Wenn der Kapitalismus dafür verantwortlich gemacht wird, dass es auch in Deutschland eine immer größere relative Armut gibt, dann wird eine Systemfrage gestellt. Richtig wäre es hingegen, nach dem Antrieb jener Menschen zu fragen, die das System lediglich so nutzen, dass es zu ihrem eigenen Vorteil und dem Nachteil anderer gereicht.
Nein. Richtig wäre es zu fragen, wer dieses System wozu und wie aufrechterhält.
Selbst im konservativen Telegraph kann man inzwischen lesen:
"The rich run a global system that allows them to accumulate capital
and pay the lowest possible price for labour. The freedom that
results applies only to them. The many simply have to work harder, in
conditions that grow ever more insecure, to enrich the few.
Democratic politics, which purports to enrich the many, is actually
in the pocket of those bankers, media barons and other moguls who run
and own everything."
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35352/1.html
Wustmann ignoriert den kapitalistischen Gewaltapparat mit dem die Kapitalisten, die Menschheit seit Jahrhunderten unter ihre mörderische Terrorherrschaft(Weltkriege, Holocaust, Drohung mit nuklearer Auslöschung der Menschheit etc.) zwingen.
http://www.heise.de/forum/p-25475255/
http://www.textlog.de/kapital-gesetze-arbeitslohn.html
Dass Demokratie inkompatibel mit dem Kapitalismus ist, wußten bereits die US-Staatsgründer im 18. Jahrhundert:
"In the debates on the Constitution, Madison pointed out that if elections in England" were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place," giving land to the landless. The Constitutional system must be designed to prevent such injustice and "secure the permanent interests of the country," which are property rights.
...
Madison foresaw that the threat of democracy was likely to become more severe over time because of the increase in "the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." They might gain influence, Madison feared. He was concerned by the "symptoms of a leveling spirit" that had already appeared, and warned "of the future danger" if the right to vote would place "power over property in hands without a share in it." Those "without property, or the hope of acquiring it, cannot be expected to sympathize sufficiently with its rights," Madison explained. His solution was to keep political power in the hands of those who "come from and represent the wealth of the nation," the "more capable set of men," with the general public fragmented and disorganized..."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ConsentPOP_Chom.html
"The proportion being without property, or the hope of acquiring it, cannot be expected to sympathize sufficiently with its rights to be safe depositories of power over them."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s27.html
"An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this Country, but symptoms of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded agst. on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded agst.?"
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s35.html
"Mr. MADISON. We are now to determine whether the republican form shall be the basis of our government. -I admit there is weight in the objection of the gentleman from South Carolina; but no plan can steer clear of objections. That great powers are to be given, there is no doubt; and that those powers may be abused is equally true. It is also probable that members may lose their attachments to the States which sent them-Yet the first branch will control them in many of their abuses. But we are now forming a body on whose wisdom we mean to rely, and their permanency in office secures a proper field in which they may exert their firmness and knowledge. Democratic communities may be unsteady, and be led to action by the impulse of the moment. -Like individuals, they may be sensible of their own weakness, and may desire the counsels and checks of friends to guard them against the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions. Such are the various pursuits of this life, that in all civilized countries, the interest of a community will be divided. There will be debtors and creditors, and an unequal possession of property, and hence arises different views and different objects in government. This indeed is the ground-work of aristocracy; and we find it blended in every government, both ancient and modern. Even where titles have survived property, we discover the noble beggar haughty and assuming.
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp
Eine wichtige Rolle dabei spielt natürlich auch der Propagandaapparat:
"THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
...
If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits."
https://archive.org/details/Propaganda1928ByEdwardL.Bernays