|
The two have always been in conflict, hence the aversion of the US founding fathers to direct democracy (which they pejoratively called "mob rule"). The issue isn't just about the effects of advertising, it's also just plain exposure. The idea of dismissing capitalism as anti-democratic because, what, you think the people saying it are arrogant or something, is hardly scientific. You don't even have to agree with all their political opinions to acknowledge that the tension exists.
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I'm saying that the anti-capitalist critique is that public policy is too mailable with respect to public opinion. People can make that critique if they want. But 'anti-democratic' is the wrong word for it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Corporate America is not a monolithic entity agreeing on all things. Some companies want things that other companies don't want to happen. Why aren't internet companies and ISPs spending billions to outpace each other over net neutrality?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:And yet Soros, Buffett, and the Koch Brothers are all fantastically wealthy people with very different interests. "Class" roughly correlates to how much money you have. It sure as poo poo doesn't mean that wealthy people are a homogeneous group who all believe in the same things or have the same interests. asdf32 posted:By the way, are we supposed to accept democracy as an intrinsic good?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 22:43
|
|