131–140 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you not type so much. Just define "democratic economy" in 1-2 sentences without using more undefined words (buzzwords).
A worker controlled economy. I don't really know what you consider buzzwords and not.
Is there a system of government that enjoys the most success? Just curious.
The bureaucratic dynasties under the Mandate of Heaven ruled for ~3,000 years in China, ~2100 BCE until 1912. Individual dynasties lasted for 100s of years, the longest, the Zhou, for 790 years from 1046 BC to 256 BC. The English royal system has persisted with relatively little discontinuity from 1066 AD to present, some 950 years. Unless you've other criteria for "success", in which case you might care to consider…
"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans…
But republics always were the favorites of savvy aristocrats to keep their collegial rule. If one looks closely at the English state, there's a Republic there since the days of the Magna Carta, whatever way they dress it up. Many a "monarch" terminated with extreme prejudice when getting too big for his britches ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators" Read "soldiers, policemen, lobbyists and advertisers"?
No, read "lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats". Making you afraid of mere advertisers (demanding evermore protection from - you guessed it! - lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats, with the help of their soldiers and policemen) is a great act of mind-manipulation that harks back to the aristocratic and academic disdain for trade.
To give some examples, consider what happens within the news media. If you don't think news outlets that rely on advertising money to function tailor their messages to present a world view that lines up with the wishes of advertisers, perhaps you'll find this interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHa6NflkW3Y
As for the influence of advertisers on the general public, I'd argue the only reason its big business is because it works. However, I believe it works differently than just through the obvious ads we see around us, the most effective forms of advertising appear to be the ones that don't look like advertising at all, I'd put this under the category of 'cultural norms'. Advertisers have a large indirect influence on cultural norms, and (aside from the basic things we need to survive) it is often by aiming to meet those norms that we find ourselves spending money.
Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion. How can we claim to live in a democra…
>Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life; the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.
Centralisation of power is the issue, it doesn't matter if that centralised power is held by governments or by large corporations, the end result is a tilting of the playing field in favour of those with the most power.
Is there a system of government that enjoys the most success? Just curious.
The bureaucratic dynasties under the Mandate of Heaven ruled for ~3,000 years in China, ~2100 BCE until 1912. Individual dynasties lasted for 100s of years, the longest, the Zhou, for 790 years from 1046 BC to 256 BC. The English royal system has persisted with relatively little discontinuity from 1066 AD to present, some 950 years. Unless you've other criteria for "success", in which case you might care to consider…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators" Read "soldiers, policemen, lobbyists and advertisers"?
No, read "lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats". Making you afraid of mere advertisers (demanding evermore protection from - you guessed it! - lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats, with the help of their soldiers and policemen) is a great act of mind-manipulation that harks back to the aristocratic and academic disdain for trade.
Politicians then use advertisers to manipulate masses to ensure power for themselfs.
In my country people in last elections elected an Olygarch, multi billionair, who controls whole agriculture, all main media, medical and other industries and now he is writing laws that suits his needs and stealing billions in "donations" from us. How is this possible? How was he elected in democracy? How is it possible that he has support of majority of people? Because he has very good PR, advertisement and propaganda team.
Anyone who hasnt seen "The Century of Self" documentary, please watch it, it will open your eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans…
I am faving this comment. Huxley was a true visionary. However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..." Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.
You can argue that consent should make the act legal, but that doesn't make it non-violent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies The countries with the highest quality of life are Social Democracies. Places like the nordic countries and the 'new world' anglo countries excluding the US. It's bizarre just how much the US has demonised the concept of socialism in its political dialogue.
Social democracies are not socialist states, and I 100% agree, there is no way I'd be able to argue against capitalism without prefacing with that statement because everyone would immediately think I propose something like the USSR.
Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion. How can we claim to live in a democra…
They're complementary. A sibling thread on this article says that the problem with democracy is that votes based on a gut feeling that doesn't reflect reality count for the same as well-researched votes by experts with a full understanding of the consequences: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12878457 Capitalism solves this problem with bankruptcy & business failure. People whose beliefs are shown to be false los…