Does democracy necessarily imply a capitalist economic system?

Nope. Nothing has to mean anything. Our nation, along with everything else, is what we make it- both in how we act and how we perceive it. Though, I must add that democracy is highly susceptible to capitalism.

I see little if any necessary correlation between democracy and capitalism. A democratic society can choose the economic model it desires. A communist system invests enormous power in the state, but as long as the mechanisms are in place to assure that the state remains under democratic control, then the people are still ultimately in charge. That is a big “if”, because the state also controls the military and police, and so there is the danger that individuals can grab power from the people and thus achieve totalitarian control.

In our current system money is power, so a disproportionate amount of power is in the hands of the wealthy, and they don’t have to answer directly to the people for how they exercise that power. This compromises democracy. And there are disquieting signs that money may even be able to influence how the state uses its military and police powers.

So communism can be democratic only to the extent that the state remains responsive to the people. Capitalism can be democratic only to the extent that money doesn’t buy influence.

Certainly not! As Harp says, I cannot see any correlation between democracy and capitalism.

In a democracy, decisions made at the government level should ideally be a representation of the needs of the population. If, in a democracy, one proposes that the necessary needs of its population are basic freedoms and rights (including free-market policies), then as @ubersiren pointed out, democracy may be highly susceptible to capitalism. Then, the question really is, are there, or have there ever been, examples of democracies that do not have capitalism as the economic system?

@majamin Many European nations have mixed economies… from our hyper-capitalistic perspective in the US (despite having many ‘socialistic’ benefits for the rich), that’s not “real” capitalism, even tho they’re democracies.

I’m not sure “free-market policies” can be considered a “basic freedom” or a “right”.

Democracy has to do with politics, capitalism has to do with economics. The fact that GWBush chooses to use the word “democracy” instead of capitalism does not change the meaning of the words. It’s just an extra proof that he’s plain stupid.

Yes, you could have capitalism without democracy (such as in dictatorship situations), but usually money gives political power, so unless the big wallets are part of the system, it can be very dangerous to make too much money in such a situation. The opposite is even more rare and can only work in very small countries, since democracy (ie freedom of speech and political will) is usually irrelevant when people cannot control the means of production. It has been tested, and failed.

In theory, both systems could work, and there are also intermediate positions that have been fairly successful at times (such as Scandinavian Eurosocialism). It doesn’t have to be an “all or nothing” situation. You could have a country with fairly high taxes that would help the less fortunate members of society, or strict censorship but still some basic rights of freedom (think of the 50s in America for example – I’m not saying it was perfect, but it was not the same as the USSR).

In more than one country, one of the parties is called “Democratic Socialists.” Sweden is generally considered to be a pretty socialistic country. They’re also a democracy.

Is there any reason why people would believe that democracy implies capitalism? Why would they think so?

@Harp

A communist society doesn’t necessarily have to even have a state, and some communist ideologies don’t believe in having one at any point in time. Even the ones (Marxist systems/Marx-Leninists) that do believe in using a state/government to achieve their goals typically plan on having it “whither away” in the end. (Personally, I don’t think governments do that, no one wants to lose their job, so bureaucracies tend to make sure that the problems that they work against don’t get ended completely.)

@Lefty_the_space_monkey I agree, institutions are almost always self-perpetuating.

Just thinking pre-colonization here. The idea of the constitution and some of the points of democracy were taken from viewing indigenous lifestyles. You could consider those Native American societies democracies. And they certainly were not capitalistic. Just a point of thought for ya.

Democracy does not have to be capitalist but to last it must support some sort of free-market economy. You cannot have a state mandated market and keep a real democracy.

That being said, a capitalist market presents real dangers to democracy when capital is used to determine the vote. The U.S. insistence on a voluntary contribution system to pay for elections is ending any real democracy we have. We will soon be, if not already, be an oligarchy run by corporations rather than families. That bodes poorly for us and the world.