Some Yes, but mostly no. Creative Destruction (as I understand it) is a socioeconomic theory basically says that as a free-market economy develops it changes over time to keep up with the demands of the buyers. Some products flourish while others fall from favor. This means that for any advancement in product design or utility there is often some form of decline. The result is that those workers and investors in the declining industry are left in the dust. Something must be destroyed if other things are to grow. It accurately justifies a number of the ills normally associated with free market economies like unemployment and inequality.Originally Posted by slapout9
You could make a parallel argument that this is what is happening in the political realm, and that argument would be an accurate description of what is going on if you make the assumption that democracy is actually a "better" form of government, but I think it would oversimplify a more complex problem that exists at the sociopolitical level.
The more interesting question to me is: why do these changes happen at all? What is the connection between a growing economy and a changing value system that embraces both contract capitalism and democracy. Heck, not only embraces it but demands it. Fights and dies for it. This is not just new replacing the old; the better replacing the bad. In my mind there is a drive that is based in the human need for autonomy - a drive that is only activated once certain other needs are met. In places like Afghanistan, where we cannot even succeed in meeting basic needs, you will never activate the need for autonomy on a wholesale level. Survival will be the predominant need and survival needs produce a different set of values - values based in collective survival.
But as with survival needs and collective values, they have a good and a bad and they have a limit. Does autonomy have its limits? How does a society built on autonomy deal with collective needs like government? Does it become every person for herself leading to an inability to find any common ground? The ancient Athenians voted themselves out of democracy by failing to support their military in the face of a Macedonian invasion after a failed military adventure in Sicily. Is this the common fate of all democracies?
Back to the assumption you have to make to use Creative Destruction as a geopolitical model for these revolutions. That assumption is that democracy is a "better" form of government. I would argue that it is only "better" if you have an individualistic value system - one that demands that I have a say in the running of my government. If I have a collective based value system democracy is not a requirement. In fact, it can be an impediment. What I require is for my government to provide the things I need to survive. Democracy slows that process down with endless meetings to gain consensus. An Autocratic system simply delivers - an order is given and things happen. Different values systems prefer different governments. Part of the reason why, when given the opportunity, people with collective values will vote in a person they well know has dictatorial tendencies.
OK, I am done pontificating. I hope I answered your question.
Bookmarks