2 questions.

[Fidelbrand]

Invitation for ideas on my essay , titled:

What do you think is the best description of the relation between capitalism and democracy?
Are there ways to better realize democracy within a capitalist society?


Yes, a framed essay question .... <_<

Please shed light on me and give me your ideas if possible. Thanks.

And.. your views on this bullshit would be conducive in helping me to teach the right-wingers a good historical and logical lesson:

"Strictly speaking, then, the historical experiment that combines democratic institutions with a centrally directed peacetime economy has never been tried. I for one hope that it never will. The likely consequences are, I believe, fully foreseeable. And they bode ill for democracy." by Robert Dahl , book : On Democracy

thanks,
Fb.

[redstar2000]

From the capitalist standpoint, a "free election" is one that can be bought.

Democracy is a commercial proposition, pure and simple.

Originally posted by Dahl
Strictly speaking, then, the historical experiment that combines democratic institutions with a centrally directed peacetime economy has never been tried. I for one hope that it never will. The likely consequences are, I believe, fully foreseeable. And they bode ill for democracy.

Dahl&#39;s assertion is simply an assertion; there&#39;s no evidence for it, as he himself admits that democratic central planning has "never been tried".

He&#39;s entitled to his opinion...but we are likewise entitled to ignore it as the product of speculation.

[codyvo]

The democracy I believe in means equal representation of all people and if some people have the ability to give millions to their cause and some can&#39;t vote let alone give money to their party then it isn&#39;t a true democracy (to me at least). So I don&#39;t think that democracy and capitalism can work together, at least not in america.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

One question to all of this is can you have true political equality if you have economic inequality? ... can you really?

Look at lobbyists, look at large owners, look at large companies ... politcally equal to you and me?

TGOW

[DoomedOne]

I agree Capitalism is an attack on the basic ideas of democracy.

[h&s]

Karl Marx: "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."
Thats what dempocracy is in capitalist society - a sham. Almost always the candidates are representing our nightmares, not our needs, and on the rare occasion that you do have chance to vote for someone you do like there is litle chance of them winning - the system is made so that the richest parties will always win as there are no limits on electioneering, and the media isn&#39;t exactly likely to promote a working class candidate are they?

[ComradeRed]

I&#39;d like to reiterate the quote from Lenin and say: Capitalist Democracy is like that of Ancient Greece: freedom for the slave-owners&#33;

[apathy maybe]

First define democracy:

Originally posted by apathy maybe

Democracy, like anarchism, has a number of different meanings and is considered an essentially contested term. While the Greek from which the word is taken means &#39;rule by the people&#39; (demos - the people, and kratein - to rule), this is not very descriptive considering the various meanings that are associated with it. Like "communist", the word "democratic" is used to describe a large array of political structures across the world. As such finding one definition to match all these structures would be hard. If we take the Greek literally, the word democracy means &#39;rule directly by the people&#39;, and this is what happened in Athens (though in reality the &#39;people&#39; were a limited few). This is the definition that will be used in this discussion.

(If you want to cite this I will be putting the essay from which I took it on the web in a few days. PM me for the link.)

Then capitalism:
"Capitalism is an economic theory based on the idea that the market will produce the greatest utility for people. In practice this doesn&#39;t work."
Say something about Adam Smith and his invisible hand. Talk about the rise of monopolies and the need for a state to regulate the market to prevent enviromental degredation.

Say that because democracy has never co-existed with capitalism the question is flawed.


If you have to define democracy as "liberal-democracy" explain why it isn&#39;t. Talk about money. Talk about how the people don&#39;t have any say in the system. Rule by the rich for the rich.

Offer alternatives that would include referendums on most or all issues. Proportianal representation. Using the Internet (or similar technology) to vote on all issues. Use TV to have debate about issues.

You could even throw in a bit about monarchy, dictatorship and anarchism if you wanted to make your word count go higher.

[JazzRemington]

Basically, capitalists provide funding to politicians running for office to push their agendas. Capitalists USE democracy to push their agendas, so one can simplify this into the idea that democracy is capitalism&#39;s *****.

[Fidelbrand]

I had no bloody idea why Dahl is such a renowned figure in the academia, he writes shit, pure shit and throw questions to conclude his pieces (of shit.) <_<

P.S. Grateful thanks for all the ideas &/ opinions.

[RedStarOverChina]

democracy represent the value of equality while capitalism make sure that doesnt happen. One will beat down the other sooner or later. I dont think there can be a permenent balance as capitalism will try to make democracy a business opportunity while democracy would help transform the country into socialism.
Unfortunately it seems that democracy is being beaten down in most cases.

[OleMarxco]

And I thought Capitalism was a tool to further humanity&#39;s cause to a next level, ONCE, until I realized that it were profit that counted and not exactly good results in Society. People have TOTALLY forget the point of this, money should not be something to kill over or somethin&#39; but just meant as an effective way to handle economy and make the wheels of society go efficent. Now we let them forget that they&#39;re there to SERVE us, the capitalists, to make us the shit we need, not them to bounce of at a quest for profit and POLITICAL INFLUENCE by bribin&#39; them officals for their back-handed buisness goin&#39; backwards. WHO THE HELL BENEFITTED OF ENRON BUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE OWNERS OF IT&#33;? (They changed laws for them in return for money) WHUT&#33; They even refused to fix an energy problem in California once. No-one could do shit since they had the control. Bah. Total free capitalism and total free democracy can&#39;t totally problemless co-exist.

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+May 2 2005, 05:13 AM--> (Apathy Maybe @ May 2 2005, 05:13 AM) First define democracy:

apathy maybe

Democracy, like anarchism, has a number of different meanings and is considered an essentially contested term. While the Greek from which the word is taken means &#39;rule by the people&#39; (demos - the people, and kratein - to rule), this is not very descriptive considering the various meanings that are associated with it. Like "communist", the word "democratic" is used to describe a large array of political structures across the world. As such finding one definition to match all these structures would be hard. If we take the Greek literally, the word democracy means &#39;rule directly by the people&#39;, and this is what happened in Athens (though in reality the &#39;people&#39; were a limited few). This is the definition that will be used in this discussion.

(If you want to cite this I will be putting the essay from which I took it on the web in a few days. PM me for the link.)

Then capitalism:
"Capitalism is an economic theory based on the idea that the market will produce the greatest utility for people. In practice this doesn&#39;t work."
Say something about Adam Smith and his invisible hand. Talk about the rise of monopolies and the need for a state to regulate the market to prevent enviromental degredation.

Say that because democracy has never co-existed with capitalism the question is flawed.


If you have to define democracy as "liberal-democracy" explain why it isn&#39;t. Talk about money. Talk about how the people don&#39;t have any say in the system. Rule by the rich for the rich.

Offer alternatives that would include referendums on most or all issues. Proportianal representation. Using the Internet (or similar technology) to vote on all issues. Use TV to have debate about issues.

You could even throw in a bit about monarchy, dictatorship and anarchism if you wanted to make your word count go higher. [/b]

Careful here. A capitalist with his wits about him could easily refute your argument.

The reason being that you argue two contradictory propositions:

1)You quite rightly established that democracy has no definite meaning. Democracy is, in your words, "an essentially contested term". And that the literal translation of demokratia is not much use considering "the various meanings that are associated with it". So we can never truly be sure what&#39;s "democratic" and what&#39;s not - less still what&#39;s "more" or "less" democratic.

2)But you go on to say that Capitalism can never be democratic because it does not "fit" democracy in your terms.

If I was a capitalist I&#39;d reject outright someone arguing that, whilst they admit they&#39;re inability to possess an absolute definition of democracy, they feel safe in claiming capitalism to be inherently undemocratic.

My pedanticism aside, your basic points were very valid.

Another basic argument I&#39;ll add is:

1)Democracy, whatever the definition, relies upon a basis of political equality.
2)Under capitalism, wealth often translates into political power.
3)Wealth in capitalism is extremely unevenly distributed.

Ergo capitalism is inherently undemocratic.

I had no bloody idea why Dahl is such a renowned figure in the academia, he writes shit, pure shit and throw questions to conclude his pieces (of shit.)

Now this is the truth. Dahl ranks "up there" with the best "wishy-washy" intellectuals there are. He&#39;s decidedly mediocre.

[Big Boss]

One of the best examples of how a capitalist goverment uses "democracy" to it&#39;s advantage is the so called "War on Terrorism". Through this war the president wants to preserve "democracy" and he uses this excuse to send troops everywhere to do it. Democracy in a capitalist system is just a filler of textbooks if you ask me.

[bur372]

In capatalisim often political power depends on how much cash you have (say something about how the us can alone stop any decision by the IMF because it has so much power.

Then give a defination of democracy and show how capatalisim and democracy often contradict each other (what happens when the aim to make profit clashs with the views of goverments and people)

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by Fidelbrand@May 1 2005, 01:54 PM

"Strictly speaking, then, the historical experiment that combines democratic institutions with a centrally directed peacetime economy has never been tried. I for one hope that it never will. The likely consequences are, I believe, fully foreseeable. And they bode ill for democracy." by Robert Dahl , book : On Democracy

Dahl was actually a proponent of participatory/workplace democracy (something analagous to syndicalism in a loose sense) by 1985 when he wrote On Economic Democracy.

In other words he didn&#39;t believe in central planning but he did believe in democratizing the economy.

[Jaha]

i think the biggest issue here is that democracy says, "we&#39;re in this together" and capitalism says, "everyone for themselves&#33;"

[Palmares]

In democratic theory, those in power are to be accountable to the people. This only applies to the government. Under capitalism, private corporations exist, and are only accountable to their shareholders.

The power and actions undertaken by these corporations affect the people, yet they are not accountable in any fashion.

Capitalism is inherently undemocratic.

[Black Dagger]

The power and actions undertaken by these corporations affect the people, yet they are not accountable in any fashion.

For the vast majority of &#39;things&#39; yes, but they still have to conform to some laws/codes of practice imposed by nation-states, though they are quite adept at avoiding such obligations.

[Palmares]

That then brings up the point of the relationship between corportations and the state, and hence, the corporate state.

The way I see it, though some obligations are kept, due to a close relationship between corporations and the state, the obligations are "ignored" more often then they are upheld.