Important note: Other than Archimandrita tesselata they can walk on glas… you can guess how I figured that ouz eventually.

I’d argue that the system is designed or at least indifferent to a majority being uninterested in the politics that influences their daily life.

When you get to vote every 4 years on all topics at once while the choice you make is afterwards still influenced by corruption, coalition an lobbying that doesn’t further interest into politics at all.

Imho: Let’s abandon representatives with fixed legislation periods all together and either elect officials only if they can be removed by public vote at any time or skip the corrupt representatives completely and let the public vote on any matter individually. This way ones choice has an actual impact an people have motivation to actually get informed on specific matters.

This is the Chinese version of a colonial world order. Build infrastructure payed for by China using chinese workers and companies. In this way, a country generates contracts for its own industry and can channel foreign exchange reserves into its own economic growth, while simultaneously gaining geopolitical influence through the debt incurred by the recipient country. If the country in question cannot repay its debts (which is often the case, as is predictable), China takes ownership or leases the infrastructure that has been built and thus has a double leverage (logistical infrastructure and debt) against the recipient country—in itself a clever strategy.

Ultimately, it is a less violent form of colonialism than the military colonialism of the Europeans… yet it deliberately places developing countries in a dependency that is disadvantageous to them.

My two cents:

Yes, that guy could probably habe reached more sustainable success by cooperating with other workers against the system.

However this fire might shake some workers up that without their consent and cooperation that current system wouldn’t be working. The owner class relies on acceptence of their wealth and belongings by the masses after all… or, differently said: It takes just one unsurveilled angry worker to turn estate into a huge pile of ash. And there are billions of them.

Plot-twist: They betray you after the election… surprised thunder mouse face

In my everyday life the only ones bringing up woke positions are right nut jobs that complain about ‘everything being woke’.

So no, I personally don’t experience much annoyance by ‘woke policy’.

Just as if there was a reason the US didn’t attack Iran directly in the last decades eventhough the theocracy dethroned their puppet…

In times of rising fuel prices it becomew INCREASLINGLY important for Ukraine to limit Russias production ans export capabilties… as the enemy can use high prices to finance further attacks. The US/Israel caused high prices, not Ukraine fighting for its survival.

Simple: The admin now prefers conformity over competence.

If I had family members in der armed forces that would really bother me.

I understand exactly what you mean.

But at the same time, I also believe that the inherent problem with our representative democracies is this: Voters are asked about EVERY issue all at once every four years and then vote for ONE representative party. So, in the end, everyone ends up voting on a whole bunch of issues that neither interest nor affect them. Worse still: when checks and balances are undermined, as is currently the case, the elected representatives can do whatever they want for four years.

In the best-case scenario, the majority of today’s voters inform themselves about the current campaign promises and forecasts a few weeks before the election and then lose interest again for four years. Or, to put it another way, the system actually provokes the “I don’t do politics” attitude among a majority of voters.

However, if the effects of their own decisions were transparent and immediate, I believe there would be a greater willingness to actually inform themselves.

And on the topic of demagoguery and populism: If people had the opportunity to vote against immigration (even if you don’t agree with that position) without undermining democracy through a corrupt bunch of politicians, we as a society would still be better off than in the current situation, where emotionally charged issues are used to make dictators and shitty politics palatable to people.

That’s a framework for a technocracy. The question here was for a blueprint for an anarchist society.

And if we take your line of thinking further: At what point do you stop denying people the right to vote?

Should only those in a particular industry have a say when it comes to regulating that industry? In that case, issues like environmental and consumer protection would become unenforceable… because why would a CEO or worker care about the impact their own actions have on the rest of society if regulation can be framed as a threat to their own job?

I would argue that neither you nor most other people like making bad decisions, right?

If, after the vote, there’s no representative—aka “those up there”—to blame for your own bad decision, that probably sets off a learning process where you either do better research next time or, if you’re too unsure or not interested in the topic, stay out of it and leave the choice to people who think they know more about it.

Without fixed terms, you can vote again in six months if you realize that your decision isn’t solving the problem and enough other people feel the same way… whereas now you have to rely on a representative to make decisions in your best interest (and not in the interest of their own wallet), and, if the decision turns out to be bad for you, hope that another government will revisit the law in 20 years.

You may as well just form government by having your largest 500 companies nominate a representative from their board.

That’s basically the case right now, so it wouldn’t even constitute a deterioration?

In the system I’ve proposed, however, this would only work until enough resistance to corporate practices builds up because the business model harms the majority. Since there are no legislative terms, such practices could be stopped more quickly than in today’s system, where industry simply buys off the newly elected representatives and can then carry on as before for another four years…

Thank you!

That’s my point.

I basically agree with you.

However, the slowness of paper-based administration is the reason why we’ve ended up with the (increasingly) poor solution of representative systems and the corruption that goes hand in hand with them.

In an age where fake news and propaganda spread in real time, I believe our democracies must also find a way to react more quickly… The internet allows anyone to communicate with anyone else in real time; in my opinion, it’s time to use this FOR rather than AGAINST our societies.

f that is the premise, then any form of anarchist society is obsolete.

I was responding here to a question about a blueprint for an anarchist social order. That presupposes a reasonably positive view of human nature… which, in my opinion, is actually the more realistic one.

Otherwise, we’ll always need an authoritarian system that patronizes “the stupid people” and looks after them… a narrative that is used to justify domination over others and is deeply rooted in our societies today.

Open source, direct internet democracy.

Let anyone vote on anything basically.

My hope is voters tend to vote on matters relevant to them providing initative to get/beeing informed on the matter they vote on.

I see representative systems as root of corruption so my solution calls for a system with direct decisions without political representatives.

Left out the part where the US/Israel bombed Iran TWICE during ongoing negotiations. Read earlier that the draft for an UN security council resolution demands Iran to go ,with good faith" into negotiations with US/Israel… who came up with this, did they miss the last two rounds of negotiation-bombing?