Oligarchy Confirmed - Democracy Is Dead In The U.S.

[kmoney]

Limited in that the well-being of the minority must be protected from the will of the majority. Just as the well-being of the people must be protected from the authority of their government. To do this, a system has to be set up that keeps everyone's natural selfish instincts in check, yet still allow for as much individual freedom and autonomy as is possible.

What we're looking for is a balance between freedom and mutual respect, based on the fundamental principal of the equality of every individual citizen. So far, the only way humans have devised of achieving this is through a limited democracy where everyone is being minimally restrained by a set of immutable principals. Basically; a constitutional democracy.

Unfortunately, this is a very new idea (only a few hundred years since inception) and we have not managed to clearly articulate those principals, yet. And our attempts at constitutional democracy have found only minimal success as a result. But I think the path is clear, and humanity will follow it, and perfect it, in time (if we don't destroy ourselves, first). It's already achieving some amazing results in some smaller northern European countries.

So are you saying we have a limited democracy but we simply aren't using it to the best effect? What do you see in those northern European countries that you'd implement here?

 

[bybee]

Limited in that the well-being of the minority must be protected from the will of the majority. Just as the well-being of the people must be protected from the authority of their government. To do this, a system has to be set up that keeps everyone's natural selfish instincts in check, yet still allow for as much individual freedom and autonomy as is possible.

What we're looking for is a balance between freedom and mutual respect, based on the fundamental principal of the equality of every individual citizen. So far, the only way humans have devised of achieving this is through a limited democracy where everyone is being minimally restrained by a set of immutable principals. Basically; a constitutional democracy.

Unfortunately, this is a very new idea (only a few hundred years since inception) and we have not managed to clearly articulate those principals, yet. And our attempts at constitutional democracy have found only minimal success as a result. But I think the path is clear, and humanity will follow it, and perfect it, in time (if we don't destroy ourselves, first). It's already achieving some amazing results in some smaller northern European countries.

The "smaller northern European countries" are likely fairly homogeneous in make up therefore more likely to work well together.
America is unique in all the world. We prospered best when the immigrants who came to our shores were determined to Americanize themselves and were grateful for the chance to prosper through hard work, taking advantage of public education and heartbreak.

 

[kmoney]

Capitalists don't work for a living. They invest money and live off the dividends. Capital investment is not in itself a bad thing, but in the capitalist system, the decision-making authority goes to the capital investor, who does not actually participate in the commercial enterprise he's invested in. Which means he is not much concerned for the well being of those who are. All he's concerned about is maximizing the return on his investment. And this places his goal in antipathy with the goals of the people participating in the commercial enterprise. Which is why capitalism is fundamentally anti-social, and cannot be allowed to flourish unrestrained.

If the capital investor is the principal owner and operator of the business he's invested in, he is more likely to participate directly in it's operation, and therefor care more about the well-being of the other people involved (customer and employees, community and environment). But even then, he has the sole decision-making authority and his primary objective is still to maximize the return on his investment. Which is why even smaller, owner-operated businesses still so often become fundamentally anti-social.
Luck, cleverness, ruthlessness, … there are lots of ways and reasons that some people manage to accumulate enough wealth to become capital investors. And yes, often, the worst of them become generational; like the Walton family, each of whom is worth billions of dollars that they did not earn, but simply inherited, yet they stash their wealth off-shore so they don't have to pay their share of taxes, and they refuse to pay their own employees a living wage or benefits, while they procure their goods from foreign sweatshops where workers are horribly abused and exploited, and who use their vast wealth to bribe the legislature to gain an even greater advantage within the capitalist system. And this is just one well-known example. There are a hundred others that behave in much the same way. Because that's the behavior our system encourages, and rewards.
Capitalism is simply the term for an economic system that gives all it's business decision-making control to the capital investor.

And work is defined as actual human productivity.
Only grudgingly. The goal of the capital investor is to maximize his return on the capital he invested. That places his goal in antipathy with everyone else's. The capitalist does not "reward hard work" because in fact, he would pay the hard worker absolutely nothing if he could get away with it. Because that would maximize the return on his investment. He only pays the worker whatever he does because he has to, and even then he pays as little as possible for whatever work occurs.

It is a myth that capitalism rewards hard work. In fact, in most cases, the people who work the hardest in our capitalist system receive the least compensation. Because what capitalism really rewards is greed, cleverness, ruthlessness and luck, which the capitalists and their supporters wrongly label "ambition". Actual hard work is what the capitalists seek to exploit, not reward.
The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it's anti-social. It's a system designed to advantage individuals of dubious virtue at the expense of everyone else. An honest hard-working man is not likely to be invested in by capitalists except as an object of exploitation. Every capitalist wants to hire an honest hard-working man, but only because that man will return a better profit on the capitalist's investment. And even then, he'll only pay the man what he has to, to keep him. Honesty and effort are only virtues to be exploited in the capitalist system. The "virtues" that get rewarded are those that help maximize a profitable return: like greed, avarice, ruthlessness, selfishness: an "I'll do whatever it takes" attitude. This is the kind of man the capitalists hire as their CEOs. And this is the kind of men they reward so handsomely with big salaries and bonuses (and who then become capitalists, themselves). Because these are the men who maximize their return of the capital they invest.

I think you are focusing on one part of capitalism and calling that capitalism. You seem to be looking at only capital investors that invest money and rely on others to do all the 'work'. But that's not the entirety of capitalism. In a nutshell capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. You do hint at that when you talk about smaller, owner-operated businesses, but you pay little attention to that side of things and that's why I think you are skewing things. Having said that, I agree with some of what you say, even though I'm not quite as cynical as you.

Capitalism is still the best foundation for an economy. Empower and enable people to work for themselves while attempting to curb exploitation and excesses. Capitalism isn't anti-social. Human nature is greedy. And for all you bash the system, I think it has raised the well-being of a lot of people, even if it's only a side-effect and not a primary goal (not to say nothing should be changed). But without knowing exactly what you'd like to see done it's hard to compare to what we have no. I don't believe you want a completely socialist/communist system either.

One of the places I'd like to see some change is in the markets. That's a place you can really see people make money without doing any work and sometimes even at the explicit expense of others.

 

[PureX]

So are you saying we have a limited democracy but we simply aren't using it to the best effect? What do you see in those northern European countries that you'd implement here?

Unfortunately, our version of limited democracy was the first real attempt at it. And as a result our constitution is hopelessly inadequate for a large modern nation. And now we have basically fallen into oligarchy. We are a democracy in name, only. Sort of like the old Soviet Union was socialist in name only. Or China is communist in name only. We are all oligarchies at this point. Though Russia and China still have stronger fascist overtones.

I don't know that the modern socialism I see working for northern Europe could work here. It requires a whole different attitude about the purpose and structure of business, and the fundamental goal and purpose of government. Business in a socialist culture is meant to serve the people involved in it, not just the capital investors, and the people involved in it are given a lot more decision-making and participatory authority, as well as much greater percentages of the profits. They perceive a business as a social investment, not just a monetary investment on the part of the capital investors. We have no sense of this, at all, in this country. And the capitalists, here, wield so much cultural and political influence that I see no hope of our ever embarking on a campaign that would educate Americans about how and why socialism works. We have endured many decades of slander regarding socialism, and it would take a great effort to undo it, now.

I'm afraid we are doomed to drown in our own ignorance and greed. It will be these other, smaller, more modern/liberal nations that will learn how to make limited democracy/socialism work to their best advantage. Sadly, I think we are unteachable.

 

[PureX]

I think you are focusing on one part of capitalism and calling that capitalism. You seem to be looking at only capital investors that invest money and rely on others to do all the 'work'. But that's not the entirety of capitalism. In a nutshell capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. You do hint at that when you talk about smaller, owner-operated businesses, but you pay little attention to that side of things and that's why I think you are skewing things. Having said that, I agree with some of what you say, even though I'm not quite as cynical as you.

The "private owner" is still the capital investor. And the primary purpose of the business enterprise is to return a maximum profit on the capital he's invested. To facilitate that primary goal, all the decision-making authority is in the hands of the capital investor. And therefor NOT in the hands of everyone else involved in and affected by the business enterprise. And, in fact, to the exact degree that they all wish to gain something from the business enterprise, the capital investor (private owner or investment group, it makes no difference) they are competing with the capital investor's primary goal: his profits. And it is therefor an adversarial relationship between the capitalist and his quest for profit, and all the other participants and their various needs and desires that the business enterprise is SUPPOSED TO SERVE.

Keep in mind that any commercial activity that does not serve the people who are engaging in it, is an irrational and anti-social activity. Walmart is an irrational and anti-social commercial business enterprise, for example, because it does not serve, but rather exploits, everyone that engages in it's commercial activity. And it does so for the benefit, only, of it's capital investors. The only reason Walmart gets away with it is because people are stupid, greedy, and short-sighed, and so do not realize that they are being harmed by their own participation in it. Or they simply have no other option.

Capitalism is still the best foundation for an economy.

We can repeat that mantra until we're blue in the face but it's simply not true. It was never true, in fact. Free market capitalism only worked for a short time because of the explosion of wealth and productivity that cam with the industrial/technological revolution. And because while that was going on, most people could still return to the "farm" if they had to. But those days are gone, and free-market capitalism is now just a sure pathway to monopoly, oligarchy, and wholesale abuse and exploitation.

Empower and enable people to work for themselves while attempting to curb exploitation and excesses. Capitalism isn't anti-social. Human nature is greedy. And for all you bash the system, I think it has raised the well-being of a lot of people, even if it's only a side-effect and not a primary goal (not to say nothing should be changed). But without knowing exactly what you'd like to see done it's hard to compare to what we have no. I don't believe you want a completely socialist/communist system either.

We need to change the purpose of our engaging in commerce away from exploitation by investors (capitalism) to fair trade (trade that benefits all the participants). To do that we'll need to put more control of the business enterprise into the hands of the people engaging in it. And spread more of the profits among them, based on their contribution to the success of the enterprise (rather then on the profits returned to the investors). I don't think Americans can even conceive of a system like that. And I know the oligarchy that's running this country will never allow even a serious discussion about it.

One of the places I'd like to see some change is in the markets. That's a place you can really see people make money without doing any work and sometimes even at the explicit expense of others.

Yes; they're the heart and soul of the capitalist system. Money making money while rich people gamble with the lives and livelihoods of everyone else on Earth. Not a pretty sight. And not a healthy or even sane economic system.

 

[PureX]

The "smaller northern European countries" are likely fairly homogeneous in make up therefore more likely to work well together.
America is unique in all the world. We prospered best when the immigrants who came to our shores were determined to Americanize themselves and were grateful for the chance to prosper through hard work, taking advantage of public education and heartbreak.

We aren't unique. We were just in the right place at the right time to really cash in on the industrial revolution and on two world wars. It was NOT our system of government or economics that brought us all that wealth and power, it was luck and timing. Now that our heyday has past, we're seeing just how flawed our systems really are. Or rather, we would be seeing that if we weren't so inclined, as a culture, to engage in denial.

 

[bybee]

We aren't unique. We were just in the right place at the right time to really cash in on the industrial revolution and on two world wars. It was NOT our system of government or economics that brought us all that wealth and power, it was luck and timing. Now that our heyday has past, we're seeing just how flawed our systems really are. Or rather, we would be seeing that if we weren't so inclined, as a culture, to engage in denial.

The people who settled this country were not looking for wealth and power.
Now that our heyday is passed the world has lost a friend.

 

[PureX]

The people who settled this country were not looking for wealth and power.
Now that our heyday is passed the world has lost a friend.

Some were, some weren't, just like today. But our system lets the scum rise to the top. Encourages it, even. And so it has. That's been a problem for humanity since the beginning. The people who want wealth and power the most are the very people who least deserve it, and are most likely to abuse it. Yet will do whatever it takes to get it, and will usually succeed, eventually. And the rest of us let them because we just don't care enough about it to stop them, until it's too late. Then we suffer terribly for that neglect.

 

[bybee]

Some were, some weren't, just like today. But our system lets the scum rise to the top. Encourages it, even. And so it has. That's been a problem for humanity since the beginning. The people who want wealth and power the most are the very people who least deserve it, and are most likely to abuse it. Yet will do whatever it takes to get it, and will usually succeed, eventually. And the rest of us let them because we just don't care enough about it to stop them, until it's too late. Then we suffer terribly for that neglect.

This is one way of looking at the history of humanity.
I do not look at it that way.

 

[PureX]

This is one way of looking at the history of humanity.
I do not look at it that way.

And yet, it is there to be seen, nevertheless.

 

[kmoney]

The "private owner" is still the capital investor. And the primary purpose of the business enterprise is to return a maximum profit on the capital he's invested.

That's not inherent in capitalism even though many businesses work that way. It's certainly seen in most publicly traded companies. They have to earn returns for their share-holders and many people aren't concerned with a long outlook. An unfortunate situation in many cases.

To facilitate that primary goal, all the decision-making authority is in the hands of the capital investor. And therefor NOT in the hands of everyone else involved in and affected by the business enterprise.

Who should make decisions? Do you envision companies being a democracy?

Keep in mind that any commercial activity that does not serve the people who are engaging in it, is an irrational and anti-social activity. Walmart is an irrational and anti-social commercial business enterprise, for example, because it does not serve, but rather exploits, everyone that engages in it's commercial activity. And it does so for the benefit, only, of it's capital investors. The only reason Walmart gets away with it is because people are stupid, greedy, and short-sighed, and so do not realize that they are being harmed by their own participation in it. Or they simply have no other option.

Not every Walmart employee is being harmed. It probably works well enough for some. For others, it's probably the best they can do.

What is your definition of 'exploitation'?

We can repeat that mantra until we're blue in the face but it's simply not true. It was never true, in fact. Free market capitalism only worked for a short time because of the explosion of wealth and productivity that cam with the industrial/technological revolution. And because while that was going on, most people could still return to the "farm" if they had to. But those days are gone, and free-market capitalism is now just a sure pathway to monopoly, oligarchy, and wholesale abuse and exploitation.

What would you call your system?

We need to change the purpose of our engaging in commerce away from exploitation by investors (capitalism) to fair trade (trade that benefits all the participants). To do that we'll need to put more control of the business enterprise into the hands of the people engaging in it. And spread more of the profits among them, based on their contribution to the success of the enterprise (rather then on the profits returned to the investors). I don't think Americans can even conceive of a system like that. And I know the oligarchy that's running this country will never allow even a serious discussion about it.

How do you see that working out in a company? Would it be similar to publicly traded companies but with employees being more significant shareholders?

 

[PureX]

That's not inherent in capitalism even though many businesses work that way. It's certainly seen in most publicly traded companies. They have to earn returns for their share-holders and many people aren't concerned with a long outlook. An unfortunate situation in many cases.

It's not inherent that winged mammals must fly, yet nearly all of them do.

It is actually illegal for many businesses to act contrary to the economic interests of their capital investors. It is not illegal for them to act contrary to the economic interests of their employees, however. Nor is it illegal for them to act contrary to the economic interests of their clients. And yet, of these three groups, the investors have risked the least.

Who should make decisions? Do you envision companies being a democracy?

I think businesses should have to abide by a set of social prime directives that require them to practice fair trade rather than exploitation.

Not every Walmart employee is being harmed. It probably works well enough for some. For others, it's probably the best they can do.

Walmart's intent is to exploit anyone and everyone it can, for maximum profit. It is this intent that should be banned, because it IS NOT COMMERCE. Economic exploitation is not commerce, because it does not seek a fair-trade. It seeks an unfair trade. It seeks to exploit.

Here in the U.S. (and many other replaces, as well) we do not understand the difference between commerce and exploitation. We think they are one and the same, when they are not at all the same.

What is your definition of 'exploitation'?

It is using an unfair advantage to take more value from others that we are willing to give them in return.

Say I buy a broken car for $1,000. Fixed, it's worth $3,000. And I would need to spend $1,000 and some of my time to fix it properly, and then I sell it for $3,000. This would be a fair trade because the seller would get what the car is currently worth: $1,000. The buyer would get a car worth $3,000 for his $3,000 dollars cash, and I would get a profit of $1,000 for my having invested $2,000 and some of my time.

Now let's say I buy the same broken car for $500, even though it's actually worth $1,000, because the owner is getting parking tickets on it and can't afford to fix it, or move it, and is therefor desperate to get rid off it. So I could exploiting his predicament for my own gain.

Then let's say I only fix the car well enough to get it running, intend of paying extra to fix it properly, because that saves me another $300. And then I sell it to the same unsuspecting buyer for $3,000 because that's what a properly working car of that kind is worth, and he doesn't know that I didn't really fix it properly. I only fixed it well enough to make it run. I would then be exploiting the buyer, as well as the seller, for my own gain. And all together, I would gain a profit of $1,800. But in doing so I exploited both the seller and the buyer for that extra $800.

Most people in America would consider this sort of exploitation "just doing business". Because we think exploitation and commerce are one and the same thing. But they aren't. And the difference is the ideal of making a 'fair trade'. It's the ideal of everyone getting a share of the value, commensurate with their contribution to the increase.

The seller gets $1,000 for the broken car because that's what it's actually worth. The buyer gets a properly fixed car for the price of a car in proper running order. And the entrepreneur gets a reasonable profit for the value he added to the car by his buying and fixing it.

Most businesses operate on the margin. Their profit is made by squeezing out every potential dollar from every trade they make. And that means they are all about finding and exploiting any and every advantage. The whole idea is to get more while giving less. But this is not 'fair trade'. Its exploitation.

And this is why our society has become so ugly, and materialistic, and immoral and selfish and competitive. Maximizing profits by any means possible creates an environment of dishonesty, and of abuse, and of "big winners" and "big losers". It's a mean, vicious, Darwinian economy where the rule of the day is "every man for himself".

Now tell me this is not OUR society! Tell me this isn't what you're seeing all around you, and what your children are growing up accepting as the 'norm'.

What would you call your system?

I want us to stop all this dog-eat-dog Darwinist economics, and adopt a more socialist approach. Where commerce is ruled by the needs of everyone involved. And where value is determined by net positive social effect, and not just the profit returned on the capital invested.

How do you see that working out in a company? Would it be similar to publicly traded companies but with employees being more significant shareholders?

I do think employees should be 'shareholders' in terms of responsibilities, authority, and profit. But I also think businesses need a set of guidelines that make them responsible for their impact on the societies they propose to serve.

Walmart has destroyed countless small American towns and communities. They exploit local governments to get them to pay for their store's needed infrastructure and then insist on tax-free deals in return for "bringing jobs" to the community. But those jobs don't pay enough to live on, so the local municipalities end up having to pay the difference (welfare and medicaid for employees) and of course those those extra infrastructure costs, all while not collecting a dime in taxes from Walmart, and little in taxes from Walmart employees. Meanwhile the Walmart store drives all the small locally owned businesses out because they can't compete with the sweatshop labor prices that Walmart gets by buying their goods in bulk, and overseas, instead of producing them here. And then all THOSE local jobs are lost, and THOSE people end up on the public dole.

Walmark takes in big profits from the community, returns almost none of that money to the community, while it devastates the other business in the community, and then moves on when their store's tax-free status runs out. They build a new store down the road, using the same model, and repeat the whole process over again.

And because they are so "successful" by greedy capitalist standards (maximized profits of the capital invested) many other businesses have followed their model.

And the result is that America has been gutted by systematic corporate greed. And is continuing to be gutted by it. And as our communities continue to suffer as a result, we all blame each other: it's the poor, it's the welfare cheats, it's the immoral gays, it's the immoral liberals, it's the democrats, it's the republicans, … on and on. When in truth it's corporate greed run amok in a capitalist system that is designed to give every advantage to the rich.

And does so.

 

[The Berean]

This is an interesting 2004 article about Japan's economy and how heavily regulated the corporations and banks are. I'm sure PureX will like it.

Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism

 

[PureX]

This is an interesting 2004 article about Japan's economy and how heavily regulated the corporations and banks are. I'm sure PureX will like it.

Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism

It looks like a system that we could learn a great deal from. If nothing else, it would dispel some of the age-old myths that we Americans keep holding onto and touting as economic gospel when it clearly is not. And when in fact it's being used to cause us great economic harm.

Thanks for posting!

 

[The Berean]

It looks like a system that we could learn a great deal from. If nothing else, it would dispel some of the age-old myths that we Americans keep holding onto and touting as economic gospel when it clearly is not. And when in fact it's being used to cause us great economic harm.

Thanks for posting!

You're welcome. I spent some time in Japan, I taught English in Osaka for a month. A very fascinating people.

 

[Sancocho]

America's days were numbered when the "high court" decided to butcher Christian history and science and justify the killing of children in the womb. Taking God out of public schools and homosexual marriage has hastened the fall.

American Christians that have lost faith in it's high courts will turn away from supporting the nation as new generations of pluralists fight to censor and punish anyone who dissents from the current wind of morality all in the name of nationalism and the concept of "free speech".

 

[PureX]

America's days were numbered when the "high court" decided to butcher Christian history and science and justify the killing of children in the womb. Taking God out of public schools and homosexual marriage has hastened the fall.

Yeah, it's easy to blame everything on anyone who thinks or behaves differently from you. Because it makes you feel all righteous and superior and everything. But the truth is no one's morality was changed by a court ruling. If anything, the court ruling simply reflected the changes that had already occurred. And the United States was never a Christian nation, even though most Americans called themselves Christians. Most still do, in fact, even though many are pro-choice, pro-equal rights, and pro-seperation of church and state.

American Christians that have lost faith in it's high courts will turn away from supporting the nation as new generations of pluralists fight to censor and punish anyone who dissents from the current wind of morality all in the name of nationalism and the concept of "free speech".

Actually, all that's happening is that the zealots are finally being put back in their place: at the extreme fringes of social acceptability.

It's one of the few positive things that's been happening in this country.

 

[glassjester]

I think businesses should have to abide by a set of social prime directives that require them to practice fair trade rather than exploitation.

What would these directives be?

 

[Sancocho]

Yeah, it's easy to blame everything on anyone who thinks or behaves differently from you. Because it makes you feel all righteous and superior and everything. But the truth is no one's morality was changed by a court ruling. If anything, the court ruling simply reflected the changes that had already occurred. And the United States was never a Christian nation, even though most Americans called themselves Christians. Most still do, in fact, even though many are pro-choice, pro-equal rights, and pro-seperation of church and state.
Actually, all that's happening is that the zealots are finally being put back in their place: at the extreme fringes of social acceptability.

It's one of the few positive things that's been happening in this country.

Americas decline isn't theoretical, it's all in the social indicators.

 

[PureX]

What would these directives be?

Read this article that The Berean posted, it has some very interesting ideas to present: Japan, Refutation of Neoliberalism

When a constitutional democracy writes it's constitution, I think it needs to spell out some basic goals and principals for itself regarding various aspects of social intercourse. For example, I think it should spell out it's basic goals and principals regarding it's relationships with other nations: what it will and will not do for, with, and to other nations and peoples. It needs to spell out it's basic goals and principals regarding it's own citizens: the ideals and rights it affords them, and how it intends to protect and maintain those rights. And I think it also needs to articulate it's basic goals and principals regarding commercial interactions, both within it's borders and with other countries.

Some of those basic principals might include something like; that it will not allow it's own government or citizens to exploit foreign labor by buying cheap goods produced under conditions that would not be acceptable at home. Or perhaps it would demand that we produce at least half of the products and services we buy, within our own borders. Or perhaps it could demand that as unemployment rates increase, the number of hours everyone works per week as 'full time', decrease; encouraging the hiring of extra workers and discouraging the abuse of labor for increased profit. Or perhaps it could impose tax imperatives that return some portion of a businesses profits to the communities from which they are derived, on businesses that would otherwise take their profits elsewhere; encouraging more localized commerce.

And the ideals, here, being that the goal of the nation's commerce is to serve the well-being of the nation's people rather then the wallets of the primary investors. Thus; every full time wage is a livable wage. Every citizen has a job available to him. Home industry is encouraged and protected by laws and tariffs. Diversity and forward-thinking in commerce is encouraged and protected by laws and tax/investment incentives. Small local businesses are encouraged, while large national/international businesses (chains and monopolies) are discouraged by laws and tax/investment incentives, etc.,.

The point being that there would be specified goals based on specified ideals and principals that everyone could understand and follow.