Word.
I am happy that I lived in the 2 centuries that actually embraced democracy. Before it was kings, dukes, bishops and popes, After it will be CEOs and Shareholders
Looks like the majority of people just want to be ruled so they don't have to think themselves and always have someone they can blame for their misery.
It's true that there's been many social improvements over course of the last century, but the trajectory over centuries has been to the detriment of dictators.
I don't think ppl want to be ruled so much as we just keep making the mistake of letting dictators take control before knocking them down and restoring order again.
Absolutely, but they have the 'Better to ask forgiveness than permission' mindset, and people don't realise what's happening until it's too late.
People do realize.
And they don't mind.
On the contrary...
Yes! Most.of them don't care about facts
They care about feelings. And that's what dictators provide.
Facts are complicated. Feelings are easy.
You may well be right, but history suggests that people will 'wake up' and fight to change things.....eventually. I guess that's why the fascists weaponised 'woke'.
Does it? People will "wake up" when their own life is severely negatively affected. So as long as you are able to not severely affect the life of the majority (and that does not need to be a huge majority) no one will raise!
And yes! "severely affected" can depend on the nationality...
But in general: Dumb and poor people are easier to rule. So make sure to keep them dumb and poor....
/cc @BrianJopek
I think so. Would-be dictators learn from their predecessors' failures.
Agree on what you say about the poor, and that ties with the observation that change tends to occur when the middle classes are affected. The trajectory seems to be one of making the middle classes gradually poorer to reduce their power. The problem with the plan is an over-reliance on nationalism (which worked) and religious zeal that no longer exists in Western Europe.
The religious zeal still exists from what I see. The church of the masses might though have moved on to the one of Mercedes, Audi and BMW or AI or "Climate change is fake" or whatever else people will come up with to divert the masses and keep them occupied... 😁
"Don't look up"
/cc @BrianJopek
True, consumerism isn't going anywhere (:
Over here we have what looks like an entirely-contrived Christian conversion of Tommeh Robinson who has apparently found God in prison. I still can't see it landing in post-Christian Western Europe, and even the large numbers of religious citizens of other faiths won't help much because that runs counter to the nationalist rhetoric.
@heiglandreas @ReggieHere @BrianJopek
Most people don't want to have to think about politics. They just want to live in a place where their basic requirements function without having to kick out a wannabe dictator who tries to make a power grab every so often
@heiglandreas @BrianJopek "Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw.
It was its tendency to bend at the knees."
#Billionaires should be #taxed out of existence..
And the weird thing is they would still be super rich - AND - dumping all that tax money back into the economy would generate even more revenue for the super wealthy that own all the s*** we rely on...
It would juice the economy like a 2 or 3% fed rate cut..
Then they would be taxed again... more money dumped into the economy, they get rich again... It is a virtuous cycle.
Yes, but where is all the misery in you plan?
That's just democracy at work. If your populance is so impressionable that you can sway their opinion with a few million dollars worth of campaign budget, you have bigger problems than billionaires that start with education.
Switzerland manages to do just fine, with billionaires present.
But then, of course, Switzerland has a culture that encourages meaningful higher education and social cohesion over Jersey Shore and hyperindividualism.
Turns out if voters understands itself as citizens, instead of spectators in an interactive movie, they think before they vote. It's no coincidence the US voted not one, but two actors to become president, every single (elected) president since Kennedy was voted in based on better playacting on the campaign trail, and politicians all around the western world spend more on clothes and style consultants than on increasing their knowledge of a topic (again: exception being Switzerland).
You are making a classical determinism mistake. Cultures are not soap bubbles that suddenly bursts when someone thinks 'money can be made'. Switzerland *is* an attractive target since at least 1875, and somehow, it did not become a chattel slave breeding ground.
Instead, they are the only actual state-level democracy in the world and their federalism remained. Why? Because all that was poured into institutions.
Switzerland does banking, but these days because they are stable and reliable, not because of the reasons you imply. In fact, 2025s Switzerland has probably more transparent banking than any other European country.
"Why would they disrupt?" Who are "they"? The Capital™ ? The US? A secret cabale of slavehunters?
How many slaves have they collected in the US?
Also, I'm not Swiss. But I'd like to be. They do a lot of things right
I don’t deny power abuse, propaganda, or crimes by elites.
What I reject is the claim that everything is already lost, everyone is enslaved, and analysis is pointless.
The moment you say outcomes are predetermined, everything is rigged and dissent is just “proof of manipulation”, you’ve left politics and entered eschantologic theology.
I’m interested in systems that can still be influenced, not myths that excuse total resignation.
If you see no agency left anywhere, then this conversation can’t continue in good faith.
When I said there was an education problem, that was not the standard 'educate yourself' moralism; I was stating a structural prerequisite of democracy: voters must know things.
If you let fools and ignoramuses decide on national policy, do not be surprised when the results are a circus.
If you want a more stable society, you need to give education a higher value than the US does right now. It's not victim blaming, it's pointing towards the exit of a bad situation.
I disagree with your dichotomy of billionaires and victims - billionaires can be the result of certain systems - but we see just as many billionaires who rose in environments that were not as permissive as the US.
In fact, in billionaires per capita, the US does not even rank under the top 10 (they are place 11... behind capitalist hellholes like ... Sweden and Switzerland).
What you describe as “billionaire behaviour” therefore appears less like an inevitable consequence of wealth itself and far more like a pathology of specific US institutional, political, and cultural conditions.
By switching from systems over to billionaires, you make a structural problem a person problem, we've done that before, and much suffering was caused by that. Every revolution eventually comes to eat its children, when billionaire blood runs dry, and the guillotine thirsts for blood, new enemies will be found, and usually it's the useful idiots who cheered on the revolution's infancy.
Your last sentence concerns me most.
Decoupling individual behaviour from moral responsibility is incompatible with liberal democracy.
That logic is not emancipatory. It is classist - and depending on ideological framing, historically indistinguishable from racist or revolutionary marking systems that have reliably culminated in either societal collapse (as in the French Revolution), autocracy (as in the Third Reich or Soviet Russia), or both (as in the Khmer Rouge).
> I didn't let people be uneducated.
So, what did you, personally, do to raise education levels? Remember: it takes a village to raise a child.
> And what makes you think Swedish and Swiss billionaires aren't using the US as their playground, to keep their home town clueless of their actions?
That's an extraordinary claim, and it deserves extraordinary evidence. You making the claim and then, in the very next sentence, admitting that you made it up does not inspire confidence.
> Liberalism is compatible with fascism
Oh boy. Well, have a nice day.
@cy @BrianJopek @oldguycrusty Communism and Capitalism favor a too-small ratio of wealth, instead of judicious symmetry. This math is the cause for the rise of Democratic Socialism - or, a 'sustainable middle'. Removing the abusers by the masses, must be persistent - even if it means they just retreat to their luxury bunkers.
But Authoritarian Autocracies are also on the rise, so your plans better be long term.
@oldguycrusty @BrianJopek During the Golden Age of America, when there was money to built today's infrastructure, libraries and to send people to the moon, maximum income tax in the US was way above 70%.
Prohibitive income taxes are a mandatory bug fix for economical inefficiencies that avoid people hording money, which should be invested in people, research and society instead. It was a crime to abandon prohibitive maximum income tax.
True...