Poll: capitalism or democracy?

[PoetPhilosopher]

Have a better system to offer?

Good thing you asked @Eddi that, and not a US socialist who maketh God cry, like myself.

 

[Eddi]

Um, wait. If democracy leads to communism in some way in a system, would that refute your point?

I should imagine that is a pretty big "if"

As far as I'm aware no communist country has ever become communist through elections (I would be interested to hear an example of this having happened)

The places that have had (or who still have) communism were never mature democracies. Look at Russia, or China.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good thing you asked @Eddi that, and not a US socialist who maketh God cry, like myself.

You're welcome to answer too.
That's how RF works.
Anyone can join any conversation.
It's not like socialism, wherein the
state controls who can say what.

 

[Eddi]

Have a better system to offer?

A system which looks after the common and long-term interest which is something our current system does not do

I would like to see a system that is not rigged to always benefit those with the most wealth at the expense of everyone else

It's not so much the wealth that bothers me, it's the fact that the system is arguably bad for everyone else

What would this look like?

I don't know, perhaps some kind of social democracy?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You're welcome to answer too.
That's how RF works.
Anyone can join any conversation.
It's not like socialism, wherein the
state controls who can say what.

I believe in socialism and Universal Basic Income, but I also believe in huge government, & reworking the constitution (but in a legal way, not just throwing it out).

So I propose an authoritarian system with socialism, free healthcare and universal basic income, and huge government, would be better for me and some others than what we have, with the government providing a lot of the jobs and regulating them for people who want to work for additional income. Better education, & take away guns, & much more advanced government. The whole tea-sippin', tree-huggin' utopia idea pretty much, in an authoritarian flavor.

Though you asked "Have a better system to offer?" without specifying the terms and whom it would be better for. So sorry if I made you lose your breakfast.

 

[Eddi]

It's not like socialism, wherein the
state controls who can say what.

In a capitalist system speech doesn't have to be regulated in such a way

In such systems contrary opinions are drowned-out and marginalised by the loud noise of the establishment media

But they are available if you seek them out

There is simply no need for censorship or anything like that

Free speech is big business and what people say is generally determined by what the establishment media constantly tell them

 

[RestlessSoul]

I should imagine that is a pretty big "if"

As far as I'm aware no communist country has ever become communist through elections (I would be interested to hear an example of this having happened)

The places that have had (or who still have) communism were never mature democracies. Look at Russia, or China.

Putting communism to one side for a moment, you may recall that in 2014, and again in 2015, the Greek electorate returned the radical left alliance, Syriza, to power with a mandate to renegotiate the country's relationship with their creditor nations. The international banking community, aided and abetted by the IMF, the ECB and the EU, mobilised to strangle at birth Greece's flirtation with democratic socialism.

In contrast, the world's bankers and plutocrats have been considerably more relaxed about the election of hard right populist governments in Hungary, Poland and Italy.

 

[Revoltingest]

A system which looks after the common and long-term interest which is something our current system does not do

That would be the function of government.
It could happen (or not) under any economic system.

I would like to see a system that is not rigged to always benefit those with the most wealth at the expense of everyone else

No system is immune from that fault.
It is up to the government to pursue well being of citizens.

It's not so much the wealth that bothers me, it's the fact that the system is arguably bad for everyone else

What would this look like?

I don't know, perhaps some kind of social democracy?

Capitalism has been shown to be the economic
system with the greatest potential for the common
good. It generates productivity that allows government
to provide generous social programs. Whether that
happens or not, is up to government, & typically voters.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe in socialism and Universal Basic Income, but I also believe in huge government, & reworking the constitution (but in a legal way, not just throwing it out).

So I propose an authoritarian system with socialism, free healthcare and universal basic income, and huge government, would be better for me and some others than what we have, with the government providing a lot of the jobs and regulating them for people who want to work for additional income. Better education, & take away guns, & much more advanced government. The whole tea-sippin', tree-huggin' utopia idea pretty much, in an authoritarian flavor.

Though you asked "Have a better system to offer?" without specifying the terms and whom it would be better for. So sorry if I made you lose your breakfast.

We must agree to disagree about the net benefits
offered by authoritarian governance over the people
& the economy.

 

[Left Coast]

The places that have had (or who still have) communism were never mature democracies. Look at Russia, or China.

Which countries do you look at as mature democracies?

 

[Eddi]

It is up to the government to pursue well being of citizens.

Yes, but I maintain that in capitalist systems that is less of a priority for governments than serving capitalism

It should be more important to governments than it is, but thanks to the media's power nobody wanting to do this properly stands any chance of getting elected

 

[Revoltingest]

In a capitalist system speech doesn't have to be regulated in such a way

In such systems contrary opinions are drowned-out and marginalised by the loud noise of the establishment media

Fortunately, in a free (relatively) society, there
is no single "establishment media". News outlets
have diversity of agendas. This is especially so
in the internet age because unlike print & broadcast
media, government imposes far less regulation.

A test for my claim...
Can you find sources that express opinions you oppose?
Opinions that you like?

Free speech is big business and what people say is generally determined by what the establishment media constantly tell them

That's excessively cynical. Is your speech on RF
& other forums restricted in a manner that prevents
you from saying what you want? What views are
not available on the many venues we have today?

 

[Eddi]

Which countries do you look at as mature democracies?

USA and Western Europe come to mind

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, but I maintain that in capitalist systems that is less of a priority for governments than serving capitalism

Government changes as voters change their priorities.

It should be more important to governments than it is, but thanks to the media's power nobody wanting to do this properly stands any chance of getting elected

If you don't like what the media tell us (supposedly) to think,
what real alternative do you propose....government run news?

Our relatively free media create a chaotic & messy
information environment. Real news, fake news,
liberal news, conservative news, & other news
offer a vast spectrum. Beware government's
controlling the news to improve it...that's a whole
lotta power in the hands of people who will bend
it to their own agenda.
Just look at what Putin does with Russian news.
You'd be imprisoned for calling the war a "war".

 

[Eddi]

there
is no single "establishment media".

There is a multitude of media outlets who when combined function as a part of the system - and that thus constitute an establishment media

They set the agenda and determine what events get coverage and they greatly influence how the public sees their existence

They are as much a part of the system as the police

But yes, there is an abundance of anti-establishment media, it's just that these don't have as loud a voice as the establishment media

And any dent that they make in the system is not likely to draw blood

News outlets
have diversity of agendas.

Only on matters that don't challenge the socio-economic system

They are united on that

That's excessively cynical. Is your speech on RF
& other forums restricted in a manner that prevents
you from saying what you want? What views are
not available on the many venues we have today?

I agree that we do have free-speech and a free media - but only superficially

However, some media outlets have way more influence than others and effectivley function as a part of the system which governs our society and our lives as individuals - in the interest of a tiny minority whose interests do not necessarily coincide with those of the people as a whole (to put it mildly)

 

[Eddi]

Government changes as voters change their priorities.

If you don't like what the media tell us (supposedly) to think,
what real alternative do you propose....government run news?

Our relatively free media create a chaotic & messy
information environment. Real news, fake news,
liberal news, conservative news, & other news
offer a vast spectrum. Beware government's
controlling the news to improve it...that's a whole
lotta power in the hands of people who will bend
it to their own agenda.
Just look at what Putin does with Russian news.
You'd be imprisoned for calling the war a "war".

You misunderstand me

I do not want government controlled media

I want a media that doesn't constantly support the capitalist agenda

I think more democracy is the answer, not more state control

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a multitude of media outlets who when combined function as a part of the system - and that thus constitute an establishment media

This ignores the diversity of agendas in the media.
The old days of monolithic news died when the internet
arrived. Government could legally regulate TV & radio
because it owned the frequencies. Government had
great control over newspapers because they had a vast
infrastructure of real estate & employees. But the internet
had no such vulnerability.
Back in the day, conventional media knew to hide some
things, eg, Kennedy's infidelities. But when they tried to
cover up Bill Clinton's, they were defeated by The Drudge
Report, who broke the story they sat on.

They set the agenda and determine what events get coverage and they greatly influence how the public sees their existence

They are as much a part of the system as the police

But yes, there is an abundance of anti-establishment media, it's just that these don't have as loud a voice as the establishment media

And any dent that they make in the system is not likely to draw blood


Only on matters that don't challenge the socio-economic system

They are united on that


I agree that we do have free-speech and a free media - but only superficially

However, some media outlets have way more influence than others and effectivley function as a part of the system which governs our society and our lives as individuals - in the interest of a tiny minority whose interests do not necessarily coincide with those of the people as a whole (to put it mildly)

Is it really the media, or the populace's views & votes
that you take issue with? Don't automatically blame
the former for the latter.

 

[Revoltingest]

You misunderstand me

I do not want government controlled media

I want a media that doesn't constantly support the capitalist agenda

We don't have the uniform media machine that you claim.
Many are regularly anti-capitalist, eg, Alternet, Mother Jones, NPR.

I think more democracy is the answer, not more state control

What is "more democracy"?
Why do you think it would mean less capitalism?
Would that mean more socialism or communism?
How would less capitalism in the media be enforced,
if not without more government control?

 

[Left Coast]

USA and Western Europe come to mind

But those places are capitalist...?

 

[Eddi]

But those places are capitalist...?

Yes

Democracy as we know it is capitalist, we have democratic capitalism - which I say is a very weak form of democracy