Western foreign policy, when push comes to shove: Democracy sacrificed for Stability?

[al Roumi]

Economic mode defines political superstructure. Political structure is the very expression of economics.

I'm not sure about that tbh. I'm aware of evidence that democracies (on average) promote an extra percentage point or so of growth but I'm not convinced you can be so cock-sure of the particular causality of a country's economy on its political structure. Could you explain what you are getting at?

[Idaho]

I'm not sure about that tbh. I'm aware of evidence that democracies (on average) promote an extra percentage point or so of growth but I'm not convinced you can be so cock-sure of the particular causality of a country's economy on its political structure. Could you explain what you are getting at?

This is basic political theory guys - nothing radical.

[al Roumi]

This is basic political theory guys - nothing radical.

Indulge me then. How does a "country's economic mode define its political superstructure", or point me in the irection of a handy reference. From what I see of the world, the focus on economy (barring possible meanings of economic mode) and nothing else seems utterly incomplete.

Edit: (I'm an Engineer by the way so don't be surprised that I've not studied basic political theory)

[Idaho]

Political power is wielded by those who demand it and cannot be turned away.

In an agrarian economy, it is the land owners who hold power. They defend their interests against a monarch through titles, and confer these titles within their families. Political modes: feudalism, colonial slave/plantation systems.

In an early industrial economy, the land owners and factory owners hold power. Rule of law is important for stable investments and contracts. Political modes: constitutional monarchy, mercantile capitalism, limited franchise democracy.

Middle industrial economy creates a booming middle class. This in turn demands political power to match rising economic power - franchise gets extended. You know what a late industrial economy looks like, and it's political mode.

In addition to this you get other types of economies such as the primary industry economies in the developing world and the middle east. They have vast mineral wealth, but it's controlled by a small political elite and only needs a fraction of the population to extract it. These have very similar political and economic structures to the agrarian economies - essentially fuedal.

This is a good introduction:

Barrington Moore - Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship

[al Roumi]

Thanks! My only problem with that (and i accept that it's necessarily brief) -and i'm sure you are expecting this, is China. Or is there a bubble for (mid) industrial economies where dictatorship/one party rule exists?

Edit:

Ok, Barrington Moore's wiki page gives a bit more on his theories so consider my question answered.

It does pose another however, how do non-democratic "modern" societies transfer to democracy? You seem to see that still as part of an evolution, albeit an ironic reversion of marxist evolutionary economics .

[Fragony]

Idaho you are going to hate this, but relevant for thread imho

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

#2

[Idaho]

Idaho you are going to hate this, but relevant for thread imho

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm

Very consistent with the "our men" school of international relations. No real mention of cultural differences - which was pivotal to your point.

[Idaho]

It does pose another however, how do non-democratic "modern" societies transfer to democracy? You seem to see that still as part of an evolution, albeit an ironic reversion of marxist evolutionary economics .

I don't think it is a reversion as such. The Marxist principle of political change mirroring economic change is still the only analytical model out there. What Marx then went on to assume based on that model is another matter, and one that I don't think you need subscribe to (I don't).