The point at which Capitalism and Democracy intercept, I would suggest, is in Taxation.
While Democracy intimates a degree of equality, of rights, obligations and freedoms, Capitalism is the opposite, transparently favouring at best the capable, the opportunistic and the talented; at worst the greedy, the ruthless, the unscrupulous, the criminally minded sociopaths...
The only avenue the Gov. is allowed by Neo Liberal philosophy to some semblance of equitable wealth distribution is the progressive tax system. As I pointed out earlier, this is a fatal flaw, inasmuch as Democracy is by definition a popularist system, -and taxation (particularly in-your-face income tax) has never been and never will be popular.
So how else can the Gov. acquire the funds to pay for the services we demand?
Forget Neo Liberalism, for a start. Use the Future Fund to invest in profitable businesses of all sizes (or just stop selling profitable businesses... oops, too late) rather than hanging on to only the unprofitable ones.
Again, Singapore provides a good example of what can be done.
As far as narrowing the gap between the haves and have nots, taxation -even progressive taxation- has proven woefully inadequate.
Since all the largest corporations and richest individuals reached their egregious levels of wealth by buyouts, mergers and business acquisitions, strong laws against anti-competitive practices would be far more effective.
While I sympathise with Nick Rose's sentiments concerning competition, and strongly endorse a spirit of co-operation and 'networking', I would have to say competition is completely “natural” to at least the human condition.
What game does not involve competition?
And how many children don't enjoy playing games?
I have however, always stressed to my children that the only person they need ever compete with is themselves.
Competition can be healthy or unhealthy.
It would be nice if societies spent as much effort promoting healthy competition as they did health.

Banjo Paterson,

"The gradual evolution pf the individual human being towards greater autonomy appears to have given him a keener sense of his responsibilities and awakened him to the plight of others less fortunate and in need.C"

Cough!....

If you're referring to the current Western paradigm as being an "evolutionary epoch", I think you're sadly mistaken. About 4/5 of the world's population live almost exactly as their ancestors did.

Just like to point out that increasing autonomy has the reverse effect to that which you suggest....the pic here is more likely to be the reaction from your average autonomous Westerner: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-27/housing-affordability-crisis-blamed-for-homeless-rise/4395540?section=wa

And imperialist policy has, in the main, been to subjugate the less developed in this world and to relieve them of their autonomy and their land and resources...."altruism" on an imperial scale can be summed up by America's foray into Iraq to save them from Saddam (the reality being that they were seeking unfettered influence over that country's resources)

As far as altruism goes in our own society, like everything else, it's mainly down to organisations and institutions to deliver domestic or international aid and succor - most people are too busy towing the line and competing to bother about personal intervention.

Here's an example of our "altruism".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-11/half-of-worlds-food-going-to-waste/4460322

Before WmTrevor intervenes - yes that should be "toeing the line".

(I actually meant to write that, but the "w" is beside the "e", and well, you know...:)

.

Dear Poirot,

.

Many thanks for the link to Vandana Shiva's lecture on Poverty and Globalisation.

She certainly paints a grim picture of the plight of farmers in the Punjab and Andhra Pradesh in India as well as several other countries (Java, sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria, Thailand, the Congo, Indonesia, the Chiapas in Mexico ...).

It appears that the Indian government, or should I say, successive governments, have, for reasons better known to themselves, sold their farmers down the drain.

Many of her complaints are familiar to me as a close observer of the battles that go on regularly here in France among farmers, French government, the EU and the US authorities. It is an ongoing battle, often quite ferocious, involving fairly robust demonstrations and revolts, riot police and tough jail sentences for some of the leaders of the contestation.

As a result, though, Monsanto and its products have never managed to lay a foot in this country and the farmers have a very large say in any national and international agreements affecting their industry.

I thoroughly agree with Vanana that " Economic Globalisation has become a war against nature and the poor. But the rules of globalisation are not god - given. They can be changed. They must be changed. We must bring this war to an end."

It remains to be seen if the governments of the countries she cited, including the government of her own country, India, do not have what they consider to be other, more important, priorities.

The global picture presented by the UN in its 2012 Millennium Development Goals Report seems a little more encouraging:

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202012.pdf

Let's hope they're not just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

.

"Before WmTrevor intervenes - yes that should be "toeing the line"."

But I wouldn't have, Poirot... because I was enjoying how it worked for me as an allegory for phalanxes of consumers towing the lines under the whip, like slaves did in ancient Eygpt hauling monoliths to the pyramids (guess who's just finished John Romer's 'Ancient Lives'?) Similar reaction to when people talk about roads that are hard to hoe... because they, well, are aren't they?

Besides you make least? fewest? not much? grammatical errors of the OLO club members.

"...the OLO club members."

It's interesting to imagine what kind of group they would make should they meet once a month to discuss and debate current issues.

From the relative safety of their keyboards, individuals are courageous and fear no one. But in a group, people change. Dramatically.

Who would emerge as the group leaders? Who would sit in the background and do a good imitation of a curtain? Who would urge marching in the streets or the building of barricades or the storming of Parliament or entering the citadels of the Princes of Money, the taking of their ill-gotten wealth, and then volunteer to help with its fair redistribution?

Who would be the architects of a radical new society, a peaceful, non-war world? Or would the Lord of the Flies signify our fate?

OLO club members: a potent force for good or simply a crowd of whingers and naysayers?