Paddy has written to me of this process taking place, and, reading between the lines to some extent, I have found allusions to it elsewhere - in relation to furniture, for instance. 
This is where Modernist theorising and I tend to part company, and my inherently reactionary nature comes to the fore - if only in a naked attempt to bring Big John Gall out of hiding. 
It does and it doesn't.  There's nothing very 'democratic' about the prices in the Andover Shop catalogue, is there?  Or Press, if it comes to that?  What can you afford in John's on your wages or pocket money?  A tie?  A three-pack of Fruit of the Loom t-shirts?  What could the average lad have afforded in Austins, Cecil Gee or Austin Reed? 
In England, amongst at least some men I have known, 'democratization' was only tolerable from maybe one Saturday afternoon to the next, and then they moved on.  Casual style followed an extraordinarily elitist pattern, too, the idea being to display more wealth on your back than the guy standing next to you. 
This sounds very much as though I'm only talking in terms of money, but it's far more complex than that, isn't it?  In fact, thinking about it, if I were to buy a Viyella buttondown from the Andover Shop at their prices, would it last me half as long as the one that came from a local charity shop?  I actually dislike spending too much money - not that I have it to spend - but whether you do or you don't splash out nothing should look too pristine, right?  Yet there's nothing 'democratic' about beating up a jacket to make it look more worn-in than it really is - that gesture has more than a touch of elitism in it. 

This may be why I prefer Ercol over Eames, or some unknown small town architect over Le Corbusier or Philip Johnson.  I'd rather see ivy on mellow stone than stained concrete pillars - and that's 'Ivy', isn't it?  Modernism and Ivy don't always go together. 

Waits for jeers and cat calls.