Capitalism and democracy? An elaborate lie?

[white_wolf]

I've seen a lot of people say that capitalism is the only system that respects democracy and people's rights. To them I pose a question. Why, in 1973, was a democratically elected leader overthrown and replaced by a military junta? Salvador Allende was the elected president of Chile and vowed a "peaceful road to Chilean Socialism." In a U.S. backed Coup he was overthrown and replaced by General Augusto Pinochet who ruled with an iron fist until 1990, and was responsible for numerous human rights violations. So explain to me how compatible capitalism is with human rights and freedom?

[cali]

1. huh? that's a muddled question.

[white_wolf]

2. What is muddled about it?

I've heard a lot of people say democracy is the only system that respects human rights and freedom. I then provided an example where that is proven false, I then asked people to defend those claims in face of the evidence I presented.

[cali]

4. so what? I've heard a lot of people say a lot of shit.

the obvious fact is that no system can wholly protect human rights and freedom. But beyond that, your example didn't prove what you think it did. How does the overthrowing of a democratically elected leader prove that democracy isn't the only system that respects human rights and freedom? And I'm not saying it is or isn't, just noting the lack of logic in your op.

[white_wolf]

5. I'm not questioning democracy at all.

I'm questioning capitalism. I'm challenging the notion that capitalism respects human rights and and that capitalism somehow creates freedom. I'm providing an example where capitalists overthrow a democratically elected leader, because he was a socialist. Not only did they overthrow him, they replaced him with a tyrant.

[rhett o rick]

6. If you aint sayin it is or isnt, what the hell you sayin? Maybe just causin trouble. nm

[white_wolf]

8. I'm saying capitalism isn't compatible with democracy and freedom.

That is what I'm saying.

[rhett o rick]

10. Well then why didnt you say so? I agree. nm

[pitohui]

3. capitalism is not compatible w. human rights as you very well know

these "i'm concerned" questions from rich/aspiring capitalists kinda piss me off

anyone who has a brain and two eyes in their head already knows that you can't have a genuine democracy/socialism AND capitalism, a free market system means that everything goes to the strong and their children

capitalism is fine if it's limited to the playground, flea market, small hustles like that...but once capitalism is allowed to set the price of health care, your life, then of course they are going to charge MORE than you have earned in an entire lifetime to live...the "more" is their profit margin

are people stupid? do they truly not understand that capitalism means that PROFIT has to be included at every stage of the game? it's pretty simple, for a capitalist to succeed he must profit, since this a capitalist country this is WHY they charge your father more than he earned in his entire lifetime to treat his cancer (or you fill in the blanks)...your whole life PLUS profit is the whole point

capitalists who are not already millionaires or billionaires are the notably stupid people who can't do math, because the math doesn't work out for middle class people or working class people or any type of sane person who wants to do something with her life other than steal another person's entire life of work...there is a REASON when you talk to a teabagger/ultra conservative 99 times out of 100 they are so stupid ass you want to scream, if they talk stupid, walk stupid, smell stupid ACCEPT IT THEY ARE STUPID CAPITALISM IS STUPID

[rhett o rick]

7. Unrestricted capitalism is of course disaster. But is there any role for capitalism?

The US has made a lot of inventions and technical advances because of capitalism. But I fully realize that, unrestrained capitalism will destroy all.

[socialist_n_TN]

12. I'd say small scale stuff would be OK..........

In most statist countries, you wind up with a black market anyway, so hell just legalize it up to a certain size and tax it. I don't even have a problem with something of a demand economy PROVIDED THE NECESSITIES ARE TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE THE DEMAND KICKS IN! If nobody's starving and nobody's homeless (and several other "general welfare" type of things) and you want to make and sell widgets for whatever the market will bare, go for it. Just pay your taxes to pay for societies NECESSITIES.

[rhett o rick]

17. Sounds fair to me. nm

[hifiguy]

51. Necessities should be socialized

and certain industries which have proved time and time again to be likely to oligopolize (pharma, telecoms and energy come quickly to mind).

If there's a market for Maybachs and $100,000 Harry Winston dog collars after all the people are taken care of regarding food/shelter/medical care, I could care less. Go for it.

[RedArmy300]

49. Partially incorrect.

Attributing the successes of a nation to an ideology instead of the people actually responsible is something of a major peeve of mine and I can honestly say that it is the legitimate scientists - who often do it out of love for their work - that should be thanked. Besides that there's also the nasty little truth of us taking Nazi scientists and spies from Post-WW2 Germany to aid in the cold war, so there's that of course...

[madrchsod]

9. i was a capitalist until i ran out of capital

my wife and i owned our own business during the reagan years. i was out of work so we decided to reupholster furniture and she sold window fashions. we were doing enough to pay the bills but to expand we needed capital which we could`t get. we competed against two others in our market by matching price and service but they had more reserves and credit.

fortunately i found a job in my old trade so i went back to work for the man...

[white_wolf]

11. to anonoymous unrecers:

At least tell me your problem with this post, or try to challenge my claims.

[joshcryer]

13. I thought I may have unrecc'd but I didn't, I actually wrote you a really long post...

...but didn't feel the desire to get into a debate with you. The jist of it is that I believe that you can't fault capitalism for what some capitalists did just like you cannot fault socialism or communism for what some socialists or communists did.

As economic theories both can be implemented really badly.

And it would be dishonest to denounce the bad implementations as "not implementations at all."

[DeSwiss]

14. Capitalism is Oligarchy in a lousy disguise.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." ~John Maynard Keynes

"The crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career." ~Albert Einstein

"It's impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system needs blood to suck... And as the peoples of the world free themselves, capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time, in my opinion, before it will collapse completely." ~Malcolm X

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le9y22XsXy4&feature=feedu">We-Must-Shift-The-Paradigm

- K&R

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdqTGt3Djg">What kind of government do you live in?

[The Magistrate]

15. The Idea Capitalism Is Peculiarly Apt To, And Linked With, Democracy, Sir, Is Nonesense

People who press it are either deliberately lying, or abysmally ignorant.

[SDuderstadt]

16. I know you're not going to buy this, but....

in our system, capitalism represents liberty and democracy represents equality. There is obvious tension between those two states, so their co-existence in our system is a somewhat uneasy marriage.

That's why we have checks and balances in our system of government so that equality does not trump liberty and also why capitalism similarly needs strong and effective regulation, so that it does not overrun equality.

Presently, we have some sobering challenges in this uneasy marriage. The great disparity in wealth and income and the resulting imbalance of power threatens democracy itself. However, the solution is complex and likely to play out over a longer period of time. It requires the restoration of truly progressive taxation, reforming and simplifying the tax code to make it easier to administer, as well as the elimination of various loopholes that have facilitated our transition to what can almost be described as a winner-take-all system. This also has to be accompanied by addressing the real problem of the undermining of our electoral process by money, however, this aim is severely hamstrung by Buckley v Valeo and the Citizens United decision.

What doesn't help, however, is the silly talk about jettisoning capitalism. It is the system we have, like it or not. I make continued pitches for democratic capitalism/conscious capitalism, only to be met with outright hostility by those that cannot get past the word capitalism without suffering near paroxysms. Some of the more thoughtful suggest that neither will ever take hold because TPTB won't let them, then make their pitch for socialism.

First, it's simply not true that neither democratic capitalism nor conscious capitalism can't be established, however, it will take work on a number of different fronts. One of the first tasks is to convince some of those that do vote to quit falling for the GOP propaganda and stop voting against their own economic interests. The other companion task is to convince the large numbers of poor and working poor, working class and other disaffected parties that do not vote that their vote can count. It's truly a catch-22.

In the meantime, for those who will reject my pitch as unworkable, falling back on their notion that we will become a fully socialist nation, I have a simple question:

If TPTB, the "Man", whoever, will not allow the adoption of democratic capitalism/conscious capitalism, what on earth possesses you to believe that the aforementioned powers would allow the establishment of a fully socialist economic system. Beyond that, what makes you think the majority of Americans want such a system to begin with?

[reformist2]

18. Freedom and democracy made America great, not capitalism.

[SDuderstadt]

19. In a capitalist system n/t

[reformist2]

20. Capitalism follows from freedom and democracy, but is not an ideal in and of itself.

[The Magistrate]

29. Capitalism, Sir, Renders Democracy Impossible Over Time

The workings of a capitalist economy tend to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands; even if a country's economy grows in size, and the lowest strata of it are better off in absolute terms than their counter-parts some decades before, they will have a smaller portion of the wealth in that society than previously. Once the concentration of wealth reaches a certain point, it is impossible for a democratic political system to function; that is, it is impossible for it to take measures a majority of its citizens favor, if these are opposed by the possessors of great wealth. An early stage of the process can be seen at present in our own political life. Very few persons in our country want to see cuts in Social Security, and would prefer increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations as a means to reduce government deficeits. Despite the views of a large majority of citizens, taxes on the wealthy will not be raised, and cuts in Social Security are likely. In the final analysis, a society marked by extreme concentration of wealth cannot be maintained by any means save force or fraud. Capitalism by its very nature must and will produce such a society, unless checked by political actions defenders of Capitalism invariably denounce as tyranny, socialism, theft, or whatever else seems apt to the purpose....

[BzaDem]

32. I think the consequences you are talking about have a lot more to do with our particular

Constitution than Capitalism itself.

Our particular constitution makes progressive change very, very difficult. Any change must get the assent of two distinct legislative bodies (one horribly apportioned, even ignoring the filibuster), and the President. Therefore, even if a majority of the people would like something to be done, it is unlikely that a sufficiently-robust majority gets elected to get it done.

After all, FDR had majorities in both houses that were MUCH bigger than the relatively puny ones Obama had. Ditto for LBJ. But even these majorities were more of an uneasy alliance between actual Democrats and anti-civil-rights southern Democrats.

If you were right, and capitalism inherently was incompatible with Democracy, than in countries with more unified government (more responsive to the people's wishes), you would STILL see similar policies as we have here. But that is completely false -- most other capitalist European countries have FAR less income inequality, FAR higher taxes, FAR generous benefits, FAR greater unionization, and generally FAR more liberal governments. This is despite the fact that "owners" still own the means of production, and despite the fact that the economy is still fundamentally a market economy.

[white_wolf]

34. True, but you may be missing something.

The vast majority of those countries have Socialist and Communist parties that often run for and hold office. The people over there are much more responsive to socialism than they are here. I believe it is likely the influence of the socialist and communist parties that have made things as good as they are, or at least the threat of of socialism and communism in the eyes of the elite.

[BzaDem]

37. There is no threat of socialism and communinsm in the eyes of the elite in most democratic states

ESPECIALLY in Europe. While there are small socialist and communist parties, the vast majority know what the standard of living is in socialist countries (as you define socialism, where workers always control the means of production) and do not want any part of it. This is especially true in countries that were formerly subjected to socialism.

[white_wolf]

39. There are often governments in Europe that have majorities made up of socialists.

The parties aren't small, they are often very powerful.

[BzaDem]

41. That's because you are defining socialism in a very different way than they are.

Most socialist parties in Europe favor maintaining a primarily market-based economy. They consider "socialist" (or social-democratic) to mean a large safety net, high taxes on the rich, strong unions, strong guaranteed benefits, more government jobs, etc. Not the transformation from a market economy to one where workers control the means of production.

[The Magistrate]

43. Not Really, Sir

The other countries you reference have genuine Social Democratic parties, and the things you list are the sort of political actions, denounced as tyranny and theft and such by defenders of Capitalism, referenced in my comment as necessary to slow the process of concentration of wealth natural to Capitalism. It can certainly be argued that differences between Parliamentary systems and our own make such political actions easier of achievement. But this does not alter what Capitalism, left to run on its own, will do, and can certainly be observed to have done, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The 'social democracies' of Europe, though certainly far from pure Socialism, do in fact achieve in some measure what the call for workers ownership of the means of production is aimed at, namely a more equitable division of the increased value created by labor. This is done by means of taxation and various social services that funds, in which most people receive, or can recieve, more than they pay themselves in taxes, so that they receive a greater portion of the aggregate wealth their economeies produce than is reflected in their wages alone.

It should be noted, too, that these things in European nations had to be fought for politically, and are at present under assault by financiers and other styles of 'free-marketeers', demanding austerity and reduced taxes for wealthy businessmen.

[BzaDem]

45. I think we are simply talking about different forms of socialism.

My point was that the social democracies of Europe (which are market economies) can still avoid the problems you specified, using redistribution. I was defining socialism as actual worker ownership of the means of production (rather than merely redistributing the wealth of a market economy). The reason I was using that definition was because that was what appears to be the definition of the OP.

Since the social democracies start with markets/investor-owned businesses, and then redistribute from there, I consider them market economies. Of course if you define capitalism as a pure free market, without redistribution, then you are correct, but I wasn't defining it that way. Of course pure free marketeers will fight for every last scrap of the pie. But fortunately, democracy usually counters those wishes -- with the partial exception of this country, due to its divided political system that prevents anything from getting done.

[The Magistrate]

47. There Is An Old Schism In Socialism, Sir

Though different terms were used at the time it broke out, reformists v. revolutionists is apt enough. The former held that socialism could be achieved through participation in democratic governance, using the obvious majority power of the workers, and that in the interim, whatever could be achieved to improve the situation of working people ought to be done. The latter held that only armed revolution could possible achieve socialism, and drew from this two large conclusions, first, that participation in government by Socialist parties was collaboration with the enemy, and that all actions, strikes, etc., should have for their aim the raising of revolutionary consciousness among the workers, rather than any actual improvement of wages and conditions.

It is obvious which end of this the modern Social Democratic parties in Europe descend from, and also worth pointing out that there is something to the old revolutionist's argument that reform of the system, or amelioration of its excesses, can blunt efforts to progress completely to socialist economic order.

[white_wolf]

21. I noticed my OP wasn't very clear so I think I need to clairify it.

This is meant to address a very specific claim i often hear. The claim is this: "Capitalism supports freedom and democracy." I presented evidence where a democratically elected leader was overthrown by capitalist forces and nations and replaced by a tyrant. In light of this evidence, I would like to hear defense for the claim that "capitalism supports freedom and democracy."

[BzaDem]

22. Capitalism by definition protects certain types of freedom that socialism (by definition) does not.

For example, capitalism protects freedom of contract. In capitalism, one can hire others to work for their business by having both agree to a mutually acceptable contract. (The owner would still control "the means of production," since this wouldn't necessarily be given away in a contract.)

In socialism (or at least the forms of socialism I have seen advocated here), such a transaction would generally be prohibited, since in these forms of socialism, the workers would own "the means of production" (even though "the means of production" only exist due to the owner).

Of course, democracy can and should place restraints these types of transactions (such as child labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc). But let's not pretend socialism generally protects the freedom of contract, when it by definition (and by its own terms) does not. In reality, socialists simply do not think people should be "free" to do certain things that they would be free to do in a capitalist society. They define freedom in a way that pleases them.

[white_wolf]

23. How do you reconcile your claims with

the incident I described above. That is clear example of capitalism not only existing in an authoritarian system, but replacing a democratic one.

[BzaDem]

24. That's a pretty silly argument.

After all, you are claiming that one incident defines capitalism, and shows its true colors.

Using your arguments, then one could easily claim that say, the great leap forward (and the resulting 30 million deaths) defines socialism, and shows its true colors.

You should be careful if you want to go in that direction. My arguments simply use the definitions widely understood by both capitalists and socialists -- they do not rely on exaggerated and mostly irrelevant generalizations of any one incident.

[reformist2]

25. But that is what capitalism tends to do, if its power isn't checked.

It is in the nature of capitalism to knock out or take over competitors - and government is the ultimate target for takeover!

[BzaDem]

26. Actually, your argument makes a lot more sense when applied to socialism (rather than capitalism).

After all, the vast majority of socialist countries had to use force and ban democracy to maintain the system -- whereas the vast majority of capitalist countries do not use force and maintain democracy.

(Of course, if you define democracy as "not capitalism," then you would disagree, but that is just begging the question.)

[reformist2]

27. Both economic systems try to take over governments. Our constitution was strong enough to keep them

both at bay for 200 years. It's not perfect, though, and it appears the capitalists are on the verge of taking over...mostly due to their buying of elections, and politicians.

[BzaDem]

28. You could also look at every other capitalist country, and realize that they are also not "taken

over."

Similarly, you could look at past socialist countries, and realize that almost all of them were indeed taken over.

So again, your argument seems to say the opposite of what you think it says.

[reformist2]

30. Are there any truly capitalist countries?

[BzaDem]

33. I'm defining capitalist as where workers generally don't own the means of production

since the OP defines socialism in a way where workers DO own the means of production.

[white_wolf]

31. Well the U.S. was taken over.

The Natives were here first and they were not capitalist, we stole the land from them and killed them. The Native people of the largest capitalist country in the world did not choose capitalism.

[BzaDem]

35. The CURRENT people of the largest capitalist country in the world choose capitalism.

If you want to go back thousands of years and declare any government that "took over" the previous native peoples "illegitimate," that is a completely different discussion and really has nothing to do with whether capitalism is compatible with freedom and democracy.

What matters is that generally, force and eradication of political freedom has been required to maintain socialism, where neither has been generally required to maintain capitalism. The people freely choose with their votes to maintain capitalism. Capitalist countries generally don't need walls to force their OWN PEOPLE to remain inside them (let alone to abolish elections).

[white_wolf]

36. Did they really choose it freely?

They have no choice in their vote. Both parties are fairly corporatist and anti-socialist. It has always been this way, and combine that with the brain washing our so called "media" does and I really question whether the people have chosen anything.

[BzaDem]

38. "Both parties are fairly corporatist and anti-socialist." Who votes for the nominees of the parties?

[white_wolf]

40. Oh yes we get to select from a handful of predetermined candidates

That is choose at all. The parties make sure that the nominees fit the mold.

[BzaDem]

42. Nonsense. It is not hard at all to qualify for the ballot. If there were actually a significant

number of people who had widely different views than the candidates already in the race, an additional one would join the race. They would qualify for the ballot under state ballot-qualification laws, and the people would vote for them.

[The Magistrate]

44. You Do Understand, Sir, This Is Mostly Low-Grade Codswallop?

The idea that Capitalism is not maintained by force is lauhable, and any glance at labor history would show just how high a degree of comedy the statement entails.

Given that a world-wide capitalist order is in existence, Socialism has had to come about in conditions of revolution, and revolution is always armed struggle, first against an existing economic and social order, and then against counter-revolution aiming to restore the old order. To claim features natural in a war to the death are features essential to a Socialist order is forensic sleight of hand, which is not intended to illuminate the question, but to cloud and obscure it.

[Starry Messenger]

46. I think part of the problem is people don't really understand what capitalism is.

People seems stuck on the mom and pop aspect of having your little store and selling things. Maybe even before advancing into explanations of socialism, an in depth overview of what capitalism really is might be handy. On the other hand, there are people who probably know exactly what it is, but don't care because they stand to benefit and fuck anyone else who doesn't, basically. (Which would follow, considering that is one of the kind of human created/rewarded under this system).

[The Magistrate]

48. There Is Definitely Something To That, Ma'am

Most people hear 'property' and think of their personal effects, perhaps their home and automobile. Items of this sort are vastly different from coal mines or mile-long assembly-lines or sheafs of title deeds to the dwellings and tools of thousands of other people. Most of the classic 'property rights' defense of Capitalism depends on conflating these separate categories....

[Starry Messenger]

50. Marx did address it, as you know Sir, but it is buried in the Manifesto toward the middle

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

Perhaps they should have retitled it "We Aren't Going To Take Your Stuff"

[desertrat777]

52. capitalism is not democracy, and we don't have a real democracy

Capitalism is not democracy, but a method by which money - that is, your work energy turned into a symbol that can be transferred - can be funneled into somebody else's wallet. Capitalists run a factory, for example, and take some of the "surplus profits" to increase their capital - their wealth - at the expense of your - i.e. the worker's - wealth. But guess what? We have been the victims of framing, because there is no such thing as "surplus profits." Is any part of your work energy "surplus?" Of course not.

Now multiply this by a million times or more, and you have a system that exploits not just its own workers, but exploits anything and everything that it can. Capitalism is inherently unstable, and periodically suffers one crisis after another. Why is this? Because increasing capital - in the hands of the few rich and powerful ruling elite - is not the same as caring for the needs of the people. Caring for the needs of the people is inherently stable, leads to peaceful relations and few to no wars, and overall a healthy economy. Capitalism thrives on divide-and-conquer. Take a look a what's happening in Libya right now. Whoever wins or loses, the weapons manufacturers are making a killing.

And in our own country, it doesn't matter what color the milking machines are painted - either red or blue - because they are still milking machines. As long as we are divided as workers, we will be unable to stop the exploitation by the uber-rich like the Koch brothers or General Electric (they manufacture weapons and own MSNBC) or the other companies behind the MIC. And as long as we are divided, we will be unable to have real democracy in this country. What we have right now is not democracy, as our duly elected representatives get elected and then misrepresent the voters, as they only further the interests of the rich ruling elite. You can call it an oligarchy, or a plutocracy - or if you want to be cynical, corporate fascism.

Here is one easy example of an alternative: the Alvarado Street Bakery in San Francisco. The bakery is worker owned - not government owned - and there, the average baker - not a highly skilled worker - makes at least 60K per year. Another example is the corporate boards of directors of German corporations, where half of the board of directors there must be elected by the workers themselves. Think about it.

[ZombieHorde]

53. You're confusing situations with concepts.

If an anti-violence spokesperson commits a disturbing act of violence, violence is still violence.