Capitalism has put democracy in trouble
On Dec. 21, Bill Moyers interviewed Benjamin R. Barber, author of more than 17 books and frequent essayist.
On Moyers web site, they posted this quote from Barber’s new book, CONSUMED: HOW MARKETS CORRUPT CHILDREN, INFANTILIZE ADULTS, AND SWALLOW CITIZENS WHOLE”
Capitalism has put democracy in trouble, because capitalism has tried to persuade us that being a private consumer is enough. That a citizen is nothing more than a consumer.
Go to Moyers web site to read an excerpt from the book — and much more.
Barber and I clearly share the view that being a one dimensional consumer is neither good for the person nor good for democracy. For example, see my post Framework for a New Economics & a New Politics.
Go to Barber’s web site to learn more about him.
Thanks to Dewayne Hendricks for a pointer to this.
2 comments permalink | Jock Gill | Culture, Democracy, Economy, Politics
Concerning the comment, “Capitalism has put democracy in trouble, because capitalism has tried to persuade us that being a private consumer is enough. That a citizen is nothing more than a consumer”, the following article asks:
- …Has the unbridled spread of commercialism and technology transformed us from small groups of active amateur participants to a large single mass of professional passive spectators and nonstop consumers?
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/03/editorial/commentary.html
Sounds like we should all be asking ourselves some questions about the big picture…
Do we need a Referendum For A New Democracy?
Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less?
Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns?
The world’s first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the cofounder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? …the extremely wealthy?
What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today’s world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? …the people?