I will declare my interests upfront in this musing – I have never liked the system(s) loosely referred to as capitalism.  I find the very concept of private ownership of anything to be an anathema to an equal society; I consider a fair society as the pinnacle of human ambition and I equate a fair society with an equal one.  That being said, I do not wish to make a moral argument here, merely a logical one…  that it is a logical certainty that in fact capitalism and democracy are incompatible with each other – completely, utterly, irrefutably incompatible, the two simply cannot co-exist and remain entire.

There are various definitions of capitalism – all of which include the basic tenet that the means of production are owned by private individuals; it is also either stated or implied that these means of production are run for a profit.  (Profit being defined as the amount someone is paid for something over and above what it costs to make or procure.)  A capitalist system therefore, by definition condones the receipt of monies equal to something more than the value of the good or service that is being exchanged.  The arguments ensue when one attempts to define the use of the word value – as either the importance that can be attached to something, or how much money it is worth: cue the debate about subjectivity vs objectivity.  My interpretation is that value should be intrinsic and therefore objective – and therefore cannot include any amount of money above that which was incurred in its procurement.

In either case, any system which advocates or tolerates the exchange of goods or services for a worth over and above that which it cost to procure, is a system which supports unequal trade.  Unequal trade by its very definition results in an unequal distribution of wealth, and in a society where things can be purchased with money, then an unequal distribution of wealth results in an unequal distribution of opportunity across society: opportunity to travel, to be educated, or to experience things in general.  The need to use money as an exchange for the items needed for daily life also results in a financial pressure on all members of a capitalist society – pressure which can be more or less felt depending upon the wealth of the person in question.  Through this combination of opportunity and pressure, all capitalist societies are intrinsically unequal.

Democracy, like capitalism can have many forms – ranging from direct democracy to representative democracy; and although the functioning of the systems may differ, they all encompass the concept of universal franchise: that all members of the democracy (be it an organisation or a country) are entitled to a vote.  Despite the name ‘universal’ there are multiple concepts behind ‘franchise’ or ‘suffrage’, however one commonly-used interpretation of this follows the concept of ‘one person, one vote‘ – the idea that all citizens are possessed equally of a single vote.  This would entail therefore that all members of a democracy have an equal vote.

In order to have an equal vote, not only should the vote of each citizen carry equal weight, but each citizen must also have an equal opportunity of registering their vote: having an equal right to vote is not sufficient in itself to satisfy the criteria for having an equal vote.  The votes of two people may indeed carry the same weight at the ballot box, however in a situation where one person can exercise that vote and the other cannot (through involuntary pressures), then the votes are not in fact equal since the freedom to cast the vote is not equal: the price of exercising the right to vote paid by one person is higher than that paid by another.  It is in this way that capitalism prevents equal votes and therefore democracy from existing: via the two principal pressures of the opportunity to vote, and the opportunity to inform oneself about the issues on which the vote is being taken.  Whilst a wealthy person may have the opportunity to find the time to vote, as well as to take an interest in the issues of the moment – those members of the democracy more subject to financial pressures may not have a similar opportunity.

Although longer voting hours, more voting locations and even the free and fair circulation of information materials and education may aid in reducing the pressures on individuals – the simple fact that life can only be conducted through the exchange of money, means that those who have less money will suffer a greater amount of pressure when considering how to spend their time.  Therefore by definition, an unequal distribution of wealth results in an unequal distribution of opportunity and therefore precludes any semblance of equal voting power.

An unequal system therefore cannot aspire to the implementation of an equal system of government – and hence by definition capitalism and democracy are incompatible.

This inherent (and systemic) inequality of the capitalist system cannot be avoided unfortunately.  Sadly however, it can then be further exploited by those with wealth should they choose so to do… Direct financial pressure can be brought to bear either by giving away money or by withholding it: reducing salaries can keep people in poverty and/ or ill health, something which is likely to radically reduce a person’s opportunities for learning about or maintaining an awareness of the issues of the day.  This combined with using money to influence the media communications results in an opportunity for the wealthy to try to manipulate the less well-off.

Like I said at the start – this is not a moral argument, I am not judging either capitalism or democracy as either good or bad – I am merely arguing that we cannot have both – it simply isn’t possible.

Time to choose..?