Capitalism is inherently undemocratic

[Ardent15]

A system which inevitably results in the mass concentration of wealth at the top is a system where the majority don't have a voice.

[anonymous171]

1. Correct. Now that we have established that fact, let's think of a better system

[kentuck]

2. An economic democracy?

Hasn't that idea been around for quite some time?

[anonymous171]

3. Would that be Socialism?

If so, what kind of Socialism? Statist or anarchist?

[kentuck]

4. Somewhere between capitalism and socialism...

Probably closer to socialism and compassion for our fellow man than to the capitalist side?

Here is a link that might help with the definition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

[MajorChode]

11. Hmmm, a 3rd way

Wasn't that was fascism was supposed to be?

[Selatius]

14. Most countries in the industrialized world are somewhere between capitalism and socialism now.

Fascism, at least the popular conception of it in the minds of average voters, is a mute point.

[cali]

17. moot point. not mute point.

sorry, that one bugs me.

[Oregone]

7. How about...

Making it illegal for anyone to have private ownership in a company after 20 years, without being an employee of the company (there is a constant degradation in personal shares over an allotted time). Profits must only go to buying back old shares, or for dividends to current shareholders/employees. All employees are therefore issued bought back shares that correlate to some percentage of their pay.

Hence, after 20 years, all businesses will be entirely employee owned, more or less. When an employee retires, part of their pension consists of the company buying their built up ownership back to redistribute to current workers. No longer can a private person inherit the right to grossly profit off of other's labor. All employees with active shares will instead profit off their own labor (major incentive) in the form of dividends. The employees therefore control the board of directors, and business decisions will be focused on growing the company in the interest of the workers (short term and long, for when they retire).

--------

Example: Some investor Jake decides to create a gas station. You are the manager, and Ed is the assistant.

You get paid $20 dollars and hour, and Ed gets $5 an hour. The gas station makes about $100 K a year in profit (static)

After year one, Jake takes home $95K in profit (for being born rich!), the other $5K buys 1/20th of his stock from Jake (he gets $100K in all). You get 80% of that stock and Ed gets 20% of it. Your labor helped Jake's initial capital return a profit, so that is your payment.

The next year, Jake takes home $90K in profit, $5K buys 1/20th of his stock ($95K in all), $5K gets distributed to you and Ed (80/20), and you recieve another 5% of the stock (in 80/20 shares).

....

After 20 years of grueling labor, Jake gets $0K in profits (but about $1 million in overall profit over 20 years), $5K buys the remaining stock (maybe more if stock went up!), and you now have 80% share of the company and Ed has 20% share (dividends of 95K divided equally). Hence, the next year, you take home $80K in profits, along with your pay. This happens until you retire.

But the moment you retire, you hit a sell back schedule. You may sell early at penalty. As long as the company exists, you get your extra money for 20 years. IF the company lacks the profits to buy back you stock, it would suggest and unprofitable company with a low stock value. The value of the stock can change, which provides a major incentive for workers to contribute.

I call it "Crapatalism". Although its crappy investors make a fortune by doing nothing but being born rich, dedicated employees eventually become the ultimate owners of companies and profit from their labor (as well as retire comfortably). Once a company is in the hands of the workers, by majority after 10 years, it will definitely operate in their bests interests. It leaves incentives for the investor class (although limited), but provides a massive incentive for workers, as well as an ethical incentive for businesses

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Name a currently operating political system that doesn't do this. n/t

[Rex]

6. So. No one said we were a democracy.

Besides, wealthy people the world over always find new ways to steal from the poor. It is in their DNA.

[Luminous Animal]

8. On the flip side. It is in our DNA to fight the thieves.

[Rex]

10. Yes, you push poor people around too much and they

get pissed off. Not like the phony 'angry town hall' actors people see on TV, really pissed about having no money to buy groceries. A hungry stomach is an angry stomach.

[Oregone]

12. Or be the thieves

Sometimes whatever role you play comes down to whatever side of the track your ass hits on the way outta the womb

[Luminous Animal]

13. Given that the theives represent a mere 10% of the population...

and the thieve enablers about another 10-15%, there are a lot more of us than them.

[obamahasmyheart]

9. I know, right?

What really makes me angry is when conservatives say we shouldn't force charity on people, but they have no concern whatsoever for the greater good. The only time we shouldn't force our beliefs on other people is regarding civil liberties. When it comes to the economy, the greater good is at stake, and we should stop at nothing to advance it, even if it means taking money from those who are well-off and giving it to those who aren't. In this society, it has become all about me, me, me! Those idiots who say self-interest is virtuous are spewing forth paradoxes. All these loons who worship Ron Paul and Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand drive me crazy. Capitalism is evil. It's time to start fresh, and care about others. If people won't start doing that, we should force them to do so - plain and simple.

[Electric Monk]

15. What are you smoking, and did you bring enough to share?

(based on viewing all 4 of your posts so far)

[DailyGrind51]

16. Or, to quote Upton Sinclair,

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

"Fascism is capitalism plus murder."

Upton Sinclair

[moondust]

18. Outlaw inheritance?

Perhaps if everybody had to start out and remain on a level playing field there would be a more equitable and democratic distribution of wealth across the population and less incentive to amass obscene wealth since it cannot be passed on to family and friends. That would seem to produce a true meritocracy with a higher level of competence in everything at every level since it must all be earned: position, status, wealth, etc. Imagine George Bush's place in such a system.

The Bolsheviks did seize the wealth of the Russian aristrocracy (which I think capitalists everywhere were deathly afraid of as long as communism survived), but I don't know how they handled inheritance after the revolution.

:shrug: