I've often wondered about the logic of an
economic system like "capitalism," combined with a
political system, such as "democracy," when simple analysis
the two are at opposite ends of the human values spectrum.

Capitalists—and fascists—accept the superiority of rich people over poor people in every way, and the natural validity of social class differences. True democracy advocates the political and social equality of all citizens.

Capitalists—and fascists—believe the people most adept at collecting wealth and power, and much of a nation's natural and productive resources, should legitimately own the nation, rightfully control the machinery of government, and deservedly benefit most from their social system.

Capitalists—and fascists—believe government funds should be used to stimulate private profit, and government should promote large populations for cheap labor, large markets, and big armies.

Capitalists—and fascists—scorn the judgment of unschooled commoners, and oppose any form of participatory or popular government—true democracy—that would give ignorant commoners the political power and opportunity to demand and win greater benefits for themselves.

Capitalists—and fascists—reject the premise that social equity is government's concern, instigate wars for business gain and callously send innocent young Americans off to die in these wars. They argue it's bad policy for men of government to interfere with private business matters, or ease the hardships of working people by diverting public funds from business to social needs.

True democracy demands that all citizens participate in determining the values, laws, and policies affecting their lives.

True democracy advocates the equal political and economic rights of all, and the ownership of a nation's natural resources by, and for the welfare of the whole society.

True democracy rejects class exploitation in any form, does all it can to avoid war, and commits the lives of its citizens for national defense only as a last resort.

True democracy recognizes the common welfare as a major reason people group into families, tribes, cities, and nations, and that a prime concern of such a government -of all the people- must be the welfare of the whole community.

Today, American capitalists thoroughly control the machinery of federal and state governments and openly admit corporate management's prime concern is corporate and not social welfare. So, why are common workers puzzled that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer?

Why are they puzzled at the economic middle-class struggling to remain middle-class, or the growing numbers of Americans entering poverty?

Class warfare! That's what it's all about, and nothing else. Working-class Americans have been under attack by America's wealthy-class ever since the ratification of the constitution, but most working-class Americans of today don't recognize this truth

If you knew American history, you would know that from the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 to the establishment of General Motors three centuries later, profit has been the motivating force behind the development of this nation, not the drive for freedom.

The thirteen colonies were founded upon, the principles of profit and the rights of property, not the rights of people. The U.S. republic was founded upon the principles of profit and the rights of property. For better or worse, the American System has been built upon the capitalist philosophy of economic order, and millions of American commoners have died, and will continue to die, to protect the system, although most have no more than the vaguest idea what the concept really stands for.

As a working person, if you had lived during the time of either of the two Industrial Revolutions and been forced to labor in a factory, you would have had first hand experience with the consequences of unrestricted and unregulated capitalism, and couldn't possibly have believed such a system beneficial to you.

"Capitalism," say the capitalists, "makes it possible for people with lesser talents and ambitions to survive." What capitalists don't admit is capitalism wouldn't be as appealing to people with money, if they couldn't use their greater economic-force to exploit the lives of poorer people. What capitalists don't admit is that capitalism is like fascism, and fascism is bad for the common workers of a society.

More than 200 years ago, "Centinel," a popular writer of published letters objected to the proposed constitution solely on the basis it was designed to benefit private interests and:

If the administrators of every government are actuated by views of private interest and ambition, how is the welfare and happiness of the community to be the result of such jarring adverse interests?

Has anything changed that should make common Americans of the 20th century believe that a government run by individuals and small groups for personal benefit will benefit society, too? Look around you; read the daily newspapers; observe how political leaders and economic rulers justify their selfish actions as they take more and more for themselves and leave less for working Americans. How can you expect things to get better for working Americans when they have so little representation in their "representative" government?

Although Establishment media today bombards commoners with propaganda questioning the efficiency and value of big government, it seems to me commoners should be questioning the value of big "global conglomerates" that have acquired such an unhealthy influence over the republic's economic and political matters and are now attempting to replace political with economic order.

It has already been proved that a society ruled by merchants and money manipulators lass ="c2">is ruled by the same kind of irresponsible, uncaring men as dictators and kings. All of these societal forms are hierarchical. How can such systems of governance be expected to solve the problems of common, working people, when they can produce only what they have been producing since the beginning of recorded history—social environments hostile to commoners.

The greatest objection to unregulated capitalism as an integral part of a democratic society, however, isn't merely that its unreasonable demands for ever-increasing production and ever-increasing profits place unhealthy strains upon natural resources, and cruel pressures upon common, working people. No, the validity of unregulated as an integral part of a political democracy can be challenged on the grounds that the philosophy of economic capitalism is not only incompatible with the philosophy of political democracy, it's an opposing philosophy. Capitalists and fascists demand the exclusion of commoners from government, but true democracy existss only with the full participation of all citizens.