4 ms·

What about having a rationally planned democratic society instead of people chasing dollars at the expense of everything? No rich people, just democratic proces

What about having a rationally planned democratic society instead of people chasing dollars at the expense of everything? No rich people, just democratic processes accessible to all incl. in production.

eej71 3y ago
I think you'd have to be very clear about how this is different than the previous attempts at such "rationally planned democratic societies".
- lostlogin 3y ago
  The ‘central planning committee’ and ‘the 5 year plan’ certainly have some baggage attached.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Yup. Years of propaganda convinced most people that these are exclusive features of Communist dictatorship, when they actually existed in post war capitalist societies as well. Fun historical fact: the father of the European Union, Jean Monnet, was the head of the “central planning committee” in France in 1950 (and he really wasn't a commie).
- MeImCounting 3y ago
  I am not in favor of a planned economy, but I do believe our society faces a significant issue with certain individuals hoarding money and resources. If we are to employ a group that uses violence to enforce the will of the majority under the threat of violence, then we should at least utilize this forceful approach to prevent some individuals from becoming entrenched in power and wealth. As they exist now, mechanisms of state violence exist primarily to suppress the uneducated and poor of our society. We should not allow people to hoard wealth. I dont know where that cutoff is or how it should be decided. Maybe increasingly aggressive taxes with no loopholes? It does need to happen
  - eej71 3y ago
    You have provided, perhaps unintentionally, a wonderful concretization on the difference between political power and economic power. In even simpler terms, its the difference between the gun and the dollar.
    - MeImCounting 3y ago
      That is indeed the comparison I was trying to make. The average citizen should (if our democratic system worked correctly) wield just as much political power as the oligarch through his vote and so should be able to wield that power, collectively with the rest of society, to limit the economic power of the oligarch. Unfortunately as our system works now the oligarch wields both substantially more political power through lobbying and general corruption in the government and courts as well as clearly wielding more economic power. What I am saying is that we as a society should endeavor to reduce the misbalance in economic power between the oligarch and the average citizen.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Well, the examples you have mind are likely not “democratic societies” (even though they often put a “Democratic“ in their name for good measure). But then, if you look at the US from the new deal to Reagan or most of Western Europe from WWII to the 80s, you have an idea of what a planned[1] democratic society looks like. And then the scarecrow is less powerful as an argument, isn't it? Also, Communism hasn't been defeated by the power of the Free Market. It has been defeated by the appeal of democratic societies living under a welfare state system. When all a democracy has to offer is a free market but no shared well-being, dictatorship is around the corner. (You can already see it with the rise of populists leaders all around the western world). [1] there used to be so much more planning compared to what goes now that from today's perspective I feel it's fair to call that “planned societies”.
epistasis 3y ago
This general vague concept could be implemented in details in thousands upon thousands of ways, and has not resulted in better or more fair outcomes. For example, my California city has "democratic" control of how many homes are allowed to be built, and therefore some control over the number of people allowed into the city. The city has decided not to build enough to meet the needs of the general population, but instead pays attention to a tiny minority of city constituents that profit from housing scarcity. They may profit in financial terms from their home valuations, but for some it's not about the money, it's just about keeping people out. It is an intensely unfair system, yet touted as "democratic" control of the means of production of housing. So color me skeptical that democratic control won't result in even worse outcomes. If we had market control of the amount of housing, at least housing would be cheaper and we wouldn't be kicking people onto the streets continuously due to housing scarcity.
lavelganzu 3y ago
We've seen enough attempts at planned societies that ended badly, so most folk are justifiably wary of further attempts, even putatively democratic ones. Make it easily opt-in, easily opted-out, and successful, and then people will be interested again.
- tehjoker 3y ago
  This one is ending badly too. Uncontrolled pandemic with over a million dead, openly supporting a genocide in Palestine, endless war, near zero democratic input from people less rich than wealthy suburbanites, climate crisis, the ending of U.S. hegemony causing a hyperfixation on military control of the world. It goes on and on, and can all be traced back to a fundamentally undemocratic governance structure and economic structure. It didn't help that prior attempts, while making their own mistakes, were facing an implacable powerful enemy that constantly set out to destroy them. Security threats generate centralization and reduced democracy in all societies.
  - rangestransform 3y ago
    It’s also the mark of a successful society that it’s able to respond to external threats, no?

eej71 3y ago

I think you'd have to be very clear about how this is different than the previous attempts at such "rationally planned democratic societies".

lostlogin 3y ago
The ‘central planning committee’ and ‘the 5 year plan’ certainly have some baggage attached.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Yup. Years of propaganda convinced most people that these are exclusive features of Communist dictatorship, when they actually existed in post war capitalist societies as well. Fun historical fact: the father of the European Union, Jean Monnet, was the head of the “central planning committee” in France in 1950 (and he really wasn't a commie).
MeImCounting 3y ago
I am not in favor of a planned economy, but I do believe our society faces a significant issue with certain individuals hoarding money and resources. If we are to employ a group that uses violence to enforce the will of the majority under the threat of violence, then we should at least utilize this forceful approach to prevent some individuals from becoming entrenched in power and wealth. As they exist now, mechanisms of state violence exist primarily to suppress the uneducated and poor of our society. We should not allow people to hoard wealth. I dont know where that cutoff is or how it should be decided. Maybe increasingly aggressive taxes with no loopholes? It does need to happen
- eej71 3y ago
  You have provided, perhaps unintentionally, a wonderful concretization on the difference between political power and economic power. In even simpler terms, its the difference between the gun and the dollar.
  - MeImCounting 3y ago
    That is indeed the comparison I was trying to make. The average citizen should (if our democratic system worked correctly) wield just as much political power as the oligarch through his vote and so should be able to wield that power, collectively with the rest of society, to limit the economic power of the oligarch. Unfortunately as our system works now the oligarch wields both substantially more political power through lobbying and general corruption in the government and courts as well as clearly wielding more economic power. What I am saying is that we as a society should endeavor to reduce the misbalance in economic power between the oligarch and the average citizen.
littlestymaar 3y ago
Well, the examples you have mind are likely not “democratic societies” (even though they often put a “Democratic“ in their name for good measure). But then, if you look at the US from the new deal to Reagan or most of Western Europe from WWII to the 80s, you have an idea of what a planned[1] democratic society looks like. And then the scarecrow is less powerful as an argument, isn't it? Also, Communism hasn't been defeated by the power of the Free Market. It has been defeated by the appeal of democratic societies living under a welfare state system. When all a democracy has to offer is a free market but no shared well-being, dictatorship is around the corner. (You can already see it with the rise of populists leaders all around the western world). [1] there used to be so much more planning compared to what goes now that from today's perspective I feel it's fair to call that “planned societies”.

epistasis 3y ago

This general vague concept could be implemented in details in thousands upon thousands of ways, and has not resulted in better or more fair outcomes. For example, my California city has "democratic" control of how many homes are allowed to be built, and therefore some control over the number of people allowed into the city. The city has decided not to build enough to meet the needs of the general population, but instead pays attention to a tiny minority of city constituents that profit from housing scarcity. They may profit in financial terms from their home valuations, but for some it's not about the money, it's just about keeping people out. It is an intensely unfair system, yet touted as "democratic" control of the means of production of housing. So color me skeptical that democratic control won't result in even worse outcomes. If we had market control of the amount of housing, at least housing would be cheaper and we wouldn't be kicking people onto the streets continuously due to housing scarcity.

lavelganzu 3y ago

We've seen enough attempts at planned societies that ended badly, so most folk are justifiably wary of further attempts, even putatively democratic ones. Make it easily opt-in, easily opted-out, and successful, and then people will be interested again.

tehjoker 3y ago
This one is ending badly too. Uncontrolled pandemic with over a million dead, openly supporting a genocide in Palestine, endless war, near zero democratic input from people less rich than wealthy suburbanites, climate crisis, the ending of U.S. hegemony causing a hyperfixation on military control of the world. It goes on and on, and can all be traced back to a fundamentally undemocratic governance structure and economic structure. It didn't help that prior attempts, while making their own mistakes, were facing an implacable powerful enemy that constantly set out to destroy them. Security threats generate centralization and reduced democracy in all societies.
- rangestransform 3y ago
  It’s also the mark of a successful society that it’s able to respond to external threats, no?