Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[Steelplate]

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.

I think what Mr. Thurow fails to recognize is that democracy and capitalism are concerned with entirely different kinds of power. Political power is not the same as economic power. It's our failure at keeping the two separate that has brought democracy and capitalism into conflict.

I have to agree with you dblack. Capitalism has infused itself into our political process. Our current form of government has little to do with Democracy... or even a Democratic Republic. It is very much corrupted into a Plutocracy.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

I think what Mr. Thurow fails to recognize is that democracy and capitalism are concerned with entirely different kinds of power. Political power is not the same as economic power. It's our failure at keeping the two separate that has brought democracy and capitalism into conflict.

I have to agree with you dblack. Capitalism has infused itself into our political process. Our current form of government has little to do with Democracy... or even a Democratic Republic. It is very much corrupted into a Plutocracy.

One of the scariest things, in my opinion, is how little contract the v. rich have with their victims.

Particularly if you believe money is a commodity.

"There’s a great WSJ blog called 'The Wealth Report' by Robert Frank, who wrote an excellent book called 'Richistan' in which he makes a case that the world’s wealthy have essentially formed a shadow (let’s call it virtual as it sounds nicer) nation 'where the top 1% control $17T in wealth, have their own health care system (concierge doctors), travel system (private jets, destination clubs) and language. ("Who’s your household manager?").'"

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

Most of the richest 1% live in gated bubbles where they seldom come in contact with those who are not rich. More than a few of the rich probably believe they have earned their money.

That's scary.

 

[georgephillip]

I asked about your comfort zone with Rs and Ds because I don't see any solution to Endless War and Usury if the only "choice" allowed is between one of the two corporate parties.

Couldn't agree more. I honestly think we need to change the voting system to something like approval voting, or anything that would undercut the 'lesser-of-two-evils' dysfunction of the current system.

As far as state constitutions are concerned, it's been my experience that most voters pay even less attention on a daily basis to state and local issues than they do to national ones. Personally, I see the corporation as the biggest threat to individual liberties, and I'm not sure states would have the will or the resources to control corporate excess.

Even if they wanted to.

I think I see what you're getting at. And there is one aspect where I am in full agreement that 'states rights' is killing us. The concept of equal protection, currently rather weakly represented in the federal constitution, should be amplified and extended to the states as well. Put in tangible terms, that means the common practice of offering special favors (tax incentives, tax abatements, or any other state policy that applies the law unequally to its citizens) to lure various money interests to the state should be banned outright. We really need to put a stop to the practice of corporations (and other organized interest groups) shopping around to states, looking for the one that will offer them the best 'deal'. The whole thing really screams for a constitutional amendment at the federal level.

The issue of corporations being too big and powerful needs to be addressed as well. First and foremost, we need to understand that a corporation that is too-big-to-fail is too big, and the sooner they do fail, the better. I also suspect a radical revamping of corporate law will ultimately be required.

Enhancing equal protection might be the thin edge of the wedge that pries conservative support from the corporation. I'm not sure how you feel about Noam Chomsky; however, he advances the opinion that corporations as they exist today are the last remaining fascist institution of the 20th Century.

There's little doubt in my mind that too-big-to-fail is rapidly approaching an even worse alternative:

Too-big-to-save, i.e., Iceland.

Can you imagine the financial bloodletting if Goldman Sachs went the way of Enron?

 

[editec]

I think a major problem in this debate stems from the fact that CAPITALISM can (and does!) exist in many forms.

Consider the following attempt to define "Capitalism" we find in here in WIKI

Anarcho-capitalism

Main article: Anarcho-capitalism
See also: Free-market anarchism
Anarcho-capitalism is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as dispute resolution organisations and private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.
[edit] Mercantilism

Main article: Mercantilism
See also: Protectionism
A nationalist-oriented form of early capitalism that uses the state to advance national business interests abroad, and holds that the wealth of a nation is increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations.
[edit] Free-market capitalism

Main article: Free market
See also: Laissez-faire
Free market capitalism consists of a free-price system where supply and demand are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by the government. Productive enterprises are privately-owned, and the role of the state is limited to protecting property rights.
[edit] Social market economy

Main article: Social market
A social market economy is a nominally free-market system where government intervention in price formation is kept to a minimum, but the state provides for moderate to extensive provision of social security, unemployment benefits and recognition of labor rights through national collective bargaining schemes. The social market is based on private ownership of businesses.
[edit] State capitalism

Main article: State capitalism
State capitalism consists of state-ownership of profit-seeking enterprises that operate in a capitalist manner in a market economy: examples of this include corporatized government agencies or partial ownership of shares in publicly-listed firms by the state. State capitalism is also used to refer to an economy consisting of mainly private enterprises that are subjected to comprehensive national economic planning by the government, where the state intervenes in the economy to protect specific capitalist businesses. Many anti-USSR socialists, as well as many anarchists, argue that the Soviet Union was never socialist, but rather state capitalist, since the state owned all the means of production and functioned as an enormous corporation, and exploited the working class as such.
[edit] Corporate capitalism

Main article: Corporate capitalism
See also: State monopoly capitalism
Corporate capitalism is a free or mixed market characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations, which are legally required to pursue profit. State monopoly capitalism refers to a form of corporate capitalism where the state is used to benefit, protect from competition and promote the interests of dominant or established corporations.
[edit] Mixed economy

Main article: Mixed economy
A largely market-based economy consisting of both public ownership and private ownership of the means of production. In practice, a mixed economy will be heavily slanted toward one extreme; most capitalist economies are defined as "mixed economies" to some degree and are characterized by the dominance of private ownership.
[edit] Other



Other variants of capitalism include:

• Crony capitalism
• Finance capitalism
• Financial capitalism

• Late capitalism
• Market economy
• Neo-Capitalism

• Post-capitalism
• State monopoly capitalism
• Technocapitalism

Capitalism is a kind of economic system,AND one that can easily adapt to changing government policies and social conditions.

CAPITALIISM is a highly ADAPTABLE economic system.

Certainly one kind of capitalism had NO PROBLEM existing and thriving in a society that has slavery.

But consider that capitalism also has NO PROBLEM existing and thriving a society that has outlawed slavery.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

The problem there is the State. Without the State, corporations wouldn't be able to become monopolies/oligopolies by lobbying for tax loopholes and barriers to entry from the government.

Without the State, corporations would not exist.
Capitalists would have no courts, schools or access to the US 5th Fleet.

Corporations are the creatures of government; are you proposing changing government's role in society?

What do you see as a possible alternative?

 

[editec]

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.

The problem there is the State. Without the State, corporations wouldn't be able to become monopolies/oligopolies by lobbying for tax loopholes and barriers to entry from the government.

Without the State, corporations would not exist.
Capitalists would have no courts, schools or access to the US 5th Fleet.

Corporations are the creatures of government; are you proposing changing government's role in society?

What do you see as a possible alternative?

What many of them envision (whether they know it or not, I think few of them actually do) is a sort of neofeudalist society where-in people are affiliated with corporations or they are OUT IN THE COLD.

And frankly, GP, I think THAT is where we're headed, too.

At least for a while...

The ONLY thing that's going to stop this development is a bloody revolution, and THAT is very likely to be a cure that is worse (much worse!) than the disease.

Effectively over 20% of the population of this nation has been so marginalized that they are effectively NON PERSONS.

That marginalization of citizens (by economic means) seems to be inevitable.

AT what point THE SHEEP LOOK UP AND TURN ON THE SHEPHARDS, I cannot say.

But, assuming nothing changes, that is the direction that this society is headed

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe the sheep need to practice a little divide and conquer against the bulls and bears?

In my wildest fantasies when millions of Americans are poised to FLUSH hundreds of Republicans AND Democrats from DC during a single 24 hour November news cycle, it's easy to imagine the RNC and DNC combining to swamp the polls from Cook County to Dade County with authentic voter fraud on a scale never witnessed before in this country.

European voters would respond with an equally massive general strike if their governments resorted to that level of deception.

In this country I'm not sure the smerfs and serfs would have the balls.

I think you're right about a tipping point rapidly approaching.
The gap between the rich and the rest will soon become a vacuum:
Nature abhors all vacuums, and 200 million private US guns will fill it.

Corporate elites are definitely leaning toward global feudalism.

Whether the sheep follow willingly depends on whether the bulls and bears (pigs?) are unified in their response, in my opinion.

 

[georgephillip]

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

I'm not reading this entire thread; but this article is stupid. You can't compare capitalism to democracy. One is an economic principle and one is a political ideology. Talk about apples and oranges.

Do you believe "...that globalization is advancing two sides of the same historical coin: capitalism and democracy"?

Do you dispute politicians from Bill Clinton to George W. constantly conflate the "apples" and "oranges"?

What about Cold War rhetoric:

"This Cold War doctrine provided ideological cover for U. S. sponsorship of numerous pro-capitalist / pro-globalization dictatorships throughout the world.

"It also disguised the real nature of leading First World states.

"Beneath outwardly democratic political processes and generally strong civil liberties, those states were fundamentally subject to the command of centralized, hierarchical corporate power and great monied wealth-a condition that persists well into the 'post-Cold War era.'"

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

 

[bripat9643]

I have to agree with you dblack. Capitalism has infused itself into our political process. Our current form of government has little to do with Democracy... or even a Democratic Republic. It is very much corrupted into a Plutocracy.

The problem is exactly the opposite. government has "infused" itself into our economy. Economists call that arrangement "fascism."

The toadies who suck on the government tit are always trying to blame capitalism and private corporations for the crimes of government.

Nothing ever changes.

 

[Lars]

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.

The problem there is the State. Without the State, corporations wouldn't be able to become monopolies/oligopolies by lobbying for tax loopholes and barriers to entry from the government.

Without the State, corporations would not exist.
Capitalists would have no courts, schools or access to the US 5th Fleet.

Corporations are the creatures of government; are you proposing changing government's role in society?

What do you see as a possible alternative?

Exactly, so corporations are a product of the State. Not that I think there is anything inherently wrong about a corporation, but the notion that certain firms should receive special privileges through a biased licensing system is antithetical to free market values.

Capitalists would most certainly have courts in a stateless society, there just wouldn't havea universal court system, rather a polycentric legal system which individuals and firms would subscribe to for legal protection. So i guess there could be a situation in a stateless society where a certain legal system would accommodate for corporate licensing. But I am not advocating lawlessness, I am advocating voluntaryism. There is a difference between a Government and a State. They are not necessarily one in the same.

 

[grunt11b]

Congress and senate, no matter which party, need a huge enema to flush out all the shit that's been voted in for the last 20+ years. We need to vote for the constitution and only place people in those positions who support it and will abide by it.

 

[dblack]

The problem is exactly the opposite. government has "infused" itself into our economy. Economists call that arrangement "fascism."

Well, it's pretty obviously both, isn't it? "It takes two to tango". You might argue that it's driven as much by power hungry politicians as by greedy capitalists, but I'm not sure it's an important distinction to make. The main thing is for all of us to recognize that corporate/government "partnership" is bad mojo. It's definitely important to highlight the role that overreaching regulatory efforts play in the collusion, as that approach often just turns up the pressure on corporations to get in bed with government, but the main thing is to put a stop to it. The blame game only gets us so far.

The hard part will be convincing Washington that the only way to keep capitalism out of politics is to keep politics out of capitalism. The state is still responsible for making the rules that everyone must follow, but we have to resist the urge to use government to monkey with the economy. Democrats and Republicans are equally fond of meddling in the economy (albeit in different ways), and it won't be easy to break them of the habit.

 

[georgephillip]

Congress and senate, no matter which party, need a huge enema to flush out all the shit that's been voted in for the last 20+ years. We need to vote for the constitution and only place people in those positions who support it and will abide by it.

Who decides what the Constitution says?

 

[georgephillip]

The problem there is the State. Without the State, corporations wouldn't be able to become monopolies/oligopolies by lobbying for tax loopholes and barriers to entry from the government.

Without the State, corporations would not exist.
Capitalists would have no courts, schools or access to the US 5th Fleet.

Corporations are the creatures of government; are you proposing changing government's role in society?

What do you see as a possible alternative?

Exactly, so corporations are a product of the State. Not that I think there is anything inherently wrong about a corporation, but the notion that certain firms should receive special privileges through a biased licensing system is antithetical to free market values.

Capitalists would most certainly have courts in a stateless society, there just wouldn't havea universal court system, rather a polycentric legal system which individuals and firms would subscribe to for legal protection. So i guess there could be a situation in a stateless society where a certain legal system would accommodate for corporate licensing. But I am not advocating lawlessness, I am advocating voluntaryism. There is a difference between a Government and a State. They are not necessarily one in the same.

Is this an accurate thumbnail account of a polycentric legal system?

"Tom W. Bell, former director of telecommunications and technology studies at Cato Institute[1], now a professor of law at Chapman University School of Law in California[2] wrote 'Polycentric Law,' published by the Institute for Humane Studies when he was a law student at the University of Chicago.

"In it he notes that others use phrases such as 'privately produced law,' 'purely private law' and 'non-monopolistic law' to describe these polycentric alternatives.[3] He outlines traditional customary law (also known as consuetudinary law) before the creation of states, including as described by Friedrich A. Hayek, Bruce L. Benson and David D. Friedman.

"He mentions Anglo-Saxon customary law, church law, guild law and merchant law as examples of polycentric law. He notes that customary and statutory law have co-existed through history, as when Roman law applied to Romans throughout the Roman Empire, but indigenous legal systems were permitted for non-Romans.[3]

"In 'Polycentric Law in the New Millennium,' which won first place in the Mont Pelerin Society's 1998 Friedrich A. Hayek Fellowship competition, Bell predicts three areas where polycentric law might develop: alternative dispute resolution, private communities, and the Internet."

Polycentric law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who would control the monopoly of violence in a private law system?

 

[Liberty]

Congress and senate, no matter which party, need a huge enema to flush out all the shit that's been voted in for the last 20+ years. We need to vote for the constitution and only place people in those positions who support it and will abide by it.

Who decides what the Constitution says?

The English language? What a stupid question.

 

[Truthmatters]

The Scotus.

You failed your test on the knowledge of US gov.

 

[Liberty]

The Scotus.

You failed your test on the knowledge of US gov.

Says arguably one of the most ignorant people on the subject of civic knowledge.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think what Mr. Thurow fails to recognize is that democracy and capitalism are concerned with entirely different kinds of power. Political power is not the same as economic power. It's our failure at keeping the two separate that has brought democracy and capitalism into conflict.

I have to agree with you dblack. Capitalism has infused itself into our political process. Our current form of government has little to do with Democracy... or even a Democratic Republic. It is very much corrupted into a Plutocracy.

One of the scariest things, in my opinion, is how little contract the v. rich have with their victims.

Particularly if you believe money is a commodity.

"There’s a great WSJ blog called 'The Wealth Report' by Robert Frank, who wrote an excellent book called 'Richistan' in which he makes a case that the world’s wealthy have essentially formed a shadow (let’s call it virtual as it sounds nicer) nation 'where the top 1% control $17T in wealth, have their own health care system (concierge doctors), travel system (private jets, destination clubs) and language. ("Who’s your household manager?").'"

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

Most of the richest 1% live in gated bubbles where they seldom come in contact with those who are not rich. More than a few of the rich probably believe they have earned their money.

That's scary.

The zero sum game is a myth perpetuated by the class envy pro-socialism crowd.
Money......is a commodity only in which currencies are traded on a commodities exchange.
Wealth, is not a commodity. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum.
Your theory says this:...When there is a multi million dollar lottery winner, by design all others have had money taken from them by the lottery winner. That is incredibly stupid. And it's false.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think what Mr. Thurow fails to recognize is that democracy and capitalism are concerned with entirely different kinds of power. Political power is not the same as economic power. It's our failure at keeping the two separate that has brought democracy and capitalism into conflict.

I have to agree with you dblack. Capitalism has infused itself into our political process. Our current form of government has little to do with Democracy... or even a Democratic Republic. It is very much corrupted into a Plutocracy.

One of the scariest things, in my opinion, is how little contract the v. rich have with their victims.

Particularly if you believe money is a commodity.

"There’s a great WSJ blog called 'The Wealth Report' by Robert Frank, who wrote an excellent book called 'Richistan' in which he makes a case that the world’s wealthy have essentially formed a shadow (let’s call it virtual as it sounds nicer) nation 'where the top 1% control $17T in wealth, have their own health care system (concierge doctors), travel system (private jets, destination clubs) and language. ("Who’s your household manager?").'"

"As this chart shows, the US is cranking out multimillionaires at a record pace with super-rich (more than $10M) households doubling in the past decade.

"What’s scary is that doubling the amount of people who have more than $10M per household (from 300K to 600K) means there’s $3,000,000,000,000 less available for the other 98% of the of the households as MONEY IS A COMMODITY and can only be possessed by one person OR another."

The Dooh Nibor Economy (that’s “Robin Hood” backwards!) | Phil

Most of the richest 1% live in gated bubbles where they seldom come in contact with those who are not rich. More than a few of the rich probably believe they have earned their money.

That's scary.

The zero sum game is a myth perpetuated by the class envy pro-socialism crowd.
Money......is a commodity only in which currencies are traded on a commodities exchange.
Wealth, is not a commodity. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum.
Your theory says this:...When there is a multi million dollar lottery winner, by design all others have had money taken from them by the lottery winner. That is incredibly stupid. And it's false.

 

[georgephillip]

Congress and senate, no matter which party, need a huge enema to flush out all the shit that's been voted in for the last 20+ years. We need to vote for the constitution and only place people in those positions who support it and will abide by it.

Who decides what the Constitution says?

The English language? What a stupid question.

Reasonable people often disagree about the meaning of some of the words and phrases that make up the Constitution.

How do you propose resolving those disagreements?