- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Modern democracy and capitalism are strongly linked. Of course, after the” death ” of capitalism, a different period of human development will come, society will change, and democracy itself will change. Are there prerequisites for the “death” of capitalism? No, but capitalism can change somewhat. There were Marxist theories of communism, but as we have known since the time of Aristotle, private property is inalienable, and therefore the state will never be able to occupy property more effectively, making a profit from it, as if a free individual were doing it (this is what property exists for – to earn money from it).
It is also important to clarify what kind of democracy we are considering. Probably the one that now exists in the countries of the Western World: the United States, Europe, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada and others – liberal democracy. The symbiosis of a market economy, a free market and the protection of property rights with the rights of citizens and individuals, the rule of law – all this is combined by Western democracy. In addition, Western countries are extending their experience to other regions that have not yet joined the liberal ones, through globalization.
The unification that is taking place now leads directly to a change in capitalist relations, but also to a change in liberal democracy. Each of us is dependent on something (these are not obvious things like water, food and housing, but a wider range-our desires), and it is important for each capitalist to increase his audience of consumers in order to increase his capital; for this he will go to many tricks, up to human vices, the main thing is the profitability of his product. Freedom of capital movement dramatically reduces the ability of States to impose their own taxes and regulations. Thus, it reduces the influence of state institutions on the population. And even then, the leaders of the countries will have to reckon with the actions of the big capitalists. The authorities will not be able to restrict the trade of a multinational company, because the lower classes are consumers who can question the legitimacy of the authorities due to the ban on the ability to compensate for their needs and desires, and the upper classes do not want unrest; on the other hand, companies that can speculate on opportunities through their consumers. In no case will the authorities take any risks.
As Harvard professor Dani Rodrik writes: “Democracy, national sovereignty, and economic globalization are incompatible, and any two of these components can be combined, but never all three, and never fully.” National regulations can negatively affect international trade. When barriers are removed and regulations are agreed, the legal independence of States is at a loss.”
In this case, we have two alternatives in the future – the growth of a global plutocracy, where the richest influence the government (one type of oligarchy) or political regimes of hybrid democracy, where the state controls the economy (similar to what is happening in Russia now).
According to Harvard University professor Dani Rodrik (let's face it, the professor is sympathetic to the left), those of us who want to preserve both liberal democracy and global capitalism must answer a number of serious questions. One of them is: does it make sense to insist on new international agreements that strictly limit the possibilities of national regulation in the interests of corporations? I am very close to the position of Harvard Professor Lawrence Summers, who argues that ” the benefits of international agreements should be judged not by how many norms they unify or how many barriers they break, but by how many new opportunities they open up for citizens.” Trading brings profits, but this does not mean that you can strive for them at any cost. But most importantly, in order to preserve the legitimacy of our democratic political systems, economic policy must focus on the interests of the majority, not the minority. First of all, citizens should be accountable to politicians. If we do not succeed, the very foundations of the political system may be shaken. No one is interested in this. The union of liberal democracy with capitalism needs careful care. It should not be taken for granted.”
Therefore, it is still impossible (at this stage, with the preservation of the state institution itself) to build an absolute market economy without state intervention. However, better capitalism has not yet been invented. A successful market economy is not an unconditional market free from government interference, but a necessary combination of smart government interventions and a free market.
Although capitalism and democracy have demonstrated the best pair of those already tested, they are not identical or even directly related.
Democracy is the power of the people, and the problem is how to define the people. The people are definitely not the entire population – infants are and always will be excluded from decision-making. Not 100% of the population anymore. In the cradle of democracy, ancient Athens was ruled by a minority of free citizens. Monarchy can also be considered a special case of democracy, when the people = the king.
Free-market capitalism allows for the inclusion of an absolute majority of the population. This is great, but it is not necessary that there is no democracy at all under socialism. It was and can be. But somewhat specific and with a touch of theocracy.
There is no such thing as an ideal.
These concepts are not connected in any way. Democracy existed in ancient societies. In the same way, it is very likely to exist in centuries to come. The other, of course, is that society is changing, and everything connected with it is changing.
These are completely different concepts, one with another unrelated. Capitalism is an economic system. It can occur under a dictatorship, democracy, monarchy, etc. And democracy is the political structure of the state in which elections are used. It can occur in completely different economic systems.
Gentlemen, how long do I have to explain to you that democracy is a meaningless society that has no procedural designation? The word democracy refers to collective financial reporting. Capitalism is the right to set a price or value-added on an item that a person wants to sell or an item that has been manufactured in their factory. As long as a person sells something and sets a price, THERE WILL BE CAPITALISM!
But the question is not put like this, but “will MAN be able to exist after the death of capitalism??”. And I have the most unfavorable prognosis, to be honest.
The fact is that if you remove the creepy Marxian names, then capitalism is a social relationship, at the center of which is private economic initiative. All. Private initiative is when a person is not fed, and the person is not prevented from feeding. Someone works every day and barely makes ends meet, and someone rises quickly enough. I don't know who is right and who is wrong.
I mean, private initiative is a natural thing, inherent in us by nature, and there is a suspicion that it will disappear along with us!
Democracy is a form of political governance, and capitalism is a form of economic relations. They have nothing to do with each other. An example is Spain under Franco – capitalism under dictatorship. Democracy in the USSR under socialism. Democracy in Novgorod under feudalism.
And the future belongs to democracy under communism. All power to the Soviets!!!: o)))
Capitalism is a bourgeois society in which the state implements the interests not of the people, but of the ruling class that dominates it. That is why there is no democracy under it. It is brought by the socialism that is coming to replace it – the society of all.
After capitalism, democracy will begin. These two terms are incompatible because democracy is freedom and legal equality of all members of society. Democracy is a system where the society has a strong sense of elbow and care for each other. Democracy is a society that lives on the principle of “man is a friend to man.” Capitalism lives on the principle of “man – to-man wolf”. In capitalism, only a person with money and, more importantly, connections has power and influence. Capitalism is not interested in real democracy, because then the capitalist will lose his dominant position over the rest. There will be powerful trade unions that can take the capitalist by the balls if he humiliates subordinates, there will be serious legal financial transparency, when workers will not be able to pay in the gray. The courts will decide according to the law and justice, and not according to the money paid to the judge. For God's sake, capitalism doesn't need democracy. We need pseudo-democracy or bourgeois democracy, which is essentially a soft form of neo-feudalism