danger/u/
This thread is permanently archived
Market conform democracy OR democracy conform market: You can't have both

| These days the common debate is dominated by exaggerated topics like immigration, identity/cultural politics (gender, lgbt, religion etc.) and a massively biased, destructive and hypocritical foreign policy.
Meanwhile in the background a new economical crisis is rising. The regulation of financial market is again fading away, the housing market becomes a bubble again and large companies strengthen and expand their monopolies while avoid paying taxes fooling the law.


| Instead following this superficial mainstream debates, the political left should start moving the debate focus more on economical topics. Because each crisis seems to strengthen more and more the political right, even if large parts of their representatives were or still are responsible for the crisis: Whacky billionaires and militarists, with social darwinists, nationalist, racist and chauvinist propaganda successfully fool the masses with their lies.


| Huge parts of the left still believe that capitalism can be "tamed" and "humanized" by a political correct language policy. They are liberals, cosmpolitans, children of wealthy middle-class parents. They go more on demonstrations against racism and homophobia (which is not bad per se), but rarely against war and against exploitation of the working class. Sometimes they even share a similiar social-darwinist view on society, justifying the reign of the rich.


| They ask others to check their privileges before judging, but rarely check their own privileges before they judge. They follow trends, use private monopolist infrastructure by big IT companies, order cheap stuff over the internet and have now to low interest in the people who do the actual work, probably because they are not "individualistic" and "diverse" and "hip" enough.


| Who are these "they" you refer to? A chariacture of the left or real left wing politicans who you can name?


| let's just fucking not conform


| Let's just accelerate. If you think capitalism will turn out badly then accelerate that process. Once everything crashes you'll have more people willing to make a change. Accelerationists ftw!


| >>583575
As we know from earlier capitalist crises, they don't make people automatically attracted to socialist ideas. In the past two things happened:
1. Capitalism was really tamed by estate - even only locally and temporary.
2. Things escalated, but instead the the struggling system was overthrown by the working class, they killed each other, fooled by fascists with nationalist/racist/religious lies.
In both cases the capitalists won in the end - on cost of million lives.


| >>583707
Examples for 1:
- The german empire under the (de-facto) reign of Otto von Bismarck
- The USA under President Theodore Roosevelt ("New Deal")
Problems with 1:
This solutions were only temporary and locally.
Examples for 2:
- The leading first industrialized nations in their imperialistic competition and finally WW1
- Nazi Germany, but also Stalinism (both were autocratic, militaristic, inhumane, and imperialistic regimes in disguise) and finally WW2
Problems with 2:
...


| >>583710
Not to forget to mention that in case 1 the issue also is, that this "taming" of capitalism to make it more humane only works if socialist movements become popular enough to be considered as a serious threat to the capitalist class. In order to get not that far again, some capitalists support fascists movements, which gave us scenario 2.


| That's fair. So you've made clear some of the issues with the current system. What is your proposed solution and what are the steps we take to get there?


| >>583754
>What is your proposed solution
Laizist, republican and international democratic socialism with a computer aided (not ai-controlled!) democratical realtime planned central economy. Thanks to
>and what are the steps we take to get there?
Abolish old burdens such as monarchism, feudalism, theocratism...
Internationally unite any kind of left groups and get back the focus on class struggle. Protection of minorities is important, but worthless without support of the majority.


| How do you plan on getting the supply of the majority to put this plan into action?


| Why not keep them separate?
Market is market, away from democracy and prohibited from interfering with democracy.
And democracy is democracy, away from the market and prohibited from interfering with market.


| >>593785 correction: *support of the majority.

>>583898 how would you keep them separate?


| >>583939 dunno, I understand nothing of this stuff, can't we just decouple the two?


| >>583058 it's a little difficult to imagine since both are reliant on people. All it would take is for one person to get successful in the market and use that success for political means to recreate a connection between the two. Even if they don't use it in purpose, their success in one field will influence how people see them and affect their success in the other.


| The markets need some sort of regulation. If they're left to their own devices, god knows how much more of a financial dystopia the US will become.


| I agree that markets need regulation. Specifically we need to be more strict on what we consider to be Monopolies. People have found loopholes in the current law so it needs to be adjusted to account for that.


| >>584171
People did not just found loopholes in the current law, they also corrupted the system that make this laws.
I also once believed we only need some reforms and regulations here and there. But thanks to globalization you can't do this stuff on national level. You need international laws. Plus you need to immunize the public institutions from corruption by the capitalists. Looking on how things proceed these days, I totally lost hope that the system can be fixed/tamed.


| >>584230 how do you plan on immunizing institutions from corruption?


| >>584337 they don't but since it's "not capitalism" then it means it's incorruptible, or they will say that we need "democracy" because democracy can never be corrupted.

If you ask too many questions they will dodge them and just try to talk about the evil corrupt capitalist elites who control the world from the shadows and how we must take them down at all costs...

Their patterns are getting so repetitive and obvious that it I'm getting fed up.


| >>584339 that may be the case but I feel like it's always worth it to ask questions. I like learning every part of a belief if I can.


| I've had my mind changed a few times in the past by people who answered my questions well. So while I don't currently believe the capitalist conspiracy thing it doesn't mean I won't believe it given enough evidence and a reasonable countermeasure. Besides asking questions also helps other people flesh out their own ideas, even if they don't convince you that time they've at least built upon their belief a little.


| That's part of why I live politics and philosophy.


| >>584337
By making them transparent and democratize them. The more (economical) powerful, the more transparency and democracy is necessary. It's legitimate to remove leaders (=owners) that prevent transparency and democracy in those institutions from their position and replace them with a council - also by force.


| >>584339
>they don't but since it's "not capitalism" then it means it's incorruptible, or they will say that we need "democracy" because democracy can never be corrupted.
This is nothing but a arrogant imputation.
>Their patterns are getting so repetitive and obvious that it I'm getting fed up.
If this is the only corner where you can see repetitive patterns, then you are blind as fuck.


| >>584339
>and just try to talk about the evil corrupt capitalist elites who control the world from the shadows and how we must take them down at all costs...
The only ones who believe that things are controlled secretly from the shadows are in the right corner.
If you would understand how capitalism works, then you would understand that there is no conspiracy necessary to have the current results. Lots of capitalists are pretty straight-forward about their reign.


| >>584408
This works as long economy is prospering. But as soon things get ugly (and they inherently always will, cyclical and cynical) they step a bit in the background and directly or indirectly pushing fascist/nationalist/religious fundamentalist movements. There are countless historical examples for it. As soon the system struggles, their profiteers will do everything to keep their status. It's quite logical.


| >>584404 transparent democracy falls apart as soon as someone with charisma and bad intentions enters the equation, so you're not giving a solution at all...


| >>584404 what if someone convinces most people that they are transparent while a little less than half believe that they aren't? Wouldn't a fully Democratic system require the majority of people to agree on whether or not the person is transparent? So what would happen if it's a relatively even split? I ask because it seems like most people even now believe that the current level of corruption isn't something to worry about. If they don't agree now, then how will they agree then?


| >>584417
Marketing and propaganda should be illegal. People that do this stuff do not contribute anything useful to humanity. And charisma can't beat facts without violating transparency and democracy. There are not only many historical but also recent examples for it.


| >>584465
The level of transparency have to be based on (economical!) power of people/institutions. An economical powerful person/institution has to be much more transparent than a economical weak person/institution. It's a question of common interest.
>most people even now believe that the current level of corruption isn't something to worry about
It's the same people that rather worry about if unisex toilets will save or destroy civilization. I blame nontransparent media for it.


| >>584539 suuuuure, because never in history there was a person with a spotless record and nothing to hide that won in democracy and suddenly became a dictator....
NEVER! You know, democracy and transparency are inviolable and infallible because yes


| >>584570
Well, following your logic, we don't need law, estate, ethics and morale at all because
>suuuuuure there was never a person in history that bended law, missused estate, abandoned ethics and morale.
You basically surrendered/gave up fighting the bad in the world, because you believe it's unavoidable, unbeatable and overwhelming. So I guess its ok for you if someone starts taking away all your belongings and put you into a cage, forcing you to work or exterminate you.


| >>584570
>You know, democracy and transparency are inviolable and infallible because yes
It's not a question of infallibility and inviolableness, but of necessity and rationality in the name of common interest.


| To me it seems like you're the only one who is about to surrender, you're surrendering to your dogmas and to a system that already had a chance and failed...

Trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results is a wasted effort, you're leaving things up to the off chance that it'll work this time around, you may get lucky but then the same could be true for any other system that already has failed before.

It's irrational wishful thinking.


| >>584539 the problem is that people often don't agree on the "facts." You'll also have to categorize what counts as "marketing and propaganda." if someone is required to be transparent and someone asks them in public something about their business and they respond with nothing but praise for themselves then even if it's true it could still be perceived as propaganda. And of the people are acting independently and are allowed to forcefully take down anyone who isn't transparent...


| ...then the system can be easily abused by attacking anyone you don't like under the claim that they weren't transparent. Of it's not up to the people but rather an organization like law enforcement then it can just be bribed.


| >>584607
>you're surrendering to your dogmas and to a system that already had a chance and failed
Well, in capitalism I was told that failure is the key to success. It seems the dog bites in its own tail here.
The only thing that really failed here, is your approach to twist/invert the perception of how things really are/were.


| >>584607
>you may get lucky but then the same could be true for any other system that already has failed before.
You also don't understand that there never was another system than capitalism. Originally communism/socialism was not meant to compete as state monopoly capitalism (which was in most cases economically pretty successful, compared to before and after) in a global arms race and dealing with religious fundamentalists and fascists mobilized by capitalists.


| > there was never another system than capitalism
So you're saying the age old "that communism wasn't real communism" argument?
K, I'm tired of arguing with braindead commies so let's just say you're all correct and I'll be leaving.
Today's a good day to me so I won't waste anymore time, buh bye!


| >>584888 again a democratic system will require the support of the majority and with the majority currently supporting free market you're going to need to convince some people and you're going to need a better argument than "it's inevitable"


| You're very quick to dismiss others info is disinformation but provide nothing to show us that yours is more reliable.

Total number of posts: 44, last modified on: Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1564695052

This thread is permanently archived