67
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

If top of the society is immoral psychopaths with power, and most of the society is composed of people with good intentions, then there is not much hope for "beta uprising" until things go way beyond point of recovery, because powerful psychopaths will not let their power get taken away.

Not sure if this is just evolutionary biology, but this cycle of psychopaths at the top has been going on since when, at least ancient Egypt. And in all these thousands of years, the system that enables this cycle got way more reinforced than it got dismantled.

So is it maybe better idea to put benevolent people's energy towards designing and preparing a new societal system that will have built-in mechanisms for preventing corruption and malevolence? "prepare" as in get ready to implement for when the current messed up system is about to grind to a halt and collapse? Well, it would be best to figure out how to go full Benevolent Theseus™ by replacing parts of currently failing system with the corruption-proof ones.

What are some resources related to this topic? Recearch on societal dynamics, designing political systems, examples of similar revolutions that already happened, etc. Post any links that you consider relevant

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago

Getting rid of apathy is the most important step. Too many people say "I'm not interested in politics".

Politics is everything, it shouldn't be considered as a legitimate choice to stay away from it.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Holy shit, I wish I could upvote this more than once.

In the US we live in a participatory democracy. If the citizens of this country don't actively participate in how the government functions, then all is lost.

One of the biggest tools that fascists use to subvert the will of the people is turn off various groups from caring about what is going on. They spread misinformation about this and lies about that. They act like things can get fixed with a snap of a leader's fingers, but that's not how reality works, so they complain about why we still have problems.

With that comes endless conspiracies and in general a mistrust and break down of government. And it all kind of steamrolls because the fewer people who follow the news and politics closely, the easier to let corruption go unchallenged.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I have to say, I'm pretty sure the US approach of seeming hyper democracy (voting for the local garbage men boss, sheriffs, etc) is actually detrimental to democracy in practice. You're flooded with choices that you can't reasonably be expected to be able to actually make an informed decision about. Simply because of time constraints, you can't study garbage policy issues 4h a day, every day, after work.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Maybe don't take your knowledge of US politics from TVs and movies. It's not that complicated and that's one of the reasons why there are political parties - it is pretty reasonable to assume that if one is registered as a Democrat then they follow most democratic party ideals. And if they are registered as a Republican, then they are a worthless piece of shit. It makes picking your candidate easier even ot is an imperfect system.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago

I can respect that y'all kind of hate my kind here and I'm going to use this comment to share only the most unobjectionable works that even the most anticommunist liberal should find completely and utterly appealing

Fully Automated Luxury Communism is a book about how we have all of the tools at our disposal right now to automate at least 50% of the work that we have to do to stay alive, and thus get rid of that work as a tool of coercion and exertion of power.

How Capitalism Ends is about how the power got to the concentrations it has today, where we can expect it to go by extrapolating that tendency, why there was no other way it could have gone, and what we can do now to start building the next thing.

These are two very good and easy starts to starting to think about this problem. I'm happy to field questions about the works or anything else related.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago

According to Walter Scheidel's The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century, the answer is revolutionary violence.

It's a fascinating read. I very much recommend the chapter covering the Black Plague. Seems rather relevant nowadays.

Employers lost no time pressuring the authorities to curb the rising cost of labor. Less than a year after the arrival of the Black Death in England, in June 1349, the crown passed the Ordinance of Laborers:

Since a great part of the population, and especially workers and employees (“servants”), has now died in this pestilence many people, observing the needs of masters and the shortage of employees, are refusing to work unless they are paid an excessive salary. . . . We have ordained that every man or woman in our realm of England, whether free or unfree, who is physically fit and below the age of sixty, not living by trade and exercising a particular craft, and not having private means of land of their own upon which they need to work, and not working for someone else, shall, if offered employment consonant with their status, be obliged to accept the employment offered, and they should be paid only the fees, liveries, payments or salaries which were usually paid in the part of the country where they are working in the twentieth year of our reign [1346] or in some other appropriate year five or six years ago. . . . No one should pay or promise wages, liveries, payments or salaries greater than those defined above under pain of paying twice whatever he paid or promised to anyone who feels himself harmed by it. . . . Artisans and labourers ought not to receive for their labour and craft more money than they could have expected to receive in the said twentieth year or other appropriate year, in the place where they happen to be working; and if anyone takes more, let him be committed to gaol.

The actual effect of these ordinances appears to have been modest. Just two years later, another decree, the Statute of Labourers of 1351, complained that said employees, having no regard to the said ordinance but rather to their own ease and exceptional greed, withdraw themselves to work for great men and others, unless they are paid livery and wages double or treble what they were accustomed to receive in the said twentieth year and earlier, to the great damage of the great men and the impoverishing of all the Commons and sought to remedy this failure with ever more detailed restrictions and penalties. Within a generation, however, these measures had failed.

NoBoDy WanTs tO WoRk!!! lol.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago

"Alpha psychopaths in power", as you describe them, have always, and still, understand that their power exists entirely at the whim of the masses.

And so conjuring an excuse has preoccupied them since at least the dawn of history. "Ordained by god" was the go-to for several mellenia.

Now, it seems the tactic is just to manufacture division within the working class. Racism, ideological boogeymen (SOCIALISTS!!), xenophobia, rural/urban friction, and increasingly gender/sexuality, sexism... ANY way you can slice the common man into two segments and convince them that the OTHER side is bent on their destruction.

It's great because it's a machine that feeds itself. You see the two lines of people screaming at eachother, they manifest through their hatred the threat the other side fears.

As soon as the "betas", as you put it, stop fighting themselves, it's game over.

The solution is probably the least likely thing, though. People, even a small dedicated number of them, who can resist the urge to dunk on their ethically inferior "opponents", and instead treat their "enemies" with dignity... who can view "the other" as a valuable human temporarily on the wrong side of an issue, then things can change. Daryl Davis (the black dude who keeps flipping KKK members) has it figured out.

It sucks because we have an example of how to do it (Daryl), but it's hard. It's slow. It isn't funny, and it isn't sexy. It demands so much more from you than taking a quick snipe and returning to your own echo chamber for accolades.

So yeah. The answer is plain, but our society does not actually value the efforts or skills that permit it. Possibly also by design of the ruling class.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Stop caring about intentions. Stop giving the stupid a free pass. Treat stupidity as a type of malice, and act accordingly.

I believe that this alone should be enough to address the sykos on power. Easier said than done.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Who decides what is stupid and what isn't? There better be a good, clear, obvious, and universal objective method of identifying stupidity if you're going to treat it as malicious.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

That's part of the deal: you don't need to. Once stupidity and malice are taken as morally equivalent, it becomes morally irrelevant to decide if someone's actions are motivated by one or another.

My point is that people give a free pass to actions harming the others, as long as they're seen as "unintentional"; for example, the "powerful psychopaths" OP talks about often rely on it. And yet nobody knows someone else's intentions, we know at most what others do and what they say.

So for example. Your business relies on blood diamonds? You're financing terrorism and should be treated as such, regardless of your intentions. Your corporation employs slave work? You shall be treated as a slaver, committing crimes against humankind.

You do need to take into account if someone is able to be held responsible for one's own actions. But we already do this anyway, so no change.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

At some point, does it matter?

Give people the resources to educate themselves. Give them the benefit of the doubt, once. But after that? Screw 'em. Move on without 'em.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think it does matter what you define as being stupid, yes. Let's say that I want to call being transgender, not having enough money to buy food, and being an immigrant all stupid. I should treat those things as malice because they're stupid, right?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I mean, people do treat those things as malicious already. So if anything returning the same treatment would be fair-play.

But more to the point, I don't think that's analogous to what the above posters was trying to say? A person "being" transgender/poor/an immigrant isn't the same as say, a person denying climate change.

And that's how I read the above commenter. There are two reasons for people to hold a climate-change-denying view, ignorance and malice. Ignorance can be met with education. But if a person begins holding onto their ignorance, their actions are fundamentally indistinguishable from malice.

I assumed it was a comment about the tactics we decide to employ when dealing with people. And at a certain point, if a person is stupid or if they're malicious... Well it sorta does not matter.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don't think climate change is real, so now I think you're stupid and you think I'm stupid and it's he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl. The thing that fixes this is a definition of "stupid" that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah I still think you are talking about something else?

Okay, sure, what about vaccines then? Hypothetically, I think the idea that we shoot ourselves full of mercury and viruses is extremely stupid. Malicious too, by your model. And also, I don’t think climate change is real, so now I think you’re stupid and you think I’m stupid and it’s he said she said and if we both think the other is being malicious we have a brawl.

In reality though some people are right and some people are wrong. The person who talks about vaccines as just "shooting ourselves full of mercury and viruses" is either stupid or malicious. What they think of me doesn't matter, because this conversation is about how I should treat this hypothetical person.

And that was the point I made. Ultimately it doesn't matter if they are stupid or malicious, I should treat them the same way. Because their intent doesn't really matter, their actions do.

The thing that fixes this is a definition of “stupid” that we both agree on that is clear, useful, and objective. What is that definition?

That is not how language or communication works...

People who are thought of as stupid, rarely agree that they are stupid. Same goes for malicious, to be honest.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Exactly. So we can't just "Treat stupidity as a type of malice", because nobody can agree on what is and isn't stupidity.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Alright I don't know who you are talking to, but it's very clearly not me.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Alright, from the very words of your own comment:

At some point, does it matter?

in direct response to my comment

Who decides what is stupid and what isn’t?

Yes, it does matter. If you want to "Give people the resources to educate themselves", you have to have a definition of stupid and not stupid that guides your choice of what is and isn't good education; in order to "Give them the benefit of the doubt, once", you have to have a criteria for when they've stopped being stupid.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Nobody decrees who is stupid or not. That's a judgement everyone makes for themselves.

If you want to “Give people the resources to educate themselves”, you have to have a definition of stupid and not stupid that guides your choice of what is and isn’t good education; in order to “Give them the benefit of the doubt, once”, you have to have a criteria for when they’ve stopped being stupid.

No. I don't.

When I hear people talking about climate change like it doesn't exist, or has "concerns" about transgender people existence, or something like that, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just ignorant. I'll be willing to talk to them, and maybe explain some of the misconceptions they might have.

But if they aren't willing to listen, then they... Are either stupid or malicious. But the difference isn't meaningful. They act exactly the same, either way.

They don't have to agree me thinking they are either stupid or malicious. It literally changes nothing if they disagree.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Bonhoeffer says stupidity is a social thing. I mostly agree. Things didn't turn out well for Bonhoeffer. Shoveling against the tide is exhausting.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I tend to agree with him and I think that the society where he lived is a great example of what happens when we let stupidity go rampant: Nazi Germany was a stupidocracy.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Liquid democracy is a proposed way to do a direct democracy in a large country. It's only been tried on very small scales (Google used it to decide which food to get for their cafeterias), so we don't really know if it would work, but I like the idea.

I'd point out that there are countries which don't have much corruption or governmental malfeasance. Nordic countries tend to score very well on the Corruption Perception Index, and also have good social safety nets and governments that (generally, for the most part) serve the people. They're all small countries, though -- I suspect that politics becomes an increasingly dirty business the more power a country has.

If you haven't already, you might want to look into selectorate theory. It essentially shows not only how the psychopaths at the top stay in power, but also why attempts to reform the system often result in a new crop of rulers who are just as bad or worse than those they replaced. (c.f. Cromwell's revolt, French Revolution, Russian Revolution). A proponent of selectorate theory would argue that the solution is not to remove the psychopaths -- it's to create a system where things in a politician's selfish interest happen to line up with things that benefit the people. It's excellently summed up by this video.

In terms of curtailing corporate power from the top down, studying the history of U.S. antitrust law would be a good place to start. Extra Credits has a good series about it.

One reform method that has worked before is unionization. The vast majority of worker protections came about because of labour action. Unions are a lot weaker than they used to be, but it doesn't have to stay that way. If you can, unionizing your workplace is probably the most impactful action you could take to improve the existing system.

If your tastes are more radical, you could also consider mutual aid societies. A robust one could conceivably Theseus its way into failing institutions, or evolve into a provisional government if everything collapses.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

this video

Extra Credits has a good series

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

Guillotine all the billionaires and redistribute all their wealth. That's an important first step

[-] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

The fact that a vast majority will ignore this discussion, is the same reason why most people will not organise towards a cause.

I have little hope in individuals.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

I believe that the massive scale of corruption that exists within the capitalist system necessitates rebuilding from the ground up. Part of the solution is going to be intentional communities (I hope anyway) where we’re building communities with the intention of solving some of these large scale problems (scarcity, pollution, racial injustice, etc) in the community. There’s a collection of already existing communities on ic.org where you can find resources on how to build a community or where to find them. There’s every flavor of community whether you’re looking for a commune, a spiritual community, an eco-friendly community, permaculture, etc.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Begin teaching media literacy and critical thinking skills in schools.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

This is a question too complex for a Lemmy thread, here are some thoughts.

  1. Being a net positive will make things better, per difinition. That's what everyone of us can do, regardless of what you are doing. Of course this requires a reasonable process of deciding what's right, so take a look at the next point.

  2. Think. To think is naturally the greatest skill of any human. Our intelligence has been key since we started civilisation. Think about everything, be critical about any ideas. Only ideas supported by facts can be good ideas. This is how you find the stuff that makes your life worse. Does your city need to be designed like this? Does a omnipotent being make sense? Do I need to slack off today?

  3. Unrelated, but working together with others is beneficial to everyone. Cooperation is what got us so fary and what will bring us beyond the stars. One thing I want to point out specifically is that world federalism, albeit hard to achieve, is a worthwhile end goal.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Have y'll tried letting the smart people make decisions?

[-] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

This is called "technocracy", and while it's cool on paper, it leads to a disconnect between the people in charge and the actual problems of the people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Agreed. The GiEC did an amazing job all these years. Too bad no one is listening to them.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

And GIEC/IPCC is a consensus body that is consistently behind the curve on the science.

Imagine if we’d just listened to scientists directly. We could have gotten started on tackling climate change before the Rio conference in 1992 even took place.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think the best anyone can do is try to make life as good as possible in their mini sphere of influence, their personal bubble of friends and relationships. If everyone did that, society would be better. I'm not sure what to do about psychopaths in power. Maybe deal with the psychopaths in your personal world or aim to reduce your own personal behavior that's harmful to others?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

make public transport better (pls metro in Tallinn)

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

ban social media lol

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

We gotta bring in the new world order.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Take good care of yourself and always claim the rest you need - don't let anyone call you lazy, disabled or mentally ill for working during as many hours of the day as you want. Being productive is not a virtue.

After you have spent enough time resting: support your local mutual aid circle, or (help) create one. Use your talents and skills to help and support others in your community as much as you can afford. Try and work without participation from the existing authorities (not always possible, but at least don't seek their support unless you have to), basically create your own self-government infrastructure within the crumbling ruins of the old society - like a new tree growing in a hollow stump.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

You could be also interested in democratic confederalism, however I don't know how does the curdish reality look like.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago
[-] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago
[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

(☞゚ヮ゚)☞

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
67 points (98.6% liked)

Asklemmy

42472 readers
1123 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS