough draft of what I’m thinking.
Yes, conservatives and corporations especially have really confused the two concepts - usually as you noted - by calling everything “freedom.” Personal freedom, freedom from taxes, freedom of corporations from government regulation, freedom to vote, “free trade,” “free markets.” It’s often presented as all of a piece.
Yes, to an untenable point. What about freedom from predatory lending practices, government corruption, deceptive advertising, starvation wages, child labor, environmental devastation…? Unfettered capitalism is ugly and looks nothing like freedom to the average worker.
But Bryan Eker’s reaction - basically, of course democracy and capitalism go together, what about it? - seems right to me too (if too dismissive). Both capitalism and democracy (which I’m thinking of as including civil liberties) really are about an overriding respect for laws and private rights above the rights of the government - in one case the rights of private individuals to engage in the public sphere, in another case the rights of private groups to engage in the economic sphere.
Where I take issue with you is this - it is possible to separate the two models but it’s also valid to conflate them (to a point). The same way that civil liberties and democracy are more often than not conflated, but could conceivably be separated too. You could imagine a system where everyone voted, but no one had any civil liberties. Whether that would be a system worth imagining is another issue.
Most Americans (certainly not all) would probably agree that you can have democracy without capitalism but not prosperity without capitalism. And democracy without prosperity a) won’t last long b) isn’t worth much. Big deal if you can vote for president if you can’t find a job.
On the other hand they’re not fans of communism because big deal if you can find a job if you have no freedom.
I have trouble discussing the issue in Iraq because I don’t think the administration went in to spread capitalism or democracy particularly. I think those were nice bonuses. I think the objective was to secure a second large source of oil since the U.S. has got to consider Saudi Arabia an increasingly unreliable and unstable primary source. I do think they prefer a capitalist democracy in there for a lot of reasons, but failing a capitalist democracy than a capitalist friendly dictatorship to keep the oil flowing. You’re right.
But you could argue (and they do) that a capitalist dictatorship is further down the road to democracy than a communist dictatorship for example. So pushing capitalism even if the democracy part isn’t going to fly is taking what you can get.
I apologize for the long rambling post. I wanted to post some kind of answer but the topic is huge.
Well, the Asian Tigers actually demonstrate something important here.
A semi-authoritarian government isn’t ideal. However, given the choice between one that allows its prople to become prosperous and one that doesn’t, it’s pretty clear which one is desirable.
This is true on the face of it, and it’s also true since a free market can eventually build a large and politically aware middle class. This class can, and often does, press for political reforms and personal freedoms.
This experience was seen in postwar Japan, in Korea, in Taiwan, and other countries. All of these have political systems today significantly more open than they were in the past. This evolution may be happening to a degree in China and Vietnam as well. Also India has a freer market today than in the past, and a more competitive political system.
I don’t think anybody expects iraq to be a utopia right away, but if it starts to improve the material well being of its people, than it will immediately be an improvemant on the Baathist socialist state.
For example: In America, the majority of the population couldn’t vote until 1920. So was America ever a democracy until 1920?
In any case, I actually think capitalism would be more beneficial to Iraq than would be U.S. style democracy. I don’t think our kind of democracy has any chance whatsoever of working there (though there are different types of democracy, and hopefully they will find one that works for them).
I want to justify my statement, although it is true. The US, while not a true democracy, has a democratic process that has always, and probably always will, denied certain citizens the right to vote. It hasn’t changed. Although those who may or may not vote has changed.
Thanks for your post uglybeech… not rambling at all…
Still capitalist states have gone to war with one another… while in theory democracies haven’t. A lot of the perceived “pacification” of the Middle East and the notion that democracies don’t create terrorists becomes flat out wrong if all you are getting are “capitalist” states. Saudis are “capitalist” and have been financing all sorts of radical elements.
It kind of explains the “cognitive dissonance” among Bush supporters as regards torture/democracy/human rights…
Leaving Iraq aside… there was a survey in Latina America regarding how the population felt about democracy… and high percentages (70%+) would give up voting and democracy if they got “prosperity” in exchange. Social scientists and political commentators were on an uproar over these conclusions naturally… Its sad but in a few years Latin America may be ready for another wave of dictatorships or less than democratic heavy handed governments. Prosperity that is denied to them won’t compensate for a perceived freedom to vote in “better” politicians.
If you think terrorism is dangerous... imagine less democracies in the world ? China is quickly becoming a model of uncontrolled capitalism without the restraints of democratic regime. I don't think these tendencies are good for the world or the US... Latin America is after Europe the second largest number of democracies.
The two terms are probably too often confused because during the days of the Cold War, “Communism” was used to describe both the economic and governmental system of the USSR. This was erroneous, but has led to both “democracy” and “capitalism” as seeming antonyms to “communist”. In actuality, communism is the opposite of capitalism, and it is totalitarianism that should have been contrasted to democracy.
But the whole “Commies” enmity ditched that distinction in the minds of too many people.
(A case could, however, be made that capitalism is ecomonic democracy - people choosing what they wish to buy or sell and how much they’re willing to pay or charge for it, whereas communism is ecomonic totalitarianism - one central authority planning all aspects of production and consumption. However, in addressing the OP, I don’t think this view is the reason why the equating of democracy and capitalism has occurred.)
Its surprising maybe for being so high… a 50% wouldn’t be that bad. We can’t forget that democracy is a shitty system… but in the long term its the only viable one IMO. Democracy doesn’t guarantee prosperity… and China is making this even clearer. This bodes very badly for the future and global warming for example.
The worse is that giving up democracy and taking an Asian Tiger model won’t make us better off.
Would americans exchange their democracy if it made them feel safer from external threats ?
Just in case I didn’t make it clear… when I mean “mix” democracy and capitalism… I didn’t mean it in an absolute way. Just a tendency not to distinguish one aspect from another.
RM: I wasn’t advocating an authoritarian system, but Latin America has been riddled with corrupt governments for generations and it shouldn’t be surprising that so many people are cyinical. Combine that with a high degree of poverty, and presto-- most people just want a better life, no matter how they get it. I wouldn’t advocate an Asia Tiger modle, though, because there are huge cultural differences between Latin America and Asia.
It wasn’t a potshot at you… just a stray comment… sorry.
Yep… true… but its not like our dictatorships were any less corrupt. So chucking aside democracy won’t be a sucess story… or a solution. Quite the contrary.
The saddest part is seeing the US following some similar corrupt habits like too much ties between business and govt., no bid contracts, … If the US can’t kick this kind of habit … Brazil hardly has a chance IMO. Our legal system is way to jammed and impractical.
That puts you in pretty good company.
Latin/South America have had their democracies for a very short time. Don’t think that it is a cure all that will work miracles over night. Capitalism and democracy helped the US to prosper, but so did our resources and people. Your country also has great resources and fine capable people. Don’t be discouraged and remember that even those Americans who oppose the war are still wishing your people the best.
i think the OP is a pretty true observation. americans tend to use them meaning the same thing, “Our Way (which is the best way, of course! n/m the details)”.
considered as two separate things though, i think america is more driven by capitalism than democracy. by now, democracy is just something capitalism uses for its own needs as convenient.
You were crystal clear, and in fact it could be a General Question. Democracy and capitalism are no more the same thing than Rock ‘n’ Roll and guitar are the same. There is no reason a democratically governed society cannot have a Marxist economy — all that is required is that it be the majority wish. Even a libertarian society may have a communist economy, so long as all are volunteers.
Yeah it happens all the time. We also tend to associate socialism, communism and lack of freedom to all be the same when they are different here too.
The developed world doesn’t exactly practice ‘capitalism’ anyway. We spend trillions on subsidies and handouts via education, social security, healthcare and various other tools. We have tariffs and corporate subsidies, strategic tax breaks, organizations like FEMA to help out when emergencies occur, etc. Darwinistic capitalism doesn’t exist, and thank god for that.
What bugs me alot more is when Americans assume we are the only country where people have freedom. That would piss me off if I had to listen to people in Sweden constantly talk about how their country was the greatest and nobody would get any liberties anywhere else.
So so… we were in and out of “democracies” since end 19th century… still it hasn’t been a spectacular run of political democracy.
What few people know is that during certain periods Brazil was much more “wealthy” than the US due to top priced commodities during sugar, rubber, etc… so resources might help… but they don’t make a modern country. Education and competitive capitalism does… and the US is being negligent in education IMO. (just a comment) I do hope those that opposed the war get power soon again…
I heard a funny story about an american asking a Canadian living in the US what he thought about living in a free country ! jezuz ! As always the US has the best… and the worst !
