|
Jastiger posted:Is Capitalism Anti-Democratic? Short answer: yes. Long answer: some silly research paper I wrote awhile back. Specifically - quote:The evidence from Houle supports a strong relationship between economic inequality and democratic collapse. I refrained from mentioning capitalism when I wrote it, but capitalism - in practice - is the redistribution of wealth to the top. This creates economic inequality. When well restrained by government, the redistributive nature of capitalism can be tempered. Unfortunately for the U.S. and its people, these restraints have been almost continually lessened since JFK was president.
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You have a bizarre idea of what democracy means. If 51% think the pigs should napalm the camp, that's democracy. What you meant to say was, "Sounds really civil libertarian!" Are we really going to argue that "democracy" involves zero protections for minorities vs. mob rule?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Short answer: yes. In essence, this is what Piketty is calling our attention to. We have returned to a level of inequality we haven't seen since before World War I. If current trends hold, we will become the most unequal society in modern history. Piketty estimates that as early as 2030 the share of total income going to the top 10% will rise to 60%. The illusion of 1940-1970/80 is now clearly seen for what it was: a massive historical outlier, and the consequence of very specific events and policies. Capitalism has always trended in the direction of greater inequality.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
I think OWS may be relevant in the sense that its an example of how a population may wish to enact political change, and you could directly link their effectiveness to the amount of money that they bring to the table. The Tea party was effective not because the people were necessarily better educated or better at their messaging, the Tea Party was effective because their narrative was easily co opted to benefit those that already did have money in hand. The Koch brothers would be devastated if a lot of the supposed Tea Party narrative was enforced, but they fund them hand over fist because its easier to fire them up about non-economic issues like abortion and gay rights over actually attacking unequal tax structures. Seriously, look at the Tea Party message of anti corporate rhetoric and how Tea Party candidates fall over themselves to strip social programs and bolster corporate welfare programs which is counter to the supposed Tea Party rhetoric. This is how money shapes politics and directly impacts democracy. I do say supposed rhetoric because I believe the entire Tea Party thing was started for this very reason and not specifically organic like OWS was, but again..message control via money changes the message and changes the democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
chairface posted:Are we really going to argue that "democracy" involves zero protections for minorities vs. mob rule?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
In non capitalist systems, of course, the opinions of political minorities gathering in parks and on streets are highly cherished.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
chairface posted:Are we really going to argue that "democracy" involves zero protections for minorities vs. mob rule? Nah, the whole "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner" spiel deployed by conservatives is a flimsy strawman used to avoid any actual discussion over the effects of economic inequality on democratic governance. It's a good idea to just ignore any right-winger spitting up that particular talking point unless they also explain specifically why the undemocratic nature of plutocratic governments provides important protections for vulnerable minorities that a real-world democratic system of government doesn't, and what those minorities rights protected are as well as why they're worth the dismantling of democratic self-rule by the citizenry. Jastiger posted:I think OWS may be relevant in the sense that its an example of how a population may wish to enact political change, and you could directly link their effectiveness to the amount of money that they bring to the table. The Tea party was effective not because the people were necessarily better educated or better at their messaging, the Tea Party was effective because their narrative was easily co opted to benefit those that already did have money in hand. The Tea Party was effective because Tea Partiers went out and actually loving voted for primary candidates that supported their agenda, instead of relying on drum circles and panel discussions. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 09:26 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The Tea Party was effective because Tea Partiers went out and actually loving voted for primary candidates that supported their agenda, instead of relying on drum circles and panel discussions. I think their financial support sets them quite apart from OWS.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I think that is kind of my point, that the United States claims one ideal, but in reality that ideal is very different and very beneficial for a select group of people from the outset. Which, as you point out, puts the accumulation of capital at odds with a fair and equal government that applies equally to all citizens. Note, I am using the US Constitution for this description, not that all Democracies have to include all citizens. The US Constitution (or Declaration which is often read into the Constitution when deriving meaning) straight up says all people born here are citizens, all people are equal, and that tyranny by an elite is Bad News Bears. You missed my point, which is that it doesn't really say that. Again, the Declaration said "all men are created equal" - which openly excludes fifty-ish percent of the population. It's just another case of "all people worthy of equality are equal". I don't think the concept of "all (rich, white, male, of sufficient birth) people are equal" was new in 1776. It's real easy to proclaim equality for all when you don't count women, poor people, or religious and racial minorities as "people". Idealistic rhetoric has always been a useful tool to draw attention away from conditions which were often nothing like the ideal. Just look at how many of the Communist states ended up. Jastiger posted:As a super liberal dude, I have to agree with the above poster: protests don't really do anything in my view. The only real way to effect change in a capitalist society is either through direct violence i.e. breaking into a place and harming or imprisoning everyone that you find to be "wrong" in an establishment, or by getting a ton of capital to change the system from within. Protests, by themselves, don't do anything. Their sole purpose is to indicate to the elites that a large number of people are pissed off. That, alone, accomplishes nothing; the elites already know that their policies aren't popular among the rabble. The factor that gives protests their effectiveness is that they ask a silent question: "if these pissed off people demonstrating their willingness to act collectively for their cause aren't thrown a bone, what will they do next?" They're basically a threat, demonstrating to the elites just how many people the movement's next step - be it mass disruption, property damage, or open violence - could potentially have involved. Since Occupy disavowed any and all escalation that might go so far as to inconvenience someone, it didn't matter how many people it mobilized, no one had any reason to fear their next move. chairface posted:Are we really going to argue that "democracy" involves zero protections for minorities vs. mob rule? Sure, why would it be otherwise? That seems to be consistent with history, too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
euler posted:I think their financial support sets them quite apart from OWS. Yeah, but financial support can be overcome just by sheer numbers. Assuming Occupy really was representative of the "99%" if they had actually voted en masse it wouldn't have mattered how much money was thrown at their opponents. The fact that from the get go they refused to participate in the political system at all eliminated even that threat from happening. And it's not like this is exactly a new concept - a major component of the Civil Rights movement was getting black people to vote, even though they were discouraged/beaten/etc, even going so far as to have mass rallies at church for registration or GOTV. Occupy's problem, among many others, is that they only looked at the surface myth of previous movements, and assumed that by standing out and protesting they'd get what they wanted. I'm not saying they had to GOTV, or they had to go and smash things, but they had to do something other than stand in a park (and I'm aware of the buying debt etc stuff, but that was too little too late).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You missed my point, which is that it doesn't really say that. Again, the Declaration said "all men are created equal" - which openly excludes fifty-ish percent of the population. It's just another case of "all people worthy of equality are equal". I don't think the concept of "all (rich, white, male, of sufficient birth) people are equal" was new in 1776. It's real easy to proclaim equality for all when you don't count women, poor people, or religious and racial minorities as "people". Right, I think we're agreeing here. What I was saying was that the Constitution has the flowery rhetoric of all folks being equal and statements that ruling of the people is better than an elite, yet it specifically reinforces that elite through slavery, only white men voting, etc. Its a contradictory document from the beginning. Hell, even the second amendment was fought for not because they wanted to fight a tyrannical government, but because the Southern states wanted to keep arms to keep their slaves in line. They saw the rhetoric, knew it was contradictory, and knew they'd need an established power structure to perpetuate inequality. quote:Protests, by themselves, don't do anything. Their sole purpose is to indicate to the elites that a large number of people are pissed off. That, alone, accomplishes nothing; the elites already know that their policies aren't popular among the rabble. The factor that gives protests their effectiveness is that they ask a silent question: "if these pissed off people demonstrating their willingness to act collectively for their cause aren't thrown a bone, what will they do next?" They're basically a threat, demonstrating to the elites just how many people the movement's next step - be it mass disruption, property damage, or open violence - could potentially have involved. Since Occupy disavowed any and all escalation that might go so far as to inconvenience someone, it didn't matter how many people it mobilized, no one had any reason to fear their next move. Which is precisely why modern protest is so useless in a capitalistic society with a labor surplus. It used to be "protest and no steel is forged today, causing massive problems for the economy, the business owner, and supply chains". This was broken up with violence and hiring of scabs, both of which could be fought against by the workers in some respect. Now its "protest and no steel is forg-oh wait we can just hire from the massive unemployment pool we have today as well as the systematic destruction of any support systems the workers may have had". Protests do nothing unless, as I said before, they specifically end in violence pointed directly at those the protests are aimed at (which is rare because what usually happens is people just start rioting and breaking poo poo that does nothing to further their goals) or EVERYONE has to protest and stop the economic system. The economy system has become so big and interwoven thought hat protests are unlikely to do this anymore. So yeah, they're basically a threat that the powers that be know won't escalate because they have the economic power to stop them or make the ineffectual. The accumulation of capital in and of itself makes protests useless-whether it be against a certain abortion bill or for the rights of workers to even strike. Best Friends posted:In non capitalist systems, of course, the opinions of political minorities gathering in parks and on streets are highly cherished. This is a good point. Getting rid of capitalism isn't in and of itself going to cure everything, but it certainly gets rid of one of the biggest systematic blocks to higher participation in government. The Insect Court posted:
And like I and other pointed out, yes they were mobilized to vote for candidates that were supported and selected for them, not necessarily by them. How many Democratic and even Republican candidates were out primaries because suddenly this up and coming Tea Partier dude had massive money and support that no one else was prepared for? While the point about liberals and moderates voting is important, the amount of surprise money thrown behind these Tea Party candidates cannot be understated. As noted, the Tea Party folks that keep getting elected are corporate shills, the ones that actually support what some of the Tea Party people wanted are being elected out for being so goddam crazy. Jastiger fucked around with this message at 14:42 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:In non capitalist systems, of course, the opinions of political minorities gathering in parks and on streets are highly cherished. I assume that you must be referring to Stalinism for some reason, and ignoring every egalitarian system in history.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:This is a good point. Getting rid of capitalism isn't in and of itself going to cure everything, but it certainly gets rid of one of the biggest systematic blocks to higher participation in government. I don't think there's a lot of evidence that non-capitalist systems necessarily permit greater participation, either. Certainly many modern examples suggest otherwise. Maybe if we were preindustrial hunter-gatherers.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I don't think there's a lot of evidence that non-capitalist systems necessarily permit greater participation, either. Certainly many modern examples suggest otherwise. The entire underpinnings of this debate are odd given that democracy has peaked when combined with capitalism.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:The entire underpinnings of this debate are odd given that democracy has peaked when combined with capitalism. Could you give some examples of where you think this is true? You are implying that capitalism is somehow a positive force for democracy, but I have a hard time seeing where this is actually the case. Maybe you could explain your reasoning, starting with a definition of "peak democracy" - just a short and clear one, not asking for an essay - and then clear examples of how capitalism supports that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I assume that you must be referring to Stalinism for some reason, and ignoring every egalitarian system in history. Please describe these more egalitarian, non capitalist systems. Are you talking about hunter gatherer societies? Yes, that seems like a scaleable and preferable economic system, sounds good, please pass the termites. Or are we talking this in the direction where we pretend modern Sweden is not a capitalist society. Any truly non capitalist society outside of a bad sci fi story will have dramatically less wealth than a capitalist one, and in all but the most impoverished will feature power even more concentrated with fewer.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Please describe these more egalitarian, non capitalist systems. Are you talking about hunter gatherer societies? Yes, that seems like a scaleable and preferable economic system, sounds good, please pass the termites. Or are we talking this in the direction where we pretend modern Sweden is not a capitalist society. Yeah I'm talking about hunter-gatherer societies. It's pure cargo-cultism to attribute the fact that we don't eat termites any more to capitalism.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Azram Legion posted:Could you give some examples of where you think this is true? You are implying that capitalism is somehow a positive force for democracy, but I have a hard time seeing where this is actually the case. Maybe you could explain your reasoning, starting with a definition of "peak democracy" - just a short and clear one, not asking for an essay - and then clear examples of how capitalism supports that. I'm not a historian nor a political theorist but as far as I know capitalism, as it arose from merchant capitalism, helped killed feudalism and lead to the industrial revolution. Do you not the agree with the idea that the industrial revolution lead to a more democratic western society, as defined in the OP? marb fucked around with this message at 16:32 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
quote:In essence, this is what Piketty is calling our attention to. We have returned to a level of inequality we haven't seen since before World War I. If current trends hold, we will become the most unequal society in modern history. Piketty estimates that as early as 2030 the share of total income going to the top 10% will rise to 60%. How do you define modern history, and why did you feel the need to qualify that statement as such? marb fucked around with this message at 16:50 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Different groups value different types of freedom. Combine that with some of those groups having an absolutist understandings of freedom that deny any alternative understandings of freedom. Capitalism can be anti-democratic if it emphasizes "freedom to" while denying the need to be "free from." The screaming current example trying to force that condition: Libertarianism ends up anti democratic. Is it anti-democratic because it is absolutist or is it because it's capitalist/liberal? I think the anti-democratic situation is the result of absolutism. I don't think capitalism has to do this. Capitalism can have the "free to" that markets provide and it can have the "free from" that the state provides in the form of controls on those markets, in government structures that give us freedoms from. Laws, regulations and public institutions things like real campaign finance laws, or progressive tax rates, or investment in public goods (like school or infrastructure), there is no real reason those things cannot be part of capitalism other than that a group of absolutists opposes them dogmatically. Capital In The 21st Century, may end up being incredibly important. Because it shows that "free to" without "free from" hurts society by concentrating wealth. The foundation of the Austrian School is praxeology. This initial "action axiom", asserts that individual freedom to is the good and the center of history. Piketty’s book shows this foundation of the Austrian School to be a falsehood. It cuts the heart out of their absolute, smashing that foundation, while simultaneously providing a foundation on which to make arguments for things like progressive tax rates, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Capital In The 21st Century, may end up being incredibly important. Because it shows that "free to" without "free from" hurts society by concentrating wealth. The foundation of the Austrian School is praxeology. This initial "action axiom", asserts that individual freedom to is the good and the center of history. Piketty’s book shows this foundation of the Austrian School to be a falsehood. It cuts the heart out of their absolute, smashing that foundation, while simultaneously providing a foundation on which to make arguments for things like progressive tax rates, etc. a. their theory also says that it is immune to disproof by evidence and b. it is very supportive to rich cranks
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
marb posted:I'm not a historian nor a political theorist but as far as I know capitalism, as it arose from merchant capitalism, helped killed feudalism and lead to the industrial revolution. Do you even feel comfortable agreeing with that yourself? I'd certainly be uncomfortable as hell, if I had to sum up the causal relationships in something as incredibly complex as European history since ancient Greece, in a single line like yours. I mean, I could probably answer your question in kind, similarly relying on popular, modern "everybody knows!" narratives and using nebulous terms, but I don't see what good that would do. What I asked was if poster asdf32 could perhaps show the causal relationship he was implying, or even clear correlations that would be hard to find other explanations for. Edit: Removed a pointlessly offensive remark. Azram Legion fucked around with this message at 17:56 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It won't stop them, though, because It limits the ability they have to influence people not participating in Austrian Economics. The rich crank true believers aren't going to drop Libertarianism over this. But they hire people and media to argue in public for the end of advancing their ideology, now in response Piketty can be pointed to. When it's pointed to it cuts the legs off those arguments to people who don't necessarily buy praxeology but might have been influenced by arguments coming from it. There are a lot of those people. People who if you explained Austrian economics to would probably reject it, but who haven't examined it or don't really know what it is. Pointing to Piketty implies a conclusion. If a right wing commenter goes with an Austrian argument and the response is to point to the thesis of "Capital In The 21st Century", implied is that the right wing commenter is making an error or being deceptive. Maybe I can say this in another way. When they made their arguments in public before Piketty. One couldn't say in response "You're a goddam liar" or "What you believe amounts to a lie" without looking like a dick or frankly without being a bit of a dick. After Piketty's book, one can point to that book and "You're a goddam liar" becomes implied without having to be said, and in a way that is compelling and evidence based. Then the rightwing commenter is left with attacking Piketty's idea with an ad hominem (say Communist), which will make him/her look like a dick. I think that's a pretty big deal. Edit: They might still win anyway. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:46 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Azram Legion posted:Do you even feel comfortable agreeing with that yourself? I'd certainly be uncomfortable as hell, if I had to sum up the causal relationships in something as incredibly complex as European history since ancient Greece, in a single line like yours. I mean, I could probably answer your question in kind, similarly relying on popular, modern "everybody knows!" narratives and using nebulous terms, but I don't see what good that would do. What I asked was if poster asdf32 could perhaps show the causal relationship he was implying, or even clear correlations that would be hard to find other explanations for. You seem very wound up. I asked you something in good faith and you haven't really answered it, just tried to take an opportunity to show off how much more knowledgeable you are about these "incredibly complex" topics. Perhaps the reason that "everybody knows!" the opposite of what you think is that when asked about it you respond as such. Again, I am just asking: do you disagree idea that the industrial revolution came about in part because of capitalism? Do you think the the industrial revolution did not serve make the west more democratic? I just want to find out where you stand. Do you as whole think the industrial revolution, for example, was a bad thing? marb fucked around with this message at 18:45 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
marb posted:You seem very wound up. I asked you something in good faith and you haven't really answered it, just tried to take an opportunity to show off how much more knowledgeable you are. Wound up? What are you reading that out of? More importantly, what does it have to do with anything? I didn't show off how much more knowledgeable I am - I said that it would be ridiculous to make and earnestly defend a single-sentence attempt at summing up the complex, causal relationship between abstract concepts, cultures, movements and social systems over 2500 years of history. If you consider that "showing off" then I don't know what to tell you. You are also completely missing the point of my original post, which was to counter asdf32's inane attempt at stopping discussion: asdf32 posted:The entire underpinnings of this debate are odd given that democracy has peaked when combined with capitalism. The only case in which it would be odd to debate the topic of this thread, would be if the causal relationship between capitalism and "peaking democracy" was obvious and well-established, which is what asdf32 quite obviously intended to imply. If that were the case, it would make the task of giving examples - and explaining the mechanisms that brought them about - extremely easy. So, I asked him to do that, because I have a sneaking suspicion that it isn't as easy as asdf32 would like to believe, primarily because history isn't "resolved" in the pretty, clear ways that would make such a statement easily provable. Which, incidentally, is precisely why discussion of the topic is worthwhile and not at all odd for a debate and discussion forum. marb posted:I just want to find out where you stand. Do you as whole think the industrial revolution, for example, was a bad thing?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah I'm talking about hunter-gatherer societies. It's pure cargo-cultism to attribute the fact that we don't eat termites any more to capitalism. It is not "cargo cultism" to say that hunter-gather societies cannot support complex societal structures that enable the vast majority of people on Earth to survive, no. Of the complex society economic systems, capitalism, while arguably anti-democratic in some respects, has proven itself to be by far the least anti-democratic.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
marb posted:You seem very wound up. I asked you something in good faith and you haven't really answered it, just tried to take an opportunity to show off how much more knowledgeable you are about these "incredibly complex" topics. Perhaps the reason that "everybody knows!" the opposite of what you think is that when asked about it you respond as such. I would say the industrial revolution is the spark that allowed capitalism to concentrate and accumulate indefinitely, whereas before that it was a force for democracy and the greater good (at least after the plague). What it did was kneecap the demand for skilled labor, by making it such that anyone can do that skilled labor did, or one skilled laborer can do the job of 10, etc. I dont suppose you see very many coopers or haberdashers or farmers or drafters around these days, do you? It also made the world a whole lot safer... eventually, once medical tech caught up. And once doctors stopped infecting black men with syphillis just to see what would happen. And once ad med stopped shaming women into shoving bleach up their vaginas. And once nazis decided slavs would make for excellent slave labor to enrich the capitalist class but failed and discredited facism (the word, anyways). ....come to think of it. That whole nazi thing was pretty much just the first hundred years of america compressed into a decade. Man, im all over the place now. Capitalism always starts off democratic and super peachy, until its not, which will always happen. So capitalism really is the absolute purest form of pure democracy. Its like the two wolves and a sheep trope, except everyone starts out as a sheep until some sheep morph into wolves that look exactly like sheep. Edit: You could really ignore all the other paragraphs in this post except the last one. I would delete them but I like to laugh at myself. Kristov fucked around with this message at 19:44 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
The huge societal advances made in the industrial revolution in quality of life terms were made completely in spite of the leading rhetoric of the day. Were it not for socially conscious people who saw the horrendous poo poo that happened and took a stance, it would have never happened. We would still have child labour, slavery (still existent, just slightly made over) and horrible living conditions. It is a huge kick in the balls to the people who sacrificed their lives to say that it was capitalism that brought these changes about, because capitalists opposed these changes wholesale and still do.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:It is a huge kick in the balls to the people who sacrificed their lives to say that it was capitalism that brought these changes about, because capitalists opposed these changes wholesale and still do. Capitalists lost those fights and they lost them due to democracy. Democracy in turn has been best so-far fostered by capitalism. The progress of workers rights is from capitalist perspective a potential 'negative side effect' of long capitalist success. Workers rights did not need to develop and capitalist fought them, but they were only possible to have developed first in a capitalist and somewhat democratic society.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Capitalists lost those fights and they lost them due to democracy. Democracy in turn has been best so-far fostered by capitalism. The progress of workers rights is from capitalist perspective a potential 'negative side effect' of long capitalist success. Workers rights did not need to develop and capitalist fought them, but they were only possible to have developed first in a capitalist and somewhat democratic society. I would rather say that you can't start a democracy without capitalism. And capitalism cant really exist without democracy. But the second it gets started capitalism almost immediately attempts to murder democracy and thus itself.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Capitalism is undoubtedly on some level an anti-democratic force. The error is in thinking this is all just binary, and by being on some level anti-democratic it is fully bad, when in reality, over the course of history, it is the least-bad on that level. The challenge in meeting capitalism's excesses is in effectively using democratic power to mitigate these excesses, rather than trying to destroy capitalism with intent to replace it with "uh we'll get to it later" or "something something hunter gatherers" or my personal favorite, "capitalism was somewhat undemocratic so let's give another look at totalitarianism."
Best Friends fucked around with this message at 20:41 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Well I also want to point out that Capitalism isn't just "I buy this for money and get thing!" its "I can allow my wealth to speak for me as a legal entity in both trade and society". The second part is the real damaging part of capitalism, not just the transfer of goods and services for money. I feel like the free market parts of trading goods is what helped democracy along, but that also came with the part where I can accumulate wealth and be immune and or distanced from my actions. I mean, capitalism was literally invented so people could lay claim to things they physically and legally could not while maintaining their already accumulated goods and societal position.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I mean, capitalism was literally invented so people could lay claim to things they physically and legally could not while maintaining their already accumulated goods and societal position. Pretty sure the Spanish claim on the New World predates capitalism.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:The huge societal advances made in the industrial revolution in quality of life terms were made completely in spite of the leading rhetoric of the day. Were it not for socially conscious people who saw the horrendous poo poo that happened and took a stance, it would have never happened. We would still have child labour, slavery (still existent, just slightly made over) and horrible living conditions. It is a huge kick in the balls to the people who sacrificed their lives to say that it was capitalism that brought these changes about, because capitalists opposed these changes wholesale and still do. And by 'took a stance' you mean 'literally died in that struggle'. In 1833 the law for 15 year olds to work 'only' 12 hour days and be allowed to receive a basic education in their downtime was called controversial, anti-business, encouraging laziness and vice; the exact same arguments that are made now against the living wage/child support etc etc. Capitalism literally functions by reducing the value of workers as much as possible, and arguing that reduced economic power for non-asset owning individuals doesn't reduce their social potential and political influence is just asinine.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Pretty sure the Spanish claim on the New World predates capitalism. Right, so they could do it without divine right.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Indeed, people had to fight tooth and nail to get even the most basic rights when it came to their very existence as living entities. It is incredibly, almost dangerously easy to whitewash over these struggles in a very revisionist way, when the reality is even the things most people take for granted, like the minimum wage, cost an ungodly amount of pain and suffering to even get into public discourse and people are constantly rallying, to this very day, to abolish this. In the UK we literally have government sanctioned slavery that has been painted as a good thing. Not even wage-slavery, which is bad enough, but a literal 'if you do not work you will not be able to eat, or have shelter' form of slavery.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
I've been pretty wary of stepping into the main topic of the thread because it's sort of a weird question -- it tries to compare the arrangement of industry and the economy with the arrangement of government. Is capitalism inherently anti-democratic? Well, it is so in the workplace -- workers have zero input into business decisions unless they own capital in it. By contrast, socialism is inherently democratic in the workplace. Their effects on the democratic character of government aren't so simple to adjudicate. In capitalistic societies, the power will lie in the larger concentrations of capital, and that power will invariably distort the democratic character of the state. In socialistic societies, of which there haven't been many, it's easy to imagine that the more powerful industries (think energy, finance, the usual), although democratic institutions in themselves, would distort the democratic character of the state. I don't really see a terribly big difference between the two -- capitalism would distort governance in favor of the members of an economic class, whereas socialism would (likely) distort governance in favor of an economic sector. Basically, what really tears democracy apart is power inequalities, and economic models will distort democracy insofar as they create those inequalities. I don't think there's much reason to think that socialism wouldn't produce its own kinds of anti-democratic effects -- what reasons do workers in the petroleum sector have to give a poo poo about workers in renewable energies? Heavy neutrino fucked around with this message at 21:59 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:
And indeed there's even a real example of this now - the California Prison Union.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
I think the biggest difference would be that it wouldn't be a few enclaves of wealthy individuals lobbying for this or that but folks that actually have their labor lobbying for this or that. It would be more susceptible to scientific discourse since the media wouldn't be purchased by a few moneyed interests. I think conflict is going to be inevitable, no matter what, and abolishing capitalism wouldn't achieve that at all. I just think it would remove a lot of the roadblocks that inhibit participation in democratic governance.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:Basically, what really tears democracy apart is power inequalities, and economic models will distort democracy insofar as they create those inequalities. I don't think there's much reason to think that socialism wouldn't produce its own kinds of anti-democratic effects -- what reasons do workers in the petroleum sector have to give a poo poo about workers in renewable energies? Historically the notion of intersectionality and solidarity has been a huge part of labour struggles. During the Egyptian revolution the Transport for London union sent people over to instruct the 'newly-radicalised locals' about enforcing picket lines. Squats in London have been spared from violent shut down thanks to intervention from the Ecuadorian and Latvian governments, following local pressure for them to do so. Possibly the most damaging thing Thatcher did was outlaw sympathy strikes, precisely because they were such a powerful tool. Your question about petroleum workers vs renewable energies workers assumes that the workers consider themselves employees of their owner before considering themselves employees of a power class, and historically without massive government intervention to directly dilute class interest that hasn't been true.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:15
|
|