Communism would be nice economic model to try, but i wonder if its possible to setup in such a way it wont become mockery of itself like how russians did it. At least if hypothetically there was some kind of revolution after people get enough of current exploitation, most likely horrible people would worm into positions of power using the chaos and it would turn out like soviet union eventually. Peaceful and well though plan would be more resilient to corruption, but in current world even serious talk of such things gets shot down immediately.
Literally the reason models like that will never work. They don’t account for human nature. Humans love finding ways to put themselves ahead of others. You put a system in place to make people “even” – we’ll find a way to be more ‘even’ than Frank. That guys not nearly as ‘even’ as me. At the end of the day we are apes with hierarchical social structures. Any economic or political model that has a snowballs chance of succeeding needs to account for that.
Your reply got me thinking about some variants of market socialism I read about in undergrad, the names of which I can’t recall.
Generally speaking, artificial scarcity in its myriad variations would be abolished in sectors of the economy that are directly tied to housing, food, non-cosmetic medicine, and other categories directly tied to the UN declaration of human rights.
Said abolishments, legislative, executive, and judicial purview of the sectors in question would be decided by direct referendum votes of the citizenry, instead of representative vote. Representative legislature would be voted in a ranked-choice format instead of “winner-takes-all” balloting.
I think the first thing has to be making the government more representative. Congress should be something like 10,000 people based on the original ratio. We don’t have to go that far but a country of 325 million people needs a very large people’s house. Then we need to make it to where people vote, not land. Get rid of districts, first past the post, and the Senate.
Without those changes anything we do is doomed to just be another way to make rich people richer.
It’s really refreshing to see someone else point out the issue of how the small size of the House results in shitty representation. I have never seen anyone else bring this up before, thank you!
Communism would be nice economic model to try, but i wonder if its possible to setup in such a way it wont become mockery of itself like how russians did it. At least if hypothetically there was some kind of revolution after people get enough of current exploitation, most likely horrible people would worm into positions of power using the chaos and it would turn out like soviet union eventually. Peaceful and well though plan would be more resilient to corruption, but in current world even serious talk of such things gets shot down immediately.
Literally the reason models like that will never work. They don’t account for human nature. Humans love finding ways to put themselves ahead of others. You put a system in place to make people “even” – we’ll find a way to be more ‘even’ than Frank. That guys not nearly as ‘even’ as me. At the end of the day we are apes with hierarchical social structures. Any economic or political model that has a snowballs chance of succeeding needs to account for that.
Your reply got me thinking about some variants of market socialism I read about in undergrad, the names of which I can’t recall.
Generally speaking, artificial scarcity in its myriad variations would be abolished in sectors of the economy that are directly tied to housing, food, non-cosmetic medicine, and other categories directly tied to the UN declaration of human rights.
Said abolishments, legislative, executive, and judicial purview of the sectors in question would be decided by direct referendum votes of the citizenry, instead of representative vote. Representative legislature would be voted in a ranked-choice format instead of “winner-takes-all” balloting.
I think the first thing has to be making the government more representative. Congress should be something like 10,000 people based on the original ratio. We don’t have to go that far but a country of 325 million people needs a very large people’s house. Then we need to make it to where people vote, not land. Get rid of districts, first past the post, and the Senate.
Without those changes anything we do is doomed to just be another way to make rich people richer.
It’s really refreshing to see someone else point out the issue of how the small size of the House results in shitty representation. I have never seen anyone else bring this up before, thank you!