Degrowth

2432 readers

1 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

MrMakabar@slrpnk.net

A political strategy for degrowth | tldr: mass parties founded on egalitarian principles and courageously advocating for anti-capitalist policies (www.resilience.org)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to c/degrowth@slrpnk.net

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/32632129

"[R]epresentative democracy is a failure and elections are a circus. If we want to reform democracy, elections have to be abolished." | A political strategy for degrowth

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

As primising it might sound at a first glance as many problems will occur with this sort of rulership in the end.

Two thoughts for you:

There‘ re 4 categories of problems at all:
well known/ basic problems, complete unknown/ chaotic problems,
sort of mixed up things /complicated problems,
a net of Interdependent things/ complex problems.

Not for all these sorts of problems a decision through many experts is the best way. E.g. chaotic problems need a leader who guides through the chaos. A slowly deciding experts circle who likely opts for the middle way, isn’t the best option for those environments.

See the Known-Unknown-Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns

Second thought: In history of humankind, we had all sort of sizes of societies - from small groups of 8 people up to thousands and more. It turned out in our history that humans always need someone who collects, aligns and represent a group of people - a leader. There never was any community that relied on many representatives that shared roles and reponsibilities.

[–] pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Second thought: In history of humankind, we had all sort of sizes of societies - from small groups of 8 people up to thousands and more. It turned out in our history that humans always need someone who collects, aligns and represent a group of people - a leader. There never was any community that relied on many representatives that shared roles and reponsibilities.

That is not true, see Pirahã people for example. We have to keep in mind our historical biases, as many written records come from hierarchical societies, so egalitarian or collective models are less documented or even avoided, as that might go against their interests (E.g.: Missionaries trying to spread their religion which needs people to obey their hierarchy). We might think centralized authority seems inevitable, but it’s not the only way humans have organized themselves.

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 2 points 7 months ago

Sure, there are so many different cultures and even languages. You‘ll always find some tribe as proof for any edge case.

E.g. some are very strict in raising kids, some even don’t care with fire and knives, some swap the kids wirh neighbor village, some raise kids with the whole village, some don‘t have parents.

Does it mean that there is no consens? No, there is a very common way of raising a kid. With some cultural variances but not to those extremes I mentioned.