feddit.org

9 points

2 months ago

Those are called checks and balances, and are there to make sure power is distributed. It’s good that you need buy in from lots of different people.

Not quite. They are designed so that any genuine threat to Capitalist profits can be stalled out.

You don’t want to make a system where a few people can go drastically against the will of most people.

That’s what America already is and has been since its inception.

So you’d first need to build wide support across the majority of the country or state. That’s the whole point of democracy.

America is not a functional democracy, and needs to be overthrown and replaced with a functional democracy. The State needs to be entirely smashed and a new one built on top of the ashes.

report

JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

-4 points

2 months ago

One of the features of a functioning democracy would be ranked choice voting, or something like it, right? So I’d hope we could agree that that would be a good place to start.

As for other factors, what other sort of inherent structural issues to the system do you see, other than that the people currently in those balancing positions don’t agree with you?

report

[ - ]

7 points

2 months ago

One of the features of a functioning democracy would be ranked choice voting, or something like it, right? So I’d hope we could agree that that would be a good place to start.

We have very little chance of getting that just by trying to vibe it into existence, and even if we got it it wouldn’t suddenly mean that parties would cease accountability to the ultra-wealthy donors.

As for other factors, what other sort of inherent structural issues to the system do you see, other than that the people currently in those balancing positions don’t agree with you?

Outside of the fact that Capitalism will always mean the interests of Capital, not people, are going to be represented, there exists no real direct line from the workplace to the region to parliament, the will of the masses is not upheld because the masses do not have democratic participation that matters outside of local elections. The entire system needs to be restructured.

report

JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

-4 points

2 months ago

interests of Capital, not people, are going to be represented

Though campaign donations for advertising? Or bribery?

no real direct line from the workplace to the region to parliament

Why do you think voting in national elections doesn’t matter?

report

[ - ]

7 points

2 months ago

Though campaign donations for advertising? Or bribery?

Both, and more. The US State is designed against change, and the only parties of any federal relevance are the DNC and GOP, who are aligned in service to their donors, and maintain close business ties to the defense industry and banks.

Why do you think voting in national elections doesn’t matter?

Because the US is designed in a manner where you choose which of two far-right parties to support. The DNC always positions themselves as not quite as right wing as the GOP, so no matter how far right the GOP swerves, the DNC trails just behind.

Combined with major issues such as the electoral college, most votes don’t even have an influence on which of the two far-right parties wins, only those in swing states. The only election that matters for the vast majority are local elections.

Electoralism has been a dead strategy for Leftists for centuries, it’s an answered question and the answer is no, Revolution is necessary to enact change.

report

JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

-4 points

2 months ago

Advertising can be controlled, and the US is more the exception rather than the rule.

the only parties

Because of first past the post. Ranked choice would help greatly.

two far-right parties

Ranked choice would help. But do you think a large majority of voters are significantly further left than the DNC? Really?

I think the average opinion is between the two parties. So a socialist revolution would be against a democratic consensus. That means you wouldn’t be able to set up a democracy post revolution, because it would be unpopular.

Plus getting rid of the checks and balances is really dangerous in letting people like Stallin, Mau, or Kim Il weasel their way into power and consolidate it to stay there.

report

[ - ]

5 points

2 months ago

Advertising can be controlled, and the US is more the exception rather than the rule.

Not in a Capitalist dictatorship. You can’t vibe beneficial policies into place.

Because of first past the post. Ranked choice would help greatly.

You cannot vibe policies into place.

I think the average opinion is between the two parties. So a socialist revolution would be against a democratic consensus. That means you wouldn’t be able to set up a democracy post revolution, because it would be unpopular.

There can be no revolution without the support of the masses, are you talking about a coup? Who suggested that?

Plus getting rid of the checks and balances is really dangerous in letting people like Stallin, Mau, or Kim Il weasel their way into power and consolidate it to stay there.

Nobody argued against checks and balances, but against a Capitalist state designed to not fulfill the will of the masses.

report