[SideburnsOfDoom]

An example of an undemocratic failing capitalistic state does not repudiate the statement "capitalism does not require democracy", but an example of an undemocratic succeeding capitalistic state proves the statement. And we have several examples of such states. Logic is like that.

[nothrabannosir]

While technically true, this is not pure logic, and his statement is more nuanced. To note:

> Capitalism as a system may well work best in the absence of democracy.

That's written in English, and it is reasonably interpreted to mean more than \not(capitalism-works-well \implies democracy). The author suggests capitalism-works-well \implies \not democracy.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Fair enough, though plainly, capitalism can work well in some kinds of democracy. The statement that is there to provoke thought is actually about where capitalism works best, i.e. what are the optimal conditions for capitalism or if "capitalism-works-best \implies \not democracy"

Which is now making me think of ways in which money distorts government, i.e in which capitalism and democracy are in tension. For a prime example, "Citizens United" is clearly pro-capitalistic, and anti-democratic. http://www.newsweek.com/five-years-after-citizens-united-sig...