7 ms·

>Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong? The

by y80 10y ago

>Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong? The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it? If you think the people decided on these two I'd say you misunderstand the process by which these two reached the forefront. A very small minority selected Clinton and stacked the odds in her favor for selection, as to the rise of Trump, I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system. Remember the individuals Trump was running against? Trumps a protest vote, and a terribly dangerous one at that. Choosing between three different people put on your plate by people you don't trust isn't a failing of democracy, it's a failing of the underlying system. >"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!" You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point. >That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy. I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.

wyager 10y ago
> The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it? First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories. Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton and rallied extremely hard against Trump. I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something. > I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote! > I'm not proposing elected slavery, Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy". > I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy. Besides this statement being more or less incoherent, it also doesn't have anything to do with your earlier statement that > if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. There is no connection between the decisions I make for myself and the decisions imposed on me by the whims of a political majority.
- y80 10y ago
  >First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories. Not at all what I'm trying to say, I don't think there's a shady room where rich people come to smoke cigars and plan out the election, in fact you actually agree with what I'm saying in the very next sentence: "Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton" >I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something. I agree, which is why I said Trump was a protest vote, a naive attempt at hitting back at the system whilst still completely supporting it. I don't know how you think I'm sitting here talking about illumaniti when you demonstrably agree with me about capitalist influence on the election? >You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote! I don't think you know enough about a democratic economy to be attacking the idea, evidently since you're still believing that I think a democratic economy can exist in a capitalist system. >Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy". Then I think you're very poor at reasoning, can I suggest "The Conquest of Bread" it's a great book that might help you on your journey to understand what I'm saying.
  - wav-part 10y ago
    Can you not type so much. Just define "democratic economy" in 1-2 sentences without using more undefined words (buzzwords).
    - y80 10y ago
      A worker controlled economy. I don't really know what you consider buzzwords and not.
      - wav-part 10y ago
        Undefined: A worker controlled economy.
Sniffnoy 10y ago
> You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point. This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better response would be to explain. (I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".)
- damptowel 10y ago
  > I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy". Co-ops, probably.
- y80 10y ago
  A democratic economy is one where the workers control it through cooperation across industries, the form this takes is up to the workers in this theoretical system. An anarcho-syndicalist approach may work, a participatory economic approach may work, a socialist market system is possible (mutualism). Unfortunately I can't really explain more without getting into the nitty gritty which requires an understanding of socialism.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".) One in which we workers are rid of all absentee bosses and run enterprises ourselves, democratically. Hence "democratic economy".
  - Sniffnoy 10y ago
    So... cooperatives?
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      Among other things, yes.

by y80 10y ago

wyager 10y ago

> The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it? First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories. Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton and rallied extremely hard against Trump. I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something. > I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote! > I'm not proposing elected slavery, Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy". > I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy. Besides this statement being more or less incoherent, it also doesn't have anything to do with your earlier statement that > if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. There is no connection between the decisions I make for myself and the decisions imposed on me by the whims of a political majority.

y80 10y ago
>First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories. Not at all what I'm trying to say, I don't think there's a shady room where rich people come to smoke cigars and plan out the election, in fact you actually agree with what I'm saying in the very next sentence: "Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton" >I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something. I agree, which is why I said Trump was a protest vote, a naive attempt at hitting back at the system whilst still completely supporting it. I don't know how you think I'm sitting here talking about illumaniti when you demonstrably agree with me about capitalist influence on the election? >You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote! I don't think you know enough about a democratic economy to be attacking the idea, evidently since you're still believing that I think a democratic economy can exist in a capitalist system. >Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy". Then I think you're very poor at reasoning, can I suggest "The Conquest of Bread" it's a great book that might help you on your journey to understand what I'm saying.
- wav-part 10y ago
  Can you not type so much. Just define "democratic economy" in 1-2 sentences without using more undefined words (buzzwords).
  - y80 10y ago
    A worker controlled economy. I don't really know what you consider buzzwords and not.
    - wav-part 10y ago
      Undefined: A worker controlled economy.

Sniffnoy 10y ago

> You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point. This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better response would be to explain. (I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".)

damptowel 10y ago
> I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy". Co-ops, probably.
y80 10y ago
A democratic economy is one where the workers control it through cooperation across industries, the form this takes is up to the workers in this theoretical system. An anarcho-syndicalist approach may work, a participatory economic approach may work, a socialist market system is possible (mutualism). Unfortunately I can't really explain more without getting into the nitty gritty which requires an understanding of socialism.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".) One in which we workers are rid of all absentee bosses and run enterprises ourselves, democratically. Hence "democratic economy".
- Sniffnoy 10y ago
  So... cooperatives?
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Among other things, yes.