The whole purpose of buying the crown in the first place was to get the plebs nice and tipsy so we can take 'em to a nice comfortable place in the fields and, you know, they can't refuse, because of the implication.
It tells you that concepts like rights, morality, right and wrong are all human inventions and are all relative. Nature or the universe do not enforce them. You have a certain right, if the society you live in thinks you should have that right and if circumstances allow that you have that right. That means none of these rights are unalienable or guaranteed, they have to be defended constantly. Both physically and legally, both against internal and external threats.
Mistaken reality aside, The (alternate) Janeway has a point. Everything we've painstakingly fought for previously has to be backed up by those willing to ensure those rights remain. By what means is yet to be seen, preferably by ink or, as needed, by force. Understandably, blood has already been spilled, but we hope to not need go further.
It tells you that concepts like rights, morality, right and wrong are all human inventions and are all relative.
As much as philosophy, mathematics, logic.
Relativistic fallacy: relative is the wrong word.
They're unfalsifiable.
Nonetheless, committing yourself to a set of premises commits you to their logical consequences.
Consistency demands rejecting contradictions.
You have a certain right, if the society you live in thinks you should have that right and if circumstances allow that you have that right.
Moral relativism.
Do you think we should respect a moral system that accepts slavery as much as one that doesn't?
If not, then you're not a moral relativist, and that's a relativist fallacy.
That means none of these rights are unalienable or guaranteed
Ideas such as inalienable/universal/inherent rights come from moral philosophy.
The premise (if you accept it) is that they exist regardless of whether people choose to respect them: no one can revoke those rights, only violate them.
Violations are unjust.
They don't imply a legal system can't violate ethics.
They're for arguing a system shouldn't & to demand a more just one.
It's still up to us to get that system.
Supposing is implies ought (or the contrapositive in this case) is a naturalistic fallacy.
Rights are a human construct. They don't exist in nature.
When we fight to construct them, we must fight to keep them. In a representative democracy, our representatives are the ones who are supposed to fight for us. But when they fail, that responsibility falls back to the average, everyday, common person.
The struggle to keep our rights moreso has to do with getting people off the couch to stand up for what they believe in. In an apathetic society glued to their toys and treats, their bread and circuses, it's that much easier for other humans with wishes to collect their own power to dismantle that of the majority.
Yeah but also human constructs are objectively real. When people say human construct in a way that relegates it lower than natural phenomenon, that is a condition of alienation. A building is a human construct, so is art, so is a computer, an industry, a society.
Rights are a social construct which are no less real than physically existing constructs. Money is a social construct, so is religion. In fact religion served the same function in feudal society that money does in capitalism.
Since all these things were created by humans, and humans are a part of nature, then human constructs are a part of nature. Rights develop as society develops, as we become more advanced. The right to healthcare didn't exist before there was widely available doctors, hospitals and clinics to provide it, before modern medicine made it possible to heal many injuries and diseases. But now that the material basis for it exists, like any technology, it can be used to improve the lives of everyone or it can be used to oppress.
But both outcomes are the result of human activity.
I dig your conclusions, but I think that it becomes difficult to convince people when we ourselves are operating on a faulty basis. The reality of human alienation from nature is not an essential part of nature, it is the product of human activity. It took work to create it and it will take work to reverse it. Alienation is a condition of class rule.
But the real basis for it, which in our society is laws and culture underwritten by state violence, is not as permanent as the fact that it is the labor and time of all the workers that create what is actual. And if we want to change the conditions that alienate us from the rights and privileges that our labor creates, then we have to be able to reflect on reality as it is. We have to not just make mystified statements but really understand every step in the process of the logic that we will use to inform the actions needed for liberation.
Taking for granted our alienation as natural and not imposed, is a step in the logical process that informs our subjugation.
And that needs to start with electing representatives and a President that respects and will restore our Constitution.
This goes farther than Trump. Our Constitution was damaged and tattered well before that, which is part of what enabled Trump and his admin to rip it to shreds.
The President getting to decide what laws are enforced and which aren't is kind of insane. The pardon power was generally fine before this, but was clearly open to abuse.
Hillary broke the law with her private email server, but everyone else, including W and Trump and Hegseth broke that same law. It just wasn't enforced until they decided to hit Hillary with it specifically.
If there are laws we shouldn't enforce, we should just get those laws off the books. And clearly we need to rein in Presidental power. We left a whole lot of trust that the office would be run in good faith, and regardless of party that's generally been true, with exceptions. The is the first administration that hasn't given a single fuck about the American people.
I feel like every previous President was brought in and made to understand that it's a china shop, and they need to not act like a bull, and then were given very specific and explicit reasons why for each situation. There's a reason each predecessor did what they did, and those actions were generally done under the advisement of some very smart people with solid research, and if you're going to break with that previous decision, you better be really damn sure of what you're doing.
This is the first administration that's come in and told each of those advisors to fuck right off. The biggest plate to break so far is the idea of Due Process. When I Google the phrase "Due Process", the first thing that comes up should absolutely not be about immigrants. This isn't a law centered on immigrants or anything about immigration specifically. You know the reason that immigration comes up as the top result for "due process" in 2025.
If there are laws we shouldn’t enforce, we should just get those laws off the books.
I believe it's a fairly sane and desirable that we hold people accountable for arguably mishandling classified information (regardless of intention to mishandle) and sidestepping established procedures to communicate in an official capacity. It's very reckless behavior and many people were involved in enabling this behavior.
I couldn't find a source on George W. Bush violating the same law and invite clarification, but I'd just like to say that I imagine that we can manage equitable and reasonable enforcement of the law as a society. Not all laws are made equally, but some are pretty sensible.
W's case was more egregious because the emails were just deleted. Hillary had someone review which emails were personal and which were relevant and turned over all government related emails.
I mean Hillary's lawyers also used BleachBit, right? It's just suspicious, but I don't want to discount from what you are saying. Thanks again for informing me.
The reason why people reacted so strongly to Hillary I feel is due to the Obama-era persecution of whistleblowers/etc.
It was her IT consultant, Platte River Networks (PRN).
The PRN technician then had what he described to the FBI as an "oh shit moment," realizing he had not set the personal emails to be deleted as instructed months earlier. The technician then erased the emails using a free utility, BleachBit, sometime between March 25 and 31.
The lawyers had likely instructed them to regularly delete personal records older than X. IT dude didn't do his job. Tried to do it after the subpoena, which of course is highly illegal. But Hillary didn't order it, and when the lawyer ordered it it was almost certainly legal.
It's a failure of the system as a whole. If the rights are described as inalienable as a fact of the law then any president who tries to take those rights away should ideally be stopped by the courts.
Instead we have courts that say "hmmm it's pretty clear they can't do this so how can I make up some absolute nonsense to say it's totally ok for them to do it...."
normally you'd have a congress that flexed its power to stop the President from touching rights at all, but over time the Executive has become more and more powerful and Congress more and more impotent.
I think this is the defect of a 2 party system, and the fact that it incentivizes party above body (of government)
Congress and the executive should want to fight for their respective bodies' power, in a vacuum, to ensure they have the maximum effect in their position, whicb would lead to them fighting eachother on overreach.
But with parties, the executive and his party's members in congress have the same goals. And since congress has minority representation while the executive does not, in order to maximize those goals, a majority party with the presidency is incentivized to increase executive power at the cost of legislative, to increase the parties goals, and minimize the effect of the minority parties power to hinder them.
This would return to the norm whenever you had an opposing congress, if it werent for the executive veto/ signatory powers, meaning a president with a 1/3 minority in congress can prevent the return of power to the legislative.
And then, when the congress and president of the other party align, they have no reason to lessen the power the other side pushed towards the executive, and and continue to push for the same transfer to tbe executive to increase their efficacy.
...we did build that system. We are currently in that system, which has been corrupted by a criminal and terrorist organization called the Republican party
Pretty words, but no system is self enforcing. What's going on now has taken the collective agreement of thousands of bad actors, over decades, to enact.
true, but I think the system must be afraid. we need the public to have solidarity and see beyond their privilege. the American individualist ideology is a poison.
The moment the state tries to fuck over anyone, the whole nation should stop to a halt.
The GOP doesn't want to stop all people from voting. Just the poor ones. They still draw their supposed legitimacy from the electoral process.
The GOP loves when people say "both sides are the same."
Umm... no. Also: that's a horrible way to boil down legit critique of electoralism.
That was Trump's big message in 2016; he was outside the system and would shake things up.
Yeah. He used the myth of electoralism being in the interest of the working class.
I'm as much against far right governments as you are. The difference is that you Complain about individuals not voting the right way instead of asking yourself if the system is already rigged in favour of the ruling class.
Sounds like you've abandoned your original statement
How? You didn't really address my original statement, so of course I didn't elaborate much further. The GOP drawing their supposed legitimacy underlines my original statement, btw.
Why don't you lay out a detailed plan of how we create your utopia.
Hou much time to you have? /j
Books have been filled with the topic, which is still unsolved to this day. Expecting me to give you a "detailed plan" can't be meant in good faith. At least it seems that way. I can answer your question only in a very boiled down manner: through bottom-up organizing.
I can point you to a direction though. The anarchist FAQ has both the answer to your question in more detail than I could write in a comment. It also a good introductory text.
A lot of our so-called "rights" simply express the fact that we have money.
Can we drive a car? Yes, because it costs money and we have that money. Can we go to school? Yes, again, because it costs money and we have that money. Can we go on holidays to a foreign country? Yes, again, because it costs money and we have money. Same for lots of other things.
The people have money because companies need to pay them if they want people to work at their companies. That's what gives people power. The fact that they are needed in the economy. No kind of law is causing this; simple necessity is.
It's the collapsing labor market that is causing a seeming decline in our rights. It's not Trump's fault (well, also trump's fault, since he made it much worse, but the issue started years earlier) that people are experiencing hardships, because of the collapsing labor market.
The solution would be to accept that the labor market is collapsing (because very few things can be done against that) and start accepting people for being people, independent of how much work they perform. In other words, stop glorifying "hard workers" and start seeing the value in people themselves.
Constitutions are just a "we promise we wont oppress you" pinky promise. Laws are nothing but the words of people. It wouldn't mean anything if nobody (especially those in power) respect those words anymore.
There are only two systems in which rights cannot be taken away. A system with no rights in the first place, or a system with no living beings to have rights.
The point of inalienable rights, is they are the rights which must always be fought for and protected no matter the cost.
I think this is the one key question about any elected government. We would need to make sure that representatives are truly accountable, not just replaced. We have corporate manslaughter legislation after all.
I don't know who said it, but it goes something like this.
"Every time you build a fool proof system, the fools get more creative."
You can't force people to be 'well informed' or even aware of their own interests.
There was plenty of evidence that Donald Trump was a complete idiot and a scoundrel available in 2015. a decade later and there are still tens of millions of people who will tell you he's a genius and a moral exemplar.
That's why independent news media is so important. And not just independent from state interference, but also financially. Consolidation into a few big players is really counterproductive.
And lately there is the whole social media debacle that needs a solution, even more so with fakes and invented "news" becoming more and more easier. That's an unsolved problem that needs a solution.
However an informed population really is the only way to keep a system from going downhill, everything else basically bets on some benevolent ruling class or dictator and history has plenty of examples how that goes.
Look up Roger Ailes, Ronald Reagan, and the death of the Fairness Doctrine.
Back in the day, if a commentator on a TV or radio station expressed an opinion, the station was obligated to allow any member of the public to present an opposing view. That meant that most stations avoided wild rhetoric.
Reagan got rid of that. He did a lot of other things to make the media worse. Before Reagan, half hour commercials like "GI Joe" or "The Transformers" weren't allowed.
Why don't you show me where anyone is claiming such a thing? You conflated practices of "shunning" with the customs of all "tribal people." There are variants of exile and rehabilitation that run through a spectrum of possible options to all people who are self governing. Who exactly are you arguing with?
Ackshyually, humans have experimented with various forms of social organization for most of prehistory and history. The current system of states with rigid laws and extreme enforcement is very recent. People used to transition between different hierarchies and systems, even seasonally. Not to mention many peoples would self-organize. In some Northest-American tribes, it was common sport to make fun of leaders and not take them too seriously. Some Sumerian city states had massive assemblies instead of high councils.
I HIGHLY recommend "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber to EVERYBODY.
This makes sense, there are no abuses of human rights in the US it is just that some people do not meet the conditions to receive privilages like basic healthcare, food assistance or fair treatment by state employees.
especially if the good president, is an old guard nominee, otherwise republican lite nothing will change. they keep the status quo of the oligarchs, and groups like AIPAC.
"Do you agree?!?" Lol. Yes I actually do but this has some real bot energy which makes it feel a bit weird. Like this post isn't actually genuine and even though I agree with it, it only exists to try and get dissenters in so people will argue and become more divided. Feels icky like a reddit post
Lack of text or a link to (archived) source creates a usability issue: we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR.
:::spoiler Other issues when image lacks text alternative such as link
usability: can't reflow text to varied screen sizes or vary presentation (size, contrast) or modality (audio, braille), we can't find by text content
accessibility: some users can't read this due to misleading alt text, users can't adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments, systems can't read the text to them or send it to braille devices
searchability: the "text" isn't indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
fault tolerance: no text fallback if image breaks.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
:::
Text is useful.
The Enlightenment Era thinkers who developed these ideas were entirely familiar with governments legally oppressing their people.
The most common governments at the time were absolute monarchies justified by divine right.
To challenge unjust governments, they worked on a more rational definition for legitimate authority.
They settled on the idea that governments exist for the people & have legitimate authority only when they protect the inalienable liberties & rights of all people.
When a government lacks legitimacy, the people have a right to alter it to or replace it with a legitimate one.
So, while a government can suppress inalienable rights, no government can legitimately (ie, should) do so: that would be immoral (and a violation of natural law they claimed).
It's moral & political philosophy concerning legitimacy.
Contrary to the post, people do have inalienable/universal/inherent rights: those inform us whether a government is legitimate.
It's still up to the people to obtain legitimate government.
We need amendments to restrict the power over civil rights. Essentially no civil rights law can be removed or superseded by additional laws. And that no laws can be passed to allow exception to this law.
Also we need clear penalties for failing to follow laws. Not just for presidents but any members of any level of political seats. Specific infraction and penalties.
A 3 strike policy. 3 such acts and removal of office followed by a new election in 6 months or a year.
Also laws against aipac and corporate money in politics.
Banned. Permanently. No exceptions. No ability to change laws to change this either.
We keep learning that when we don't have strict laws and strict guidelines for insuring those laws are followed, bad actors will (always) take advantage. And the laws are useless unless they are enforced in an unbiased way.
Also Congress members for states cannot override voted on laws. The people supercede the elected officials whims.
We also need ways to remove people from office during their term.
The problem with being unable to change or supercede laws is the hubris to assume the laws passed are perfect for all time. We have all of human history to prove we are not the peak of civilization.
Getting bribery out of politics by removing lobbying and campaign finance is probably the best thing we can do. Having every politician run with the same amount of money and banning retired politicians from working as lobbiests or board members after office would do the most for eliminating corruption.
Even if you make laws unrepealable or changable, if the government won't enforce it then it solves nothing. We have no higher entity to complain to and get enforcement or satisfaction. And if there is some higher entity empowered and capable, we then put all trust that whatever is enforcing law can never be corrupted or coerced or have its own adjenda.
I can't see any scenario where civil rights laws would ever need removed. So I still suggest making those permanent and unchangeable.
Other laws can have time restrictions.
But I worry they will just get nulled when no one is looking.
For example, let's say we can ban cooperate pac money in politics and make the law unchangeable for 20 years.
In 20 years. Most people have forgotten why corporate pac money was such a problem.
And in that time, corps have been buying people on the down low. Waiting to get this law removed.
So it gets removed.
And again no one really notices until we have another situation like the present one. Which can take a pretty long time to fully mature. 10 to 20 years. Or even longer.
And then again, it becomes near impossible to ban because those in power are all bought.
The cycle will just keep repeating itself.
Some laws do need to be permanent. And unchangeable.
That's literally what the Constitution is.
Civil rights and taking bribes from corporations illegal should be permanent laws.
As well as putting caps on donations.
Restricting law makers from owning stocks or owning companies. Or being on the board of any companies.
There will never be any scenario where these type of laws should be lifted.
My point was that at one time separate but equal was considered enlightened by a majority of the population. I agree that short societal memory is a curse we have to work around.
The Constitution is not permanent and unchangeable, it is a living document that can and has been amended to suit new or changing needs. That's why they are called Amendments in the first place. It is by design a lot more difficult to change than other laws, and this is a good thing, but the Founders knew they couldn't get everything right for all time.
We will only be safe from powerful people’s whims when we abolish concentration of power: we have to get rid of rulers and replace them with true representatives.
The way the question is worded they are in the process of gaining agreement. Trying to address an issue with others when you haven't gained agreement on the actual problem ends up taking longer with more of a mess and things getting pushed in every direction with some people not knowing if it has already been accomplished. Say Terry thinks the problems is solved when you oust the Tyrant, Jerry thinks the problem is over when you get the supreme Court balanced, and Barry thinks the problem is solved when we stop having federal troops deployed in cities. Jerry, Terry, and Barry all think they are working together, but are all pushing in different directions and ultimately will achieve none of the goals described by poster. Getting them all to agree on a problem, makes it clearer to know when the goal has been completed. (Hopefully). Granted soon as you start to implement anything, shit is going to hit the fan anyways, because the easiest way to power is by tearing down others, not building others up.
The checks and balances were destroyed when the supreme court elevated the president over the law. And even before that money and corporate interest had influenced the laws against the people.
The supreme court is corrupt. We know that, yet nothing was done. The president is a criminal, yet nothing was done. The elections are influenced and the election law is outdated and unjust. Yet nothing was done.
It gets worse under Republicans and next to nothing changes under Democrats.
I'm listening. How does that economic system stop money and power from flowing to the top?
Lemmy: "FUCK YOU!"
If you are angry about capitalism, an economic system, why are you not angry about democracy, the political system that has failed to reign in the economic system?
Lemmy: "GO FUCK YOURSELF!"
Snarky, I know. But I have never once got an answer to those questions. Not once.
(Education is my answer to all of the above. Fight amongst yourselves.)
How does that economic system stop money and power from flowing to the top?
By having no top. In socialism, there are no capitalist owners, and the only way to make money is through having a job and its corresponding salary. If you don't believe socialism reduces the flow of money from "bottom" to "top", you can check empirical data. Top 1% in modern capitalist Russia has above 20% the total income of the country. In Soviet times, they possessed 4% of the total income. This is a marked reduction in the money flowing to the top.
If you are angry about capitalism, an economic system, why are you not angry about democracy, the political system that has failed to reign in the economic system?
Because democracy under capitalism is a lie. Having a powerful owning class whose interests oppose those of the majority ensures that the interests of the majority will be ignored.
In Soviet times, they possessed 4% of the total income. This is a marked reduction in the money flowing to the top.
Didn't the vanguard class of ruling elites oppress everyone else with their authoritarian power & political inequality?
Not sure a more oppressive model of privilege is the one to uphold.
More than a few would much rather take economic inequality over that bullshit.
Yeah, the soviet system was bullshit. I've never lived in it and only read about it, but from i can tell, it wasn't good.
I believe that in soviet times, less wealth flowed to the top, but that's mostly because there was less wealth to start with. People suffered and lived in poverty, and according to communist propaganda, it's more important to ensure that the "people at the top" don't have too much instead of assuring that the people at the bottom don't have too little. I see it exactly the other way around.
Also i think that the "top-down" approach of making a very strong central government that controls all aspects of life through surveillance is exactly the wrong way to approach the problem of how to live a good life. Power over other people always leads to problems, because people group A will say how people group B shall live, while also not understanding the situation of group B or lacking context. Only the people themselves can meaningfully rule themselves.
I believe that in soviet times, less wealth flowed to the top, but that's mostly because there was less wealth to start with
Wealth inequality in Tsarist Russia was infinitely higher than in Soviet times, and the country was much poorer. So no, that's not the reason. The reason was ideology and politics.
People suffered and lived in poverty
People in the tsarist empire up to 1917 died at the ripe age of 28. By the 1960s, life expectancy had risen to almost 70 years of age. The country went from being a feudal backwater composed of 80% peasants in 1929, to being the second world power by the 1970s, with universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, the abolition of unemployment and homelessness, and the least wealth inequality the region has ever seen. The GDP levels reached by the late 80s weren't recovered until the 2010s in most post-Soviet republics, and even now some of them like Ukraine never fully recovered from the devastation of the return to capitalism.
Someone's confused about words.
The Soviet Union was a totalitarian, communist dictatorship, where totalitarianism is the most extreme authoritarianism.
Totalitarianism is a label used by various political scientists to characterize the most tyrannical strain of authoritarian systems; in which the ruling elite, often subservient to a dictator, exert near-total control of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious aspects of society in the territories under its governance.
That places it on the authoritarian edge & far left of the ideological map.
It's not on the left edge, because the hierarchy between political elites & the governed features some economic inequality & tremendous inequality in political power/authority.
The degree of control in totalitarianism differs from that in ordinary authoritarian regimes.
An authoritarian régime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature: they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested.
In contrast, a totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as
Political repression: according to their ideology, rights aren't inherent or fundamental, the state is the source of human rights.
Rights (eg, freedom of speech, assembly, & movement) are suppressed.
Dissent is punished.
Unauthorized political activities aren't tolerated.
State terrorism: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
Control of information: full control over mass communication media & the education system to promote the ideology.
Economic control.
Liberal democracies with market economies lie somewhere on the libertarian side of the ideological map.
They may be a number of things, however, authoritarian they are not, and definitely not that extreme variety of it.
So yes, many of us who think human rights are fundamental would much rather deal with some economic inequality in a liberal democracy than the extreme political inequality & authoritarian repression in a totalitarian state.
The latter at best trades one kind of inequality for another far worse inequality.
unequal dispensation of benefits according to your political loyalty, class, or ethnic origin
illegitimate authority sending you to forced labor camps
secret police extrajudicially killing your indoctrinated ass
purges, mass executions
unrestricted power to trample your freedom of movement, assembly, speech
and the state altogether treating you like its bitch, that doesn't mean everyone else needs to share in your perversion.
At least in a liberal democracy, the state is our bitch when we criticize politicians, oust them from office, take abusers to trial.
Most of us in liberal democracies aren't getting fucked over by the wealthy in any palpable way.
And when they do fuck us over, we get to challenge them in court with legal equality before the rule of law.
In contrast, when the state fucks you over, you don't get to challenge shit.
So, it's great you embrace your state-dom fetish, but no one's asking.
The original comment made very specific questions which I addressed. Furthermore, you went ahead and assumed that the top 1% consisted of a vanguard of politicians. Actually the top earners were highly trained professionals like university professors, popular artists, or high level researchers. But sure, I'll address your concerns.
Didn't the vanguard class of ruling elites oppress everyone else with their authoritarian power & political inequality?
If there had been an oppressive ruling class exploiting everyone else, there would be no material explanation for why healthcare was completely free and guaranteed for everyone, why education was completely free to the highest level, why jobs were guaranteed, why housing was guaranteed and costed on average 3% of the monthly income, why the overwhelming majority of workers were unionized and had power to replace directive personnel at their workplace through union... Had there been a chaste of bureaucrats exploiting the rest of the country, you'd expect at least to see a luxury industry from which they could obtain specially expensive goods such as luxury cars, yachts, designer clothes, luxury watches, luxury photo cameras... There was no such thing. I'm not saying there wasn't ever corruption (as in any system), but the outcomes were the most egalitarian the world has seen, and even in eras of economic growth slowdown the purchase power of the average citizen went up significantly.
you went ahead and assumed that the top 1% consisted of a vanguard of politicians
Reread it: it mentioned nothing of the sort.
There are worse kinds of power than economic.
That was the criticism: trading economic inequality for a more pernicious, repressive inequality in political authority.
The Soviet state did not even recognize inherent human rights: according to Soviet legal doctrine, the state is the source of human rights.
it is the government who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the individual
Resources don't make up for a lack of liberty, especially when rights there are worth nothing.
The political repression isn't great: suppression of rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, & movement; punishment of dissent; crackdown on unauthorized political activities.
State terrorism isn't great: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
How is life there worth living if the secret police could just disappear you or take it away the moment an authority deems you inconvenient?
For all its faults, market-based liberal democracies don't have that.
They don't have Soviet legal theorists treating rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law as excesses of "bourgeois morality".
The Soviet state did not even recognize inherent human rights
By guaranteeing access to education, healthcare, housing, retirement and work to everyone, the Soviet Union de-facto promoted human rights more than any other state at the time. You simply don't care about the welfare state if you think those aren't human rights in the most obvious sense. Whether some state "signs a declaration" is worthless, the important and measurable thing are the outcomes, and by any metric, the Soviets excelled in them.
The political repression isn't great: suppression of rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, & movement; punishment of dissent; crackdown on unauthorized political activities
For all its faults, market-based liberal democracies don't have that
You're just a western supremacist if you truly believe that. The USA has literally bombed its citizens for their political opinions. It holds the highest prison population in the world by a long shot, comparable to the height of the Soviet prison system during World War 2. There are currently fascist henchmen legally disappearing citizens based on the colour of their skin, 25% of black men go through prison at some point in their lives...
And those are only the sins within the empire. Go ask a Palestinian, an Iraqi, an Irani, an Afghan, a Mexican, a Korean, a Vietnamese, a Cuban or a Congolese what they think of American support of human rights. Go ask an Algerian, a Malian, a Burkinabe what they think of French support of human rights. Go ask a Guatemalan, a Peruvian or an Ecuadorian what they think of Spanish support of human rights. The USSR, by fighting against colonialism and imperialism, was the de-facto biggest supporter of human rights in the world. Not having colonies was the ultimate expression of support for the equality of all humans.
Sure, there where excesses in repression in the USSR when they were under threat of extermination at the hands of Nazis according to Generalplan Ost. After WW2, the prison population was reduced to the lowest the region has seen (remember what came before and after the Soviet Union), and persecution was stopped as there was no longer a Nazi threat. Sure, excesses were made, but the country was under the heaviest duress possible, and it still managed to save a hundred million lives from poverty, disease, and outright extermination.
You don't really believe in human rights if you don't think that raising life expectancy from 28 to 70 years of age in 40 years isn't a miracle.
"How" is ambiguous; you describe a system that have not those issue, but not how to get this system.
If we agree on the following :
the economy structure the social system
the way we struggle will structure the society of tomorrow
this issue are worldwide
Then we need to organize internationally in order to get the mean of production, and without a "top" that could become ruling class.
I think that's pretty much describe revolutionary unionism or anarcho-syndicalism.
I’m listening. How does that economic system stop money and power from flowing to the top?
It doesn't. Money will continue flowing to the top, just like the blood in your body will continue flowing to your head. What's important is that it also flows downwards again, to make a full circle. That's why we need wealth taxes.
Oh I remember when GRRM used to write GoT. Those were the days.
"stick 'em with the pointy end"
I read your abbreviation as IASIP and was thinking that this was pretty deep compared to their usual content.
The whole purpose of buying the crown in the first place was to get the plebs nice and tipsy so we can take 'em to a nice comfortable place in the fields and, you know, they can't refuse, because of the implication.
Hah
It tells you that concepts like rights, morality, right and wrong are all human inventions and are all relative. Nature or the universe do not enforce them. You have a certain right, if the society you live in thinks you should have that right and if circumstances allow that you have that right. That means none of these rights are unalienable or guaranteed, they have to be defended constantly. Both physically and legally, both against internal and external threats.
Mistaken reality aside, The (alternate) Janeway has a point. Everything we've painstakingly fought for previously has to be backed up by those willing to ensure those rights remain. By what means is yet to be seen, preferably by ink or, as needed, by force. Understandably, blood has already been spilled, but we hope to not need go further.
As much as philosophy, mathematics, logic. Relativistic fallacy: relative is the wrong word. They're unfalsifiable.
Nonetheless, committing yourself to a set of premises commits you to their logical consequences. Consistency demands rejecting contradictions.
Moral relativism. Do you think we should respect a moral system that accepts slavery as much as one that doesn't? If not, then you're not a moral relativist, and that's a relativist fallacy.
Ideas such as inalienable/universal/inherent rights come from moral philosophy. The premise (if you accept it) is that they exist regardless of whether people choose to respect them: no one can revoke those rights, only violate them. Violations are unjust.
They don't imply a legal system can't violate ethics. They're for arguing a system shouldn't & to demand a more just one. It's still up to us to get that system.
Supposing is implies ought (or the contrapositive in this case) is a naturalistic fallacy.
Rights are a human construct. They don't exist in nature.
When we fight to construct them, we must fight to keep them. In a representative democracy, our representatives are the ones who are supposed to fight for us. But when they fail, that responsibility falls back to the average, everyday, common person.
The struggle to keep our rights moreso has to do with getting people off the couch to stand up for what they believe in. In an apathetic society glued to their toys and treats, their bread and circuses, it's that much easier for other humans with wishes to collect their own power to dismantle that of the majority.
Yeah but also human constructs are objectively real. When people say human construct in a way that relegates it lower than natural phenomenon, that is a condition of alienation. A building is a human construct, so is art, so is a computer, an industry, a society.
Rights are a social construct which are no less real than physically existing constructs. Money is a social construct, so is religion. In fact religion served the same function in feudal society that money does in capitalism.
Since all these things were created by humans, and humans are a part of nature, then human constructs are a part of nature. Rights develop as society develops, as we become more advanced. The right to healthcare didn't exist before there was widely available doctors, hospitals and clinics to provide it, before modern medicine made it possible to heal many injuries and diseases. But now that the material basis for it exists, like any technology, it can be used to improve the lives of everyone or it can be used to oppress.
But both outcomes are the result of human activity.
I dig your conclusions, but I think that it becomes difficult to convince people when we ourselves are operating on a faulty basis. The reality of human alienation from nature is not an essential part of nature, it is the product of human activity. It took work to create it and it will take work to reverse it. Alienation is a condition of class rule.
But the real basis for it, which in our society is laws and culture underwritten by state violence, is not as permanent as the fact that it is the labor and time of all the workers that create what is actual. And if we want to change the conditions that alienate us from the rights and privileges that our labor creates, then we have to be able to reflect on reality as it is. We have to not just make mystified statements but really understand every step in the process of the logic that we will use to inform the actions needed for liberation.
Taking for granted our alienation as natural and not imposed, is a step in the logical process that informs our subjugation.
And that needs to start with electing representatives and a President that respects and will restore our Constitution.
This goes farther than Trump. Our Constitution was damaged and tattered well before that, which is part of what enabled Trump and his admin to rip it to shreds.
The President getting to decide what laws are enforced and which aren't is kind of insane. The pardon power was generally fine before this, but was clearly open to abuse.
Hillary broke the law with her private email server, but everyone else, including W and Trump and Hegseth broke that same law. It just wasn't enforced until they decided to hit Hillary with it specifically.
If there are laws we shouldn't enforce, we should just get those laws off the books. And clearly we need to rein in Presidental power. We left a whole lot of trust that the office would be run in good faith, and regardless of party that's generally been true, with exceptions. The is the first administration that hasn't given a single fuck about the American people.
I feel like every previous President was brought in and made to understand that it's a china shop, and they need to not act like a bull, and then were given very specific and explicit reasons why for each situation. There's a reason each predecessor did what they did, and those actions were generally done under the advisement of some very smart people with solid research, and if you're going to break with that previous decision, you better be really damn sure of what you're doing.
This is the first administration that's come in and told each of those advisors to fuck right off. The biggest plate to break so far is the idea of Due Process. When I Google the phrase "Due Process", the first thing that comes up should absolutely not be about immigrants. This isn't a law centered on immigrants or anything about immigration specifically. You know the reason that immigration comes up as the top result for "due process" in 2025.
I believe it's a fairly sane and desirable that we hold people accountable for arguably mishandling classified information (regardless of intention to mishandle) and sidestepping established procedures to communicate in an official capacity. It's very reckless behavior and many people were involved in enabling this behavior.
I couldn't find a source on George W. Bush violating the same law and invite clarification, but I'd just like to say that I imagine that we can manage equitable and reasonable enforcement of the law as a society. Not all laws are made equally, but some are pretty sensible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Thanks!
W's case was more egregious because the emails were just deleted. Hillary had someone review which emails were personal and which were relevant and turned over all government related emails.
I mean Hillary's lawyers also used BleachBit, right? It's just suspicious, but I don't want to discount from what you are saying. Thanks again for informing me.
The reason why people reacted so strongly to Hillary I feel is due to the Obama-era persecution of whistleblowers/etc.
It was her IT consultant, Platte River Networks (PRN).
The lawyers had likely instructed them to regularly delete personal records older than X. IT dude didn't do his job. Tried to do it after the subpoena, which of course is highly illegal. But Hillary didn't order it, and when the lawyer ordered it it was almost certainly legal.
Thanks for also clearing that up. I truly appreciate it.
that's a lot of words to say what Carlin said much simpler
Yeah. This is literally just quoting Carlin and then saying we need to change the system after.
https://youtu.be/C_FQZUSy1Vg
Part the OP is saying verbatim is around 3:30
It's a failure of the system as a whole. If the rights are described as inalienable as a fact of the law then any president who tries to take those rights away should ideally be stopped by the courts.
Instead we have courts that say "hmmm it's pretty clear they can't do this so how can I make up some absolute nonsense to say it's totally ok for them to do it...."
It is worse than that. The shadow docket is pretty much the judicial version of "neener-neener, I can't hear you!"
normally you'd have a congress that flexed its power to stop the President from touching rights at all, but over time the Executive has become more and more powerful and Congress more and more impotent.
I think this is the defect of a 2 party system, and the fact that it incentivizes party above body (of government)
Congress and the executive should want to fight for their respective bodies' power, in a vacuum, to ensure they have the maximum effect in their position, whicb would lead to them fighting eachother on overreach.
But with parties, the executive and his party's members in congress have the same goals. And since congress has minority representation while the executive does not, in order to maximize those goals, a majority party with the presidency is incentivized to increase executive power at the cost of legislative, to increase the parties goals, and minimize the effect of the minority parties power to hinder them.
This would return to the norm whenever you had an opposing congress, if it werent for the executive veto/ signatory powers, meaning a president with a 1/3 minority in congress can prevent the return of power to the legislative.
And then, when the congress and president of the other party align, they have no reason to lessen the power the other side pushed towards the executive, and and continue to push for the same transfer to tbe executive to increase their efficacy.
...we did build that system. We are currently in that system, which has been corrupted by a criminal and terrorist organization called the Republican party
Pretty words, but no system is self enforcing. What's going on now has taken the collective agreement of thousands of bad actors, over decades, to enact.
true, but I think the system must be afraid. we need the public to have solidarity and see beyond their privilege. the American individualist ideology is a poison.
The moment the state tries to fuck over anyone, the whole nation should stop to a halt.
Yes. And this is why rights are lost as soon as you lower your guard.
Yup. This is the basic principle of anarchism.
If voting could change anything vital, it would be illegal.
Pay attention.
The GOP has been trying to stop people from voting for years.
The GOP loves when people say "both sides are the same."
That was Trump's big message in 2016; he was outside the system and would shake things up.
You pay attention.
The GOP doesn't want to stop all people from voting. Just the poor ones. They still draw their supposed legitimacy from the electoral process.
Umm... no. Also: that's a horrible way to boil down legit critique of electoralism.
Yeah. He used the myth of electoralism being in the interest of the working class.
I'm as much against far right governments as you are. The difference is that you Complain about individuals not voting the right way instead of asking yourself if the system is already rigged in favour of the ruling class.
If voting could change anything vital, it would be illegal.
Those are your words you are walking back away from.
Of course the system is built to favor the richest. Once you get past the hunter/gatherer stage that's an axiom.
It's a lot easier to get an FDR elected than it is to overthrow the entire system.
No, that a false assumption you're making and that is very convenient for the system to uphold.
Yeah. The duct-tape usually is easier than properly fixing something.
Sounds like you've abandoned your original statement and now you're just shouting about how I'm wrong.
Why don't you lay out a detailed plan of how we create your utopia.
How? You didn't really address my original statement, so of course I didn't elaborate much further. The GOP drawing their supposed legitimacy underlines my original statement, btw.
Hou much time to you have? /j
Books have been filled with the topic, which is still unsolved to this day. Expecting me to give you a "detailed plan" can't be meant in good faith. At least it seems that way. I can answer your question only in a very boiled down manner: through bottom-up organizing.
I can point you to a direction though. The anarchist FAQ has both the answer to your question in more detail than I could write in a comment. It also a good introductory text.
I also have a video explaining why voting does not help in liberating people.
So, the plan is unsolved, but we shouldn't do a 'duct tape' solution in the mean time.
You keep sitting there and act privileged while us poor misguided folks do actual work.
Feel free to sit on the sidelines and tell us how we're doing it wrong.
If voting was pointless, they wouldn't be working so hard to stop people from doing it
It gives them the illusion of legitimacy. Also: there's more countries in the world than the so-called "US".
Welcome to Anarchism :)
Rights are not given, they're taken.
No, give me all the rights, I'm good, I swear.
"Boy everyone in this country is running around yammering about their fucking rights. I have a right, you have no right, we have a right."
A lot of our so-called "rights" simply express the fact that we have money.
Can we drive a car? Yes, because it costs money and we have that money. Can we go to school? Yes, again, because it costs money and we have that money. Can we go on holidays to a foreign country? Yes, again, because it costs money and we have money. Same for lots of other things.
The people have money because companies need to pay them if they want people to work at their companies. That's what gives people power. The fact that they are needed in the economy. No kind of law is causing this; simple necessity is.
It's the collapsing labor market that is causing a seeming decline in our rights. It's not Trump's fault (well, also trump's fault, since he made it much worse, but the issue started years earlier) that people are experiencing hardships, because of the collapsing labor market.
The solution would be to accept that the labor market is collapsing (because very few things can be done against that) and start accepting people for being people, independent of how much work they perform. In other words, stop glorifying "hard workers" and start seeing the value in people themselves.
Constitutions are just a "we promise we wont oppress you" pinky promise. Laws are nothing but the words of people. It wouldn't mean anything if nobody (especially those in power) respect those words anymore.
There are only two systems in which rights cannot be taken away. A system with no rights in the first place, or a system with no living beings to have rights.
The point of inalienable rights, is they are the rights which must always be fought for and protected no matter the cost.
George Carlin put it pretty well, imo.
I think this is the one key question about any elected government. We would need to make sure that representatives are truly accountable, not just replaced. We have corporate manslaughter legislation after all.
Sorry, but there's always going to be a power structure.
Tribal people shunned those who didn't fit in and forced them out.
The trick is to build a system with good checks and balances and an informed populace willing to uphold those rules.
I don't know who said it, but it goes something like this.
"Every time you build a fool proof system, the fools get more creative."
You can't force people to be 'well informed' or even aware of their own interests.
There was plenty of evidence that Donald Trump was a complete idiot and a scoundrel available in 2015. a decade later and there are still tens of millions of people who will tell you he's a genius and a moral exemplar.
That's why independent news media is so important. And not just independent from state interference, but also financially. Consolidation into a few big players is really counterproductive.
And lately there is the whole social media debacle that needs a solution, even more so with fakes and invented "news" becoming more and more easier. That's an unsolved problem that needs a solution.
However an informed population really is the only way to keep a system from going downhill, everything else basically bets on some benevolent ruling class or dictator and history has plenty of examples how that goes.
Look up Roger Ailes, Ronald Reagan, and the death of the Fairness Doctrine.
Back in the day, if a commentator on a TV or radio station expressed an opinion, the station was obligated to allow any member of the public to present an opposing view. That meant that most stations avoided wild rhetoric.
Reagan got rid of that. He did a lot of other things to make the media worse. Before Reagan, half hour commercials like "GI Joe" or "The Transformers" weren't allowed.
Which "tribal people?" When? There are tribal people all over the world. They don't all share the same "power structure."
Let's just turn it around.
Why don't you show me a society with absolutely no rules of conduct? Where everyone does exactly what they want, all the time?
Let's just turn it around.
Why don't you show me where anyone is claiming such a thing? You conflated practices of "shunning" with the customs of all "tribal people." There are variants of exile and rehabilitation that run through a spectrum of possible options to all people who are self governing. Who exactly are you arguing with?
Thanks for proving me right.
I only bothered with one sentence, but you took the time to point out that all self governing people practice some form of social control.
Thanks again.
having rules =/= rigid, all-encompassing, near unbreakable power structures.
You and your housemates can make rules. You cant throw each other in prison. Big difference
Next time you decide to put words in my mouth, please order a side of chips and salsa.
You're definitely equating rules and hierarchy. But I will order the chips next time I promise. I'll see about the salad
Ackshyually, humans have experimented with various forms of social organization for most of prehistory and history. The current system of states with rigid laws and extreme enforcement is very recent. People used to transition between different hierarchies and systems, even seasonally. Not to mention many peoples would self-organize. In some Northest-American tribes, it was common sport to make fun of leaders and not take them too seriously. Some Sumerian city states had massive assemblies instead of high councils.
I HIGHLY recommend "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber to EVERYBODY.
Well if anyone is tired of posting about it and wants to do something about it message me
Absolutely incandescent!
This makes sense, there are no abuses of human rights in the US it is just that some people do not meet the conditions to receive privilages like basic healthcare, food assistance or fair treatment by state employees.
America, where everyone is equal, and some are even more equal than others!
especially if the good president, is an old guard nominee, otherwise republican lite nothing will change. they keep the status quo of the oligarchs, and groups like AIPAC.
Someone woke up? Good thing and welcome
"Do you agree?!?" Lol. Yes I actually do but this has some real bot energy which makes it feel a bit weird. Like this post isn't actually genuine and even though I agree with it, it only exists to try and get dissenters in so people will argue and become more divided. Feels icky like a reddit post
Lack of text or a link to (archived) source creates a usability issue: we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR. :::spoiler Other issues when image lacks text alternative such as link
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images. ::: Text is useful.
As I wrote in a deeper comment, the post mistakes the concept of & philosophy behind inalienable rights with legal rights.
The Enlightenment Era thinkers who developed these ideas were entirely familiar with governments legally oppressing their people. The most common governments at the time were absolute monarchies justified by divine right.
To challenge unjust governments, they worked on a more rational definition for legitimate authority. They settled on the idea that governments exist for the people & have legitimate authority only when they protect the inalienable liberties & rights of all people. When a government lacks legitimacy, the people have a right to alter it to or replace it with a legitimate one.
So, while a government can suppress inalienable rights, no government can legitimately (ie, should) do so: that would be immoral (and a violation of natural law they claimed). It's moral & political philosophy concerning legitimacy.
Contrary to the post, people do have inalienable/universal/inherent rights: those inform us whether a government is legitimate. It's still up to the people to obtain legitimate government.
We need amendments to restrict the power over civil rights. Essentially no civil rights law can be removed or superseded by additional laws. And that no laws can be passed to allow exception to this law.
Also we need clear penalties for failing to follow laws. Not just for presidents but any members of any level of political seats. Specific infraction and penalties.
A 3 strike policy. 3 such acts and removal of office followed by a new election in 6 months or a year.
Also laws against aipac and corporate money in politics. Banned. Permanently. No exceptions. No ability to change laws to change this either.
We keep learning that when we don't have strict laws and strict guidelines for insuring those laws are followed, bad actors will (always) take advantage. And the laws are useless unless they are enforced in an unbiased way.
Also Congress members for states cannot override voted on laws. The people supercede the elected officials whims.
We also need ways to remove people from office during their term.
The problem with being unable to change or supercede laws is the hubris to assume the laws passed are perfect for all time. We have all of human history to prove we are not the peak of civilization.
Getting bribery out of politics by removing lobbying and campaign finance is probably the best thing we can do. Having every politician run with the same amount of money and banning retired politicians from working as lobbiests or board members after office would do the most for eliminating corruption.
Even if you make laws unrepealable or changable, if the government won't enforce it then it solves nothing. We have no higher entity to complain to and get enforcement or satisfaction. And if there is some higher entity empowered and capable, we then put all trust that whatever is enforcing law can never be corrupted or coerced or have its own adjenda.
I can't see any scenario where civil rights laws would ever need removed. So I still suggest making those permanent and unchangeable.
Other laws can have time restrictions.
But I worry they will just get nulled when no one is looking.
For example, let's say we can ban cooperate pac money in politics and make the law unchangeable for 20 years.
In 20 years. Most people have forgotten why corporate pac money was such a problem.
And in that time, corps have been buying people on the down low. Waiting to get this law removed.
So it gets removed.
And again no one really notices until we have another situation like the present one. Which can take a pretty long time to fully mature. 10 to 20 years. Or even longer.
And then again, it becomes near impossible to ban because those in power are all bought.
The cycle will just keep repeating itself.
Some laws do need to be permanent. And unchangeable.
That's literally what the Constitution is.
Civil rights and taking bribes from corporations illegal should be permanent laws.
As well as putting caps on donations. Restricting law makers from owning stocks or owning companies. Or being on the board of any companies.
There will never be any scenario where these type of laws should be lifted.
My point was that at one time separate but equal was considered enlightened by a majority of the population. I agree that short societal memory is a curse we have to work around.
The Constitution is not permanent and unchangeable, it is a living document that can and has been amended to suit new or changing needs. That's why they are called Amendments in the first place. It is by design a lot more difficult to change than other laws, and this is a good thing, but the Founders knew they couldn't get everything right for all time.
That's fair
I agree!
Okay, you've identified a problem. What is your solution?
Bottom up democratic structures. Remove the unitary executive and make all representatives instantly recallable.
In other words: anarchism.
We will only be safe from powerful people’s whims when we abolish concentration of power: we have to get rid of rulers and replace them with true representatives.
Exactly
The way the question is worded they are in the process of gaining agreement. Trying to address an issue with others when you haven't gained agreement on the actual problem ends up taking longer with more of a mess and things getting pushed in every direction with some people not knowing if it has already been accomplished. Say Terry thinks the problems is solved when you oust the Tyrant, Jerry thinks the problem is over when you get the supreme Court balanced, and Barry thinks the problem is solved when we stop having federal troops deployed in cities. Jerry, Terry, and Barry all think they are working together, but are all pushing in different directions and ultimately will achieve none of the goals described by poster. Getting them all to agree on a problem, makes it clearer to know when the goal has been completed. (Hopefully). Granted soon as you start to implement anything, shit is going to hit the fan anyways, because the easiest way to power is by tearing down others, not building others up.
The president only enforces rights, or not. Congress changes rights.
In theory, but the Congress and Court are saying, hey President, whatever you do is fine.
The checks and balances were destroyed when the supreme court elevated the president over the law. And even before that money and corporate interest had influenced the laws against the people.
The supreme court is corrupt. We know that, yet nothing was done. The president is a criminal, yet nothing was done. The elections are influenced and the election law is outdated and unjust. Yet nothing was done.
It gets worse under Republicans and next to nothing changes under Democrats.
Lemmy: "SOCIALISM!"
I'm listening. How does that economic system stop money and power from flowing to the top?
Lemmy: "FUCK YOU!"
If you are angry about capitalism, an economic system, why are you not angry about democracy, the political system that has failed to reign in the economic system?
Lemmy: "GO FUCK YOURSELF!"
Snarky, I know. But I have never once got an answer to those questions. Not once.
(Education is my answer to all of the above. Fight amongst yourselves.)
By having no top. In socialism, there are no capitalist owners, and the only way to make money is through having a job and its corresponding salary. If you don't believe socialism reduces the flow of money from "bottom" to "top", you can check empirical data. Top 1% in modern capitalist Russia has above 20% the total income of the country. In Soviet times, they possessed 4% of the total income. This is a marked reduction in the money flowing to the top.
Because democracy under capitalism is a lie. Having a powerful owning class whose interests oppose those of the majority ensures that the interests of the majority will be ignored.
Now you have answers
Didn't the vanguard class of ruling elites oppress everyone else with their authoritarian power & political inequality? Not sure a more oppressive model of privilege is the one to uphold. More than a few would much rather take economic inequality over that bullshit.
Yeah, the soviet system was bullshit. I've never lived in it and only read about it, but from i can tell, it wasn't good.
I believe that in soviet times, less wealth flowed to the top, but that's mostly because there was less wealth to start with. People suffered and lived in poverty, and according to communist propaganda, it's more important to ensure that the "people at the top" don't have too much instead of assuring that the people at the bottom don't have too little. I see it exactly the other way around.
Also i think that the "top-down" approach of making a very strong central government that controls all aspects of life through surveillance is exactly the wrong way to approach the problem of how to live a good life. Power over other people always leads to problems, because people group A will say how people group B shall live, while also not understanding the situation of group B or lacking context. Only the people themselves can meaningfully rule themselves.
Wealth inequality in Tsarist Russia was infinitely higher than in Soviet times, and the country was much poorer. So no, that's not the reason. The reason was ideology and politics.
People in the tsarist empire up to 1917 died at the ripe age of 28. By the 1960s, life expectancy had risen to almost 70 years of age. The country went from being a feudal backwater composed of 80% peasants in 1929, to being the second world power by the 1970s, with universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, the abolition of unemployment and homelessness, and the least wealth inequality the region has ever seen. The GDP levels reached by the late 80s weren't recovered until the 2010s in most post-Soviet republics, and even now some of them like Ukraine never fully recovered from the devastation of the return to capitalism.
You're right, definitely better to be oppressed by the authoritarian power and political inequality of capitalist elites.
Inb4 "tankie!": no, both are/were shit.
Someone's confused about words. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian, communist dictatorship, where totalitarianism is the most extreme authoritarianism.
That places it on the authoritarian edge & far left of the ideological map.
It's not on the left edge, because the hierarchy between political elites & the governed features some economic inequality & tremendous inequality in political power/authority.
The degree of control in totalitarianism differs from that in ordinary authoritarian regimes. An authoritarian régime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature: they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested. In contrast, a totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as
Liberal democracies with market economies lie somewhere on the libertarian side of the ideological map. They may be a number of things, however, authoritarian they are not, and definitely not that extreme variety of it.
So yes, many of us who think human rights are fundamental would much rather deal with some economic inequality in a liberal democracy than the extreme political inequality & authoritarian repression in a totalitarian state. The latter at best trades one kind of inequality for another far worse inequality.
No you're right, I've changed my mind. I'm happy to get fucked over by someone as long as their power comes from being wealthy...
::: spoiler Tap for spoiler /s because i have a feeling you'll need it.
The greater evil doesn't justify the lesser. :::
Just because you have a weird fetish for
and the state altogether treating you like its bitch, that doesn't mean everyone else needs to share in your perversion.
At least in a liberal democracy, the state is our bitch when we criticize politicians, oust them from office, take abusers to trial. Most of us in liberal democracies aren't getting fucked over by the wealthy in any palpable way. And when they do fuck us over, we get to challenge them in court with legal equality before the rule of law.
In contrast, when the state fucks you over, you don't get to challenge shit.
So, it's great you embrace your state-dom fetish, but no one's asking.
Not sure why you assume I'm pro authoritarian state-socialism nor why you can't imagine more than two options.
The original comment made very specific questions which I addressed. Furthermore, you went ahead and assumed that the top 1% consisted of a vanguard of politicians. Actually the top earners were highly trained professionals like university professors, popular artists, or high level researchers. But sure, I'll address your concerns.
If there had been an oppressive ruling class exploiting everyone else, there would be no material explanation for why healthcare was completely free and guaranteed for everyone, why education was completely free to the highest level, why jobs were guaranteed, why housing was guaranteed and costed on average 3% of the monthly income, why the overwhelming majority of workers were unionized and had power to replace directive personnel at their workplace through union... Had there been a chaste of bureaucrats exploiting the rest of the country, you'd expect at least to see a luxury industry from which they could obtain specially expensive goods such as luxury cars, yachts, designer clothes, luxury watches, luxury photo cameras... There was no such thing. I'm not saying there wasn't ever corruption (as in any system), but the outcomes were the most egalitarian the world has seen, and even in eras of economic growth slowdown the purchase power of the average citizen went up significantly.
Reread it: it mentioned nothing of the sort. There are worse kinds of power than economic. That was the criticism: trading economic inequality for a more pernicious, repressive inequality in political authority.
The Soviet state did not even recognize inherent human rights: according to Soviet legal doctrine, the state is the source of human rights.
Resources don't make up for a lack of liberty, especially when rights there are worth nothing. The political repression isn't great: suppression of rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, & movement; punishment of dissent; crackdown on unauthorized political activities. State terrorism isn't great: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps. How is life there worth living if the secret police could just disappear you or take it away the moment an authority deems you inconvenient?
For all its faults, market-based liberal democracies don't have that. They don't have Soviet legal theorists treating rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law as excesses of "bourgeois morality".
By guaranteeing access to education, healthcare, housing, retirement and work to everyone, the Soviet Union de-facto promoted human rights more than any other state at the time. You simply don't care about the welfare state if you think those aren't human rights in the most obvious sense. Whether some state "signs a declaration" is worthless, the important and measurable thing are the outcomes, and by any metric, the Soviets excelled in them.
You're just a western supremacist if you truly believe that. The USA has literally bombed its citizens for their political opinions. It holds the highest prison population in the world by a long shot, comparable to the height of the Soviet prison system during World War 2. There are currently fascist henchmen legally disappearing citizens based on the colour of their skin, 25% of black men go through prison at some point in their lives...
And those are only the sins within the empire. Go ask a Palestinian, an Iraqi, an Irani, an Afghan, a Mexican, a Korean, a Vietnamese, a Cuban or a Congolese what they think of American support of human rights. Go ask an Algerian, a Malian, a Burkinabe what they think of French support of human rights. Go ask a Guatemalan, a Peruvian or an Ecuadorian what they think of Spanish support of human rights. The USSR, by fighting against colonialism and imperialism, was the de-facto biggest supporter of human rights in the world. Not having colonies was the ultimate expression of support for the equality of all humans.
Sure, there where excesses in repression in the USSR when they were under threat of extermination at the hands of Nazis according to Generalplan Ost. After WW2, the prison population was reduced to the lowest the region has seen (remember what came before and after the Soviet Union), and persecution was stopped as there was no longer a Nazi threat. Sure, excesses were made, but the country was under the heaviest duress possible, and it still managed to save a hundred million lives from poverty, disease, and outright extermination.
You don't really believe in human rights if you don't think that raising life expectancy from 28 to 70 years of age in 40 years isn't a miracle.
"How" is ambiguous; you describe a system that have not those issue, but not how to get this system. If we agree on the following :
Then we need to organize internationally in order to get the mean of production, and without a "top" that could become ruling class. I think that's pretty much describe revolutionary unionism or anarcho-syndicalism.
Shalafi: mmmm daddy I do love eating poopies
Lemmy: yes my child suck it all up
Shalafi: oh boy next I'm going to murder puppies
Lemmy: dude what the fuck
Snarky, I know. But I have never once had an answer to my question. Not once
(My answer to the above is the following. Femboy Friday. No more strife only life mrow)
It doesn't. Money will continue flowing to the top, just like the blood in your body will continue flowing to your head. What's important is that it also flows downwards again, to make a full circle. That's why we need wealth taxes.