In what world will a politician never disappoint you?
I’m generally in full control of myself and even I disappoint myself - fringe third party candidates are not the political messiah some people think they are.
The question was why do we need to accept that politicians will disappoint you, implying that they had something they believed would not disappoint them.
In a world where “politician” isn’t a career, or even a thing that exists, and instead people make decisions communally and horizontally. It’s called anarchism.
You not knowing or being able to imagine alternatives, doesn’t mean none exist.
I think it’s more that people are profoundly emotionally uneducated which leaves them open to social exploitation.
In the US, children are legally their parents’ property and are a type of slave class. If you are groomed to be a slave your entire formative years, don’t you think this will make you accept controlling fascists? Probably if we worked on communicating what abuse is and worked on community itself, bad faith actors would have a harder time. We know this because the US dissolving their communities for capital has made the country weak and uneducated.
You asked if there are real life examples of community - it’s so silly because it’s everywhere. Humans are naturally social. It’s capitalism that is new and rare, looking at human history. Please remember that capitalism isn’t a synonym for trade or economy.
There’s a reason capitalism favors psychopaths and abusive people. Anyone who’s lived with such people knows that’s not sustainable. Living with people who are emotionally mature is much better and more sustainable, and less likely to receive reactive violence.
Even educated people are vulnerable to misinformation on topics for which they are not experts, and propaganda is a numbers game. Socialism is a better scaling economic system because it basically creates a lot of small communities (workers who own the company). Democracy scales better than anarchy because it creates a system for the decision making of anarchy that wouldn’t be possible for more than a few hundred people. Both also have downsides, but handle scaling issues better than the other options.
Socialism doesn’t “create” communities, it empowers them. Those communities already exist in the workplace. The difference is who is granted power in government.
It’s not capitalism that grants better “scaling,” it’s that our government is modeled after old Roman laws which are all rooted in military structure. Our government functions like this due to ancient restrictions with communication (before cars and electricity) and due to the warlike nature of western/Roman society and all Abrahamic religions. The entire point of sacrificing Abraham is to convince people to send their sons off to war. Jesus is about sending your son off to war. If we want a peaceful society we have to structure ourselves like one and not like we are actively inflamed and wanting to attack others.
Governments are whatever people want to agree to as a collective. The reason democracy and anarchy “fail” to our military trained eyes, is because people can decline or disrupt government at smaller scale. This is a good thing unless you want to mobilize against another country. Hard to force a 19 year old to shoot another 19 year old if they can just wall away and still get things like food and healthcare.
Yes exactly. The only politician who will believe as you do 100% is yourself. You must run for office if this is your goal. Anything else is actually kinda fascist/controlling. In a better world, we’d have a direct democracy and everyone would get a voice.
In what world will a politician never disappoint you?
I’m generally in full control of myself and even I disappoint myself - fringe third party candidates are not the political messiah some people think they are.
I don’t understand how this is the argument against third party. Why does the candidate need to be the Messiah to be better than Kamala?
The question was why do we need to accept that politicians will disappoint you, implying that they had something they believed would not disappoint them.
I thought it was a third party candidate.
Apparently it was anarchism.
Rookie Lemmy mistake.
In a world where “politician” isn’t a career, or even a thing that exists, and instead people make decisions communally and horizontally. It’s called anarchism.
You not knowing or being able to imagine alternatives, doesn’t mean none exist.
Being able to imagine alternatives doesn’t mean they’re realistic.
How realistic do you think this is?
Any real-world examples of a society structured this way?
They won’t be able to provide any larger than a few hundred people because those systems are extremely vulnerable to malicious actors.
Communism and anarchy work for small groups where people know and trust each other and are able to compromise.
I think it’s more that people are profoundly emotionally uneducated which leaves them open to social exploitation.
In the US, children are legally their parents’ property and are a type of slave class. If you are groomed to be a slave your entire formative years, don’t you think this will make you accept controlling fascists? Probably if we worked on communicating what abuse is and worked on community itself, bad faith actors would have a harder time. We know this because the US dissolving their communities for capital has made the country weak and uneducated.
You asked if there are real life examples of community - it’s so silly because it’s everywhere. Humans are naturally social. It’s capitalism that is new and rare, looking at human history. Please remember that capitalism isn’t a synonym for trade or economy.
There’s a reason capitalism favors psychopaths and abusive people. Anyone who’s lived with such people knows that’s not sustainable. Living with people who are emotionally mature is much better and more sustainable, and less likely to receive reactive violence.
Even educated people are vulnerable to misinformation on topics for which they are not experts, and propaganda is a numbers game. Socialism is a better scaling economic system because it basically creates a lot of small communities (workers who own the company). Democracy scales better than anarchy because it creates a system for the decision making of anarchy that wouldn’t be possible for more than a few hundred people. Both also have downsides, but handle scaling issues better than the other options.
Socialism doesn’t “create” communities, it empowers them. Those communities already exist in the workplace. The difference is who is granted power in government.
It’s not capitalism that grants better “scaling,” it’s that our government is modeled after old Roman laws which are all rooted in military structure. Our government functions like this due to ancient restrictions with communication (before cars and electricity) and due to the warlike nature of western/Roman society and all Abrahamic religions. The entire point of sacrificing Abraham is to convince people to send their sons off to war. Jesus is about sending your son off to war. If we want a peaceful society we have to structure ourselves like one and not like we are actively inflamed and wanting to attack others.
Governments are whatever people want to agree to as a collective. The reason democracy and anarchy “fail” to our military trained eyes, is because people can decline or disrupt government at smaller scale. This is a good thing unless you want to mobilize against another country. Hard to force a 19 year old to shoot another 19 year old if they can just wall away and still get things like food and healthcare.
Yes exactly. The only politician who will believe as you do 100% is yourself. You must run for office if this is your goal. Anything else is actually kinda fascist/controlling. In a better world, we’d have a direct democracy and everyone would get a voice.