Is Capitalsim a inherited part of Democracy?

I was once ask this question in Pol 110.  I am curious how everyone wlse would answer

No, neither is communism. See Democracy is the voice of the majority of the people. And Capitalism favors the rich and some middle class. Which isn't the majority of the people. Democracy works only well with a Capitalism/Socialism mix 

lol

I believe that it not either.  Capitalism has gotten in the way of Democratic advances.

"The Gears of Capitalism is oiled by the blood of the workers..."

the quote was mentioned in the simpsons but i can't seem to get the full thing. it's when bart gets sent to france and the simpson family get some russian kid or something.

nevermind, found it

Homer: Please, please kids! Stop fighting. Maybe Lisa's right about America being the land of opportunity, and maybe Adil has a point about the machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers.

Oh please mister socialist save me from the evils of capitalism so we can all live together in a workers paradise, like Russia, China, North Korea, and Cambodia where everyone has all that they need and no blood is ever spilled.

What is Truth?

>>1
If you were to answer "yes", the argument has to hinge on whether you accept that FREEDOM is a necessary inheritance of Democracy.  Freedom (lack of government intervention) does tend to promote a Capitalistic economy.  The question is whether Democracy inherently promotes this type of freedom.  My answer is that it has historically done so in practice, but definitely does not "by nature".  The Greeks were far more democratic than we, and I'm pretty sure they weren't exactly Capitalists.

Pure capitalism is completely theoretical and absurd. If there is no rule of law at all, not even gang honour codes, then no mutual economic system can actually occur, people would just form into militant groups and socio-economic history would start again from scratch. Don't be trolltards and continuously bitch about pure capitalism and pure communism etc.. It's a waste of time.

Evil capitalism "oiled with the blood of the workers" is capitalism regulated by the laws of despots or corrupt populist governments. Industrial era democracy could be considerred a corrupt democracy since not everyone could vote. In this era many people believed that the law should only interfere to preserve justice and taxes should be kept low as this would help the economy grow and in the end see more prosperity and less poverty. Today's libertarian democracy believes that the economy's purpose is to serve the interests of voters and thus people in major income or voting brackets will usually find the services they care about provided. We are discussing libertarian democracy.

The amount of government interference in libertarian democracy is a balance of many factors and I believe there are 3 major rules which govern the amount of state or capitalist control over the economy. There are of course 100s of other factors which I expect many people feel need to be added, these 3 are certainly influencial factors in a stable informed democracy.


1: The individualism to collectivism spectrum.

If services are better off run by an individual/family/group of colleagues they tend to be free-market as that is obviously what voters want. The larger the group involved (customers and providers) the more regulation and law enforcement is required as the average person has less control over the group (through competition or otherwise). When a service can only exist as a monopoly or involves the collective effort of the nation then the state either heavily regulates the service, nationalises it or turns it into an institution. The essential services are institutions, certain areas of education, healthcare tend to be nationalised and sectors of the economy which dominate a nation and it's policies tend to be heavily regulated or sometimes nationalised. Many other factors affect the outcome of how the economy is organized, but generally the more diverse the sector of the economy (can be) the less regulation is needed.


2: The effect of income inequality on voter behaviour.

Obviously the more inequality there is, the more popular demand there is for the government to interfere in the economy in relation to rule 1. However there the effect is a little more intricate, since the less inequality there is the more negligible this rule becomes. Meaning that Rule 1 is the standard and as inequality increases, the effect of government intervention increases starting from 0. You cannot get less income inequality in a nation where everyone gets paid the same.


3: The effect of GDP per capita on the effect of income inequality on voter behaviour.

The higher the GDP per capita, the less important services are to voters and the easier it is for the economy to support those services. As a result rule 3 increases the effect of rule 2 and reduces collectivism which affects rule 1.


Anyone want to analyse this further?

we need a blance not one or the other.  one side having total control leads to ruin.

That is, at last, truth. We have a movable balance based on the perceived needs of society. Now if we could just force a little truth into the Dept of Perceptions we might even be on the road to civility.

No member of the proletariat was harmed during the making of this thread.

short answer: yes



long answer: yeeees



all liberal democracies are glorious capitalist societies

>>10
>>11
Wrong, we don't need a balance. If you are faced with a convergent graph in physics you don't say "the laws of physics IS TEH BALANCE LOLZ I R SMRT", you say "We need to find the patterns, mathematical or otherwise, that this set of results follows.".

too bad social science isn't as stringent as physics then isn't it.

we've tried either one side, seen them attempted to be done, and have failed, where as most places today that aren't shitholes, have some parts of both.

but it's not possible to just find like "oh, this is the best sort of mix, ALL MUST DO THIS!" there is too much diversity, too many contingencies to simply do that. What to do then is a debate you can have from now on and till forever.

>>14
Yes, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't look at the properties whatsoever and just stab in the dark endlessly.

>>13
I dont mind if you study it, graph it, or fap to it, just don't take it apart to see how it works. I guess civilty was around another corner.

>>16
What's wrong with trying to see how things work???

>>17
If you don't know how it works, how will you be able to reassemble it?

>>18
I don't need to dis-assemble it.

we should look at who business has been in the way of democratic advances

so much for an impartial inquiry.

?

Capitalism isn't an inherited part of democracy because inheritance isn't democracy. Inheritance is based on lineage, which is what monarchy is based off of.

And you CAN have a communist democracy, pplz.

>>23
It is a person's right to give people their money.

no. democracy is only about people voting and stuff, it has nothing to do with economics. actually, the whole, power to the people ideal more fits with communism.

>>25
But people don't vote for communism because they know it's fucking stupid. How do we fool them into voting for it???

>>26
there is that socialist guy that got voted in in... ar..a..am... some place with a? i'm yruppeeen, i can't remember what it was called.

soviet california?

communism is dangerous.  there to much room for people to abuse power.

>>26
No, people don't vote for communism because of anticommunism. A peaceful communist state could be achieved through democratic means.

>>29
Please provide proof with which to justify your branding of the ideology. Saying "teh soviets were ebil" doesn't count, because by that count you could say that American democracy is dangerous, with what we've seen with Bush. No, communism isn't dangerous - it was the Soviet leaders and the way they abused their ideals to create a choke hold on the government and exert influence and, thus, power, over the masses. The same is happening with the Republican party, who've betrayed their interests in supporting "small" people (farmers, the working class) and have since moved on to kissing the shoes of big business owners instead.

>>30
"No, communism isn't dangerous - it was the Soviet leaders"
Retarded.

>>30
Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Vietnam. Pick one and prove you're point. Keep in mind that an informed American proletariat will probably kill your ass if there was any likely hood of your success. This workers paradise idea has always led to dictatorship and the deaths of millions. Why don't you try selling this horse shit to the Iranians? At least they're ok with the mass murder stuff. Just tell them its a holy war.

no country to date has been able to fully implament Karl Marxs ideas. 

>>33
and the quick fix is to kill everyone who is not wildly enthusiastic about the process. The reason they haven't been fully implemented is because they don't work.

democracy? no, freedom yes, and for good reason. be careful not to mix them up freedom and capitalism ALWAYS go hand in hand, democracy can exist without capitalism, and does.

>>33
stalin used all of his ideas fully, it just didnt work out like marxs said it would and never reached past the early stages

>>35
Don't mix up the methods of marx and the populist agenda of marx, everyone agrees with his agenda, that everyone be equal and the economy exists to make everyone happy etc etc... anyone can say that.

It's his methods that were questionable. It is obvious that the true intentions of marxism is to put a dictator in power.

>>35
Oh and just look at how extremist socialists are. When they can't win a debate they don't say "oh well maybe our ideas are a little impractical", they start a witch hunt and accuse people of being part of conspiracies etc..

>>30
wow, yea i mean its not like communism has any faults, its flawless and based of superb political philosophy. if you cant see its faults then your fucking stupid, im not talking about how people can abuse its system like in all communist states so far, but the very premise it stands for. if your to supid and blind to actually see it i can understand why you would support it, just like every other sheeple that reads marxs and engels for the first time in college and justifys its message based on pure gut emotional arguments. ignoring all logic and reason and riding on some of the worst philosophy ever invented by man.

"everyone agrees with his agenda, that everyone be equal and the economy exists to make everyone happy etc etc... anyone can say that."
 
lol socialism/communism is not about everyone being equal, its about nobody being able to succeed. that success is evil, wealth is evil, that using your mind to the best it can and going as far as you can with it is evil. and the biggest one, the needs of the community/government/state come before yours, that being selfish is evil

>>39
qft

>>40
what is qft

>>41
qft

>>42
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=qft

QUIT FUCKING TYPING

QUOTED FOR TRUTH

?

>>39

i didn't ayn rand goes to 4chan

i didn't even think she was alive

>>39

i didn't know ayn rand goes to 4chan

i didn't even think she was alive

>>48
What's wrong with Ayn Rand?

>>49

i didn't say there was anything wrong with her, i just said 39 sounded exactly like something she would say.

but yeah she sucks

>>49
Her philosophy is broken when it comes under intense scrutiny in two or three areas (one is debatable two are not). I still personally like most of her politics though and praise her and Leonard Peikoff for at least trying, and at the same time making philosophy semi-popular again. I might even take some classes at ARI before I graduate, some of her working meta-physics (most everything besides objectivist epistemology) is fairly interesting.