President Donald Trump

please tell us about the importance of capital accumulation.

You mean the 2020 election where Obama intervened to make sure an establishment friendly lackey like Tom Perez was running the DNC?

The 2020 election where Pelosi decided to schedule the irrelevant Trump impeachment trial so that Bernie Sanders couldn't campaign in Iowa for the 3 weeks leading up to the first vote?

The 2020 election where Obama decided to challenge only one Democratic Party candidate (Sanders) whose policies like Medicare For All are popular with party voters ?

The 2020 election in which the public went to sleep at night after the Iowa Caucus incorrectly thinking Pete Buttigieg had gotten the most votes because Tom Perez had hired a bunch of former Clinton with a name called Shadow Inc to miscount the vote?

The election in which Dems nominated a senile old man to become president? Propelled by black voters despite the fact that the senile old man had more to do with the black incarceration state than anyone else in Congress? A senile old man who had greenlighted the Bush Administration war in Iraq despite knowing the WMD claim was false?

Is that the election you want to discuss?

AOC ..... "In any other country, Biden and I would not be in the same party"

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/06...

That's the essence of this folks. I live in a country which doesn't have a party which represents me. And I want policy like Medicare For All which the majority of the population wants. Obama opposes the majority.

So .... this translates to the US not having a party which represents the majority. It represents big money. The health insurance companies and big pharma and big oil. The folks who pay the advertising bills to keep corporate media afloat.

One sick and rotten mess of a country.

Obviously, as a person who is recommending communism, I don't subscribe to the notion of beneficial personal financial capital accumulation.

I define capital as the version of Earth which nurtures human civilization. Not the version which is being overrun with plastics, CO2, methane and PFAS and has resulted in a halving of male testosterone levels over the last half century. Not the version which is experiencing the worst drought in the US Southwest in over 1,000 years. Not the version which is shutting down the ocean circulation for the first time in 13,000 years.

so, the workers control the means of production?

Their elected representatives do.

We will always require a decision-making hierarchy.

We would require a constitution with environmental protections which elected representatives could not bypass.

Why do you consider elections democratic? Seems to me they are inherently elitist and problematic.

Wouldn't it be much more "democratic" to have all positions decided by lot? This is how we compose juries, for example, to make some of the most impactful decisions in our society.

I think it's important to give people a sense of buy-in.

A juror has 1/12th of the responsibility for the outcome of a case which impacts very few people. It's not a durable responsibility. That's quite different from the responsibility associated with making decisions which impact millions of people. That requires ongoing management skills. Supervision of law enforcement. Communications with those millions of people whose experience is dependent upon those decisions. It makes no sense whatsoever to choose such people by lot.

inherently elitist

That's like saying a lion pride is inherently elitist because it has an alpha leader.

Nature is inherently elitist in that it presents a requirement for groups to have decision making leaders.

That's the way of the world ..... it's built into natural selection.

I'd be curious to hear amplfy's ideal decision making model.

it always comes down to evolutionary biology

a lion pride does not have an "alpha" leader. It has a male. The concept of alpha leaders comes from faulty wolf research from decades ago. wolf packs are families and the leaders are the parents.

A lion pride has an alpha male or group of alpha males.

And please stop dodging the question about how you think groups should make effective decisions.

for what it's worth, I agree that we live in a society where capital is making the decisions.

But you're identifying here a way that decisions should not be made. You're not identifying how you think decisions should be made.

What was unclear about what I said?

There was nothing unclear about what you said.

It simply was not an answer to the question.

I'll tee it up for you again.

Do you understand the difference between an ideal scenario and an example of a non-ideal scenario ?

well spotted.

I'm not here to create power structures I am here to critique them.

your resistance to my proposal of deciding elected officials by lot exposes your elitism.

There is no successful example in nature of deciding leadership by lot. Lions don't let the cubs make the decisions. They don't have the experience or the skills necessary. Leadership in nature is decided by competitive processes.

My resistance to your proposal exposes my pragmatism and your lack thereof.

If you want to be a credible critic of power structures ..... that involves the ability to identify the structures that work and you prefer.

please stop this

nature is everything raping and eating eating everything else

yes that works

deciding by lot destroys all the power structures

no incumbents
no campaigns
no advertisements
no parties

what is it about these concepts that you cling to

You're against eating? That's an interesting political position. I would wager that you won't find many supporters.

I don't want to let go of the power to adapt and survive. Killing off the power structure necessary to guide the group to survival is a bad idea.

I don't have any objection to incumbents. If people do a good job, then a meritocracy will allow them to continue to do a good job.

I don't have any objection to campaigns .... candidates should have an opportunity to make their case.

I don't have any objection to parties. Groups should be allowed to form around common interests.

What you and I share is an objection to all of the above being controlled by whoever has the most money. Let's make a point of acknowledging our points of agreement.

You want a fantasy world which doesn't exist. A world where people and animals don't eat.

I want to navigate the real world.