Is Capitalism Anti-Democratic?

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

Debunk: Aug 17, 2008; by Fluffdaddy

falcon2424 posted:

I just disagree with you.

Money matters to politicians only in as far as they can pocket it (as straight-up bribes) or use it in an election campaign. And it only matters in election campaigns only in as far as it gets votes. Collecting money is just a proximate goal for politicians. The ultimate goal is votes.

When we stop conflating the means (money) with the ends (votes) the bold line becomes: their votes don't have a meaningful effect on policy as compared to the ability to deliver their votes [via money]

And I'm saying this is a distinction without a difference, given that everyone feels that their ballot-box preferences are sincere.

Can you back this up somehow? Alternatively, could you comment on the paper linked below?

http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/G...es%203-7-14.pdf

quote:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizensand mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

Edit: in fact, everyone ITT should read that paper

Debunk fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Apr 29, 2014

# ¿ Apr 29, 2014 03:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:17

Debunk: Aug 17, 2008; by Fluffdaddy

Whether the average voter's policy preferences would change if they had more information and time to deliberate is of minor concern compared to the fact that the average voter's policy preferences do not actually matter when it comes to determining policy.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2014 04:15

Debunk: Aug 17, 2008; by Fluffdaddy

Rodatose posted:

Well, that's getting away from the question of whether theoretical governmental-power-source of (direct) democracy is compatible with the theoretical economic-form of capitalism.

The US and many other countries in its example have a predominantly capitalistic economy and a representative-republican (indirect democratic) source of government. Sounds like your complaint is that voting in a representative republic is not democratic, which is true. But it's as meaningful as saying that monarchy is not democratic. By definition, a direct democracy is the only one where people directly set policy through democratic means. All other statist power structures amount to representatives claiming to be acting in the name of some other body or force.

Since the OP repeatedly references the United States I assumed we were talking about representative democracy, and more concretely the form that system takes in the present day US. My argument is not an a priori assertion that theoretical-representative democracy will not (roughly) represent or take into account the policy preferences of the average voter. My argument is that the current form of representative democracy that we have in the United States neither represents nor considers the policy preferences of the average voter, because of our (really existing) capitalist economy. So while we may have a nominally democratic system, in the final analysis, the effects of that system do not achieve its purported goals. In order to make the US a truly democratic society we would have to implement huge structural changes in our political system, and I claim that unless we abolish capitalism those changes will eventually be rolled back.

If you have time, check out that paper I linked.

Debunk fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Apr 29, 2014

# ¿ Apr 29, 2014 05:07

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