Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[Truthmatters]

Confused about the fundamental conflicts regarding proper distribution of power?

"Listen, for example, to liberal economist Lester Thurow who writes that 'democracy and capitalism have very different beliefs about the proper distribution of power.

"'One believes in a completely equal distribution of political power, "one man [sic] one vote," while the other believes that it is the duty of the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction. "Survival of the fittest" and inequalities in purchasing power are what capitalist efficiency is all about.

"'Individual profit comes first and firms become efficient to be rich. To put it in its starkest form, capitalism is perfectly compatible with slavery. Democracy is not.'"

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

Well it's a damn good thing then that America is not a Democracy but a Republic.

Under the very difinitions of the words a republic is a Democracy.

when will you people stop trying to change the facts?

 

[Steelplate]

Without competition, capitalism would not flourish.
It serves little to no purpose for "the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction".

Yet, you see it everywhere. Where shops and small business once flourished... The conglomerate has all but taken over... and they want MORE power(lower taxes, less regulation) to finish the job... and you want to let them.

 

[rdean]

Capitalism is NOT slavery. But turning the country over to corporations IS.

But turning the country over to excessive government is good?

Come on. To the right wing, ANY government is excessive.

 

[georgephillip]

Just curious, for the sake of argument, what would the US look like if there were no capitalism at all?

Capitalism's closest economic ancestor is Feudalism.

I don't think Lords and Ladies would have ever caught on here, but there are some critics of capitalism today who see corporate global feudalism as the next economic system.

During the first decades of the Industrial Revolution many workers believed they should control the means of production and share in decision making. Since the power of the state remained firmly on the side of capital, many of labor's early leaders were murdered, imprisoned or deported.

From the Gilded Age to WWI Socialism was on the march here in some places those of us alive today find hard to imagine. Oklahoma, for one. The state of North Dakota began doing business as the State Bank of North Dakota in 1919 to get away from Wall Street capitalists.

Any recovery from our current Great Recession may require revisiting solutions like North Dakota's.

 

[Steelplate]

Just curious, for the sake of argument, what would the US look like if there were no capitalism at all?

Who's calling for "no capitalism at all"? None of us. That's the bullshit propaganda that the right wingers are spreading. Things are out of hand and the concept of "trickle down" is actually trickling UP. The working and the Middle class are slowly being eroded, and you are trying to help it move along quicker.

What we want is fairness, and fairness requires the breaking up of these virtual monopolies that dictate just about everything through legislation and outsourcing.

 

[Truthmatters]

yes Steel , this is what they refuse to accept about unfettered caplitalism.

it kills caplitalism as sure as communism kills communism in no time at all.

Neither function well anywhere but on paper.

Capitalism has its own engine and that engine will explode and kill all the riders and the car if it does not have all the safety devices in place.

 

[Steelplate]

Citizens free to conduct commerce as they see fit without interference...try that...

Interference from whom? Hell, our government would absolutely LOVE for you to start a business. However, good luck getting the banks to invest in you, or your Corporate Competition to keep from destroying you or buying you out.

THAT'S the power that you should be fighting against.... not Health Care, Gays in the Military or some scared teenager opting to have an abortion.

Your energy and commitment is admirable... your direction sucks.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just curious, for the sake of argument, what would the US look like if there were no capitalism at all?

Who's calling for "no capitalism at all"? None of us. That's the bullshit propaganda that the right wingers are spreading. Things are out of hand and the concept of "trickle down" is actually trickling UP. The working and the Middle class are slowly being eroded, and you are trying to help it move along quicker.

What we want is fairness, and fairness requires the breaking up of these virtual monopolies that dictate just about everything through legislation and outsourcing.

Who actually has control here? The politicians, citizens, or the corporations?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interference from whom? Hell, our government would absolutely LOVE for you to start a business. However, good luck getting the banks to invest in you, or your Corporate Competition to keep from destroying you or buying you out.

THAT'S the power that you should be fighting against.... not Health Care, Gays in the Military or some scared teenager opting to have an abortion.

Your energy and commitment is admirable... your direction sucks.

Exactly.

 

[Truthmatters]

They have been fooled into fighting against democracy in the name of capitalism

 

[Steelplate]

Without competition, capitalism would not flourish.
It serves little to no purpose for "the economically fit to drive the unfit out of business and into extinction".

Since the days of the East India Company the most successful capitalists have crushed competitors in order to monopolize markets. Most of the successful corporations have bribed government for tax favors and laws that encourage monopolies and cartels coming into existence.

Capitalists need customers and clients far more than they need authentic competition, imho.

Welcome to Human behaviour...Incentive...Commerce...And a Pure Democracy is any better? Son you have a problem...Wealth Envy for starters...and hatred for Capitalism a close second.

Wealth envy? Is that the best you can come up with? Sounds like Beck 101... anyone who doesn't believe in the CURRENT Form of Capitalism is just jealous. What I mean by "current form" is the extreme notion that "bigger is better". Look around you Chief...Mom and Pops are dying, being replaced by the Corporate. Small business is the answer, not the problem.

If you want small business to compete, you have to give them an even playing field. Health Care... Big business can afford it, Small business can't. If you were a newly married mechanic with a kid on the way... who would you rather work for? Joe's garage or Pep Boys? Or better yet.. who could you afford to work for. Both would probably give you the same wages or at least close enough... but Pep Boys offers Health Insurance... Joe's Garage can't.

That's the issue... that's the problem. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WEALTH ENVY!!!!!

You're what Lenin used to call a "useful idiot". I find it amusing that the original term was given by Vladimir Lenin to Communist Sympathizers in America. Now it can be fully attributed to you people who support a tyranny that is irrepressible in nature.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Since the days of the East India Company the most successful capitalists have crushed competitors in order to monopolize markets. Most of the successful corporations have bribed government for tax favors and laws that encourage monopolies and cartels coming into existence.

Capitalists need customers and clients far more than they need authentic competition, imho.

Welcome to Human behaviour...Incentive...Commerce...And a Pure Democracy is any better? Son you have a problem...Wealth Envy for starters...and hatred for Capitalism a close second.

Wealth envy? Is that the best you can come up with? Sounds like Beck 101... anyone who doesn't believe in the CURRENT Form of Capitalism is just jealous. What I mean by "current form" is the extreme notion that "bigger is better". Look around you Chief...Mom and Pops are dying, being replaced by the Corporate. Small business is the answer, not the problem.

If you want small business to compete, you have to give them an even playing field. Health Care... Big business can afford it, Small business can't. If you were a newly married mechanic with a kid on the way... who would you rather work for? Joe's garage or Pep Boys? Or better yet.. who could you afford to work for. Both would probably give you the same wages or at least close enough... but Pep Boys offers Health Insurance... Joe's Garage can't.

That's the issue... that's the problem. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WEALTH ENVY!!!!!

You're what Lenin used to call a "useful idiot". I find it amusing that the original term was given by Vladimir Lenin to Communist Sympathizers in America. Now it can be fully attributed to you people who support a tyranny that is irrepressible in nature.

But politicians generalize across the landscape, big, small, intermediate. It doesn't matter to them but it does to us who own small businesses.

 

[Steelplate]

Just curious, for the sake of argument, what would the US look like if there were no capitalism at all?

Who's calling for "no capitalism at all"? None of us. That's the bullshit propaganda that the right wingers are spreading. Things are out of hand and the concept of "trickle down" is actually trickling UP. The working and the Middle class are slowly being eroded, and you are trying to help it move along quicker.

What we want is fairness, and fairness requires the breaking up of these virtual monopolies that dictate just about everything through legislation and outsourcing.

Who actually has control here? The politicians, citizens, or the corporations?

Who do you think? Seriously. Corporations control politicians via financing their campaigns. It doesn't matter who wins... by the time they get to office, they own them all.

I know you've been told that Unions are pure evil... and in some instances, I agree. But they are the ONLY organized force that is trying to stand toe to toe with the Big Corporations. They have LIMITED resources(provided by their members... everyday people with everyday jobs) and can't afford to buy off BOTH parties like big money can. So they concentrate on the ONE party that is at least sympathetic to workers... the Democrats... but they themselves are beholden to Big money... so they give a token gesture to everyday people..but by and large serve the same people that the GOP are fully in bed with.

 

[dblack]

Democracy: One person; One vote.

Corporation: One dollar; One vote.

Which side are you on?

How we vote doesn't interest me that much. I'm almost never in the majority, and I'm not rich, so either one of those schemes is a potential threat if there aren't solid limitations on the kinds of things voters can force on the rest of us.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Who's calling for "no capitalism at all"? None of us. That's the bullshit propaganda that the right wingers are spreading. Things are out of hand and the concept of "trickle down" is actually trickling UP. The working and the Middle class are slowly being eroded, and you are trying to help it move along quicker.

What we want is fairness, and fairness requires the breaking up of these virtual monopolies that dictate just about everything through legislation and outsourcing.

Who actually has control here? The politicians, citizens, or the corporations?

Who do you think? Seriously. Corporations control politicians via financing their campaigns. It doesn't matter who wins... by the time they get to office, they own them all.

I know you've been told that Unions are pure evil... and in some instances, I agree. But they are the ONLY organized force that is trying to stand toe to toe with the Big Corporations. They have LIMITED resources(provided by their members... everyday people with everyday jobs) and can't afford to buy off BOTH parties like big money can. So they concentrate on the ONE party that is at least sympathetic to workers... the Democrats... but they themselves are beholden to Big money... so they give a token gesture to everyday people..but by and large serve the same people that the GOP are fully in bed with.

Now think this through and I'm not disagreeing with you fully that large corporations control politicians. Look at GE. Didn't pay a dime in taxes. However, politicians skim from these corps too by giving them goodies and so on. So, in essence, they have control also.....but, there's another.....we have control too. Nobody is forcing us to frequent or trade with these large corps are they? See, my little corporation gets taxed just like mr big corporation, yet I don't have the money for lobbyists. So, the screw jobs are everywhere, not just in one spot.

 

[dblack]

If you want small business to compete, you have to give them an even playing field.

First, you have to understand why the playing field is uneven in the first place. GeorgePhillip is on the right track:

Since the days of the East India Company the most successful capitalists have crushed competitors in order to monopolize markets. Most of the successful corporations have bribed government for tax favors and laws that encourage monopolies and cartels coming into existence.

We can strike a real blow against corporate dominance by removing limited liability protection, removing tax loopholes and "incentives", and removing regulations that function primarily to protect vested interests in a given industry. And none of these measures would require expanding the power of government. Actually, it would be the opposite so we could do it with relatively broad bi-partisan support. Why don't we do that?. Or, more to the point, why don't Democrats who claim to want to undercut corporate dominance, do that?

 

[georgephillip]

More surprising than these findings is the candor with which Longworth deepens his explanation by acknowledging synergy between the bottom line considerations and authoritarian values of American multinational CEOs and Third World fascism. Dictators, he writes, "tend to be strong leaders who can provide quick decisions, deliver results and stamp out opposition. These qualities can appeal to many business leaders, who themselves operate in a non-democratic structure."

To buttress this exceptionally forthright analysis, Longworth provides an excellent quote from Ron Leven, a currency expert at the international investment firm J.P. Morgan, who made a revealing comment as Indonesia was ridding itself of its U.S.-sponsored dictator Suharto last year. "Democracy is a desirable form of government," Leven proclaimed, "but it's not necessarily the most efficient form of government." Or, as AFL-CIO policy functionary Thomas Palley puts it: "profits and morality don't mix very well." Exactly-and no small part of why tens of thousands of workers, environmentalists, leftists, and other concerned world citizens recently staged remarkable mass protests at the Seattle meetings of the World Trade Organization, an autocratic agency that has a strong record of favoring global capital's unimpeded freedom to exploit the profit premium of Third World fascism.

That capitalism flourishes in ‘non-democracies’ is not exactly news, this was true with the fascist dictatorships of the early 20th Century as it is with China today.

The issue for democracies is the potential undue influence corporate entities may exact via the media, and the degree of sophistication and knowledge of the electorate.

The US electorate today has no shortage of corporate distractions or celebrity fluff to distract it from acquiring the sophistication and knowledge necessary to defend democratic values. Since the end of WWI the Advertising and Public Relations industries have worked to limit Americans' political involvement to voting every two years for one candidate or another after both have been vetted by elites.

"In telling the Chicago Economic Club why 'the international community' (the world's leading industrial states, that is) should not shy away from 'intervening' in the internal affairs of (as in bombing) 'rogue' states like Iraq and Serbia last April (1999), British Prime Minister Tony Blair argued that 'when regimes are based on minority rule, they lose their legitimacy.'

"Yet, while Blair would never dream of describing his senior partner the United States as a 'minority'-ruled regime,' American reformers express widespread popular sentiment when they describe U.S. elections as de facto 'wealth primaries.'"

Capitalism and Democracy Don't Mix Very Well ::: International Endowment for Democracy

 

[Steelplate]

Welcome to Human behaviour...Incentive...Commerce...And a Pure Democracy is any better? Son you have a problem...Wealth Envy for starters...and hatred for Capitalism a close second.

Wealth envy? Is that the best you can come up with? Sounds like Beck 101... anyone who doesn't believe in the CURRENT Form of Capitalism is just jealous. What I mean by "current form" is the extreme notion that "bigger is better". Look around you Chief...Mom and Pops are dying, being replaced by the Corporate. Small business is the answer, not the problem.

If you want small business to compete, you have to give them an even playing field. Health Care... Big business can afford it, Small business can't. If you were a newly married mechanic with a kid on the way... who would you rather work for? Joe's garage or Pep Boys? Or better yet.. who could you afford to work for. Both would probably give you the same wages or at least close enough... but Pep Boys offers Health Insurance... Joe's Garage can't.

That's the issue... that's the problem. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WEALTH ENVY!!!!!

You're what Lenin used to call a "useful idiot". I find it amusing that the original term was given by Vladimir Lenin to Communist Sympathizers in America. Now it can be fully attributed to you people who support a tyranny that is irrepressible in nature.

But politicians generalize across the landscape, big, small, intermediate. It doesn't matter to them but it does to us who own small businesses.

IT does matter to some of them. Let me ask you something. Let's suppose your taxes go up by 4%... to the 39% during the Clinton years. Through that tax increase, it allowed money to be trickled down to the state level where they can afford to do more projects, hire their companies to do contracts for needed services, or even hire needed Public Servants. Having MORE people with MORE income increases your opportunities for business, does it not?

That's what things like the Stimulus is designed to do.

I take it you are a small business owner. Do you provide your employees with Health insurance? If you do...

A. How is it affecting your bottom line?
B. How good is the coverage?

Now compare that to the big boys who have Billions at their disposal.

THAT'S what the Health Care plan was(originally) supposed to do.... It's been so watered down though that I don't think it's gone nearly far enough. A Public Option was a necessity.

Imagine... if you couldn't afford to provide a quality Health Insurance Plan to your employees, you'd still have the public option to fall back on.... perhaps take a supplemental policy to cover some things that the Public Option didn't at a fraction of the cost.

Now... just for one second... think about what that would mean for Big business. That would mean that their "Commodities"(as referenced in another thread), would have the FREEDOM to choose your business rather than ACME INC. to work... or even start a business of their own and not have to worry about what would happen if their kid(s) got sick. That is huge.

Big business doesn't want THAT kind of competition...so they threw out the Socialist, Marxist, Communist labels with full gusto. If you have a business, you know the power of advertizing and Marketing... Imagine if you had a virtually unlimited marketing budget... Imagine the people you could sway to your side of the debate.

 

[Steelplate]

If you want small business to compete, you have to give them an even playing field.

First, you have to understand why the playing field is uneven in the first place. GeorgePhillip is on the right track:

Since the days of the East India Company the most successful capitalists have crushed competitors in order to monopolize markets. Most of the successful corporations have bribed government for tax favors and laws that encourage monopolies and cartels coming into existence.

We can strike a real blow against corporate dominance by removing limited liability protection, removing tax loopholes and "incentives", and removing regulations that function primarily to protect vested interests in a given industry. And none of these measures would require expanding the power of government. Actually, it would be the opposite so we could do it with relatively broad bi-partisan support. Why don't we do that?. Or, more to the point, why don't Democrats who claim to want to undercut corporate dominance, do that?

Read my responses to LordBrownTrout.

Hey... I'm a Democrat.. but I hold no allegiance to any party. I just find that they are a hell of a lot closer to my beliefs than the current form of the GOP is.

I agree with removing tax loopholes and removing regulations that protect big business... but I'll take it a step further... give those tax loopholes to, and provide regulations that protect SMALL BUSINESS.

The more small to intermediate businesses there are in this country, employing workers in this country... the stronger we will be.

 

[smartdonkey]

Republican governors are working with might and main to see to it that we can't vote easily or join a union. That is slavery.