It should be said at the outset that, in my experience, it is pointless to the pose your questions to most Americans because so many of us have been conditioned to equate communism, socialism and fascism; it is nigh impossible to get past the partisan brainwashing to have an intelligent reasonable discussion on the merits and facts of each system free of propaganda when the Cato Institute is running around teaching people Hitler was a liberal. Anyway...

To a great extent, yes, but "free markets," as the term is usually employed, are far more analogous to libertarianism (or outright anarchy) than democracy. Democracy, all social contract government, is premised on the notion that groups of people delegate collective power to states both to achieve individually impossible shared goals and prevent exploitation by very powerful individuals or exclusive groups. "Free" markets place some value on the former but none on the latter, and independent of any state, regardless. They rely on market forces to prevent and eliminate economic abuse, an impossible hope because "free" markets produce abuse so extreme it instead eliminates market forces.

"Free" market advocates insist excesses like monopolies, oligopolies, collusion and market manipulation are not "free" market flaws, because those ills eliminate the market forces on which free markets depend. Unfortunately, that is rather like saying humans cannot be murdered because humans cannot survive murder. While extreme economic abuses preclude free markets, completely unregulated markets inevitably produce them, making free markets impossible: The "free" market is truly free only in infancy; the first entreprenuers and capitalists secure dominant market shares with which they ruthlessly stamp out competition, coercing consumer and laborer alike into submission.

That answers your last question: A true "free" market cannot itself exist, and thus can no more COexist with a true democracy than with anything else. Democratically regulated markets can and should be FAIR, level playing fields for thriving ceaseless competition with no overwhelming player dominating the rest, but wholly unfettered markets are impossible. The only question is our preferred restraint: The democratically enacted will of all citizens, or the self interest of the most powerful few. Free markets are impossible; fair markets are vital.


No, because communism attempts to expand democracys political ideals to include economic ones, and the extent to which that is wise, if any, remains contentious. The universal equality implicitly virtuous in democracy is stultifying and manifestly unjust in economics, where fairness and opportunity are far better goals. When democracy perceives an individual or exclusive group has an inherently superior position, its immediate obligation is restoring equality; in economics, that same reaction robs everyone of incentive and achievement. Democracy seeks to establish and maintain equal political power for all, yet in economics it is not only acceptable but desirable that some gain greater economic power than others.

I would (and do) say socialism better extends democracys political goals to economics, insofar as anything should. First and foremost, the hybrid system allows consumers, producers, investors, laborers and merchants to choose between obtaining goods and services privately or publicly in most or all cases. Just as communism, it ensures no one is denied vital goods or services except by choice, preserving equal opportunity, perhaps the only area true equality is an economic virtue. Again like communism, it is fair because government prevents any individual or group obtaining and exploiting irresistible force over any other. Unlike communism, however, it preserves choice, private enterprise and unequal economic achievement, thereby also preserving incentive, justice and overall economic achievement. Where communism is apt to commandeer and nationalize above average income as a "surplus" earned by and owed to the collective, socialism not only permits but encourages personal fortunes, while government taxes everyone as much as (but no more than) universal minimal living standards require.


I already answered these last two, and welcome.