Democracy,compatible with huge population

It works because the US is not a pure democracy, which would basically mean, "the majority gets its way and the minority gets nothing." It's a compromise that works. It gives smaller states a say, while giving bigger states the power they ought to have, without the ability to completely blot out the voice of the smaller states. 

Marhabbal,

It seems that we agree in most of the substantive points that you made.

Interestingly, you gave an example of a politically repressive state with a free economy, which means that you support the main point that I made to begin with: a free economy doesn't necessarily mean free political life.

You provide two more countries to my examples on how capitalism and dictatorship can live together by mentioning Saudi Arabia and Dubai, which add to the other examples that I gave you.

Finally, I am not a Marxist, since I disagree with major parts of the doctrine, e.g. I don't believe that revolution brings a better life to the people. :)

@ Bulldog

You're right� well partly. Indeed it seems that the US political system is monopolized by two groups who skillfully manage to give the idea to anybody else that they have the choice.

It is the case with any form of representative democracy, your piking the dictator you like. Kind of.

The succession of Bush I and Bush II and maybe latter of Cliton I and Clinton II is here to reenforce the feeling that democracy exists but that some are more demo than others.

Yet two fact are to be taken into consideration:

1) Anybody using the cursus honorum imposed by these parties or its own witt can pretend to become the new dictator. See R. Regan, he wasn't born a rich man in a politically influencial familly.

2) The powers of the dictator in the US more than anywhere else are hugely limited by federal and local institutions. (and by the fact that there are 200 million guns in the country :p)

I believe that we are tripping over the term "free-market,"
I don't know what you smoke but I want some, if it makes you trip about free-market it ought to be a biiiip good sh*t

which I have used as a substitute for "capitalism." This is how it is used in the U.S.; look at how American economic journalists talk about China, and they keep talking about how China is participating more and more in the "free-market".
I'm afraid you (or some US medias) are mistaking integration  in a relatively free and open world market (the case of China kind of) and a domestically free and open economy (not quite the case of China, see the recent example of mobile phones companies)

Are markets under dictatorships "free"? Of course not, by definition.
No by definition what isn't free is the political life, hypothetically economy coud be free, see 15th century England, very much free economy very much unfree political life (unless you get yourself a good hax)

But they are "free" enough, or more properly said, capitalistic enough to attract foreign investors and multinationals.
What is it you mean by capitalistic? Saudi Arabia is unfree and capitalistic as far as I know. Hey even better Dubai is a benevolent dictatorship and very very capitalistic.

War-centric dictatorships tend to have a centralized economy because it is very efficient for war production.
Or ideologist like Stalin and Mao.

But more peacefully oriented dictatorships can have a good amount of economic freedom that doesn't translate into a political one. My big example is Mexico, whose one-party system survived for 70 year. That one is followed by Chile, which lasted about 17 years.
Franco in Spain was another dictator that had a moderately free economy, in the later years, without political freedom.
Hummmm, I'm not quite sure that the economy in these country was not elitist and nepotistic more than free. Remember as a good Marxist you ought to know that the state is nothing but the expression of the domination of a class so direct or indirect (via state control) ownership over the means of production does not really matter.

Maharbbal,

I believe that we are tripping over the term "free-market," which I have used as a substitute for "capitalism." This is how it is used in the U.S.; look at how American economic journalists talk about China, and they keep talking about how China is participating more and more in the "free-market".

Are markets under dictatorships "free"? Of course not, by definition. But they are "free" enough, or more properly said, capitalistic enough to attract foreign investors and multinationals.

War-centric dictatorships tend to have a centralized economy because it is very efficient for war production. But more peacefully oriented dictatorships can have a good amount of economic freedom that doesn't translate into a political one. My big example is Mexico, whose one-party system survived for 70 year. That one is followed by Chile, which lasted about 17 years.
Franco in Spain was another dictator that had a moderately free economy, in the later years, without political freedom.


Edited by hugoestr - 30-May-2007 at 13:13

Originally posted by hugoestr I wouldn't be so sure about that. Yes, a free-market does well in politically free countries, but it has also thrived under dictatorships.

Examples?

Most of dictatorships even the most succesful ones are based on a controled economy (Meiji Japan, 1960s Korea, even China to a large extend). I can't think of one successful econonomy based on freedom of trade and no political freedom.

South American dictatorship were not very successful and did not have a free market (the presence of important multinationals does not mean freedom of trade).

In my opinion it is for one simple reason: a market to function properly needs a referee, which in the modern world is in a huge majority of case the state or any form of public administration. By definition a dictator as very limited and very biased check and control, hence he (never she) has enormous incentive to direct the economy. He can be very sucessful at it (see Deng or Korea).

Democracy allows a limited yet efficient (most of the time) control of the market. An economy can thrive under a dictator but cannot be qualified as free.

Nowadays the BRICK (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Kazakhstan) have very imperfectly free economies. Even Brazil has little control over many haciendas while the state controles some 50% of the GDP�

PS: I don't know about Iran, but I guess the state controls the oil exploitation.

Originally posted by pinguin [QUOTE=DukeC] Dictatorship is incompatible with a free market economy. If China continues to be sucessful economically it will have to turn to democracy. Otherwise things will explode in social revolts. They will start at the first economical downturn.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Yes, a free-market does well in politically free countries, but it has also thrived under dictatorships.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Actually the US system is not very democratical at all. Large amounts of people are not able to vote because of active opposition against them doing so, there are only two parties that are virtually the same, congress is made up from 1 person per state, which makes is totally impossible to have a proper representation of a state, and the president can be elected with an absolute minority of votes, and the juridical powers, which should be neutal, are clearly and outspokenly politically aligned. That is why you are lower on the Democracy list than the abovementioned countries: http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

Actually the US system is not very democratical at all. Large amounts of people are not able to vote because of active opposition against them doing so, there are only two parties that are virtually the same, congress is made up from 1 person per state, which makes is totally impossible to have a proper representation of a state, and the president can be elected with an absolute minority of votes, and the juridical powers, which should be neutal, are clearly and outspokenly politically aligned. That is why you are lower on the Democracy list than the abovementioned countries:

Edited by Aelfgifu - 30-May-2007 at 09:42