3 ms·
we’ve been oligarchic since at least the 90s, so it doesn’t really matter that there are two major parties. in fact, having two parties has been an effective sh
by clairity 5y ago
we’ve been oligarchic since at least the 90s, so it doesn’t really matter that there are two major parties. in fact, having two parties has been an effective shield against criticism and activism, keeping us distracted (see every comment on hn and beyond that mentions democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, etc.) from the real roots of our growing inequality and stagnation. consolidation of power, wealth and influence is the enemy of the people, as it’s been for all of human history. we keep failing at understanding this throughout that history to our continued collective misery.
we need to (continue to) decentralize governments and markets. we now have the technological means, so it’s largely a matter of popular will at this point.
- spaetzleesser 5y agoYour analysis is good. Be careful with your proposed solution. No matter what you do, the powerful and wealthy will always find a way to capture the system. I think the real problem is the sheer amount of wealth and power in a few hands.
- jhgb 5y ago> we’ve been oligarchic since at least the 90s You mean the 1890s?
- rsj_hn 5y ago1790s But I would say "oligarchic tendencies" rather than a pure oligarchy, which is the natural and default state of the world once you chop off the head of the monarch and no longer have power vested in a single individual -- it devolves to a smaller group of more powerful individuals. But elections and popular movements are still in the mix as well, and occasionally make an impact. Thus it's an oligarchy influenced by popular pressures, which is a pretty good classification of all non-monarchic/non-dictatorial governments.