,Let them eat cake."

I think most people from rich countries would still prefer the US to be dominant than China. The US at least talks a good game when it comes to freedom of speech, etc. China doesn’t even try to pretend to care about that. But, the US is chaotic and belligerent, whereas China is mostly using soft power these days

I agree with you.

The assumption I make is that the advantages of the US (higher personal freedom, of speech and economically) will further decline as Mango Mussolini respectively the people pulling his strings are far from done with restructuring the US democracy in their favor. In the end US citizens might end up with a repressive system similar to China but with lack of the claim to care for everyone.

For the moment I agree that most Western citizens will still prefer the US society over a Chinese one.

Concerning the ‘will the US recover?’ question, my two cents:

I don’t think the US will be able to recover the lost influence since the prerequisties for it reaching that level if power and influence have changed / are gone. The US dominated ‘the West’ in its fight againgst an authoritarian communist regime and build its global hegemony on the victory in this conflict. Even if the US could regain some trust the current system rival China is way smarter and more convincing in its promises to the regular citizen than the SU was during most of its time… eventhough both systems labeled themselves ‘communis’.

That being said I don’t think the modern US could realistically neither win an arms race based on state finances against China nor make a better promise for the insividuals future. The US hegemony crumbels and imho impossibly will return… if a chinese dominance is better, especially for western citizens, also remains questionable.

I get the point but honestly: Why does that matter?

If we only accept judgement or action by ‘perfect individuals’ aka. ‘heroes’ the world won’t ever get better as influential humans are still humans and often have, by design, flaws and mistakes build within them and their character. Does that mean we shouldn’t judge anyone for their actions? Obviously not.

But to claim that ones vision or ideas are outright wrong due to ad-hominem argumentation against their personal flaws is also bullshit. You’ll always find something to point out, especially with historical figures. Since, ironically due to their imperfect actionism, our social norms have improved and we often rightfully so critizise things deemed normal during their time.

He most probably has his dirty hands on Venezuelas oil… high oil prices are a feature, not a bug.

My two cents:

Yes, that guy could probably habe reached more sustainable success by cooperating with other workers against the system.

However this fire might shake some workers up that without their consent and cooperation that current system wouldn’t be working. The owner class relies on acceptence of their wealth and belongings by the masses after all… or, differently said: It takes just one unsurveilled angry worker to turn estate into a huge pile of ash. And there are billions of them.

Of course they do… they also bombed Iran during the last two negotiations, didn’t they?

In my everyday life the only ones bringing up woke positions are right nut jobs that complain about ‘everything being woke’.

So no, I personally don’t experience much annoyance by ‘woke policy’.

That’s a framework for a technocracy. The question here was for a blueprint for an anarchist society.

And if we take your line of thinking further: At what point do you stop denying people the right to vote?

Should only those in a particular industry have a say when it comes to regulating that industry? In that case, issues like environmental and consumer protection would become unenforceable… because why would a CEO or worker care about the impact their own actions have on the rest of society if regulation can be framed as a threat to their own job?

I would argue that neither you nor most other people like making bad decisions, right?

If, after the vote, there’s no representative—aka “those up there”—to blame for your own bad decision, that probably sets off a learning process where you either do better research next time or, if you’re too unsure or not interested in the topic, stay out of it and leave the choice to people who think they know more about it.

Without fixed terms, you can vote again in six months if you realize that your decision isn’t solving the problem and enough other people feel the same way… whereas now you have to rely on a representative to make decisions in your best interest (and not in the interest of their own wallet), and, if the decision turns out to be bad for you, hope that another government will revisit the law in 20 years.

You may as well just form government by having your largest 500 companies nominate a representative from their board.

That’s basically the case right now, so it wouldn’t even constitute a deterioration?

In the system I’ve proposed, however, this would only work until enough resistance to corporate practices builds up because the business model harms the majority. Since there are no legislative terms, such practices could be stopped more quickly than in today’s system, where industry simply buys off the newly elected representatives and can then carry on as before for another four years…

Thank you!

That’s my point.

I basically agree with you.

However, the slowness of paper-based administration is the reason why we’ve ended up with the (increasingly) poor solution of representative systems and the corruption that goes hand in hand with them.

In an age where fake news and propaganda spread in real time, I believe our democracies must also find a way to react more quickly… The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else in real time; in my opinion, it’s time to use this FOR rather than AGAINST our societies.

f that is the premise, then any form of anarchist society is obsolete.

I was responding here to a question about a blueprint for an anarchist social order. That presupposes a reasonably positive view of human nature… which, in my opinion, is actually the more realistic one.

Otherwise, we’ll always need an authoritarian system that patronizes “the stupid people” and looks after them… a narrative that is used to justify domination over others and is deeply rooted in our societies today.

Open source, direct internet democracy.

Let anyone vote on anything basically.

My hope is voters tend to vote on matters relevant to them providing initative to get/beeing informed on the matter they vote on.

I see representative systems as root of corruption so my solution calls for a system with direct decisions without political representatives.

Left out the part where the US/Israel bombed Iran TWICE during ongoing negotiations. Read earlier that the draft for an UN security council resolution demands Iran to go ,with good faith" into negotiations with US/Israel… who came up with this, did they miss the last two rounds of negotiation-bombing?

Having the same thought.

If capitalism eats its own children it might force the world to use FOSS and non-proprietary company structures.

True

To be honest I think this is a cyclic process only being interrupted when inequality and welfare become shitty enough to push a majority of individuals out of their comfort zone… that’s when revolutions happen. Ealier I don’t expect anything to change as the biggest players are allowed to continously shape the system in their favor.

Isn’t this the exact same thing happening durin all other finance crashes in the last decades? I don’t think the modus operandi is much different.

Yep, with the small flaw that the US nursed an anti-democratic dictatorship in the process… which kind of led to the problem nobody was willing to defend it after the US retreated.

Doesn’t this boil down to self-censorship in public? Better not critizise the government in public becaus you never know whos waring smart glasses…