Talk:Democratic capitalism/Archive 1

What is "Democratic Capitalism"?
I'm a little confused about what this "Democratic Capitalism" article is supposed to be covering. Is it a reference to a specific phrasing associated with books and work by Michael Novak and others? This seems to be so, given the specific external references, and the somewhat amusing back and forth in the article's history, which had people defining this as both "left" and "right". I assume it is not intended as the general article on "democracy and capitalism/free markets/whatever". If so, it might be useful for the article to discuss just what is meant by "Democratic Cahi•pitalism", what distinctions Novak et al. would make concerning it, etc. Phrasing such as "The United States is notable in using Democratic Capitalism as its economic-political system" is somewhat broad, and the entry at the democracy (disambiguation) page not necessary. - David Oberst 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Democratic capitalism," as presented in these articles, is a misnomer, since it implies an integrated system that is at once capitalistic and democratic. Instead, what is presented is feudalistic capitalism associated with a system of political representation. The economic organization is top-down, and the wealthy owners of these organizations can use their plunder to suborn the integrity of the democratic process in the associated political organization.

Democratic capitalism in an integrated sense would be economic organizations that belong to the workers and are directed by them democratically. Such an arrangement would avoid the centralistic bureaucratic deadlocks of state socialism, while giving labor full participation in industrial-economic life. The profits of the organization being spread democratically throughout the organization itself, there would be no privileged class on top in a position to suborn the political democratic process. A federated system of syndicates organized along the line of professional skills would provide a networking counterbalance to the localized system of communal capitalist enterprises. The two working together would put into effect a system of social organization at once economic and political, eliminating the need for a separate political system.

This would be true democratic capitalism in an integrative sense. True democracy begins in the workplace. Until then, all we will have is a system of capital-based feudalism masquerading as a democracy. [User: Ian Elliott] ‹›

There is no such thing as Democratic Capitalism
I claim that there is no such thing as Democratic Capitalism; it is a syntactically but not semantically valid phrase, like the phrases round square or authoritarian mathematical proof. There is such a thing, fortunately, as capitalism constrained/tamed/limited/civilized (take your pick) by democracy. The argument (objective, I claim, not from political ideology) comes from feedback-control systems theory. A characteristic feature of capitalism is that its natural dynamic is to bring everything into the marketplace to be bought and sold, and money becomes the universal solvent, the universal access to all the skills and resources of a society, such that once you become rich it is easier to become richer still. (As Ivan Illich said, "fundamental values are the things you can't yet buy for a dollar.")  There is obviously no negative-feedback loop intrinsic in capitalism as a structure of power to bring great private wealth (and all the power it brings, including political power -- cf. Richard Mellon Scaife) to some equilibrium. 137.82.188.68 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To your post. Democratic Capitalism is simply capitalism under a Democracy. But I do agree with you in what youre saying. Technically its Republican Capitalism, in that there are unalienable rights of property and economic freedom. Under Democracy, capitalism is not guaranteed and the majority could vote to end the capitalist rights. Therefore, under Republican capitalism the rights are protected but tenets of Democratic Capitalism that arent protected such as taxation, fraud, regulations, etc are subject to Democracy. With that said Democracy is used broadly to refer to government by the people with Republicanism being a sub category so I think it is still appropriate to use the term Democratic Capitalism. [User: dunnbrian9]

Suggested improvements
The article should explain how the term democratic capitalism was coined, criticial reaction and current use. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I added some references and a little development on the origin of the term. I deleted a few statements that seemed misleading. The discussion about support by Democrats and Republicans, Americans and Canadians may be accurate, but I cannot verify it. dbrookman 7 July 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

Perhaps mmore details should be added.
A capitalist society subjected to democratic rule. But what does that usually entail? Taxation, regulations, government services, trade, and other typical uses. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like socialism to me. The Other Critic (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this the actual name of an ideology?
The article gives no indication of any thinkers who actually call themselves democratic capitalists, as opposed to just 'liberals.' As a theoretical category, it's interesting. But if it's not the name of a movement, that could be clearer. If it is the name of a movement, where? If it's just a term applied by a philosopher's analysis, please explain that. Ventifax (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The Library of Congress catalog provides some hints in the titles (and dates, which frame the beginning of the Cold War and the onset of Reaganism) of two books:

David Webb Raudenbush, Democratic Capitalism (New York: John Day, 1946). Raudenbush became a Republican politician in Minnesota, and supported Eisenhower in the 1950s. His positions suggest an alignment with the proponents of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_capitalism ; hence that "democratic capitalism" may simply be a promotional device, or term of art, synonymous with "the American way."

Robert Benne, Ethic of Democratic Capitalism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981). Benne is a Lutheran theologian. He has been characterized on one blog, http://www.theliberalspirit.com/, as an "anti-ELCA Lutheran" and "one of the 'neo-cons' who influenced Bush Iraq policy."

The catalog also shows how "democratic capitalism" has received critical attention over the past several decades:

Fred E. Baumann, ed. Democratic Capitalism? Essays in Search of a Concept (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1986)

Brian C. Anderson, Democratic Capitalism and Its Discontents (Wilmington, ISI Books, 2007)

Charles Boix, Democratic Capitalism at the Crossroads: Technological Change and the Future of Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019).

The fact that Baumann and Boix write respectively of "a concept" or "politics," rather than of a "movement," may be significant. Boix's subtitle calls to mind the "People's Capitalism" associated with ongoing technological progress by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_S._Albus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Alleged synonymy in the lede (and a proposal)
The lede begins: "Democratic capitalism, also known as capitalist democracy, is a political, economic and social ideology that involves the combination of a liberal democratic political system with a capitalist economic system." But the article never justifies the synonymy. Taken at face value, the term "democratic capitalism" would refer to an economic (or socio-economic) system, while "capitalist democracy" would refer to a political system. Cohen and Rogers, in On Democracy (1983), p. 68, use the term in just that way when they write that "a democratic movement out of capitalist democracy is impossible." Thus they are genuine apples and oranges, not two names for one and the same fruit. They are distinguished, for example, here: "Likewise, the philosopher Michael Novak argued that in the long term, capitalist democracy is not possible; however, democratic capitalism is possible" [ http://theconversation.com/is-a-capitalist-democracy-possible-59138 ]. It would be worth knowing whether Novak himself made the distinction. (I have no doubt that the distinction can be blurred to polemical advantage; but any such blurring on Wikipedia calls into question NPOV.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

After further thought, I believe that what is needed is a separate article on "Democratic Capitalism." Using Google it is easy to discover a considerable printed literature on this subject, serious contributions underpinning a large number of internet postings. It looks to me like the term emerged in leftist discourse after World War I, and seems to have been used exclusively in polemical discourse at least through the 1950s, and probably continued to be used pejoratively for some time thereafter. The term may have gained a neutral or positive sense only circa 1970. For example, in 1965 Reginald Bassett critiqued contemporary terminology in The Essentials of Parliamentary Democracy (p. 86 ): We find "political democracy" contrasted with "true democracy"; "formal democracy" with "real democracy"; "capitalist democracy" with "pure democracy." Other writers of that time found the term useful to discussing the historical development of socialism in some contexts out of evolving structures of capitalism. With the establishment of an article on "Capitalist Democracy", this one on "Democatic Capitalism" could be more easily improved -- and it could have the benefit of a "not to be confused with" notice placed at its head. In any event, the recent literature seems to be in complete agreement that "capitalist democracy" is a political construct, not a socio-economic one; so the lede with its assertion of a synonymy is indeed misleading. Some samplings of usage by authors of apparently differing viewpoints are below (source: a search of Google books). I have starred the citations to two pieces that (along with the Bassett book quoted above) I believe would be especially helpful to putting together the separate article that I am proposing.

The Telegraph (9 October 2000) While it might be slightly early to welcome Serbia to the status of liberal capitalist democracy, it is now set in the right ... he does say that in the great ideological struggle of our time, capitalist democracy is triumphant, as it was in South Africa.

Annual Editions: Comparative Politics (2002) p. 189 Capitalist democracy could only result in the increasing exploitation of the working classes.

Colin S. Cavell, Exporting "Made-in-America" Democracy: The National Endowment for Democracy & U.S. Foreign Policy (2002) p. 6 [among numerous other similar usages] ... the possessing or capitalist class, since the nineteenth century, has, by implication, had to deceive subject populations — or at least their working class components — about the true nature of capitalist democracy in order to maintain control over political power at home and colonialism abroad ...

John Lugton Sanford, Democracy is Dangerous: Resisting the Tyranny of the Majority (2002) p. 47 [quoting Peter Burger, 1977] "To put it differently, there is not a single non-capitalist democracy in the world today. Put differently again there is not a single socialist country with a democratic form of government."

Tieying Li, On Democracy (2002) p. 145 [similar usages on p. 71 and 286] To push forward the political institutional reform and develop socialist democracy, a clear-cut distinction must be made between socialist democracy and capitalist democracy.

S. M. Amadae, Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice (2003) p. 16-17 [Schumpeter] argues that “[a]s a matter of practical necessity, socialist democracy may eventually turn out to be more of a sham than capitalist democracy ever was,” and that socialist democracy “will not mean increased personal freedom.

Bharatiya Samajik Chintan (2003) Marx and Gandhi denounced the capitalist democracy which is based on exploitation of the weak by the strong and unequal distribution of wealth.

Globalisation, Democracy and Governance in South Asia: Issues and Alternatives (2003) p. 73. Like every concept, the concept of liberal democracy in the post-capitalist phase will not be the same as in liberal capitalist democracy.

It has long been accepted that there are different varieties of capitalist democracy. [similar usages on same page and p. 269]
 * Journal of Public Policy 24 (2004) p. 260

Murray Jardine, The Making and Unmaking of Technological Society: How Christianity Can Save Modernity from Itself (2005) [chapter entitled, "The Evolution of Liberal Capitalist Democracy' beginning on p. 29]

David A. Reisman, Democracy and Exchange: Schumpeter, Galbraith, T. H.Marshall, Titmuss and Adam Smith (2005) p. 102 [similar usage on p. 105] Ex regiment and ex public school, it is the Pall Mall clubs and the hunts with dogs that stand between the capitalist democracy and the bellum that is brutish and short.

[a critique of the term itself].
 * Atilio A. Boron, "The Truth about Capitalist Democracy" in The Socialist Register (2006), p. 28ff.

Michael E. Chapman, Historians Companion: Chronologies, Glossaries, Readings, Style Guide (2008) p. 129 If we look more closely into the mechanism of capitalist democracy, everywhere, both in the "petty" — so-called petty — details of the suffrage (residential qualification, exclusion of women, etc.), and in the technique of the representative institution, ...

Richard A. Posner, The Crisis of Capitalist Democracy (2010)

Leo Paitch & Greg Albo, Rethinking Democracy (2018), p. 150. This essay's account of the BBC's origins and development in the context of capitalist democracy in Britain, however, shows that this has not been the case, even in the heyday of public service broadcasting in the mid-twentieth century.

Possibly irrelevant and confusing information in the lead
A sentence in the current lead states: "The coexistence of capitalism and democracy, particularly in Europe, was supported by the creation of the modern welfare state in the post-war period which enabled a relatively stable political atmosphere and widespread support for social democracy as opposed to Soviet communism." The reference to social democracy seems somewhat irrelevant, given it is a different type of political, social and economic philosophy, and is not the same as democratic capitalism, which is a political and economic system. This sentence also seems to imply that democratic capitalism and social democracy are the same, which is not accurate. I think the clarity of the lead would likely benefit from removing the second half of this sentence (from "which enabled..." onwards)__Rsur6933 (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Is a welfare state necessary under democratic capitalism?
The first sentence of the lead states "Democratic capitalism (market democracy) is a political and economic system that combines capitalism and a strong welfare state curbing the excesses of individual freedom". Although a welfare state is typical characteristic of democratic capitalism, I am yet to find a source which explicitly states that it is necessary component. If a source cannot be found to verify this, perhaps the sentence should be edited to indicate that it is a typical feature rather than a necessary one?__Rsur6933 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Social democracy vs. democratic capitalism
I would really like it if the article differentiates between democratic capitalism and social democracy, if there is any. Godless Raven (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * From the sources listed in this article and in the article on social democracy, the key difference seems to be the extent of government intervention, as well as differences in historical development. However, no source I have found makes a clear distinction between the two, which is perhaps why no differentiation has been made in this article. Apparently, if there is a spectrum of government intervention, with free-market capitalism one one end and a completely centrally-planned economic system on the other, democratic capitalism sits closer to free-market capitalism end than social democracy does. As mentioned in a prior post on this talk page, another key distinction is that social democracy is a political, social and economic 'philosophy', while democratic capitalism is a political and economic 'system'. Thus, social democracy and democratic capitalism may be different to the extent that an economic 'philosophy' is different from an economic 'system'. An economic philosophy offers guiding principles without specific focus of how to implement such principles, while a system is characterised to a greater extent by the actual policies enacted in practice, i.e. in the case of democratic capitalism, a welfare state, antitrust laws, etc. Though I think a source should be found to confirm this before a distinction is made in the article. Rsur6933 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)