It totally makes sense that you're feeling overwhelmed about all this and I totally get it because I was once -- and in some ways am still -- in your shoes.
That said, fortunately, the solution is the same as it's been throughout history: collective action. It's not easy, it's not fast, but it's the only way real change has ever been implemented. The 40-hour work week, the end of child labor, all of this was the end result of regular people coming together to share ideas and voice opposition to the status quo. Shifting the Overton window of what's socially acceptable and creating new consensus about what's possible are how we have improved society over time.
I recommend reading about neoliberalism to make more sense of how the system works and how we got here. You may already know that this is the name for the various economic policies we see today that harm workers (e.g., privatization, cutting public services, etc.), but the book does a great job of giving context our school curriculums didn't give us. A great quick read is Invisible Doctrine. We read it in Anna Bocca's book club! (she's on YouTube if you wanna check her out)
But the answer is definitely not hopelessness or cynicism because the system preys on both of those even if it attempts to quash rebellion. I've recently started finding ways to contribute to my local community, and it's honestly very rewarding and I'm discovering more ways to help out every day. It's a rabbit hole I recommend going down in your local community ^_^
But then you get into all sorts of philosophy of does that ever really change or improve things? Or do we end up in a new mess? Do we just push the problem down stream? The 40 hour work week may have helped us find balance, but what was the cost of that? There is always a cost. There is always a tradeoff. There is rarely ever a right or a wrong.
I mean, the tradeoff of democracy is maintaining that democracy. It's a maintenance problem, and maintenance in this case requires that everyone remain educated on how to collectively organize, how to articulate ideas, how to exercise our rights and perform our civic duty as members of a nation. How to speak to one other, how to respect differences while communicating alternative ideas, how to distinguish fact from fiction.
As we can see with how neoliberalism has convinced everyone to act as "consumers" instead of "citizens" -- prioritizing individual solutions over collective ones and reducing all social interactions to "economic exchange" -- it's easy to weaken democracy. All you have to do is tell everyone to act in their own interests and convince them they don't need to depend on each other.
There's no "right" or "wrong", but arguably most people prefer democracy to authoritarianism. And lately those are the 2 options realistically on the menu, because rich people are buying increasing amounts of political power. So we can do nothing and watch that play out, or find ways to counteract forces that work against labor. In Wisconsin, we saw $98 billion of data center projects delayed or blocked between March and June 2025, and we achieved a 1-year moratorium on all data centers through the end of this year. Good stuff is still possible when we work together.
I think it’s an important conversation to have. While I value democracy in principle, I’m also interested in looking honestly at its practical effects and how democracy has caused unintended side effects. In many cases, constant party conflict and political point-scoring has slowed progress and lead to wasted effort, especially when long-term projects get cancelled or restarted with each change of government. Which happens continously. There is always a trade off, you just can't always see the immediate effects. It can sometimes feel like more energy goes into internal disagreement than into competing and collaborating effectively on the global stage, and when you don't have a vision to fight for, other than to just exist, it's easy for someone else to swoop in and slowly implement theirs.
We’ve worked hard to protect democratic participation and representation, but if decision-making becomes too fragmented to deliver results, that creates its own risks. Having a voice matters — but outcomes matter too.
I think it's important to speak in terms of the concrete details we're dealing with whatever political system we're talking about, because theory has unlimited solutions while specific situations have fewer. Philosophizing about political systems doesn't lead anywhere good except navel-gazing paralysis.
The party in-fighting amongst Democrats, for example, is specifically about a power struggle between capital owners and the working class. Rich donors pay "establishment Democrats" to vote in their interests, while Democrats who did grassroots fundraising have the "freedom" to vote in the interests of their constituents. There's a very good reason for this in-fighting: without it, we'd be on a faster track toward authoritarianism. The ability of democracy to slow down destructive ideas is the price we pay for getting to have our interests represented. Imagine if Trump really could just do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. He's fighting the system every step of the way because it's designed to be slow, which is frustrating when it's working in our interests, but a blessing when it's not.
Another thing to take away from that specific example is that the problems we associate with democracy can sometimes be attributed to class warfare, and you can't really get rid of that with any system, but democracy at least gives the most vulnerable an opportunity to rectify their situation.
There is time for imagining idealistic overhauls of political systems, but that time is not when that system is actively being dismantled by a vocal but powerful minority.
But tbf Trump does actually feed well into my point. The UK and EU have been a democracy and have relied on trust with other governments over the past few decades. It shows you just how vulnerable and fragile that trust is. We have been so concerned with focusing on our areas, fixing our own fragments that we have real threats against us now.
Like I said just because the cause and effect isn't immediately obvious doesn't mean it isn't there.
I didn't mean to imply that you're thinking about the US when you're writing. This is just a situation I'm familiar with. From what I've learned about UK politics, though, there are a lot of similarities, and in some ways the UK is "copying" the mistakes we're making over here with far-right radicalization, anti-immigrant sentiment, ineffectual left-wing decorum politics, etc.
But know that I understand they are completely different systems with their own problems, and you probably know more than I do about what those are. I just follow some stuff here and there about Zack Polanski and the Green Party, Farage, Starmer, etc., and much of it comes from sources like Novara and Gary Stevenson
What to do about it? I don't think you can get rid of a bad system, as you correctly pointed out. However, you can still thrive within the system while staying within your own ethical boundaries. Knowing the system's constraints and end goal helps you with that. And the best things you can do for others who are stuck in the system is keep spreading awareness on how the system works and show them how to thrive despite its constraints.
The thing is, not everyone would benefit from the current system being destroyed. Not everyone would want to be "saved". Cypher from The Matrix is an excellent metaphor for that. The system can only be changed if there's a critical mass of people who choose not to be constrained by the existing status quo and choose to do what they believe is right rather than what everyone else is doing.
Dan Koe has some great content on that. He pretty much dedicated his entire blog to it. I also really like "The Sovereign Individual" book that talks about this subject.
I think your points echo very similar sentiments. There is rarely no right or wrong way to do things, everything is contextual. All you can do is live by your values and hope whatever you do influences the world in a way that is true to them.
It totally makes sense that you're feeling overwhelmed about all this and I totally get it because I was once -- and in some ways am still -- in your shoes.
That said, fortunately, the solution is the same as it's been throughout history: collective action. It's not easy, it's not fast, but it's the only way real change has ever been implemented. The 40-hour work week, the end of child labor, all of this was the end result of regular people coming together to share ideas and voice opposition to the status quo. Shifting the Overton window of what's socially acceptable and creating new consensus about what's possible are how we have improved society over time.
I recommend reading about neoliberalism to make more sense of how the system works and how we got here. You may already know that this is the name for the various economic policies we see today that harm workers (e.g., privatization, cutting public services, etc.), but the book does a great job of giving context our school curriculums didn't give us. A great quick read is Invisible Doctrine. We read it in Anna Bocca's book club! (she's on YouTube if you wanna check her out)
But the answer is definitely not hopelessness or cynicism because the system preys on both of those even if it attempts to quash rebellion. I've recently started finding ways to contribute to my local community, and it's honestly very rewarding and I'm discovering more ways to help out every day. It's a rabbit hole I recommend going down in your local community ^_^
But then you get into all sorts of philosophy of does that ever really change or improve things? Or do we end up in a new mess? Do we just push the problem down stream? The 40 hour work week may have helped us find balance, but what was the cost of that? There is always a cost. There is always a tradeoff. There is rarely ever a right or a wrong.
I mean, the tradeoff of democracy is maintaining that democracy. It's a maintenance problem, and maintenance in this case requires that everyone remain educated on how to collectively organize, how to articulate ideas, how to exercise our rights and perform our civic duty as members of a nation. How to speak to one other, how to respect differences while communicating alternative ideas, how to distinguish fact from fiction.
As we can see with how neoliberalism has convinced everyone to act as "consumers" instead of "citizens" -- prioritizing individual solutions over collective ones and reducing all social interactions to "economic exchange" -- it's easy to weaken democracy. All you have to do is tell everyone to act in their own interests and convince them they don't need to depend on each other.
There's no "right" or "wrong", but arguably most people prefer democracy to authoritarianism. And lately those are the 2 options realistically on the menu, because rich people are buying increasing amounts of political power. So we can do nothing and watch that play out, or find ways to counteract forces that work against labor. In Wisconsin, we saw $98 billion of data center projects delayed or blocked between March and June 2025, and we achieved a 1-year moratorium on all data centers through the end of this year. Good stuff is still possible when we work together.
I think it’s an important conversation to have. While I value democracy in principle, I’m also interested in looking honestly at its practical effects and how democracy has caused unintended side effects. In many cases, constant party conflict and political point-scoring has slowed progress and lead to wasted effort, especially when long-term projects get cancelled or restarted with each change of government. Which happens continously. There is always a trade off, you just can't always see the immediate effects. It can sometimes feel like more energy goes into internal disagreement than into competing and collaborating effectively on the global stage, and when you don't have a vision to fight for, other than to just exist, it's easy for someone else to swoop in and slowly implement theirs.
We’ve worked hard to protect democratic participation and representation, but if decision-making becomes too fragmented to deliver results, that creates its own risks. Having a voice matters — but outcomes matter too.
I think it's important to speak in terms of the concrete details we're dealing with whatever political system we're talking about, because theory has unlimited solutions while specific situations have fewer. Philosophizing about political systems doesn't lead anywhere good except navel-gazing paralysis.
The party in-fighting amongst Democrats, for example, is specifically about a power struggle between capital owners and the working class. Rich donors pay "establishment Democrats" to vote in their interests, while Democrats who did grassroots fundraising have the "freedom" to vote in the interests of their constituents. There's a very good reason for this in-fighting: without it, we'd be on a faster track toward authoritarianism. The ability of democracy to slow down destructive ideas is the price we pay for getting to have our interests represented. Imagine if Trump really could just do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. He's fighting the system every step of the way because it's designed to be slow, which is frustrating when it's working in our interests, but a blessing when it's not.
Another thing to take away from that specific example is that the problems we associate with democracy can sometimes be attributed to class warfare, and you can't really get rid of that with any system, but democracy at least gives the most vulnerable an opportunity to rectify their situation.
There is time for imagining idealistic overhauls of political systems, but that time is not when that system is actively being dismantled by a vocal but powerful minority.
But tbf Trump does actually feed well into my point. The UK and EU have been a democracy and have relied on trust with other governments over the past few decades. It shows you just how vulnerable and fragile that trust is. We have been so concerned with focusing on our areas, fixing our own fragments that we have real threats against us now.
Like I said just because the cause and effect isn't immediately obvious doesn't mean it isn't there.
I'm not even referring to Trump here, in referring to the UK which has a very different problem to the US right now.
I didn't mean to imply that you're thinking about the US when you're writing. This is just a situation I'm familiar with. From what I've learned about UK politics, though, there are a lot of similarities, and in some ways the UK is "copying" the mistakes we're making over here with far-right radicalization, anti-immigrant sentiment, ineffectual left-wing decorum politics, etc.
But know that I understand they are completely different systems with their own problems, and you probably know more than I do about what those are. I just follow some stuff here and there about Zack Polanski and the Green Party, Farage, Starmer, etc., and much of it comes from sources like Novara and Gary Stevenson
Great insight!
What to do about it? I don't think you can get rid of a bad system, as you correctly pointed out. However, you can still thrive within the system while staying within your own ethical boundaries. Knowing the system's constraints and end goal helps you with that. And the best things you can do for others who are stuck in the system is keep spreading awareness on how the system works and show them how to thrive despite its constraints.
The thing is, not everyone would benefit from the current system being destroyed. Not everyone would want to be "saved". Cypher from The Matrix is an excellent metaphor for that. The system can only be changed if there's a critical mass of people who choose not to be constrained by the existing status quo and choose to do what they believe is right rather than what everyone else is doing.
Dan Koe has some great content on that. He pretty much dedicated his entire blog to it. I also really like "The Sovereign Individual" book that talks about this subject.
I think your points echo very similar sentiments. There is rarely no right or wrong way to do things, everything is contextual. All you can do is live by your values and hope whatever you do influences the world in a way that is true to them.