Capitalism Is Incompatible With Democracy

Capitalism & Democracy Capitalism Is Incompatible With Democracy Capitalism Unjust and Unsustainable Capitalist Rule Companion, 'Democracy', Is A Lie Noam Chomsky RECD =  Really Existing Capitalist Democracy (Noam Chomsky phrase) https://chomsky.info/20130305/ Can Civilization Survive Capitalism? Noam Chomsky Alternet, March 5, 2013 The term “capitalism” is commonly used to refer to the U.S. economic system, with substantial state intervention ranging from subsidies for creative innovation to the “too-big-to-fail” government insurance policy for banks. The system is highly monopolized, further limiting reliance on the market, and increasingly so: In the past 20 years the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, reports scholar Robert W. McChesney in his new book “Digital Disconnect.” “Capitalism” is a term now commonly used to describe systems in which there are no capitalists: for example, the worker-owned Mondragon conglomerate in the Basque region of Spain, or the worker-owned enterprises expanding in northern Ohio, often with conservative support — both are discussed in important work by the scholar Gar Alperovitz. Some might even use the term “capitalism” to refer to the industrial democracy advocated by John Dewey, America’s leading social philosopher, in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Dewey called for workers to be “masters of their own industrial fate” and for all institutions to be brought under public control, including the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Short of this, Dewey argued, politics will remain “the shadow cast on society by big business.” The truncated democracy that Dewey condemned has been left in tatters in recent years. Now control of government is narrowly concentrated at the peak of the income scale, while the large majority “down below” has been virtually disenfranchised. The current political-economic system is a form of plutocracy, diverging sharply from democracy, if by that concept we mean political arrangements in which policy is significantly influenced by the public will. There have been serious debates over the years about whether capitalism is compatible with democracy. If we keep to really existing capitalist democracy — RECD for short — the question is effectively answered: They are radically incompatible. It seems to me unlikely that civilization can survive RECD and the sharply attenuated [reduced] democracy that goes along with it. But could functioning democracy make a difference? Let’s keep to the most critical immediate problem that civilization faces: environmental catastrophe. Policies and public attitudes diverge sharply, as is often the case under RECD. The nature of the gap is examined in several articles in the current issue of Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Researcher Kelly Sims Gallagher finds that “One hundred and nine countries have enacted some form of policy regarding renewable power, and 118 countries have set targets for renewable energy. In contrast, the United States has not adopted any consistent and stable set of policies at the national level to foster the use of renewable energy.” It is not public opinion that drives American policy off the international spectrum. Quite the opposite. Opinion is much closer to the global norm than the U.S. government’s policies reflect, and much more supportive of actions needed to confront the likely environmental disaster predicted by an overwhelming scientific consensus — and one that’s not too far off; affecting the lives of our grandchildren, very likely. As Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis report in Daedalus: “Huge majorities have favored steps by the federal government to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated when utilities produce electricity. In 2006, 86 percent of respondents favored requiring utilities, or encouraging them with tax breaks, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit. Also in that year, 87 percent favored tax breaks for utilities that produce more electricity from water, wind or sunlight [ These majorities were maintained between 2006 and 2010 and shrank somewhat after that. The fact that the public is influenced by science is deeply troubling to those who dominate the economy and state policy.  [comment:  how do we know public is influenced by science and not by lobbying NGOs funded by capitalist interest, as is usually the case, and how do we know that the science that the public purportedly relies on is correct? ] One current illustration of their concern is the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” proposed to state legislatures by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded lobby that designs legislation to serve the needs of the corporate sector and extreme wealth. The ALEC Act mandates “balanced teaching” of climate science in K-12 classrooms. “Balanced teaching” is a code phrase that refers to teaching climate-change denial, to “balance” mainstream climate science. It is analogous to the “balanced teaching” advocated by creationists to enable the teaching of “creation science” in public schools. Legislation based on ALEC models has already been introduced in several states. [comment:   K-12 refers to kindergarten to year 12 of capitalist-controlled government indoctrination of children in capitalist serving education system- here  ] Of course, all of this is dressed up in rhetoric about teaching critical thinking — a fine idea, no doubt, but it’s easy to think up far better examples than an issue that threatens our survival and has been selected because of its importance in terms of corporate profits. Media reports commonly present a controversy between two sides on climate change. One side consists of the overwhelming majority of scientists, the world’s major national academies of science, the professional science journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  [comment:  but they are sponsored by capitalists, so how can we trust them? ] They agree that global warming is taking place, that there is a substantial human component, that the situation is serious and perhaps dire, and that very soon, maybe within decades, the world might reach a tipping point where the process will escalate sharply and will be irreversible, with severe social and economic effects. It is rare to find such consensus on complex scientific issues. The other side consists of skeptics, including a few respected scientists who caution that much is unknown — which means that things might not be as bad as thought, or they might be worse. Omitted from the contrived debate is a much larger group of skeptics: highly regarded climate scientists who see the IPCC’s regular reports as much too conservative. And these scientists have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately. The propaganda campaign has apparently had some effect on U.S. public opinion, which is more skeptical than the global norm. But the effect is not significant enough to satisfy the masters. That is presumably why sectors of the corporate world are launching their attack on the educational system, in an effort to counter the public’s dangerous tendency to pay attention to the conclusions of scientific research.  [comment:  Wonder if the propaganda dissemination is at all associated with Tavistock Institute disciple organisations? ] At the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting a few weeks ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned the leadership that “We must stop being the stupid party … We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters.” Within the RECD system it is of extreme importance that we become the stupid nation, not misled by science and rationality, in the interests of the short-term gains of the masters of the economy and political system, and damn the consequences. These commitments are deeply rooted in the fundamentalist market doctrines that are preached within RECD, though observed in a highly selective manner, so as to sustain a powerful state that serves wealth and power. The official doctrines suffer from a number of familiar “market inefficiencies,” among them the failure to take into account the effects on others in market transactions. The consequences of these “externalities” can be substantial. The current financial crisis is an illustration. It is partly traceable to the major banks and investment firms’ ignoring “systemic risk” — the possibility that the whole system would collapse — when they undertook risky transactions. Environmental catastrophe is far more serious: The externality that is being ignored is the fate of the species. And there is nowhere to run, cap in hand, for a bailout. CONTINUED https://chomsky.info/20130305/ COMMENT Influence of policy by 'public will' sounds good on the surface, but it's not good at all.  The public really *is* stupid.  However, rule by capitalist elites is just as stupid, because they go against the interests of what are supposed to be their own people.  I say 'supposed' to be.  It's hard to say what a capitalist economy site with mixed disparate populations actually might be.  It is difficult for me to view such places as 'nations'; to me, these places are stations (like cattle ranches).  So, it is rule by oligarchy in disparate capitalist controlled cattle stations that the West has and that Western Europe is turning itself into. We have seen the public march demanding what will damage what is left of the public's nation, because the public is denied informed consent and the public is easily indoctrinated and manipulated. 'Democracy' as a system cannot work in any form. I would prefer a dictatorship that is based on enshrined values and aims of a related European people that are a people, and a socialist or communist economy. Chomsky refers to public opinion versus government policy in the US regarding environmental issues.  But public opinion doesn't impress me at all, especially when you consider the amount of money that is poured into shaping public opinion.  Scientists are also capitalist-owned, and there is dissenting scientists with opposing views.  So who is right? That the capitalist take that step further to project their influence on the already indoctrinated children in the American education system (via passage of the ALEC Act) is an interesting extension of the already enormous influence and indoctrination, in service of the capitalist rule by oligarchy fake American 'democracy'. Found myself thinking, if man ceased to exist on the planet, would it be such a bad thing?  While there are special men, man is not that special.  And everything has to cease to exist at some point.  The end is inevitable.