I don't see this so-called metamorphosis to an oligarchy (power in the hands of a FEW). Soviet Union/Russia and other 2-bit totalitarian countries are perfect examples, but we are far from it.
How is it any different than 50, 40, 30, 20 years ago? For the majority of people, quality of life, choices, education are all significantly better than any of the previous decades. Don't get on the income inequality, because that will change. One major negative is the erosion of some freedoms as a direct result of Islamic terrorists.
Just remember, for every Progressive out there, you want a Tea Party, or conservative evangelical to provide a certain degree of equilibrium. You want a level of gridlock, and we have our fair share of it. The majority of Americans are moderates, independents, incrementalists.
In my two choices, the players do change in the "rich get powerful". They don't change in the "powerful get rich" model.
Posted By: DoctorGonzo
... and you kn ow me well enough to know I'm being sarcastic.
There are other options of course, Totalitarianism, Anarchy (the Ayn Rand variety), or we could all join the Borg collective and become a civilization of mindless drones.
There is still nothing that comes close to the essence of the American dream. It's just that little human character flaw of greed that can get in the way and really muck up the works.
St Croix, I believe a socialist model is in fact a superior model for smaller communities up to between 1200-1500 individuals or so. Any more than that, and the structure collapses because of human nature. This paradigm has actually been proven using the Kibbutz system in Israel as an example. The ones that grew beyond the boundaries of a small socialist driven community eventually became incorporated, or dissolved and the properties re-purposed. That ceiling was inevitably reached at the 12-1500 mark.
But in a larger civilization model, if the character flaws of human nature did not interfere with the better nature of our humanity, a capitalist system under a Democratically elected and run government is still the best way to go. Sounds a little pompous maybe, but that's OK too.
Sadly, our country, the United States, has already begun the metamorphosis from a Democracy to an Oligarchy and we the people are letting it happen by relinquishing all our power to the hands of the same corrupt motherfuckers who are reaming us in the first place. That's not Capitalism, that's Bullshit. [/quo
-- Modified on 5/20/2016 10:42:03 AM
A few major players ie the Kochs, Adelson, Soros, Prince Alwaleed, not to mention the tech billionaires in Silicon Valley can assert their influence on policy that can literally affect the course of this country.
Facebook is now being scrutinized for tilting the narrative - a charge that sounds suspiciously like typical right wing chazerai except the algorithms prove it is indeed the case. WTF!
Just a few examples. The specifics are different than they are in Russia, sure. But the paradigm is the same. A select few rich and powerful individuals are able to direct favorable legislation and policy via the power of the purse. Oligarchy Corporatocracy, call it what you will.
ave to point out socialism applied to small group situations fail also. Case in point: The original colonists in Jamestown, VA had collective farming, where everyone put his harvest into a collective pot for all to share, was the law of the land. It was a small group under 1000.
It failed miserably as some colonists just didnt put in the effort but just took from those that did.
By the second year they converted to an economic system where every man farmed for himself. Those that preferred not to starved and/or left to go back to England. The plan of everyone working for himself did much better.
The colony, in the end, largely failed for a variety of reasons..bad weather, fortune seekers (who came to find the gold they were sure was there (surely not to farm) but the colony in Jamestown VA remains another in history's lessons regarding socialism. It does not work
Small group under 1000. OK, I'll buy that as feasible, but the larger point I was trying to make was that cooperation is vital at any level regardless of population for a civilization organism to flourish and thrive.
Those lazy Brits could have learned a thing or two from the early Kibbutzniks who set aside ideological differences in order to survive. I'm proud to say I spent time on one of the larger and most successful Kibbutzim in Israel. That was in 1970-71, and as of an hour ago when i checked, it is still there, still a thriving agricultural community.
Exception to the rule, probably, but they still only have a residential population of 1400 or so.
Posted By: Sswede
Have to point out socialism applied to small group situations fail also. Case in point: The original colonists in Jamestown, VA had collective farming, where everyone put his harvest into a collective pot for all to share, was the law of the land. It was a small group under 1000.
It failed miserably as some colonists just didnt put in the effort but just took from those that did.
By the second year they converted to an economic system where every man farmed for himself. Those that preferred not to starved and/or left to go back to England. The plan of everyone working for himself did much better.
The colony, in the end, largely failed for a variety of reasons..bad weather, fortune seekers (who came to find the gold they were sure was there (surely not to farm) but the colony in Jamestown VA remains another in history's lessons regarding socialism. It does not work.
"There is still nothing that comes close to the essence of the American dream. It's just that little human character flaw of greed that can get in the way and really muck up the works."
Greed mucks up any form of governance.
"greed" drives everything
libs are driven by envy - the most base of human traits
it explains why they are so very unhappy and mean
neither sounds like democracy to me! How can either of those systems work to help me? Truly stuck in the middle.
1) trying to hire a qualified employee. regardless of what people are saying about the unemployed. I am convinced that everyone that wants to work already has a job. They would rather work under the table and get all the handouts and not pay in any taxes and hide from child support recovery. Half the population wants the other half to carry them.
2) having to jump through hoops at the bank to do what I need to do because of new secrecy and Frank Dodd laws. It's not impossible, but having to be really creative with my banker and taking longer than I like.
And these rich powerful people control it all to their advantage. I guess capitalism is the better of the two evils since I don't want to work my ass off and be broke to give it to the sloths. But wouldn't you agree that it's unfair that corporations can pay off legislators to their benefit
