|
Best Friends posted: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." At what point in history did capitalism and democracy fail to work hand-in-hand? You're proposing that they're opposing forces (while disclaiming a binary model because I think you see it sneaking up in your arguments) and I don't see the evidence of that. Democracy has always existed as a tool of the powerful. I'd suggest that the real force in opposition to capitalism, the force that secured protections for labor and recognition of women and minorities was in fact not democracy, but egalitarianism and the message of the insurgent, pre-Church Jesus which was tended and kept by right-thinking poor people throughout history.
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
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. So basically, in the beginning of capitalism we had poor working conditions, and now they are somewhat better because the people fought for better conditions. If that's not democracy I don't know what is. The people that fought for these changes wouldn't have even been able to fight for them if it weren't for capitalism. How did feudal serfs fair when they "took a stance" ? Obviously the system is still poo poo and unequal, but its less poo poo and unequal than it was than any point prior. marb fucked around with this message at 22:41 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Vitamin P posted: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. I think you're missing my point. What you're saying is all true, but I'm not sure to what extent it can apply to a socialist economy. In capitalist society, laborers in various economic sectors can easily find common cause against the class of capital owners, their primary antagonist. However, in a socialist economy, there's no such antagonism, and it's much more likely that workers would identify with their syndicalized ownership of the industry or segment of industry that they work in, with the antagonists being not an extractive upper class (there is no such thing), but rather other sectors of the economy who either compete with them, or whose interests are opposed to their own. Basically, I see it as a model where society would be organised as pillars rather than strata, with each pillar being an economic sector whose entire workforce has equal, democratic control over decision-making. In this scenario, how do you think workers in the extremely rich and powerful petroleum industry, for example, would vote with regards to using their industry's massive wealth for political actions? Would it distort democracy, knowing that a huge majority of the population of every country in the world is in favor of decisive action to combat climate change and reduce dependency on carbon?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted: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? The problem, of course, is that solidarity is largely a cultural trait and culture changes. For example, the labor movement is still strong in Denmark - at least compared to most of the world - but the tendency in recent years, towards individualistic perspectives on life, means that labor unions are losing power and members. Part of that loss is to the so-called yellow unions, who reject the idea that there is an inherent conflict of interest between labor and capital. These unions don't participate in the sector-wide wage negotiations, for instance, yet their members still benefit from the agreements made by traditional unions. It is hard to say if this trend will continue - and indeed there's been some backlash against yellow unions - but it highlights what you are saying: Solidarity and collective benefit have to be accepted and prized cultural values, no matter the system, if you want to avoid things like exploitation. Whether solidarity is easier to maintain in an egalitarian or capitalist system is a whole other discussion altogether. I'd suggest that, at the very least, it is easier to maintain solidarity in a culture that doesn't prize competition and profit above all. Edit: Didn't see your post above before I posted. Heavy neutrino posted:In this scenario, how do you think workers in the extremely rich and powerful petroleum industry, for example, would vote with regards to using their industry's massive wealth for political actions? Azram Legion fucked around with this message at 22:50 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Azram Legion posted:Whether solidarity is easier to maintain in an egalitarian or capitalist system is a whole other discussion altogether. I'd suggest that, at the very least, it is easier to maintain solidarity in a culture that doesn't prize competition and profit above all. What do you mean "egalitarian" system, in practice? When I look it up it seems to be an ideology, not any sort of economic system. Are capitalism and egalitarianism mutually exclusive? What is an alternative economic system that you feel would be more egalitarian? Not rhetorical questions - curious
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Azram Legion posted:Part of the answer to your question - at least here in Denmark - used to be class solidarity. You are right that solidarity isn't strictly a part of socialism - or necessarily solves the problem of competing industries - but it is very hard to imagine anyone in favor of society wide socialism, who wouldn't also feel solidarity with people in other sectors. The rationales that lead to supporting socialism are largely rationales that suggest solidarity and collective benefit. I agree, and that's why I think that what's more important than any part of the discussion we're having is the advancement of moral philosophy and the moral progress of civilization. It wasn't very long ago that people thought it was perfectly just to outright kill someone who wronged you, to enslave other peoples, to amuse themselves by putting otherized peoples into deadly gladiator games, and all that lovely stuff. quote:In a society wide socialist state the petroleum industry wouldn't be extremely rich and powerful in the current sense? They might be well compensated, but if we are talking full abolition of private ownership of the means of production, then they have no motive for insisting on maintaining the petroleum industry in its current state, besides incidentally enjoying the work related to it. Remember that a socialist economy is still a market based economy, and there's no reason to believe that petrol would lose any of its massive value and profitability, or to believe that workers would just vote against their industry's and their own financial interest in favor of doing something like selling petrol way below market price (which would only enrich the financial sector, as it would immediately arbitrage the poo poo out of them).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
marb posted:What do you mean "egalitarian" system, in practice? When I look it up it seems to be an ideology, not any sort of economic system. Are capitalism and egalitarianism mutually exclusive? What is an alternative economic system that you feel would be more egalitarian? In principle no, there is nothing preventing the society within capitalism's structure from being egalitarian. Indeed Milton Friedman liked to point to the 19th century in the United States as a time of both extreme capitalism and great egalitarianism in the form of non-profit hospitals, charities, universities and the various Carnegie buildings. In actual practice, it is debatable. Certainly capitalism currently isn't particularly egalitarian. In theory there is no reason why the two should be incompatible but the current form of capitalism that has arisen has too many benefits for loving over your fellow man and not enough restrictions, either social, legal or economic to restrict such loving.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
ProfessorCurly posted:In principle no, there is nothing preventing the society within capitalism's structure from being egalitarian. Indeed Milton Friedman liked to point to the 19th century in the United States as a time of both extreme capitalism and great egalitarianism in the form of non-profit hospitals, charities, universities and the various Carnegie buildings. I completely agree. It's just that some posters here see capitalism being inherently anti-democratic, while those that I agree with see it as only susceptible to inequality - just like any other possible system.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
marb posted:So basically, in the beginning of capitalism we had poor working conditions, and now they are somewhat better because the people fought for better conditions. If that's not democracy I don't know what is. Well I can only really speak from a UK perspective as it's where I live and I know more about it, but the 'success' of democracy was largely brought about because of direct, often violent action with legislation largely being a formality to make sure that such unpleasantry wasn't repeated. It was largely the power of the workers not actually participating in the system, thus threatening profits that brought about better conditions. Union action, strikes and sabotage were the tools that ultimately helped bring change. I guess that, in a way, is democracy but not a form that most people would recognise. When people speak of democracy, it is largely representative democracy, which strictly speaking isn't really democracy in a public sense. I'm personally in favour of demarchy for several reasons, not least of which it would almost totally eliminate some of the systemic problems that plague democracy in its current state.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Well I can only really speak from a UK perspective as it's where I live and I know more about it, but the 'success' of democracy was largely brought about because of direct, often violent action with legislation largely being a formality to make sure that such unpleasantry wasn't repeated. It was largely the power of the workers not actually participating in the system, thus threatening profits that brought about better conditions. Union action, strikes and sabotage were the tools that ultimately helped bring change. I guess that, in a way, is democracy but not a form that most people would recognise. Maybe we actually agree, because in my mind union action, strikes, and thereby threatening profits are exactly how I see capitalism as helping foster democracy. Without some sort of market, these thing cannot happen. This is somewhat analogous to how lobbying can hurt democracy, even though none of this involves actually casting a vote.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
marb posted:What do you mean "egalitarian" system, in practice? When I look it up it seems to be an ideology, not any sort of economic system. Are capitalism and egalitarianism mutually exclusive? What is an alternative economic system that you feel would be more egalitarian? I mean systems aimed at achieving egalitarian outcomes and I should have put it that way, with the "outcomes" part. Unfettered capitalism with a free market - to the degree that we can discuss such a thing - inevitably leads to large inequality in outcomes. Almost all real, implemented economic systems are more egalitarian in outcome than the ideal of unfettered capitalism - even very liberal systems like the one in the US. Social democracies, like in Scandinavia (especially in the late twentieth century), are examples of even more egalitarian systems, through heavy limitations on the extent of the market. Full, society-wide socialism, without a market economy, would be an example of a fully egalitarian society, where the financial outcome for everyone would be the same. Heavy neutrino posted:Remember that a socialist economy is still a market based economy, and there's no reason to believe that petrol would lose any of its massive value and profitability, or to believe that workers would just vote against their industry's and their own financial interest in favor of doing something like selling petrol way below market price (which would only enrich the financial sector, as it would immediately arbitrage the poo poo out of them).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Capitalism is only anti-democratic if those in power manage to brainwash a demographic of uninformed voters - often rural, low income white evangelicals. If these folks spent a short amount of time reading good books/journalism each day, this country would radically transform in an instant. Maybe I'm being way too simplistic, but income inequality and ignorance go hand and hand. Voting still yields results. If we can't abolish a paradigm, we vote and make the best of it, i.e. heavily regulated capitalism with fair taxes. edit: Dystram posted:Your ability to participate in a democracy - having the time to think and evaluate, being healthy enough to have the energy to think, having the time and money to become educated, the money to afford the technology which aids participation and education, etc. - increases with your income. ^ This an important point. I don't want to sound like I'm spewing nonsense about the disadvantaged just magically picking up books and becoming informed. Exhaustion characterizes the lifestyle of the lower and middle classes now, which is devastating. Telesphorus fucked around with this message at 23:19 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
I r dum
Kristov fucked around with this message at 23:44 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:
An issue with current representative democracy is that representatives usually aren't trained/knowledgable enough in a certain field to make a reasonable policy decision. Having demarchy wouldn't change that at all, you'd still either have people who have no idea what's going on or you'd have advisors which can be corrupt the same as any lobbyist is today. Kristov posted:Hey, so this question is going to probably make me look like a complete idiot, but my curiosity is getting the better of me. Has there ever been a state/city/county/whatever that had it so that people could individually own privite property, but not private land? Like all the land land is owned by the municipality, but people still own all the property (houses) as individuals. Instead of paying property taxes on land and house, they just payed property taxes on the physical house itself, and the city just leased out the dirt underneath it? It would seem like a good way to introduce checks and balances on a capitalist system that works in the opposite direction in the way checks and balances operate in democracies. And it would prevent the sort of real estate speculation that causes gentrification and the great depression mk2. How is that not effectively what happens now? The Federal Government owns every piece of land in the USA by virtue of its sovereignty. computer parts fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Azram Legion posted:I mean systems aimed at achieving egalitarian outcomes and I should have put it that way, with the "outcomes" part. Unfettered capitalism with a free market - to the degree that we can discuss such a thing - inevitably leads to large inequality in outcomes. Almost all real, implemented economic systems are more egalitarian in outcome than the ideal of unfettered capitalism - even very liberal systems like the one in the US. Social democracies, like in Scandinavia (especially in the late twentieth century), are examples of even more egalitarian systems, through heavy limitations on the extent of the market. Full, society-wide socialism, without a market economy, would be an example of a fully egalitarian society, where the financial outcome for everyone would be the same. Frankly those Scandinavian countries still operate on free markets and this is one of the reasons they do so well. It is completely non trivial to go from "well-regulated free market" to "no market economy." The success of the Scandinavian social democracies is due to capitalism done properly, not in spite of it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
marb posted:Frankly those Scandinavian countries still operate on free markets and this is one of the reasons they do so well. It is completely non trivial to go from "well-regulated free market" to "no market economy." marb posted:The success of the Scandinavian social democracies is due to capitalism done properly, not in spite of it. Azram Legion fucked around with this message at 23:38 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:An issue with current representative democracy is that representatives usually aren't trained/knowledgable enough in a certain field to make a reasonable policy decision. Having demarchy wouldn't change that at all, you'd still either have people who have no idea what's going on or you'd have advisors which can be corrupt the same as any lobbyist is today. Yeah, im trying to come up with an answer but I cant really think of what the hell I was getting at that isnt pretty much just a version of rent control that would just gently caress over lightly less poor people. I am now embarrassed and I think ill go take a nap.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Also, it seems to support the statement that Capitalism is anti-democratic: its only done "Properly" when its throttled and regulated. Just like Radiation is anti-human blood cells but applied properly, its great when throttled, regulated, and applied in an X-ray machine.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:An issue with current representative democracy is that representatives usually aren't trained/knowledgable enough in a certain field to make a reasonable policy decision. Having demarchy wouldn't change that at all, you'd still either have people who have no idea what's going on or you'd have advisors which can be corrupt the same as any lobbyist is today. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Chances may be good that demarchy may never produce an ultimately more democratic society, but it will never happen with the current democratic system, which is ultimately an oligarchy in all but name. There is just too much vested interest, corruption and lobbying. Demarchy may very well eliminate corruption and lobbying or at the very least make it much more difficult to take root. When people are not career politicians looking to get a cushy consultancy position when they leave their office there might be a chance they might actually make decisions that do not ultimately lead to that goal.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:At what point in history did capitalism and democracy fail to work hand-in-hand? Every single piece of legislation that monied interests were not in favor of, which is a nonzero sum. Child labor, minimum wage, welfare laws, pretty much everything under FDR, etc. quote:the force that secured protections for labor and recognition of women and minorities was in fact not democracy, but egalitarianism and the message of the insurgent, pre-Church Jesus which was tended and kept by right-thinking poor people throughout history. Which effected change through democratic means. Monied interests can act through democratic means, anti-monied interests can act through democratic means, and different monied interests can act in opposition to each other through democratic means. The whole argument of capitalism is like, bad, because it sometimes doesn't like democracy is as binary as arguments get, and I am arguing against that perspective because of it. Capitalism, while being somewhat anti-democratic, is still less anti-democratic than any functioning non-capitalist system. On the spectrum of badness capitalism is the best we have, so then saying "bring down capitalism" is just a lazy and convenient answer. The solution to problems within the capitalist system is to use democratic means to mitigate capitalism's excesses. Best Friends fucked around with this message at 23:59 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:
What you're doing is shifting the "career" from "career politician" to "career politician adviser". Same rules apply.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Every single piece of legislation that monied interests were not in favor of, which is a nonzero sum. Child labor, minimum wage, welfare laws, pretty much everything under FDR, etc. It wasn't democracy that secured those gains, it was labor. Labor power has nothing to do with democracy, it's a demand for a just society that provides for everyone. Capitalist democracy, panicking, gave concessions in the form of the New Deal. Even those concessions drove capitalists wild and led them to consider sweeping the pretense of democracy aside for good. When monied and non-monied interests compete in a democratic system, money wins. Period.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It wasn't democracy that secured those gains, it was labor. Via making laws happen through democratic institutions, yes. I am not even sure what point you are trying to make. quote:Labor power has nothing to do with democracy Labor protections in law have nothing to do with the law, because
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It wasn't democracy that secured those gains, it was labor. Labor power has nothing to do with democracy, it's a demand for a just society that provides for everyone. Capitalist democracy, panicking, gave concessions in the form of the New Deal. Even those concessions drove capitalists wild and led them to consider sweeping the pretense of democracy aside for good. Except for the example of concession in this very post and all the other ones before and since. And this is from your article about the unconfirmed report of a half baked plan you just tried to use as evidence. quote:At the time of the incidents, news media dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax".[3] While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of "wild scheme" was contemplated and discussed. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 00:55 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
You're just calling everything good democracy. It's a thought error that may be unique to Americans and neoliberals.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
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 somewhat deliberately didn't wade into causation because I agree it's difficult to figure out. Though I think it would be a mistake to ignore the evidence we have on hand which is that capitalism has gone along with basically every decent democracy while socialism meanwhile has yet to produce basically anything resembling a functioning democratic state. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 01:19 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're just calling everything good democracy. It's a thought error that may be unique to Americans and neoliberals. Whole lot of projection here. The only way to make sense of your argument is that you are saying anything good must not be democratic, even if it happened through democratic institutions to become the law of the land via the democratic process. For you, capitalism completely controlling democracy is an axiom. A really dumb axiom. Consequently, you are in the unenvious position of trying to argue that the labor movement getting laws passed is not an example of the labor movement using the democratic process.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Whole lot of projection here. The only way to make sense of your argument is that you are saying anything good must not be democratic, even if it happened through democratic institutions to become the law of the land via the democratic process, because capitalism being bad and running democracy completely is for you an axiom. A really dumb axiom. No, I'm saying that you've confused progress that happened within the context of our democratic system with the system itself. There's no reason that less democratic systems couldn't be a quicker route to those changes. To say nothing of the fact that that same democratic system has been dismantling those changes for at least the last 30 years. If what you're claiming is true, then the Koch brothers are the very soul of democracy because their ideas are winning.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're just calling everything good democracy. It's a thought error that may be unique to Americans and neoliberals. Tell me what you think is the best real life example of a democratic state and we'll try to work with that. Note that I expect you to dodge this question by not providing an actual country. SedanChair posted:No, I'm saying that you've confused progress that happened within the context of our democratic system with the system itself. There's no reason that less democratic systems couldn't be a quicker route to those changes. To say nothing of the fact that that same democratic system has been dismantling those changes for at least the last 30 years. If what you're claiming is true, then the Koch brothers are the very soul of democracy because their ideas are winning. Note for what it's worth I give credit to the Soviets for positive advances that happened while they were in power. And there were obviously plenty.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Tell me what you think is the best real life example of a democratic state and we'll try to work with that. What do you mean by "a democratic state?"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:There's no reason that less democratic systems couldn't be a quicker route to those changes. I don't see what that has to do with the thread question, is capitalism anti-democratic. Is labor anti-democratic? I don't think so either but I guess you want it to be, or something. I don't see what that has to do with anything especially since thankfully the glorious peoples revolution isn't about to happen anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What do you mean by "a democratic state?" Well prediction true. Whatever the hell you consider a democratic state. And then within that set what you think is the best example. Or are you just saying that democracy has never existed.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
marb posted:The success of the Scandinavian social democracies is due to capitalism done properly, not in spite of it. It's hard for me exactly to respond to that since there's not much of a point, but if "capitalism done properly" is curbing capitalism via the imposition of severe limits on the decision-making rights of capital, which every single country operating a capitalist economy does -- Scandinavian ones most particularly -- then I feel we're entering a space where words simply have no loving meaning. So if it's capitalism to implement policies that limit the mobility of capital, prevent certain commodities from operating under capitalist principles, mess around with the rates of return on capital, sets a minimum price for labor, prevent capital from hiring and disposing of labor as it pleases, and whatever else you can come up with that is explicitly anti-capitalist, then, well, remember Humpty-Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland? That's how I'm picturing you right now. It's only because some countries restrained the poo poo out of capitalism that capitalism was able to work for them, and that's because capitalism done properly is not-capitalism, and not-capitalism, or in other words capitalism, is how a society raises living standards for its poorest! quote:"But 'capitalism' doesn't mean 'major restrictions on the rights of capital'," Alice objected. Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh, here, and there's been a massive disinformation campaign about both capitalism and socialism going on for a long, long time that pretty much muddled the meanings of both words past recognition, but at some point we have to be serious and deal honestly with words and their meanings. I understand your point perfectly, and I'm not explicitly disagreeing with anything you said. My stance on causation is that it takes a several hundred pages long research paper to discover, and besides I don't even know all that much about Scandinavian countries other than I would've liked to have been born in one of them. However, can we please stick to some reasonable standard of adherence to the meanings of words? When a society imposes democratic restrictions on the rights of capital via the nation-state's monopoly on violence, it's not capitalism; it's the restriction thereof.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone could seriously argue about the cohesiveness of capitalism and democracy when it they seemed mutually exclusive for most during the Cold War. There were numerous "1st World" countries that were run as capitalist dictatorships, which actively suppressed their populations, in order to remain part of the western bloc. Even before the United States was a military power, it was already an economic power with considerable and consequential anti-democratic influence on numerous countries. In a post-modern sense, capitalism has exceeded whatever boundaries democracy can create in its transition to global capitalism. It has become increasingly difficult to enforce regulations against companies that jump borders in the unlikely event that their routine labor abuses get criticized.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well prediction true. Give me a break, man. I can't ask for clarification? I mean people said we were bringing democracy to Afghanistan. When people use the word "democracy" you have to ask what they mean, just like when they use the word "freedom." quote:Whatever the hell you consider a democratic state. And then within that set what you think is the best example. It's a good question. Are we talking about all through history, or current administrations, or current forms of government or what? Uruguay I guess?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:Capitalism is only anti-democratic if those in power manage to brainwash a demographic of uninformed voters - often rural, low income white evangelicals. If these folks spent a short amount of time reading good books/journalism each day, this country would radically transform in an instant. I wish it was allowed to just post "lol" in D&D. If you're going to specifically call rural, low income, white evangelicals as brainwashed and the cause of income inequality then I have bad news about who else is operating inside an ideological hall of mirrors. There was more growth in income inequality under Obama and Clinton then there was under Bush. Both of whom were elected based on the support of low income Americans but not the group you're thinking of. Also, it takes incredible ideological blindness to attribute the differing beliefs of "these folks" (so close to "those people"...) to not reading. First, "not reading" what? Books aren't a totem that makes you smarter and being smarter, by itself, doesn't have ideological content. Secondly, are you so sure they aren't reading? The rural population reads more than the suburban and a tiny bit more then the urban.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Please, please, please don't cite to a country that was run by a forced corporatist state and military junta.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
marb posted:Obviously the system is still poo poo and unequal, but its less poo poo and unequal than it was than any point prior. Actually the world economy today is more unequal than ever in human history - and it's getting more unequal. A cursory google search of the academic literature on the subject might do you some good!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Actually the world economy today is more unequal than ever in human history - and it's getting more unequal. A cursory google search of the academic literature on the subject might do you some good! I'm curious as to what definition of equal makes it less so than the late 19th Century, nevermind making it less equal at an increasing rate.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm curious as to what definition of equal makes it less so than the late 19th Century, nevermind making it less equal at an increasing rate. Here's a presentation outlining a study by an economist at the World Bank, renowned stronghold of proper Marxist thought.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 03:11
|
|