Capitalism is about property.

Democracy is about people.

The two are always in conflict.

The right pushes to protect property rights, and the left is more concerned with labor and human rights.

But wait, you say, capitalism is an economic system, democracy is a political system, right?

Yeah. But any functioning society needs rules to make the economic system and the political system compatible. They have to prevent money from influencing politics, by ensuring that voters, not corporations or the wealthy always have the final say over matters that impact the public interest.

From #RATM "Wake Up"

"He turned the power to the have nots, and then came the shot..."

So what is de la Rocha talking about there? Well specifically Martin Luther King. But more generally, "power" refers to political power. "Have nots" is a description of economic disenfranchisement. The "shot" refers generically to the wealthy paying for (or otherwise encouraging through propaganda) an assassination of someone who was trying to restore economic justice--which implies political power.

This is the basic tension in our system. The US Constitution is heavily biased toward minority rule in a number of ways which I've discussed extensively. It's been used since our founding to disenfranchise the "have nots."

If you talk to any libertarian, they will tell you that unfettered democracy is unethical because it allows majorities to vote to raise taxes on the wealthy to provide public benefits, thereby violating "property rights."

But there's a problem with this formulation. And that is the idea that the wealthy are the main creators of value. This is provably, demonstrably wrong. No person, using their own labor can ever become wealthy. The only way for anyone to exceed a subsistence level is to organize the labor of others, and profit from it.

A wealthy person stranded on a deserted island will struggle to find enough food to survive.

Whereas a wealthy person in a society with a high population can afford to hire others and make a profit. This capacity is enabled by the presence of public infrastructure. Water, electricity, roads, ports. Also, prisons, schools, healthcare, scientific research. Much of this infrastructure is a public/private partnership. But still requires the government to organize and set rules that are consistent and apply to everyone.

In other words, "property" or wealth gained through use of labor and public infrastructure can't be said to belong exclusively to business owners or investors. They owe a debt to society which they pay in the form of taxes. The more wealth they amass, the larger the fraction of public infrastructure that was involved. And so the higher the fair percentage tax rate.

If the "have nots" are to have their interests protected, that means that the "haves" (the wealthy) cannot get special treatment, or succeed in cutting their taxes. This is where political democracy is vital to economic justice.

Allowing wealth to put its thumb on the scale of governance means that there will never be either democracy or economic justice. This is why there used to be much stricter rules on campaign finance, and lobbying. And there have always been rules against politicians taking bribes. But because those same politicians are often also responsible for enforcement of these rules, bribery has always been rampant.

Until recently, that's been limited to the executive and legislative branches of government because those are elected offices.

But recent scandals at the Supreme Court demonstrate that the rot has now spread to appointed offices as well. At least three of the six Republican Supreme Court justices have taken extensive bribes from wealthy patrons. And what's worse, they don't see anything wrong with it.

The Constitution has created an incredibly high bar for removing Supreme Court justices from office, a 2/3 majority in the Senate. This is just one more example of how the Constitution failed to create sufficient accountability for the wealthy and powerful.

These justices are ruling on cases that have far-reaching implications for economic justice, concerning everything from #labor rights to protection of the Earth's #climate

I can't think of anything more despicable. These are people with lifetime appointments and the ability to completely rewrite US law against the public interest and in favor of private wealth. *As if the wealthy didn't already have enough power.*

"Conflict of interest" is a pretty innocuous sounding phrase. It doesn't convey the absolute horror of putting the wealthy in complete control of society. The proper word is feudalism. But even that sounds kind of quaint. What did feudal lords do? They held people in #serfdom Which is a synonym for #slavery.

When the Supreme Court constantly rules against the public interest, against labor, against human rights, and against the environment, it's not an exaggeration to say that bribery of public officials leads directly to a form of slavery.

We're watching it happen in real time.

#democracy #capitalism #feudalism #scotus #clarencethomas #JohnRoberts #brettkavanaugh #martinlutherking