• Kleysley@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    1 year ago

    Persons with larger amounts of money having an influence on the government seems more like a problem with democracy rather than an issue with capitalism.

    If we had, in theory, a direct democracy (aka we vote for every decision) then a (regulated) capitalist market seems good to me...

    • bagend
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • Kleysley@discuss.tchncs.de
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, but disproportionate wealth can always be used to influence populations, in any system. Is the solition really to eliminate disproportional wealth completely?

    • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would rather have a government that actually did what people wanted, and having a subset of the population in control over capital that dictates other citizens lives is antithetical to collective democratic decision-making. Bourgeois democracy is only a democracy for people with money.

    • snake_cased@lemmy.ml
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is very easy to steer a population regarding decisions that are way over their head and might even be contrary to their naive interests (ie. collect a tax on concrete to subsidize CO2 neutral building). Direct democracy is every fascist's dream.