Filtering by
- All Subjects: civic engagement
- All Subjects: Economics
- All Subjects: Liberal Democracy
In order to explain the various features of this intellectual debate, I present a conceptual analysis of laissez faire and identify its key components. I also provide a critical comparison of the competing economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to illustrate the relationship between laissez faire thinking and the American Founding. I then present the laissez faire arguments of nineteenth-century thinkers, particularly the Social Darwinists. Finally, I critically appraise the arguments presented by Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly in order to show how the prevailing notions about the proper role of government were changing.
In this research, I show that the debate over laissez faire was about more than identifying the appropriate economic policy for the United States. It centered upon competing theories of society, human nature, and economic progress. In criticizing laissez faire, Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly also challenged the traditional American commitment to individualism, and in so doing, they laid the intellectual groundwork for a more affirmative government and the emergence of the welfare state in the twentieth century.
Since the global financial crisis of 2007-8, interest in worker-cooperatives and alternative forms of organization has surged. Mondragon, located in the Basque region of Spain, represents the largest federation of worker-cooperatives around the world, consisting of 98 cooperatives and 143 subsidiaries, which earned a total revenue of $14.5 billion in 2019. While previous attempts to establish a similar model have historically reached limited success, Mondragon has achieved a unique balance of remaining economically viable, on the one hand, and staying true to its founding principles of democratic governance, on the other. This paper sets out to analyze the democratic structure and the cooperative culture at the heart of the Mondragon model, as well as the new type of human relationship that it fosters. In particular, this relationship is one in which individual well-being is bound up with communal well-being that avoids the antagonistic clash between the capital and labor.
America claims liberal democracy its label, with the American dream, and the electoral fallacy idealized in American society. However, I then debunk the two fallacies: The electoral fallacy which promises democratic free choice through elections, and the fallacy of the American Dream which promises merit-based economic and social climbing within capitalism. These fallacies miss the reality that democracy requires meaningful and impactful exercise of such freedoms, and how the context of capitalism has constrained and seeks to limit this. I argue that the understanding of liberal democracy as simply the exercise of elections deemphasizes the other rights required by a liberal democracy. The negation of the meaningfulness of liberties and free choice, which is promised within a liberal democratic system leaves them open to constraints and lacking protection. I also argue that the installation of capitalism without enough regulation creates ripple effects of the wealth gap so that the power of wealth contaminates the American political system and corrupts how liberal democracy operates in America. More specifically, I present three capitalist-affected realms related to the intersection of liberal democracy and capitalism. First, I argue that capitalism widens the wealth gap and corrupts liberal democracy; elected officials need capitalists' funds to campaign and stay in power. The political freedom to vote and impact policy is limited because wealthy citizens and corporations have more influence than ordinary citizens. Second, I argue that, in the new realm of the internet, capitalists use social media and commodify personal information in order to exploit consumer demand and influence opinions about the capitalist system. Thirdly, I argue that the elite use the media as a tool of social influence for their wide reach of audience and oligopolized structure. They buy these companies to socially manipulate the opinions and behavior of consumers and advance capitalist profits, using it as a cathartic release for the public's grievances. I end with a third section, in which I propose tangible steps to restore the values of liberal democracy in America and better protect the proletariat masses and their interests. For the political concerns, I propose replacing the first-past-the-post voting system with ranked choice voting system in order to elect a representative with the greatest overall support to better represent their population of voters. I also propose greater restrictions on the amount and anonymity of campaign donations, which has been proven to lessen the power of the wealthy on the political system. Then, in order to combat the control of economic decisions by large corporations, I propose we take inspiration from the European Union’s restrictions on the collection/use of personal information: General Data Protection Regulation, Privacy Shield, and the Right to Delisting. Lastly, I advocate for larger, intangible changes to curb the overextension of capitalism’s effects and the subversion of democracy, like education that exposes the veil of American Capitalist Democracy, promotion of a level of responsibility by the privileged, and a shift of values away from profit and control/power to liberal democratic equality.
