Fighting the Oligarchy

[icehorse]

The economic system of which you speak is called "socialism". Wherein the mechanisms of commercial production are controlled by the representatives of society as a whole rather than the capital investor: i.e., labor, investor, community (environment) and government.

But just saying that word out loud in the U.S. will bring on all manner of insane bile and loathing. The 'oligarchs' and their minions in politics and the media have brainwashed us very thoroughly, in the U.S.

Largely agreed. But I'd also say that none of the "pure" solutions are correct (i.e. pure capitalism and pure socialism seem misguided). Most of the first world is already a blend of capitalism and socialism. And yes "socialism" has been presented as a boogey man, at least in the U.S.

 

[icehorse]

So imagine that we got to a less credulous, more well informed population. Perhaps such a population could demand:

- An end to subsidies for profitable corps.
- A simple, fair, graduated tax system.
- A healthcare system with profiteering eliminated.
- A sharp reduction and added transparency of lobbying.
- An end to corporations as citizens.
- A phasing out of profit-mandated coprorations (which is most of them)

And so on...

 

[PureX]

Largely agreed. But I'd also say that none of the "pure" solutions are correct (i.e. pure capitalism and pure socialism seem misguided). Most of the first world is already a blend of capitalism and socialism. And yes "socialism" has been presented as a boogey man, at least in the U.S.

There is no such thing as a "pure" economic system, And no form of socialism is anti-capital investment. Nor is it totally against capitalist representation in economic control. Which is why the insane myth in the U.S. that capitalism is somehow self-controlling and self-regulating and if left alone will do what's good and right for everyone involved is just that: INSANE! So is communism. So is totalitarian oligarchy, and so on. Because these are system that put ideology above functionality. And that never works.

Any economic system that does not serve the well-being of everyone engaged in it, is a failure. As that is exactly the purpose of commerce. And we humans should not tolerate these failed systems.

 

[sun rise]

Great stuff!

I hold down a few different jobs ("author" amongst them), but they all relate to teaching or teaching teachers. The avenue that suits me best is through teaching, directly or indirectly. So my personal efforts are focused on making the population less credulous.

The world would be much different if people understood logic and could spot logical fallacies easily. Your goal is noble.

 

[Augustus]

Context: IMO, most of what ails us can be traced back to capitalism run by Oligarchs. I don’t think I really have a beef with capitalism. But I do have a BIG beef with capitalism run by Oligarchs. All of the following problems are created or exacerbated by the Oligarchy... how can we fight back against the Oligarchy?

The logical solution to excessive centralisation of power is the decentralisation of power.

National and transnational governance allows special interests to maximise their influence at minimal costs. WTO, EU, Federal regulations etc affect huge numbers of people and lock in corporate rent seeking behaviours.

Centralised governance also increases the complexity of problems exponentially resulting in 'least bad' type solutions and greater inefficiency. It also distances decision makers from the consequences of their decisions.

With a radically decentralised system of governance with many powers devolved to the municipal level, instead of 1 big education problem you have 1000 small education problems. Small problems are much easier to solve and a diversity of approaches allows better practices to be discovered and solutions to be tailored to local contexts.

Lobbying becomes much harder if you have to lobby 1000 local governments instead of 1 national government.

Decision makers will also live in the communities their decisions affect bringing them closer to the people and forcing them to confront the effects of their decisions.

Including some degree of sortition in the local electoral system minimises the risk of people buying up government and makes the decision makers truly representative of the people.

You also solve the problem of national level animosity because Texas conservatives don't want to be ruled by NY liberals (and vice versa). People can live in a society of their chosen values.

 

[DavidFirth]

These days governments are basically majority rules except in a few small countries. If you aren't in the majority or you don't like the government you need to move or just deal with it. You can protest but usually that just gets you on hate lists.

 

[icehorse]

The logical solution to excessive centralisation of power is the decentralisation of power.

Hey! We agree (somewhat?) on decentralization! I kind of break decentralization into categories. In general I think we should decentralize any critical structures that have taken on monolithic characteristics, e.g. nuclear power plants would be a bad idea even if they didn't create such horrible effluence. So we should have 100x as many power sources feeding our grid as we do. but I think a "grid" in itself, well designed is a good idea. Similarly, I think weights and measures and engineering standards ought to be centralized.

Things like schools seem really tricky to me. On the one hand local control often seems appropriate. On the other hand, local pockets of great wealth will tend to exacerbate inequalities as will pockets of poverty tend to exacerbate pockets of weak education.

 

[Sleeppy]

Capitalism has to go. Period.

We have enough for everyone to live comfortably. But, if we don't embrace Democratic Socialism, we may never reach our species' collective potential.

 

[PureX]

Hey! We agree (somewhat?) on decentralization! I kind of break decentralization into categories. In general I think we should decentralize any critical structures that have taken on monolithic characteristics, e.g. nuclear power plants would be a bad idea even if they didn't create such horrible effluence. So we should have 100x as many power sources feeding our grid as we do. but I think a "grid" in itself, well designed is a good idea. Similarly, I think weights and measures and engineering standards ought to be centralized.

Things like schools seem really tricky to me. On the one hand local control often seems appropriate. On the other hand, local pockets of great wealth will tend to exacerbate inequalities as will pockets of poverty tend to exacerbate pockets of weak education.

We need a centralized government to establish, represent, and protect basic human rights and the institutions that support and enable them. We also need a national government to present the nation's values and interests to the rest of the world, as a coherent unit, rather than a collection of disparate and confused states and ideas. And we need a national government to establish and implement public works that would not be implemented by individual states out of self-interest, but that need to be implemented on behalf of the nation's interest.

 

[icehorse]

Back to the OP...

Robert Reich has some interesting videos on the history of US economics over the last 100 years or so. My summary is:

- When Roosevelt had to fix the economy he enlisted unions.
- Roosevelt put into place very high taxes for the wealthy.
- Through the mid-60s the economy boomed, science was cool, infrastructure was enhanced.
- Since then, the wealthy have been chipping away at high taxes (by various means)

It seems clear to me that we need a more loophole-free tax system, and wealthy folks and profitable corporations MUST pay their share of taxes. As it stands now, there are huge, profitable corporations (e.g. Wells Fargo), that pay less taxes than I do - as an individual. Clearly, that's not a sustainable approach.