Democracy vs. Capitalism
The conflict between democracy and capitalism is that private ownership and management of productive property excludes popular participation in the central economic decisions that affect everyone (except in cases where such ownership is so diffuse that it extends to most people in the society; no longer the case here, if ever). Individual action and participation means more than going to the polls every four years. It means acting and participating in the institutions of the society, not being excluded from them on the grounds that some specialized class (bureaucrats, executives, generals, royalty, clerics, etc.) reserve this right for themselves, whatever the benevolence of their intentions. In the former Soviet Union, this centralization of power developed in the form of a totalitarian state; in the US, as collectivist legal entities (corporations). In the USSR, the state largely dominated economic institutions; in the US, corporate power dramatically pervades the state. In either case the effects on the general population have been a profound attenuation of their influence over the society--a striking parallel between systems, despite many other (not minor) differences.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
pierce-artwork.blogspot.com
A view of the top, from a perspective at the bottom
Search
About me
One Big Union
pierce-artwork.blogspot.com
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(106)
-
▼
February
(21)
- Managing Activism: How to Neutralize Democracyfrom...
- Wal-Mart Workers Vote 17-1 Against Unionfrom The W...
- How dare some say, 'Support our Troops'?from The P...
- Wal-Mart Brings Child Labor Backfrom The New York ...
- Assorted Nerds Ask: Will China Be the Next Superpo...
- A Passionate Response, and My Reply First of all,...
- Q&A But let me ask you another question. How is a...
- Democracy vs. Capitalism The conflict between dem...
- What Do You Think? A question I came across today...
- Honesty Needed on Social Security from The Denver...
- Of Lies, and Lying Liars from The Center for Econ...
- EPA Study Accused of Predetermined Finding from ...
- Mayor of New York "Not Very Republican" on Social ...
- Study: When the False Comes First, People Forget t...
- School of the Americas from The North American Co...
- For the Mightiest Nation, War is Fun from BBC N...
- Human Rights Watch Condemns Meatpacking Industry ...
- Remembering Operation Paperclip from BBC News T...
- War at Wal-Mart from Business Week The AFL-CIO is...
- For American Companies, a Gift from the Public fr...
- Halliburton's Inflated Costs Keep Generals Guessin...
-
▼
February
(21)
6 comments:
You write very well, Ryan. :)
Have you ever read anything by Thomas Jefferson on allodial property rights? That's what this makes me think of.
Cause I was reading this piece by Jefferson once and his arguement for why the colonists were being unfairly taxed by the King of England was based on this notion of allodial property and the historical precedents for decentralized ownership.
It's really good reading. If you haven't read his ideas on that, let me know and I'll look up the essay I am thinking of.
I really haven't read anything those old fogies wrote directly. Which is a shame because I would like to. My best guess is that must be rolling over in their graves...
[they]
Let me paste one paragraph from Jefferson's "A Summary View of the Rights of British America." The whole essay great, but this one paragraph focuses on the historical precedents for decentralized ownership:
"...we shall at this time also take notice of an error in the nature of our land holdings, which crept in at a very early period of our settlement. The introduction of the feudal tenures into the kingdom of England, though ancient, is well enough understood to set this matter in a proper light. In the earlier ages of the Saxon settlement feudal holdings were certainly altogether unknown; and very few, if any, had been introduced at the time of the Norman conquest. Our Saxon ancestors held their lands, as they did their personal property, in absolute dominion, disencumbered with any superior, answering nearly to the nature of those possessions which the feudalists term allodial. William, the Norman, first introduced that system generally. The lands which had belonged to those who fell in the battle of Hastings, and in the subsequent insurrections of his reign, formed a considerable proportion of the lands of the whole kingdom. These he granted out, subject to feudal duties, as did he also those of a great number of his new subjects, who, by persuasions or threats, were induced to surrender them for that purpose. But still much was left in the hands of his Saxon subjects; held of no superior, and not subject to feudal conditions. These, therefore, by express laws, enacted to render uniform the system of military defence, were made liable to the same military duties as if they had been feuds; and the Norman lawyers soon found means to saddle them also with all the other feudal burthens. But still they had not been surrendered to the king, they were not derived from his grant, and therefore they were not holden of him. A general principle, indeed, was introduced, that "all lands in England were held either mediately or immediately of the crown," but this was borrowed from those holdings, which were truly feudal, and only applied to others for the purposes of illustration. Feudal holdings were therefore but exceptions out of the Saxon laws of possession, under which all lands were held in absolute right. These, therefore, still form the basis, or ground-work, of the common law, to prevail wheresoever the exceptions have not taken place. America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him, or any of his successors. Possessions there are undoubtedly of the allodial nature. Our ancestors, however, who migrated hither, were farmers, not lawyers. The fictitious principle that all lands belong originally to the king, they were early persuaded to believe real; and accordingly took grants of their own lands from the crown. And while the crown continued to grant for small sums, and on reasonable rents; there was no inducement to arrest the error, and lay it open to public view. But his majesty has lately taken on him to advance the terms of purchase, and of holding to the double of what they were; by which means the acquisition of lands being rendered difficult, the population of our country is likely to be checked. It is time, therefore, for us to lay this matter before his majesty, and to declare that he has no right to grant lands of himself. From the nature and purpose of civil institutions, all the lands within the limits which any particular society has circumscribed around itself are assumed by that society, and subject to their allotment only. This may be done by themselves, assembled collectively, or by their legislature, to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority; and if they are alloted in neither of these ways, each individual of the society may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds vacant, and occupancy will give him title. "
I get what you're saying.
One of the problems for the general public in America is that they do not understand the difference between economic and social systems.
The average American honestly believes that Capitalism is Democracy, you recognise that nothing could be further from the truth.
In 1989 the Iron curtain fell but the bamboo curtain stands and is actually prevailing with terrorism as it's well handled tool.
I like looking up the origins of words when I am thinking about stuff like this. Apparently the word property come from the Latin proprius, which meants ones own, special, or unique. Or if you break it down, it means before prior.
I guess the theory in those days was first come, first serve. That it was a big world, so if you wanted territory, then you just had to go out into the unclaimed areas and take it. Times have changed, eh?
Now everything is just set up, so that wealth is either inherited, stolen, or traded away.
Post a Comment