I don’t like spending this much time arguing against campism but they just keep talking at me.

  • Yeller_king@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    If you value any economic system above democracy, you’ll end up being authoritarian no matter what your preferred system is.

    • SethW@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 hours ago

      How do you justify democracy when people are voting for life to be worse instead of better, even to the point of undermining the democratic process itself? Sure we could argue at some point democracy had the effect of improving living conditions but should we expect that to be true forever in all circumstances?

      I dont believe that democracy is valuable as an end unto itself, it is a tool that should serve its people and if it stops doing that we shouldn’t be dogmatic about it. Authoritarian systems certainly arent the way, and I would guess what we need doesnt even have a name yet.

      • IamMoonPie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Democracy works, the problem is we don’t have a true democracy. We have corporate capitalist democracy. It’s a system that makes most people think it’s democracy — but it’s not.

        Democracy and capitalism can not exist in the same stratosphere if democracy is to succeed.

      • cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Pointing out the flaws in some democracies is not a great argument when every other system is so clearly inferior. To answer your question, democracy requires a culture that supports it. It won’t work everywhere and it doesn’t work overnight.

      • nanometer1625@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        How do you justify democracy when people are voting for life to be worse instead of better

        How are you determining “better” and “worse”? In most cases, there’s no way of knowing what is “better” or “worse” sub species aeterinatis, because most government decisions are not optimizing a single parameter, and are instead making a judgement call by choosing one of multiple options from a Pareto frontier. With democracy, the people get what the majority of people want. Majority rule is better than minority rule.

          • punchmesan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            There’s a big difference between the ideal democracy and the bastardization of a democratic process we have in America, much like how Marx’s vision of communism is hugely different from any actual communist implementation. I personally don’t believe that any one governing/socioeconomic system taken in a vacuum is the right answer, they all seem to rely on humans being fundamentally good-natured but it just isn’t true for much of the humans attracted to positions of power.

            • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 hours ago

              an ideal democracy would be a democracy where the people have power, as opposed to one where money rules. such is the case in the fake ‘democracies’ under capitalism. it’s not just america and it’s nothing to do with humans needing to be ‘good natured’.

              • Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                The problem is “the people” in a democracy literally just amounts to “the majority”, and would thus favor the average and the interests thereof over the interests of underprivileged minorities. Can we count on the average person to be concerned about the well being of those who lack the collective power they enjoy? As of now, I would say definitely not.

      • ZMoney@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Elections are not democratic because the candidates are always elites of some form. Even with universal sufferage and an egalitarian society there will always be a selection bias towards people who want power and people who are good at winning elections (but not necessarily good at governing). A real democracy would have election by lottery to ensure every segment of the population was represented. This hasn’t ever existed because past governments who elected by lottery (e.g. Ancient Athens) had only a small percentage of society represented as citizens.

      • Yeller_king@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Let me know when you come up with a way to force people to accept an unpopular system without an authoritarian regime.