Many people believe capitalism and democracy are consistent, but the truth is that they are entirely antagonistic to each other. To see why, let's first consider socialism and democracy. Woodrow Wilson, who was a progenitor of the progressive movement, found socialism and democracy to be inseparable:
That's the socialist dream right there. He continues:
No limit on government power, which is basically what all leftists want. Here's the money quote:
Another way to put would be, "The common interest before self-interest".
This is really what socialism is all about. What's good for the group takes priority over individual rights, and individual rights always come down to specific property rights.
Now let's consider capitalism, where the individual is supreme, and the community can go f itself.
Capitalism is predicated on private ownership, which means it is based on property rights, yet the only way a democratic state can exist is by violating property rights. How can an entity which relies on a form of extortion in order to fund itself in any way be consistent with capitalism? Virtually anything the state does violates property rights in one way or another.
Because of socialism's mile-long track record of failure, many moderate leftists support "regulated capitalism" instead of socialism. Of course the term "regulated capitalism" is nothing but a euphemism for economic fascism where "private" ownership is permitted, but virtually all economic activity is taxed and regulated by the state. The economy Mussolini created was a progressive wet dream.
To summarize, Wilson was correct: democracy and socialism go hand in hand, while democracy and capitalism have nothing in common.
Roundly described, socialism is a proposition that every community, by means of whatever forms of organization may be most effective for the purpose, see to it for itself that each one of its members finds the employment for which he is best suited and is rewarded according to his diligence and merit, all proper surroundings of moral influence being secured to him by the public authority.
That's the socialist dream right there. He continues:
‘State socialism’ is willing to act though state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.
No limit on government power, which is basically what all leftists want. Here's the money quote:
Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.
Another way to put would be, "The common interest before self-interest".
This is really what socialism is all about. What's good for the group takes priority over individual rights, and individual rights always come down to specific property rights.
Now let's consider capitalism, where the individual is supreme, and the community can go f itself.
Capitalism is predicated on private ownership, which means it is based on property rights, yet the only way a democratic state can exist is by violating property rights. How can an entity which relies on a form of extortion in order to fund itself in any way be consistent with capitalism? Virtually anything the state does violates property rights in one way or another.
Because of socialism's mile-long track record of failure, many moderate leftists support "regulated capitalism" instead of socialism. Of course the term "regulated capitalism" is nothing but a euphemism for economic fascism where "private" ownership is permitted, but virtually all economic activity is taxed and regulated by the state. The economy Mussolini created was a progressive wet dream.
To summarize, Wilson was correct: democracy and socialism go hand in hand, while democracy and capitalism have nothing in common.
