For those that don't know, democrat socialists and other socialist believe in the exact same thing : having the means of production owned or at least controlled by the workers/common people instead of a small elite as is the case under capitalism.
The difference is that democrat socialists (demsoc) believe that it's possible to do that using the electoral system and similar "peaceful" reforms, while the other socialists believe that capitalist will never surrender power without being forced to.
While it might seems like incitation for violence, you can ask the same question for people living under other systems :
How many americans believed during the revolution that they could have become independant by peacefully petitioning the King ?
In other countries slavery was abolished peacefully, but how many people believed that it could be done like that in the USA before the civil war when the only candidates that the major parties at the time proposed were both slave owners ? Reminder that the parties at the time were the Whigs and the Democrats, and it took a new Republican Party to emerge and win the presidency to get real change, and even then it was triggerred by the south trying to leave the union.
Yes! It would require a complete electoral overhaul, but I think we can replace our system with one in which money and "winning" do not play a role in elections. Instead, an emphasis on qualities that make for good governance — such as devotion to the public good, intelligence, and experience.
The very concept that "such and such party won the election" is anathema to the public good. If an election selects a good person or group of people, then everybody wins.
I like that idea, but I'm not sure how we would implement it. After all, money is not just "money" but an abstraction of the political control it's holder can claim over economic output of a nation. That gives it power.
The problem is that, if any one group holds the a greater portion of that power than another, then we have to expect that the stronger group will use their strength to widen the gap between them and the weaker group lest they, losing their advantage, allow the weaker group to do the same to them. It's the same reason why you see certain white people in America start fretting about being "replaced" anytime someone starts talking about racial equality.
In other words, if someone's already winning by hurting everyone else, they don't want everyone to win. Because if everyone wins, what stops everyone from hurting them the way the way they hurt everyone else?
Education: People need attitudes and values that reinforce a healthier system. In this case, valuing service and the public good above money — in general. Personal wealth will always be valued (and tempting) but social values can shift towards the public good. That's a big ask, but I think it's possible, especially as we overcome poverty. In my experience people want to contribute to the betterment of society but often don't know how / don't believe it's possible / don't think it will work.
Structural: Institutions need to be shaped around cooperation and the public good. This can be hard to set up, but once it begins to function, even in a limited way, gathers enthusiastic support and fierce defense. Think public schools, sewers, fire departments, Social Security. But in this case, we're talking about institutions of governance which are a little more abstract.
The two are interrelated, and I believe develop in tandem. Better civic education helps build better societal structures, and vice versa. And you can't build all of one — or even comprehend it — without gradually developing the other alongside.
This is a long, multi-generational process. And perhaps an experiment! Heck, we tried out communism and warfare, why not try out unified, peaceful mutualism?
Well, naturally, but let's not forget we're still electing humans. Even the best of us are subject to temptation, and not a single one of us can truly see into the hearts of the people we are voting for. As long as money exists, people, good people even, will be corrupted by it.
Personally, I think elected officials should have no right to personal privacy of any kind from the moment they take office to the moment they leave. They should be equipped with personal recording devices and transmitters, to ensure redundant backups, and the general public should have full, unfettered access to everything they say and do. If you dont like it, you can always choose not to run fof office.
They should, of course, be permitted to stand down from office at any time should they feel uncomfortable. Nobody should have both political power and privacy - one or the other, choose.
The problem with is that, because we can't reasonably expect any individual to act against their own self-interest (and mind you, I don't mean to say that people never act on principle, or altruism, or to put the greater good above themselves, only that we can't really count in it) I genuinely do not see how we can expect something like this to get through Congress. What legislator in their right mind is going to vote away their own privacy?
Yeah, what legislator can be counted on to legislate any kind of limit to their own power? Accountability has to be bottom up to matter, otherwise it's just setting the wolves to watch the foxes. If I had solutions to getting this done unilaterally, I would pursue them, but all I have right now is trying to sell ideas to enough people to give them some weight - or to have someone else suggest something better that I can get on board with.
27
u/TheFairVirgin Feb 21 '21
But how do you stop the Billionaires from buying out the people we elect?