• Nemo's public admirer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well, it was the first iteration.

    It did quite well, considering how it rapidly indistrialised their union of states, gave national-level voting rights to women before USAmerica did, fought external and internal sabotage, was waay better than the USAmerica which had racial discrimination on voting till the 1960’s etc.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

    They also were the major force to fight against Nazis.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Cool, so they rapidly industrialized. Putting aside my feelings on industrialization, how is that useful a second time? It’s also not unique

      That system was good for growth, but it instantly was filled with corruption. It was manageable when there was explosive growth and everyone in the government just skimmed a little off the side, but once they modernized that growth slowed. From there the corruption spread like cancer

      They went from being mostly agrarian to the most advanced county in the world to complete stagnation, and finally collapsed into complete oligarchy at record speed

      I’m not saying they did nothing good, but that model is trash. We can learn from what it did well, but it has no answer to bad, or just selfish, actors

      What we need is stability and quality of life, and for that I think you need to set an upper limit on how much power any one person can obtain.

      I’m on board with the end goal, but this is a bad starting point to build a new system on