In the last 5 to 10 years everything seems to suck: product’s and services quality plummeted, everything from homes to cars to food became really expensive, technology stopped to help us to be something designed to f@ck with us and our money, nobody seems to be able to hold a job anymore, everyone is broke. Life seems worse in general.

Why? Did COVID made this happen? How?

  • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Okay, but what does a system look like that moves past both? How do you ensure people get resources if you don’t want capitalism or a planned economy?

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      By implementing the thing Marxist-leninists were loathe to implement despite giving a lot of lip service. Actual communism. Not the Engles lenin variety. But the kind Marx spoke on. The thing to remember is that the Soviet Communist party was as communist as the national socialist party of Germany was socialist. Which is to say neither of them were.

      This of course all starts with actual large scale engagement. We absolutely need to change the voting system etc as a start. For all the flaws and problems of the founding fathers, the fact that they saw us needing to largely rewrite the Constitution every few decades, let alone every few hundred years was not one of their flaws.

      Then we need to uncap the House of Representatives. That’s a century overdue. Followed by abolishing the electoral college. Then reforming the house, Senate, judiciary and even the concept of the presidency. Basically take as many steps as necessary to make things as democratic/granular as possible. Dilute power.

      One of the other important things we could do is abolishing the concept of private property. Private property is little more than theft. Allowing the wealthy to horde resources to the detriment of everyone else. If you own a home, you should be living in it. It shouldn’t be some sort of an investment that you never spend time in. Used for speculation on markets etc. Replace private property with something much more sane like the more limited concept of personal property. As in property, a person would actually use themselves. Tying legal fines and fees to a person’s income and wealth along with impartial enforcement is another good start.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Really? What kind of tyranny would increasing democracy while reducing concentration of power cause? Lol I’d really like to know.

          • BaldProphet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            There’s a reason the people who wrote the Constitution decided upon federalism as our form of government. It protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This concept is especially important as the urban majority seeks to assert its ignorant tyranny on the rural minority these days.

            The United States isn’t a single government like most non-federal nations. There is plenty of democracy in our local and state governments, and we have our bicameral Congress which accounts for both the equality of the states, no matter their populations, as well as the inequality of the states, taking into account their populations. Remove that equality and you will be unable to get enough states to ratify your new constitution.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              They did no such thing. Literally that’s propaganda. All they did was enshrine the tyranny of white landed male Gentry. Which don’t get me wrong. Was progressive at the time. Considering no males outside of royalty typically had much power. But don’t push this fantasy that it was about protection from some sort of majority. It was all about enshrining the tyranny of a specific minority.

              And like clockwork, the entire history of the United States has been pushing back against the tyranny of that minority. Minority. Women’s suffrage came at pushing back against that minority the rights of non-whites to vote came from pushing back against those groups as well. The rights of gays to marry came from pushing back at those groups as well.

              If the majority is something to be feared. And the tyranny of the majority is an actual thing that we have evidence is bad. Then I am sure you could provide examples of this. No examples exist, but surely you must be able to provide some. Where this evil majority inflicted their tyranny upon people.

              Which is doubly absurd when we’re talking about diluting power not concentrating power with anyone or any one group. So that no minority or majority has outsized power over any other group to inflict their will. It’s like you’ve never really given this. Any critical or deep thought.

              • BaldProphet@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                You gotta return to your grade-school history textbooks, my friend. You can even read what the Framers wrote as they debated, at length, this very topic. It was the major sticking point between the populous states and the less populous states, and the bicameral legislature was the compromise.

                Either way, I’m not concerned. You’ll never get enough states to give up their representation so it’ll never happen.

                • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Grade school history books are literal hero worshiping whitewashed propaganda. And if that’s what you’re running on. You’ve been willingly duped hard.

                  For their day, the founders were definitely more democratic and forward thinking than many of their contemporaries. But they literally only gave white landowning males a voice in the government. Go look it up. Read on it. Their voice was the only voice that mattered. The voice of women. Didn’t matter. The voice of non-landowning males white or otherwise didn’t matter. We fought wars over this and had protests for the better part of the last several hundred years to get the progress we’ve got. It wasn’t given to us by the founders LOL.

                  • BaldProphet@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    I’m not saying you’re wrong about how originally only white male landowners were able to vote. But… That’s completely irrelevant to the issue of apportioning representation. The bicameral legislature provides fair representation to every state, whether it’s big or small. I don’t see how that could be anything but beneficial to everyone, whether they be a white male landowner in California or a black female renter in Rhode Island.

                    Anyway, you aren’t going to convince me that your folly is the best course for this nation. I’m not too concerned because, like I said, you’ll never get enough states to go along with such a horrible plan to replace the Constitution.

                    Good day.