Binx85

I am (perhaps naively) hopeful that there can be mechanisms in place to avoid this. Ranked Choice Voting seems like one possible lever, but I think it’s probably true that any certain that has a hierarchy is vulnerable to capture by those with access to the most resources.

Genuinely: What are some political systems capable of avoiding capture by the elite (Bourgeoisie, Royal, etc. classes?

What are better indexes for this data?

The reason Marxist nations have struggled is due to elite corruption, not the ideology itself.

I think this is kind of my point exactly. I misunderstood the dictatorship of Marxism, but I’m not sure I believe there can be a “good” Marxist dictatorship that is broadly cooperative on a national scale because it will require intermediaries who are themselves susceptible of corruption. Occupy Wallstreet seems to be a great example of that working locally, but I’m skeptical it can be easy to coordinate nationally as a market can. On paper, the Marxist ideology is sound, in practice, human self-interest seems to not want it to work, though there is always an opportunity to try again somewhere. That being said, markets come with their own distinct style of corruption, as we’re currently seeing playing out right now.

I, personally, don’t accept any kind of dictatorship can ever be good. That there is a series of humans with self interest in between the resources of a nation and the populace of a nation leads me to doubt that possibility. If it were possible, we would have seen more than a few prosperous Marxist nations.

I’m referencing Marxism specifically because, to my mind, it requires individuals, like union leaders, to represent the interests of their union constituents (all of whom are shareholders of the means of production) and would require those representatives to act in the interest of the laborer-as-shareholder which, as I see it, puts them in a moral overlap between politics and economics. i.e., Marxism would be the most likely form of government to satisfy the conditions if a morally good dictator, and yet historically it doesn’t seem to have worked out that way.

I actually fully believe in a genuine democratic capitalist government being a great means of achieving full democracy, but we have never truly been a democratically capitalist country.

Fair, in the sense that an independent or third party politician has a significantly lower likelihood of being elected.

Your take on genuine democracy is fair, especially if we’re referring to the US (as per my assumption). According to this Wikipedia article on The Economist Democracy Index:

In 2016, the United States was downgraded from a full democracy to a flawed democracy; its score, which had been declining for some years, crossed the threshold from 8.05 in 2015 to 7.98 in 2016. The report stated that this was caused by myriad factors dating back to at least the late 1960s which have eroded Americans' trust in governmental institutions.

The question we’re facing is, if we make it through Trump’s term(s?) with a functional federal gov’t, how can we begin to return to a full democracy, and is that even possible given the trajectory of our economic system.

Think about it this way, why would funding campaigns matter if the vote wasn’t real? There is no correct answer, because each culture has it’s own power structure, but look at the history of each political system, starting with your own to see how the rules started and each incremental change and shift between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

It might help to watch Adam Curtis’ The Century of the Self as a starting point (better yet, Hypernormalization-> Bitter Lake -> Century of the self if you want to go from today to 1920s. Reverse that if you prefer to start earlier).

It would also hell to understand economics as globalization, which is a huge part of the current political climate, is an economic tide (See Thomas Friedman). Milton Friedman (different than Thomas) is really important to current political events, too. I personally like Niall Ferguson and Joel Mokyr as scholars of economic history, but to each their own.

Violence as a last resort, as it has always only been appropriate for.

This is why it’s important to provide a counter narrative to the romanticized version of revolution. The reality is nothing like the story.

For something like you’re recommending to succeed, you need allies and justification. As of now, violence isn’t being meted out, so foreign allies would not see justification in these actions. As offended as they are, no one of significance in Canada, Greenland, or France are advocating for violent rebellion. Democracy must be exhausted through all of its platforms before violence is a legitimate option. As of now, there is still a functioning judiciary, and a very slow but gradual shift in attitudes from the people whose support he needs. Try to encourage that divide more, become clever enough to frame the current events as opposing the interests of the people whose support they rely on. Create the image of a justified resistance in the eye of foreign nations. Be present at events as a defense in places where people are at risk. Slow the machine down, disrupt it with civil disobedience. If violence is done by dictators, then violence becomes a legitimate language in this conflict (and we’d all better pray to whatever sense of hope we have that that never happens); that is not currently the case and, more importantly, would quickly extinguish any opportunity to finding allies in the opposition and building a coalition of force that has an actual chance of resistance.

Read real history about what happens during actual violent revolutions. There is a reason the Hong Kong protestors never engaged in what you’re advocating.

I think a detante (the word the article uses) is a more appropriate word. Though given that they were on the defense, a detante looks better for them than it does for the aggressor.

The fact that you’re advocating for violent insurrection without taking into account the mass casualty event that will follow reveals how delusional you are about this kind of resistance in the US.

Immediately after the first flashpoint, the already-militarized police force will begin a campaign of violence to suffocate any obvious resistance. Martial law will be declared to support them. Just having a cellphone makes everyone an easy target. We have no healthcare without a job, and likely workplaces will see retaliation if they maintain employment of anyone deemed an enemy of the state thereby preventing you from ever being able to see a doctor.

What you are advocating is what a high school student advocates for after watching the film adaptation of Les Miserables.