Contemporary Capitalism is incompatible with Democracy

Capitalism as we know it these days is a winner-takes-all economic system that allows for enormous concentration of wealth, which amounts to concentration of economic power. Concentration of economic power in turn enables concentration of political power and concentration of media power. All three forms of concentration of power can be observed in the West, in particular in the US.

According to the school of though put forth in the educational documentary "Despotism" by Encyclopedia Brittanica (1964), concentration of these powers is both a condition for the rise of -, and a symptom of Despotism. Despotism is simply the opposite of Democracy.

link to the documentary
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=00178

Yes, it is certainly true that (like in the oil/railroad barrons' day) a small number of people hold incredibly amounts of wealth...

But that doesn't mean it doesn't "work". The median income level in the US is far higher than just about anywhere else in the world, and even our "poverty" level exceeds the median income of many countries.


The system needs some tweaking (a new President would help)... but not replacement.

Anyway, the discussion is about democracy, not median income. Democracy is dying, and the middle class too (without suggesting causality either way).

and Democract is "dying"?

And it's because of capitalism?

Just Diebold and ES&S count something like 90+% of the votes in the country. You can trust companies founded by partisans and felons if you want, but I won't.

And how many of these people actually voted based on informed opinion? The debate in our country is unquestionably going downhill due to media consolidation and deregulation - capitalism.

Did we get any REAL debates? Our candidates agreed on the terms!

Were any of Kerry OR Bush's advertisements about abortion? Did they give gay marriage anything more than buzzwords?

The campaigns were sound-bite driven and the direct appeals were all below the belt (the swiftvets? Bush AWOL?). This was not a race about issues, and the media was not the only one to blame.

Who else are you gonna blame besides the media? The audience?

The press spent most of their time repeating the lies and smears, about 10 seconds talking about how bad negative campaigning was, and zero time discussing the issues with a sincere representative from each side.

Why? Because debate doesn't sell. There's your capitalism again. You can't show people thinking on TV. Bad for the almighty holy profit god.

This is after there used to be serious debate. Credibility is given to this bullshit because it's on TV and in the papers. The media are a part of reality. It's very difficult to blame those whose lives are penetrated by it, from morning to night, for partaking in the reactionary crap-fest that passes for discourse these days.

The media companies in turn have no choice but to do this. Discussion has to become entertainment. If even one media source does it, everyone else has to or they look like a bad investment. This country is WAY too far to the right, and forgiving of capitalism.


As for the candidates... they are totally ruled by the media. They MUST create sound bytes, or else the media will never get around to portraying them in a favorable light.

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al Qaeda

Agree with Kerry Supporters Bush Administration Still Saying This is the Case

Agree US Should Not Have Gone to War if No WMD or Support for al Qaeda

Bush Supporters Misperceive World Public as Not Opposed to Iraq War,
Favoring Bush Reelection

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

All this election was about, even on this board, was posturing. How the candidates postured themselves, how their positions fit in with a style. Real issues and substantive discussion of those issues to find solutions simply did not happen. That, I am afraid, is a symptom of a concentration of media, at least in its present for-profit form.

Who cares about median income level if it means that a small minority is filthy rich while a vast majority is poor. Who cares about a strong economy if it means the rich get richer while the poor get poorer - who's economy is this anyway?
The US ranks with many 3rd world countries in things like crime, imprisonment, infant deaths, education , health care etc. In fact certain less developped nations do have better health care and education then the US.

The median is the point at which half of the people are on each side of the measurement. So it would disprove any notion that a "vast majority is poor".

I don't want to argue "3rd world" status for the US because I think it's silly. People aren't flocking from here to go there.... it's the other way around.

We need to address the issues of poverty remaining in the US... not identify one of America's few advantages as the source of the problem.

when comparing the US with other nations?

Because obviously a certain amount of Dollars will buy you less in the US then say in India.

Im not aguing for 3rd world status of the US as such. I'm saying that the numbers on health care, education, infant mortality rate etc in the US are comparable to those in many 3rd world nations. What's silly is that those numbers are rarely mentioned in the mainstream media, while they do mention for instance a "growing economy" - sounds nice but leaves out a lot of relevant data.

The "advantage" as you call it is an advantage only for a wealthy minority.

specifically.

I. me, mine.

capitalism that Bushco wants to bring back. Elimination of the minimum wage, of worker protections, of corporate responsibility. The only reason our brand of capitalism has worked as well as it has was because of a strong labor movement, and governmental checks on corporate power.

Today there is neither, and we are sliding into the capitalism of the banana republic, where there is a tiny wealthy class exploiting the broad worker class, and only a miniscule middle class of managers as a buffer between the two.

From the murderous genocide of the native population
to the civil war to the oligarchical days of Andrew Carnegie etc.
to the creation of the FBI and the subsequent destruction of
grass roots organizers of the IWW and the exporting of people
who held views different from the dominant capitalist class to
the creation of the CIA and operation paperclip and the muderous
COINTELPRO days and on to today, I cannot see much evidence of
democracy in this country.

the Neofascists have been dodging for awhile. You rarely, if ever, hear them quote Mussolini's definition of Fascism: "Corporatism".

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809). This prophesy has come true.

"In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one. In this manner, by creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay, to anyone.

You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury." - *Benjamin Franklin Autobiography

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." - Hazard Circular - London Times 1865

and by extension management of the economy, was probably the single biggest mistake - one that enabled many other big mistakes.

By it's very nature it gives more political power to the wealthy.

have ALL the power, and essentially control the government, capitalism has everything to do with democracy . . . if changes aren't made, neither will survive very long . . .

Ending Corporate Governance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2778474&mesg_id=2778474

Capitalism has nothing to do with Democracy..it has everything to do with Oligarchy.

I think capitalism sucks.:thumbsdown: It only supports the wealthy and it kills democracy.

n/t

that a huge chunk of the American populace is too fucking lazy to read the damn newspaper. The "capitalist elite" is outnumbered 50 to 1 by working class and middle class Americans. If ordinary Americans weren't so politcally disengaged, they could elect officials that truly represent them. Lamentably, they choose not to.

You can gripe all you want about corporate control of the media, but the fact is quality sources for news and analysis are out there on the web. In half the time it takes to watch the TV news, someone could skim some blogs and the foreign press and get a good picture of what's going on in the world. Confronted with a well-informed electorate, politicians would be much more accountable for their actions. The problem is that people choose to stick their head in the sand, so our elected officials can get away with murder. A system is only as good as the people in it.

Certainly not in the "winner-take-all" system that is now so prevalent in the world. Capitalism could be a force for good. In it present form, it is the opposite. IF the profits of capitalism were better "distributed", then it would be a better system. Of course, there are those that would say that it would then be "socialism". But, that is simply an excuse to continue the exploitation of the many for the few, rather than using capitalism to help us all.

i.e. campaign finance reform.

On edit: AND, you have to keep the media from conglomerating.

might be a good start.
That, and make it impossible for corporations to claim protection under the 14th amendment.

<snip>
"After fighting a revolution for freedom from colonialism, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of the similar threats posed by corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. These state laws, many of which remain on the books today, imposed conditions such as these:

- A charter was granted for a limited time.
- Corporations were explicitly chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest - profit for shareholders was the means to that end.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.
- A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered purpose."
<snip>

source: Reclaim Democracy
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/
Corporate History Primer
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf
Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf

The inheritance tax is an idea that I strongly believe in and is something that could help 'level the playing field' (for lack of a better analogy). I don't have as much of a problem with capitalism, as for the most part it does a good job of rewarding innovation. Obviously there needs to be some regulation and punishment system to keep things fair, but I don't think it is an inherently bad system.

Concentrated wealth, much like royalty or slavery, is a much bigger problem. IMO, this is where a system of haves and have nots develops, and is not tied to any notion of fairness as the latter generations didn't do anything to earn the money. I'd like to see a heavy inheritance tax imposed after a certain level. This would allow the heirs to have enough money to live comfortably, but not enough to concentrate power. Additionally, this could help keep taxes on people who actually earn it (working people, through income tax) lower, as more revenue comes in from the inheritance taxes.

doesn't exist. The slogan "free market" is designed to stop thought. Yeah, freedom is great, but to have the most freedom available to the most people, tyranny must be stopped. Whether it's the tyranny of highway robbers having to be restrained by the sheriff, or the tendency of a "free" market to become a monopoly being restrained by regulators, freedom actually depends on lawful regulation.

Golly, maybe this freedom stuff is more complicated than FUX told us.

And in its current corrupt state spawns businesses that forage on the public interest instead of coming up with valid business ideas for themselves. Privatize this, privatize that...and roll back all the regulations that protect the public while you're at it.

DPB

it's a put-on.