By now we’ve all seen the ‘files’, if you’re like me you’ve used various AI to cross-reference them with other things like financial crashes, who else might be a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th degree connections, where do they work, etc etc etc and at the end of it you see the web of parasitic elites running our society.
How do we just go back to ‘normal’??
weve known for centuries. marx was saying it in the 1800s.
vanguardism, mutual aid, unionism are 3 of the ways. what matters is organize with your fellow workers on a revolutionary org.
we shouldnt want to go back to shitty exploitative “normal”. we need power to the people instead for any hope to fix this.
Panama Papers!!!
This shit is old news.
Nothing was done then.
Nothing will be done now.
Nothing short of Luigi’ng all of them will make things better
Revolt
…guillotines are antiquated and obsolescent; we have industrial shredders…
Nothing will happen! We already knew about this in 2013 thanks to Daphne Caruana Galizia. Who was killed by the global elites for putting their business out there.
Eat them
If only there was a solution!
Removed by mod
This is normal, the billionaire class has always ruled over hordes of proles.
In the beginning, we just knew about our own territory, a few hundred years ago, we wouldn’t know what’s going on beyond a few days travel from our home. Today, we can read news from across the globe.
A few centuries ago, we could at least daydream that things are better somewhere. Ignorance is bliss
The problem is, as people gain power, it rots their mind and ruins their perceptions, so we have this recurring theme running throughout our history.
That’s why it’s so important to have short terms and total transparency.
But, once they gain power, politicians always fight tooth and nail to keep and expand on that power, and since they make the rules, here we are. Again
II would put it the other way around: as long as representative systems exist, it will always be more likely that egoists and narcissists will establish themselves in leadership positions, even if they only make up a small part of the population. Today, this is encouraged by the fact that we reward these character traits, which are actually harmful to the community, with fame, money and prestige.
Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.
Solution anonymous leaders? Or leaders as groups/institutions rather than individuals.
My problem with anonymous leaders is that we’d completely lose track of who’s to be made responsible. It would basically create a shortcut for elites to rule without having to hide their corruption/influence.
A group/institution would probably also face the same problem as we have today with single persons: Big money would simply buy influence in these new organizations instead of bribing single individuals.
A direct democracy would mean you have to bribe a big part of the population to cover your ideas… the worse your idea is and the more support you need to buy for it the more translates from bribery to paying a majority to accept your idea. At some point the amount of bribes extends the gains to be made by your manipulation and it becomes uneconomical… we’d basically use capitalism against bribery.
What to do then?
Create an open source platform where everyone can vote on every matter. Matter to be voted on are chosen by petitions. If a petition indicates societal need for change (x supporters in y time frame) anyone can propose a solution. Then a vote is taken. The solution with the most votes is implemented. If there is a new petition on the same topic, the fun starts all over again.
Advantages from my point of view:
-
No potentially corrupt representatives
-
No deflection of one’s own bad voting decisions (aka. it’s the fault of those at the top)
-
Citizens once again have a motivation to inform themselves about issues more than just once every four years.
Will everyone always be able to vote on everything? Certainly not, as individuals’ time and resources are limited. Therefore, those who vote on a decision are likely to be affected by it themselves, or at least feel that they are. In this way, people who have informed themselves beforehand, or at least would do so, tend to vote more.
We would use the real-time communication possibilities that the internet has given us for something positive instead of slop and brain rot.
-
The problem is, as people gain power, it rots their mind and ruins their perceptions, so we have this recurring theme running throughout our history.
This isn’t actually observable, though. Having managerial positions, administration, etc doesn’t cause cognitive deficiency nor a “turning evil” in a religious, supernatural sense. What actually happens is classes act in their class interest. The proletariat as manager isn’t seeking to establish itself as an entrenched, permanent ruling class, but instead to abolish itself as a class. Capitalists, monarchs, etc. all seek to maintain their individual privledges.
What is natural for human behavior is detetmined by the conditions of our social existence, ie how we produce and distribute. This means the idea of a static, fixed, unchanging “human nature” that cannot handle organizing at scale is false. The reason these myths persist is because they discourage action against unjustifiable systems today.
How do we just go back to ‘normal’??
This is normal. Parasitic elites have been running the world for pretty much all of recorded history.
How do we learn from history so we can stop repeating it?
Eat anyone who has more than 1 billion dollars.
Maybe by advancing our democracies in the same way the technology to divide and rule us is advancing.
Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.
By applying dialectical materialism, as opposed to metaphysics and idealism.
The 3 major assertions of idealism are as follows:
- Idealism asserts that the material world is dependent on the spiritual
- Idealism asserts that spirit, or mind, or idea, can and does exist in separation from matter. (The most extreme form of this assertion is subjective idealism, which asserts that matter does not exist at all but is pure illusion.)
- Idealism asserts that there exists a realm of the mysterious and unknowable, “above,” or “beyond,” or “behind” what can be ascertained and known by perception, experience, and science.
The 3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism are:
- Materialism teaches that the world is by its very nature material, that everything which exists comes into being on the basis of material causes, arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of matter.
- Materialism teaches that matter is objective reality existing outside and independent of the mind; and that far from the mental existing in separation from the material, everything mental or spiritual is a product of material processes.
- Materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable, and that while much may not be known there is nothing which is by nature unknowable.
Mechanistic materialism makes certain dogmatic assumptions:
- That the world consists of permanent and stable things or particles, with definite, fixed properties;
- That the particles of matter are by nature inert and no change ever happens except by the action of some external cause;
- That all motion, all change can be reduced to the mechanical interaction of the separate particles of matter;
- That each particle has its own fixed nature independent of everything else, and that the relationships between separate things are merely external relationships.
Dialectical materialism holds instead:
- The world is not a complex of things but of processes;
- That matter is inseperable from motion;
- That the motion of matter comprehends an infinite diversity of forms which arise one from another and pass into one another;
- That things exist not as separate individual units but in essential relation and interconnection.
Putting it all together, we get the following:
-
Dialectical materialism understands the world, not as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which all things go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.
-
Dialectical materialism considers that matter is always in motion, that motion is the mode of existence of matter, so that there can no more be matter without motion than motion without matter. Motion does not have to be impressed upon matter by some outside force, but above all it is necessary to look for the inner impulses of development, the self-motion, inherent in all processes.
-
Dialectical materialism understands the motion of matter as comprehending all changes and processes in the universe, from mere changes of place right to thinking. It recognizes, therefore, the infinite diversity of the forms of motion of matter from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher.
-
Dialectical materialism considers that, in the manifold processes taking place in the universe, things come into being, change and pass out of being, not as separate individual units, but in essential relation and interconnection, so that they cannot be understood each separately and by itself but only in their relation and interconnection.
Karl Marx created dialectical materialism by turning Hegel’s idealist dialectic into a materialist one. Then, he applied it to the progression of society, creating historical matetialism. By analyzing social structures and progress as a dialectical process based in materialism, we can learn from history and analyze where it’s going. This is scientific socialism in progress.
We need more Luigi’s. Make it culturally acceptable to kill rich people. If they feel fear, they behave.
This is the only solution and things will continue to get worse until we enact it.
I don’t want rich people to behave.
I want them to pay back the money that they stole, so that there will be no rich people.
I agree. If they won’t return what was stolen, we should take it by force.
This is part of good behavior.
As cool as Luigi is, as long as capitalists dominate the economy, they will just develop ever-more draconian security measures to protect themselves. What we need is organization, so that we can replace the system they draw their dominance from with socialism, putting the people in power.
The power structure that currently exists prevents such representation. It can’t be reasoned with. It must be removed forcibly first.
The real problem is ensuring what fills such a power vacuum isn’t worse.
All states represent a given class in society. In capitalism, that’s the big capitalists. In socialism, that’s the working classes. Successful revolution requires creating a mass, working-class organization, and ensuring it’s linked to the broader working classes and earns their trust and support. Without the working-class organization, we are reduced to directionless protesting, and without the backing of the people, a working-class party can do nothing. Socialism works.
the thing is, normal was always heading in this direction. Capitalism consolidates power into the hands of a few and it keeps consolidating. It will always yield toward more poverty, though for some at home they can wealthier off the exploitation of others.
I get what you mean, but going back to normal will get you right back here in a few years or decades.
I think that the answer is socialism. But for sure, pretty much nobody believes that anyone should have the wealth and power that our capitalists do.
