Poll: capitalism or democracy?

[Left Coast]

Yes

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

But you just described those democracies as "mature," Eddi. How can they be mature but also "very weak?"

I think this is a major weakness of the socialist case. All the most successful countries are capitalistic. They're certainly regulated in their capitalism and may even have certain socialistic elements. But there is no full-blooded socialist and democratic country today. Nor has there ever been, that I know of.

 

[Stevicus]

Does democracy control capitalism or does capitalism control democracy?

Which is ultimately in charge?

Personally, I think capitalism could abolish democracy but that democracy could never abolish capitalism.

I think that democracy (as we know it) is a feature of capitalism, I don't think that capitalism is a feature of a democracy.

And that democracy is not necessary an indispensable feature of capitalism!

I think it exists to placate the masses and to give us a false sense of importance.

I think that capitalism always comes first......

If I had to choose between calling our current socio-economic system as either "Capitalist" or "Democratic" I would very much go with the former.

Edit: (I said the following in a reply to @Snow White and thought it would be good to put in the OP)

Which has the most control over society and individuals?

I say the power of capitalism rather than the power of the people.

I think capitalism has way more power than the people, in the current system.

Technically speaking, the people ultimately have the power - just as a herd of cattle technically have the power to run away or stampede the cow-herders trying to manage and control them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes

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

What's the strong form?

 

[Eddi]

But you just described those democracies as "mature," Eddi. How can they be mature but also "very weak?"

Mature as in established and successful at what they do, as in good at fulfilling their function - i.e. to support the ruling class and their system at the expense of others

Weak as in they fail to give us "people power", which is the etymology of "democracy" - although yes, they do this to a limited extent

 

[Eddi]

What's the strong form?

A system in which power lies with the people - the etymology of "Democracy' is from "people power", or "rule of the people"

For all our elections and free speech I think we have only a very modest democracy at the least

If I wanted to go further I would deride it as a sham

I certainly don't think we are in a society which is ruled by the people

The democratic process is very corrupt

 

[Revoltingest]

A system in which power lies with the people - the etymology of "Democracy' is from "people power", or "rule of the people"

For all our elections and free speech I think we have only a very modest democracy at the least

If I wanted to go further I would deride it as a sham

I certainly don't think we are in a society which is ruled by the people

The democratic process is very corrupt

Your "strong form" doesn't exclude capitalism.

 

[Left Coast]

Mature as in established and successful at what they do, as in good at fulfilling their function - i.e. to support the ruling class and their system at the expense of others

Weak as in they fail to give us "people power", which is the etymology of "democracy" - although yes, they do this to a limited extent

I would argue they limit the power of the elite and amplify the power of "the people" in ways other countries simply do not. What other competition is there among the countries of the world? Who does it better?

 

[Revoltingest]

I would argue they limit the power of the elite and amplify the power of "the people" in ways other countries simply do not. What other competition is there among the countries of the world? Who does it better?

What additional power should "the people" have?
Would this also empower MAGAs & other miscreants
like libertarians & commies too?

 

[Nakosis]

Does democracy control capitalism or does capitalism control democracy?

Which is ultimately in charge?

Personally, I think capitalism could abolish democracy but that democracy could never abolish capitalism.

I think that democracy (as we know it) is a feature of capitalism, I don't think that capitalism is a feature of a democracy.

And that democracy is not necessary an indispensable feature of capitalism!

I think it exists to placate the masses and to give us a false sense of importance.

I think that capitalism always comes first......

If I had to choose between calling our current socio-economic system as either "Capitalist" or "Democratic" I would very much go with the former.

Edit: (I said the following in a reply to @Snow White and thought it would be good to put in the OP)

Which has the most control over society and individuals?

I say the power of capitalism rather than the power of the people.

I think capitalism has way more power than the people, in the current system.

For you as an individual, it depends on which you have more knowledge about.
One is economic the other is political.
Both have their set of elites.

Unfortunately being an elitist in either sphere is not something that is well taught in our public schools.
So if your political knowledge or financial knowledge is limited, you are pretty much out of luck.

Those lacking knowledge, are mostly left to ride on the coattails of the more experienced/knowledgeable.

The elitists are not powerful because of the system but because of their knowledge.
Power between the two can sway back and forth depending on the number of elitists each system has and their individual knowledge of the system.

Currently in the US, our latest batch of politicians have been lacking in the knowledge department. Allowing the financial elitists to run amuck a bit.

Unfortunately the fault is ours, the voting public, as we keep sending the same politicians back into power hoping something will change.

 

[Left Coast]

What additional power should "the people" have?

Usually when I hear this it's in the context of: 1) limiting campaign spending or 2) eliminating the electoral college. Both of which are ideas that I tend to like but neither of which are "socialist."

Would this also empower MAGAs & other miscreants
like libertarians & commies too?

Heavens I hope not.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I would argue they limit the power of the elite and amplify the power of "the people" in ways other countries simply do not. What other competition is there among the countries of the world? Who does it better?

That's an interesting take. How'd you arrive at that conclusion? I'm not sure how I'd measure that for comparative purposes.

At the risk of throwing in measures I have only briefly reviewed...

Which are the world's strongest democracies? | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

 

[Eddi]

Your "strong form" doesn't exclude capitalism.

Yes

But it would not exist to serve the interests of capitalism, it would be to serve the general interest of all the people - which could happen with capitalism still in place (Edit: a controlled capitalism, run by the people not the wealthy)

Such a system wouldn't be "capitalist" it would be "democratic"

 

[Revoltingest]

Usually when I hear this it's in the context of: 1) limiting campaign spending or 2) eliminating the electoral college.

Limiting campaign spending will transfer more power to
news media, who influence voters by how they cover the
candidates. Fox supports Pubs. NPR supports Dems.
Is this more power for the people, or for news elites?

Heavens I hope not.

There's the problem....
You give more power to the people, but
this will include the wrong people too.
Isn't our problem currently that the wrong
people have too much power, eg, SCOTUS?

 

[Eddi]

I would argue they limit the power of the elite and amplify the power of "the people" in ways other countries simply do not

I still maintain that the system primarily function of our "democracy" is to facilitate and ensure the survival and wellbeing of capitalism and a part of this process involves elections, to placate the general population by getting them to participate

Not all people fall for it, but most do

What other competition is there among the countries of the world? Who does it better?

I maintain that there is and has never been any true democracy in effect anywhere here on Earth

Indeed I think it is unlikely to ever emerge, given the demands of the economic system (capitalism)

Although perhaps the system the ancient Greeks had would qualify as democratic?

 

[Revoltingest]

Such a system wouldn't be "capitalist" it would be "democratic"

Both coexist in many countries.
But without capitalism, there has never been
an example of democracy...despite the claims
of some to have elections, eg, N Korea.
Authoritarianism is an emergent property of
command economies, eg, socialism.

 

[Left Coast]

That's an interesting take. How'd you arrive at that conclusion? I'm not sure how I'd measure that for comparative purposes.

Political scientists have ways of measuring these sorts of things:
Democracy Index - Wikipedia

But in general, I think a strong constitution that defends individual rights, separates religion and government, and holds and free and fair democratic elections are ways that "the people" are given power. Compare this to the situations in North Korea or Afghanistan currently.

 

[Revoltingest]

Although perhaps the system the ancient Greeks had would qualify as democratic?

Their slaves would say no.

 

[Eddi]

Both coexist in many countries.
But without capitalism, there has never been
an example of democracy...despite the claims
of some to have elections, eg, N Korea.
Authoritarianism is an emergent property of
command economies, eg, socialism.

I am not advocating a command economy, I am advocating a democracy which does what its etymology says it should - "rule of the people" - as opposed to it (the whole democracy) merely being a symptom of the capitalist system.

To me, as a Social Democrat, democracy is more important than socialism. The aim should be democracy, socialism should only be a means to that end.

 

[Eddi]

Their slaves would say no.

lol yes, I overlooked that

But it was good if you were a citizen

 

[Left Coast]

I still maintain that the system primarily function of our "democracy" is to facilitate and ensure the survival and wellbeing of capitalism and a part of this process involves elections, to placate the general population by getting them to participate

Not all people fall for it, but most do


I maintain that there is and has never been any true democracy in effect anywhere here on Earth

Indeed I think it is unlikely to ever emerge, given the demands of the economic system (capitalism)

Although perhaps the system the ancient Greeks had would qualify as democratic?

I tend to be a pragmatist. If you're advocating a system of which we have no working or superior examples and which you're admitting may never be achievable, it strikes me as an odd thing to say we should upend our entire economic system for it. No system is perfect and we certainly have ways to improve. But I'm yet to be convinced that requires the upheaval of our economy, which would likely generate great suffering in the process of aiming for utopia.