Our Inner Double Standard

"Capitalistic Democracy" may sound logically secure, since Capitalism is an economic institution and Democracy is a rather political institution, but the points at which the two cross pound the biggest punch to our System as a whole. Examining the natures of the Elites and the Commonmen in the so-called "private" and "public" sectors may be the best way to see this contradiction and, therefore, atrophy in this Capitalistic Democracy. The private sector intersects the public in two key areas: criminal and civic justice and governmental regulation. As well, the public sector seems to tango with the private in the most important of Democratic devices: elections. Therefore, these three key areas - that is justice, regulation and Swaraj - are prime for a neo-Marxist analysis, which will allow us to see just how well our experiment at its 21st-century test state meets its 18th century hypothesis.

Taking the English legal system of the pre-American-Revolution-era, there is only one way to render it democratic, that is to dilute the power of an otherwise dictatorial and authoritarian judge: a jury. However, because of this inclusion and the further evolution of the basic English Common Law - which is "coincidentally" commonplace in "Capitalistic Democracies" like the United States - there seems to be a layer of subjectivity that arises from the shallow waters of an alternative, objective Code Law that allows for more and more crafty attorneys. Thus, when the material capital of the "economic elite" comes into play, the attorney has an ulterior motive apart from his follow the strict rules of law. Now, on the other hand, as per the "Miranda Rights," it is the government's duty to provide a lawyer. The level of unfairness in a case involving a public and a private attorney is only obvious: there is a whole other kind of impetus one has that the other doesn't: capital.This tendency can even extend itself to Regulation. The public vs private lawyers complex works well with Regulation enforcement, but policy making is a whole different animal. 

Regulation policy, to someone a step ahaead of the average novice, may seem shared by Capitol Hill and the Bureaucracy, but even regulation agencies have regulation run by Congress and the President, so the intersection of the two sectors at a step called "government selection" is what affects Regulation and, well, the whole Democratic structure.

In competitive elections, it is a known fact that the candidate with the most resources wins and considering money is the mother of all resources, as it literally provides one with other resources. It is pretty much assumable that he with with the most money wins, strikingly similar to any capitalist deal or transaction. However, election are just a part in "government selection." A brighter, bigger, newer part is participation or post-election action. As first cited for me by Shashi Tharoor in his "India" and the chief epidemic in our seemingly action-less State, the bread-or-freedom issue creates a whole new sense of the word "apathy"  that is usually put down as the reason why Capitalistic Democracies have such low voting turnouts. As such systems provide no means for the "bread," breadwinning trumps the fight for freedom or, in the context of the Capitalist Democracy, money trumps protest. And why is that a surprise when the word "democracy" is never on the lips of a politician...unless, of course, he is either trying to convince the American people to go to or stay in a war. So yes, there is no dual identity - the United States is a Capitalist nation, not a Democratic one.