Capitalism and Democracy

[Makalakumu]

I am not sure what you mean. I assume you are implying voter fraud or some kind? Can I get a few examples of exactly what you are refering to?

Specifically ones that are government policy would be nice.

Ginshun, there have been three threads started by myself on this topic.

1. Fair MN Elections

2. Republican Party Official Charged...More Evidence of Election Hijinks!

3. A Stolen Election in 2004?

There are many other threads started by others that have been dedicated to this topic. Use the search feature in the study...

The bottom line is that the cases in 2000 and 2004 are well documented. I don't want to open that can of worm here, I am just bringing it up as a counterpoint. I think this discussion is great so far.

 

[ginshun]

Thats cool, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, just wanted your point clarrified. I will read threw those threads.

edit:

*Reads threads*

I will give you that there are some valid points in there about polititions making it harder to vote. I am not sure however that I buy the Republican consperousy behind it. Some of those things from MN seem a little extreme, but there are certain things that I think you should have to do to vote. Showing an ID at the poll is one of them. I know I didn't have to show an ID when I voted in the last election, and I think I should have. Otherwise what is to stop anyone from walking in, saying they are me and voting? Don't get me wrong, I don't want to move toward a facist system, were only certain citizens are allowed to vote, but a little closer watch on who is actually voting wouldn't be a bad thing IMO.


I also noticed that you only seemed to mention quetionable things that happened on the Republican side of the issue. I don't know about the rest of the contry, but there were several things in WI alone that where pretty shady on the Democrat side. Republican vans that were giving voters rides to polls getting there tires slashed in Millwaukee, Democratic counties with 100% voter turnout, Move-On.org people chanting and harrassing people trying to vote around Madison.

I will agree that there have been some shady practices going on in the last couple of elections, but I don't think that they are as one sided as you would have us believe.

 

[Makalakumu]

I will agree that there have been some shady practices going on in the last couple of elections, but I don't think that they are as one sided as you would have us believe.

I've lived most of my life in MN and became a "cheesehead" a few years ago. One of the neat things that I have experienced is some of the cleanest election in the country. Both of our states have extremely tough and progressive election laws that make it very hard to cheat and make it very easy to vote. With that being said, I think that the entire country could learn a little from "da northland".

If you take a look at the reported data, it is pretty one sided. I looked for abuses on all sides and I have looked at the records of non-partisan nationwide groups who track these things. In 2000 and 2004 the vast majority of abuses were perpetrated by people on the right.

How does this relate to democracy and capitalism? Simply put, the main political party that pushes (in rhetoric only) for unfettered capitalism needs to undermine democracy in order to accomplish it's goals (which is not the establishment of unfettered capitalism).

 

[loki09789]

How about when a government or an elected official deliberately underprovides voting resources to various groups in order to quell their democratic voice?

Prove "deliberately"

Prove the motive of quelling 'their democratic voice'

before you list these opinions as assertions or facts.

 

[Makalakumu]

Prove "deliberately"

Prove the motive of quelling 'their democratic voice'

before you list these opinions as assertions or facts.

Proof depends on YOUR criteria. If you would like an affadavid signed by GOD, sorry. If regular people suffice, then sure.

 

[Ray]

If you take a look at the reported data, it is pretty one sided. I looked for abuses on all sides and I have looked at the records of non-partisan nationwide groups who track these things. In 2000 and 2004 the vast majority of abuses were perpetrated by people on the right.

Having read other posts by you, I have developed some trust and respect for what you say. At first reading of this, I ask if you can point me to those studies? I'd like to give them a read.

How does this relate to democracy and capitalism? Simply put, the main political party that pushes (in rhetoric only) for unfettered capitalism needs to undermine democracy in order to accomplish it's goals (which is not the establishment of unfettered capitalism).

I don't understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

The US is a democracy [indirectly a democracy because we elect representatives who decide for us]. The US has a capitalistic economy [but not as capitalistic as it once was since government there are laws and governemnt regulation].

From http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=8413 Capitalism: "economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. Capitalism is grounded in the concept of free enterprise, which argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare."

Democracy: "government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes."

 

[loki09789]

From http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=8413 Capitalism: "economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. Capitalism is grounded in the concept of free enterprise, which argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare."


Democracy: "government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes."

"Private ownership of the means of production" can only happen if the "people...[are] directing activites" and not by a class or autocratic structure.

A democratic government allows for the individual citizen to participate in "free enterprise" because of the freedoms that he/she is afforded because there is no class preference inherent in the institution.

Capitalism has competitive market as a cornerstone of the idea, so people that work harder/smarter/faster will get more than those that don't.

Democracy, as it is usually understood today, affords individuals the freedom/liberty to go succeed or fail based on the their level of work/effort/desire...without restriction because of class/race/religion....

These are both theoretical of course and the hole in both theories IMO is the underpinning belief that Competition or opportunity inspire people and bring out the best in people and not the worst....wrong.

The same hole exists in Socialistic/Communistic ideals that have the underpinning belief that all people WANT to be equal/fair/balanced/team players/are selfless....wrong.

Somewhere between is the reality.

 

[Ray]

"Private ownership of the means of production" can only happen if the "people...[are] directing activites" and not by a class or autocratic structure.

A democratic government allows for the individual citizen to participate in "free enterprise" because of the freedoms that he/she is afforded because there is no class preference inherent in the institution.

Capitalism has competitive market as a cornerstone of the idea, so people that work harder/smarter/faster will get more than those that don't.

Democracy, as it is usually understood today, affords individuals the freedom/liberty to go succeed or fail based on the their level of work/effort/desire...without restriction because of class/race/religion....

These are both theoretical of course and the hole in both theories IMO is the underpinning belief that Competition or opportunity inspire people and bring out the best in people and not the worst....wrong.

The same hole exists in Socialistic/Communistic ideals that have the underpinning belief that all people WANT to be equal/fair/balanced/team players/are selfless....wrong.

Somewhere between is the reality.

We agree completely that the espoused ideals are not the ones that are the real-life results.

Democracy does seem to fit nicely with capitalism. It does take some imagination to see socialism working in a democracy, it would be like a huge corporation with the citizenary owning equal (nearly equal) shares in the company (state)...I wonder how well it would work? It would seem to combine the socialist ownership ideal with the incentive to work hard to make the endeavor(s) successful. It does seem too easy to combine socialism with a fascist government.

On the other hand, how well does capitalism fit with fascist states? I'm going to have to do some research.

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, I'm still waiting for some explanation of the odd coincidence that modern capitalism and modern democracy grew up in the same places, at the same times, among the same people and were explained as being interconnected right from the git-go.

Second off, I'm afraid it's simply nonsense to claim that, "socialism and communism," depend on some faith in the essential cuddliness of humaankind, on our desire to sit around the fire and gently sing, "Michael, Row the Boat Ashore."

If you actually read Marx, the books actually bracket the whole question of what human beings are, "naturally," like, because from way back before recorded history, human labor was expropriated by the few, and "primitive accumulation," divorced us from pure Nature, whatever that would be. It became, "natural," for us to compete and pile up stuff, because we had it drummed into our little baby heads that we had to, that it was natural, that it was some god's plan.

And as for Marx's account of why things change, of why we might just grow out of this childishness some day, that also isn't because we all just make nicey-nice. It's because capitalism inevitably produces its own contradictions, its own fundamental stresses and strains.

Good thing that's not happening. I mean, that would mean that we'd have growing gaps between the haves and have-nots, splits in the educational system, world-wide competition between different parts of the labor market, quarrels and wars centered on the differences between "fundamentalist," religions and modern life, gaps between official ideologies like what Christ taught and the way people actually must live...

Hey, wait a minute.

 

[Phoenix44]

Capitalism and democracy have been compatible in the US for a long time. It's only recently that we've become a fascist state, which is still compatible with capitalism, but not compatible with democracy.

 

[Ray]

First off, I'm still waiting for some explanation of the odd coincidence that modern capitalism and modern democracy grew up in the same places, at the same times, among the same people and were explained as being interconnected right from the git-go.

You'll have to research deeper than here to develop your explanation. A quick observation is "modern" things do co-exist in "modern" times, that's no co-incidence, it's a definition of a time-period.

Second off, I'm afraid it's simply nonsense to claim that, "socialism and communism," depend on some faith in the essential cuddliness of humaankind, on our desire to sit around the fire and gently sing, "Michael, Row the Boat Ashore."

Yup. Of the choices in the world, democracy and capitalism are my choices; but even what we have in the US isn't perfect, just better than most.

If you actually read Marx....

Marx is one of many people with opinions.

gaps between official ideologies like what Christ taught and the way people actually must live...

There is nothing preventing the individual from living the way that Christ taught.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ray, first off, communism and socialism were specifically brought up. That's why I cited Marx rather than just anybody's opinion.

Second off, the whole definition of, "modern times," I'd use involves the rise of modern capitalism and modern democracy. And neither one appeared all over the world all at once: they appeared together, in very specific places and within very specific circumstances--for example, the rise of the middle class, and the rise of modern colonialism.

Third off, every religion I know of teaches that you cannot simply practice your religion in your mind, and that what you do as a believer is intimately tied to what you do in the world. Christianity certainly teaches, "radix malorum est cupiditas," and Christ makes the point about giving up wordly possessions to follow Him aabout ninety-eleven times in the new testament.

Whatever, MIGHT be true, what IS true is that in this society, everybody has problems reconciling their beliefs and their lives. Every Christian I've ever talked to or read that has a functioning brain finds reconciling God and Mammon difficult--not impossible, but very difficult. try, say, C.S. Lewis.

Or look at the scuzzy likes of Oral Roberts, he of the, "a 900-foot Jesus appeared unto me last night, and said that if you guys don't send me enough money for the building fund by next month, he's coming back to kill me."

 

[Ray]

Third off, every religion I know of teaches that you cannot simply practice your religion in your mind, and that what you do as a believer is intimately tied to what you do in the world. Christianity certainly teaches, "radix malorum est cupiditas," and Christ makes the point about giving up wordly possessions to follow Him aabout ninety-eleven times in the new testament.

Your latin(?) quote must be from 1st Tim 6:10 ("For the love of money is the root of all evil; which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows").

I have a few recollections of Christ asking certain persons to give up all of their possesions and to follow him; the account of the (almost) 13th Apostle is one that comes to mind (Matt 19:16-22). IMO Jesus Christ was demonstrating that a person should be fully committed, willing to completely give up this world if necessary to follow Him. Did the man believe that he was really totally committed to the Savior? I don't think so, I think his response would have been different in verse 20 "All these things have I kept from my youth up; what lack I yet?" if he was. There are others that Jesus did not tell to give up all of their possesions.

If we follow Christ's teachings then we should be willing to give of our substance to those who have not. We should be content with what we do have, not seeking after riches for the sake of riches.

Whatever, MIGHT be true, what IS true is that in this society, everybody has problems reconciling their beliefs and their lives. Every Christian I've ever talked to or read that has a functioning brain finds reconciling God and Mammon difficult--not impossible, but very difficult

I don't know about others. I do have my problems, certainly am not living perfectly. That is why the principle of repentance was put into place.

 

[Ray]

Ray, first off, communism and socialism were specifically brought up. That's why I cited Marx rather than just anybody's opinion.

I suppose we could read Marx, but hearing your opinion is more enjoyable to me and I get more out of your posts. They're new, responsive and unfiltered through the eyes of others (except our own).

 

[ginshun]

rmcrobertson, are you arguing that capitolism and democracy are bad, or are you just wondering why and how they are interconnected?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I pretty much already know how they're interconnected: via the rise of the middle class/working class society. I'm simply pointing out that they are.

 

[ginshun]

OK, that is fine. I guess it just seems from rading your posts that you somehow blaim capitolism for many of the problems facing our counrty. Am I misenterpreting you?

 

[rmcrobertson]

While I'm hesitant to use the word, "bad," here (are we talking rain forests and SUVs? very bad....dentistry, very good), the point I'd make is that capitalism and democracy, while they grew up together, are fundamentally antithetical.

A plain example may be seen in the way we finance elections and the influence of the wealthy and their corporations on our government, vs. the idea of a full-representative democracy. Look at yesterday's bonehead decision to drill in an Alaskan wilderness area--anybody think that's REALLY in the best interests of the majority of American citizens, anybody think this wasn't a bill passed for Hizzoner's friends in the oil industry? Or look at the advantage incumbents have in the House and Senate, an advantage almost entirely stemming from their access to corporate money and Big Media.

Briefly, the push to make a buck no matter what and the push towards equality under the law are contradictory.