Indeed. Shades of gray are less and less tolerated these days.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poll: capitalism or democracy?
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Indeed. Shades of gray are less and less tolerated these days.
Capitalism and democracy are compatible but require a government committed to democracy and to regulating capitalism to serve the common good. Presently, the Republican party serves as an enemy to both, and is about as strong as those opposing them judging by the numbers of each in Congress. The Republicans have no use for democracy any longer. It is a threat to them and the white Christian patriarchy they value when people with other values begin to outnumber them.
And they have no use for regulated capitalism doped with some socialism (taxes for public projects and programs), which levels the playing field for workers with minimum wages, child labor laws, unions, benefits, workplace protections, a social safety net, and the like - all of which the Republicans oppose, since they really aren't into competition or free markets, just profit. That's what the word capitalism means to many now - robber barons, regressive taxing, monopolies, despoiling the air, water, and land for profit, and the like.
But absent that, it is possible to have the two working in tandem to produce a comfortable and free working class that chooses its leaders as was the case in America when I was born in the middle of the 20th century. It needn't be either/or.
It's always a big if. It's interesting how many governments justify themselves and their existence on having "the people" as their primary focus. In the U.S., we might hear "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." In the USSR, they might have said "dictatorship of the proletariat," which carries a similar implication in describing a government ruled by the people. In Nazi Germany, they said "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer," implying that the people ("volk") still rule over the government, based in the belief that the leader is the physical embodiment of the will of the people.
Out of those three, in which would you prefer to live?
"Acting as though"? Why "acting"?
Oh, I disagree. News media support their candidates
& issues. Campaign ads support the buyer. Because
they're often in opposition, this is competition.
That's a really odd question.
I've not looked into the form of ownership of
any sources. So I can't quantify how many
are corporate vs other forms.
Overt endorsement isn't needed to support or
oppose a candidate. This is done by the what
& how of coverage, eg, what to criticize or
praise, whom to criticize or praise, whom to
make look good or bad.
Because to deny the right to buy air time would
give government the power to decide who can
or can't have media access.
No. Some ideas deserve to languish in obscurity
or disdain, eg, Christian nationalism, Nazism.
Government should not subsidize or promote them
in some misguided idea of imposed diversity. If they
want to spread their messages, they must pay.
New thread needed, eh.
Nah.
The OP poses false alternatives, which
inspires addressing why this is. And so
I respond to posts doing just that.
Yes, I think you are right that most voters want to do terrible things
But changing the system so they are less inclined to want to do terrible things would I think be good for everyone
I think that if even a quarter of the electorate attained any level of class consciousness then the system as we know it would be in trouble
That is I think all that is required to change, if only by a bit
It is not individual politicians I have a problem with, my problem is with the system that gives them an opportunity to satisfy their thirst for power as they all squabble in an often undignified manner to see who can serve the capitalist system and the ruling class the best
But how can we have a democracy without professional self-serving politicians? I think that is an interesting question. Is it even possible? I don't know. Perhaps a system of checks and balances would be in order?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Capitalism isn't mutually exclusive from democracy, nor is socialism for that matter.
It doesn't mean it goes against the will of the majority of people, though. It can be said that all forms of politics are dirty - variations on a single theme: Please the mob. Western liberal democracy - combined with colonialism, expansionism, imperialism, and industrial capitalism - was able to find that delicate balance after much trial and error. And even then, there are still tendencies towards social authoritarianism, even if it's been softer here in the West than in other parts of the world.
The best solution is for everyone to become
libertarian. What are the odds of that?
I have the keys to the staff lavatories.I've started a new one anyway! You can't stop me!
How long can you last?
The balance isn't all that delicate.
We observe wild swings in agendas
& groups competing for power. This
suggests a highly fault tolerant system.
Thankfully I have your shoes here that are just begging to be filled.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Democracy and Capitalism go hand in hand and influence each other. A true Democracy would be composed of all self sufficient individuals. One cannot have a Democracy full of dependents, since the opinions of dependents will be dependent on those who maintain your dependence; herd affect instead of individuals.
When the Constitution was written only property owners could vote. They were the most self sufficient and self reliant members of culture. They would be the one's who maintained dependents; spouse and children. This narrow voting criteria allowed a Democracy of peers, since it was based on self reliant people.
The child is dependent on the parents and has to follow their rules. The child does not have an opinion that carries weight, but needs to conform to the ways of their parental keepers, who will think on their behalf. This is where Democrat breaks down, since there is a price for dependency; quid pro quo.
The independent person does not have to conform. Once the child gets older, graduates, and then has a good job, they have more choices, due to less dependence and more independence. They no longer have to go along to get along. They become more of an individual among their peers in a Democracy of techies.
Say you were with a group of friends, that all contribute to a party plan. The planning will be a democracy with all having a vote, since all will contribute. If only a few will pay, then everyone is not on the same level. Democracy only applies to those who will provide the party. The rest get to share, as dependents at this party. Social rules may require you be nice to hostess; quid pro quo.
Capitalism is a system for the efficient use resources. For this to work we need independent people, who can thrive in a Democracy; both buyers and sells. If one is too dependent, it is much harder to work within a Capitalism system, since you can be manipulated, in the same way as your original keepers. A self sufficient person has more wiggle room; trend setter. The dependent follow the herd since they do not have full choice.
Capitalism and Democracy are less than optimize when there is too much dependence. This leads to Socialism; sell the farm for basic needs, instead of work the farm for ever evolving needs. In the US there is so much dependency; big government, that there is a call for Socialism, so the dependents can feel more secure. This comes at the price of denying Democracy; nobody can be self sufficient. Dependency is how you kill Democracy. since the dependents will not see the bigger picture, but only their small world of need. This can be held over them, for their votes and dollars.
It's not a question of preference. I was born and raised in the United States, as were my ancestors going back many generations. That may be just a matter of luck, fortunate happenstance - I don't know. My only point in bringing up those examples was to point out that just because something is labeled as "democratic" or "for the people" doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. But it doesn't mean that it's not, either.
Even in the U.S., it's not really even all that "democratic" or "for the people" anyhow. It's a limited democracy, or as some call it, a representative democracy. The key difference is not so much a government "of the people" as much as there is a commitment to individual human rights and freedoms. This can often include the economic rights and liberties which are commonly cherished and fiercely defended by capitalists. But also liberals, progressives, and those who embrace the "rugged individualist" mythos tend to go along with that as well - even if they vocally observe that many capitalists are abusing these rights and freedoms to an irresponsible and self-destructive level.
Isn't it? You really don't have one?
I agree with you there. But some certainly live up to the hype better than others.
As I mentioned before, I certainly don't think the American system is perfect. I think there's an argument to be made that some of our European friends may even do it better. But I do know that overtly authoritarian countries, whether they're socialist or fascist, don't hold a candle to the freedoms we have here.
Looking over the past 100-200 years of history, I would say we've had our share of struggles - and whatever bit of good fortune we've experienced in the West in the latter half of the 20th century did not come about through magic. It did take a lot of work, and some of that work was a bit delicate at times.
That said, there will always be groups competing for power. That's a constant in any political system. I'm not sure what you mean by "wild swings in agenda," though we have had periods of upheaval and discord in the past.
Well, as I said, this is where I was born, in this time and place. I can't really choose to be born in another time or place, so trying to make a hypothetical preference is a bit difficult. Right now, I'd rather be where I am now than in, say, Stalingrad in 1942 - a grim scene for both the Soviets and the Germans.
Some cultures aren't as focused on individualism as ours might be. They might see "the people" more as a collective entity where the individual is merely a part of a greater whole. The ideal may have some religious roots to it, the basic idea being that the individual should not live for oneself, but instead devote themselves to the well-being and collective good of the society as a whole.
I visited the USSR back in the 1980s, and on the surface, it didn't really seem that bad. They did go through some bad times in the past, much of it due to the ravages of tsarist imperial authoritarianism, war, revolution, civil war, and even more war, cold war - and the obvious strain it took on the national psyche and national economy. Yet, they were still surviving and most people lived relatively normal lives - even if not as luxurious or comfortable as we Westerners had grown accustomed to. That was a striking difference, and their relationship with "The State" seemed not unlike how many in the U.S. counter-culture viewed "the fuzz" or "the pigs" or "the establishment" - Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, the Military-Industrial Complex. They were aware of their own "dark side" and certain unsavory elements of their system, but (just as many Americans did) they still continued to live their lives as best they could and find contentment however they can.
Alright, so you'd prefer here. That's as I would've expected.
Individualism doesn't preclude the notion of devoting oneself to the good of others. It posits that individuals should be as free as possible to make the choice to engage in that behavior as they see fit. Americans have long understood, despite our basically individualist values, that we still have responsibilities to society.
and decades of communist authoritarianism...
I do agree these things exist on a spectrum. I'm sure the USSR in the 80s was not the worst place ever imaginable. But I do think we've done it better.
