- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 36,504
- Reaction score
- 17,261
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Democracy says:
If a majority want a piece of land to be a park, or a parking lot, or stores, or housing, that's what it is.
If a majority want the speed limit to be fast or slow, to have traffic cameras or not, to build a road that is best for the community or to build a road best for a few, that's what's done.
If a majority want to spend tax dollars on prisoner re-integration and education or not, that's what's done.
And countless other decisions about the distribution of wealth, the amount of taxes, the use of lands, public polices and more. The majority make the choice.
Plutocratic Capitalism says:
One rich person or a small number of rich people ("the rich") decide whether land should be for a park, a parking lot, stores, or housing - whatever pleases and profits them most.
If the rich want the traffic laws to be one way or another, if they want a road built that serves most people or them personally, they decide.
If the rich want tax dollars spent on prison re-integration and education, or they want a for-profit prison system with very harsh sentences they profit from, it's their choice.
And countless other decisions about the distribution of wealth, the amount of taxes, the use of lands, public polices and more. The rish make the choice.
That's what it's about, basically.
Now, we have a balanced system, which helps hide the issue. For example, the rich tend to have their children go to private schools, and not to care a lot about public education, other than to not want much spent on it, with exceptions like Betsy DeVos who bought herself into being Secretary of Education to push her agenda.
That's the idea of democracy. 'The people' rule and decide, not kings and lords as it had been. But capitalism is in conflict with democracy. Its rule is, money rules, money decides. It forces most money into few hands, and then says, the rich rule, the rich decide.
And we have this split system, where the two are in conflict whenever the rich want something different, and they usually get it.
Currently, the system is set up to ensure that most politicians work for wealth, not the public. Every time a candidate yells about illegal immigrants and voters vote for them, they elect another politician who used issues like that to get elected, and serves the rich.
Of course, we can and should have a form of capitalism - what I call "Democratic Capitalism". But it needs to serve democracy. It should continue to keep the 'good' parts of capitalism - markets, rewarding value, providing freedom to people, and so on. But when the interests of the rich and the public are at odds, the public needs to win. Money can't buy everything.
This post is general principles about what people should support. In practice, there are specifics, for example, the only viable political faction who support Democratic Capitalism are progressives, and voters should support them.
This is the real issue for our country, not fantasies about 'socialism versus capitalism', or as I refer to the issue, 'tulips', a long-obsolete economic situation.
We either want Democratic Republic, or we want a tyranny of money.
One of those sides, the tyranny of money, has been waging a war for power for decades. The other side needs to support its side.
If a majority want a piece of land to be a park, or a parking lot, or stores, or housing, that's what it is.
If a majority want the speed limit to be fast or slow, to have traffic cameras or not, to build a road that is best for the community or to build a road best for a few, that's what's done.
If a majority want to spend tax dollars on prisoner re-integration and education or not, that's what's done.
And countless other decisions about the distribution of wealth, the amount of taxes, the use of lands, public polices and more. The majority make the choice.
Plutocratic Capitalism says:
One rich person or a small number of rich people ("the rich") decide whether land should be for a park, a parking lot, stores, or housing - whatever pleases and profits them most.
If the rich want the traffic laws to be one way or another, if they want a road built that serves most people or them personally, they decide.
If the rich want tax dollars spent on prison re-integration and education, or they want a for-profit prison system with very harsh sentences they profit from, it's their choice.
And countless other decisions about the distribution of wealth, the amount of taxes, the use of lands, public polices and more. The rish make the choice.
That's what it's about, basically.
Now, we have a balanced system, which helps hide the issue. For example, the rich tend to have their children go to private schools, and not to care a lot about public education, other than to not want much spent on it, with exceptions like Betsy DeVos who bought herself into being Secretary of Education to push her agenda.
That's the idea of democracy. 'The people' rule and decide, not kings and lords as it had been. But capitalism is in conflict with democracy. Its rule is, money rules, money decides. It forces most money into few hands, and then says, the rich rule, the rich decide.
And we have this split system, where the two are in conflict whenever the rich want something different, and they usually get it.
Currently, the system is set up to ensure that most politicians work for wealth, not the public. Every time a candidate yells about illegal immigrants and voters vote for them, they elect another politician who used issues like that to get elected, and serves the rich.
Of course, we can and should have a form of capitalism - what I call "Democratic Capitalism". But it needs to serve democracy. It should continue to keep the 'good' parts of capitalism - markets, rewarding value, providing freedom to people, and so on. But when the interests of the rich and the public are at odds, the public needs to win. Money can't buy everything.
This post is general principles about what people should support. In practice, there are specifics, for example, the only viable political faction who support Democratic Capitalism are progressives, and voters should support them.
This is the real issue for our country, not fantasies about 'socialism versus capitalism', or as I refer to the issue, 'tulips', a long-obsolete economic situation.
We either want Democratic Republic, or we want a tyranny of money.
One of those sides, the tyranny of money, has been waging a war for power for decades. The other side needs to support its side.
