# Capitalism + Democracy = Myth



## NorthDrum (8 Dec 2008)

Had an interesting discussion with a good friend of mine regarding capitalism and its negative impacts in modern world:


*Greed* is the selfish desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others.

In capitalist systems, goods and services, including those regarding the most basic necessities of life, are produced for profitable exchange.

The first principle of democracy is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties
Im sure we can think of one or two industries that would easily fit into the "greed" explanation, quite comfortably!

Is it not fair to say that any ideal that's mainly built around money and rewards people with more money (at the expense of those with less) is an ideal built on encouraging greed.

In essence , in capitalism if you have enough money you can generally do whatever you want without repurcussions. You can also influence those in power, to your needs. 

In any democracy, the party that gets the most money to canvass has an upper hand, not because they are the better candidate but because they can spread the most propaganda. Normally big sums of donated money comes from interested business partys with their own agendas.

And nobody can tell me I have an equal chance of being voted into power if I am up against the child of an existing TD! Also if I am a working class person that doesnt want to be associated with a specific party, I already have huge expenses to compete on the "propaganda" front to get my word around.

In a capitalist democractic society if you take a huge legal case against a large organisation (I have seen this up close from somebody close to me) who have wronged you what they can do, is drag the case as long as possible until it gets to court and just settle. The idea is that they hope the person cannot afford the legal costs. In some cases even winning a settlement in a black and white case can bankrupt a winning party as it may barely just cover the legal costs. Once again money wins . . . 

People can argue technical points on democracy or capitalism but at the end of the day, while there are small exceptions (cant think of any off the top of my head) they are just that exceptions. 

Democracy coupled with capitalism makes democracy null and void. We are all slaves to the system, either play the game or suffer its ills as an outcast.

Wasnt sure if this was great financial debate or letting off steam ! !


----------



## csirl (8 Dec 2008)

The theory of evolution is what drives life. Getting a competitive advantage over other beings of the same species is what its all about. Without it, life on earth is doomed, and that includes the human race. The reason capitalism thrives and socialism doesnt is down to darwinism. Socialism is against the natural order of things.


----------



## Caveat (8 Dec 2008)

It is said that necessity is the mother of invention, but the same argument could be made for capitalism.

No system is perfect but capitalism allows anyone to make and create wealth - no-one is excluded from 'making it'.

Democracy is not much more than a loose idealised concept - the law of the land is what dictates what is 'fair' and powerful people have always been able to circumvent the law and always will do. 

Much crime is capitalism at it's rawest and it will always exist - whatever the system may be.


----------



## NorthDrum (8 Dec 2008)

True guys, In all fairness, I havent a better alternative , just an interesting discussion I had with a strong capitalist backer, who also strongly agrees with the democracy that we currently enjoy.

I came to the conclusion that we are living in a world thats just the best of a bad bunch of ideals. Kind of like the government in Ireland!


----------



## Purple (8 Dec 2008)

What’s the line about democracy being about the worst system of government except for all the other ones we have tried.
Here’s a question NorthDrum; can you name one democracy that is not capitalist? As long as the people control the wealth the government is subject to their will. Once the government control the wealth (Communism) the people need no longer be consulted.
A good example of that is seventeenth century England where Parliament gained (almost) all of the power to raise taxes from the king. He still controlled everything else but in practice it was meaningless as he couldn’t pay for anything without the consent of Parliament. 

To sum up; he who pays the piper calls the tune and in a capitalist democracy the people pay the piper. Some of the people pay a larger share than others and so have a louder voice but with a progressive taxation system this imbalance is limited on a macro level.  

Interesting thread BTW.


----------



## askalot (8 Dec 2008)

At the moment it seems that the current model of global capitalism is broken, indeed if a global socialist system failed so spectacularly many commentators would be rushing to pronounce it dead for good! 

The solution of the world's leaders is to use socialist/state intervention to get the same old capitalist system back up and running. After the second world war America did such a great job of welding the ideas of democracy and capitalism together that today the two seem interchangeable. They are not but political parties in Western Europe believe it, as is illustrated by the EU's belief that capitalist reform will bring about social and political reform in China even though this policy has completely failed in Russia.

So the title of this thread could read:

Capitalism = Democracy = Myth


----------



## NorthDrum (8 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> What’s the line about democracy being about the worst system of government except for all the other ones we have tried.
> Here’s a question NorthDrum; can you name one democracy that is not capitalist? As long as the people control the wealth the government is subject to their will. .


 
Agreed. The reason I put Capitalism and Democracy in the same thread was because I thought in modern world they go hand in hand.

Im just making the point that the people holding the wealth (as a majority) are not the people, but select few who have enough wealth to change governments and legislation. 

In the U.S. look at Republicans. Backed by large industries, last 8 years Bush has been working for their benefit (voted in by the public, generally unaware of the whole dynamics of politics and political will).

Now lets look at our boys. Rumblings about the tent in Galway forced them to shut it down. But lets be honest, many policys brought in are not in the interest of the general public. Even the ones that are brought in are because as a society we have to do these things under pain of death -


Bail out banks, a necessity because our economy requires banks to function. As a result cocky high rollers are still trying to "negotiate" better terms with the govt at the expense of us all!!

We cant tax the rich too high or they will go elsewhere! This seems to be a given, but the same goes for large corporations. Again the system is set to force us to give advantages to those in privelaged positions already.

No limit to propaganda funding around elections. So in essence he who hath the most funding, hath already handicapped hith opponent.
I just think that money is at the route of power in democracys going the capitalist way. This means in essence, the people are not in power. I can vote for whoever I want but will I vote for Joe Nobody who I have never seen on TV or Bradd Pitt whos all over the tv and on doorsteps (oh hes such a nice guy!). Remember a large portion of the polulation are ignorant to politics and will vote for whatever candidate they have seen the most. Yes, this is democracy, but its brought to us by the rich, sponcored by the larger industries , with the odd peanut of favourable legislation thrown down to us lucky lucky "free" people, just to keep us not asking too many questions so we will be nice little drones. . .


----------



## Purple (8 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> Remember a large portion of the polulation are ignorant to politics and will vote for whatever candidate they have seen the most.


 I think that this is the nub of your agreement. As a citizen of a democracy (in my opinion) you have a duty to be politically informed.


----------



## Purple (8 Dec 2008)

Capitalism does not necessarily lead to democracy but democracy cannot function without capitalism.


----------



## NorthDrum (8 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> I think that this is the nub of your agreement. As a citizen of a democracy (in my opinion) you have a duty to be politically informed.


 
Yeh, i think as much as you have a duty to be politically informed, its the duty of those in power to inform you accuratly and impartially which we know is not necessarily the case.

I assume most would agree that the German nation would be considered a fairly intelligent race yet the questions on how Hitler managed to fool them into mass genocide will rumble on. Believing in propaganda is not just about being intelligent or informed, one can be programmed or forced into believing a concept that is fundamentally and morally wrong.

On an extreme note, I just think of some of the republican techniques used to "inform" the public of their opponents should be highlighted. One in particular highlighted on CNN was particularly "funny". It was a voicemail sent in cuban to US citizans saying voting for Obama was like voting for castro ! ! It would be a perfect skit on saturday night live and would be a great joke were the ramifications not so serious. Comparing Obama to Islam was another one.

A friend of mine who lives in the U.S. loves politics, particularly U.S. Politics. What he told me about Walker Bush was astonishing. A large majority of his votes in 2005 were from people who actually just felt sorry for him (as a complete moron) and thought that Kerry was far too intelligent for his own good! This coupled with the fact that republicans had been scaring the hell out of the country for the previous 4 years "encouraged" dimwits to vote for him. 

He also said that around election time, republicans drive into ethnic estates and burn cars to discourage them to vote (by taking their eyes off the election and forgetting to vote!). Do any of us really believe that the republicans arent capable of anything underhanded to win elections? 

Democracy working at its finest. On one hand it is great that a complete idiot can be the leader (as it sort of prooves the whole "anybody can get to the top" theory) of the country, but on the other hand this idiot scared the hell out of voters into voting for him.

This is part and parcel of the mud slinging that goes on in most elections in democracys but that doesnt necessarily make it acceptable. Its actually winning election by default.

Considering the U.S. is widely accepted as the shining beacon of capitalism and democracy, it only further highlights what is wrong with the implementation of both. The truth is that there are ignorant and idiotic people out there who believe the shameless propaganda tools used to get their votes. People who get voted into power using these underhand techniques are not being democratically elected, more elected on false pretenses.


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2008)

Billy Bragg made the point at his excellent gig at Vicar St last week that 'Democratic Capitalism' is oxymoric by definition, like 'military intelligence' and 'self regulation'.


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> Billy Bragg made the point at his excellent gig at Vicar St last week that 'Democratic Capitalism' is oxymoric by definition, like 'military intelligence' and 'self regulation'.




Poor Billy never quite got over the shock of seeing his beloved Berlin Wall fall.


----------



## Complainer (9 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Poor Billy never quite got over the shock of seeing his beloved Berlin Wall fall.


Perhaps you have Billy mixed up with someone else?

From [broken link removed]


> The Berlin Wall comes down as Billy tours the States with Wiggy and the rest of the Red Stars. Relieved at the bloodless overthrow of a repressive police state, but dismayed by the West’s crowing, Billy decides he should examine more closely some of the Communist and socialist ideals that had been expressed in song. And so The Internationale mini-album came into being - which included The Red Flag and Blake’s Jerusalem among other uplifting songs.


----------



## gillarosa (9 Dec 2008)

All of the rights we take for granted in our 'democracy' were concessions demanded and won by either the Trade Union movement internationally or campaigning political groups. It would never the case that a group of kind hearted Capitalists had a chat about the inequality staring them in the face and made decisions to change their world for the better.

The 8 hour working day
The 5 day working week
Obolition of Child Labour
Security of Employment
Pay Equality
Universal Healthcare
Universal Sufferage
Old Age Pensions
Free and Transparant Elections
and so on

None of the above were handed to us on a plate, yet so many of us take them for granted and sneer at the workings of the TU movement, would never blink before crossing an official picket line, failing to make it to the polling station on the day of an election...I guess we believe the Boss has our true interest at heart after all!?


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> Perhaps you have Billy mixed up with someone else?
> 
> From [broken link removed]



No, actually.  The rest of Europe made up its mind about the usefulness of "Communist and socialist ideals" about 20 years ago. Not our Billy.


----------



## ubiquitous (9 Dec 2008)

gillarosa said:


> yet so many of us take them for granted and sneer at the workings of the TU movement,



Perhaps this is because what remains of the TU movement today is more about protection of powerful vested interests, and "jobs for the boys" (eg Fás) than the lofty ideals espoused by their predecessors?


----------



## Caveat (9 Dec 2008)

gillarosa said:


> ...would never blink before crossing an official picket line


 
Slightly OT, but I think this is a large part of the overall problem, this suggestion (not necessarily by _gillarosa_, but I think her comment hints at the attitude) that somehow the integrity of a picket line should not be breached by anyone, at any time, no matter what.

The validity or otherwise of any industrial action should be judged on an individual basis IMO - I don't see that this sense of blind, tribal solidarity regarding picket lines does anyone any good ultimately.

Of course intimidation from within the union doesn't help either.


----------



## gillarosa (9 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Perhaps this is because what remains of the TU movement today is more about protection of powerful vested interests, and "jobs for the boys" (eg Fás) than the lofty ideals espoused by their predecessors?


 
I agree and that is unfortunate, but I also think its important for us to remember that what we have wasn't handed to us!


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2008)

gillarosa, Bismarck brought in the first old age pension. He's not known as a communist (or even a socialist). In fact he saw the socialists as a threat to the state and introduced anti-socialist laws. He also brought in the first workers compensation scheme for sick pay and accidents at work.


----------



## NorthDrum (10 Dec 2008)

jaybird said:


> [/list]If this is the first principle of democracy, then we don't live in one. How could anyone argue that all members have equal access to power?


 
Exactly . . .

Before anybody says anything, I dont necessarily have an alternative way of living , Im just throwing it out to the forum that the world we live in is really a "tiered" democracy. 

U.S.A - E.U. - Ireland - Rich people - the rest of us.

Now as a matter of speaking at these factors above can change the way we live with or without or agreement (notice we are the last mentioned, we being the majority of these nations, but with lessor influence).


----------



## csirl (10 Dec 2008)

gillarosa said:


> All of the rights we take for granted in our 'democracy' were concessions demanded and won by either the Trade Union movement internationally or campaigning political groups. It would never the case that a group of kind hearted Capitalists had a chat about the inequality staring them in the face and made decisions to change their world for the better.
> 
> The 8 hour working day
> The 5 day working week
> ...


 
I disagree. While the trade union movement may have campaigned for the above, in each of these cases they were lucky enough to be on the winning side. The reality is that in an expanding economy, there is competition for workers and so employers have to offer better terms and conditions in order to attract or retain employees. In time these conditions become standard and codified in law. It is unheard of for better conditions to be granted in a constricting economy (when trade unions are at their most active). This phenonema has been around since the black death and so pre-dates the trade union movement (the black death lead to a shortage of labour which in turn led to employers having to abandon bonded labour/serfdom).

Interestingly enough, countries which are run by trade unions - communist parties are effectively glorified trade unions - have the worst working terms and conditions in the world.


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> No, actually.  The rest of Europe made up its mind about the usefulness of "Communist and socialist ideals" about 20 years ago. Not our Billy.



Billy did an interesting bit of between-song-banter about 'what did your friends say when you told them you were going to a Billy Bragg gig', and you fall right into the stereotypical responses we all had a good laugh about. There appear to be based on some tabloid representation of Billy, rather than what he actually says/does.

I'm not a Bragg disciple, and I don't agree with everything the man says. I've generally enjoyed his albums, and I've particular respect for the work he has done on the archives of Woody Guthrie. But perhaps you'd consider not 'shooting the messenger' and maybe you could attack something he has actually said or done, rather than your own misinformed opinion of him. If you want to know what he thinks about the Berlin wall, listen to the podcast that I linked to above, and you can see that it is about a million miles away from your misguided jibe. I've never heard Billy singing the praises of the Soviet era communist regimes, which of course had very little to do with communism.

Oh and I guess you might consider informing the voters of UK, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, several of the Nordic countries, Hungary and probably many other countries that "The rest of Europe made up its mind about the usefulness of "Communist and socialist ideals" about 20 years ago", as these countries have all voted in socialist governments in the past ten years or so. Perhaps they missed your memo?

Whatever you do, don't read the New Statesman article titled 'Socialism's comeback'. 




Caveat said:


> No system is perfect but capitalism allows anyone to make and create wealth - no-one is excluded from 'making it'.


Please tell me that you don't believe that everyone has an equal chance of 'making it'? Do you believe that, oh let's say Gavin O'Reilly had an equal chance of 'making it' as [broken link removed]?


----------



## Caveat (10 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> Do you believe that, oh let's say Gavin O'Reilly had an equal chance of 'making it' as [broken link removed]?


 
I didn't say everyone had an 'equal' chance.


----------



## shnaek (10 Dec 2008)

More and more I think the key to achieving something close to the ideal that is democracy is education. And I don't just mean literacy or mathematical ability. I mean general knowledge, and the elimination of ignorance. Some countries (which I won't name) believe that keeping a population ignorant is a good means of control. That may be true, but it is short term thinking, and will not propel a country forward on the route to sustainable greatness. Most empires have fallen when their populations have become complacent, lazy and ignorant. Democracy cannot flourish without an educated, knowledgeable and smart citizenry.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2008)

shnaek said:


> More and more I think the key to achieving something close to the ideal that is democracy is education. And I don't just mean literacy or mathematical ability. I mean general knowledge, and the elimination of ignorance. Some countries (which I won't name) believe that keeping a population ignorant is a good means of control. That may be true, but it is short term thinking, and will not propel a country forward on the route to sustainable greatness. Most empires have fallen when their populations have become complacent, lazy and ignorant. Democracy cannot flourish without an educated, knowledgeable and smart citizenry.



Well said.


----------



## ubiquitous (10 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> Oh and I guess you might consider informing the voters of UK, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, several of the Nordic countries, Hungary and probably many other countries that "The rest of Europe made up its mind about the usefulness of "Communist and socialist ideals" about 20 years ago", as these countries have all voted in socialist governments in the past ten years or so. Perhaps they missed your memo?



 I cannot speak for the other countries you mention but if New Labour had told the UK electorate that they were voting for socialism, not to mention "Communist and socialist ideals", the Tories would still be in power.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> Oh and I guess you might consider informing the voters of UK, Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, several of the Nordic countries, Hungary and probably many other countries that "The rest of Europe made up its mind about the usefulness of "Communist and socialist ideals" about 20 years ago", as these countries have all voted in socialist governments in the past ten years or so. Perhaps they missed your memo?


I wasn’t aware that any of these countries were communist (perhaps I missed the memo?). Some of them have social democratic governments but none of them are socialist states.


----------



## Pique318 (10 Dec 2008)

Purple said:


> I wasn’t aware that any of these countries were communist (perhaps I missed the memo?). Some of them have social democratic governments but none of them are socialist states.



Nothing wrong with Socialism, per se....it's when it mutated into Communism that the problems began.

Shure isn't Bertie Irelands best-known Socialist


----------



## ubiquitous (10 Dec 2008)

Plenty wrong with socialism if you go by Bertie's legacy


----------



## Pique318 (10 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Plenty wrong with socialism if you go by Bertie's legacy


 True...bad example of socialism at work


----------



## redstar (10 Dec 2008)

I think the situation in China is a very interesting 'case-study' of what happens to capitalism when controlled by an non-democratic, authoritarian Govt.

Wealthy individuals have emerged in the cities, while rural areas are still very poor. I work with Chinese IT engineers who work for US multinationals in Beijing. I find they are very well educated and work hard. However, i have noticed that they tend to operate better when directed rather than deciding things for themselves. If you ask them to do something they do not agree with, they will publicly agree but passively resist. ie do nothing. 
They are extremely loyal to China and its Govt and don't take criticism of their country too well.

It'll be interesting to see how Chinas experiment with 'controlled capitalism' turns out in the long run.


----------



## Complainer (11 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I cannot speak for the other countries you mention but if New Labour had told the UK electorate that they were voting for socialism, not to mention "Communist and socialist ideals", the Tories would still be in power.


I wouldn't be the world's biggest fan of New Labour (and indeed your oul friend Billy was pretty scathing about Irish Labour going 'New' just as the UK counterparts are starting to straighten out), but I guess that most of the UK electorate are smart enough to twig the connection between the Labour Party and socialist ideals.



Pique318 said:


> True...bad example of socialism at work





ubiquitous said:


> Plenty wrong with socialism if you go by Bertie's legacy


Dear lord, please don't tell me that anyone seriously believes that Bertie's legacy of a two-tier health health system, a hugely inflated property bubble, and a 'light touch' regulatory environment over financial services has anything to do with socialism.


----------



## redbhoy (22 Dec 2008)

If the general populace were educated on how to think for themselves instead of what to think we'd have a fairer system of government. 
The ideal system of government should be a melting pot of ideals.


----------



## Purple (23 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> Dear lord, please don't tell me that anyone seriously believes that Bertie's legacy of a two-tier health health system, a hugely inflated property bubble, and a 'light touch' regulatory environment over financial services has anything to do with socialism.


Of course not, if we had real socialism we'd live in an egalitarian utopia, just like the other socialist countries such as... oops!


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Dec 2008)

Complainer said:


> I wouldn't be the world's biggest fan of New Labour (and indeed your oul friend Billy was pretty scathing about Irish Labour going 'New' just as the UK counterparts are starting to straighten out), but I guess that most of the UK electorate are smart enough to twig the connection between the Labour Party and socialist ideals.



I don't understand then why you cited the UK as a country which had "voted in socialist governments in the past ten years or so"


----------



## Complainer (23 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> I don't understand then why you cited the UK as a country which had "voted in socialist governments in the past ten years or so"


Simply to expose the gaping hole in your claim that "The rest of Europe made up its mind about the usefulness of "Communist and socialist ideals" about 20 years ago". I accept that Communism isn't top of many people's lists, but socialism is alive and thriving across much of Europe, thanks very much. And even the USA have taken a big step to the left (though I'm not claiming that Obama or the the Democrats are socialists).


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Dec 2008)

At the risk of boring everyone I can only repeat:


ubiquitous said:


> I cannot speak for the other countries you mention but if New Labour had told the UK electorate that they were voting for socialism, not to mention "Communist and socialist ideals", the Tories would still be in power.



Ditto Obama and US voters.


----------



## Complainer (23 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> At the risk of boring everyone I can only repeat:
> 
> 
> Ditto Obama and US voters.


See this post.


----------



## room305 (27 Dec 2008)

Pique318 said:


> Nothing wrong with Socialism, per se....it's when it mutated into Communism that the problems began.



Since I've heard similar comments voiced on numerous occasions perhaps somebody would care to outline the basic difference between communism and socialism for me?


----------



## Purple (1 Jan 2009)

room305 said:


> Since I've heard similar comments voiced on numerous occasions perhaps somebody would care to outline the basic difference between communism and socialism for me?



*Socialism* from Wikipedia; _"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement as well as the intellectual movement that criticized the effects of industrialization on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism."_

*Communism* from Wikipedia; _"Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, following a socialist stage, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life."_

 True Communism has never been achieved. The USSR is a good example of a socialist state in action.

Anyone who says that social-democratic states in Northern Europe are socialist doesn’t know what they are talking about. Most people who claim to be socialist are in fact social democrats. In recent years most Irish socialist politicians have attempted to change the definition of socialism rather than acknowledge that it is an utterly bankrupt philosophy. 

The group that typifies this is the current leadership of the Labour Party who were instrumental in the reverse takeover of Labour by Democratic Left (formerly the Workers Party). They are a case study in the transition from Communism to Socialism to Social Democracy or, if you like, the journey from Lunacy to irrationality to rational and well meaning but economically illiterate idealism.


----------

