Can democracy survive capitalism?

Nicely stated.

 

Virtually all of the wealth that the rich accumulate goes back into society, just maybe not into the areas you would choose for them.

Who determines the fair rate of taxation? You? Me? Charlie Mazaratz??

I don't disagree that the US has done foreign interventions, some necessary and some misguided, but they had nothing to do with our dislike of their economic system per se.

 

Individual freedom is more important than democracy.

 

Your thread here reminds me of the words of Mr. Justice Brandeis: "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both."

Seems to be very true these days.

 

I guuess my Brandeis is an idiot

 

Democracy is one way for many to lose their freedom.

 

When there is doubt I usually look at the scoreboard.

 

The purpose of the constitution is to make it so the majority doesn't rule over the minority.

It's sole purpose it to keep the majority from taking my ar 15 and telling me to call a kid with a penis a girl.

 

There is a big divide between the DNC/GOP Progressive Elites and the Socialists. Just like the divide between the DNC/GOP Progressive Elites and the Trump Nationalists. We actually have three distinct political groups at the moment.

Progressive Elites are out for themselves.

Socialists are out for government control of everyone else who isn't part of the top 4%.

Nationalists are out for keeping average individuals independent of government over reach and in gaining some reasonable self determination.

Trump came into play when the Progressive Elites made too many selfish moves that screwed over the average working folks in large numbers.

 

Not to mention taking, per Biden, your AR14!

 

I believe this is mostly true, however I'm not a nationalist.

I am God first, family second, then Washinton state, then Idaho and Montana. The rest of the states i honestly don't care much about.
Then America before other nations and peoples.
I have too many local loyalties to ever be called a nationalist.

 

To your last question the answer is a resounding NO !

Only when capitalism is structured to serve the people and to allow most to have a disposable income by their work is it worthy to be an economic system

The economic model must serve the common man while still having wealthy . We have moved to a model that mostly serves the top.

The economy is what takes care of the people. So it should be viewed in that manner over max profits for a few .

Wonder how long it takes before the obvious is recognized? A most stubborn ideology is in the way .An ideology that is great for frontier living and settling a wilderness but ubsuited for modern civ. At least some of it

 

I don't think they have stolen anyone's money. What I do think is that the billionaire class has gamed the system to maximize their own wealth while leaving the nation bereft of the benefit that fairer taxation policy could produce. And philanthropy is not the same thing as a fair taxation policy to support social programs that would benefit society as a whole in areas like education and health.

The next great wave of new technology is going to come from a healthy educated populace with the means and financial stability to innovate our way out of the many problems we face.

But where is that better character or honour to come from? We have already seen that the political system is completely beholden to big money politics, lobbyists and donors. If there were nothing wrong with capitalism or democracy then how has this terrible state of affairs come to be.

We have seen this many times before from the collapse of the Roman Empire which lasted a lot longer that ours to the first gilded era when deregulation and crony capitalism brought the global economy to it's knees.

Are you saying that unfettered capitalism is self-regulating and that all we need to do is wait for people with better character to come along and fix it. Look at the list of Democratic candidates and the character of the man in the WH today. Do you see anyone who inspires confidence that they can address the crisis's capitalism and the world at large face today?

If it is the people, then where are the better character people and why is it only self-serving, fawning toadies to corporate power who are attracted to politics these days? Look at congress itself. Is there anyone left you could say is acting in the best interest of the American people?

 

Both Guatemala and Cuba had huge sugar-cane industries that were wholly owned and operated by United Fruit, who by coincidence was represented by the law firm of Sullivan Cromwell where both Allan and John Foster Dulles - one acted director of the CIA, the other Secretary of state under Eisenhower - were lawyers and on the board of directors.

In the case of Guatamala, United Fruit owned up to 70% of the land much of which was not even being used for anything other than holdings. This was propped up by the American supported Ubico dictatorship. When Arbenz was democratically elected, he began to create land reforms in effect nationalizing UF holdings for the benefit of the desperately poor people of Guatemala. This led directly to the Allan Dulles ....Sorry have to get back to you on this......back later .

 

Ooo intellectual discussion by golly it's been a while.

I feel like there are a few different discussions going on here so let me first jump in by saying Plato thought society should be run by philosophers in his Republic which is interesting because as philosophers sometimes do they can lead us to the truth in matters which they were not even discussing. Because if a man whose self identity is mainly concerned with philosophy itself thinks philosophers should run society why should we expect those whose self identity is primarily concerned with capitalism, or religion, or socialism, or environmentalism think any different. The rub of society is all in the balance in addition to it's external realities. Lets not kid ourselves capitalism has done a great deal for western society as we know it, as has socialism. To say capitalism built the middle class in the United States is a gross oversimplification of what actually happened, considering a lot of that wealth came from government pensions particularly from WWII, and the societal safety net that followed. I think it is fair to say however as a means of manufacturing, and dispersing good and services capitalism is the most efficient system we have.

The problem is where it meets with the concept of monopoly of force. Capitalism requires several things to operate. It requires currency, it requires lending, and it requires contracts there is obviously more to it, but anywhere you have these three things you will have some form of capitalism. That said it has no means built in itself to actually accomplish this it needs government. Government on the other hand is primarily concerned with security, order if you will. So ideally what you would have is a symbiotic relationship where government establishes order and capitalism operates in that order, but what winds up happening is that capitalist entities want the ability to enforce their own will, and government wants the ability to provide goods, and services.

It's fairly common experience I'm sure it was to Plato as well the thought is something akin to "man wouldn't it be great if I could just be in charge of everything, and everyone would listen to me.". They never do though, and this is where Democracy enters the picture. Democracy is primarily concerned with legitimacy it simply says "since everyone wants to be the ruler everyone gets to be 1 300 millionth of a ruler, fair enough?". As long as all the micro rulers feel as though they are part of the process by which the society is operated this works well enough. When it struggles, and becomes chaotic is when large groups of micro rulers feel as though they are not getting to rule at all.

So this brings us the United States of America versus the rest of the western world as far as how we view both governing legitimacy, and practical operation. First lets take into account the external factors.

European democracy, and capitalism was born out of a concept called the balance of power doctrine. Which came about as various European powers began to consolidate coming out of the dark ages, and into the renaissance. It arose organically from the reality they were facing as France faced the Habsburg dynasty controlling both Spain to the west, and the Holy Roman Empire to the East they addressed it by making a coalition with protestant countries based on France's desire to be top dog of the catholic world, and the protestant countries desire to not have Europe dominated by a conservative, and militaristic Catholic dynasty. From there the coalitions continued primarily under Great Britain which adopted balance of power doctrine as it's policy from Napoleon through Hitler. The result of this was that European political thought reflects the idea that no force should be allowed to become so powerful that it can overcome all it's peers. I believe this is why European nations prefer parliamentary democracy with 3 to 6 political parties to require coalition building in this method they try to ensure that as many micro rulers as possible are able to vote for a party that they feel represents who they are, and that that party will have opportunities to influence policies even if not in the majority by joining with other minority parties or even with the majority party if their interests match up. This creates challenges for capitalism, but it has largely adapted by using it's own clout to simplify regulatory, and taxation procedures in some sectors at the expense of giving up it's ability to produce goods, and services in other sectors to the government

American democracy, and capitalism was born under very different circumstances. A single war where victory meant independence, and defeat meant subjugation. This too organically adapted American thinking towards absolutes. The United States does not compromise easily. In war the goal is victory to Europe the goal in war was usually a favorable treaty. In business the goal is market domination, and politics the winner takes all. The only holdover from our English balance of power heritage is in the division of government into 3 branches which the founders of the constitution argued would function as our balance. The systems for electing those branches, and the lack of any real specification for how those branches should govern themselves all but assured that this country would have two political parties or no political parties. This puts a much greater emphasis on political victory, but also assures that a large number of micro rulers are going to be very despondent at almost all times, but it also gives capitalism much more clout. Indeed both the Republican and Democratic parties exist not so much to promote any particular philosophy or value, but to ensure that the economy functions in a way that allows the public to continue consumption. They do this through loopholes, subsidies, favorable regulation all of which while certainly beneficial to those able to exploit them become increasingly complex, and ever changing to the point where you need a team of well paid people just to decipher it. This creates a situation in the marketplace that reflects the one in the political system. Centralization of resources, and authority carries significant advantages over smaller more diverse operations. It's why you have 6 or so parent companies that own hundreds of brands across every sector of the economy.

Regardless of which model you prefer I do believe democracy, and capitalism have no problem coexisting. The difficult aspect is drawing the line at a place that allows capitalism to operate as an individual motivator for production, and government to operate as an individual motivator for legitimacy.

 

If you read the post, I agree that politics and the sale of influence for money needs to stop.
The fundamental view of labor is not at all unlike that you seem to say is big business. I've yet to have an employee that says he's making more than he is worth, or who would turn down a $50 an hour raise if he could get it. The code of every union has been to get all you can, give as little as possible. This has been true as long as I've been in business, over 50 years plus.

Character IS the controlling element that actually works. So how do we get it? Once you have created a society that is lacking in this respect, it is difficult. But; not impossible. The answer requires two steps- first, good examples, and that means more ethical and responsible conduct by the two primary examples in our lives- parents first, and then leaders. The other aspect is the social acceptability of poor character and bad behavior. We see that being not just defended, but promoted today- and much of the idea is that government/society is responsible for our lack of it, and should fix it. That is an impossibility, because these are personal characteristics that every person sets for themselves. It's difficult to improve yourself and adjust you fundamental principles, but it certainly can and is done by many. The key factor is that nobody except the person can do this. So long as being a jerk is socially acceptable- that is what will happen. God knows it's an overwhelming aspect of today's society. I know what it takes to make the change, to find identity, pride, self-confidence and personal power. I can teach the process- but nobody can make another person want to live it, and that is the only way to actually gain that power over life- Have great values, and live by them. And of course.... stay the hell away from those who don't.

 

Capitalism is an economic system, democracy a form of govt. capitalism is the economic system that is based on the concept that men are free, democracy is the govt system that best supports that freedom

 

I don’t think that was their intention, but it is ironic that they fear a system that they feel concentrates wealth and leaves others without when we live in a nation with the greatest amount of income disparity between the wealthy 0.1% and the rest of the nation.

 

To suggest a simple divorce isn't credible. We know, for example, that democracy is destructive in neoliberal countries such as the US. That ranges from justifying killing people with bombs to corrupted homeland policies that harm the willing voter enslaved by the billionaire's adverts.

 

Say what? Nobody is enslaved in the United States....people do not have to buy products, or services from anyone else...well other then the Govt.

 

Did you think "gosh, the US has gone rogue" when it illegally attacked Iraq? Did you think "gosh, democracy in the US is a sham" when you looked at how billionaires funded both Democrat and Republican candidate campaign? Did you think?

 

Illegally? We had a vote. What was illegally about it?

no billionaires are free to support who they want in a free society, just like you

 

Internationally you went for the "dodgy dossier" (i.e. lies where you knew Iraq had no WMD). How many people did that kill?

Do you perhaps think billionaires have a greater impact on your sham of a democracy than me?

 

Internationally? Say what? We are a sovereign nation. We don’t answer to any other nation. I have also seen no evidence anyone lied.

they get the same amount as votes as I do. They are capped at the same donation level to campaigns as I. But yeah I’m sure they have a louder voice on their own...so? Should people of a certain wealth be limited on how they spend it? Why?

 

True democracy can't survive itself. Capitalism is but one of the means that nefarious forces would use to destroy it. Thats why our democracy is limited.