congruence theory, I’m guessing from a quick search, has something to do with political and economic systems coming into equilibrium in any given country… um, ok; sure. I mean, it’s a political theory, right? Probably has some evidence to support it… probably, other theories interpret the same evidence other ways, other theories also adequately capture the data, there are academics in this and other camps, etc, … PoliSci… Great. Certainly no “pure” political or economic systems exist, and every combination of the two is unique, and both evolve over time, so sure… why not? I don’t see the relevance to this discussion, well, obliquely, but ok.

As to the second: No, I’m saying:

Legislating for the good of the producers rather than the consumers, given the necessary ratio of the former to the latter, is pretty antidemocratic, imo.

Right? Democracy, um, supposed to be rule of the majority… but instead we have a political elite legislating for themselves moreso than for us… But since most of our politicians are also of the corporate class, it’s no surprise that Washington chronically sucks Industry’s swollen prick. So right now, no, I don’t think “free-market” capitalism is serving democracy too well for the time being. Health care is a perfect example of that, dovetailing with the other theme of this thread.

Keep in mind of our Constitution that it is a pre-Industrial document; there’s a lot of interplay between commerce and government that our Founders didn’t really anticipate. It’s evolved with the economic changes post 1778, but not necessarily for the good of the governed. So there’s your Congruence Theory.

Are you saying democracy does not promote individuality and competition? Because I think it is the only system currently in practice that does.

As for “some political & economic systems” work better together, maybe, but none are a natural fit and as you rightly (though implicitly) point out, all/any permutations are potentially possible. For example, I think free-market capitalism, which promotes individuality, competition and a “me/us-first” mentality, is sort of antithetical to democracy, which requires building majorities, concessions, and civility to work best. Antithetical, but obviously not impossible (though we all know the market is never, ever, completely free, anywhere, and likely never will be) But as we become hypercapitalistic, and more and more money and business become the provenance of politics and politicians, I find our democracy is weakening. Legislating for the good of the producers rather than the consumers, given the necessary ratio of the former to the latter, is pretty antidemocratic, imo.

eac, I’m not convinced socialism has been taken to imply dictatorship. What it does imply, and what it seems people have been talking about, is greater encroachment of the government into the market. Some economic systems work better with some political systems and socialism is more closely correlated to governments with less civic freedoms because it has less economic freedom. Even communism, a somewhat combined economic and political system, does not necessarily mean dictatorship.

Try this one for a start: http://www.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=723

Which is why I hate to see the word ’socialism’ tossed around as though it necessarily implies dictatorship.

eac, the Nazis form was National Socialism not Democratic Socialism. There’s a reason why that distinction exists. You’re getting confused between economic systems and government systems. The two work together, but they are not the same. Totalitarianism is mainly a government system, but because of its attempt at total control it affects the economy, but it is not incompatible with socialism or communism.

and hank, going to other countries is a pretty meaningless measure of anything if all you do is bitch about the people there.