So much for the tolerant left!111!!

[Karha of Honor]

Putting it simply, power corrupts.

Which is why you put it in the hands of the most possible people by democratizing everything you can.

That's kind of the point of anarcho-syndicalism. "America is pretty great because of democracy, and the parts that suck are mostly rich people shitting on democracy. Ergo, democracy is good and we need to protect it from rich people". That's basically the entire point.

What if it leads to a lot of unprogressive wins on social issues?

[Riedquat]

Putting it simply, power corrupts.

Which is why you put it in the hands of the most possible people by democratizing everything you can.

That's kind of the point of anarcho-syndicalism. "America is pretty great because of democracy, and the parts that suck are mostly rich people shitting on democracy. Ergo, democracy is good and we need to protect it from rich people". That's basically the entire point.

It needs to be protected from everyone. "Rich" is beside the point, concentrating power in limit hands is the point. But you also need to avoid mob rule and the majority tyrannising the minority, and the only thing I've seen that comes close to being able to do that is a strong sense of tradition (whether it's an accurate one or not). Even that has its risks of concentrating power in the hands of the few; look how much power priests have had from time to time and place to place. The inertia of tradition combined with democracy seems to be about the best of a bad bunch.

[Worffan101]

Putting it simply, power corrupts.

Which is why you put it in the hands of the most possible people by democratizing everything you can.

That's kind of the point of anarcho-syndicalism. "America is pretty great because of democracy, and the parts that suck are mostly rich people shitting on democracy. Ergo, democracy is good and we need to protect it from rich people". That's basically the entire point.

It needs to be protected from everyone. "Rich" is beside the point, concentrating power in limit hands is the point. But you also need to avoid mob rule and the majority tyrannising the minority, and the only thing I've seen that comes close to being able to do that is a strong sense of tradition (whether it's an accurate one or not). Even that has its risks of concentrating power in the hands of the few; look how much power priests have had from time to time and place to place. The inertia of tradition combined with democracy seems to be about the best of a bad bunch.

I disagree. A "strong sense of tradition" FAR too easily leads to oppression and bigotry because "that's how we've always done it". By giving everyone an equal slice of the power, and an equal share of responsibility, that should encourage them to be more mature about their decisions and not throw the country away to an orange fascist who played a businessman on TV.

[Antiboyscout]

Putting it simply, power corrupts.

Which is why you put it in the hands of the most possible people by democratizing everything you can.

That's kind of the point of anarcho-syndicalism. "America is pretty great because of democracy, and the parts that suck are mostly rich people shitting on democracy. Ergo, democracy is good and we need to protect it from rich people". That's basically the entire point.

It needs to be protected from everyone. "Rich" is beside the point, concentrating power in limit hands is the point. But you also need to avoid mob rule and the majority tyrannising the minority, and the only thing I've seen that comes close to being able to do that is a strong sense of tradition (whether it's an accurate one or not). Even that has its risks of concentrating power in the hands of the few; look how much power priests have had from time to time and place to place. The inertia of tradition combined with democracy seems to be about the best of a bad bunch.

I disagree. A "strong sense of tradition" FAR too easily leads to oppression and bigotry because "that's how we've always done it". By giving everyone an equal slice of the power, and an equal share of responsibility, that should encourage them to be more mature about their decisions and not throw the country away to an orange fascist who played a businessman on TV.

Or it will lead to mob rule like in Zimbabwe and South Africa. We are the majority what we say goes.

[Riedquat]

I disagree. A "strong sense of tradition" FAR too easily leads to oppression and bigotry because "that's how we've always done it". By giving everyone an equal slice of the power, and an equal share of responsibility, that should encourage them to be more mature about their decisions and not throw the country away to an orange fascist who played a businessman on TV.

Why would it? Why's that more likely than the majority deciding to exploit the minority? How do you define "equal slice of responsibility"?

Not all traditions are equal, that's clear, but if you somehow manage to create utopia, or even something close to it, there's not a lot else I can see that would stop it sliding away again in the blink of an eye. Sure, it gets in the way of positive change too (or slows it down a lot) but that's a price worth paying. You mock "an orange fascist". Without a tradition of being able to mock those in power (which itself took an awful long time to get hold) would you be able to do that? What else limits his power? Laws can be changed with enough support, they're not a great barrier. It's what prevents getting enough support to change those laws that's the real bulwark against it.

[Worffan101]

I disagree. A "strong sense of tradition" FAR too easily leads to oppression and bigotry because "that's how we've always done it". By giving everyone an equal slice of the power, and an equal share of responsibility, that should encourage them to be more mature about their decisions and not throw the country away to an orange fascist who played a businessman on TV.

Why would it? Why's that more likely than the majority deciding to exploit the minority? How do you define "equal slice of responsibility"?

Not all traditions are equal, that's clear, but if you somehow manage to create utopia, or even something close to it, there's not a lot else I can see that would stop it sliding away again in the blink of an eye. Sure, it gets in the way of positive change too (or slows it down a lot) but that's a price worth paying. You mock "an orange fascist". Without a tradition of being able to mock those in power (which itself took an awful long time to get hold) would you be able to do that? What else limits his power? Laws can be changed with enough support, they're not a great barrier. It's what prevents getting enough support to change those laws that's the real bulwark against it.

Utopia's completely impossible, dude, simply because of differences of opinion. The best we can hope for is a state that makes everybody free and equal and protects all their fundamental rights, and even THEN there are some people who will WANT inequality for others so they can be on top.

The best we can do is try to do better. To analyze the system we have and ask if it truly makes everybody as free and equal as possible, and to change it if it doesn't. Sometimes these questions are pretty damn hard! Is it permissible to limit freedom of speech in order to prevent the spread of malicious lies? How should such laws and cases be handled? Does the government have a greater, lesser, or equal position to a private citizen in such a case? I believe that we should have complete freedom of speech when it comes to questioning the government, even if that means the spread of crazy conspiracy theories like Qanon; it's the responsibility of the public to not be fucking idiots and to have the 2 neurons necessary to realize that a conspiracy theory peddled by Nazi propaganda mills that claims that Hillary Clinton is conspiring with evil Jews and lizard aliens to run a secret Satanic pedophilia cult on Mars is completely full of shit. Many people, including people on the left, right, and center, believe that I'm wrong, and that the public can't be trusted with that responsibility.

The reason I support an anarcho-syndicalist system of government is because I believe that if given the responsibility and just as important given the perception and basic understanding of responsibility (something that is lacking in a lot of our current politics due to Watergate's legacy, constant propaganda, and the general lack of voter participation) every adult, mentally sound human being has the capacity to make a reasoned, rational choice and will understand that the crazy conspiracy crap is patently insane. I know that makes me optimistic as hell. I just think that putting power and responsibility ultimately in the hands of the people on every possible level will lead to a better America and a better future.

[clearspira]

Human beings are animals as much as we like to forget that. We evolved with the base instinct for power because power means food, water, shelter, and a strong mate. And those who are too weak to gain power automatically gravitate towards those that do for the exact same reasons. These traits became obsolete only after these things became easily available, which I would argue was the 19th century minimum.
Communism and to a lesser extent socialism and democracy will never work to their fullest because of human nature. May I remind everyone here present that America IS NOT a true democracy, nowhere on the constitution does that word appear. America is a constitutional republic - because the founding fathers knew the pitfalls of traditional democracy for these very reasons.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Human beings are animals as much as we like to forget that. We evolved with the base instinct for power because power means food, water, shelter, and a strong mate. And those who are too weak to gain power automatically gravitate towards those that do for the exact same reasons. These traits became obsolete only after these things became easily available, which I would argue was the 19th century minimum.

You need to talk with more biologists and less evo psych theorists.

Strong mate is not an inbuilt human drive, and our idea of what makes an acceptable partner for couple is informed by current cultural norms.

We evolved to care about those who are weak and vulnerable, and we're not the only animals to do so. A mouse will choose to free another mouse that's trapped in an uncomfortable container over the immediate reward of sweet treats, and then even share one of the treats with that mouse because life is hard so we don't have to be. Compassion is an instinctual drive even across species. We cared for the weak, the mentally and physically disabled, the sick and the elderly in our communities before we even figured out agriculture, when we lived a few meals away from starvation and hadn't killed off all our natural predators yet.

People focus too much on instinctual cruelty because it allows them to ignore the ways that our society excuses, condones, and even encourages cruelty through the values and stories we are taught.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

because the founding fathers knew the pitfalls of traditional democracy for these very reasons.

I really don't give a single weasel's shit what our founding fathers wanted. They were slave-owning cranky olds men, not half-god heroes of legend.

[Robovski]

because the founding fathers knew the pitfalls of traditional democracy for these very reasons.

I really don't give a single weasel's shit what our founding fathers wanted. They were slave-owning cranky olds men, not half-god heroes of legend.

This doesn't invalidate the pitfalls of traditional democracy. And as for the Founding Fathers they weren't all slave owners nor all old men. Got an actual rebuttal?