That has been tried, but any shred of democratic process ends up giving way to collectivist control requiring a bureaucratic dictatorship. One can only conclude they are incompatible.

Why deal in abstract? Any specific examples you'd like to point to?

How is that different than the small cohort of ultra wealthy driving policy, both directly and through soft influence? It’s all sausage making, pick your flavor.

I don’t believe such a conclusion is forgone.

Our current system has objectively delivered massive economic growth and standard of living improvements.

It has delivered for the shareholder class while driving down fertility rates through unfavorable economic macros.

“Growth for whom”? Growth has proven valuable primarily to the wealthiest, who continue to demand more. Good luck with future squeezing as structural demographic declines are locked in.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/08/5e488d2474cf-japa... (Japan)

https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-popula... (China)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68402139 (South Korea)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/... (US)

Fertility rates have been decrease with improved standard of living, and the poorest have the most children. Hungary gives 5% of gdp to people who have children, yet have barely stopped the decline in births because of this. Other countries have similarly failed.

Where and when? And how is allowing capitalists horde wealth and power incompatible with democracy? I’d say having workers in more control is more democratic than the top down power structure of capitalism