Democracy implies freedom of the people. Capitalism also implies freedom of the people. A centralized market system is the exact control the anti-capitalists complain about. The free and competitive market is fundamental to a good economy, which partially operates on supply and demand. Capitalism is the freest form of a market, and it is absolutely inherent in a democracy.
Capitalism is definitely compatible with democracy. The definition of capitalism "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. " While democracy is said to be government by the people and for the people. Defining democracy and capitalism is important for an argument because it displays that if government is to be for the people then they should have the free-will to either start a business or own property.
Let me start by defining the terms of the argument:
Capitalism, also called a 'market economy' or 'free market', is an economic and political system in which a society's resources and finances are privately held and traded among individuals. It is the opposite of a command economy, in which all resources are controlled and distributed by a central governing body.
Democracy is a system of government in which power is inherently owned by the people, and is usually granted to elected representatives who form the governing body. Democracies work in favor of the people, and guarantee individual rights and freedoms to the governed.
Using these definitions, it is impossible to imagine a system that combines a command economy with any form of democracy. Command economies assume that the individual does not have the right to make his or her own decisions, and instead give the government the power to make those decisions. In this sense, the people do not hold the power, the government does; meaning, command economies cannot exist in a democracy as defined above. Therefore, the only functioning system that would allow a democracy to exist would be free-market Capitalism, in which the power to control the economy and its resources lies with the individual.
I do agree with this, if I didn't, technically I would be a Communist!
It does work, but needs to be moderated and contained by some government intervention in order to be sustainable for everybody.
I can't really say too much more about this, I've said all on this matter.
By definition, capitalism and democracy appear compatible. Capitalism is all about a free market which has a beneficial effect on society when entrepreneurs driven to make profit maximize resources. Democracy checks tyranny. Both allow for a government and economic system that works toward the good of the people. But I'm also for some socialism in society. Pure capitalism obviously doesn't work.
If Democracy means 'the authority of the people', where is the people's authority when only a small minority backed by Wall Street Oligarchs supposedly speaks on their behalf. Where is the Democracy when the 'haves' rule the 'have nots'?
With Capitalism as the economy's guiding principle, somewhere who inherits a mass of wealth is quite clearly going have a head start than someone who inherits debt, or is on the street. There is no free market if there is a monopoly on resources and trade. This is what breeds disenfranchisement. There is no democracy when one person can throw away leftover T Bone steaks, and another doesn't know where their next meal is coming from. So for me its either one or the other. Democracy might not be the perfect system, but without it, Captialism and Corporatism become practically indistinguishable.
Down with Fascism and all other forms of totalitarian ideology!
In the beginning Capitalism and Democracy may appear to be natural bed fellows. However, as time goes on Capitalism chokes out Democracy by creating a class system where money becomes more powerful than votes.
The government, which is supposed to be an extension of the will of the people, becomes a cesspool of backroom deals and special interests, that do not benefit the people the government is supposed to represent, but only benefits a small group of elites with deep pockets.
One only needs to take off one's "rose-colored-glasses" and see what is happening today in America, the supposed cradle of Democracy. Capitalism is a noose around the neck of true Democracy and will eventually and inevitably choke the life out of it.
Capitalism without restraints in the form of government controls is essentially a consumer-driven cycle. The more we consume and discard the better the system works. Since we can never recycle 100% -not even close!!! We are doomed to perpetually add to the pile of waste our habitat is fast becoming.
Capitalism is a for-profit venture, always has, always will be. To radically change for the better -such as the switch to renewable energy requires an outside intervention, not just market driven trends. In this regard capitalism is no better than communism. The only difference being the nature of the ownership: private vs. State.
I do hold hope for a revamping of the capitalist ideology, but only if the democratic forms of government are enhanced to increase participation. It will take a myriad of improvements, with the main being higher education to become accessible, not just within a few countries but around the world as a whole.
Capitalism is differentiated from socialism in that it is based on private rather than public control of the means of production. This means that the 'owners' of a factory or corporation make all production-based decisions independent of the will and interests of its employees. The owner or board of directors determines what is produced, how it's produced, how the waste materials are disposed of, how much a product will cost, how much workers are paid, etc. with no accountability to the people and communities affected by these decisions. If democracy can be loosely defined as "government by the people for the people," the capitalist system of economic governance stands in radical opposition to the democratic spirit.
From this point, we see that there is no room for individual agency in this system; the workers sell their labour force to the capitalists in return for their wage, and this labour - combined with natural resources and capital (the currency, tools, machines, and factories which are needed to make and distribute goods) - creates all the goods people buy and use. In this system, someone from the working class with no access to the resources required to start a business is not given the opportunity to make an unfettered decision to sell their labour power. Their option is to work for the capitalists who retain all the profits created by this labour power (because he/she did have access to the capital required to start a business) or to starve. Capitalism, then, coerses the working class into choosing the former via the threat of death by starvation. This is not a free choice. Just as a confession at gunpoint would not hold up in a court of law, working rather than dying does not indicate the willful and ready participation indicative of a free society.
In effect, the corporation is a microcosm of the command economy. The capitalists control all aspects of the corporation's economic activity with no semblance of mass-participation. The workers' recourse, then, is to use the democratic mechanisms available (e.G. Elections) to create laws which place external pressures on corporations to conform to workers' interests. The problem, however, arises when a politician must raise large sums of money in order to get elected in the first place. The capitalists control an incredibly disproportionate amount of the available money and can use this money to gain greater access to and influence over governing bodies than all the workers combined. This access and influence translates into laws and regulations which serve the small minority of capitalists over the labouring majority. In this way, capitalism directly obstructs the ability of a democratic government to govern "for the people."
As a side note, China is not a socialist country. The Soviet model of communism evolved from a very specific interpretation of Marx and Lenin which does not reflect the many viewpoints and propositions put forth by Marxist/socialist thinkers in attempting to create an economic system which has yet to exist. Please actually read Marx.
Fortunately for the wealthy, we no longer live in a democracy, but in an oligarchy. Rule by the rich. When the rich control the empire, the appearance of democracy must be maintained so that the masses will think the playing field is level. As long as the corporatists can manufacture the consent to the system they exploit, the masses can be fooled into voting against their own interests. This is the America we live in today. Capitalism destroys democracy.
By definition, no. In theory, would be great. In practice, capitalism overshadows democracy. No system is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to improve our government and let the people become more knowledgable. And I'm rambling because of the minimum word requirement. See first 3 sentences. Enough said.
Pure capitalism is a market economy that has to have some amount of inequality. A constitutional republic with a democratic process is one in which all members of the society must be equal before the law. But the very same law that they are equal before must define an economy in which not everyone will be equal.
Democracy is the road to socialism.
Read more at http://www.Brainyquote.Com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.Html#vCM1OwLqOjDkg2U2.99
What makes people think America was built on a democracy? It never was. America was built off of a colony of rebellious secessionist in which formed into a republic, not a democracy. Go read some history people! All you have to do is read and not what they teach you in public schools.