Originally posted by Wajoma
Given that people are free to form democratic co-operatives now but rarely do says something about your misguided policies. But hey, long as people are free to live by capitalism or sign under a co-operative no worries here, in a free society the proof will still reveal itself.

If there were to be an equal competition between a capitalist system and a system of economic democracy, it is my contention that economic democracy would win. Unfortunately, we do not have anything closely approximating an equal competition between the two. As currently situated, the cards are heavily stacked in favor of the maintenance of the current capitalist system. With time, however, this will change. With the specter of Marx having largely been done away with, the march toward economic democracy can continue.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Assuming that such evolution ever takes place. I agree it is desirable for those of us not benefiting from the current system, but that does not mean it will happen. Despite much 'evolution' in the past, dictatorships are still common place in the world today, and dictatorships could be said to be almost a step behind a monarchy.

I believe that political and economic systems are continually evolving in the direction of greater and greater democratic involvement. We have freed ourselves from political autocracy, but have so far failed to free ourselves from economic autocracy. As a result, our capitalist system is only half democratic. It is an easy task for dictators to manipulate political systems to their advantage and operate under a shallow veneer of electoral politics. A fully democratic system, both politically and economically, would much harder for prospective dictators to pervert to their advantage.

Originally posted by rwingett
I believe that political and economic systems are continually evolving in the direction of greater and greater democratic involvement. We have freed ourselves from political autocracy, but have so far failed to free ourselves from economic autocracy. As a result, our capitalist system is only half democratic. It is an easy task for dictators to manipulate p ...[text shortened]... lly and economically, would much harder for prospective dictators to pervert to their advantage.

Corporations in the US once had a majority of one-shareholder-one-vote systems. Now they are almost entirely either autocratic or plutocratic worldwide.

Originally posted by rwingett
I believe that political and economic systems are continually evolving in the direction of greater and greater democratic involvement.

Based on evidence? Or are you just hopeful? Or do you think there is reason to believe such a progression is inevitable?
Why did 'fully evolved' systems not arise with the rise of civilizations?

Isn't it possible if not probable, that there will always be some people with an upper hand who will take advantage of the rest?

It is also likely that a transformation to the system you propose would have to be sudden and dramatic similar to many of the revolutions of the past (such as communist takeovers).

A company that is economically democratic may find it hard to compete with companies that are not, just as slavery has a competitive advantage over non-slavery.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Based on evidence? Or are you just hopeful? Or do you think there is reason to believe such a progression is inevitable?
Why did 'fully evolved' systems not arise with the rise of civilizations?

Isn't it possible if not probable, that there will always be some people with an upper hand who will take advantage of the rest?

It is also likely that a t ...[text shortened]... te with companies that are not, just as slavery has a competitive advantage over non-slavery.

All political and economic systems hitherto have been based upon economic scarcity. Societies were unable to adequately feed their whole population, or produce enough goods to satisfy demand. Autocracies developed to decide who got what. Greater economic abundance and security has generally been accompanied by greater political liberalization. Today we live in a post-scarcity society. We could theoretically feed every man, woman and child on this planet. We could theoretically produce a superabundance of goods. But even though we have the greatest degree of political democracy in human history, we do not do so. Why? Because we have virtually no economic democracy. Whether it is based on evidence or is mere hope on my part (I care not which), I am confident that we will evolve toward greater economic democracy in the coming years.

Originally posted by rwingett
Wealth is trickling up now. Or I should say that it is flooding upward in a mighty torrent. Around the world the rich get richer and the poor get poorer as wealth is inexorably accumulated at the top.

I know that's not what you mean, but it is the inevitable outcome of your misguided policies.

Interesting.

Wajoma sees wealth coming up from the poor and assumes that this means that the poor are producing wealth under the wise guidance of the rich.

Wings sees wealth coming up from the poor and assumes that this means the poor are being wringed of every last dime by greedy hands from above.

Both base their models of the economy on the fact that money flows upwards and come to such radically different conclusions. What sort of facts will let us determine which model is correct?

I suspect we need to ask the poor if they are producing wealth efficiently through their labors and whether their cut is reasonable. The view from above is the same in either case.

Originally posted by rwingett
I am confident that we will evolve toward greater economic democracy in the coming years.

What can we do to speed it up. I am all in favor of economic democracy (being on the loosing end of the current system.)