• Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Ah Capitalism! The system got such a huge political range. At its peak, it transforms into imperialism. And at its decay, it transforms into fascism.

  • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Some more context for anyone wandering over from an anti-communist / pro-capitalist space:


    Socialists view democracy under capitalism to be impossible. Most current-day systems are better labeled as Bourgeois Democracy, or democracy for the rich only, which socialists contrast with proletarian democracy. Under capitalism, political parties, representatives, infrastructure, and the media are controlled by capitalists, who place restrictions on the choices given to workers, limit their representative options to vetted capitalist puppets, and limit the scope of public debate to pro-capitalist views.

    Bourgeois democracies are in reality Capitalist Dictatorships, resulting in legislation favorable to the wealthy, regardless of the population’s actual preferences. The Princeton Study, conducted in the US in 2014, found that the preferences of the average US citizen exert a near-zero influence on legislation, making the US system of elections and campaigning little more than political theater. Multi-party, Parliamentary / representative democracy has proven to be the safest shell for capitalist rule, regardless of voting methods or differing political structures, for countries as diverse as Australia, Japan, Sweden, the UK, the US, South Korea, or Brazil.

    Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle more accurately defined Democracy as rule by the poor, and they considered states based on elections to be anti-democratic Aristocracies, since only the wealthy and ruling families have the resources to finance elections. They contrasted this with random selection / sortition, and citizen’s assemblies, as being the defining features of democracy, both of which are non-existent in the countries listed above. Today, liberal / parliamentary “democracies” are dominated by wealthy candidates, and entrenched political families, with Capitalists standing above political power.

    This system of sham elections acts as a distracting theatre piece, giving the illusion of democracy, whilst in reality it serves to platform capitalist views, make them appear more popular than they are, and manufacture consent for the system itself.

    Some more resources:

  • Formfiller@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    The Nepalese figured out how to make their votes count….using this one weird trick

  • limer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I’ve think voting in the USA is a faith driven social event, mixed with a mentality of watching sports.

    It’s like a purification ritual , and is a descendant of the big tent Christian rivivals seen in the 1800s.

    “Have you been saved” and “have you voted” are inflected the same ways in speech patterns.

    Edit typo

    • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      100%. Its about identifying with “the team”, and declaring your allegience to the US system, not about substantive democracy.

      • limer@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        In states that do not use counting methods approved by the United Nations, voting provides legitimacy to ongoing multi-decade scams.

        If the vote counting is illegitimate, should one vote for the better candidate anyway? This is an intensely debated thing over history in many countries.

        Solving that, then voting is like you describe.

        There are many layers to just how wrong voting is in the USA. And many of these scams, and the toleration of them, definitely affects reforms in unrelated areas other than the direct elections

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      fwiw: it’s adherence is like a faith driven event in that a very large percentage don’t even engage but pretend that they do.

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 hours ago

    If it didn’t count, disenfranchisement would be such a heavily wielded tactic

    • causepix@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      So you recognize that our voting system features heavy disenfranchisement, but you use that as a reason for why it works?

      The lesson here isn’t that voting alone is all that significant; it’s that the bourgeois will claw away even the most insignificant crumb they can get, and that’s precisely why democracy does not work under capitalism. The difference in that distinction is that; rather than fighting many small one-step-behind fights in the name of voting, in hopes we get to vote for some of the change that our people need 10 years down the road; we organize and build our capacity to directly fight the big fight for our people.

      This is one of the many contradictions of capitalism; democracy is how the system maintains its legitimacy, but democracy itself is a threat to capital interests. Too much and too little democracy are both against ruling class interests. Too much, and the working class can influence politics in a way that threatens the ruling class and their power. Too little, and the system loses legitimacy, opening itself to the possibility of revolt.

      The ruling class maintains the balance by minimizing the possibility of a coordinated working-class resistance; guaranteeing only the minimum amount of democracy, only for as long as they recognize the working class’s ability to organize and overthrow them. Making a show of what little faux democracy we have is a tactic to that end; the carrot hanging from the stick. It sows division, keeps us occupied, keeps our attention in one predictable place, and attempts to convince us of the system’s legitimacy; all of these being obstacles in organizing an effective resistance against the guy holding the stick.

  • Womdat10@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    While I agree with you, there is no harm in voting, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.

      Read my comment below, because it gets into this. It can’t make things better, because it historically has never done so, only protests with the threat of violence from below (and completely outside of bourgeios democracy) have.

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        because it historically has never done so

        This is an extreme position. Yes, the cards are stacked, and yes, the thieves will fight tooth and nail to preserve their privileges, but there have definitely been examples of a certain election result making things better. My country got independence[1], and the British people got public healthcare, because they voted Labour in 1945. We kicked out a strongwoman in 1977, and reined in a strongman last year. These are just examples from my country.

        [1] I’m aware that there were other causes as well, but Churchill would probably have tried to hold on even after the British position became logistically and economically unviable.

      • Womdat10@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        Except that it has historicaly made things better, sure, not in massive scale votes, but in smaller votes? In local elections? I fully agree that protests are necessary, and they are alot of what causes positive change, but that doesn’t render voting completely useless. In the current systems that exist, capitalism does turn large votes into what is essentially a dick measuring contest. But in smaller scale, local votes there is less money being put into the system, so voting becomes more impactful.

        • Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          I’ll ait until your uneducated ass finds out how we got 5-day work weeks, 8-hour workdays, sick leaves, and workplace safety laws.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 day ago

          Even locally, it would take some incredible magic for the capitalists who rule a given city or town’s politics, to enact or enforce laws than go against their interests / profits, especially without a fight. Scale isn’t relevant here, since local elites use the city/town police as goons to protect their property.

          Unless you can give some examples, I don’t believe it, and I certainly can’t think of any time in my city’s history where they’ve willingly allowed something against their interests.

          • Womdat10@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 day ago

            My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists. In smaller scale elections, people can actually have a real choice to vote for a socialist, or communist, or other similar left wing leader.

            Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting. As far as I know, those aren’t typically financially very good for the rich who control the government. If I am incorrect about this, please correct me.

            Also, I apologize, I am really not in the mood to do a bunch of research to find examples currently, if I remember about this in the future I will, but that is, unfortunately, far from a guarantee.

            • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting.

              Minimum wage, the 5-day work week, and other workers gains took decades of violent struggle and organizing by socialists, communists, and anarchists in nearly every country.

              My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists.

              That’s not how it works in any capitalist country. Political power is subservient to economic power, and is toothless without it.

    • limer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Like many things in life, it gets complicated based on where you are at, what you believe, and personality.

      If it’s important to you, then vote.

      If you feel like your vote counts, vote.

      If it is a small town election and the ballots are counted by people in the town, then vote.

      For everything else, it’s shades of gray

    • Oppopity@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      People should vote to gauge strength, show solidarity with their movement and demonstrate how to those unaware that the system isn’t working and therefore requires replacing it with one that will.

    • Amnesigenic@lemmy.mlBanned
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      “authoritarian” is a thought-terminating buzzword employed by spineless liberals too terrified of the idea of wielding power for good to actually do anything to help

      • Hi, anarchist here. What word should we use to differentiate y’all from us? Liberals use tankie to mean anyone further left than biden (and it obv has a strong negative connotation), and y’all define authoritarian and state in a way that makes those labels unhelpful. Without having to know someone’s specific ideology, what word should be used if not authoritarian?

        • Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          "Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?

          Therefore, we must conclude one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are only sowing confusion; or they do know, in which case they are betraying the proletarian movement. In either case, they serve reaction." - Frederick Engels.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The entire “authoritarian” vs “anti-authoritarian” distinction doesn’t correspond to reality, and isn’t real. There is no history of any human society, that doesn’t make rules, norms, and customs for their group, and enforce them.

          “Authoritarianism”, just like “Totalitarianism”, are only used to demonize workers and working-class movements who dared to construct systems existing outside of capitalist authority. Even the historical anarchist experiments found that they needed to enforce rules if they didn’t want to deconstruct within days, and were also labelled as “authoritarian” by opponents to their left and right.

              • I’m trying to find a word that I can use in contexts like, e.g., “As an anarchist, I don’t agree with ____s.” I can’t do that with socialists and communists because I do jive with libertarian socialists and anarcho-communists. I suppose the only safe option is to just be specific and say Marxists/Maoists/etc, but I was hoping there’d be a word to describe the “archist” component of these ideologies that I don’t vibe with without having to get so specific.

                Can we just steal “archists” back? Lol (From Marsden, I mean)

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  To be fair, in common lingo, communist is pretty much 1 to 1 associated with Marxism. Socialism is more broad, and anarcho-communism is nearly always prefixed with anarcho-, due to communism being historically affixed to Marxist movements. I think if you use “archist,” most won’t understand what you mean.

                  In my eyes, the 2 most relevant umbrellas of leftist thought are Marxism and anarchism. “Libertarian socialism” is a bit of an odd one, it’s closer to a non-commital anarchist than an actual coherent ideology with its own history and theory. Syndicalism is kind of its own thing, and mostly relegated to a specific historical period. Other, local ideologies like Zapatismo, or ideologies like Nkruhmahism-Touréism that are their own thing, don’t quite fit in either.

                  So, I think the easiest answer is just “Marxist.” Maoists consider themselves Marxists, Marxist-Leninists are Marxists, I think it makes the most sense that way. Crucially, what makes Marxism and anarchism the two real umbrellas is that Marxism essentially posits full collectivization of production and distribution in classless society, while anarchism posits full horizontalism and decentralized networks devoid of hierarchy within cells. These are pretty much opposite approaches, Marxism seeking liberation of the individual through liberating the collective, and anarchism seeling liberation of the collective through liberating the individual.

                  Hope that helps make the case for just using “Marxist.” Easiest way to not be confrontational.

          • Idk I feel like that’s not the kind of distinction I’m looking for, because I like anarcho-communism


            Edit:

            Re: @m532@lemmygrad.ml

            If anarcho-communism isn’t communism, why is “communism” in its name?

            What? I didn’t say it’s not communism, I’m saying that calling y’all communists isn’t necessarily a distinction from anarchists, bc there’s an anarchist version of communism.

            • m532@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              14 hours ago

              (reply to edit) Just call us communists pls. We are the original ones, we are more, we have whole states, its our word.

    • davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Those states owning the means of production is exactly why bourgeois states call them authoritarian. The bourgeoisie are supposed to own the MoP, not the state.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Authoritarian checklist:

        • You want to exist outside of US domination and control.
        • End of list
  • washbasin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    23 hours ago

    If only some of the 1/3 who didn’t vote in the US gave a shit… This is a garbage take. Vote like your life depends on it.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      13 hours ago

      There’s a huge non-voter population because few people actually live in swing states, and neither party represents the people. It’s far more effective to organize directly.