5 ms·

Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, howeve

• gragas 10y ago
  >Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life; the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.
  • y80 10y ago
    >I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a feudalist society, you get absolutely no say. Democracy allows us to make decisions that influence our own life, however we must obviously respect the fact that we live in a society with other people, and they must be respected. Beyond living in a vacuum, we have no real way to ensure absolute individual freedom, however a completely democratic society is one way of reconciling the thirst for individual freedom with the necessity of cooperation with others. >The ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority. This is absolutely a valid concern, which is why I believe in a rigid groundset of rules on which all laws and rules must comply (consitutions/bill of rights) which respect the rights and liberties of individuals to ensure they have maximum freedom with respect to other individuals in society. This isn't a groundbreaking idea, but I do believe we need to re-evaluate these approaches in a modern context, as most countries were established in a time before progressivism was dominant.
    • Sniffnoy 10y ago
      > Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a feudalist society, you get absolutely no say. These are hardly the only alternatives. In case you haven't noticed, the other people here aren't implicitly contrasting democracy with e.g. monarchy; they're implicitly contrasting it with anarchy (probably anarcho-capitalism). Again, there's lots of possibilities out there. Personally I like the idea of futarchy, though it's untried. But that's not the point; the point is, there's a lot of degrees of freeom here.
      • pyrale 10y ago
        Anarchy (and some of its branches) value very much the values of democracy, with the added benefits of stressing the search of compromise. In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists.
        • y80 10y ago
          >In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists. There's also a reason all anarchists want to be differentiated from ancaps ;)
        • damptowel 10y ago
          Isn't anarchocapitalism a contradiction in terms? Capitalism is perhaps the most statist of all forms of society. It's development coincided with the birth of the nation state. Markets have been a part of human societies since the birth of agriculturalism, but it was the state that created the large scale market systems required for capitalism to flourish. Historically markets were established in conquered areas to support standing armies. The same story for currency, which is introduced alongside the market as a means of tax payment levied upon the population by the conqueror; the army comes with the currency and the population has to acquire it through market transactions with them. Schooling is another big one, the Karolingian expansion first instated it in Europe and around the time of the industrial revolution there was a clear need of schooling the peasantry into the new market driven systems, unifying disparate dialects, teaching basic arithmetics, making sure they can read instructions and do basic record keeping. It's around that time you see the establishment of new public institutions such as prisons and police for enforcing private property law, expansion of courts for arbitrage, the list goes on. Almost all of the foundations of capitalism were created by state power and coercion.
  • wyager 10y ago
    > I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life That's probably because you're thinking in terms of how things actually are, rather than in terms of vague emotions tacked onto political buzzwords. A classic mistake.
  • ZenoArrow 10y ago
    I would interpret the predominant style of capitalism we have in the same way. Centralisation of power is the issue, it doesn't matter if that centralised power is held by governments or by large corporations, the end result is a tilting of the playing field in favour of those with the most power.
  • lisivka 10y ago
    > Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life; Yep, but you have exact same right to control life of others, so things are balanced. > the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority. Constitution and court protects us from abuse, so don't worry about minorities in Constitutional Democracy.
• stale2002 10y ago
  Democracy is not about having control of your own life. It is about a large group of other people having control over your life. What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.
  • y80 10y ago
    > Democracy is not about having control of your own life. It is about a large group of other people having control over your life. Democracy is about balancing individual freedom with the demands of living in society. There is no other system of decision making which even attempts to reconcile these two adversarial relationships (individual vs. society). >What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism. I fail to see how you could have an undemocratic voluntary society. I'd argue democracy is the backbone of a voluntary society.
    • cderwin 10y ago
      > Democracy is about balancing individual freedom with the demands of living in society. No it's not. Democracy does not inherently balance individual liberty with societal necessity. In fact, democracy says absolutely nothing about individual liberty or societal necessity at all. Democracy is a form of government that holds regular public elections. It is not anything else. It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one.
      • y80 10y ago
        >Democracy is a form of government that holds regular public elections Democracy is a group of people co-operating in a system through equal representation. This does not require a state apparatus or government. >It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one. Solely sufficient? Absolutely not, that's what I'm saying, but yes it is a necessary condition. It's is the sustinence on which liberty grows.
      • tormeh 10y ago
        >It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one. I think that's too strong. Some dictatorships have more liberty than some democracies. Democracy increases the odds of liberty immensely, but is neither necessary nor sufficient.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• FreedomToCreate 10y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you mean by " a democratic economy"?
  • y80 10y ago
    A worker controlled economy. Many different forms this could take, perhaps a syndicalist approach. Not state controlled, no central control.
    • FreedomToCreate 10y ago
      Sounds like a lot of buzz words. Is there any papers or research you can provide links to to flush out the concept. Or maybe provide some insight yourself. There are millions of workers. How do they control the economy and coordinate? And syndicalist push in Europe and even the US is a proven failure of the idea.
      • y80 10y ago
        Sure, Anarcho-Sydnicalism is a book by Rudolph Rocker the founder of anarcho syndicalism. For other approaches there's mutualism a market based approach, for that I'd see the works of Proudhon, Participatory Economics. There's also anarcho-communism. Here's some books that flesh out the ideas: Participatory Economics: https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Alternatives%20to%20Capitalism.pdf https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Alterna... What is Mutualism? : https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/what-is-mutualism.pdf https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/what-is-mutualis... Anarcho-Syndicalism https://libcom.org/files/Rocker%20-%20Anarcho-Syndicalism%20Theory%20and%20Practice.pdf https://libcom.org/files/Rocker%20-%20Anarcho-Syndicalism%20... The Conquest of Bread (Anarcho-Communism): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-c...
• nostrademons 10y ago
  They're complementary. A sibling thread on this article says that the problem with democracy is that votes based on a gut feeling that doesn't reflect reality count for the same as well-researched votes by experts with a full understanding of the consequences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12878457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12878457 Capitalism solves this problem with bankruptcy & business failure. People whose beliefs are shown to be false lose their businesses and are forced to work for other people whose decisions turned out well. Conversely, capitalism introduces problems with inequality and forced servitude that democracy solves. Democratic government serves as a check on the ability of the economic winners to pull the ladder up after them and use their economic power to impose their will on the people. This is behind much of the tension between big business vs. big government. You have two power structures (five, actually - the press, the military, and the academy form the other pillars) that work in opposition to each other, each according to different rules. I'd argue that the biggest problem facing America today is that business and government have gotten too cozy with each other while the press and the academy are getting eviscerated, which is letting them manipulate the voter through control of information.
  • whytaka 10y ago
    I think it's rather that big business swallowed everything else.
  • eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >Capitalism solves this problem with bankruptcy & business failure. People whose beliefs are shown to be false lose their businesses and are forced to work for other people whose decisions turned out well. And how often does this work in real life?
    • lisivka 10y ago
      Too often.
• Qantourisc 10y ago
  Capitalism vs socialist states. Could you define both ? In my experience it's just a sliding scale, either extreme is bad/non-optimal.
  • y80 10y ago
    A socialist state is one which claims to be a transitional state between capitalism and socialism, i.e. the USSR. They're states which have nationalized most industries in order to prevent capitalists from seizing control until such time the state is no longer necessary and withers away into the establishment of a socialist society (some obvious flaws in this though). A capitalist state is essentially every other modern state, parliamentary democracies,republics etc. all with capitalism as the underlying economic system. Socialism is not state control.
• wyager 10y ago
  > we need a democratic economy Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong? > a democratic workforce "We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!" > if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy. Based on the fact that you're using a very new account, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is some sort of incoherent troll bait. If not, this is a strong contender for the dumbest comment I've ever seen on HN; just slap the word "democratic" on random topics and pitch it as an alternative economic system, no further details required.
  • y80 10y ago
    >Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong? The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it? If you think the people decided on these two I'd say you misunderstand the process by which these two reached the forefront. A very small minority selected Clinton and stacked the odds in her favor for selection, as to the rise of Trump, I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system. Remember the individuals Trump was running against? Trumps a protest vote, and a terribly dangerous one at that. Choosing between three different people put on your plate by people you don't trust isn't a failing of democracy, it's a failing of the underlying system. >"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!" You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point. >That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy. I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.
• wyclif 10y ago
  As a friend recently put it: "Late capitalism depends upon the endless differentiation of desire and the mediation of social recognition (upon which men depend, being social animals) through commodified signs, in order for consumption to continue at a rate which will maintain profit. This means, in principle, a bad infinity of 'lifestyles'. 'No two people identify in exactly the same way', to quote a recent trans propaganda piece. And note that I'm talking about actually existing capitalism, not an abstract or even real free market. I'm talking about the system as it actually exists."
• vacri 10y ago
  > Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies The countries with the highest quality of life are Social Democracies. Places like the nordic countries and the 'new world' anglo countries excluding the US. It's bizarre just how much the US has demonised the concept of socialism in its political dialogue.
  • y80 10y ago
    Social democracies are not socialist states, and I 100% agree, there is no way I'd be able to argue against capitalism without prefacing with that statement because everyone would immediately think I propose something like the USSR.
    • vacri 10y ago
      My point is more that it's not an either/or proposition. Social democracies have significant components each of democracy, socialism, and capitalism.
      • y80 10y ago
        It actually is. Capitalism is defined by the ownership of private property and individuals selling their labor to these owners in the form of a wage/salary, whereas socialism is where private property has been abolished for some form of common ownership. They are mutually exclusive. Social democracies aren't socialist, they're strong welfare in a capitalist system.
        • vacri 10y ago
          So why did the Soviet Union have private housing (and the ability to inherit it)? Why does the modern USA have public lands, managed by the government for the free use of all? How do you classify Chinese communism? It really isn't an either/or proposition; you're only taking the absolute extremes of the concepts. If it was such a proposition, where does the switch take place? At what point would a nation 'flip' from being 'socialist' to being 'capitalist'?
• erikbye 10y ago
  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/ber... Why stubbornly claim capitalism is a failure when America is not capitalist? It is not laissez faire capitalism, like Chomsky says, it is a nanny state, where government bails out failed business. That is not capitalism.
  • vixen99 10y ago
    Spot on! I believe the other term is 'crony capitalism' and this is too often confused with the natural desire of most of us to be able to freely trade goods and services (including our labor) with other people within an evolving independent legal system (national law & international agreements otherwise known as international law) that disallows criminal and unfair practices.
  • cmrdporcupine 10y ago
    Au contraire it's just a matter of what definitions you are working with, and to many of us the US is the penultimate expression of the rule of capital over society -- capital-ism. The rule of capital. The rule of the interests of those who own capital. Classical liberals and libertarians of course run with a different -- IMHO utopian -- definition of capitalism which puts the emphasis on the act of individuals trading goods with each other. From my perspective it's an ideological smoke screen which papers over the reality of the asymmetrical distribution of power that arises naturally out of the particular 'natural rights' of property that classical liberalism embraces. And they were embraced historically precisely because of that distribution of power -- during an era of expanding colonialism, imperialism, and enclosure. To put it another way -- the US may not look like a textbook laissez-faire capitalist society that a Friedman, Hayek or Randian would advocate -- but the unjust power structure of the US and societies like it are what actual-existing capitalism _creates_. It is capitalists who rule, and capitalists who made it that way.
• debt 10y ago
  capitalism is a failure because it destroyed earth.