Are capitalism and democracy compatible?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by jps, Feb 20, 2003.

  1. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    For a society to be truly democratic everyone's views must be weighed equally.
    If one person has the ability to get their viewpoint across to millions of others by buying an ad in a newspaper or on television then their viewpoints are weighed more heavily than that of others who lack the resources to do this.

    Its my belief that because capitalism allows for people to have vastly different amounts of money, and therefore vastly different levels of access to power and resources, capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
    I'm no economist, but without the open economy that democracy allows, it's hard to see how there could be capitalism. It would seem to me that democracy is the support that allows capitalism to be. Democracy has never meant that everyone was on equal footing as far as wealth; it can only allow for the opportunity to strive for wealth.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Democracy is not an economic system, it is a system of government.
    How do you think democracy allows for an open economy?
    In my opinion capitalism would work just fine under a dictatorship, if we just had the same "president" until they died, made the position hereditary and did away with voting, but changed nothing else, we'd still have capitalism.

    Democracy has nothing to do with whether or not people have equal amounts of wealth, however if people are able to control the government by leveraging their wealth into political power, as is the case in the United States, then a democracy can not exist.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Democracy is majority rule, and the majority chooses capitalism, so they are compatible. Votes, not views, are equally weighted in a democracy. Nothing forces people to vote as the wealthy wish them to.
     
  8. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Democracy:

    Noun
    Inflected forms: pl.de?moc?ra?cies 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

    Majority rule is one definition for democracy, but in my opinion not the most meaningful or most important.

    The political benefits that wealth gives someone in our society go beyond trying to sway peoples vote. By funding campaigns, the wealthy put politicians in their debt, and as we've seen over and over politicians put the interest of those who gave them money before that of others. Perhaps nothing is forcing politicians to vote as their corporate backers want them to, they always have the option of voting against the interests of these people, however if they do this they know they will only lose their re-election bid, as their former sponsors will find someone more obedient to fund next election.
    For me, it is the last definition of democracy as "The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community." which we should strive for, and this, it seems to me is impossible within a capitalist society.
     
  9. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    The people need be vigilant to prevent the wealthy from usurping their representation. They could, for example, prevent the lobbying of politicians by corporations. The people don’t do this in part because their standard of living is relatively high with current practices. After all, people own the corporations. To me “social equality” means reasonably equal opportunity, and I think most democracies meet that standard. People have varying amounts of money typically because they utilized their equal opportunity unequally, and the majority like it that way.
     
  10. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    How can people be vigilant about these things, what can they do about it?
    Trying to patch up democracy with campaign finance reform and what have you, is, although admirable, ultimately doomed to fail in my opinion, as in order to put safeguards in place you need to be in an elected office, which as I've explained is well nigh impossible unless you have corporate backing.
    Even if safeguards are put in place, as soon as public awareness drifts from the issue, they will be taken back down.
     
  11. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    The public can keep their awareness on an issue. If 75% of the people choose something within the realm of possibility, it will be done, and corporations and the wealthy will either unite with the cause or be pushed out of the way.
     
  12. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Then why hasn't something been done about campaign finance reform?
    The majority of the population is in favor of it, but it still took a very long time for a bill to actually get passed, and when it was, it was an ineffective one, yet people seem to have been sated, as the issue pretty much died out.

    Also, does it really make sense to have a govt composed ENTIRELY of the wealthy? what percentage of the population has as much money as the poorest politician? Do you really think this is because poor Americans think that rich people represent them best?
     
  13. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Because the people were sated as you said. A majority does not insist on campaign finance reform.

    Yes, or they are led to believe it. Sometimes they choose a more common person like Clinton.
     
  14. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    When you place absolute power into the hands of one man, power that you and your fellows cannot revoke if displeased, then you run the definite possibility of your empire crumbling before your very eyes when a lunatic comes to the throne. And such an event is inevitable.

    Democracy does not strive for the individual, it strives for as much of the community as possible. Sometimes people become wealthy, sometimes because they try, others because they are merely lucky. Everyone cannot be wealthy, nor can everyone be level. Systems without some form of capitalism do not last long, and although it has its weak points capitalism is the reason that I am alive and typing on a computer. It can corrupt many, but for those clever enough to see such corruption their votes go elsewhere.

    True. It wasn't always this way, though, which you cannot forget. That means that it is not impossible in our society to revert and allow anyone to have a chance to hold political office, without the need to satisfy corporate demands.
     
  15. n2witchn Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Was that meant to be a facetious remark? Pleeeeeease say yes! :bugeye:
     
  16. Coldrake Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    808
     
  17. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Zanket,
    My point in mentioning campaign finance reform was that it something which polls show people are overwhelmingly in favor of which will never happen in a meaningful way because the people who run our governments corporate masters won't allow it.

    Please don't tell me you consider Clinton, a wealthy lawyer and career politician as a common person.

    Pollux V,

    Why can't everyone be wealthy? or at least have all their basic needs met? there are more than enough resources in existance for this to happen. Can you give an example of a system without some form of capitalism? There really hasn't ever been one. The USSR was, and Cuba and China are all capitalist in one way or another.
    How is capitalism the reason you are alive today? I don't understand what you mean by this.

    It was in fact, always this way in our society, our society was less repressive in some ways in the begining and more in others, but it was never a real democracy in the sense that everyone had an equal say in the governmet.
     
  18. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Really? everyone has the oppurtunity to become involved in the market? so a child born to a homeless crack addict has a chance of participating in the market? not really. I don't think democracy doesn't allow for capitalism. I think capitalism doesnt' allow for democracy.

    Yes, I mean a monarchy, I was using it as an example, not advocating it. My point was that if we did away with voting in this country and replaced the president with a king, the economic system could go on as it is quite well.
    No, no monarchy, or as in the case of the united states, wealth based aristocracy will ever allow for even distribution of basic rights let alone wealth




    Democracy does not allow for an open system for capitalism to exist in, it allows for whatever people vote for, which theoretically could be anything.
    The basic premise of my arguement here, is that the "democracies of the world" are not real democracys as they are run by and for the wealthy.
    I didn't say anything about distributing wealth evenly, although that is one solution to the problem I am describing(not the best one in my opinion) and yes that would be a form of communism.
    So what?
     
  19. Jaxom Tau Zero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    559
    I know this is probably well known to all who posted, but we don't live in a true democratic state. We elect representatives. It's easier to sway a representative than the group he represents, and s/he is only human, so fallible. Thus special interest groups are born...they wouldn't survive in a true democracy.

    So while 75% of people are for campaign reform, is this reflected in their representation? Usually reform will conflict with those who are currently doing well in the existing system. It's a part of the corruptiveness of power...
     
  20. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    Clinton was born a common person and worked for what he got. He was a Rhodes Scholar. He was a student until age 27. He became Attorney General of the state of Arkansas at age 30, governor of Arkansas at 32. He was a lawyer for only two years between governorships. When he became President in 1992 his net worth was about $1 million, not unusual for an enterprising middle-aged person. He left office deep in debt. That he was a career politician is irrelevant.
     
  21. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    True democracy wouldn’t survive itself. Who has time to peruse issues all day and vote on them? Not me. While there is certainly pressure on politicians to ignore their constituents’ wishes on campaign finance reform, if 75% of the public insisted on it, they would prevail.
     
  22. jps Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,872
    Zanket,
    Regardless of his background, Clinton was not a common person when he was president. The percentage of people with over a million dollars is not large.

    True-democracy has never been tried, except on a small scale, as it is impossible to tally the votes of 300 million people on every little issue.
    I'm not necesarrily saying that representative democracy is no good if it really involved people representing the interests of those who voted for them rather than those who payed for their campaign.
     
  23. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    How much closer to a common person can you expect to get? If Clinton wasn’t a hard worker, then nobody would’ve wanted him as the President. His hard work, combined with Hillary’s, led to a million dollar net worth by middle-age. That’s only $500K each. It’s almost inevitable that a qualified presidential candidate will have that much; simply paying off a house with a 15-year mortgage would achieve that. Would you want a gas station clerk to ensure common-man status?
     

Share This Page