actually it promises to subsidize the unproductive majority by stealing from the productive minority
I'm pretty sure most people work for a living, and it's a small minority - about 1%, in fact - that steals from said productive people to support their parasitic lifestyle. And that would be a minor annoyance by itself, except that's not enough for them - no, they play at being "businessmen" by recklessly endangering the livelihood of the productive majority for their economic poker games, and then start throwing insults at the very same people who's labour supports them.
From just the tax rates on income and property, to various rules, laws and regulations that government imposes upon business to buy votes (be it minimum wage, various laws that give employees special powers to sue employers for any perceived 'wrongdoing', any kind of entitlement to the employers and customers that end up being obligations upon the employers and producers).
Who are these mystical "producers", since they are apparently not the employees in your mind? And why are you upset that the working class and the owning class define their relationship through laws, given your own insistence on the importance of the rule of it? Does it simply burn you that some laws actually side with the serfs rather than the parasites on top?
ALL democracies are destined to failure, that is not an option, it's an inevitable consequence of the rule of mob.
All systems are destined to failure due to nothing lasting forever, it's the inevitable consequence of time passing in a reality where chaos theory holds. Your assertion is dramatic but meaningless.
That's why to keep working the system is supposed to set those types of feelings and desires aside and concentrate on constantly and vigilantly protecting the rule of law, equality before law, equality of opportunity by providing equal application of law, prevention of discrimination by the mob, by the government.
So how does that equality before the law work when both parties are responsible for paying for their lawyers and the other has thousands of times as much available cash? How does equality of opportunity work when taking any opportunity likely has investment and opportunity costs and one party can pay them and the other can't?