Is Capitalism Anti-Democratic?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is Capitalism Anti-Democratic?

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Pohl posted:

Majorian may be right or wrong , but the US is also behind a lot of counties in a lot of areas.
If Capitalism and America are so great, why is America failing in so many important areas?

You realize every country which is "beating" America is capitalist right?

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 06:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 06:37

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Do you believe that's an accurate summary of Russian history, given the increases in literacy, life expectancy, women's rights, university education, infrastructure, winning WWII and the space race? It was all of those things you charge at various times but that is a very dark (and simple) picture you paint.

Tsarist Russia in 1914 was a rapidly industrializing society which averaged annual growth approaching double digits before WWI happened. In all most of those things (barring maybe the militarization required to win WW2 because history would be so radically different without Oct.1917 that WW2 might not happen)was probably going to occur without Communism.

But this isn't even all that relevant, historically Communism was a force for modernization and westernization in the developing world and was an alright choice for doing so. But once you hit a certain level of development/industrialization the system just wasn't that great anymore.

Typo fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Apr 30, 2014

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 06:35

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Didn't you and Ardennes already discuss the flaws with that little counterfactual or was it someone else?

I have no clue but I honestly think it's not even all that relevant to the OP's topic at hand because nobody (even ITT) seriously wants to build Soviet America.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 06:39

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Mornacale posted:

Let's take the example of Occupy Wall Street to see these forces in action. First, of course, you are raised from birth with propaganda via education, the media, and prevailing societal mores to adopt a pro-rich ideology. Next, when some group does gain consciousness of their situation, they are immediately vilified as "lazy whiners" and met with derision for not having a grand unified plan. Finally, militarized police are used to assault the protests and drive them back out of the public sphere.

Well, actually OWS failed because its members are unwilling to take part in the political process in any meaningful way and failed to present an even somewhat unified political platform because its own members would probably tear each other to pieces given the chance. It's rather like the left during the Spanish Civil War. This doesn't seem to be so much of the function of "the media" (there was some positive coverage on the center-left newspapers like the new york times) so much as failure to adapt actual workable political tactics.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 06:42

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Mornacale posted:

Yes, those are some of the memes that I just mentioned sprang up to support the aristocracy in the face of protest.

That doesn't make them not true

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 06:46

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Mornacale posted:

The whole point of this thread is that the American political process exists to serve the interests of the aristocracy, basically Occupy existed because the underclasses can't participate in a "meaningful way". Do you think that Occupy would have fared better if every single person who attended any protest signed on to a petition reading "expropriate all capital from private ownership" or even something as milquetoast as "actually prosecute the criminals that destroyed the world's economy, caused famines, etc"? What about "we want to create a community center for people in poverty"?

No, first of all, petitions are useless. The first goal you named is completely and utterly alien to most people in America (and probably in the movement too) and would fail fine without the upper class oppressing you or w/e, the second point is incredibly vague but might actually work as the basis for a political platform but nobody took up on that, the last one is something which is concrete enough, but you are better off trying to achieve it through means other than protests.

You might for instance, try to do the tea party thing of busing people to party primaries and political murder people not far enough to the left for you. Primaries are small enough that a determine effort by a relatively small number of people could make a real actual difference at a local level. But as far as I know OWS never even tried this.

Typo fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Apr 30, 2014

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 07:26

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Mornacale posted:

So just to be clear you concede that OWS did not fail because of a lack of a "unified political platform" but rather because its methods did not suit the prevailing power structure in the United States?

No, and I have no idea how you got this impression. A unified political platform which presents a vision politically acceptable to the people of the US in general (and yes, this means you need to ditch that poo poo about abolishing private capital) have a much better chance of leaving a lasting effect on the US political system.

quote:

Do you think that the Tea Party would be able to succeed at anything if it wasn't created and financed for the express purpose of furthering the ideological aims of the rich? Can you fill in, for instance, Fox News:Tea Party::_____:Occupy in this hypothetical world where they just "politically murder" Democrats who aren't left-wing enough? Do you believe that an armed militia on the streets of Oakland would have been handled the same way as the lunatics swarming around Nevada right now, by either the media or the government, especially if someone in charge said something as stupid as Bundy's comments on race?

The tea party actually emerged as a social conservative group explicitly pissed off about the financial bailout. Which means that they were against the interest of the Republican business wing. They took off because they were able to work within the system to achieve the political results they desire.

I mean, I guess I can't prove that the left-wing version of the tea party won't get oppressed by the bourgeois or w/e, and you can spend all day on the internet convincing yourselves that "overthrowing the system" is the only way. But the point is that you guys aren't even trying to use the tactics which worked for the other side, and of which is order of magnitude easier to do than fomenting the revolution or w/e. If you guys actually win a primary or two and then the rich stole the election from you then you'd have a point, but as things stand you guys just look like you don't want to do it because it takes more time/work and isn't as fun as protesting.

quote:

(e: I agree that petitions are useless, by the way, the point was having everyone sign on to support one goal. Which, it should be noted, is a higher standard than anyone holds any other movement to, most especially the drat Tea Party.)

You don't need everyone, wanting unanimous consensus through the "general assembly" to do anything was one of the stupidest parts about OWS

But you definitely need to get to the point where people everywhere can say "OWS wants to reinstate glass-steagall" as a real achievable goal as oppose to something vague about economic injustice.

Typo fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Apr 30, 2014

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 07:53

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Mornacale posted:

You admitted that even if OWS did have one unified political platform, even something as simple as building a community center, it would not have been successful.

No I didn't, if OWS had a simple platform like building a community center, or a bunch of community centers for the poor (and there are actual groups who do this), as its primary, stated goal, then it has a much better chance of succeeding.

quote:

So therefore the criticism that it didn't is a canard. And, I mean, in this thread we are discussing whether or not capitalism is anti-democratic. So yeah of course if you use a pro-capital political process to push a pro-capital agenda, then you don't get hosed over, it's a question of what happens if popular opinion starts to swing against capital. And your rhetoric continues to be a good example of the way that propaganda is invariably deployed to delegitimize working-class movements, hence why there is a larger hump to get over than "just convince the majority of people to understand their class interest."

Of course, it is obvious that the majority of Americans do not possess class consciousness, hence why it would have been pointless indeed to try to offer a serious goal like blowing up capitalism. But even if the majority did nominally support such a goal, the same tactics that are now used to try to marginalize their ideas would be used to keep people from joining the movement and actually making changes.

And there you go again.

Everyone who opposes my political opinions are "good example of the way that propaganda is invariably deployed to delegitimize working-class movements", the majority of people are simply dumb and if they were smart they'd be Marxists like me and realize their true "class interest" or whatever.

It's an awfully lovely way of having a debate or trying to to actually achieve anything in politics.

quote:

If you think of the Tea Party as primarily a movement opposed to Wall Street then I'm not sure we can find common ground. Besides which, I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of the strategy of political movements, just to illustrate that different levels of class consciousness are not by themselves sufficient to explain a disparity in political power.

I actually don't think it's "primarily" a movement to oppose wall street, I think they are not the best group to represent the interests of the Republican business class because they were pissed off at certain members of said class and their obsession with religion and gays doesn't make money. And yet they ended up winning quite a bit of political influence anyway.

Typo fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Apr 30, 2014

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 19:16

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Ardennes posted:

You know there has been attempts by third parties who do what you want (Green, Justice Party), and they barely get anywhere and usually they are a footnote in any election. One reason OWS started in the first place is because everyone knows the primary process is broken and isn't leading anyway especially for third parties.

Yes, that's why I advocate 1) Voting Democrat in national elections instead of endless splitting the left vote by going for third parties which don't do anything and 2)Go to Democratic party primaries on a local level and vote in the candidates you want because in a good deal of congressional districts that's where the actual election occurs anyway.

Typo fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Apr 30, 2014

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 19:20

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Ardennes posted:

Ultimately, we don't know which way Russia would have worked out, but ultimately it probably would have hit a bump in its developmental model (and to be honest you could say it already did in 1905) and it might have been stuck in a half developmental state. Remember, even if Russia was seeing very high growth because its urban areas and certain industrial regions were booming, but the vast majority of society was living in an existence that was in ways centuries behind. If anything one of the implicit reasons for the crises was that Tsarist Russia was how it was going to continue to develop with only limited exterior markets for goods while having a giant peasant population.

I agree that we don't know for sure how Russia would have done.

But really, urbanization and industrialization are the overwhelming trends of the 20th century and I don't think Russia would have being much different. Moving people into factories simply make too much sense and all over the world both left-wing and right-wing governments managed to achieve those trends over time.

Remember even as late as the interbellum most of continental Europe had agrarian majorities so Russia isn't even -that- special in that regard.

quote:

Also, another revolution was likely going to happen at some point, the war might has hastened it a bit but Russia's economic system was completely unsustainable, and if anything even if the Tsar survived that he probably wouldn't have survived the Great Depression.

Furthermore, without October 1917 and the Soviets, the move to a more reform capitalism becomes more cloudy and if anything there is the very real chance of the Great Depression leading to its own set of revolutions.

I don't think another revolution is inevitable especially if Nicholas II dies and someone better takes charge. Both the 1905 and 1917 revolutions occurred because of lost wars.

My point is that people's impression pre-Oct 1917 Russia is simply wrong: it was never a choice between Lenin and the Tsar, or Communism or a forever backward peasant country. There's a fairly good chance for the Tsarist state industrialize, I simply don't buy the idea that Communism was necessary to industrialize Russia.

Typo fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 30, 2014

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 19:29

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Ardennes posted:

It is plainly evident to most people that it is largely hopeless, even if they push for their candidate all the way, it is remarkably remote they would actually do anything of much benefit. It isn't a surprise there is so much apathy.

The problem is that people always define "anything of much benefit" to be broad, sweeping national changes. In that respect, I think you are largely correct. On a national level there is too much political stratification and inertia for anything you do to make much of a difference. I don't think there is much point in volunteering for presidential 2016 for instance.

But on a local level (wardship, city council, congressional primaries etc) the per person political power you have shoots up significantly and real, actual changes are much easier to initiate. And succeeding might catapult to the national stage anyway.

quote:

The problem was that the Soviets weren't trying to industrialized in a period of peace and prosperity, there were trying to industrialize in a period of 2 global wars, multiple revolutions (beyond just 1917) and at some point a giant depression. Russia was very far behind and it ultimately wasn't catching up nearly quick enough for many reasons, and the world nor the people of the empire would have waited around half a century for the government to get it straight.

Actually, countries with lower levels of development tend to grow faster than developed countries, and Russia followed this trend under the Tsarist government. If anything Russia in 1913 is probably most analogous to China in the 80s-90s.

Multiple revolutions and WW2 were also pretty integrally caused by the Bolshevik revolution/Russian civil war in the first place of course. In many ways the industrial-military complex generated by Communism was the solution to problems generated by Communism in the first place.

quote:

No one in the imperial government was interest in real change, Nicholas II could have died and nothing would have been different (also he was relatively healthy, so the chance of that is remote). Also, no 1905 and 1917 didn't happen "just" because of lost wars, the revolutions were an unleashing tremendous resentment against the system they felt rightfully was autocratic and didn't even remotely represent their interests. To be honest, if anything that is one of the more ridiculous things I have heard someone say about Russian history.

Of course, the reasons were not "just" lost wars, but lost wars made those revolutions all that much more likely and defined their characteristics. Which brings us to:

quote:

Maybe Communism wasn't necessary but some sort of centralized control and massive capital was desperately needed to push industrialization even the Soviets were having trouble in the mid-1920s. As far as the Tsar versus Lenin, it ultimately came up to that because no one could offer a stable government, peace or any actual change. The provisional government and Kerensky failed for very good reasons.

To get the outcome you want to you basically have to ignore pretty much everything and create a radically different dimension that had very little to do with our own.

The provisional government failed because it failed to end the war, not because of their industrialization policy or w/e but and because they were not ruthless enough to suppress the Bolsheviks. But the most important factor by far was in their failure to end the war because Kerensky was an idiot when it comes to military matters and thought Russia still had a chance. But this isn't even an issue at all if the February revolution took place during peace time.

quote:

Maybe Communism wasn't necessary but some sort of centralized control and massive capital was desperately needed to push industrialization even the Soviets were having trouble in the mid-1920s.

Sure, that's pretty much how every other country industrialized on both the left and the right, it's just to what degree capital was concentrated in the hands of the government and I'm not convinced that that the Soviet model was optimal.

Typo fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Apr 30, 2014

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 20:56

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Ardennes posted:

Usually discussions of OWS get especially silly when you hear people complaining people should have worn suits and it was the drum circles that killed it. I think there is a realization that something is going wrong by some of them, but there is very chance of them coming up with new answers.

OWS really wasn't fulfilling the desires of establishment liberals, it was a hodgepodge of random people going together to vent and experiment. Ultimately, most of the people were burnt out about what liberals had to offer in the first place, since it was clear that voting D including in primaries wasn't going to change a thing.

The way you present yourself to the public matter an awful lot more than who is correct in the endless ideological sectarianism amongst yourselves in actual politics and your failure to realize this doom yourself to further irrelevance.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 21:04

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Ardennes posted:

No movement will ever get off the ground if it is more important to alienate those inside of it than out of it.

Well actually try not to alienate people: period

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 21:13

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Ardennes posted:

That is the entire issue, we are no longer in a period of consensus, contemporary politics will ultimately have to alienate someone (or more in fact).

We are talking the suggestion that your movement dress well to look good to the public which you are ultimately conducting a political dialogue with.

This isn't some irreconcilable ideological issue.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 21:56

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Ardennes posted:

It really is one, because there is the assumption that you have to change who you are (or how you look) to appeal to some theoretical audience and no one in Occupy was even remotely interested in anything to that. You can blame them all you want for it, but it was nothing they were interested in ever doing or really made any real sense compared to what they were about.

Also, having "well dressed" movements on its own is in fact a bit ify in itself.

How is everyone else in America a "theoretical audience"?

There's something massively ridiculous about a movement simultaneously wanting to be 21st century revolutionaries to overthrow the liberal system but refuses to do something which would offend its members's fashion sense.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 22:26

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Panzeh posted:

If you think it wouldn't have just been spun differently as "look at these trust fund babies protesting capitalism" with a bunch of people in suits, I don't know what to tell you.

"look at these trust fund babies protesting capitalism" sounds a lot less plausible and make your political opponent look worse (because even the beneficiaries of the system thinks its corrupt). It's a step up from dirty hobos screwing up central New York.

Typo fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Apr 30, 2014

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 23:34

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Ardennes posted:

The issue you entirely have no idea what Occupy was and can't quite grasp that it wasn't an organization, it was a very loose movement without even much of a real leadership and to be honest that has a lot of real support among people active in it. Then there is the issue that you think the Occupy was increased in the general American audience, it wasn't.

Furthermore, you think instilling some type of dress code goes with revolution (and Occupy really wasn't revolutionary in that sense).

There is a real disconnection happening here because wearing suits to impress conservative portions of middle America wasn't even without the same ball park as what Occupy was about. Btw, I don't think Occupy was this awesome revolutionary thing that changed the world, but it clearly was what it was.

The issue you can't grasp is that I don't give a poo poo about what OWS was "really' like. If it can't get its act together and adopt viable political tactics and organization to appeal to the broader public, it deserves to fail. If it can't get "real leadership" or a "political platform", then it has nothing to do with evil capitalists destroying democracy in America and everything to do with your own movement unable get itself to take part in it.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 23:39

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Mornacale posted:

I bolded the part where you say that even an incredibly small-scale and non-threatening goal would have been opposed because of factors outside of whether or not Occupy had a "unified political platform". This is the point I am trying to make. Even if Occupy had changed to suit the narrative that was forced on it, the goalposts would have shifted, from "you don't even have a clear goal" to "well, you shouldn't use protests to achieve your goal" to maybe "it's foolish to work outside of the two-party system, just focus on voting for Democrats." Much like how the goalposts for unions shift from "they don't even do anything" to "striking isn't the right way to get what you want."

I never said protests as a political tactic is inevitably going to fail, I just don't think if your goal is to build a community center protesting is the way to do it.

In the same vein, Habitat for Humanity does not protest against the lack of low-income housing, they go ahead do build it themselves.

If OWS had a unified political platform to build community centers then its chances of succeeding in its goals go up even if protesting is sub-optimal. But not having one at all guarantees failure, it's simple as that.

quote:

Now, you may agree with any or all of those claims, I'm not trying here to convince you that you should join a squat in a park or join a union. I'm just trying to point out that existing power structures are self-reinforcing and that attempting to challenge them is not nearly as simple as a majority of Americans deciding that they'd like a change.

Well, now you are the one goal shifting from "it's impossible to work within the system" to "it's not nearly as simple"

quote:

This thread isn't about why Marxism is right, my intent is merely to use the treatment of Occupy by politicians and the media as a recent event that showcases the barriers to a leftist popular political movement over and above simply gaining support among the working class.

Well, Ardennes is saying OWS never cared about being a popular leftist movement.

quote:

How exactly does a movement that was created whole cloth by industrialists to fight for lower taxes on the rich (and lower spending on the poor) oppose the interests of the rich? It doesn't matter if they're "pissed off at certain members" of the upper class if their policy goals are made by and for those same aristocrats.

The Tea Party actively fought against the financial bailouts and the stimulus plan, both of which are in the interest of the business elite.

quote:

Also, the Tea Party is not really the part of the Republican coalition dedicated to social issues, which is mainly a push from white evangelicals (source). If anything, the political alliance of Evangelicals with the Tea Party libertarians displays exactly how a "unified platform" is demanded from leftist groups like Occupy, while reactionaries get a free pass.

No, they get a pass because they choose to work within the Republican party and American political parties are designed to accommodate people with a wide variety of views and still get political power. OWS can't claim the same thing and therefore absolutely needs a unified political platform to get anything done.

And there aren't even that separate, lots of tea party people are very religious and racist.

quote:

Did you miss that this meme already existed?

Errr...yes, people are going to say mean things about your movement, that doesn't change the fact that creating a better public image generates more sympathy for you amongst people who aren't D&D posters.

Typo fucked around with this message at 00:27 on May 1, 2014

# ¿ May 1, 2014 00:13

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Mornacale posted:

Ah, okay, well in that case could you suggest something that Occupy would not have been vilified and assaulted for pursuing, if only they gave it as a single unified goal?

The Republicans are "vilified and assaulted" for their beliefs and goals.

The Democrats are similarly "vilified and assaulted" for their beliefs and goals.

Communists and Libertarians are also constantly "vilified and assaulted" for their beliefs and goals.

Liberals, Marxists and every political group in a country with any meaningful degree of freedom of the press and freedom of speech are constantly being are and will be "vilified and assaulted" for their beliefs and goals. And every single political group believes the media is out to get them.

Being are "vilified and assaulted" is a part of politics regardless of your political ideology. As long as you are in politics, you will be vilified and assaulted and you guys need to stop being pussies about it. The only circumstance when this isn't true is when you can shut down every newspaper which criticizes your political party and nobody wants that. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

quote:

It is impossible for the working class to attain power solely by operating within a system that was designed by the aristocracy in order to benefit the aristocracy. Also, pursuing a successful working class movement is not as simple as a majority of the country recognizing that they share a class interest, because it is also a non-trivial challenge to convince people that change is possible, to actually organize despite political pressure, and then to actually win victory in the face of violence. These two sentences are perfectly consistent and do not represent moving goalposts at all.

But see, there you go again with a weasel word. You don't have to work "solely" within the electoral system, you can, for instance, carry out protests to draw attention to your cause and then follow up with effective electioneering.

And no poo poo this is a non-trivial challenge, and it shouldn't be anything but.

quote:

No, Ardennes is saying that OWS was disinterested in skin-deep appeals to conservative "respectability," any more than Tea Party members are concerned that Democrats think they're crazy people. Movements don't have to "care" about being popular, either they're centered on the public or they aren't.

TIL: A "popular leftist movement" don't have to care about being "popular"

# ¿ May 1, 2014 06:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 06:37

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

huskarl_marx posted:

It was far better for OWS to die in its crib than to creep on as merely another political party in the predatory system we find ourselves enshrouded in.

I and everyone with money applaud your zeal at self-marginaizliation

# ¿ May 1, 2014 06:15

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is Capitalism Anti-Democratic?