Democracy without Capitalism?

Democracy needs liberty to function, and people on the right deeply intuit the connection between personal freedom and Capitalism (freedom to earn, freedom to spend) in a way the left never have.

That’s why democracy always withers under Socialist rule.

I think you’re slightly conflating capitalism and free markets. You can certainly have capitalism without democracy; I’m not so sure that you can have free markets without democracy though.

Funny how capitalism manages to thrive under repressive dictatorships and authoritarian regimes too, eh Martin.

“Funny how capitalism manages to thrive under repressive dictatorships and authoritarian regimes too, eh Martin.”

Thrive? Really? It generally degenerates very quickly into an oligarchical mercantalism, doesn’t it? I suppoise China and Singapore wiegh against that somewhat, although with China it is a bit early to tell.

‘Funny how capitalism manages to thrive under repressive dictatorships and authoritarian regimes too, eh Martin.’

And yet communism failed even WITH repressive dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

The alternative to capitalism is shared ownership, not state control.

On a far more practical note, if no one has been to Berlin and explored the path of the wall, esp. at its very extremities, I can’t recommend it enough.

@ 2 Democracy needs liberty to function

I think the current lot are doing an excellent job of proving that is not true.

Tim J:
“I think you’re slightly conflating capitalism and free markets. You can certainly have capitalism without democracy; I’m not so sure that you can have free markets without democracy though.”

***

The only way that American multinationals could sustain their “free markets” in South America in the 1970s was through CIA-sponsored coups that put people like General Pinochet in charge.

This was carried out under the guise of protecting against the Marxist threat. The reality was that American companies were upset that socialist democracies were re-nationalising sections of industry and thus depriving them of business that they had no automatic right to in the first place.

In fact, a certain amount of “free market” capitalism in Eastern Europe was quickly imposed upon countries such as Poland while new leaders were signing away state control in order to ensure economic support from the West. Most people were too busy celebrating political freedom to notice. Until their new leaders couldn’t deliver the promises they’d made because they didn’t have the power to make them any more.

The fall of the Iron Curtain was a wonderful thing, and rightly it should be celebrated – the oppressive and brutal “Communism” that endured for so long was not any true kind of socialism. There are relatively few countries today that live up to that sort of horror.

Let’s not pretend that any system we’ve used since is perfect, though, eh? And certainly not “free market” capitalism which would allow the rich to get richer and buy the policies they want from the Government. Like Communism, it’s an extreme ideology that would necessarily lead to authoritarianism.

Thankfully, in the UK we have a hybrid of socialist and capitalist values, that mostly does a pretty good job. The worrying thing is the socialist aspects are slowly being whittled away. We’re a long way off disaster, however.

Well said, Dave.

I would add: and we need to be wary of indugling/apologizing for left authoritarianism where it still exists, e.g., under Chavez.

“free market” capitalism which would allow the rich to get richer and buy the policies they want from the Government. Like Communism, it’s an extreme ideology that would necessarily lead to authoritarianism.

In wikipedia style . Free market economics does not merely not necessarily lead to authoritarianism, it is a positive barrier to authoritarianism.

@10 – the classic indulgence of course remains that of Cuba

North Korea, not so much…

cjcjc @ 12 – point taken.

Tim J @ 11 – I think Phil H is actually right that the ‘free market’ as a total economic system goes hand in glove with authoritarianism, not democracy. The problem is that in a democracy people will use their political freedoms to embed the free market in all kinds of protective regulation and redistribution (and quite rightly so in my view). The ‘free market’ is a utopian project that, like Communism, has to be imposed from on high.

Of course, markets might well be necessary for a healthy democracy. Democracy requires free speech, and free speech is assisted when we can just go out and buy things like printing presses and don’t have to supplicate to a state authority to be allocated them….But markets and the ‘free market’ are not the same thing.

To the dimwits proclaiming “you can’t have free markets without democracy”, and vice versa – two words – General Pinochet. The whole neo-liberal project kicked off with a regime which was both completely committed to the free market, and as authoritarian and anti-democratic as they come.

@10 Stuart White: “Well said Dave. I would add: and we need to be wary of indugling/apologizing for left authoritarianism where it still exists, e.g., under Chavez.”

This is an interesting comment, because it moves the discussion on from something of 20 years on historical interest to a live question of today.

As a reminder, these are the Dave’s words which Stuart looks to add to: “The DDR was, in short, the antithesis of any vision of socialism worth having. Nobody on the left should regret [its] downfall”#

Stuart uses the words “wary of indulging/apologising for” – but what does this mean in practical terms?

Obviously it is easy to say that we should neither support nor oppose Chavez mindlessly, and the British liberal left should offer “critical support”. But what about when the time comes to get off the fence? Stuart, are you saying the world would be a better place if Chavez wasn’t there, and Venezuela was more like Colombia? Are you saying that when the rich elite of Venezuela act to destabilise and overthrow Chavez (with or without the assistance of big Western corporations and the CIA), we should welcome that or oppose it?

@14 – indeed

I would put it like this – where you find democracy you tend to find free(ish) markets, because, when they are permitted to do so, the majority will tend to vote for free(ish) markets…and for good reason, markets being the least worst option.

@15

Chavez appears to be clamping down on free speech a bit (it is odd that radio stations that close tend to oppose him), and has anti-democratic supporters (I do not say he directs them; he does not order them defeated). I think therefore you have to on balance be careful before supporting him.

That said, he is still able to claim a democratic mandate, and any overthrow whilst he has that has to come from the ballot box. Unlike in Honduras, Venezulan democracy does allow for the development of totalitarianism. Your choice is less to do with elites and the CIA and more to do with at what point do you decide a man is a dictator and not a democrat. My own feeling is that Chavez has gone a bit too far, but I accept that this is not yet definite.

Chavez is not my cup of tea but in fairness he closed a station which had actively promoted a military coup. Thatcher closed one down for making a documentary she didn’t like.

@20

As Mr Chavez has closed over 20 stations, and I have not heard of one pro-Chavez station (of which there are plenty – he is popular) closing, one good decision does not justify all of them.

And however you feel about Mrs Thatcher, could I suggest that she was always more democratic than Mr Chavez. After all, I doubt you can say setting up Channel 4 was an act designed to create a subservient broadcaster (for all she expected a somewhat different balance of content). The habit of linking undoubtedly democratic, if not popular with some sections (they all won elections), leaders such as Mrs Thatcher or either President Bush (yes, the second President Bush won an election on a court ruling: this is how democracy works in the US!), or equally President Obama or Mr Brown (an election with no oponent is still an election), to less clearly democratic or outright totalitarian leaders is basically either a cheap debating trick or a sign of a failure to understand how much more fragile democracy and freedom is in countries outside of what might be called the western world.

“The habit of linking undoubtedly democratic, if not popular with some sections (they all won elections), leaders such as Mrs Thatcher or either President Bush…or equally President Obama or Mr Brown (an election with no oponent is still an election), to less clearly democratic or outright totalitarian leaders…”

I thought Chavez has been re-elected several times and hadn’t abolished elections. He may have tried to change the rule on the maximum term of office, but that’s not the same as declaring yourself president for life.

@21

I’m not sure what point you are making, as an advocate of democracy I would have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you would regard active complicity in a military coup as adequate reason for closing a station. Perhaps you wouldn’t.

Channel 4 is a poor exhibit for the defence of Attila the Hen as it was brought in instead of the public access service which the previous government had intended would make use of the fourth channel and no, she did not anticipate the content.

The second part of your post I would broadly agree with, although what it has to do with anything I posted is less clear.

‘Chavez appears to be clamping down on free speech a bit (it is odd that radio stations that close tend to oppose him), and has anti-democratic supporters (I do not say he directs them; he does not order them defeated). I think therefore you have to on balance be careful before supporting him.’

Whatever Chavez’s motivation, and whatever benefits his form of authoritarianism might provide, he’s anti-liberal and should therefore be opposed.

I don’t buy into the idea that the end justifies the means.

“As Mr Chavez has closed over 20 stations…”

32 actually, and they were closed down for failing to meet legal requirements by registering and paying fees to the National Telecommunications Commission. Contrary to rightwing propaganda, about 95% of the Venezuelan media is privately owned and the vast majority is vehemently anti-Chavez. Furthermore, like elsewhere the media remains largely concentrated in the hands of a few self interested oligarchs who use it to advance their own rightwing agendas.

The Venezuelan government are actively promoting freedom of speech in Venezuela by challenging oligarchic control of the mass media and making resources available to the poor, including the massive expansion of community radio. Freedom of speech is enshrined in the Venezuelan constitution and unlike in other liberal capitalist regimes it is not conceptualized as merely a negative liberty upheld only in the abstract but a socially substantive positive freedom to be enjoyed in a protagonist democracy.

And as Mr Osler points out, there will always be someone to defend the worst regime. Community radio – this wouldn’t be run by the government would it? The same government that threatened to fire any employee of the state oil company that did not vote for them? Somehow, I doubt that Mr Chavez is as committed to free speech as you seem to think.

As I say, Mr Chavez is perhaps democratic, but if you support that sort of democracy, what is your defence against the accusation that you are putting expediency over principles? Democracy is not just a conduit for introducing one system of government (albeit if someone does discover a perfect system, they will presumably get re-elected for ever), but a genuine choice for the people. To be a democrat is to acknowledge that however good Cuba’s healthcare, however effective East Germany’s former administrative efficiency, these are not prices worth paying for the inability to make a difference. It is not to praise those who seek to change democratic systems to their own ends. How many ultimately evil regimes have been supported by their ‘ideological’ allies in democracies and only later condemned. Perhaps we should all, whatever our ideology, put democracy first. And allow the fact that Mr Chavez and his ilk may be elected, democratic leaders, but not confuse that fact with the indications that their grip on the principles of democracy may not always be what it should be.

“Community radio – this wouldn’t be run by the government would it?”

No it wouldn’t, as a little research on your behalf would have confirmed as opposed to the usual knee jerk anti-Chavezismo.

“The same government that threatened to fire any employee of the state oil company that did not vote for them?”

Again, no it wouldn’t.

To be frank you clearly have next to no knowledge of Venezuelan politics beyond the handful of stories you’ve picked up in the Western media, hence the lazy assumptions in your posts. Perhaps you could do some elementary reading before you start preaching lofty principles from your ivory tower next time eh?

“As I say, Mr Chavez is perhaps democratic, but if you support that sort of democracy, what is your defence against the accusation that you are putting expediency over principles?”

I’m not in the least bit interested in indulging your morality games. The Venezuelan Revolution is not a feel good exercise for western liberals, it’s a process of emancipation from extreme poverty and decades of foreign domination. It’s not meant for people like you and frankly it’s a blessing that you’re hostile towards it. For the record, I support the break up of the private media and the empowerment of working class communities to play an active roll in the dissemination of information, I’d like to see that as much in Britain as I would in Venezuela. If you think that makes me morally equivalent to the apologists for the GDR then that’s your problem.

To be clear, I am not saying that Chavez is (yet) on a par with, say, Lenin, let alone a Stalin.

But if you want a clear indication of the authoritarian sensibility at the heart of Chavezism, just consider this report on Mr. Chavez’s reaction to a scientific exhibition:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/10/venezuela-chavez-bodies-exhibition

Chavez’s reaction here cannot be rationalised as a legitimate act of self-defense against a bourgeoisie that would happily throw him out of power undemocratically. It reveals a fundamentally paternalistic mentality according to which Chavez gets to be the judge of what is morally good/bad for ‘his’ people. Utterly nauseating and very revealing of Chavez’s fundamental political outlook.

Some in this thread have run the argument: Would I prefer it if Venezuala were like, say, Colombia? In other words: Chavez’s regime might have flaws, but it’s better than the right-wing alternative.

That is an old refrain. Returning to Dave’s original post, at any time from October 1917 to the fall of the Berlin Wall and shortly after, you will have found people on the left saying of the USSR and similar regimes: ‘Yes, its a dirty regime in some ways, but isn’t it better than the right-wing alternative?’

The reply to this apologism is: ‘Both systems are bad and we need and should struggle for an alternative to both.’

“It reveals a fundamentally paternalistic mentality according to which Chavez gets to be the judge of what is morally good/bad for ‘his’ people.”

Or maybe it reveals a fundamentally misleading report from the Guardian. The inference sort here is that Chavez thought the show was immoral therefore he ordered its closure. In fact the exhibition was temporarily closed by the Venezuelan authorities on the basis of suspicion of customs violations, breach of Venezuelan laws and false advertising:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSLQPAxFGskI

A particular concern of the Venezuelan authorities was whether there had been consent for the use of the bodies. Subsequently, the exhibition was banned by the State of Hawaii on the suspicion that the bodies could originally have been executed Chinese prisoners. See ABC report and investigation here:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=8072171&page=1

In fact the exhibition was temporarily closed by the Venezuelan authorities on the basis of suspicion of customs violations, breach of Venezuelan laws and false advertising:

Yes, and TfL has made a rational economic decision to phase out articulated buses based on a detailed appraisal of their costs and benefits.

C’mon, while I agree Chavez gets an unfairly bad press in the West, defending something which is so obviously an example of his personal taste spilling over into policy decisions just isn’t sensible.

Left not liberal @ 30: I think your comment reveals the lengths that some apologists for authoritarianism on the left will go to to try to get their preferred rulers/regimes off the hook.

Chavez’s reaction preceded the subsequent suspicion about where the bodies came from, so you can’t appeal to that to explain Chavez’s reaction. And the rationale given by the Venezualan authorities is just that: a rationale. As someone on the left, you surely don’t need to be reminded that there is often a gap between the legal reasons that a government gives for X and its actual motivations for doing X. But in this case you are suspending your critical faculties because the government is itself of the left.

This is precisely the mindset that Dave’s original post criticised.

Stewart, it’s also not beyond the realms of possibility that a state individual’s personal morality and desire to enforce the law may converge, in fact its inevitable given that the law is so often founded on moral principles. I don’t think at any rate the Guardian story is the “smoking gun” exposing Chavez as an authoritarian you made it out to be. It was not an arbitrary decision based purely on Chavez’s personal whims, it was constitutional and within the framework of Venezuelan law.

Furthermore, for you to truely extrapolate any real significance from it then you must apply the similar logic to the state of Hawaii, which also banned the exhibition. You’ll also note that the ABC report criticised the exhibition on similar grounds to Chavez.

@32, @33 Crikey, if all there is on Chavez’s frightening descent into authoritarianism is his reaction to the von Hagen body parts exhibition (“scientific exhibition” my arse), then really it’s not very much compared to sending in the death squads, is it?

(For what it’s worth I expect Chavez’s distaste was the cause of the Venezuelan authorities’ sudden interest in the detail of the import/export papers. As Left noy Lib says, any president is entitled to say “I don’t like this, get me a legal reason to give them a hard time”. It’s not that scary – I’m sure the French bureaucracy would react to a whim of Sarkozy in the same way, say.)

Now onto my main point, Stuart @28 says:

“Some in this thread have run the argument: Would I prefer it if Venezuala were like, say, Colombia? In other words: Chavez’s regime might have flaws, but it’s better than the right-wing alternative. That is an old refrain. Returning to Dave’s original post, at any time from October 1917 to the fall of the Berlin Wall and shortly after, you will have found people on the left saying of the USSR and similar regimes: ‘Yes, its a dirty regime in some ways, but isn’t it better than the right-wing alternative?’. The reply to this apologism is: ‘Both systems are bad and we need and should struggle for an alternative to both.’ ”

This may be true in principle, but it isn’t practical is it? The deal on offer is heads or tails. You can’t stand there on the square and protest that you would rather there was a third way. The deal on offer in 1989 was GDR or no GDR & economic shock therapy. Dave has got off the fence and has called no GDR. Fair enough.

In Venezuela the deal on offer is Chavez or something like the Uribe regime. Look at Honduras if you doubt that. Left Not Liberal has probably nailed all there needs to be said with his “The Venezuelan Revolution is…not meant for people like you” (Or me, for that matter.)

Strategist @ 31: I focused on the Chavez response to the body parts exhibition not because it is necessarily the most worrisome expression of Chavez’s authoritarianism but because it is one expression which can’t possibly be defended in terms of self-defence against a bourgeois coup (to use the old Marxist language). It reveals an inner authoritarianism that is quite independent of the supposed sad requirements of the class struggle – and once we know that this authoritarian streak is there, it helps us to put the wider authoritarianism of the regime into proper perspective.

Your point about the supposed impracticality of the ‘third ways’ between left authoritarianism and ugly capitalism is a repetition of the argument that people – some people – on the left made throughout the twentieth century to explain their support (‘critical’ or otherwise) for authoritarian left regimes. ‘It isn’t practical, is it?’ is a phrase that probably came into well-intentioned mouths when the Kronstadt revolt was crushed in 1921, when the POUM and CNT-FAI were crushed in 1937, and so on and so on. The pragmatism you seem to support has been disastrous historically – at the end of the day, in terms of achieving the goals of a free and equal society, it just isn’t that pragmatic (cf Camus, Orwell, etc.)