Talk:Democratic capitalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In short, democratic capitalism is a market-based economy that bends to the will (i.e., regulation) of a majority." Let's be realistic: Between the market and the will of the majority lies ideology, and ideology lies. The phrase inside quotation marks above is biased. Ideology (= what society is led to believe) determines the will of the majority (yeah, your beliefs govern your choices) in its decisions regarding the market, and the owners of the market (the ones with the means) determine the ideology, in great measure. This is clear. Now, then, who "bends" the market in reality? THINK ABOUT IT! --> Especially when we see how the GWB administration managed to make a tax exemption on the very rich. He ACTUALLY MANAGED to do this in a democratic system. This is a great example of what I mean to say. Frankly, I wouldn't want the "democratic capitalism" article to be changed, as it is still another example of what I mean to say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.44.136.103 (talk • contribs) Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] What is "Democratic Capitalism"?
I'm a little confused about what this "Democratic Capitalism" article is supposed to be covering. Is it a reference to a specific phrasing associated with books and work by Michael Novak and others? This seems to be so, given the specific external references, and the somewhat amusing back and forth in the article's history, which had people defining this as both "left" and "right". I assume it is not intended as the general article on "democracy and capitalism/free markets/whatever". If so, it might be useful for the article to discuss just what is meant by "Democratic Capitalism", what distinctions Novak et al. would make concerning it, etc. Phrasing such as "The United States is notable in using Democratic Capitalism as its economic-political system" is somewhat broad, and the entry at the democracy (disambiguation) page not necessary. - David Oberst 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"Democratic capitalism," as presented in these articles, is a misnomer, since it implies an integrated system that is at once capitalistic and democratic. Instead, what is presented is feudalistic capitalism associated with a system of political representation. The economic organization is top-down, and the wealthy owners of these organizations can use their plunder to suborn the integrity of the democratic process in the associated political organization.
Democratic capitalism in an integrated sense would be economic organizations that belong to the workers and are directed by them democratically. Such an arrangement would avoid the centralistic bureaucratic deadlocks of state socialism, while giving labor full participation in industrial-economic life. The profits of the organization being spread democratically throughout the organization itself, there would be no privileged class on top in a position to suborn the political democratic process. A federated system of syndicates organized along the line of professional skills would provide a networking counterbalance to the localized system of communal capitalist enterprises. The two working together would put into effect a system of social organization at once economic and political, eliminating the need for a separate political system.
This would be true democratic capitalism in an integrative sense. True democracy begins in the workplace. Until then, all we will have is a system of capital-based feudalism masquerading as a democracy. [User: Ian Elliott]
[edit] There is no such thing as Democratic Capitalism
I claim that there is no such thing as Democratic Capitalism; it is a syntactically but not semantically valid phrase, like the phrases round square or authoritarian mathematical proof. There is such a thing, fortunately, as capitalism constrained/tamed/limited/civilized (take your pick) by democracy. The argument (objective, I claim, not from political ideology) comes from feedback-control systems theory. A characteristic feature of capitalism is that its natural dynamic is to bring everything into the marketplace to be bought and sold, and money becomes the universal solvent, the universal access to all the skills and resources of a society, such that once you become rich it is easier to become richer still. (As Ivan Illich said, "fundamental values are the things you can't yet buy for a dollar.") There is obviously no negative-feedback loop intrinsic in capitalism as a structure of power to bring great private wealth (and all the power it brings, including political power -- cf. Richard Mellon Scaife) to some equilibrium. 137.82.188.68 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
