Are capitalism and democracy even compatible?

[The Dharma Bum]

[The Dharma Bum]

Put it this way:
In this country we have a huge pool of unused capital, a large resource of unused labor, and a million things that need to be done to repair our infrastructure but since we are hobbled by adherence to a misconceived economic philosophy we lack the competence to put these factors together. That is the bottom line.

[eynon81]

untethered capitalism can be incompatible with Democracy because untethered capitalism is essentially feudalism. however I doubt you can have democracy without capitalism (with the proper tack and harness of course).

[The Dharma Bum]

not sure exactly what you mean by "tethered democracy" but actual democracy entails full democratic control of property, production, and distribution.

If we make property, production, and distribution partially subject to democratic control (tethered capitalism?) what benefit is there in letting a few private individuals continue to profit from this industry?

[eynon81]

[The Dharma Bum]

[eynon81]

[The Dharma Bum]

1. US real estate laws are based on the principles of georgism. You must pay a tax to own land. The state retains alloidal title (actual ownership) and will seize any property for which this tax is not paid. Controlling real property and owning real property are not the same thing. You only control what property society agrees that you control.

2. Regulation is simply making private business submit to democratic control. Why continue the pretense of class society if this occurs? You pointed out yourself that unfettered capitalism is "feudalism" ie class society. It's not like the ruling class has demonstrated a level of competence that shows they are useful in any way. Clearly they are only interested in enriching themselves at everyone else expense while our society and our infrastructure fall apart.

If the point is to remove that particular social factor (class society), what is the point of retaining private property? The only purpose it serves is to deprive others and make them dependent on the owners of private property for employment. How does this serve the needs of post industrial society? The answer is it doesn't. We no longer need mass human labor, so not only is wage slavery unethical it's useless given today's social context.

So you agree in principle with the pressing need for democratic control of production and distribution (regulation), but for some reason you want to retain the current social classes? Seems sort of irrational to me.

[exploited]

I'm still not convinced that resources should be distributed democratically. I can see why control over the workplace would be democratic. I can see why policy would be democratic. But I don't see how distribution can be done democratically - the logistics seem like a nightmare, as do the potential inefficiencies.

[The Dharma Bum]

its as simple as instituting a living wage is, you don't seem to have a problem with that.

these are bullshit objections, made from a cultural basis