this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
533 points (80.6% liked)

Leftism

2062 readers
58 users here now

Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!

Rules:

Posting Expectations:

Sister Communities:

!abolition@slrpnk.net !antiwork@lemmy.world !antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world !breadtube@lemmy.world !climate@slrpnk.net !fuckcars@lemmy.world !iwwunion@lemmy.ml !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com !leftymusic@lemmy.world !privacy@lemmy.world !socialistra@midwest.social !solarpunk@slrpnk.net Solarpunk memes !therightcantmeme@midwest.social !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world !vuvuzelaiphone@lemmy.world !workingclasscalendar@lemmy.world !workreform@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 11 months 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.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 11 months 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!

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 1 points 11 months 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?