We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
So I think one can say on empirical grounds - not because of some philosophical principle - that you can't have democracy unless you have a market economy.
What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.
We cannot run a democracy without a strong middle class.
Democracy may mean something more than a theoretically absolute popular government, but it assuredly cannot mean anything less.
Let me say again that the relationship is asymmetrical: there's no democracy without a market economy, but you can have a market economy without democracy.
If in a country, most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, then this country can hardly witness harmony and stability.
I don't understand why it has to be either - or - either socialism or democracy. Why can't we combine things to get the best of each system?
There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy.
We have, essentially, a worthless democracy.
Remember one thing about democracy. We can have anything we want and at the same time, we always end up with exactly what we deserve.