The whole premise of this question is strange. Democracy is a process, not an outcome. It of course can survive and has survived in the absence of capitalism. Indeed, one of the earliest forms of democracy that evolved in ancient Greece (in Sparta) was completely antagonistic to capitalism.   Capitalism matters (beyond its obvious material advantages, noted by economic historians) because it is the "fuel" of economic freedom, and economic freedom is necessary to any meaningful conception of individual freedom, as philosophers and historians have long noted. Individual freedom is the outcome that matters. Democracy has generally been a necessary condition to produce freedom, but if democracy is employed as an instrument to create state control over the economic lives of individuals (as in India until recently), then it is no longer achieving its goal. Democracy, as Enlightenment philosophers from Britain noted (especially Burke), can be the enemy of freedom. Indeed, democracy can itself become a form of tyrrany. Some of our founders (Hamilton and Washington and Adams) understood this; others (Jefferson) did not.   Freedom is an ultimate good, as the great Western philosophers and theologians recognized, because it is necessary to allow each soul to find and choose the right path. The elevation of the dignity of the individual, and the importance of his/her choices is the fundamental concept that sets Western philosophy and religion apart.   Of course, everybody already knows this, or at least, should.

Collapse