Is Capitalism Anti-Democratic?

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

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

falcon2424 posted:

My basic problem with the 'capitalism is anti-democratic' is that it denies people's agency.

Campaign contributions matter because they can be used to convince people to vote in a particular direction. So, the election is, in some sense, a legitimate expression of the people's will. The idea that people's opinions are mailable could be used as a legitimate criticism of the idea of democracy.

Maybe we should govern ourselves by something other than people's votes. (Though, most alternative plans come off, "If only we gave power to me, or someone like me...")

To call capitalism 'anti-democratic' a person pretty-much needs to claim that everyone's stated preferences somehow don't count. Sure, a random red-state voter will swear up and down that they're voting their conscience.

But our anti-capitalist knows better. Someone they are the clear-eyed ones who've somehow been unaffected by their culture's influence. They're the ones above marketing. And if only everyone shared their privileged vantage point, then all those other people would agree with the conclusions.

Let's face it, the average American voted is hideously uniformed on all fronts: American history, foreign policy, demographics, war, class, and race. There are a bunch of one issue voters out there, who do vote on conscience, but are easy to exploit. The best example is Bush and the Evangelicals.

It's not unique to the United States, nor is it unique to Republics, it's just inherent in any system with disproportions among class/wealth.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2014 03:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:50

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

falcon2424 posted:

I think you're buying into your own rhetoric too much. Ultimately, people (not dollars) vote. So, public opinion is influence. And money is useful for shaping public opinion.

You can call this a lot of things. Maybe it's too easy to move public opinion. But I don't see how a system that was less responsive to people's stated desires could possibly be called 'more democratic'.

If you're looking for a rule by The Right Sort of Person, perhaps people who are Educated On Important Topics, then that's an oligarchy. Perhaps a benevolent one. But an oligarchy none-the-less.

You can create an oligarchy by having everyone equally uninformed about their own interests. The problem is that the public is complacent towards their own cognitive dissonance in regards how they should treat the upper class. People perceive meritocratic values as having access to wealth in society, but refuse to delve further into the coddling that goes in Washington.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2014 03:34

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

falcon2424 posted:

This is you saying that people have wrong-preferences.

Maybe they do. Maybe your preferences are better. But wanting the system to ignore the majority in favor of you is not a call for increased democracy.

Wrong preferences? I'm saying people find it absolutely necessary to vote against their own interests in this country.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2014 04:00

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

asdf32 posted:

There are millions more policy decisions to be made that would benefit someone. Clearly the answer isn't that every firm with money already has what they want.

The size of the US government and government spending means that from any single firm's perspective the potential for increased protections/contracts/subsidies is essentially infinite.

If you were in the defense lobby, yeah. They basically get unlimited amounts of money as is.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2014 05:08

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

asdf32 posted:

As I cautioned earlier, this gets somewhat circular. My question was why the rich are better than the poor at class solidarity. Your answer is that the rich are more powerful. When I ask why the rich are more powerful, one answer is class solidarity.

There's no need for a formal conspiracy. They go to the same schools, are raised in the same environments, and deal with the same banks.

The wealthy and aristocracy would always have greater solidarity than the poor, simply because their interests revolve around retaining their wealth and power vs. the perpetual crisis the poor face on a daily basis. It's hard to engage a society that struggles through poverty.

What's most particular to the United States is that we set pay walls on basic things such as access to healthcare and higher education, which makes it even harder to energize a populace.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 05:02

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

Slobjob Zizek posted:

He's asking where the disparity originates from. The answer is intelligence, ruthlessness, luck. Humans are clearly very adept at capitalizing on minor gains over a long period of time. Look how we took over the world!

The disparity comes from people trying to keep the disparity. It gets to the point where the mob reaches the tipping point of their tolerance, and then the upper echelon get overthrown. Capitalist economies are no less susceptible to getting violent revolutions than feudalism or dictatorships.

The only reason that we haven't is that we have this thing that everyone claims exist but doesn't: The middle class.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 05:15

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

Slobjob Zizek posted:

I'm not sure what your point is here. Clearly, some humans are more adept at amassing wealth/power than others (via ability, luck, etc.). Technology allows people to extend their power to an area greater than themselves.

There's no need for merit. I'm saying that there doesn't need to be a justification for the upper class to act against the rest of society other than the risk losing their status as the upper class. It's nothing unique to capitalism.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 06:42

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

I don't know how anyone could seriously argue about the cohesiveness of capitalism and democracy when it they seemed mutually exclusive for most during the Cold War. There were numerous "1st World" countries that were run as capitalist dictatorships, which actively suppressed their populations, in order to remain part of the western bloc. Even before the United States was a military power, it was already an economic power with considerable and consequential anti-democratic influence on numerous countries. In a post-modern sense, capitalism has exceeded whatever boundaries democracy can create in its transition to global capitalism. It has become increasingly difficult to enforce regulations against companies that jump borders in the unlikely event that their routine labor abuses get criticized.

# ¿ May 3, 2014 01:59

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

Please, please, please don't cite to a country that was run by a forced corporatist state and military junta.

# ¿ May 3, 2014 02:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 07:50

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

Broad brushing the developing world is equally misguided and dangerous. Anyone who has made a serious effort to look at inequality and China and India would find it both rampant and disproportionate to their economic growth. It can and will continue to be this way because the developed world, and the companies that outsource from them, depend on it- because it effectively undermines the working class of both the developed and developing countries.

To really frame this debate, would anyone like to guess what would happen if you asked a company like Walmart to relinquish their access of four billion working bodies on the other side of the planet?

# ¿ May 3, 2014 06:23

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