Everyone, majority rule does not equal democracy.
Majority rule is merely the name of a decision-making tool.
It's as foolish as saying, "If you eat soba and ramen with a fork, then soba and ramen are Western food!"
@MENUMA432 imo, I think we need to return to Ancient Greek-style Democracy (if we're still going to run with democracy as the ideal), where only those who own property and pay taxes can vote.
Allowing the "majority" to vote was a grand mistake that liberals took advantage of but have now clearly lost control of.
We live in chaos because of "majority rules".
We need "democratic government", yes, but the demos itself must also have "checks and balances" in place to prevent it abusing the system.
@Aldo4 @MENUMA432 Just pointing out the "checks and balances" of 3 tentpoles holding eachother up and equal, is literally the same government style of the dystopian hellscape of Orwells 1984, three powers constantly at struggle, an eternal war, an eternal meat grinder, all to prop itself up, a self fulfilling meat grinder, who's purpose is to grind meat, so that it can grind meat. It's endless. Communism is the way, Marxism, power to the worker, your labor is not to be devalued, it should be illegal to devalue ones labor.
those guys who implemented democracy in the first would be rolling in their graves to a man seeing what the parties and the system are now and how theyre ideals - the good ones and the bad - are so totally distorted now.
also want to point out that western democracy was never for the masses and true popular votes, on anything above a very local level it was only for the highly educated (college grads with doctorates and actual literacy) and the influential fat cats.
the fact we even had an electoral college was proof it was poorly engineered gaslighting from the start, and that literally just kicked open the door to politicians shoving around borders to rig the system's representation of actual voters... and to this day people in america still dont understand that when they vote for president, it doesnt actually matter, even if you are in a state that forces its representative to vote according to what the (majority of) people actually want.
@bitterblossom @Jazzy_Butts @MENUMA432
I still have my "The Founding Fathers Were White Nationalists" meme somewhere haha.
My point stands tho (and is reinforced by your comment on highly educated people being the ideal voter). The "democratic engagement" should be limited.
Obviously we are well beyond limiting it based on sex, race, class, religion etc...
I'm tryna solve dis shit mayne, gimme some slack haha
nerf or nothin.
---------------
voting "for" shit was always a pretty bad idea. the greeks/romans/whoever it was that used to let everybody talk but then vote OUT the people who got too influential or problematic were onto something genius. even when the forum is full of corrupted politicians, whats going to happen is the lower/middle guys are going to boot the most hated rivals, which are going to be the successful asshats, so it self-mitigates its own corruption.
the only way it wouldnt is if EVERYBODY was on the payroll of the same lobby, but politics is too cutthroat and competitive, in a nation as large as modern usa that isnt a problem. too many rival lobbies mucking around.
another idea ive not really explored but had was something like how we do jury duty. go socialist/communist but when it comes time for representatives and stuff to vote or make policy decisions, you have a lottery of RELEVANT (local) citizens rounded up to collectively serve as temporary representative judge for whatever issue is on the table.
with like, an actual legal judge present for the sole purpose of reminding the jury crowd what the relevant laws are and how they work and if a decision they made might contradict other laws, etc. judge gets veto rights in such cases or if the jury's decision would obviously be oppressive to any demographic, etc.
@bitterblossom @Jazzy_Butts @MENUMA432
Communism with localist lottocratic characteristics?
I mean, sure, I guess?
I mean, I don't know how that really will work, given the problems Communism has with "factionalism" as well as the issue with lottocracy not being entirely meritocratic (or is this why you put relevant in capitals?).
Funnily enough, Athenian Democracy was apparently based on sortition (citizen councils, whose members were chosen at random) haha
I'm just a progressive. I want a progressive system. I don't think "Communism" ("dictatorship of the Proletariat") is fundamentally a progressive system that can keep up with the times.
@Aldo4 @bitterblossom @MENUMA432 Communism is a utopian ideal that cannot be realized until humans reach star trek levels of psychological stability. Marxism is completely within the realms of reality though. Communism is the shining city on the hill, Marxism is how we get there, to try and put the cart before the horse results on the many catastrophes we've seen "communist" societies endure.
@Jazzy_Butts @bitterblossom @MENUMA432
Of course Marxism is "within the realms of reality", because it's exclusively based on materialism.
The problem with materialism, however, is that it ignores aspects of reality that are immaterial. This is how right-wing reactionary elements operate and get their support (i.e. they play on religion, tradition, spirituality etc...).
There needs to be a Hegelian synthesis between the two, which I would argue is progressivism.
socialism was the unrealistic ideal, communism was the proactive "lets try and make it work" modified method that actually succeeded on a larger scale.
my capitalized "relevant" was about say, if you want representatives for a town, you get several actual citizens of various sub-demographics who live there to represent the populace's interests. if its a company, you take the actual laborers working there and a spread of lower and upper management to speak for the various underlying interests of that group, etc.
you randomize it by some form of lottery and change it out frequently enough that there is no hard leader for political factions to form around; any factions that do form would be interests-based.
of course reps still need time to actually get stuff done so terms cant be too short...
voting people out of the forum is a pretty solid way of nipping factions as theyll be cutting each other down and maintaining a relatively more even playing field for all parties involved.
lots of details need to be thought out that i havent done yet but this sort of system would function as a compromise between existing elements of communism and democracy.
@bitterblossom @Aldo4 @MENUMA432 What you're describing is how unions are ideally supposed to operate, but something needs to be in place to deter or impede corruption.
@Jazzy_Butts @bitterblossom @MENUMA432
The comment on socialism being unrealistic but Communism being proactive reminds me of Zizek saying he's a Communist but not a Socialist.
Communism didn't really "succeed" (why didn't it win the CW?) as much as it progressed to a certain point and then it split up into bureaucratic/nationalistic forms (Stalinism, Maoism, Titoism, Castroism etc...) which in the end stagnated and have now returned to (state) C(r)apitalism (TM). Trotsky predicted this (i.e. "permanent revolution" was the only way Communism could succeed), but that's an aside.
Right, so we both essentially want citizen councils haha
OK, that's a start. Nice!
I thought Communism was meant to be "democratic"? It is not a synthesis, but rather the antithesis to liberalism.
over here its conservative vs liberal but both are capitalism, except the liberal side gets accused of "communist" agendas. the american mind equates communism with liberalism but also thinks communism is just a dictatorship over a slave state...
i dont think anything is democratic at this point. western democracy is just paper mache over corporate and religious lobbying. communism as far as ive seen has started out as democracy and rapidly devolved into totalitarian regimes. only real difference seems to be the state-organized economy instead of the wild hellscape of "free capitalism".
@bitterblossom @Jazzy_Butts @MENUMA432
I view "liberalism" as "soft-conservatism" or "moderate conservatism", regardless of whether it's continental or Anglo or American "liberalism".
"Liberals" hate the "far-right" but they also hate the (left) "radicals" that upset their comfort.
The entire Western system for the last almost 200 years has been "liberals" trying to keep their grip over our civilization by any means (normally involving compromising with "conservative" elements while kicking out radicals for being, well, too radical). Ironically, as we see nowadays, "liberals" are increasingly becoming tyrannical in the pursuit of this (which represents end-stage desperation, imo).
Yeah, the only difference is economics, which is ridiculous because basically everyone (of merit) agrees now that a hybrid model is best.
but somewhere between 2000-2020ish there was just so much dirt smearing and completely retarded bullshit being said in both directions, where everybody was accusing everybody of every other label as if they were horrific sins to be equated with actual atrocities... liberal, like many other words, lost all practical use to me (beyond the nonpolitical definition that applies to the phrase "liberal application of _"). and now the majority seem to view it as this weird slice of the pie that isn't the right or the left.
"libtard" was a funny meme insult to use for about two days but they ran with it too long and now nobody thinks of themselves as liberals but everybody gets accused of being one. somehow, being called a liberal has become more offensive than being called a fascist...
@bitterblossom @Jazzy_Butts @MENUMA432
After the American war of independence, the American enlightenment liberals who revolted against the British Crown were the ones who instituted slavery as part of a compromise deal with the conservative plantation-owners.
During the French Revolution, the "liberals" sided with the Monarchies of Europe against Napoleon and the Jacobin radicals. Afterwards, the compromise was "Constitutional Monarchy" which only partially was applied.
In the American Civil War, the "liberals" initially wanted to retain "slave-states", as long as they stated that they were part of the Union. It was only later, due to radical pressure and as a war contingency, that Lincoln made emancipating slaves war policy. Even then, after the war the Unionists compensated the slave-owners for freeing their slaves, while giving the slaves nothing. Jim Crow followed, in many cases supported by those who professed to be "liberals".
There are many, many more examples of this sort of behaviour from "liberals".
Yeah, I get accused of being a "libtard" by "right-wing" (ironic) "lolicons" all the time. I just brush it off like all the other labels I've had thrown at me. I've been called everything under the bush, so nothing works anymore haha
@Jazzy_Butts @MENUMA432
Thing about Communism is, there are different types of Communism, and some are better than others, haha