There is nothing democratic about capitalism.

[white_wolf]

Capitalism places all the emphasis on accumulating individual wealth and power which is contrary to the basic principles of democracy. Capitalism always seeks to subvert the democratic process be it via rigged elections, propaganda, or in extreme cases a Coup d'etat such as the infamous Business Plot.
Let's look at the highest form of modern capitalism: the corporation. Corporations are ran by a board of directors who have almost on unlimited power over the company. They do not submit their polices to the majority vote of their workers, nor do they allow the workers to have representatives on the board. Their polices are concerned with making as much money as possible, no matter who it hurts. Over the years corporations have actively tried to subvert democracy via bribing politicians to enact polices that suit their agenda and making it harder for consumers to sue them for damages under the name of "tort reform."
So where is the democracy in capitalism? Its very tenets seem anathema to democracy, whereas Socialism is based on the common ownership of the means of production and control by the majority. In short I see no inherent evidence to support this lie that democracy and capitalism go together, in fact I see the exact opposite. Socialism is far more compatible to democracy than capitalism.

[Taverner]

1. This is 100% correct

This leads to the next question: can capitalism and democracy coexist peacefully? I used to think so, but I am quickly losing faith in that idea.

[white_wolf]

4. On a very small scale maybe.

Socialism would have to be the dominant force in a society, with only a small amount of capitalism to produce goods that the public sector could not. However those companies would have to be very very highly regulated and watched over to ensure they do not gain any power in society. Once capitalism gains a taste of power it never lets go. Even in this hypothetical scenario I would be rather wary of the capitalists.

[Joe Fields]

76. Never peacefully, but it can, and in fact has co-existed.

An d for quite a long period of time. The trick was to rein in unbridled capitalism, through strict regulation. Once the regulations were either shed completely, or completely ignored, that is the period when our system began to crumble.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism, as long as strict regulations are in place and in force.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. I call horseshit!

The bonuses are allocated semi-democratically.


And that's something.

[2banon]

18. lol!

now that's the funniest thing I've read all day!

:rofl:

[meow mix]

3. K&r

[Drale]

5. The idea of capitalism is democratic

because the idea says that the consumer controls the market, but implement ion is where the corruption happens. The human being is selfish, we have trained ourselves not to be but the very nature of humanity is me over you.

PS. We don't have capitalism anymore, I'm not sure what to call what we have have but its not capitalism.

PPS. I'm a socialist who believes that one pure system will not work, so no I am not defending capitalism in this country.

[white_wolf]

8. According to Friedman we do.

He would have loved the system we have now, and RWers seem to follow his version of capitalism far more than Adam Smith's.

[readmoreoften]

12. The consumer controls the market? How come we never get what we want then?

Consumers are workers who buy according to their needs and who don't have enough time in the day to fight capitalist corruption in factories by learning about the slave labor and environmental damaged involved in making hot-water heaters. Almost every consumer good is created by violent expropriation. How could consumers ever have a voice under capitalism?

We very much have capitalism. Capitalism is exactly what we live under. It's just advanced capitalism.

[white_wolf]

16. Its Neo-Feudalism.

[readmoreoften]

20. Absolutely.

[xphile]

77. The idea of capitalism is NOT democratic.

The idea of "voting" with dollars is ridculous. It allows those who have more to have more say which is the opposite of democratic with it's one person one vote ideas.

The corporation which does hold "elections" is not a democratic entity, it's a kingdom and the CEO is king. The shareholders who think their vote means anything are the suckers. Once again not democratic.

I have no idea where the idea of capitalism = democratic comes from but it's false on its face. Completely untrue.

And I might add, Capitalism has no problem whatsoever thriving in an autocratic system. In fact it flourishes because there are no pesky people to play lip service to. It can just run roughshod over anyone that gets in its way.

[white_wolf]

6. Incase any RWers are lurking here are some defintions for you.

Socialism: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Marxism: the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, especially the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
All of these are from dictionary.com. There is a a second definition communism that talks about a totalitarian state, however I feel that would be more correctly classified as state-capitalism or a degenerate workers state.

[Avant Guardian]

7. Supply side economics is NOT capitalism

Hence the massive deficits we have incurred over the last 30 years.

[socialist_n_TN]

32. Sure it is. Capitalism is what the capitalists in power SAY

it is. And for the last 30 years supply side economics has been touted as capitalism. It's become so engrained in capitalism that even many members of the opposition political party (Dems) believe in it too.

Leaving aside textbook definitions, you have to fight what is in FACT, not what is a definition in THEORY.

And this also leaves aside the argument that supply side is actually the PUREST form of capitalism there is.

[Avant Guardian]

69. Capitalism is fueled by supply and demand

There is no demand in a supply side system. Communism was a supply based system.

[bemildred]

9. Capitalism == Economic Feudalism. nt

[BOG PERSON]

10. the problem with capitalism

is it only works on paper, not in practice. but i guess it works in practice too.

[white_wolf]

11. It works in the sense that it is possible to implement.

It does not work in the sense that it provides for the majority of people living under it and guarantees them a decent, happy, and productive life. On that accounts it fails utterly and completely.

[readmoreoften]

14. +1

[OHdem10]

13. Democracy meshes well with Capitalism if you have leaders

and people who understand how to make it work.

Of all the systems in the world, a Mixed Economy works
best. Mix of Capitalism and Socialism if worked properly
gives a great Democracy.

Capitalism has to be regulated and put with social
programs forming a safety net actually grew a Middle
Class in this country. From about 1940 to 1970 in this
country we were the finest Democracy in the world.

Right now Canada has a working Democracy based on a
Combination Capitalism and Socialism.

[white_wolf]

15. The problem to me is

that it seems like the capitalist will do everything in their vast power to destroy that safety net and deregulate everything. Capitalism always seems to strangle democracy.

[angryfirelord]

17. It depends on the type of capitalism

So where is the democracy in capitalism? Its very tenets seem anathema to democracy, whereas Socialism is based on the common ownership of the means of production and control by the majority.

The problem is that socialism certainly doesn't guarantee democracy either. That's why I still believe that a regulated, Keynesian-like capitalism produces the best results. Krugman noted this in his book when FDR's policies created The Great Depression, which created an economic boom through the 1950s, the 1960s, and partly into the 1970s, along with all income brackets moving at the same rate.

[white_wolf]

19. It worked for a time yes.

But eventually the Oligarchs destroyed it. Slowly but surely they dismantled the social safety nets and regulations put in place during the New Deal and preceding eras and gave us the Oligarchy we currently enjoy.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. And that's MY problem with capitalism...........

You can't ever trust a system who's only goal is to make money for the "owners". LEGALLY a company can't do anything, but make the maximum profit for the shareholders. Now how is that goal going to be compatible with the greatest good for the greatest number which would be the ideal for a democracy?

To get to your point, capitalism will ALWAYS resist any regulation put on it because THOSE REGULATIONS, by their very nature, PROHIBIT THE MAKING OF MAXIMUM PROFIT. And it will always resist the social safety nets because that is money NOT going into capitalist enterprises (WASTED money to a capitalist) AND because the social safety net results in "useless eaters" (a capitalist phrase if I ever heard one). People who don't contribute, by their lights, to the general market other than neglible consumerism ARE the "useless eaters" enabled by the social safety net.

Since the capitalists, BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR SYSTEM, resist regulation and the social safety net, how can they be trusted over the long run? The short answer is that they can't. What we have NOW is the end result of the capitalist system EVERY TIME!

If it is to survive at all, capitalism MUST be throttled to within an inch of it's life and the boots of the workers should ALWAYS be on it's throat just BARELY allowing it to breathe.

Finally, because of these actual FACTS involving this system, that's why a capitalist system can't even save itself. If a way to sell the end of the world for profit were found, the capitalist would sell it EVEN IF IT RESULTED IN HIS OWN DISTRUCTION. They are incapable of even saving themselves, much less the rest of us.

[white_wolf]

33. I love the analogy of the workers boot at their throat.

It would be a nice change from what we have now.

[TheKentuckian]

25. I might agree except you are forced to make that determination off the exception rather than the

rule.

Evidence is pretty strong that capitalism will always seek to free its self from any regulation and oversight.

Plus, it should be clear that capitalist insist on not owning the downsides of what makes them profits and will systematically and relentlessly work to transfer that downside to the commons and even in fear or defiance of taxes transfer the downside to the poor and workers.

[white_wolf]

44. Exactly!

The privatize the profits and socialize the risks.

[upi402]

21. correct

and correct

[SDuderstadt]

22. Unless you're talking about...

"democratic capitalism":

http://www.democratic-capitalism.com/

http://www.kellysite.net/

[white_wolf]

23. I've read a few of those links.

While everything sounds good in theory, my biggest problem is once again the power of the capitalist class to deregulate themselves like they have done here in the U.S. I'm just not sure they can be trusted with power.

[SDuderstadt]

27. It's far more complicated than that, but...

that hardly means we shouldn't work to restore democratic capitalism.

[hifiguy]

24. The problem with capitalism is simple

Greed is not self-regulating and a New Deal/Western European regulatory structure is necessary, together with highly progressive taxation, to keep the greedheads in check.

And add publicly financed campaigns for all political offices above mayor.

[Norrin Radd]

31. The problem with Capitalism is

the insistence that the majority of private wealth and means of production should be in the hands of the fewest number of people possible, and that the masses believe that Capitalism and all business and trading are one and the same and that there is no other way.

[forty6]

26. On the contrary, a healthy nation requires BOTH !!

A healthy capitalist system demands a healthy democracy to keep it in check.

The problem would be better stated, in my opinion, if we said:

The type of capitalism that we have allowed has crippled our democracy's ability to keep capitalism in check.

Let's focus our intellect and attention upon why and how that happened, and upon how to re-establish a check on such a wave of destructive capitalist greed. It starts with educating ourselves fully, not by marginalizing ourselves as socialists, that would be a suicidal use of our mind and power.

[white_wolf]

28. How do we address the problem of deregulation?

That seems to be the main debate of this post and it is an important one. How do we keep the wealthy from using their influence and power to undermine our democracy? It took them almost 40 years to do it here. but it was done and I fear it could happen again.

[forty6]

29. Deregulation is just ONE aspect of capitalism gone wild. Like any sturdy

resting place, there are three legs. Education is the first leg, including logic and history as important parts of that education.
Another leg would be the need for factual no-slanted reporting of the news, (both MSNBC and Fox fail on this level from 5PM to midnight when most Americans are home to view news). The third leg has to do with character, we have to assume most parents raise ethical, morally conscious, activist children, reflecting their own character and behavior.

Of course we will have SOME unethical wealthy using their influence to undermine accountability, (our democracy)! Of course we will have the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palin's of the world. We are currently at a disadvantage in the USA on keeping these psychopaths in check. Canada does a better job, with their truth in radio act, essentially prohibiting Sarah and Glenn (and all the others) from ever getting TV time there.

Democracies has to build-in their own defense mechanisms, they have to tax, they have to benefit from the success of capitalism, as it keeps keeps that capitalism from the unbridled "capitalist success" of an Enron. Government regulation of capitalism is a GOOD thing, 99% of the time, as such regulations are really a self-defense of that very same democratic government. A regulation upon individual income is not necessary, but a regulation upon the corporation's participation as if that corporation were an actual citizen, obvious!
(See Supreme Court decision on Citizen's United, Bush's last "gift", (among so many(, to the failure of American democracy!)


We need to police capitalism like we police gang infested zones of our cities, break up their alliances, restrict their access to limitless amounts of cash and weapons. We don't allow that gang to take over, but we have allowed gangs of corporations to weild limitless influence upon our voters, elected reps, and legal system.

More on this if you ask... we all need to take a critical look at how we have allowed America to be run by the gangs of multi-national corporatists.

[socialist_n_TN]

34. And people call socialists.......

idealists. :) Face it. As long as capitalism is going to be in existence, it will strive for political rule just like we have NOW. Or even MORE deregulated. It IS the nature of that beast.

[forty6]

43. Socialism, in and of itself, is not the enemy, but when put in human hands...

it can become as corrupt as American capitalism is now. Think about that.

Any unprincipled human being can corrupt any economic system. Glenn Beck does it daily before our very eyes, laughing all the way to that bank. Any Marxist would find it easier tp be able to squelch any informed opposition better than Glenn can! Glenn remains richer, for a time........infecting uninformed uneducated minds faster than the flu hits a kindergarten. Eventually, men like him meet a sad and sorry fate, and an infamy of disgust for their legacy. Socialist leaders actually make life better for some group of the masses, but they are really just as dangerous to democratic ideals in the long run.

[white_wolf]

45. The Iron Law of Oligarchy.

The question is how do we break it?

[socialist_n_TN]

48. Revolution? I'm open to other ideas, BTW.......

nm

[white_wolf]

49. I'd prefer peaceful revoution.

We have the numbers on our side if people just wake up, we can force our politicians to go along with us or elect those who will. At least I think we can. Violent revolution is a very very dangerous move not just because of the whole civil war thing, but because revolutions can be times of opportunity for the worst of men. If you aren't very careful we could see a revolution hijacked by the religious right for instance as happened in Iran and they'll have to exile me because I'm not setting foot in Baptist church ever again.

[TBF]

60. Capitalism by definition is an inherently unequal system.

Nothing keeps it "in check". All the regulating and supposed democracy are a smokescreen to hide the truth - capitalism thrives via profit at any cost. There is no room there for nicety, and people find out real quick when they try to regulate it.

It's a horribly unjust system and it needs to go.

[Nye Bevan]

35. Right. Nothing democratic about Obama winning in 2008.

The capitalists subverted the democratic process. Poor John McCain never stood a chance.

[white_wolf]

36. They didn't interfere there directly.

However look at Obama's policies and see how the benefit the capitalist class. They didn't have to rig the election in the favor of either candidate, because they knew whoever won was their man.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. So is Obama an anticapitalist now?.......

The guy who got most of his campaign contributions from Wall St.?

I voted for Obama, but I didn't delude myself into thinking that I was voting for an anticapitalist. I just figured he was a "democratic capitalist". I'm not sure I was correct about that either.

You know, people whine about Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" phrase, but never say a word about the "dictatorship of the capitalist/bourgeoisie". It's every bit as oppressive.

[white_wolf]

40. At least one is meant to wither away in time.

The dictatorship of the capitalist seems determined to hold on to power as long as it can.

[Puregonzo1188]

53. They also never point out that Engel's said the closest thing to the dictatorship of the proletariat

was the Paris Commune--as system in which there was more or less direct democracy.

Marx didn't mean dictatorship the way we think of it--you're right to point his use of dictatorship of the proletariat.

Oddly enough most of this is never discussed.

[Puregonzo1188]

39. Democracy is more than just a system of formal elections.

Though there are plenty of flaws with the American electoral system, including the fact that our "choices" are all always within the narrow spectrum of the hegemonic discourse of capitalism and they generally accept money from the same people.

[socialist_n_TN]

41. And, as we say in socialist circles, BINGO!

:) Or is that YATHZEE! You know how to distill it down don't you Pure.

[Puregonzo1188]

52. Socialism is ultimately about expanding democracy from the political sphere into the economic one.

At least ideally. Most of them time its about both.

[Critters2]

64. +1 nt

[Puregonzo1188]

37. Here's what John Dewey said about Democracy:

What does democracy mean save that the individual is to have a share in determining the conditions and the aims of his own work; and that, upon the whole, through the free and mutual harmonizing of different individuals, the work of the world is better done than when planned, arranged, and directed by a few, no matter how wise or of how good intent that few?

[white_wolf]

42. I don't think we can have a true democracy until we finally win the class war.

Make no mistake there is real class warfare in this country and the capitalists are winning.

[Scruffy1]

46. Justoce Louis Brandeis

"You can either have great inequality of wealth or democracy, you can't have both.

[joshcryer]

47. Democracy by itself is not tied to an economic system.

By the same token socialism is not by definition "democratic" (see Cuba's Candidate Commissions where one cannot even be considered for election without going through a process of vetting through the status quo).

[Critters2]

54. Cuba is not Socialist, no matter what they call themselves.

Cuba's system is democratic centralism, which means that once the majority make a decision the minority is expected to defer to that decision. Most Socialists do not ascribe to democratic centralism. In fact, I belong to a Socialist org where I have to promise I don't belong to any DC organizations and won't advocate DC in order to belong.

It can also be argued that Cuba's system is statist communism, which is also not Socialism.

Cuba is a lot of things, but Socialist is not one of 'em.

[white_wolf]

55. Cuba is a Stalinist state.

You have to remember he took power in the USSR, his became the only model of Marxism and all others had to follow him. Had Trotsky gained power history might have been vastly different.

[Critters2]

56. Yep. The issue of democratic centralism was the source of conflict between

the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks; and the Trotskyites and the Leninists. And then comes along Stalin, who was a Leninist on steroids.

Again, a lot of things, but not Socialist. Stalin was a Socialist in name only.

[white_wolf]

58. Trotsky even wrote a book called "The Revoulution Betrayed."

In it he denounced Stalin as traitor to the gains of the October Revolution and said he had turned the USSR into a state-capitalist society. He said that the tyranny of the bourgeois had been replaced by a tyranny of bureaucracy.

[Critters2]

63. You're right. Things would have turned out much differently had Trotsky prevailed. nt

[white_wolf]

65. I still can't figure HOW he lost.

Wasn't he the general of the Red Army and more popular than Stalin?

[socialist_n_TN]

79. Trotsly was good with a LOT of things..........

In organizing and inspiring the masses, tactics, writing, and even Marxist theory there was no one better. The thing he WASN'T good at was intra party politics.

He didn't make friends, allies, and cronies like Stalin. He was WAY too prickly, one on one. He was smart and sharp and he knew it. And if you couldn't keep up he didn't have much use for you and YOU knew it. Not good at winning friends and influencing people and that was what was required in the consolidation period immediately after the Civil War.

Remember the Party at that time was still a democracy INSIDE the party. You had to win a majority of the Central Committee over to your side. Trotsky had pissed off too many of his contemporaries to win THOSE battles. By the time the other Bolsheviks realized what Stalin was doing, it was a "had done".

[joshcryer]

82. The Kronstadt rebellion tells you why he lost. He refused to align with the anarchists...

...and created a division. State socialism always winds up one single way, capitalist.

[socialist_n_TN]

83. He couldn't align with the anarchists. He WASN'T an anarchist

He was a Bolshevik by that time. He was NEVER an anarchist, always a Marxist. The Kronstadt rebellion didn't hurt him within the Party, especially at the time.

No, Trotsky lost power because of what I said. He wasn't good at inter Party politics. I personally think that it bored him. AND he couldn't see why ANYBODY would put advancing personal power over the Revolution and building socialism. Because of these blind spots and the enemies he had made, Stalin consolidated his power ALMOST before LD even knew what was going on.

[joshcryer]

85. It didn't hurt him within the party but it hurt the revolution, they agreed on many things.

I am speaking more abstractly, by hurting the anarchists he hurt the future prospects of having a truly socialist revolution. If he had aligned with the anarchists- ok you don't like the word 'aligned'- if he defended them and they had a general "cooperative arrangement," the revolution could've had a chance.

[joshcryer]

81. Anarchists consider Cuba capitalist, it was just an example.

As there's no fundamental difference between state owning the vast majority of the capital and corporations owning the vast majority of the capital.

There are plenty of DUers who will argue that Cuba is democratic.

[fittosurvive]

50. "...common ownership...and control by the majority"

is antithetical the concept of individual rights, including property rights, which evolved long ago during the period of enlightenment. Socialism is an archaic concept that necessitates the breach of the voluntary associations which are the basis of a free society and impedes the freewill and self-determination of individual human beings.

However, I agree, "socialism is far more compatible to democracy than capitalism." On the other hand, capitalism is the only economic system that is compatible with freedom. Accordingly, capitalism is far more compatible to a Constitution Republic that recognizes and guarantees individual rights than is socialism.

[white_wolf]

51. We have seen what capitalism has done to our Constitutional Republic.

It has all but destroyed it, whereas democratic socialism in has produced far more free and equitable society's than ours.

[Critters2]

57. +1 but God forbid you should advocate Socialism in this country! nt

[fittosurvive]

67. Yes, we have seen what capitalism has done.

It has facilitated the evolution of the most advanced civilization in the history of the world.

[white_wolf]

71. At what cost?

It has given us nearly 10% unemployment, a for profit healthcare system that lets 45,000 die every year, it is ruining our environment, in the last decade it has given us two endless wars, it has enriched the few and stolen from the majority. It is nothing but a system of exploitation and greed. Whatever good it does pales in comparison to the bad.

[hifiguy]

72. By any standards other than military power

Scandinavia and the other social-democratic European countries are the most advanced countries on the planet. The US doesn't even come close.

[jacquelope]

59. The Golden Rule

Capitalism = he who has the gold, makes the rules.

[Vidar]

61. Couldn't agree more.

[white_wolf]

62. Here are a few basic socialist reforms I'd like to see.

1. Universal Healthcare. 2. A progressive income tax. 3. A law that requires all corporations with over 50 employees to have 50% of their Board be made up of representatives from their employees and have full voting rights on all company matters. 4. Full public financing of all elections with no use of private money allowed. 5. All candidates would be given a certain amount of air-time on every major cable and broadcast news station. What do you all think?

[hifiguy]

73. There is such a place, at least in most of

the respects you speak of. It is called "Germany" and it should be an example for the rest of the developed world. Oh, that's right, in Europe it IS the example.....

[white_wolf]

74. Germany?

Interesting. I'll have to do some more research on their system. I've always viewed Norway as the model, in fact isn't there a term the "Norwegian Model?" referring to democratic socialist nations?

[slay]

66. Problems of Capitalism

Problems of Capitalism -- (From: http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics/problems/capitalism/

What is wrong with the idea of capitalism?
--It is based on a psychological model which is fundamentally flawed. It has disrupted traditional patterns of human interaction, bringing material and spiritual poverty by devastating precious indigenous cultures and ecosystems. Traditional, ways of life are replaced by a debased monoculture, controlled by an unsustainable money system which rewards those who plundering the natural environment, giving them an unsustainable material prosperity. A veneer of wellbeing covers terrible psychological and social damage.

What problems does capitalism create?
--Capitalism has brought about a society of unfortunate victims of consumerism. Overconsumption stems from individuals’ frustration and is fuelled by organisations’ greed. Encouraging people to behave as individual consumptive units erodes the social fabric, damages relationships and fuelling the worldwide growth of depression.

How does capitalism create problems?
--Under capitalism, the profit motive is supreme. Mathematics replace morality in the sense that profitable activity thrives and all other activity is supressed. Problems arise from activities which are financially productive but socially destructive. Love is fundamental to human welfare and yet, because it leads to activity such as sharing, caring and giving away, it runs counter to economic ‘progress’, so those activities which promote love are discouraged, while those which discourage it are promoted. Inadvertantly perhaps, the capitalist system rewards selfishness but punishes altruism."

more: http://www.altruists.org/ideas/economics/problems/capitalism/

[socialist_n_TN]

68. And there it is...........

It's bankrupt as a system for advancing mankind. The dictatorship of the capitalists needs to be overthrown.

[white_wolf]

84. Capitalism never truely advanced mankind IMO.

It just replaced the nobles with the bourgeois and the serfdom of the fields with the serfdom of factories.

[Zorra]

70. Jefferson: Egalitarian and Anti-Capitalist

(I agree with much of your post, but I have witnessed dictatorial "Socialism" too many times - China, Russia, Cuba, etc. It seems the most workable models have been "Democratic Socialist" governments. I have a friend, a professor of Anthropology, that has been allowed to visit Cuba several times over the years. She told me that the Cubans have a word, "gorrion" that literally means "sparrow" but is a term they use for a specific malaise that the Cuban people fall into when they have little or no hope of improving their situation and have little or no freedom to travel. Greedy ego-megalomaniacs seem to inevitably take control of political and economic systems either directly (like Stalin and Mao) or loosely ostensibly like the plutarchy much of the world suffers under. Embracing full on doctrinal Marxist Socialism would not end up well. Plutarchal Capitalism sucks, there's no longer any debate there. But we need to really think out exactly how to transition out of the current "Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Plutarchs" and into a democratic society that affords the most liberty, opportunity, and prosperity to the most people. Violent revolutions can have very serious unforeseen consequences that are completely counter the wishes of those that fomented the revolution. First we need a well thought out economic and political model that absolutely cannot be co-opted by greedy ego-megalomaniacs. When enough of the population is suffering from the effects of the plutarchal dictatorship, they will do something. The best way to transition into a democratic society, IMO, is through mass non-cooperation with the plutarchy, general civil disobedience, and general strikes and boycotts. Similar to how Gandhi and friends drove the British out of India)
Peace

What Jefferson Helps To Explain

In opposing the growing power of a centralized government dominated by big capital, Jefferson anticipated much in our political and economic system that we now regret. Commentators are concerned today about a widening gap between rich and poor, and the concentration of political and corporate power; Jefferson and his supporters argued long ago that the national state was in danger of becoming the creature and servant of an emerging national economic elite. Pundits complain that the United States has become merely a "procedural democracy"; Jefferson, understanding the difference between voters and citizens, feared a centralized government and economy exactly because they would deny citizens a rich political life. Whereas the left acquiesced to the wage system, confining its efforts to ensuring higher wages and generous social security, Jefferson insisted that the wage system itself was profoundly undemocratic and exploitative, by definition stripping workers of their economic independence. And whereas conservatives today simultaneously espouse the free market and "family" and "community" values, Jefferson dreaded capitalism precisely because it reduces individuals to abstractions -- anonymous buyers and sellers whose claims on one another are determined solely by their capacity to pay. Human ties, he believed, bind men and women into communities.

It is thus surprising that Americans genuflect to Jefferson, because the political economy of corporate capitalism, which the United States has embraced since the late nineteenth century (when, as the historian Charles Beard has written, Jefferson's America "had become a land of millionaires and the supreme direction of its economy had passed from the owners of farms and isolated plants and banks to a few men and institutions near the center of its life"), represents a repudiation of his principles and the triumph of those of his political enemy, Hamilton. Indeed, as his detractors gloatingly point out, Jefferson is the great loser in American history.
snip--
Jefferson replaced the timeless assumption that most men would labor in dependence on a few landowners, masters, and employers with the astonishing proposition that (white) men should control their own working lives. As long as these men had the option of making a living on their own farms, Jefferson reasoned, they could not be forced into an exploitative wage-labor relationship. Such independent citizens could participate directly in a political process based on local self-rule. Just as important, true community life could develop, because economically self-sufficient and roughly equal citizens would not need to pursue selfish interests at the expense of the common good. In other words, the economic system would not force people to "eat . . . one another."
snip---
Jefferson's vision of economic and participatory democracy, making "every citizen an acting member of government," has appealed throughout American history to such eccentrics as Orestes Brownson, Walt Whitman, the nineteenth-century Populists, the Nashville Agrarians, and elements of the "old right" and the 1960s "new left." Whether or not that vision was ever realistic, Jefferson was surely right that economic and political consolidation go hand in hand -- and just as Hamilton intended, the national state has been governed by and for great wealth. Even ostensibly progressive measures are more accurately described by the historian Catherine McNicol Stock's term "corporate-friendly liberalism." Thus, for instance, federal farm programs -- supposedly designed to support that bastion of Jeffersonian economic autonomy the family farm -- have long channeled government support and loans disproportionately to the richest farmers, who have effectively become adjuncts to multinational agribusiness. If, as O'Brien urges, Jefferson is removed from the American pantheon, then we will have no figure to remind us of the democratic promise we lost in pursuing Hamilton's vision. That Jefferson's grand aspirations for what the Populists would later call a "cooperative commonwealth" today seem quaint and irrelevant, and that the militias are perhaps the only prominent political force in America that responds to Jefferson's warnings about the consolidation of power, tell us less about Jefferson than about our own cramped hopes for democracy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97mar/jeffer/jeffer.htm

[hifiguy]

75. "Capitalism is the absurd belief that

the nastiest of men, acting from the nastiest of motives, will somehow act to benefit all."

This has been attributed to John Maynard Keynes, and whether he said it not, it is perfect summation of the problems of capitalism.

[white_wolf]

80. Perfect summation of capitalism.

[Cetacea]

78. K&R n/t