No matter the political or economic system, what is to be avoided is the concentration of power, both “soft” and “hard”. Alas, I’m more convinced than ever before that this is a feature of homo sapiens, and not a bug.
This is why you have to insure the alignment of direct stakeholders and not overly broaden it above those who are directly impacted. You never want the same guy selling your food to be the same guy that verifies that it is safe.
A Stakeholder Socialist system, I think, is that ideal as it utilizes coöp commonwealths, democratic workerplaces, muti-stakeholder and syndicated ownership models, and federated levels of oversight such that power only escalates for things necessary and narrowly at that scope like interconnected grids or safety in international food trade.
I agree that social hierarchies are a feature of homo sapiens, hence why any good form of governance should be based on restricting our worst instincts. That’s what the original liberalism improved with the separation of political power into executive, legislative, and judicate branches. Unfortunately, the same was not done for economic power, which - most liberal democracies - allowed to keep concentrating with few to no safeguards.
The entire point of liberal “democracies” is to provide the conditions so that capitalists could concentrate wealth and power without meddling from the nobility class of feudalism.
This is not a bad take, but I think there is no point other than propaganda for the simple structure of those who have the most get to get the most.
A great example of this is the French revolution that just transferred wealth and power from one ruling class to another. Democracy and Liberty is just a window dressing to this reality, a way to placate the masses if you will.
Not exactly. Liberals are very consistent in what they define as liberty, it’s just that this definition of liberty only matters to the wealthy. If you’re not wealthy you will suffer immensely under Liberalism. This is different than what came before Liberalism. Before Liberalism was monarchy and hereditary aristocracy. They knew they were concentrating wealth and therefore they had to provide public welfare for the peasants (nobilesse oblige). But Liberals wanted that wealth to be more fluid, to change hands, and to become a form of competition where the best could win their fortune and do what they pleased with it. They really did think that not being able to buy a castle for cash was a reduction in liberty and an affront to universal human rights. But they also thought that nobilesse oblige was also an affront to individual autonomy. They wanted all peasants to be “free” to work for whoever would pay them the most, and whoever paid them would have zero obligation to them at all.
And that’s what they got. The rich and the poor alike are free now. Free to sleep under a bridge or to buy a private island. Free to trade their labor for a wage or free to invest their fortunes in weapons manufacturing and hedge it with commodities in oil, gold, and food. Free to send their children to enriching experiences all over the world or to have them working two jobs and failing school to help the family survive. Free to work in coal mines or uranium mines or to buy and sell coal mines or uranium mines.
I really like what you have to say here. I have often wrestled with the real meaning of liberty that explains what the rhetoric really means. I think liberty is the absence of rules, laws, and regulations. Freedom from these things but not really freedom as most people have come to believe its meaning. This is a toxic form of freedom that informs us we are only free as we have money.
We even have sayings that support this worldview like “Fuck you” money. The type of money that would allow you to walk away from any situation. It is the ultimate in freedom in US society. This says a lot about our culture.
Distributism is interesting on this front I think, it’s sceptical of power and wealth being concentrated by anyone public or private and instead advocates widespread ownership of the means of production.
I’ve been listening to The Dawn of Everything, a New History of Humanity the past couple weeks and it’s been quite interesting. Particularly relevant to this topic is how many societies we have evidence for — through actual contact and documentation or through archaeological findings and anthropological research — that either consciously did not develop or later abolished a ruling class, whether as devolved cultural groups or even in cities of tens of thousands. Examples are given for cities in Mesopotamia, Yucatan, iirc north of the Black Sea, and other areas.
Lots of interesting stuff on personal freedom, collective decision-making, community care, agriculture and conscious lack thereof, etc.
No matter the political or economic system, what is to be avoided is the concentration of power, both “soft” and “hard”. Alas, I’m more convinced than ever before that this is a feature of homo sapiens, and not a bug.
This is why you have to insure the alignment of direct stakeholders and not overly broaden it above those who are directly impacted. You never want the same guy selling your food to be the same guy that verifies that it is safe.
A Stakeholder Socialist system, I think, is that ideal as it utilizes coöp commonwealths, democratic workerplaces, muti-stakeholder and syndicated ownership models, and federated levels of oversight such that power only escalates for things necessary and narrowly at that scope like interconnected grids or safety in international food trade.
I agree that social hierarchies are a feature of homo sapiens, hence why any good form of governance should be based on restricting our worst instincts. That’s what the original liberalism improved with the separation of political power into executive, legislative, and judicate branches. Unfortunately, the same was not done for economic power, which - most liberal democracies - allowed to keep concentrating with few to no safeguards.
The entire point of liberal “democracies” is to provide the conditions so that capitalists could concentrate wealth and power without meddling from the nobility class of feudalism.
This is not a bad take, but I think there is no point other than propaganda for the simple structure of those who have the most get to get the most.
A great example of this is the French revolution that just transferred wealth and power from one ruling class to another. Democracy and Liberty is just a window dressing to this reality, a way to placate the masses if you will.
Not exactly. Liberals are very consistent in what they define as liberty, it’s just that this definition of liberty only matters to the wealthy. If you’re not wealthy you will suffer immensely under Liberalism. This is different than what came before Liberalism. Before Liberalism was monarchy and hereditary aristocracy. They knew they were concentrating wealth and therefore they had to provide public welfare for the peasants (nobilesse oblige). But Liberals wanted that wealth to be more fluid, to change hands, and to become a form of competition where the best could win their fortune and do what they pleased with it. They really did think that not being able to buy a castle for cash was a reduction in liberty and an affront to universal human rights. But they also thought that nobilesse oblige was also an affront to individual autonomy. They wanted all peasants to be “free” to work for whoever would pay them the most, and whoever paid them would have zero obligation to them at all.
And that’s what they got. The rich and the poor alike are free now. Free to sleep under a bridge or to buy a private island. Free to trade their labor for a wage or free to invest their fortunes in weapons manufacturing and hedge it with commodities in oil, gold, and food. Free to send their children to enriching experiences all over the world or to have them working two jobs and failing school to help the family survive. Free to work in coal mines or uranium mines or to buy and sell coal mines or uranium mines.
Freedom. Liberty. Achieved. Liberalism actually really believes that.
But yes, they also used it as propaganda to get the peasants to fight on their behalf.
I really like what you have to say here. I have often wrestled with the real meaning of liberty that explains what the rhetoric really means. I think liberty is the absence of rules, laws, and regulations. Freedom from these things but not really freedom as most people have come to believe its meaning. This is a toxic form of freedom that informs us we are only free as we have money.
We even have sayings that support this worldview like “Fuck you” money. The type of money that would allow you to walk away from any situation. It is the ultimate in freedom in US society. This says a lot about our culture.
Distributism is interesting on this front I think, it’s sceptical of power and wealth being concentrated by anyone public or private and instead advocates widespread ownership of the means of production.
I’ve been listening to The Dawn of Everything, a New History of Humanity the past couple weeks and it’s been quite interesting. Particularly relevant to this topic is how many societies we have evidence for — through actual contact and documentation or through archaeological findings and anthropological research — that either consciously did not develop or later abolished a ruling class, whether as devolved cultural groups or even in cities of tens of thousands. Examples are given for cities in Mesopotamia, Yucatan, iirc north of the Black Sea, and other areas.
Lots of interesting stuff on personal freedom, collective decision-making, community care, agriculture and conscious lack thereof, etc.