Comment on California’s billionaires pour cash into elections as big tech seeks new allies

• Babalugats@feddit.uk ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  But it’s the biggest, and look how corrupt it has become. You think that those big techs are stopping at the U.S.?

  source

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I can understand to not see India as a real democracy right now but not in the context of framing the USA as the poster child of how democracy fails. In that instance India is far larger still.

    source

    • Babalugats@feddit.uk ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      India is still holding remnants of feudalism since their independence, which can be seen in certain areas and way of thinking throughout India. India is also a far, far poorer country than USA, per capita especially, there’s no competition.

      Poorer countries are easier to corrupt and India will find it very hard to dig itself out of the hole it’s in without outside interference and a lot of prosecutions.

      But, corruption exists in (I would argue) every democratic country. They make up stats and skew them in their own favour in an attempt to hide it, but the people on the street aren’t blind to what is happening and are very much aware of the corruption regardless of any statistics.

      source
  • HetareKing@piefed.social ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    It’s also one of the oldest (in the modern sense), an early adopter with little to no best practices to learn from. Not to mention that it kind of wandered into being a democracy through legal interpretations rather than being one by design.

    Anyway, you’re not looking at things structurally enough and missing the fundamental problem: excessive consolidation of power. By which I don’t mean the “big government” conservatives like to complain about, because governments don’t have to be monoliths, but simply what it sounds like: one entity having an excessive power at its disposal that it’s able to use at its own volition. To prevent that in government you need to not only design it in a way that not one part of it has an excessive amount of power (through separation of powers, independent institutions etc.), but also have mechanisms in place to keep it that way, because it’s ultimately people who are doing the execution. And any such mechanism that does not involve accountability to the public is doomed to failure, because that mechanism is, once again, executed by people, and the fewer people are involved, the easier it is to take over. In other words, it’s not simply that democracy can work, it’s the only thing that is structurally capable of working. Any other form of government is inherently more susceptible to corruption.

    However, implementation details matter and a flawed implementation can cause it to fail. And basically every modern democratic state has one big flaw: it has political democracy, but not economic democracy. As a result, there is very little constraining private actors from accumulating as much capital (=power) as they can, based on the naive assumption that market forces are enough to prevent them from accumulating too much. And so once enough capital has accumulated in once place, that power can be used to undermine political democracy as well. So the problem here isn’t that democracy doesn’t work, it’s that we don’t have enough of it.

    source

    • Babalugats@feddit.uk ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      But we already know that democracy doesn’t work. What it sounds like you are describing in much of that post is anarchism (yes, I know I have mentioned it a few times, before I read your post), and with technology, which we heavily already rely on, I see no reason to attempt to try it again. Obviously on a much smaller scale so that we can easily see where lies flaws and boundaries, but we should also be doing that with democracy on a daily basis.

      source

      • HetareKing@piefed.social ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        We don’t actually know that it doesn’t work, because as I’ve said, all modern democracies have a particular flaw and we don’t know what happens when that flaw is fixed. I would also say that what you’re describing as “anarchism” is just another form of democracy; democracy is a set of principles, not a concrete system. And that anarchism would in practice not be as different from what we have today as you’re imagining. Instead of top-down it would be bottom-up, maybe (which has some problems of its own), but you still end up with elected representatives at higher levels of governance, because even with modern technology it would be impractical to have all the stakeholders of the Rhine, for example, do consensus-building in one big meeting. And those representatives would need to be held to account, just like today.

        I think it’s far more fruitful to look at the actual problems we’re having and what structurally is causing them and try to do something about those causes, instead of going on about what systems would or wouldn’t work, because there’s never going to be a perfect system, we’re always going to have to solve problems as they come. Especially when clearly the problem here isn’t the system itself, but the existence of power structures that exist outside of the system and are therefore not constrained by the system, allowing them to undermine the system. If solving that problem results in something that can be described as “socialism” or “anarchism”, so be it, but one thing it absolutely has to be, is a democracy. Because again, anything that is not a democracy is going to be inherently more susceptible to corruption (and therefore be ineffective at solving problems) than even a mediocre implementation of democracy.

        source

        • -> View More Comments