How Might a GENUINE Democracy Deal With Mark Zuckerberg?
To make things right, we need a vision of what we are FOR, not just knowledge of what we're against
Here’s an example of the anti-democratic power of billionaires today:
Here’s how Mark Zuckerberg (and the others who wrongly hog social wealth and power) could be deprived of such anti-democratic power in an egalitarian society with genuine democracy.
What could genuine democracy look like? How could it work? We cannot create a genuine democracy if we have no vision of what we’re for and only know what we’re against, right?
Here’s a vision of how it could look and work:
First, genuine democracy is described in some detail in this article and in the articles it links to. Briefly, a genuine democracy is one in which the sovereign governmental power (i.e., the highest body that can make and enforce laws) in any given local community (more or less the size of a U.S. postal zip code area) is what I call the Local Assembly of Egalitarians. Every adult who lives or works in the local community who supports the egalitarian values of no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid and fairness and truth, regardless of whether they have ever even heard of the word "egalitarian," has the right to participate as an equal with others in democratically making the laws and policies that everybody in the local community must obey; nobody else has this right.
Second, the egalitarian economy would be based on the principle, “From each according to reasonable ability1, to each—for free—according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need, with the local assembly of egalitarians deciding what is reasonable and equitable.” This “From each according…” principle also applies to economic enterprises. Local communities that mutually agree to share goods and services this way constitute what I call a “sharing economy.” Note that no individuals are allowed to personally own more than what they need or reasonably desire, and this includes Mark Zuckerberg. (People who insist on owning more than is reasonable would be forcibly prevented from doing so.)
Third, the local assembly of egalitarians would decide what property is reasonably and properly privately owned and what property is publicly owned with its usage determined by the local assembly.
Fourth, if a person or family or group of people (possibly the group of people who were the workers in some economic enterprise) for whatever reason did not wish to contribute reasonably according to ability or if they tried to take more than they needed or reasonably desired then they a) would not be allowed to remain members of the sharing economy, but b) would be provided (by the local assembly(ies) of egalitarians, taking into account availability of resources) some appropriate mutually agreeable means of production (e.g., land and farm equipment, or other means of production) sufficient for them alone (hired or slave labor is not allowed) to produce (within the law) whatever they wished and to barter it with whomever they wished.
What would happen to Mark Zuckerberg in such an egalitarian society?
Let’s say that in an egalitarian society many local assemblies of egalitarians had mutually agreed to form a sharing economy as discussed above. And let’s say that there was also, by mutual agreement of these local assemblies, a Meta/Facebook social network operated by a group of people who lived in various local communities. And let’s say that, although the workers at Meta/Facebook were all of equal status with an equal say in the running of the enterprise [this is an egalitarian principle] they nonetheless, for whatever reason (see here, for example), followed the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg. And let’s say that at least one local assembly of egalitarians decided that the Meta/Facebook social network was NOT contributing reasonably according to ability because it was wrongfully censoring some ideas or facts. What might this upset local assembly of egalitarians do?
To start with, this upset local assembly could announce to the other local assemblies of the local communities with which it was in a sharing economy that it did not wish remain in this sharing economy because it no longer agreed that the Meta/Facebook people in this sharing economy were contributing reasonably according to ability. It could say that either Meta/Facebook would have to stop doing its wrongful censorship or else it (the upset local community) would leave the sharing economy.
After hearing that the upset local community would leave the sharing economy unless Meta/Facebook stopped its objectionable censorship, the other local assemblies would respond by deciding how each of them felt: did they support Meta/Facebook’s censorship and not care if the upset local community left the sharing economy, or did they agree with the upset local community and think Meta/Facebook should be ejected from the sharing economy if it didn’t stop its censorship?
If virtually all of the local communities agreed with the upset local community, then they would tell Meta/Facebook, “You must stop the censorship or else you are excluded from our sharing economy.”
If only a few of the other local communities agreed with the upset local community, then the majority of local communities would tell the upset local community, “We’re keeping Meta/Facebook in our sharing economy, in which case we’re willing to see you leave it if that’s your wish.”
If a substantial number but not most of the local communities agreed with the upset local community, then possibly the ones who agreed with the upset local community would form a separate sharing economy that excluded Meta/Facebook, and the ones who disagreed with the upset communities would continue forming a separate sharing economy with Meta/Facebook in it.
In either case, the Meta/Facebook workers would, themselves, have a decision to make. Would they keep doing the censorship that the upset local community(ies) objected to, or stop? If most of the Meta/Facebook workers wanted to keep doing the censorship then they could tell the ones who wanted to stop it, “You’re outvoted, so either go along with the majority or else leave and look for some other economic enterprise to work at.” In which case these minority workers would either decide to stay or leave.
What if Mark Zuckerberg, the de-facto leader of Meta/Facebook, adamantly insisted on continuing the censorship? In that case the other workers would democratically decide to agree or disagree with him. If they disagreed with him they could tell Zuckerberg, “Either agree to stop the censorship or else leave the enterprise.”
If Mark Zuckerberg did not agree to stop the censorship and was hence removed from the Meta/Facebook economic enterprise, then he would have to find another way to obtain membership in a sharing economy (by contributing reasonably according to ability in the opinion of the local assemblies of egalitarians of the local communities of that sharing economy) or else he could ask his local community’s assembly of egalitarians to provide him (and perhaps others) with some kind of means of production with which he could produce some goods or services to barter with others as he wished.
The fate of Mark Zuckerberg
Mark Zuckerberg’s fate in an egalitarian society is thus not at all horrible by the standards of most people. But by the standards of a wrongfully privileged and obscenely wealthy billionaire it might seem like a fate worse than death.
If Mark Zuckerberg took any action to overthrow the egalitarian society and restore the class inequality that enabled him once to be a billionaire, then the egalitarian society would (if the egalitarians wished to keep their society egalitarian) use whatever force including violence was necessary to prevent him from succeeding. I would hope that the egalitarians would NOT simply expel Zuckerberg from their local communities because this would be unfair to the local communities in which Zuckerberg ended up residing. I would hope that the egalitarians would restrain Zuckerberg to prevent him from doing anything to overthrow egalitarianism and, if necessary, imprison him.
What would prevent Mark Zuckerberg from prevailing, and abusing his power?
What if the purpose of Zuckerberg’s censorship was to overthrow egalitarianism and restore himself as a powerful and privileged billionire? Then the genuine democracy process described above would result in either preventing or allowing Zuckerberg to succeed. There is no guarantee what the outcome would be. It all depends on how astute and how committed to egalitarian values the people in the society are. Creating widespread clarity about egalitarian values and principles is, as discussed here, the only way to prevent the return of abuse of power such as the power, today, of a Mark Zuckerberg.
Egalitarians, being reasonable people, will no doubt count children and retired elderly and people physically or mentally or for any other reason unable to work as "working reasonably" even though they do no work, and likewise deem it "reasonable work" when people care for their own or other children or for other sick adults or attend school or apprentice programs to learn skills so as to be able to work in the future.