Capitalism and Democracy

[Makalakumu]

Democracy is the niftiest form of government. Capitalism is the niftiest form of economics.

Democracy and Capitalism niftily contradict each other. This would be an interesting new topic...how about a new thread so this one isn't hijacked any further?

 

[loki09789]

Democracy and Capitalism niftily contradict each other. This would be an interesting new topic...how about a new thread so this one isn't hijacked any further?

Actually democracy PROMOTES and SUPPORTS Capitalism. Democratic government simply means that each recognized citizen has the same opportunity to succeed or fail. Now, that doesn't mean that the government is required to equalize things so that someone at one extreme (who is lazy and doesn't want to do anything to better their situation) should be afforded the same quality of life, luxury, and comfort as someone at the other extreme (someone who worked their butt off and is reaping the reward of that work).

I DO think that the government should promote a baseline of existence (bread a circuses, social services of some kind) that acts as a support network to help people get back on their feet (unemployment, medical, financial aid, tradeskills programs....).

Socialism, Communism, Facism, ....any other form of government actually hinders capitalism/personal potential because the government imposes the limits/expectations.

 

[Flatlander]

Democracy and Capitalism niftily contradict each other. This would be an interesting new topic...how about a new thread so this one isn't hijacked any further?

Done.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Actually democracy PROMOTES and SUPPORTS Capitalism.

Welcome to the world of common myth.

So far, anyway, democratic governments have succeeded best when at least some degree of free market economy has been preserved. They are not interchangeable terms, as the explosion of free market success in China shows; moreover, the success of social democracies in Europe shows that you can regulate capitalism for the interests of society without completely discarding its benefits.

Democratic government simply means that each recognized citizen has the same opportunity to succeed or fail.

Success or failure has nothing to do with voting and democratic participation, which is the actual basis of democratic government.

I DO think that the government should promote a baseline of existence (bread a circuses, social services of some kind) that acts as a support network to help people get back on their feet (unemployment, medical, financial aid, tradeskills programs....).

Why, Loki, I never realized you were a Social Democrat! And here I thought you voted for GW Bush this time around!

Socialism, Communism, Facism, ....any other form of government actually hinders capitalism/personal potential because the government imposes the limits/expectations.

Fascism is distinct from the economic considerations you listed above; in fact, capitalism usually flourishes in fascist societies, as fascism is highly corporatist. Recent American shudderings towards proto-fascism have included the discarding of decades of social programs towards massive corporatist privatization.

And, as discussed above, socialism and capitalism can also work together to form a regulated hybrid that melds the best of both systems.

 

[Ray]

Actually democracy PROMOTES and SUPPORTS Capitalism. Democratic government simply means that each recognized citizen has the same opportunity to succeed or fail. Now, that doesn't mean that the government is required to equalize things so that someone at one extreme (who is lazy and doesn't want to do anything to better their situation) should be afforded the same quality of life, luxury, and comfort as someone at the other extreme (someone who worked their butt off and is reaping the reward of that work).

I DO think that the government should promote a baseline of existence (bread a circuses, social services of some kind) that acts as a support network to help people get back on their feet (unemployment, medical, financial aid, tradeskills programs....).

Socialism, Communism, Facism, ....any other form of government actually hinders capitalism/personal potential because the government imposes the limits/expectations.

I understand Socialism and Communism to be economic systems. Although there have been "socialist states" I think that Socialist/Communist economic systems could work (if they could work) under democratic, representative republic and other types of gov'ts.

The theory behind socialism (and even capitalism) sounds good on paper. In practice, we (people in general) allow (maybe "cause"?) unfair situations to arise in each.

 

[loki09789]

Welcome to the world of common myth.

1. So far, anyway, democratic governments have succeeded best when at least some degree of free market economy has been preserved. They are not interchangeable terms, as the explosion of free market success in China shows; moreover, the success of social democracies in Europe shows that you can regulate capitalism for the interests of society without completely discarding its benefits.


2. Success or failure has nothing to do with voting and democratic participation, which is the actual basis of democratic government.


3. Why, Loki, I never realized you were a Social Democrat! And here I thought you voted for GW Bush this time around!


4. Fascism is distinct from the economic considerations you listed above; in fact, capitalism usually flourishes in fascist societies, as fascism is highly corporatist. Recent American shudderings towards proto-fascism have included the discarding of decades of social programs towards massive corporatist privatization.

5. And, as discussed above, socialism and capitalism can also work together to form a regulated hybrid that melds the best of both systems.

1. I never said the terms were interchangeable, I simply said that a democratic gov. SUPPORTS Capitalism....why? Because any other form of government will limit/regulate/control or own property or materials that are in the hands of private ownership in a Democratic culture. I chuckle at the China reference because, though the media spin is "free market trade immerges" the Communist government basically got sick of fighting the 'black market' and simply said it is not illegal anymore....and can legally tax it to make money!

2. Absolutely correct, but Democracy, theoretically, also does not say that you have to be 'equal' to everyone else in society by imposing limits on how much you make, where you can live....

3. I am not any 'ic' by definition. I did vote for the POTUS. I said that I supported a 'baseline' of services. I am against the idea that my earned taxes should go to services/programs/people that do not promote some form of getting back on your own two feet.

4. "Capitalism" succeeds in Facist structure because the corporate types actually have MORE political clout than the average citizen on paper. Now, people can argue that Democratically that still happens, but at least philosophically it is not something that is part of the ideology. If you notice too, in Facism, it isn't capitalism or 'free market' because the government can crush a small business or eliminate a private business simply by waving the pen. So it isn't 'free market' or capitalism per se as much as "we allow you to exist at our whim." Don't forget too that Facism/Nazism seem to flourish because the best examples of them were profiting from industrial support to a war...profits will always go through the roof when the the war machine is creating an inflated demand.

5. Fine, but my statements were focused on the idea that Capitalism and Democracy are contradictory. Socialism still imposes limits on how the market can function. Capitalism does get regulated by Democracy in the vacuum practice of theory.

As an actual practice, our government regulates business just as the Euro nations do that call themselves 'socialist' or what ever. In reality, all the 'isms' blur and are not as clear as in theory.

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, could you explain then why exactly it just so happened that modern democracy and capitalism appeared in the same places, at the same times, theorized and espoused by the same social class?

Could you explain why the current President has repeatedly insisted that freedom, democracy, free trade and the market are locked together?

 

[Andrew Green]

Could you explain why the current President has repeatedly insisted that freedom, democracy, free trade and the market are locked together?

Well...those are the things that most Americans believe in, by locking them together, or at least making everyone think they are locked together, no large percentage of the population is likely to decide one of them is bad.

It also makes everyone believe that all are present, them all being linked together and all. SO if "Free trade", for example, wasn't really there no one would be the wiser cause how could it not be if all those things are there as a whole?

 

[loki09789]

OK, could you explain then why exactly it just so happened that modern democracy and capitalism appeared in the same places, at the same times, theorized and espoused by the same social class?

Could you explain why the current President has repeatedly insisted that freedom, democracy, free trade and the market are locked together?

Who is this addressed to?

"Social Class" does not exist in a Democracy. THere is no caste system were someone is 'more a citizen' than another. That may happen on a sociological/cultural level of interaction, but in a Democracy a Cop, a Janitor, a Teacher...all are just 'citizens.

The term for citizen may have changed over time (women are now full citizens, blacks are full citizens....) but 'citizen' is different than 'Lord' vs. "Common"

 

[Ray]

OK, could you explain then why exactly it just so happened that modern democracy and capitalism appeared in the same places, at the same times, theorized and espoused by the same social class?

I'm not sure I understand that question? Do you mean the US, or Western Nations in general; or maybe you're including other nations? I'm not sure that I could do that explanation justice, but I'm willing to take a stab at it.

Could you explain why the current President has repeatedly insisted that freedom, democracy, free trade and the market are locked together?

I don't speak for GWB. Democracy, theoretically, should be a free society; but it could potentially be a "dictatorship of the few by the many."

From what I've seen re free trade, we still impose tariffs and so do other countires when their is a belief of "unfair practices" or even to "protect" our internal producers. Insofar as the "market" within a single country, like the US, the gov't intervenes with rules/laws to encourage "fair" practices (preventing monopolies, false/misleading advertisments, etc). Free market and Free Trade aren't completely "free."

However, the government doesn't control the means of production in pure capitalistic societies. You have the freedom, within limits, to create a business or persue a vocation of your choice.

In socialism/communism the gov't (or the "people") would own the means of production. And in some socialist countries, the gov't has controlled who does what.

Maybe we should go over to the new "capitalism and democracy" thread to continue?

 

[Flatlander]

Who is this addressed to?

Sorry, Paul, that quote may seem out of context as I split it off of another thread.

 

[Ray]

Who is this addressed to?

"Social Class" does not exist in a Democracy. THere is no caste system were someone is 'more a citizen' than another. That may happen on a sociological/cultural level of interaction, but in a Democracy a Cop, a Janitor, a Teacher...all are just 'citizens.

The term for citizen may have changed over time (women are now full citizens, blacks are full citizens....) but 'citizen' is different than 'Lord' vs. "Common"

Social and economic classes do exist in a democracy. Or at least they do in Democracies alive today. They also existed in the Athenian democracy of ancient times.

There will be much discussion re: your point that we are all "equal citizens." Citizens of the US have varying wealth and opportunity for advancment, education and so on. I'm very much a patriotic American, and I have a tendancy to dismiss some of the "unfairness" leveled at America, but I do have to acknowledge that there are people who are in bad situations (through no fault of their own) that they have little to no chance of escaping.

 

[loki09789]

Social and economic classes do exist in a democracy. Or at least they do in Democracies alive today. They also existed in the Athenian democracy of ancient times.

There will be much discussion re: your point that we are all "equal citizens." Citizens of the US have varying wealth and opportunity for advancment, education and so on. I'm very much a patriotic American, and I have a tendancy to dismiss some of the "unfairness" leveled at America, but I do have to acknowledge that there are people who are in bad situations (through no fault of their own) that they have little to no chance of escaping.

The government does not have classes of citizenry recognition. If people treat each other better or worse because of social or economic standing that is different. A black man, a poor man, a woman....by law and constitution, they all have equal voting right and voice in the government regardless of those differences.

Are there difference? Sure, but those are not imposed by the government.

 

[Flatlander]

"Social Class" does not exist in a Democracy. THere is no caste system were someone is 'more a citizen' than another. That may happen on a sociological/cultural level of interaction, but in a Democracy a Cop, a Janitor, a Teacher...all are just 'citizens.

Well, there is in fact a disparity in people's ability to participate in a democracy that correlates with their class. Though I agree with the ideal of equivalency of citizenship, I believe that when it is necessary to lay out a large sum of money in order for one to advertise oneself as a candidate for elected office, the more successful capitalists will always have an advantage. In order to truly separate Capitalism from our Democracy, many adjustments need to be made to our election processes, as well as our social structure.

Beyond that, there is a very real tendency for "Joe American" to deify the most successful capitalists, meaning that capitalists with a proven record of success will be "assumed" to make better managers of our affairs. I don't believe that this is necessarily true, however, I do believe that successful capitalists make great finance ministers.

 

[Andrew Green]

. A black man, a poor man, a woman....by law and constitution, they all have equal voting right and voice in the government regardless of those differences.

Are there difference? Sure, but those are not imposed by the government.

Works in theory...

The "vote" is not that big of influence on the gov't, money is. People / corporations that can make large campaign contributions, pay a significant amount in taxes, etc. The folks that got the money are the ones that influence things.

Elections are won based more on advertising then anything else, advertising and media, things that are bought.

 

[ginshun]

Well, there is in fact a disparity in people's ability to participate in a democracy that correlates with their class. Though I agree with the ideal of equivalency of citizenship, I believe that when it is necessary to lay out a large sum of money in order for one to advertise oneself as a candidate for elected office, the more successful capitalists will always have an advantage. In order to truly separate Capitalism from our Democracy, many adjustments need to be made to our election processes, as well as our social structure.

Beyond that, there is a very real tendency for "Joe American" to deify the most successful capitalists, meaning that capitalists with a proven record of success will be "assumed" to make better managers of our affairs. I don't believe that this is necessarily true, however, I do believe that successful capitalists make great finance ministers.

Thats all true, but nobody claims that we live in an ideal society, or some kind of utopia. Differences do exist, but not because of the government's structure. I think all that people are tring to get across, is that as far as the government is concerned, all people are equal, regardless, or race or sex or how big there wallet is.

Now in reality, yes there is a difference in how people are allowed to participate in government, but I don't believe that is because of how our government is stuctured. The only way that you can separate economics and the election process is to impose limits on what can be spent on a campaign, and make those limits something that everyone can afford. Or else somehow have the government pay for peoples campaigns. Unless someone has a better idea.

How are elections run in some of the socialist European countries? Does anybody but the extreme upper class have a chance in them? I will concede that nobody else here does, not for president anyway.


Also I am surprised that nobody has brought up that the USA is not really a pure democracy anyway, but rather a republic. Representative democracy maybe? Thats always what I thought anyway. Probably just semantics really, but still.

 

[Ray]

Also I am surprised that nobody has brought up that the USA is not really a pure democracy anyway, but rather a republic. Representative democracy maybe? Thats always what I thought anyway. Probably just semantics really, but still.

Representative Republic

 

[Makalakumu]

Are there difference? Sure, but those are not imposed by the government.

How about when a government or an elected official deliberately underprovides voting resources to various groups in order to quell their democratic voice?

 

[ginshun]

How about when a government or an elected official deliberately underprovides voting resources to various groups in order to quell their democratic voice?

I am not sure what you mean. I assume you are implying voter fraud or some kind? Can I get a few examples of exactly what you are refering to?

Specifically ones that are government policy would be nice.

 

[Blind]

I have a feeling Upnorth may be referring to Florida the election before last.