Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

jadedctrl wrote

*bourgeouise democracy

3

foggymorn wrote (edited )

Direct democracy would still oppress the minority.

The will of the majority is rarely the will of the most marginalized.

3

jadedctrl wrote

Do-ocracy is probably best, but small-scale, distributed direct democracy is good enough for when do-ocracy isn't feasible.
It isn't the best, for sure... but it's better than bourgeouise democracy. Both end up with oppressed minorities (perhaps less so with direct), but one is surely better than the other.

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

zorblax wrote

But then you sometimes get assholes who block any decision.

Autonomous action is the way to go.

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

zorblax wrote

Absolutely!

Basically I don't think there's any one-size-fits-all strategy for group decision making. Anything will only work if everyone involved is on the same page wrt goals and boundaries.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

I don't think there's a One-Size-Fits-All strategy for humans, period. We've been operating under the belief that there is, that humans in Alaska can and should live the same as humans in Arizona, but that only works thanks to massive infusions of nonrenewable resources. Once the oil is completely gone, Arizona and many other places in the Southwest United States will be forced to realize that they are located in deserts and there are limits to the population that area can support.

Though that is true of just about every part of the US, not just the Southwest. Modern Society is basically a massive machine with innumerable parts, but the more parts something has, the more ways it has of breaking down. Without the constant flow of nonrenewable resources, much of our modern life would break down.

In the aftermath of whatever collapse takes place (assuming it's not a nuclear, world-ending event), what would likely occur is that we would have many different societies with many different ways of living, not just a One-Size-Fits-All.

It would be akin to the Native Americans before the Europeans arrived where while there were similarities, especially between groups in a similar area, no tribe's lifestyle/beliefs were identical to another. A Chippewa may be proud of his tribe and culture, but he wouldn't try to make the Lakotas live like he does. The Lakotas live in a different area and as such, the nature of their land requires a style of living different from theirs. A Pacific Coast Indian can't have the same lifestyle as a Plains Indian and vice-versa.

When society falls, communities would operate on a smaller, more tribal-band level. Every adult would be able to vote on and contribute to the running of the community. If they didn't like the decisions of the group, they could break off and join a new community or start one of their own. If they refused to pull their own weight, they would be banished and forced to find some other place to live. Often these various communities might come together to form loose Iroquois Confederacy-style alliances, but for the most part, they would function autonomously from one another.

A study of nature proves that there is strength in diversity. The same probably applies towards human communities as well. Rather than one kind of society, we should have many.