• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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?

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        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.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            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.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              A revolution inherently gets rid of the checks and balances. The problem is the time period before new ones are set up.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                That’s why you set up the org that carries out the revolution in a democratic manner with checks and balances to begin with.

                Please read theory.

                • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  A revolution in a democratic manner? We are taking about a violent armed revolution, right? For that, you need a military power structure, and big charismatic leaders to rally behind. There’s no way a revolution would try to hold fair elections while they are fighting.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Sounds like you need to read theory and history. Marxists have advocated for democratic organizational structures for centuries.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Most democracies around the world have ranked choice or similar voting systems. Similarly, most have strict regulations on what campaign contributions can be used for. Those did come about by ‘vibing’ (as you call it) rather than revolution.