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.

On the one hand, man is a body, in the same way that this may be said of every other animal organism. On the other hand, man has a body. That is, man experiences himself as an entity that is not identical with his body, but that, on the contrary, has that body at its disposal. In other words, man's experience of himself always hovers in a balance between being and having a body, a balance that must be redressed again and again.

One can't understand the Christian Right and similar movements unless one sees them as reactive - they're reacting to what they call secular humanism

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.

East Asia confirms the superior capacity of industrial capitalism in raising the material standard of living of large masses of people.

We also have a cultural phenomenon: the emergence of a global culture, or of cultural globalization

Even in a society as tightly controlled as Singapore's, the market creates certain forces which perhaps in the long run may lead to democracy