In the concluding remarks of his lecture "Capitalism and Democracy" (1991), Gabriel Almond, one of the most prominent political scientists of the 20th century, stated "that democracy and capitalism are both positively and negatively related, that they both support and subvert each other." Almond reached this conclusion after examining the relationship between capitalism and democracy and the arguments of political theorists as they pertain to the different logically possible relationship between the two, namely: Capitalism Supports Democracy; Capitalism Subverts Democracy; Democracy Subverts Capitalism; Democracy Supports Capitalism.
The point of view of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, specifically as it relates to capitalism and democracy, has been a subject of much discussion and speculation. In particular, the critics have portrayed this movement as antithetical to capitalism and thus consider the movement and its supporters "radicals" who pose a threat to the American way of running the economy and doing business. This understanding has been further reinforced by some of the slogans and placards calling for "abolishing capitalism" at various Occupy locations.
Contrary to the above mentioned understanding, the results of our 453 interviews at seven Occupy locations indicate that OWS movement demands are not mutually incompatible with capitalism. Moreover, for the most part, the OWS movement is neither calling for abolishing capitalism, nor is it demanding a massive overhaul of capitalism as an economic system -- less than 5% of all the respondents we interviewed in the seven Occupy locations made any reference to ending, abolishing or getting rid of capitalism. Instead, the key demands we kept hearing in this regard are: elimination of corporate personhood; the need for campaign finance reform and getting money out of politics.
OWS protestors' demands suggest that this movement is not averse to capitalism per se, but to a very specific relationship between capitalism and democracy in which the former subverts and undermines the latter. In his book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) Joseph Schumpeter adroitly summed up this relationship as follows:
"There are some deviations from the principle of democracy which link up with the presence of organized capitalist interests...[T]he statement is true both from the standpoint of the classical and from the standpoint of our own theory of democracy.
From the first standpoint, the result reads that the means at the disposal of private interests are often used in order to thwart the will of the people. From the second standpoint, the result reads that those private means are often used in order to interfere with the working of the mechanism of competitive leadership."
Interestingly, the above demands of the OWS movement can actually be met without harming or undermining the key tenets of capitalism as an economic system. Curbing capitalism's ability to subvert democracy does not require regulating how the capitalist market forces operate in the economic realm, rather it requires regulation of capitalist market forces' attempts to operate in and impact the political realm. What is more, these demands may be achieved through an agenda of reform implemented through legislation rather than a revolution or a massive overhaul of our political economy. However, for this to occur, political leaders need to realize that many of the key demands of the OWS movement are not radical and do not pose any threat to American values and way of life and should therefore be seriously considered and accommodated. Lastly, for their part the OWS protestors too need to appreciate that reform implemented through legislation alone may not accomplish all of their key objectives, but that it may help them achieve some of them.
Occupy Wall Street - Public Opinion Project (OWS-POP) is an independent initiative dedicated to generating and publicly sharing data on the Occupy Wall Street protests and protesters. To date we have conducted 453 interviews at seven Occupy locations:
220 interviews at Occupy New York in Zuccotti Park (October 15-16, 22-23 and November 5)
95 interviews at Occupy Boston in Dewey Square (October 23)
38 interviews at Occupy Washington D.C. in McPherson Square (October 30)
32 interviews Occupy Providence, Rhode Island (November 13)
11 interviews at Occupy Oakland (November 10).
37 interviews at Occupy San Francisco (November 11-13).
20 interviews at Occupy Portland (November 12)
For Questions or Comments, please email: ows.pop@gmail.com
For Results: OWS-POP website: https://sites.google.com/site/owspublicopinionproject/home
Glen Pearson: The 99% Are the Truly Rich
Jeremy John: The Occupation of the Lord's Prayer
it will be taken out of politics, in proportion.
Until then, rent seeking thieves will continue to invest in politicians who are willing to put a government gun to tax payers' heads to extort the payoff money.
For example, our public employee unions invest countless millions in electing power hungry Social Democrats, like Obama, who pay off their corrupt quid pro quo obligation by supporting grossly outsized benefits at tax payer expense.
To defend against his armed robbery, individuals and businesses must defend themselves against the ravenous rent seeking thievery that defines our current social democratic state.
Like it or not, until money is taken out of government, it will NOT be taken out of politics and no legislation can force the issue.
Corporate personhood meanwhile is not really personhood. A corporation cannot vote, run for office, marry, adopt, move freely from state to state, or refuse to self-incriminate. Its rights to speech are severely curtailed by regulation that would be intolerable to any individual. Nor is corporate personhood going anywhere. We sue and tax corporations as individuals. We speak of organizations like the ACLU in anthopomorphic terms: the organization "says" things and "argues" for defendants. And we fully acknowledge that people can exercise their constitutional rights collectively -- the OWS for example. What about a corporation, alone, dictates that they should be treated any differently in that respect?
The " free labor market" now includes near slave labor to exploit.. ,, A labor market open to slave labor reduces buying power,,in the initial capital rush to the labor bottom,,The corps do great ,,their margins increase,,consumers temporarily benefit as the corps pass on SOME of the labor savings to them,The consumer uses money from their savings and equity(earned when wages were higher) to consume,, But,,,,, as we see now,,wages stagnate ,,fall ,,crash,,till there is very little that consumers can buy as they lose their wealth,,we are in the early phases of this cycle,,Oh ,,I forgot one thing ,,,those at the top do great,,then they use their $$ to buy govt.. and further fuel the cycle,, This construct is the creation of the 1%
I grew up realizing that if I did the "right" thing, I would be rewarded...either by money or a great experience.
Capitalism now has become warped...and it is certainly not about doing the right thing. It is about greed and risk. And that risk is being picked up by the American People...not those actually engaging in risky capitalism.
Banker supporting OWS and ethical capitalism.
"Journalist Chris Hayes reported on a leaked memo that revealed lobbyists vying for an $850,000 contract to smear Occupy. Message coordination of this kind is impossible without a full-court press at the top"
"The violent police assaults across the US are no coincidence. Occupy has touched the third rail of our political class's venality"
"possible federal involvement with law enforcement practices that appeared to target journalists. The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."
entire piece @
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?CMP=twt_gu
My final point is that we really don't have a free market capitalistic nation. We have created a system that privatizes the gains and socializes the losses, as we have seen since the economic collapse and the handouts given by the Federal Reserve. It is an illusion that we have a free market today. Any credit out there is being barely lent out even though much of the financial sector's profits have been made as a result of the taxpayer's "generosity".
1. Get the money out of politics (blunt the effects of the Citizens United decision).
2. Reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation (restore Glass-Steagall).
3. Close loopholes that allow members of Congress to vote on legislation affecting corporations in which they are investors.
- TK
"The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.
No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?CMP=twt_gu
OWS!
A new U.S,Constitutional Amendment.
-TK
1) 60% support Obamacare's government direction of health insurance.
2) 70% oppose offshore drilling.
3) 73% oppose US companies operating overseas (although they strangely support free trade, which suggests that they are clueless on the subject).
4) 59% would have government discriminate against non-union businesses.
This is not love for free markets, it is some variation of statism.
Yes, many OWS folks oppose more oil drilling. The 21st century will be ultimately fueled by clean energy. That is the correct diplomatic, political, economic trajectory. The energy industry are government subsidized. Hardly free market. The concerns of OWS are environmental, ethical, and esthetic issues. Energy has too much influence on congress. These lands belong to the people of the US. They have every right to restrict their exploitation by industries with too much influence upon legislation.
Not sure what you mean about discrimination against non-union businesses. It is not something I hear OWS saying. But, yes, they are generally pro union. Unions are not inherently non-free market. Labor costs are a commodity. Management hates unions because they have to pay more for labor. It is called negotiation. What is non free market about that? Management has to negotiate land acquisition, building and development costs, costs of management, and advertising.
OWS probably opposes outsourcing. But so does America. "Made in the USA" is not just an OWS sentiment. Everybody hates their inquires directed to India where no one there has the authority to resolve a conflict.