Does democracy require economic prosperity?

[Urban Ranger]

True democracy of course, where the government do things for the people instead of for the elite. IIRC, it exists in a limited form in some Scandinavian countries.

The CCP is arguing that, and I found an agreement from an expected source. Elton Mayo, in his The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization, argued that without a high degree of economic prosperity and low inequality, there is no basis for democracy.

Your thoughts?

[orange]

Pure Democracy probably wouldn't be very prosperous, economically speaking...

[Urban Ranger]

I suppose you based that on the assumption that a pure democracy will force at least some form of socialism, which is bad for economic prosperity?

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Does democracy require economic prosperity?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
True democracy of course, where the government do things for the people instead of for the elite. IIRC, it exists in a limited form in some Scandinavian countries.

The CCP is arguing that, and I found an agreement from an expected source. Elton Mayo, in his The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization, argued that without a high degree of economic prosperity and low inequality, there is no basis for democracy.

Your thoughts?

Agreed.

It's not absolutely necessairy but it helps a great deal.

When not prosperity people will turn to communism since it is the best model for poor countries (just look how great Cuba is doing compared to Latin America) and the state will turn to fascists.

If prosperity exists democracy will ease more errr easily to society.

Look at Greece. I bet if we were to become dirt poor again, we'd be the majority again communists.

[Bereta_Eder]

Greece is actually the perfect model for all that silly social engineering.
Did US/UK backed oppression made a difference?
Did the fascists made a difference?

Did ANYTHING made a difference?


Nope. Wealth made the difference.

[orange]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I suppose you based that on the assumption that a pure democracy will force at least some form of socialism, which is bad for economic prosperity?

No (Psst, I'm a social-democrat, remember )

I based it on the belief that too much bureaucracy is bad for business

[Bereta_Eder]

Wealth and true democracy.

It is the same all over the world.

The US can bomb everyone to kingdom come, they'll come backagain blowing up people.

As long as they don't have wealth and democracy, they'll come back

[orange]

Re: Does democracy require economic prosperity?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
True democracy of course, where the government do things for the people instead of for the elite.

I also don't think this is entirely true. Unless of course you mean everyone votes in true democracy...whether they want to or not...

[JCG]

True democracy hasn't existed at a national level yet anywhere, and I suspect it would become rather unmanagable if it was attempted right now. But you can always dream.

And no, despite the above, I don't think it would require economic prosperity, as long as it's far from economic disaster.

[Kropotkin]

Obviously Democracy, or most other forms of government for that matter, has it a lot easier to work when the cake that is to be shared is growing, not shrinking.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by orange
No (Psst, I'm a social-democrat, remember )

I based it on the belief that too much bureaucracy is bad for business

democracy = bureaucracy?

[Urban Ranger]

I think you can find a good example in South Korea too. The outgoing president is the first popularly elected one, and that took place after SK had become one of the Little Tigers.

[DuncanK]

First, I think democracy would have to include a classless society, not just a government that worked for everyone. I think if the government worked for everyone then there would be no classes. Second, I don't think capitalism can work that way. Capitalism works best when people behave in their own self-interest and individuals are required to take personal risk. You can't have personal risk without class. The two just can not exist together.

So you have the option of a socialist state that is guided by the market to help allocate resources and you have the option of communism where all the resources are allocated according to community and\or state planning.

I think it's possible to go to a high income communist system from a high income capitalist system. It's never been tried, but I think Communism is more efficient than many people believe.

I'm not too sure that you can go from a high income capitalist system to a high income socialist system. I think you have to flip the whole thing on its head. I think the reason is that with socialism you tend to get the inefficiencies of both systems. People aren't taking on risk and the market is failing.

[Felch]

Early America wasn't very wealthy, and while it wasn't a true democracy by any measure, it did demonstrate that republicanism can exist in a simple agrarian society.

I think the survival of a democracy is a lot like any other voluntary human relationship. When there's a lot of money, things are pretty easy, because people can get what they want. But even when times are tough, they can stick it through if they're committed to a goal.

[Solly]

Democracy certainly needs an educated populace in order to be successful, which in turn does requires economic propserity.