Capitalism threatens democracy; or, why inequality is a problem

[Chippy]

For the individual that consistantly fails to grasp when there is nothing further to be said and a debate can no longer continue:

 

>Insert politically neutral, snarky, yet morally superior comment here<

 

Edit: And please take my permission to fully belive you have won any and all further debates with me.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Chippy

[213374U]

I can't sit through an hours worth of debate

 

 

which is why I didn't respond to you then, and can't really be bothered to continue much now

 

 

For the individual that consistantly fails to grasp when there is nothing further to be said and a debate can no longer continue:

I'm sorry, who died and made you a moderator? The debate can and will continue, with or without you, until the thread is locked. But I'm starting to get a good idea on where you stand regarding free speech, so if nothing else, at least I got that out of this pointless exchange.

 

Heh. For someone who absolutely can't waste any of his valuable time talking to us militant SJWs, you sure seem to be a fixture in certain topics. Does this self-important routine of yours work anywhere else?

[Chippy]

Ah, so your either trying to get a rise out of me or are as literal and binary as your username in interpretation.  I've said I don't want to engage you in debate, thats why I ignored you in the other thread, that's why I'll ignore you from now on, and it's generally the best way to deal with people who express themselves the way you do.

[Elerond]

Finlands inheritance tax is quite more severe. There's even the possibility, in some rare cases, that you have to pay the tax before you get the actual inheritance, which can really **** you over.

 

That is not really true, but in cases where there are multiple people inheriting they have dispute who gets what, it is possible that you need to pay inheritance taxes before said dispute is over and you can get access to what you have inherited. I have suffered through one such case.

 

But 30% tax for 100k euros house is exaggerating things. As it is tiered tax where you have base tax 3500€  for 60k-200k + 13% for everything that is over 60k so  in case of 100k 3500€ + 5200€ (13% of 40k€), which means that effective tax is 8.7% of said house's value.

[213374U]

Ah, so your either trying to get a rise out of me or are as literal and binary as your username in interpretation.  I've said I don't want to engage you in debate, thats why I ignored you in the other thread, that's why I'll ignore you from now on, and it's generally the best way to deal with people who express themselves the way you do.

 

 

I thought you were done? Poor impulse control much?

 

Anyway, pretty funny to see you falling back to the old "I refuse to engage with someone conducting themselves in such a manner", after showing that it's you who apparently has no compunctions casually disparaging people who don't share your persecution complex with "the left" and Islam:

 

 

So essentially I think that if you don't see a problem here, and are not prepared to query the source of the problem - then you're just laying down, grinning and bearing it.

you strike me as the militant SJW type

Yup. Much as I hate repeating myself: get off your high horse already.

Edited January 22, 2017 by 213374U

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Ah, so your either trying to get a rise out of me or are as literal and binary as your username in interpretation. 

 

I'm pretty sure that's not how a binary number looks like.

[majestic]

 

Ah, so your either trying to get a rise out of me or are as literal and binary as your username in interpretation. 

 

I'm pretty sure that's not how a binary number looks like.

 

 

He's just too elite for him.

[Malcador]

 

Ah, so your either trying to get a rise out of me or are as literal and binary as your username in interpretation.

I'm pretty sure that's not how a binary number looks like.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world....

[Chippy]

 

Ah, so your either trying to get a rise out of me or are as literal and binary as your username in interpretation. 

 

I'm pretty sure that's not how a binary number looks like.

 

 

Social > (modifier/thinking) > "Justice" > result.

Literal > (modifier/thinking)  > "Binary number" > result.

 

*Gets off high horse*

[Ben No.3]

Firstly, we should establish two things: inequality leads to a power centralisation in society, and capitalism and democracy aren't inherently connected. We should also establish what the middle class is.

 

Anyone who earns in a 25% (so anything from -25% to +25%) of the average income is considered middle class.

 

The first part should be very obvious to anyone that looks at history: the Roman Empire was supposedly ruled by the senate, while the power actually lied with the autocratic regime. Eastern Europe was ruled by bureaucrats and claimed that the political and economic power lied with the people. Any modern dictatorship claims to represent the will ignore the people, thus claiming to be democratic.

 

The second also be obvious if you look at history: Spain under Franco, Chile under Pinochet, Kongo under Mobutu, Germany, France and Japan before democracy was introduced, the US during the time of the slave trade, the UK when only few had the right to vote.

 

 

So democracy and capitalism aren't inherently connected, it rather is a connection that needs to be created and preserved. If you think about it, at first they don't seem to go well with one another. Marx excellently pointed out why: All power lies with the Bourgeoisie, until the Proletariat has enough and the revolution occurs. The revolution did indeed occur, but it occurred in mostly agricultural countries and they erected regimes Marx never would have supported. So why did democracy and capitalism go so well with each other, what stopped the Marxian apocalypse?

 

The answer lies in the middle class. The middle class is the engine of capitalistic democracy, because it is interested in preserving that exact democracy: the middle class doesn't want to be oppressed by the rich, and it doesn't want to be expropriated by the poor. In a capitalist society, it is the only class that is inherently interested in avoiding both a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and of the proletariat, to use Marx' language, not because of idealism but because of self preservation.

 

Now, for the past few decades, this was the case. Inequality was very low, and the 20th Century is the only time to date where we see this. The mechanism that cept the inequality low were high taxation, Hyperinflation, expropriation of the means of production by the government, and, of course, large scale wars. The relatively balanced society this created meant a turn in the intellectual world, away form Marx-style apocalypses towards Kuznets-style fairy tales.

 

Now, however, inequality is back, strong as ever. For those particularly interested in this process, I recommend picking up "Capital in the 21st century" by Thomas Piketty (important factor is that whenever the rate of return on capital exceeds economic growth (r>g), inequality is rising). Once again, capital is getting centralised in very few hands. This threatens the very existence of a middle class.

 

If the middle class looses its political impact to the upper class, this threatens democracy itself. We already see this in the US: only those with wealthy backers have a real chance in political campaigning. This creates a plutocracy, even though officially still a democracy, since the richest can heavily influence who will rise to political power. The people now merely have the choice of deciding the nuances of the agenda of the upper class. To quote from the manifesto (and sorry for the poor translation): "the modern government is merely a committee, that handles the common interest of the bourgeois class." This is not to say that we are any close to a Marxian apocalypse or that said scenario is even realistic, but it is to show that Marx' observations start to become more relevant again.

 

Inequality matters! It affects all of us, our freedom and our rights. To combat inequality is to preserve democracy. We might disagree on how this should be done, but it is absolutely necessary for us all to realise the problems that come with an capitalist economy that was let loose.

[Gfted1]

Is this topic the same as this topic?

[Ben No.3]

Is this topic the same as this topic?

It's related. But rather than stating the fact of the existence of inequality, i tried to shows its effects, for us. So it's different.

 

Your link is the cause. This topic is the effect

Edited January 26, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

As always

 

I take it you disagree with me. So please do elaborate. Where am I wrong?

[Amentep]

I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but...

 

Firstly, we should establish two things: inequality leads to a power centralization in society

The first part should be very obvious to anyone that looks at history: the Roman Empire was supposedly ruled by the senate, while the power actually lied with the autocratic regime. Eastern Europe was ruled by bureaucrats and claimed that the political and economic power lied with the people. Any modern dictatorship claims to represent the will ignore the people, thus claiming to be democratic.

 

I don't think you're doing this right.

[Blarghagh]

Is this topic the same as this topic?

I concurred, hence the merger.