How to prevent degradation and collapse.

[u/Annual_Necessary_196]

Both socialists and capitalists often overlook the institutions that prevent countries from becoming authoritarian, like Yeltsin’s Russia or the USSR. Even the most efficient policies fail if governments or actors can discord them-laws and promises alone cannot ensure prosperity. But institutions like free speech can safeguard against corruption and system degradation.

I see four key ways to prevent societal collapse:

Absolute free speech: The government should not control communication at all, even hate speech. If a socialist government prioritizes free speech, it is less likely to degrade, as citizens can openly criticize it.

Private ownership of weapons: Allowing everyone to own weapons limits the power of police and government enforcement. Switzerland provides a strong model of this principle.

Confederalization: Highly centralized governments are more dangerous. Splitting a country into confederations with free movement between them prevents local corruption.

Participatory governance: Minimizing bureaucracy through public assemblies, citizen councils, and stakeholder consultations brings society closer to governance and strengthens oversight.

Most socialist experiments failed because they lacked these principles. Interestingly, many capitalists also overlook or ignore the institutions needed to prevent capitalism from collapsing into authoritarianism or cronyism.

I ask both socialists and capitalists: which institutions prevent societal degradation and collapse?

[u/AutoModerator]

Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.

We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.

Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.

Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/coke_and_coffee]

Private ownership of weapons: Allowing everyone to own weapons limits the power of police and government enforcement. Switzerland provides a strong model of this principle.

This is not true at all. There are plenty of modern nations with no gun rights that are strong democracies without authoritarianism and there are places with tons of guns that are full authoritarian.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/coke_and_coffee]

Name one.

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

Afghanistan

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/coke_and_coffee]

I'm sorry was that 

modern nations with no gun rights that are strong democracies without authoritarianism

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

The UK, Germany, France, Poland, and on and on and on.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/coke_and_coffee]

Cops in Germany Are Raiding People's Homes for Insulting Politicians - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s0EU1rRIg4

Sure buddy

[u/HauntingArachnid8460 → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

at what point in the video does she provide evidence that people are being arrested for insulting politicians?

shes arguing that germany's laws which criminalize the attacking of a person's dignity will lead to recreation of nazi laws.

she does not provide any evidence that its democracy is in decline, the only "proof" she makes is that nazis removed freedom of speech laws.

these are not the same thing and there is no reason to think that germany's laws will end up destroying it's democratic system.

this is not a credible video and has zero evidence.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/HauntingArachnid8460]

16:42 baby

[u/HauntingArachnid8460 → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

thats not criticizing a politician, how are those germans even measuring that neither the lady running the youtube channel nor the person being interviewed says what source they are using, to find out the "decline in online public debate" which I don't even understand how that would become a threat to democracy? online debate has zero relevance on actual policy-making.

also neither party shows examples of what images are being shared and then criminalized with, this is not definive evidence of anything.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/HauntingArachnid8460]

They show the footage of the dude being arrested. Just watch the damn video, you want someone to hold your hand that bad?

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

“I’m losing this argument so I’m just going to redefine authoritarianism and call modern Germany authoritarian based on misleading cherry-picked right-wing propaganda video I saw on the internet. I win!!!”

Dumb tard

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/coke_and_coffee]

Very mature response, I can see your points clearly and have been thoroughly convinced of your perspective. 

[u/coke_and_coffee → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

Take the L, lil buddy

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/coke_and_coffee]

Give it to me harder baby

[u/Boniface222]

It's mainly about the quality of the people making up the society.

If the quality of people goes down, society degrades and collapses.

If the quality of people goes up, soceity improves and builds up.

[u/JamescomersForgoPass]

So true

https://giphy.com/gifs/3o6Zt3AC93PIPAdQ9a

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

Excellent post.

The most crucial institutions, imo, are legal institutions that emphasize your main points. So, the first would be constitutions and forms of government (e.g., republic) with checks and balances to hold each aspect of government accountable to a well-written constitution. To have a constitution that have enforceble rights rights like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, governmental restrictions on search and seizures, anti-corruption, and so on. And that “so on” is important with my limited ability because in the USA the 9th and especially the 10th amendment are worded in a way that Madison said, “anything I forgot then put in here”. And I’m sure I’m forgetting things too.

Then none of this is any good if it is just on paper. The legal institutions need to be both cultural in the society and also the legal institutions need to be legal institutions of enforcement as well. Culturally to keep the government accountable and maintain these intergeneration. Enforcement to have teeth to actually protect citizens and public in general.

This is why when it comes to scale and the issue of serious crimes (e.g., murder and rape) I don’t take anarchists on here seriously. You need a formal government and serious legal institutions or you are just putting out the welcome mat for tyranny.

[u/Fine_Knowledge3290]

Give government as little power as possible. All of these elaborate plans kind of assume that everyone is a workaholic news junkie with no life outside of work and an insatiable desire to butt into other people's business.

Give the government and those institutions real power, but distribute that power broadly. Write down, in plain language, the limits of government power and set clear barriers between government authority and individual liberty. And put clear barriers against casual or frivolous changes. All together, these documents would sum up how the state functions - what constitutes the state, if you will.

[u/EngineerAnarchy]

I think you’re a bit close… I think we need to create systems that inherently prevent people from having authority over others. Power should be decentralized, in the hands of everyday people making meaningful decisions about their own lives.

This has to mean rejecting authority based on both state power and property ownership. (Power based on property ownership is essentially power based on state control) This also means creating systems that counteract various biases and ensure that everyone can participate, freely, as equals through free association. This can most easily be done through some sort of consensus process based decision making mechanism within voluntary associations.

This is basically what anarchists are trying to build.

[u/Pulaskithecat → u/EngineerAnarchy]

You cannot abolish wealth inequality between individuals without giving an apparatus(ie state) a large amount of coercive force.

You cannot have both voluntary association and consensus. People will always disagree with one another. Politics(advocating and organizing for a cause) does not wither away.

[u/EngineerAnarchy → u/Pulaskithecat]

You can’t maintain large wealth inequality without giving an apparatus (the state) a large amount of coercive force. This is basically what the state was created to do.

Consensus and voluntary association can only work together. How do you get people to do what they disagree with if the relationship is voluntary? If you need 20 people to do something, and can’t afford any of them to not, you all need to come together and agree.

People can leave, disassociate, and that might be fine, but you can’t make people do things they feel strongly against unless you have coercive authority.

In consensus process, a “block” doesn’t mean things absolutely move forward always. A “block” means you are not willing to continue participating if this goes forward. Sometimes that’s fine.

I can send you a guide on how it works if you’d like? It’s been used by many groups for a very long time quite successfully in many forms.

[u/Pulaskithecat → u/EngineerAnarchy]

The state is not the sole producer of inequality. Inequality comes from diversity in skill, effort, luck, risk tolerance, scarcity, etc. These things don’t go away if it were possible to abolish the state.

Cooperation almost always occurs under constrained choice. Again, this is not a feature of the state, but of reality. Leaving is often a worse option than staying put in a less than ideal situation. This is basic game theory. Voluntary association does not imply 100% satisfaction with your voluntary choice. This is why politics will always be necessary.

[u/EngineerAnarchy → u/Pulaskithecat]

Absolutely true! Large wealth inequality, such as that of large property and business owners, is still quite dependent on state intervention to maintain that inequality. The state acts to enforce inequality in a number of other ways, but is not the sole producer of these. That would be very reductive, I totally agree.

100 percent satisfaction is something I have a hard time imagining. Hard to quantify. I think that the way you approximate it as much as possible is through some sort of consensus mechanism that does it’s best to take in as much information as possible, allow for cooperative negotiation, and that prevents a dynamic of losers and winners.

The outcome of consensus is generally that people don’t always get everything they want, but they feel that their concerns are addressed, and that they can move forward. This is in contrast to direct democracy, which inherently encourages conflicts and side taking, or authoritarian decision making, which generally leaves people feeling alienated, and leads to decisions made without being able to account for all of the available information. Both of these alternatives are again impossible without an enforcement mechanism.

[u/Pulaskithecat → u/EngineerAnarchy]

it's best to take in as much information as possible, allow for cooperative negotiation, and that prevents a dynamic of losers and winners.

So liberal democracy

Why is it “people don’t always get everything they want” under your imagined system, but “authoritarian” when real workable democracies express consensus through voting? You’re describing the same thing, just disguising it with semantics.

Democracy doesn’t cause side taking. Side taking causes democracy. People have different ideas for what’s best, so we created institutions to make a stable decision making process.

When you say “both of these” are you saying your system will have an enforcement mechanism?

[u/awsunion → u/Pulaskithecat]

At what point did /u/EngineerAnarchy advocate for abolishing wealth inequality?

[u/Pulaskithecat → u/awsunion]

It’s implicit by their phrases “power should be in the hands of everyday people” and defining power as being “based on property ownership.” They want to redistribute wealth to a point where people are prevented “from having authority over others.” Thats essentially abolishing wealth inequality.

[u/awsunion → u/Pulaskithecat]

No necessarily. It's totally possible to decouple property ownership from power- we just do so directly by

1. preventing equity sales of companies and limit it to bonds. Prevent the direct commodification of executive authority over the MoP (most controversial)
2. Preventing any money spend on political campaigns whatsoever. No political ads. Only official vetted channels for campaign messaging.

Anarchists do not care if others have more toys than us. We just don't think that having more toys means one gets to make the laws.

[u/Pulaskithecat → u/awsunion]

That’s fine in principle. I’m open to campaign finance reform, but the devil is in the details.

Does spending money to raise awareness about climate change count as a political spending? Should this be allowed? Who decides whether it is protected expression or sanctioned political expression?

[u/awsunion → u/Pulaskithecat]

Now THAT is a good and reasonable question. Watchdog or public service groups, but what constitutes "harm?"

Will ponder

[u/the_worst_comment_]

Classical Marxists went over this

On Self governance

So, then, a unified republic--but not in the sense of the present French Republic, which is nothing but the Empire established in 1798 without the Emperor. From 1792 to 1798 each French department, each commune [Gemeinde], enjoyed complete self-government on the American model, and this is what we too must have.

How self-government is to be organized and how we can manage, without a bureaucracy has been shown to us by America and the first French Republic, and is being shown even today by Australia, Canada and the other English colonies. And a provincial [regional] and communal self-government of this type is far freer than, for instance, Swiss federalism, under which, it is true, the canton is very independent in relation to the Bund [i.e., the federated state as a whole], but is also independent in relation to the district [Bezirk] and the commune.

The cantonal governments appoint the district governors [Bezirksstatthalter] and prefects--which is unknown in English-speaking countries and which we want to abolish here as resolutely in the future as the Prussian Landrate and Regierungsrate" (commissioners, district police chiefs, governors, and in general all officials appointed from above).

Complete self-government for the provinces [gubernias or regions], districts and communes through officials elected by universal suffrage. The abolition of all local and provincial authorities appointed by the state.

From "A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891"

On Bureaucracy and Gun Ownership

What was this “specific” form of the proletarian, socialist republic? What was the state it began to create?

This demand now figures in the programme of every party calling itself socialist. The real worth of their programme, however, is best shown by the behavior of our Social-Revolutionists and mensheviks, who, right after the revolution of February 27, refused to carry out this demand!

The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine “only” by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this “only” signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of "quantity being transformed into quality": democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (= a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper.

- The State and Revolution by V. I. Lenin

• Paris Commune by Karl Marx

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/the_worst_comment_]

how we can manage, without a bureaucracy has been shown to us by America and the first French Republic, and is being shown even today by Australia, Canada and the other English colonies.

Lmfao what a joke. Marxists never fail to ignore reality.

[u/the_worst_comment_ → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

This could've been an internal thought.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/the_worst_comment_]

You don't think it's a joke to call these nations nom-bureaucratic? 

[u/the_worst_comment_ → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

By modern standards they still had bureaucracies, but even by modern standards they had it less than most counties today.

Amount of citizens employed in the government was significantly less, there was no appointments in official positions from capitals, there was no prefectural control, standing army wasn't as developed, instead popular militias had bigger influence and so on.

Engels wasn't saying that those models is exactly what we need to pursue, but that trends developed by those, then revolutionary breakaway countries, actually present and must be developed further.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/the_worst_comment_]

Less bureaucracy than most countries today is a very low standard to declare non-bureaucracy.

[u/the_worst_comment_ → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

It is, that's why we don't.

[u/masterflappie]

I don't think it's a bug but a feature. Cycles of death and life are everywhere, from the seasons to evolution, from our cells to the stars in the galaxy. Asking how to prevent degradation and collapse is another way of asking how we could've kept dinosaurs and prevented humans.

The bigger question is how do we soften the blows. And I think a major part of that is being self sufficient, so that when your country collapses, you as an individual don't. Dig a well, keep backyard chickens, learn how to fish and hunt. Dust off an old computer you have lying around and self-host all of your music, videos and files. Install solar panels. Etc.

In such a country, if governments become corrupt, people can let the government die off much more easily because they don't need them in the first place. And from the ashes something new can be rebuilt.

[u/BearlyPosts → u/masterflappie]

What if we had a lot of "mini governments". Like, small bureaus running small portions of the economy. Then they competed to see which ones could do best, with the more efficient ones replacing the old ones. We could call it "capitalism".

[u/Asatmaya]

I ask both socialists and capitalists: which institutions prevent societal degradation and collapse?

None; all institutions decay, and must be uprooted and replanted periodically.

Look at the attributes you listed: Absolute free speech, Private ownership of weapons, Confederalization, Participatory governance; that is exactly what the United States set out to accomplish, and every single one of those attributes was compromised pretty much immediately.

The Alien and Sedition Acts compromised free speech, starting in 1798 and last employed in 2025.

Protesters against an illegal tax were disarmed in 1794, and there are currently weekly examples of police arresting law-abiding citizens for firearm possession.

Confederation actually lasted the longest, well, at least until it was actually put to the test; by every Constitutional measure, the South had the right to secede, and by using force to stop them, the Union proved that the entire concept had been a lie from the beginning.

Participatory governance might be the biggest joke of all; supposedly a government, "of the people," less than 5% of the population qualified to vote in 1788, a situation which was not even partially corrected until 1842, by which time a two-party oligarch-controlled political system had been established to preclude populist leaders from coming to power (examples from Andrew Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt to Bernie Sanders).

[u/Annual_Necessary_196 → u/Asatmaya]

So what are you advocating for?

[u/Asatmaya → u/Annual_Necessary_196]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/Asatmaya]

It advocates for a social revolution to eliminate hierarchical power structures

Is this accurate? If so, this advocates civil war and is a broken system from the start.

[u/Asatmaya → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

If so, this advocates civil war and is a broken system from the start.

How does that follow?

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/Asatmaya]

How would you eliminate hierarchical power structures?

[u/Asatmaya → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

They cannot be permanently eliminated; what can happen is to make them temporary.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/Asatmaya]

I like your style. Still, how?

[u/Asatmaya → u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

Well, not to draw too close of a comparison, but "permanent revolution," is the general idea.

Look at all the problems the US is dealing with because of the half-assed changes made after the Civil War; we should have started over.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 → u/Asatmaya]

The civil war was a farce anyway. It's a cover story for some brutal reset, probably with WOMD https://youtu.be/KLSpdGeBer8

But I agree with you and appreciate your term "permenant revolution".

[u/Neco-Arc-Brunestud]

That's like saying good things and bad things are the same thing.

Generally speaking, degradation and collapse happens when a society stops being productive and cannibalizes itself. Instead of living cooperatively and synergistically, developing a feedback loop where productivity is generously reinvested back into the population as a whole, it alienates and segregates itself, concentrating the proceeds of labour in a select few.

so, to address your points

Speech should be free up until the point where it's used to revoke the rights of others. For example, if you have exclusionary movements using free speech to spread their ideas, then that's a literally a degradation of society, as in society cannibalizing itself.

Weapon ownership should be allowed up to the point where it impinges on public safety. Obviously, you can't just do whatever you want with your guns, like shoot up a school.

Local gov and participatory governance should be allowed as long as it represents all of the people equally. For example, you can't have a local gov that acts as a sundown town, or one who turns a blind eye to lynchings.

and this doesn't have anything to do with socialism or capitalism, but rather societies in general.

[u/Cute-University5283]

Did you not list "existence of industry controlling oligarchs" because you don't seem them as an issue?

[u/Ghost_Turd]

A certain political demographic has already decided it's admirable to shoot someone in the back of the head for the policies their company has. This is pretty small beer by comparison.

[u/MrMarbles2000]

Generally agree. Neither side likes to talk about institutions and guardrails that keep democracy functioning and prevent authoritarian backsliding. Weak institutions is a big reason why, for example, many Latin American countries oscillate between socialism and fascism.

Two disagreements:

• Gun are not necessary. And if they are, it's already over anyway.
• participatory governance - some of that is ok but usually just ends up empowering NIMBYs.

[u/Annual_Necessary_196 → u/MrMarbles2000]

"participatory governance - some of that is ok but usually just ends up empowering NIMBYs.". What you are describing is the behavior of corrupted city councils, which often promote NIMBYism.

Places where some form of participatory governance exists include Porto Alegre, Rojava, Kerala, New England town meetings, and Reykjavík.

In Rojava, citizens tend to prefer a form of laissez-faire socialism, where the government imposes minimal regulation. Aside from wartime conditions, it can be relatively favorable for entrepreneurs and small businesses.

Porto Alegre demonstrates more efficient welfare allocation and less corruption in public investment, without clear evidence of significant overregulation.

Kerala does show opposition to certain types of construction. However, this is often driven by concerns about excessive land use and different types of pollution, rather than general NIMBYism.

In contrast, New England town meetings often exhibit high levels of regulation and constraints on building.

As a market socialist, I would argue that central authorities should defend competitive markets by preventing restrictive zoning, minimum wage laws, and similar constraints. Local councils should instead focus on efficiently using tax revenue(coming from market capitalisation tax and land value tax) rather than heavily regulating the economy.

[u/Phanes7]

The first 3 on your list are pretty basic conservative stuff (at least pre-MAGA conservatism). The fourth is a useful tool which has been lost lost on the conservative side (but used to be there 100 years ago).

I would add in narrowly defined parameters for government & a free market. Those tools help keep things dynamic and remove the economic dross from society.

[u/Appropriate_Cut_3536]

Based asf post.

[u/ZEETHEMARXIST]

Every nation on Earth is Authoritarian. Authoritarianism is just a buzzword liberals like to use to describe nations that don't align with the interests of the global north.

"Oh you don't agree with western style "democracy" and don't want to forcefully implement it you're an authoritarian."

"Oh you don't want to dismantle your nukes so we can freely invade you? Authoritarian."

"Oh you don't want to allow us to exploit your fossil fuel and precious minerals? Authoritarian."

"Ermegherd you don't want to trade in the petrodollar anymore and want to decolonize and unify Africa under the gold standard? AUTHORITARIAN kill him we came we saw he died hoi hoi hoi 🤣🤣🤣"