I don’t know that I understand the “under capitalism” distinction here.
Like, I get that the point is that capital is influential, skewing the vote in favor of those who have it.
I just think that even in non-capitalistic systems there will invariably be some other proxy token for power that will be equally influential.
I don’t think the problem outlined is one that is fixed under any system.
Bingo. This is the issue the “enlightened thinkers” here fail to grasp. There is always going to be some form of power, which can lead to corruption, big or small. You want to deal with it in capitalism? Ban lobbying and donations over X amount, and then enforce it harshly. Not some white collar wrist slapping. That will take a big chunk of it. Insider trading ban on elected officials is the other big step.
While I hear you I think it’s also important to note that not all forms of economic organization have been explored. This goes doubly so for governmental systems. It’s not hard to argue that certain combinations and ways of organizing this way will inherently be more resistant to curruption than others. Power doesn’t inherently currupt, but it does reveal flaws
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say power does corrupt. For almost all of history, any sort of power eventually comes with corruption. Its kinda the human condition. That being said, I do think there are ways of minimizing that corruption and defending against it.
I like this comment. I’m getting so tired of the “my team good, your team bad” posts I’m seeing all over here. It’s like both sides refuse to see issue in their way of living and get off on hating on the group that has been designated as “them”.
Making uppity remarks so that their echo chambers can go “LOL TRU” doesn’t aid the discussion or allow them to learn from other view points.
