DKos blogger Devilstower in his recent front page post Who Really Won the Cold War? uses this 2-year old Economist article, A Pause in Democracy's March, and the recent Russia-Georgia conflict over South Ossetia as context for a particularly mordant screed against Capitalism. I will say this, Devilstower is quite correct that Capitalism and Democracy are not necessarily coterminous--indeed, Capitalism can function in just about any political system, whether authoritarian, democratic or anarchic(modern anarchic systems are the underground economy). I will also concede that the right libertarians, a la Milton Friedman, were a bit too optimistic in suggesting a homeomorphic relationship between Capitalism and Freedom. This is not an uncommon mistake among the right, exhibiting an over-reliance on atomistic precepts, devoid of any contextual exegesis.

However, where Devilstower gets it's completely wrong is that he makes no distinction between State Capitalism and the Free Market. Indeed he views the Free Market as unmitigated evil, an inherently exploitative system that serves as an impediment to human rights, Rawlsian justice, and democracy. The gist of his argument can summarized very succinctly:

If A and B engage in voluntary trade and B does something to C that A doesn't like, A will nevertheless not act against B because A does not wish to jeopardize trade with B.

I just have to be blunt: this is a truly a dipshit argument. If A and B are not engaged in any trade, then what other recourse would A have to retaliate against B for it's actions taken against C other than flat out war? Devilstower blames Tianamen Square on the evils of Free Trade, but, as bad as Tianamen Square was, it paled in magnitude to the evil mass murder of Mao's Cultural Revolution, conducted when China was more or less completely cut-off from the rest of the world. What recourse did the West have to take action against Mao other than invasion and war?

What exactly would be Devilstower enforcement mechanism? The UN? Progressives who are anti-trade and yet somehow advocate strong international organizations to somehow enforce human rights are completely oblivious to the fact there would be no UN if nations put up protectionist walls to cut themselves off from one another.

I have a very simple, self-evident proposition. If voluntary exchange leads to tyranny, then the human condition, in terms of any conception of freedom, is royally fucked. If you propose the State is necessary to serve as an equalizing force to balance out the strong(oppressor class) vs the weak(oppressed class), then it would be self-evident that this so-called Strong would naturally be the most adept at using the State to regain/retain it's advantage. Direct Democracy doesn't solve this problem. If the weak can be systematically duped in voluntary economic exchange, they can be just as easily be systematically duped with regards to their vote as political agents.