No, that's just the objectionable part because that's the part pretending billionaires are responsible for everything good.

lol you are being so willfully obtuse

The power structure that currently exists prevents such representation. It can’t be reasoned with. It must be removed forcibly first.

The real problem is ensuring what fills such a power vacuum isn’t worse.

All states represent a given class in society. In capitalism, that's the big capitalists. In socialism, that's the working classes. Successful revolution requires creating a mass, working-class organization, and ensuring it's linked to the broader working classes and earns their trust and support. Without the working-class organization, we are reduced to directionless protesting, and without the backing of the people, a working-class party can do nothing. Socialism works.

Billionaires should not be considered individuals when they have the resources to purchase plots of land larger than cities, among many other reasons.

So, capitalism exists and most modern progress has been made under it ? that's certainly an observation

I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at with the sarcasm. You asked, I answered. My point was never that capitalism is good or necessary, but that it’s the system we’re currently stuck in and I suggested relatively low bar action individuals can take.

I'm not interested in discussing hypothetical worlds that woulda been, clouda been or shoulda been if not for them darn capitalists. I'm sure we could live in a completely egalitarian utopia if not for this, that and the other thing.

But we don't.

If you have something constructive to contribute, feel free to do so.

Not sure if going "back to normal" actually is a good thing. Insanity is the new normal .. deal with it.
Wich involves finding a balance between staying informed and staying sane. Where the priority definitively is on the sane aspect

I don't want rich people to behave.

I want them to pay back the money that they stole, so that there will be no rich people.

How do we just go back to ‘normal’??

This is normal. Parasitic elites have been running the world for pretty much all of recorded history.

This is part of good behavior.

This is normal, the billionaire class has always ruled over hordes of proles.

In the beginning, we just knew about our own territory, a few hundred years ago, we wouldn't know what's going on beyond a few days travel from our home. Today, we can read news from across the globe.

A few centuries ago, we could at least daydream that things are better somewhere. Ignorance is bliss

The problem is, as people gain power, it rots their mind and ruins their perceptions, so we have this recurring theme running throughout our history.

That's why it's so important to have short terms and total transparency.

But, once they gain power, politicians always fight tooth and nail to keep and expand on that power, and since they make the rules, here we are. Again

How do we learn from history so we can stop repeating it?

This is the only solution and things will continue to get worse until we enact it.

I agree. If they won't return what was stolen, we should take it by force.

II would put it the other way around: as long as representative systems exist, it will always be more likely that egoists and narcissists will establish themselves in leadership positions, even if they only make up a small part of the population. Today, this is encouraged by the fact that we reward these character traits, which are actually harmful to the community, with fame, money and prestige.

Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.

Maybe by advancing our democracies in the same way the technology to divide and rule us is advancing.

Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.

If only there was a solution!

Nothing will happen! We already knew about this in 2013 thanks to Daphne Caruana Galizia. Who was killed by the global elites for putting their business out there.

The problem is, as people gain power, it rots their mind and ruins their perceptions, so we have this recurring theme running throughout our history.

This isn't actually observable, though. Having managerial positions, administration, etc doesn't cause cognitive deficiency nor a "turning evil" in a religious, supernatural sense. What actually happens is classes act in their class interest. The proletariat as manager isn't seeking to establish itself as an entrenched, permanent ruling class, but instead to abolish itself as a class. Capitalists, monarchs, etc. all seek to maintain their individual privledges.

What is natural for human behavior is detetmined by the conditions of our social existence, ie how we produce and distribute. This means the idea of a static, fixed, unchanging "human nature" that cannot handle organizing at scale is false. The reason these myths persist is because they discourage action against unjustifiable systems today.

By applying dialectical materialism, as opposed to metaphysics and idealism.

The 3 major assertions of idealism are as follows:

1. Idealism asserts that the material world is dependent on the spiritual
2. Idealism asserts that spirit, or mind, or idea, can and does exist in separation from matter. (The most extreme form of this assertion is subjective idealism, which asserts that matter does not exist at all but is pure illusion.)
3. Idealism asserts that there exists a realm of the mysterious and unknowable, "above," or "beyond," or "behind" what can be ascertained and known by perception, experience, and science.

The 3 basic teachings of materialism as counterposed to idealism are:

1. Materialism teaches that the world is by its very nature material, that everything which exists comes into being on the basis of material causes, arises and develops in accordance with the laws of motion of matter.
2. Materialism teaches that matter is objective reality existing outside and independent of the mind; and that far from the mental existing in separation from the material, everything mental or spiritual is a product of material processes.
3. Materialism teaches that the world and its laws are fully knowable, and that while much may not be known there is nothing which is by nature unknowable.

Mechanistic materialism makes certain dogmatic assumptions:

1. That the world consists of permanent and stable things or particles, with definite, fixed properties;
2. That the particles of matter are by nature inert and no change ever happens except by the action of some external cause;
3. That all motion, all change can be reduced to the mechanical interaction of the separate particles of matter;
4. That each particle has its own fixed nature independent of everything else, and that the relationships between separate things are merely external relationships.

Dialectical materialism holds instead:

1. The world is not a complex of things but of processes;
2. That matter is inseperable from motion;
3. That the motion of matter comprehends an infinite diversity of forms which arise one from another and pass into one another;
4. That things exist not as separate individual units but in essential relation and interconnection.

Putting it all together, we get the following:

1. Dialectical materialism understands the world, not as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which all things go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away.

2. Dialectical materialism considers that matter is always in motion, that motion is the mode of existence of matter, so that there can no more be matter without motion than motion without matter. Motion does not have to be impressed upon matter by some outside force, but above all it is necessary to look for the inner impulses of development, the self-motion, inherent in all processes.

3. Dialectical materialism understands the motion of matter as comprehending all changes and processes in the universe, from mere changes of place right to thinking. It recognizes, therefore, the infinite diversity of the forms of motion of matter from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher.

4. Dialectical materialism considers that, in the manifold processes taking place in the universe, things come into being, change and pass out of being, not as separate individual units, but in essential relation and interconnection, so that they cannot be understood each separately and by itself but only in their relation and interconnection.

Karl Marx created dialectical materialism by turning Hegel's idealist dialectic into a materialist one. Then, he applied it to the progression of society, creating historical matetialism. By analyzing social structures and progress as a dialectical process based in materialism, we can learn from history and analyze where it's going. This is scientific socialism in progress.

Solution anonymous leaders? Or leaders as groups/institutions rather than individuals.

Panama Papers!!!!!!!

This shit is old news.

Nothing was done then.

Nothing will be done now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYJ5ZViYhHQ

Revolt

Nothing short of Luigi'ng all of them will make things better

https://generalstrikeus.com/

And rather than drawing a line you're just going to be a useless piece of shit who actively undermines other people doing what they can. Go find a hole to hide in so the rest of us don't have to be distracted by your bullshit.

Eat them

My problem with anonymous leaders is that we'd completely lose track of who's to be made responsible. It would basically create a shortcut for elites to rule without having to hide their corruption/influence.

A group/institution would probably also face the same problem as we have today with single persons: Big money would simply buy influence in these new organizations instead of bribing single individuals.

A direct democracy would mean you have to bribe a big part of the population to cover your ideas.. the worse your idea is and the more support you need to buy for it the more translates from bribery to paying a majority to accept your idea. At some point the amount of bribes extends the gains to be made by your manipulation and it becomes uneconomical.. we'd basically use capitalism against bribery.

I like that people are waking up to the injustices in the world, but holy shit, are they fucking blind? Not only has this been the state of the world since the beginning but it is how 90% of the world's population has always lived. We aren't watching the world go to shit as much as the shit that has always existed is fighting to maintain control.

What to do then?

Eat anyone who has more than 1 billion dollars.

Create an open source platform where everyone can vote on every matter. Matter to be voted on are chosen by petitions. If a petition indicates societal need for change (x supporters in y time frame) anyone can propose a solution. Then a vote is taken. The solution with the most votes is implemented. If there is a new petition on the same topic, the fun starts all over again.

Advantages from my point of view:

1. No potentially corrupt representatives

2. No deflection of one's own bad voting decisions (aka. it's the fault of those at the top)

3. Citizens once again have a motivation to inform themselves about issues more than just once every four years.

Will everyone always be able to vote on everything? Certainly not, as individuals' time and resources are limited. Therefore, those who vote on a decision are likely to be affected by it themselves, or at least feel that they are. In this way, people who have informed themselves beforehand, or at least would do so, tend to vote more.

We would use the real-time communication possibilities that the internet has given us for something positive instead of slop and brain rot.

I like this, but how do you avoid people making bad decisions because they think it will benefit society but then it makes things worse? Like the kind of questions experts are better suited to know. For example rent control is repeatedly proven to be a bad policy, but people tend to think its good cause logic shows that “prices high, lets make them less directly”. Experts would maybe look at the underlying causes of prevention of construction, height restrictions, land speculation, and expansions of credit supply as a cause of housing unaffordability.

You being distracted by my bullshit sounds awful lot like a you problem.

My argument would be that people definitely would make bad decisions in the beginning. But that wouldn't be that far off of the status quo, would it?

My hope would be that this system gives an incentive to ACTUALLY get informed about the matter you vote on since you're actively choosing to get involved instead of voting on every topic (also the ones you have 0.0 interest in) every 4 years. Another point, which may be a bit far fetched idk, could be that you theoretically could use LLMs to summarize the various proposed solutions and their justifications. In the system I have in mind, the experts you mentioned would also submit proposed solutions.

Based on your example:

Problem formulated for the petition: “Rents are too high.”

If the petition goes through, anyone could propose solutions. For example, “rent control” (proposed by someone on the left), “foreigners out” (proposed by someone on the right), “revise building standards and invest in public housing” (an expert).

The population might follow the populists at first... However, if the problem is not solved after 10 years, you can't blame “those at the top” for the solution not working, and hopefully there will be a rethink.

Maybe this is just a utopian fantasy of mine. But I have the feeling that our democratic systems are not up to the challenges of the digitalized 21st century and growing inequality... this is the best solution I have come up with so far.