Does Capitalism Create Inequality

It is argued that capitalism creates inequality. Does this matter? Why?
Justify your answer
This essay will argue that capitalism does create inequality. The main body of this essay will argue how capitalism creates a cut throat society that only an elite few truly benefit from. It will also discuss how capitalism and true democracy consistently contradict one and other. Capitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[1] There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and wage labor.[3][4] Wikiapedia 2011-12-05 Capitalism
creates a society where those with money have power. This may allow corporations to influence politicians, so that they no longer make certain decisions in the interest of the general public. This is a violation of democracy which everyone as a human being is entitled to. This matters because the elected politicians don’t take notice of the general public as they are unable to put them under as much pressure as the corporations can.
A way for the general public to have their opinions heard is through the media. In a society with capitalism as their economic system news corporations may not always publish the most correct and informative news, as they are dependent on advertising revenue they will say what the corporations want to hear. Therefore the majority of their stories meet specific news values which include A. Impact B. Audience Identification C. Pragmatics of media coverage. A news room is constantly receiving information from a wide range of sources. An editor must decide what to use. In a country with a ‘free press’ there is competition between the various news outlets and choices are made on the basis of what it is considered the readers or audience will find most interesting. However if a news corporation is influenced by mass appeal due to advertising it may change what it publishes. This means the press is no longer free, this may means the general public loose the media as a way to voice their opinions and pressurise the government. It also leaves the general public badly informed. The loss of free press in a society is a loss of democracy as freedom of
speech is a human right and an essential part of democracy. In the rural, tribal lands of Eastern India, protesters are going head-to-head with world steel giant ArcelorMittal. We may give away our lives, but we will not part with an inch of our ancestral land,“ "The forest, rivers and land are ours. We don't want factories, steel or iron.” “ ArcelorMittal, Go Back." Corpwatch. Com March 2nd, 2010 We very rarely hear about stories like these as the news we hear is severely manipulated due to the influences of corporations on the media, this leaves us the general public badly informed. “Government for the people by the people” Abraham Lincoln (1809 to 1865) In order to deserve the label modern democracy, a country needs to fulfil some basic requirements.

• Freedom of opinion, speech, press and massmedia
• Religious liberty
• General and equal right to vote (one person, one vote)
• Good Governance (focus on public interest and absence of corruption)

Democracy Building.
Com 2011-12-05
If citizens are refused the right to freedom of speech and the government and media are influenced by the corporation then we cannot be living in a democracy. When there is such inequality that it begins to violate our human rights then it becomes a huge issue and it does
matter.
Inequality it not a new thing, but the level of severity is. From 1947 to 1987 the total pay of typical top American manager was 40 times the average pay. In 2007 total pay of typical top American manager was 110 times the average pay. The Economist This shows that inequality is getting worse the difference in 2007 is clearly an unreasonable amount and it not fair. Philanthropy is when the rich give away their money in the best way they see fit. The rich give money away for many different reason’s whether it be genuine or to gain an elite social status. Is giving money away in a very public manner just a tool and distraction from the growing class inequality and to make being ridiculously rich socially acceptable. Some may argue that there is nothing wrong with the most successful capitalists handing out money in the best way they see fit as they are they are the most qualified to. I has to be considered how philanthropists acquired the money in the first place. Warren Buffet the second richest man in the world gave away $37 billion of his $44 billion fortune to charities. The main beneficiary was Bill Gates, the richest man in the world. Marxist.com 2006. Buffet made his billions as an investor, like most successful capitalist he has used predatory tactics and has taken over as many businesses as possible and cut all costs, laying workers off if necessary to keep shareholders happy. In 2004, Fruit of the Loom, owned by Berkshire, closed down its underwear manufacturing plant in Cameron County, Texas, thereby getting rid of 800 jobs in an area with an already high level of unemployment and with a poverty rate above 30 percent. Marxist.com 2006. This shows how in a capitalistic society obsessed with money Buffet was willing to lay off eight hundred workers at fruit of the loom, just to provide the elite few shareholders with increased profit, this level of inequality is caused by capitalism and is just not fair.
The economic system of capitalism creates inequality as a totally free market would ultimately devolve into monopolies that would dominate the market preventing any competition which will leave a small group of elite people to accumulate wealth that then use it to further their own interests over the interests of society. This creates inequality as these few elite people may use their positions to influence politicians. After world war two the state took an active part in taxing the rich and using that money to fund services such as the welfare state and the National Health Service, this created medium size businesses that provided employment. Margret Thatcher came into power in 1979, her political philosophy and economic policies emphasised deregulation, particularly of the financial sector, flexible labour markets, the sale or closure of state owned companies. This caused a massive transfer from rich to poor. If the state stops intervening and allows for total free trade then those with money have power and can make decisions that affect our lives dramatically. In the previous paragraph I discussed how some people may argue that philanthropists are the best qualified people, to decide how money is spent as they are the most successful. However as a democratic society we elect our politicians to make decisions on our behalf, if the state reduces how much is it involved in trade then no one will be making decisions that benefit the general public, if there are no democratically elected politicians to channel the general public opinions then we become voiceless this is an unacceptable amount of inequality.
To conclude in a society with capitalism as its main economic system those with the most money will have power. If the state doesn’t intervene and allows a free market then eventually a few companies will out compete the rest using predatory tactics and monopolise the market. These elite corporations will then be able strongly influence politicians so they no longer act in the best interest of society and they will be able to influence the media in what they publish leaving us less informed. If we cannot voice our opinions through our elected politicians or the media won’t publish stories due to influences from the corporations we are left with little power and very unequal compared to the elite few. Good governance and free press are essential parts of democracy. Every human being is entitled to democracy as a human right, with capitalism as a economic system we are denied our right. Clearly proving that capitalism creates inequality