Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Looking around the world do we see any better systems.

The best one seems to be socialism, but as with all such things, the trick is in the practical, real-world, implementation. Extremes must be avoided. Socialism is fine, but communist-state-dictatorship is not the right way. And as with any political system, the people at the top must be somehow steered away from corruption and personal aggrandisement. Not an easy trick...

[Mo_reese]

I think that a mixture of socialism and capitalism would work but only if the government was run by a benevolent ruler. I think that happened with FDR but doubt it will ever happen again. I believe humans look to strong leadership and are easily controlled by those leaders that are corrupt.

I believe that the US capitalist system will lead to fascism which is the government best matched to uncontrolled capitalism.

[Sy Borg]

So you both think that a one-size-fits-all is appropriate? That one system would be best for the US, India, Russia, China, South Africa, Japan, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Fiji, Iran, Chile, Hungary, Venezuela and Haiti?

Ignore history, culture, geography, climate, exports, imports, economy and so on and simply impose a socialist template. It would certainly be best for global turmoil and worldwide revolution.

The US cannot become a fascist dictatorship due to the high levels of gun ownership. The greater risk looks to be civil war, given the extreme polarisation.

By contrast, the UK (largely ruled by London bankers) appears to be moving towards fascism. Aside from CCTV, UK police have dedicated teams scouring the internet, looking for inappropriate postings as they tighten laws restricting what people may or may not say. It rather looks like capitalism with Chinese characteristics ...

[Lagayascienza]

We need capitalism because of its innovation and productivity. But it needs to be constrained and directed for the good of the planet and of humanity. Unrestrained capitalism and democracy are incompatible. The way things are going, the world will eventually be transformed into something like a fascist dictatorship. This process is underway now.

The masses are increasingly being thrown into penury because real wages continue to fall as they have done since the 1970s. This means that the masses won’t have the money to buy what is produced by the multinationals whose profits will then fall away. And many of the jobs the masses used to do will become obsolete because of AI. Social disruption and civil unrest will become uncontrollable except by the most brutal measures by governments controlled by the top one percent.

Uncontrolled capitalistic greed will bring an end not only to the American Empire but to civilisation as we have known it for a couple of centuries. It will be a world in which nobody owns anything except the top one percent who will own virtually everything. This is happening now against the backdrop of a global climate catastrophe, the destruction of the environment and what remains of the commons.

Is there an alternative? Yes, the breaking up big tech cporporations, and fair taxation of multinational corporations. However, higher taxes on the multinationals would need to be global so they can no longer escape to tax havens. This increased taxation would provide the money for a UBI which would get money circulating in the economy again and keep economies boyant.

But this alternative will not be taken because the top one percent who have all the power won't allow their position to be compromised in any way for the good of humanity.

[Pattern-chaser]

Looking around the world do we see any better systems.

The best one seems to be socialism, but as with all such things, the trick is in the practical, real-world, implementation. Extremes must be avoided. Socialism is fine, but communist-state-dictatorship is not the right way. And as with any political system, the people at the top must be somehow steered away from corruption and personal aggrandisement. Not an easy trick...

I think that a mixture of socialism and capitalism would work but only if the government was run by a benevolent ruler. I think that happened with FDR but doubt it will ever happen again. I believe humans look to strong leadership and are easily controlled by those leaders that are corrupt.

I believe that the US capitalist system will lead to fascism which is the government best matched to uncontrolled capitalism.

So you both think that a one-size-fits-all is appropriate? That one system would be best for the US, India, Russia, China, South Africa, Japan, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Fiji, Iran, Chile, Hungary, Venezuela and Haiti?

No. I've gone back and highlighted the most important words from my suggestion. There's not a great difference between socialism and individualism* in the area where they meet, in the middle. I chose, and choose, socialism for one simple and pragmatic reason. If the group (society — social-ism) and the individual come into conflict, then the group must win, by sheer force of numbers. But the important point here is to avoid extremes. And to avoid the conflict I just referred-to, for that conflict indicates a failure of politics and politicians.

* — I contrast these two because they are complementary. Either could implement capitalist-compatible policies if they chose. Capitalism is orthogonal to socialism and individualism. Authoritarianism, where it emerges, simply indicates a drift toward the extreme, a failure of socialism or individualism, or any other political system.

As for "one-size-fits-all"? Another "no" from me. Horses for courses. Socialism supports and nurtures (group) co-operation, the one thing that has allowed humans to achieve their current dominance in the world. So in general, it could be a "one-size-fits-all" solution. But if it is imposed without tailoring it to fit/meet the needs of the population it serves, then it won't work well. How could it?

My point here, in these last few words, is that all cultures, all societies, rely on humans working together — co-operatively. It is only for that reason that socialism (suitably adapted) can be seen as an acceptable solution for most or all cultures, because it supports our one (?) common characteristic, the one that we rely on for success, and even for survival.

But as soon as socialism, or any other system, starts to enforce inappropriate policies and strategies, it is going wrong. Enforcement is the start of authoritarianism, and abject political failure. Consensus is the antidote to enforcement. Government by agreement. In practice, that is not easy to accomplish, I admit. But no-one said life is easy; sometimes we have to work at it, if we want it to come out right.

Ignore history, culture, geography, climate, exports, imports, economy and so on and simply impose a socialist template. It would certainly be best for global turmoil and worldwide revolution.

Yes, ignoring all those things would almost certainly lead to failure.

The US cannot become a fascist dictatorship due to the high levels of gun ownership.

Before I answered this point, I checked on what it means:

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

I'm not sure that guns would change that? Yes, anti-individualism wouldn't go down well in the USA, but if it was in disguised as a way to make money and profit...? [Consider the Iraq wars, prosecuted to take oil 'contracts' for US companies by military force...] Americans would gladly follow a flag of acquisition (greed), and band together () "for the perceived good of the nation" to support that aim, with or without guns.

The greater risk looks to be civil war, given the extreme polarisation.

Yes, that would seem to be one of the many risks that the USA faces today.

By contrast, the UK (largely ruled by London bankers) appears to be moving towards fascism. Aside from CCTV, UK police have dedicated teams scouring the internet, looking for inappropriate postings as they tighten laws restricting what people may or may not say. It rather looks like capitalism with Chinese characteristics ...

Yes, while the UK demonstrates many of the characteristics listed as part of fascism, so does the USA, and many other countries. They don't all share the same bits, to the same degree, but many of them are shared, and common to many different countries and cultures. Note that I'm not denying the UK's drift toward some fascist characteristics, only pointing out that we're far from unique in this.

[Sy Borg]

My point here, in these last few words, is that all cultures, all societies, rely on humans working together — co-operatively. It is only for that reason that socialism (suitably adapted) can be seen as an acceptable solution for most or all cultures, because it supports our one (?) common characteristic, the one that we rely on for success, and even for survival.

But as soon as socialism, or any other system, starts to enforce inappropriate policies and strategies, it is going wrong. Enforcement is the start of authoritarianism, and abject political failure. Consensus is the antidote to enforcement. Government by agreement. In practice, that is not easy to accomplish, I admit. But no-one said life is easy; sometimes we have to work at it, if we want it to come out right.

It is a blend of cooperation and competition. Without enough cooperation, societies become inefficient. Without enough competition, societies become weak.

Consider a system that is functioning perfectly. Any change to the system, or to the society, will make it imperfect unless the system adapts to perfectly ... and for how long? As always, all societies muddle through as best they can, with varying levels of competence and corruption.

Re: the latter point, there is concern about how the US's pharmaceutical, medical and junk food corporations are making Americans sick by promoting ultra processed foods and recommendations for commercial drugs rather than healthy eating, exercise and reducing toxins. Consider the rises in obesity and diabetes in the US and the west, especially in young people. Also, the influence of arms corporations on the US's involvement in wars is uncertain, but logic suggests that there are some dirty deals being done.

So corporate (a more descriptive and appropriate term than "capitalistic") greed presents some issues, plus the tendency of financial institutions to push economies into recession, and bail corporations out with taxpayer monies, and having corporations go on a buying spree while prices are low, shifting the wealth imbalances further.

The US cannot become a fascist dictatorship due to the high levels of gun ownership.

Before I answered this point, I checked on what it means:

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

I'm not sure that guns would change that? Yes, anti-individualism wouldn't go down well in the USA, but if it was in disguised as a way to make money and profit...? [Consider the Iraq wars, prosecuted to take oil 'contracts' for US companies by military force...] Americans would gladly follow a flag of acquisition (greed), and band together (😮) "for the perceived good of the nation" to support that aim, with or without guns.

We should skip the word "fascist" as it's a red herring in content. The key word is "dictatorship". Most dictatorships are far left rather than far right. Only two dictatorships in history are technically "far right", those of Germany and Italy almost to a century ago.

By contrast, the UK (largely ruled by London bankers) appears to be moving towards fascism. Aside from CCTV, UK police have dedicated teams scouring the internet, looking for inappropriate postings as they tighten laws restricting what people may or may not say. It rather looks like capitalism with Chinese characteristics ...

Yes, while the UK demonstrates many of the characteristics listed as part of fascism, so does the USA, and many other countries. They don't all share the same bits, to the same degree, but many of them are shared, and common to many different countries and cultures. Note that I'm not denying the UK's drift toward some fascist characteristics, only pointing out that we're far from unique in this.

Most of the west is moving towards limiting free speech, with nebulous laws leaving the door open for future abuse of those laws. Generally speaking. if politicians have the chance to leverage the laws to increase their power over the people, they take it.

[Lagayascienza]

We should skip the word "fascist" as it's a red herring in content. The key word is "dictatorship". Most dictatorships are far left rather than far right. Only two dictatorships in history are technically "far right", those of Germany and Italy almost to a century ago.

There was also Franco in Spain and host of other more recent right-wing dictators in Central and South America, propped up by the USA, that could be classed as fascist. If we are going to skip the word "fascist", then maybe we should also skip the word "communist". What they all, fascist and communist, have in common is authoritarianism/dictorship and the removal of individual rights and freedoms of citizens to express themselves and pursue their own life-goals and economic wellbeing.

For those who value such freedoms, there seems to be no alternative to some sort of democracy with regular elections whereby inept, or otherwise unsatisfactory governments, can be tossed out. If there is any viable alternative to democracy, then I'd like to know what it is.

The problem today is that democracies are not what they used to be. There is no longer much in the way of an independant and free media on which democracy depends. And so called democratic governments, and the major political parties who form them, are in bed with multinational corporations who control most of the media. They control the narrative and it is difficult for ordinary people to get a clear picture of what is going on. However, what is apparent to anyone who is paying attention is that there is a slide to the right and to "technofeudalism". Even China is now capitalist and there is no real left anywhere any more. I've been reading economist, Yanis Varoufakis, who shows how the right-wing owners of big tech in both the West and the East, have became the world's feudal overlords who are now in control of most of the world's resources and most of the world's media.

I don't know what can be done about it but, left unchecked, cannot see this ending well for humanity or for the planet.

[Sy Borg]

I don't know what can be done about it but, left unchecked, cannot see this ending well for humanity or for the planet.

I don't feel that way because it's not just the US. It's everywhere.

All societies today are serving up much rubbish and, really, all societies in history have served up massive mounds of garbage and nonsense masquerading as governance. In the past, the BS was better hidden, since there were no inconvenient social media players to expose the lies in official narratives (although there are attempts to silence them, of course).

So our societies were born to corruption and BS, and that corruption and BS has taken us from grass huts and ubiquitous violence to space stations and institutional violence.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, and becasue it is now everywhere it is all the more harmful, and all the more urgent that something is done about it.

[Sy Borg]

Get corrupt people to pull other corrupt people into line, and then each side will then galvanise gullible young idiots who know diddly-squat about the issues to hit the streets and create disruption. We are already divided and, thus, ruled.

[Pattern-chaser]

We should skip the word "fascist" as it's a red herring in content.

Yes, agreed.

The key word is "dictatorship". Most dictatorships are far left rather than far right. Only two dictatorships in history are technically "far right", those of Germany and Italy almost to a century ago.

Wikipedia offers a page that seems to contradict what you say:

A right-wing dictatorship, sometimes also referred to as a rightist dictatorship or right-wing authoritarianism, is an authoritarian or sometimes totalitarian regime following right-wing policies. Right-wing dictatorships are typically characterized by appeals to traditionalism, the protection of law and order and often the advocacy of nationalism, and justify their rise to power based on a need to uphold a conservative status quo. Examples of right-wing dictatorships may include anti-communist ones, such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Estado Novo, Francoist Spain, the Chilean Junta, the Greek Junta, the Brazilian military dictatorship, the Argentine Junta (or National Reorganization Process), Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek, South Korea when it was led by Syngman Rhee, Park Chung Hee, and Chun Doo-hwan, a number of military dictatorships in Latin America during the Cold War, and those that agitate anti-Western sentiments, such as Russia under Vladimir Putin.

The page concerns right-wing dictatorships. If there is a complementary page on left-wing dictators and dictatorships, I couldn't find it.

[Lagayascienza]

Get corrupt people to pull other corrupt people into line, and then each side will then galvanise gullible young idiots who know diddly-squat about the issues to hit the streets and create disruption. We are already divided and, thus, ruled.

And by whom are we ruled?

[Pattern-chaser]

Without enough cooperation, societies become inefficient.

Without enough cooperation, societies become ineffective? That seems clearer?

Without enough competition, societies become weak.

We say this, or some of us do, but is it really the case, or is it just an old wives tale we tell ourselves?

NB I'm asking, not asserting anything.



I've had a search for relevant articles, and found ... not much. There are articles, and opinions, of course. This is the Interweb! But there is little evidence of general agreement or consensus.

The one hint I picked up was that people co-operate, and benefit accordingly, but if their fellows become more competitive, they reciprocate. It seems that we might prefer co-operation, but we are ready and quick to change to competition if that's what our fellows (the people we're supposedly co-operating with) do.

[Mo_reese]

I found this: “Left-wing politics, at its core, embodies a commitment to social justice, equality, and progressive change. It seeks to challenge existing power structures and create a more equitable society. It is important to recognize that left-wing politics is not synonymous with violence or extremism, as the actions of a few individuals do not define an entire ideology.”

I can't see that left-wing politics would yield a dictator as it challenges authoritarian structures.

Some might say that FDR was a left-wing dictator as he was a strong authoritarian leader and he enacted a number of social programs to keep capitalism in check. I would consider him a Centrists.

Some claim that anarchism is a far left-wing system but I believe it's not on the imaginary left to right line.

[Mo_reese]

The US cannot become a fascist dictatorship due to the high levels of gun ownership. The greater risk looks to be civil war, given the extreme polarisation.

I disagree. The "high level of gun ownership" are in the hands of those on the Right that seem to support a strong authoritarian leadership like Trump. Who do you see as the two sides in a civil war? The Left is a small minority with no guns and they are the ones that the Right will most apt to attack. Those that seem to worship the Democratic Elite will hide under their beds at the first sign of trouble. The Right will go on a rampage like they did on Jan 6 and attack anyone left of themselves. When their usefulness runs out, the militarized police, National Guard and/or military will disarm the Right Wingers. Just like what the SS did to Hitler's Brown Shirts.