Do Capitalism and Democracy Need Each Other?












            ******************************************************************************************

            * Do Capitalism and Democracy Need Each Other?
            ******************************************************************************************
            In preparation for his upcoming book Professor Dennis Smith, currently residing at the Uni

            Loughborough, has been giving a series of lectures on various political concepts in the co
            socio-political roots.
            On 6th November 2017 and hosted by the Faculty of Humanities of Charles University the lec

            around the interplay between democracy and capitalism. Beginning the lecture with the feud
            of capitalism, the crux of the matter was showing quickly: what is the relationship betwee
            that seem to oppose each other and how can they co-exist going forward?

            Despite the common misconception, in part emerging from an ideology proliferated in 20th c
            that democracy and capitalism need each other, it is surely in fact the case that, as was 

            they are opposed. In times when the world is under increasing pressure from an increasing 
            it is more important than ever for us to think about the survival of a system that has his
            western society.

            Professor Smith noted at the beginning of the lecture that the concepts of democracy and c
            be broken down into two key concepts, fundamental to their being; those being ‘voting’ and
            respectively. At its core this seems to  show something interesting, that democracy and ca

            able to work in tandem freely, albeit with the assumption of the prevalence of a libertari
            government.
            Having said this, practically, Smith suggests the ‘awkward relationship’ of capitalism and

            is apparent when looking at conflicts such as the American Civil War and World War I and I
            conflicts, the opposition of powers associated on one side with capitalism (with forward f
            and industrialisation) and the other with democracy (associated loosely with morality) cou

            show the friction inherent between capitalism and democracy with the result of each confli
            to a different side and not to a consistent ideology (democracy or capitalism).
            Of course, it could be argued that as, what Smith termed, the ‘European Civil war’ (= WW I

            with the victory of the less industrialised powers and the American Civil War with the vic
            more industrialised North, the dominating force in world power up to this point has been d
            capitalism. In fact, this seems to be a persuasive argument that capitalism seems to drive

            and flow of politics and economics, yet it is kept in check within the bounds of the guidi
            democracy and, on a more debatable basis, morality.
            What Smith suggests about the concept of the ‘capitalist democracy’ is that as it has evol

            been four phases that must be overcome: starting with the transition from autocracy, movin
            in the legitimacy and corruptibility of each constituting part of the ‘capitalist democrac
            distribution of wealth in a ‘capitalist democracy’, and ending in the destructive effects 

            Moving to discuss each of these phases in turn, the lecture from here consisted of the dif
            (and some more modern) viewpoints of political figures and thinkers. What is very apparent
            is that, after the idea of the ‘capitalist democracy’ became so prevalent in western socie

            constituent parts have become defined by each other. After all, if you were to ask the ave
            the purpose of democracy then surely the creation of law and regulation of private ‘profit
            affairs would be an incredibly prevalent answer.

            The conclusion to lecture focused on speculation, especially that of Thomas Friedman and E
            about the survival of ‘capitalist democracy’ within an increasingly globalised world. It i
            circular that the effect of globalisation seems, in a way to have pitted the ideologies of

            democracy against each other in way that World War II (as discussed above) had done previo
            time there are no sides and no clearly defined moral element; just an internal turbulence 
            sheer capitalism and democracy apart or at least redefine the pairs’ relationship moving f

            At the end of the lecture the floor was opened up to questions after which Professor Smith
            being able to talk more in depth about a historical model for the development of ‘capitali
            as, after all, in the current political climate the future of the concept will have a grea

            all.