I am very concerned by the number of liberals on lemmy who seem adamant about not wanting to read more than a tweet’s worth of text. It’s not like I write books. In theory they’re adults. They should be able to read a couple paragraphs if they want to have a serious conversation.
I dont disagree with the notion that a “changing of the guard” won’t fix everything. It just means there’s different people that risk being corrupted, assuming they weren’t already. Like how after the French Revolution it just meant there different rich people in control.
But to say something we shouldn’t even try because a certain percentage of the population is greedy, or psychopathic, or whatever other trait you want, isn’t that great of an argument. You could say capitalism will never work because people are too dishonest and will lie to fool investors. Which is something that actually happens right now. Enron. FTX. Theranos.
This is THE issue imo. How do we deal with these people? I dont think ANY political philosophy can address that effectively. The original idea of splitting power into three houses wasn’t bad, but these past two years have shown it wasn’t enough.
When it comes to the french revolution the answer is easy:
This was not a workers revolution - it was a bourgeois revolution. It means that feudal lords were replaced with capitalists. As you said, the power went from one small group to another small group, but it still changed an economic system - feudalism to capitalism. The russian revolution is still the better example that should be studied. It abolished feudalism and got a step further to a form of socialist experiment.
I guess there will always be bad people that are hungry for power and have no morals, as you said - no matter the system. Corruption will always be a thing, but it is important to have a system that sanctions it properly and that allows society to have a clear moral stance on such behaviour.
But to say something we shouldn’t even try because a certain percentage of the population is greedy, or psychopathic, or whatever other trait you want, isn’t that great of an argument.
Why do you think the choice is socialism or do nothing? I am arguing for doing something else, namely focusing on reforming democracies and breaking up mega-corporations into smaller companies while keeping the basics of capitalism.
This is THE issue imo. How do we deal with these people? I dont think ANY political philosophy can address that effectively. The original idea of splitting power into three houses wasn’t bad, but these past two years have shown it wasn’t enough.
If you believe this, then you are paying too much attention to the US and not enough to the EU. The EU is semi-working and a lot of the things that aren’t are US corporations and other foreign interests messing things up from the outside while not being fully under EU jurisdiction.
This is THE issue imo. How do we deal with these people? I dont think ANY political philosophy can address that effectively.
Effectively is relative. I don’t think any philosophy can address it perfectly (outside something crazy sci-fi like handing power to an AGI). But clearly some approaches work better then others. Look at Netheralnds, Norway, … They have issues but they work well enough.
What is crazy to me is there being clear examples of countries with systems that work well enough to give great living standards to their people and people saying “fuck that, let’s try a system that doesn’t work even on paper and always resulted in horrible suffering when tried. I am sure this time will be better.” Like why?! Even if you believe there is a way it could maybe work, why take the risk over systems that have proven themselves?
“No matter what points you make I’m dead set in my beliefs and I’m never changing them no matter what.”
There, I shortened your walls of text for you.
I am very concerned by the number of liberals on lemmy who seem adamant about not wanting to read more than a tweet’s worth of text. It’s not like I write books. In theory they’re adults. They should be able to read a couple paragraphs if they want to have a serious conversation.
Ah, thank you! So much more readable than the 4 pagaraphs from darthelmet.
I dont disagree with the notion that a “changing of the guard” won’t fix everything. It just means there’s different people that risk being corrupted, assuming they weren’t already. Like how after the French Revolution it just meant there different rich people in control.
But to say something we shouldn’t even try because a certain percentage of the population is greedy, or psychopathic, or whatever other trait you want, isn’t that great of an argument. You could say capitalism will never work because people are too dishonest and will lie to fool investors. Which is something that actually happens right now. Enron. FTX. Theranos.
This is THE issue imo. How do we deal with these people? I dont think ANY political philosophy can address that effectively. The original idea of splitting power into three houses wasn’t bad, but these past two years have shown it wasn’t enough.
When it comes to the french revolution the answer is easy: This was not a workers revolution - it was a bourgeois revolution. It means that feudal lords were replaced with capitalists. As you said, the power went from one small group to another small group, but it still changed an economic system - feudalism to capitalism. The russian revolution is still the better example that should be studied. It abolished feudalism and got a step further to a form of socialist experiment.
I guess there will always be bad people that are hungry for power and have no morals, as you said - no matter the system. Corruption will always be a thing, but it is important to have a system that sanctions it properly and that allows society to have a clear moral stance on such behaviour.
Why do you think the choice is socialism or do nothing? I am arguing for doing something else, namely focusing on reforming democracies and breaking up mega-corporations into smaller companies while keeping the basics of capitalism.
If you believe this, then you are paying too much attention to the US and not enough to the EU. The EU is semi-working and a lot of the things that aren’t are US corporations and other foreign interests messing things up from the outside while not being fully under EU jurisdiction.
Effectively is relative. I don’t think any philosophy can address it perfectly (outside something crazy sci-fi like handing power to an AGI). But clearly some approaches work better then others. Look at Netheralnds, Norway, … They have issues but they work well enough.
What is crazy to me is there being clear examples of countries with systems that work well enough to give great living standards to their people and people saying “fuck that, let’s try a system that doesn’t work even on paper and always resulted in horrible suffering when tried. I am sure this time will be better.” Like why?! Even if you believe there is a way it could maybe work, why take the risk over systems that have proven themselves?