Welcome to the NEW HistoryExplained.Com

26. Is democratic market society always the best?

October 2003

panderson

Subject: Is a Democratic market society always the best ?

Originally posted on: 10/20/2002

Hello Mr. Maurer, I'd like to know your opinion about this subject.

Are there historical situations where a “low” social system is better than a “high” social system (Example: Oligarchy vs DMS)? Is a Democratic market society always the best solution? Isn't it better to have a strong authority during difficult times? Do aristocracy / oligarchy / fascism / communism /fundamentalism have intrinsic advantages?

Example 1 : ancient Poland with Sejm and “liberum veto” was swallowed up by autocratic Russia, Austria and Prussia.

Example 2 : current Chinese communistic government is providing at the same time economic growth and stability much better than “democratic” Russia.

Example 3: in Afghanistan Talibans brought back order.

Is DMS a “luxury” that a society can afford only if there is enough wealth/technology/literacy/stability?

Replies

Dedalus

Subject: Re: Is a Democratic market society always the best ?

Posted on: 10/20/2002

I think that it is a luxury, and in crises democratic governments often become more authoritarian to survive.

davidmaurer

Subject: Re: Is a Democratic market society always the best ?

Posted on: 10/23/2002

None of the societies you mentioned were democratic market societies. However, I am glad you asked this question. It gives me a good chance to clarify some things.

“Is democratic market society always the best?” No, of course not. Every kind of society evolved to fit the conditions that existed in the time and place that it was used. If I went back in time 500 hundred years and visited the Iroquois Indians, I would not start explaining to them about how they should change to democratic market society. It would be silly. If I talked to Charlemagne or Chin Shi Wang Di and told them to switch to democratic market society, it would be foolish. Tribal society and aristocrat peasant society were not mistakes. They were right for their conditions.

Many people that are alive today might well be happier in tribal or aristocrat peasant societies. But that is no longer an option. The world now has more than 6 billion people. In order to return to tribal society about 95-98 percent of us would have to commit suicide. The rest could then feed themselves through hunting, gathering, herding, and gardening. In order to return to aristocrat peasant society 80-90 percent would have to commit suicide. The remainder could then live from peasant agriculture. If the Earth is hit by a large asteroid and most people are killed, something like this might happen. Otherwise, it is not practical.

A highly productive modern market economy is the only way that we can feed the present population. That leaves only two choices, oligarchic society or democratic market society. If we could find a group of benevolent oligarchs, who were very wise and rule society for the benefit of everyone, that might be an excellent solution. Science fiction writers often portray this kind of world, but they are writing fiction. In the hundreds of oligarchic societies known to history, it has never happened. Oligarchs, like everyone else, tend to be primarily concerned with their own wealth and power. The majority of the population are poor and unhappy. Just go to any third world country to see for yourself.

Many thinkers and philosophers, like Karl Marx, have tried to come up with ideas for new kinds of society that would be successful in the modern world. So far, they have all failed. I tend to doubt that this kind of endeavor will come up with a workable new form of society. Successful social systems evolve slowly over a long period of time. They are not the result of some individual’s brilliant idea.

That leaves democratic market society as the only realistic option for the modern world. This does not mean that democratic market society, as it exists today, is some kind of a wonderful modern utopia. It is not. There are crime, drugs, divorce, pollution, and all kinds of serious problems. We are still novices at dealing with these problems. In time, we should learn to do better.

In my opinion, the most serious problem with democratic market society is electoral politics. Politicians will do and say anything to get elected. Quite often it is the best liar that wins the campaign. Other electoral abuses are even worse.

In the 1820s Jacksonian Democracy swept America. All previous presidents had been from the Virginia or Massachusetts elite. Andrew Jackson came from a humble family and ran on a platform designed to appeal to the ordinary common people. They wanted national expansion, and they wanted the Indian lands. As president, Jackson sent his soldiers to cleanse the Cherokee Indians from their homes. This deliberate policy was continued until nearly all the Indian population was destroyed.

In the southern United States, politicians used to portray African-Americans as violent rapists and criminals who were determined to seize control and prey upon white people. But if you elect me, they said, I will protect you. This ploy worked in thousands of elections, and segregationists ruled supreme. It was devastating to the black community, but unscrupulous politicians were quite willing to tell malicious and outrageous lies to get elected. It worked like a charm.

For forty years from 1948 to 1988 most American politicians ran against communism. In reality, communism was not a threat to the American people, but that is not the way politicians portrayed it. They continuously screamed that communism was an evil conspiracy that was determined to conquer the world. But if they were elected, they would fight back and defend America from the evil monsters. Millions of communists all over the world were killed so that American politicians could demonstrate to the voters that they were strong and forceful and able to defend America against the communist threat.

This kind of electoral abuse is still continuing. The current president of the United States, George Bush, is telling the voters that the Democrats are a bunch of wimps. He claims that only the Republicans can defend America from the evil Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The United States is not alone in using this type of political abuse. Adolph Hitler told the German people that the Jews were working to destroy their nation, but if he was elected, he would deal with the problem. In 1990 Franjo Tudjman of Croatia, Alija Izetbegovich of Bosnia, and Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia were all running for election. At the time these were all constituent republics of Yugoslavia. These politicians all told the voters that the other republics were their enemies, but they would protect them. They all three won election. The result was civil war, the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, and the violent deaths of a hundred thousand people.

There is another kind of electoral abuse that is common in many countries. Successful politicians use government revenues to provide jobs and contracts to their friends and supporters. Government offices and government owned corporations have thousands of politically connected, no-show employees on their payrolls. In some poor countries half of the government revenues are used to provide jobs to unproductive political supporters. Education, crime prevention, and infrastructure improvements are all neglected so that politicians can reward their supporters and keep them available to work on election campaigns. People all over the world have come to believe that government is the problem, not the solution.

Many democratic politicians lie, cheat, and steal. Others create unnecessary enemies so that they can crush them and pretend to be heroes. Considering all of this, how can I say that democratic market society is the only form of social organization that can succeed in the modern world? Believe me, it is a difficult conclusion to arrive at. Winston Churchill once said “Democracy is actually a poor form of government, its only advantage is that it is better than all the rest.” We can only hope that, in the future, voters learn to recognize these political abuses and vote against them.

Does this mean that I believe all countries today should use democratic politics? No, it does not. Oligarchic society is a long period of transition from traditional forms of society to democratic market society. The end result of this evolution and transition will be democratic market society. But that does not mean that every country should use electoral politics during the transition period.

Some early stage oligarchic societies are much too unstable for democracy to work. Iraq is an example of this. It has a tradition of tribal leadership and tribal feuding. It also has three different groups with separate identities—Kurds, Sunni, and Shiah. If they changed to electoral politics, there would probably be bloody civil war within a few years. Saddam Hussein is correctly described as a brutal dictator, but the brutality is not just for fun. It is probably the only way to enforce order and stability at the present time. After a few generations of this kind of brutal leadership, Iraqi society will change. Eventually, democracy will become a viable option.

Other oligarchic countries have developed their own forms of leadership that work reasonably well. The communist government in China is doing a fairly good job of leading its people and developing a modern economy and society. Sure there are problems, but all oligarchic societies have problems. If there is an abrupt change to electoral politics, as happened in Russia, there is no guarantee that it would be an improvement.

Iran is another example. The religious leaders that control the government are far from perfect, but they are enforcing stability and preventing many possible abuses while the democratic process matures. It is not up to me and it is not up to the United States government to tell these countries when it is time to change to full democracy. That decision should be made by the people of each country, according to their own schedule.

panderson

Subject: Re: Is a Democratic market society always the best ?

Posted on: 10/24/2002

Ok... Wonderful ... But ....

1) Who decides when people are ready for democracy?

2) When people are really ready for democracy?

3) Is national integrity always best? Maybe for Iraqi people is much better to be spilt into three.

4) Are there historical examples of non-market societies with a political system close to modern democratic standards (NO SLAVES, equal right between sexes etc...)?

davidmaurer

Subject: Re: Is a Democratic market society always the best ?

Posted on: 10/27/2002

These are excellent questions, Paolo. I wish I had answers that are equally good. Who decides when people are ready for democracy? The easy answer is to say that the people decide. That is all very fine, but what happens when some people are ready but others hold back. There is a force of social inertia that opposes change. There are always people whose personal interest favors a continuation of the status quo. Younger people and those who are more adventures and independent are usually the first to advocate change to democracy. When should society make the change, when 10% favor it, 20%, 40%, 50%? Nobody appointed me umpire. I can’t give you an answer.

Is national integrity always a blessing? In this field there is not much that is always true. Changing national borders is usually accompanied by violence. This is a good reason to oppose it. But maybe a little violence now could save a major episode of ethnic cleansing or civil war later. The people involved should decide, but that just leads us back to the question, what happens when opinions differ?

Are there historical examples of non-market societies with political systems close to modern democratic standards? Primitive tribes are similar in some ways. Because they have no strong leadership, people are able to do what they wish, unless it breaks taboo or social norms. As the economy becomes more sophisticated it needs more organization and a mechanism to govern the transfer of economic goods. This can be a command economy, a market economy, or a combination of both. If command exchange predominates, it will require a hierarchical political system. You obey commands from those higher up, and you give commands to those lower down. If market exchange dominates, it will work better with a cooperative political system.

Dedalus

Subject: Re: Is a Democratic market society always the best ?

Posted on: 11/27/2002

Almost a cycle, then, the primitive democracy coming full circle.