• usualsuspect191
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Socialists like myself argue that because the system can be abused, it inevitably wil be abused

    Does this imply that you have a system that can’t be abused? Or more probably the level of possible abuse is “less” in some way?

    I agree that while well informed democratic control is great, there still needs to be elected representatives in some capacity just for practicality’s sake (not everyone has the time or energy to research and make decisions for every topic and problem) and then we’re right back at the abuse problem. The idea of assigning some people’s votes as having more weight can be necessary to avoid a tyranny of the majority deciding things outside of their knowledge set too…

    If there was a way of guaranteeing fair, just, wise, philosopher Kings then wouldn’t that system be the best one? Like an AI would find the perfect leader through mass surveillance and that would be who would rule.

    • theluddite@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Does this imply that you have a system that can’t be abused?

      Obviously not.

      Or more probably the level of possible abuse is “less” in some way?

      I make no claim about the level of abuse. Society will always have problems. The question is how we solve them. I think that political and economic democracy are necessary to give people a fair say, in many ways. Without economic democracy, we have the situation we have now: A democracy in name only. Economic power is too easily converted into political power.

      What kind of democracy has people spend most of their life working for undemocratic institutions, which they depend on for food, clothing, house, etc.? Is it really a democracy if say you’re in west Virginia and your only opportunity to earn a living is to work in a coal mine? Your material reality necessitates voting in the interest of your employer, and against your own. How free is that voter to really, meaningfully participate in democracy, as we understand it?

      I’d also argue that economic democracy is even necessary for a well informed public. Poor people send their kids to shitty schools. It won’t be until there isn’t generational poverty that we’ll fix that.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What would “economic democracy” look like, and how would we facilitate a change like that?

        • theluddite@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It looks something like “from each according to their ability, and to each according to their needs.”

          As to how we get there, and what the specifics of it look like, the short, honest answer is no one person knows, and that’s okay. Much like a medieval peasant would’ve struggled to imagine modern elections, electric tea kettles, or the welfare state, it’s really hard to live in the present and imagine a radically different future. The thing is that a radically different future is coming for us, whether we like it or not. Our current lives are not ecologically sustainable. That is going to force change upon us, probably the hard way, and it’s going to hurt.

          That said, this is a very active area of scholarship and (mostly) healthy debate. There is a wonderful and expansive socialist scholarly tradition, going back centuries, all trying to answer what you asked me. Economists, philosophers, computer scientists, political scientists, and so on have put a lot of really good work into imagining such a future. Some, like Stafford Beer, or Paul Cockshott, have written a lot about how modern digital technologies could enable such a transformation on the large scale. Others, like David Graeber or Rebecca Solnit, have thought deeply about what a human society even is and what we want from it. Still others, notably Mark Fisher, have written about why capitalism feels so inevitable to so many who live in it.

          There’s one thing we do know: The first step is enough of us agreeing that we want a more just, fair, and equitable future. Many people, especially but not exclusively those with so much of the wealth, don’t want that at all.

          • fkn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The difficult step is getting around or past the concept of private property.

            Except for altruism, how do we effectively remove “property” from people who create it but don’t need it. Most arguments I have seen or read end up back at basic capitalism.

            The ideal that everyone would be altruistic and give up all superfluous labor seems far fetched.

            • theluddite@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most leftists distinguish between personal property and private property. You get to own your favorite mug, your toothbrush, and even your house, but not a company that controls the labor of others, or someone else’s house. I don’t know where you’ve come across these arguments you’ve read, but, again, there are literally centuries of socialist scholarship, none of which is just advocating for capitalism with some window dressing. There are many “socialism 101” lists out there of how you can get started. I seriously recommend that you give it a shot. It’s actually really fun to read smart and imaginative people trying to make an outline for a new, better world.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I love how knowledgeable you are on these topics! Please, I very much invite you to make a post about this analysis. I became a mod of this community specifically for dialogue like this

            • theluddite@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Aw thanks! I’m trying to spend less time writing on social media, not more! If I may be so bold, if you like reading what I have to say, may I suggest The Luddite? It’s me, and a few others, writing about tech from a leftist perspective.

              • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ll have to give it a look! I’m an organizer in tech, so that would be extremely relevant to me. Your articles will likely get some extra posts in this community!

                • theluddite@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh shit! I write code for a living and I’d love to connect outside Lemmy. DM me or email me (email on the site) if you’re interested!

    • folkrav@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like an AI would find the perfect leader through mass surveillance and that would be who would rule.

      Fair
      Surveillance
      Pick one

      • usualsuspect191
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If everyone is under surveillance, that’s fair is it not? It’s plenty of other things too, but not unfair.

        • Maeve@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, it is not. It’s equal, but no where near in a good way. Everyone dies. That’s “fair” in that the universe doesn’t allow certain people to live longer than others some humans to live forever. That’s genes, environment, lifestyle and a host of variables those things cover. “Fair” need not mean “just,” but in this context it should.

          Edit: sorry, that was brain dead phrasing

    • Maeve@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The idea of assigning some people’s votes as having more weight can be necessary to avoid a tyranny of the majority deciding things outside of their knowledge set too…

      How’s that work with the EC and people like say, tfg?