• Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Its not a given that money will supersede democratic institutions. If the population can’t protect their institutions then the democracy has failed. Its a failure of civics more than a success of money.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      It is, in my meaning, a given over time. What you are talking about is the democratic institutions defending themselves from capitalism by reigning it in.

      Meaning, capitalism unfettered supersedes democracy. Over time.

      Failure to address that problem is not a failure of democratic institutions as matter of moral failure, just that yes, if we allow capitalism to run unimpeded it will always lead to fascism. Democracy can but try to save itself but while it is contingent on a moral and equitable basis of government, capitalism is just a cancer that promotes private power over collective, by the nature of its beast. And it is very alluring because not only does it reward you with riches and comforts, it also suggests a moral incentive, in which if you are successful within the system you are judged as a moral person as well.

      That’s gamified immorality.

      • Fizz@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Saying “capitalism unfettered supersedes democracy” is completely meaningless. Anything unfettered supersedes democracy if democratic institutions do nothing. An unfettered military leads to a military dictatorship, unfettered religion leads to a theocracy, and an unfettered state bureaucracy leads to authoritarianism. The entire point of a constitutional democracy is that no power is left unfettered.

        In reality, almost no capitalist country on earth allows capital to run completely unchecked.