• testfactor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know that I understand the “under capitalism” distinction here.

    Like, I get that the point is that capital is influential, skewing the vote in favor of those who have it.

    I just think that even in non-capitalistic systems there will invariably be some other proxy token for power that will be equally influential.

    I don’t think the problem outlined is one that is fixed under any system.

    • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bingo. This is the issue the “enlightened thinkers” here fail to grasp. There is always going to be some form of power, which can lead to corruption, big or small. You want to deal with it in capitalism? Ban lobbying and donations over X amount, and then enforce it harshly. Not some white collar wrist slapping. That will take a big chunk of it. Insider trading ban on elected officials is the other big step.

      • DreamButt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        While I hear you I think it’s also important to note that not all forms of economic organization have been explored. This goes doubly so for governmental systems. It’s not hard to argue that certain combinations and ways of organizing this way will inherently be more resistant to curruption than others. Power doesn’t inherently currupt, but it does reveal flaws

        • Litanys@lem.cochrun.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say power does corrupt. For almost all of history, any sort of power eventually comes with corruption. Its kinda the human condition. That being said, I do think there are ways of minimizing that corruption and defending against it.

  • zepheriths@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I fucking hate that capitalism is bad. No one is a selfless saint. There has to be some sort of profit motive. Otherwise everyone would just go to subsistence farming. I know you are going to hate this but you need to be specific, capitalism alone isn’t bad, what you hate is the pooling of wealth which I hate to say happened in communism to.

      • DreamButt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Easy, have me build the algorithm. I’ll make sure that you “randomly” show up in the list that is “randomly” searched :p

      • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is if everyone gets selected from time to time. Selected citizens only participate to one issue at a time, they are not here to stay. It is the best and only non-digital direct-democracy system

        • Pinklink@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not representation of the people. That’s representation of one individual (or one small group of individuals) in each instance. May be different individuals, but one instance might be dealing with an act of war, the other might be local infrastructure.

          • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The size of the group required for good representation can be calculated, and it’s not a lot

            • Pinklink@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are 331.9 million people in the US. How many people need to be randomly selected for each issue? Okay I did look this up, approx 385 would do, with 5% margin of error. Which actually seems like a lot. Bump that to 97% confidence and it jumps to 1309. Idk seems like a lot of people to randomly select for each issue or even for each short term whatever we deem that to be. Plus then they need to vote, are we just looking for a standard majority?