Three wolves and six goats are discussing what to have for dinner. One courageous goat makes an impassioned case: “We should put it to a vote!” The other goats fear for his life, but surprisingly, the wolves acquiesce. But when everyone is preparing to vote, the wolves take three of the goats aside. “Vote with us to make the other three goats dinner,” they threaten. “Otherwise, vote or no vote, we’ll eat you.” The other three goats are shocked by the outcome of the election: a majority, including their comrades, has voted for them to be killed and eaten. They protest in outrage and terror, but the goat who first suggested the vote rebukes them: “Just be thankful this is a democracy! At least we got to have a say!”
-Crimethinc
How about rejecting the vote outright and not accepting the premise?
Why not use the little power you’re given? I’d rather live in a country with a center-left president than in one with a Hitler wannabe.
Because liberal democracy enables fascism. Capitalism condes nationalism as legitimization. When the people emiserate, they look for a reason outside of the nation as culprits instead of focusing on class.
You’re not enacting power, you accept that the only input you have on a system can be conveyed with a simple X.
You can do multiple things, you know. Voting doesn’t bar you from burning down a missile factory or something.
It conveys the message that you actually had a say in politics.
Neither does drilling a hole into your knee and pouring warm milk through it.
Vote if you want. But don’t act as if it actually solves anything.
It does, you’ll have a hard time walking.
Do you genuinely think all politicians are the same and that it doesn’t matter if you vote?
Way to go taking a joke literally.
No. But their degrees of freedom are limited by the way the system is set up.
Yes. Btw: remember rule 6 and 7.
Oh, I see. I know what anarchism is. As for the 7th rule, alright then.
Liberal democracy doesn’t enable fascism. It’s when liberal principals are abandoned that fascism rises. America hasn’t had a liberal party since FDR. The Democrats (and, to a large extent, Republicans) use the vocabulary of liberalism, but it’s just a facade.
Even now though, it’s the lingering scraps of liberal democracy that keep tripping up the fascists.
POSIVID
Fascists and repression are on the rise in all of europe, including the “socialist” northern countries. Stop looking at the world purely in an American way.
Aside from the specific parties, the story is very similar in Europe. When a country gets apathetic about liberal principles, that’s when fascism rises.
Liberalism is generally positive, but it isn’t sufficient. Liberal principals are a good starting place, not an endgame for Utopia.
Even if I’ll humor you and accept that: That would still be correlation, not causation.
Right from the moment liberalism was conceived, there were already voices that wanted a more egalitarian world. You make it sound like liberalism is a necessary requisite for a more egalitarian world. I disagree. It’s a local minimum which humanity is yet to escape.
As if you have demonstrated evidence of any sort?
Yes, we have established that you disagree. Not that you have provided any evidence whatsoever that a lower minimum can be reached by another path. And yeah, the totalitarian path to a better minimum has been tried multiple times. It didn’t work out so well.
That’s literally what you said, my homie: “Those two things happeded at the same time” means it’s a correlation. Scientifically it’s your burden to proof that it’s actually a causal relation afterwards.
Yes. Better living standards have been reached outside the framework of liberal democracy. In fact: All significant improvements in living standards have been fought for outside the system. Examples are: Any successful, liberatory revolution. (Like the french one, or the German one.
I agree. That’s why I’m not an authoritarian, but an anarchist.