Capitalism & Functioning Democracy Are at Odds
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N55/goranov.html
Opinion: Capitalism and Functioning Democracy Are at Odds
By Alexi Goranov
November 20, 2009
The fundamental debate is whether the right to increases in capital and
property supersedes the right to equality, i.e. the right to equal
access to labor and life. If the two rights are considered absolute they
cannot coexist; one destroys the other (per �What is Property� by French
anarchist Joseph-Pierre Proudhon).
If the right to collect capital at the expense of the wellbeing of
others is deemed fundamental, then some form of capitalism is the
answer. However, if the right to equality, meaning the right to labor
and life, is fundamental, then we have to come up with alternatives, and
these alternatives need to strengthen the ability of people to govern
their own affairs collectively and individually.
The ability to govern one�s affairs also implies that control over
resources and the means of productions needs to be shared among people.
The attack on property rights that is implicit in this argument is not
an attack on the people�s rights to own a house, or a car, or enough
land to provide for themselves. It is an attack on the rights of a
private entity to exclusively own natural resources (mines, water, land)
and means of production (factories and shops) at the expense of all
other people who depend on those resources for existence.
For the democratic process to be meaningful, those who are affected by a
decision should participate in the decision-making. Democracy and
inequality are mutually exclusive. This has been argued by Aristotle,
who surmised that in a functioning democracy the dispossessed masses
will use the democratic process to redistribute wealth and resources
more equally, something that recently happened in Bolivia.
So in a situation with rampant inequality the choices are to decrease
inequality, or to restrict democracy (see Noam Chomsky�s Understanding
Power). That was well understood by our �Founding Fathers,� who chose
the latter. They instituted different tools into the system to keep the
�less desirable element� (landless peasants, workers, women, slaves,
Native Americans, etc.) out of most of the decision making, while
keeping moneyed individuals fairly equal and protected from the mob and
from each other (see The American Political Tradition and the Men Who
Made It by Richard Hofstadter or An Economic Interpretation of the
Constitution of the United States by Charles Beard).
These principles have been taken and perverted to an extent that even
the �Founding Fathers� would find repulsive. The Fourteenth Amendment
should protect the equal rights of freed slaves, but of the cases citing
this amendment that were brought to the Supreme Court in the years
1890�1910, 19 had to do with the rights of African-Americans and 288 had
to do with corporate rights (People�s History of the United States by
Howard Zinn). That hints at what group is more capable of protecting its
rights, the �haves� or the �have not�s.�
Due to present and profound inequality, the ability of most people to
influence the country�s politics is virtually nonexistent, pressing a
button every four years notwithstanding. On the other hand,
corporations, with their limitless cash and influence, can buy and bully
the government into passing legislation that is opposed by the majority
of people.
To illustrate the point, the current health care fiasco makes a nice
case study. According to a 2005 study by BusinessWeek, 67 percent of the
population favors a �single-payer,� aka Medicare-for-All, not-for-profit
healthcare system that covers everyone (BusinessWeek, May 15, 2005).
That is two-thirds of the population. Yet, in our �democratic� system,
�single-payer� is not even discussed in Congress. The reason is obvious:
It cuts deeply into the profits of insurance and drug companies, and
since profits, in the true spirit of capitalism, are more important than
people, the �single-payer� legislation (HR.676) is ignored and
dismissed. Instead, after a lot of fighting to beat back any chance of a
reasonable and meaningful reform, we get a bill with a very weak �public
option,� which is likely to be stripped down further in the Senate, a
shameful anti-choice amendment. This will likely be coupled with many
gifts to the drug industry, such as ensuring certain drugs will never be
generic.
A study by IMS Health estimated that the new healthcare bill will bring
the drug industry an increase in sales by $137 billion over the next
four years (�Democracy Now!� November 12, 2009). Guess who will have to
pay that extra $137 billion? A pretty good deal for Big Pharma, but this
bill was not cheap for the insurance and drug companies. They paid
Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the guy in charge of drafting the
legislation, at least $3.5 million. In the first quarter of 2009, Pfizer
alone spent $6 million on �lobbying,� although bribing is a better word
for it (Z Magazine, October 2008). The Washington Post reports that the
drug industry was spending $1.4 million per day on lobbying for the
current legislation (Z Magazine, October 2008). Insurance companies also
hit the mother lode: individuals and families will be forced to buy
private insurance, or pay penalties.
There is nothing efficient in this process. It is wasteful and
inefficient in terms of providing healthcare, but it does what it is
there to do: secure profits for corporations. What capital wants,
capital gets; forget about what millions of Americans actually want or
need. �Privatize profit, socialize cost and risk� has always been the
corporate motto. The examples are limitless. Just to point to one more,
as of November 2009, 58 percent of people are against the war in
Afghanistan, yet the government is considering an escalation.
Under the current system, particularly when talking about corporations,
people are not in control of what they produce; the corporate board of
directors is. Let us take another recent example that illustrates who
runs the show. In 2005, residents of a neighborhood of New London, CT
were forcefully evicted from their homes after years of legal battles
over the concept of �Eminent Domain� (�Democracy Now!� Nov. 13, 2009).
The homes were condemned to make space for a private development
project, with part of the idea being to make the area more likable to
the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The development was supposed to bring
thousands of jobs. Recently Pfizer announced that it will shut down its
research facility in New London and move to another town. Now the lots
where people lived and children played are vacant and overgrown.
The first point is that the lives and well-being of people were
sacrificed to cater to a big corporation; nothing new there. The second
and more important point is that people who may be affected by a
corporation have no say in what the corporation does. If a corporation
wants to shut down a plant because it is not profitable to operate, or
wants to shift production abroad because it is cheaper, the people in
the community and the workers have no control over these decisions
although their livelihoods may depend on it. Very democratic, isn�t it?
That efficient production is only possible under the conditions of
profit-making, competition, and market discipline is a myth. Let us look
at a historic example. During the Spanish Civil War, areas of the
country (mostly near Barcelona) became under workers� control and
industry and agriculture were socialized/collectivized. Production was
shifted towards what was needed, not what was profitable. What were the
results? Workers put in extra effort and production in certain areas of
industry increased by 10-fold (Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship by
Noam Chomsky), new industries, such as optical and chemical, were
developed (The Anarchist Collectives: Workers� Self-Management in the
Spanish Revolution, 1936�1939 by Sam Dolgoff), and agricultural
production increased by 50 percent to 75 percent (Anarchism by Daniel
Guerin).
No one has the right to dictate to people how to live their lives. That
is as true for totalitarian regimes as it is true for private, corporate
tyrannies! Only people can collectively decide on how to organize their
existence and economy. This is the meaning of democracy, and if we are
to have democracy not just in form but in substance, people across all
classes need to become much more involved in how the country is run. The
abolition of child labor, the institution of an 8-hour working day,
Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, etc. were not gifts from the
government. These achievements were won by disadvantaged people refusing
to be passive bystanders, and by working and bleeding together to win
the rights that they deemed fair. So there are examples before us. The
question is: Will we follow them?
Alexi Goranov is a postdoc at the David H. Koch Institute for
Integrative Cancer Research.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
James A. Donald
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N55/goranov.html
> Opinion: Capitalism and Functioning Democracy Are at Odds
Let us compare the outcome of capitalism without democracy, for
example Hong Kong, with the outcome of democracy without capitalism.
If democracy and capitalism are at odds, so much the worse for
democracy.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
jos boersema
On 2009-11-20, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N55/goranov.html
> Opinion: Capitalism and Functioning Democracy Are at Odds
> By Alexi Goranov
> November 20, 2009
>
> The fundamental debate is whether the right to increases in capital and
> property supersedes the right to equality, i.e. the right to equal
> access to labor and life.
I think it is vastly more simple then that.
What is a nation ? A (large) group of people. A group of people.
What is a compary? A (small) group of people. A group of people.
What is tirany ? What is democracy ?
What is most profitable for investment capital, high or low wages.
How high/low would wages be if a group where a tirany or a democracy.
It is all so vastly more simple then people seem to be able to
comprehend.
--
http://www.socialism.nl