[Billy Pilgrim]

Are they compatible?

Discuss.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, as long as we stipulate that it is only compatible with certain types of democracy. It is incompatible with liberal democracy, for example, as capitalism is inherently incompatible with freedom of speech or racial equality.

[Billy Pilgrim]

Yes, as long as we stipulate that it is only compatible with certain types of democracy. It is incompatible with liberal democracy, for example, as capitalism is inherently incompatible with freedom of speech or racial equality.

And I assume it is compatible with The Representative Republic of the United States?

[Pants-of-dog]

And I assume it is compatible with The Representative Republic of the United States?

Not really, no. The US, for example, is supposed to support racial equality, but it does not. In fact, since creating actual equality with blacks and indigenous people would have a huge negative impact on capitalism, black and indigenous equality does not exist.

Please note that this is only applicable to liberal democracies, which people from the US tend to call republics. Other types of democracy are, of course, compatible with capitalism.

[mikema63]

It's not so much that it's incomparable with democracy as that it's incomparable with absolute equality and with a variety of forms of fairness.

Though historically race was used to squeeze out extra profit there isn't any particular reason why it must forever. All that is really necessary is a powerless working class.

Communists would argue that the working class is inherently powerful by virtue of being the base of the economy, and so has to be pitted against itself using race, religion, nationality, etc.

I'm not sure how true it will be as automation advances though. Personally I think capitalism will March on until it literally can't anymore because automation replaced a critical mass of the workforce and some universal income program has to be created. At which point I'm not sure how you can meaningfully talk about an exploited working class that doesn't need to work to live.

[Billy Pilgrim]

It's not so much that it's incomparable with democracy as that it's incomparable with absolute equality and with a variety of forms of fairness.

Though historically race was used to squeeze out extra profit there isn't any particular reason why it must forever. All that is really necessary is a powerless working class.

Communists would argue that the working class is inherently powerful by virtue of being the base of the economy, and so has to be pitted against itself using race, religion, nationality, etc.

I'm not sure how true it will be as automation advances though. Personally I think capitalism will March on until it literally can't anymore because automation replaced a critical mass of the workforce and some universal income program has to be created. At which point I'm not sure how you can meaningfully talk about an exploited working class that doesn't need to work to live.

Post-modern economic theory?

And how do you educate a populace to adapt to a world that will no longer exist?

[mikema63]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean honestly.

[Billy Pilgrim]

Not really, no. The US, for example, is supposed to support racial equality, but it does not. In fact, since creating actual equality with blacks and indigenous people would have a huge negative impact on capitalism, black and indigenous equality does not exist.

Please note that this is only applicable to liberal democracies, which people from the US tend to call republics. Other types of democracy are, of course, compatible with capitalism.

I don't disagree, but how has the cognitive dissonance survived?

[Billy Pilgrim]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean honestly.

I interpret what you are saying is that we are headed for a paradigm shift.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't disagree, but how has the cognitive dissonance survived?

Mostly by exploiting racism, and continuing a colonial relationship with indigenous communities.

Also, most people do not see it as a result of capitalism.

[mikema63]

Sure I think we are heading towards a paradigm shift, we always are. The timeframe of that I have no idea about though.

[Billy Pilgrim]

Sure I think we are heading towards a paradigm shift, we always are. The timeframe of that I have no idea about though.

Never thought of it quite that way. Thanks.

Was it not Einstein who said something to the effect, "We cannot solve many of our problems with the same thinking we used to create them."?

For some reason I thought of that as pertinent to this conversation.

[mikema63]

All paradigm shifts are caused by the inherent problems of the current paradigm. Fuedalism created capitalism, not because people back then suddenly realized they shouldn't think within a fuedalist paradigm, but because capitalism was the solution that shook out of fuedalism. Once society changed then people started thinking differently about society.

Capitalism will continue until it doesn't, and then it will turn into something else. We are just along for the ride.

[SolarCross]

None of you understand capitalism so I shouldn't be surprised that none of you understand feudalism either. (Yes it is spelled Feudalism not Fuedalism). Feudalism isn't a stage in history or a paradigm or an ideology. Feudalism is just the paying of military people with land titles instead of money. It can exist instead of or alongside or before or after capitalism. They are not stages in a narrative.

It was a common solution to the problem of how to maintain a military capability back when gold was money and so hard to come by even for kings. Nowadays money is debt promises recorded in a ledger and consequently easier to come by for governments as it can be conjoured up out of nothing so they tend to prefer to reward their military support with this kind of money rather than land titles. If this kind of payment fell into some serious disrepute, something like Zimbabwe's money troubles, then the military people may once again demand something tangible like land for their troubles.

[Rugoz]

Number of capitalist democracies: ~87
Number of socialist democracies: 0

QED.

[Pants-of-dog]

There was a socialist democracy. The US shut it down as it posed a threat to their economic interests.

And the capitalist democracies do not live up to their own stated ideals.

[Perkwunos]

Democratic elections could be considered a sort of market in which the voters each have the same amount of "money" (i.e. one ballot).

[Rugoz]

There was a socialist democracy. The US shut it down as it posed a threat to their economic interests.

And the capitalist democracies do not live up to their own stated ideals.

- Chile was not (yet) socialist at the time of the coup. Dozens of socialist countries existed and none of them were democratic. Just admit it PoD. The working class is too fucking dumb to vote and needs the guidance of the enlightened socialist elite.

- And what "stated ideals" would that be?

[Pants-of-dog]

- Chile was not (yet) socialist at the time of the coup. Dozens of socialist countries existed and none of them were democratic. Just admit it PoD. The working class is too fucking dumb to vote and needs the guidance of the enlightened socialist elite.

Perhaps Chileans are smarter than the average. But as long as we agree that socialism was being brought about by democratic means, and the capitalists were the ones who installed the dictatorship, it is all good.

- And what "stated ideals" would that be?

Equality under the law.
Rule of law.
Respecting the sovereignty of other nations and countries.

[Rugoz]

Perhaps Chileans are smarter than the average. But as long as we agree that socialism was being brought about by democratic means, and the capitalists were the ones who installed the dictatorship, it is all good.

Socialism was not brought about by democratic means anywhere. Chile nationalized some industries but was nowhere near full socialism (besides, Allende only got 37% of votes. 63% of votes went to non-socialist candidates. Similarly, the socialists never had a majority in the National Congress). You do not even have one example, stop the nonsense already.

Equality under the law.
Rule of law.

Has nowhere been perfected to to the degree as it has been in liberal democracies. Obviously there's always room for improvement.

Respecting the sovereignty of other nations and countries.

Since when has that ever been a "stated ideal" of liberal democracy?