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.
You don’t want to make a system where a few people can go drastically against the will of most people. So you’d first need to build wide support across the majority of the country or state. That’s the whole point of democracy.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You don’t want to make a system where a few people can go drastically against the will of most people. So you’d first need to build wide support across the majority of the country or state. That’s the whole point of democracy.
Not quite. They are designed so that any genuine threat to Capitalist profits can be stalled out.
That’s what America already is and has been since its inception.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Though campaign donations for advertising? Or bribery?
Why do you think voting in national elections doesn’t matter?
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.
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.
Advertising can be controlled, and the US is more the exception rather than the rule.
Because of first past the post. Ranked choice would help greatly.
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.
Not in a Capitalist dictatorship. You can’t vibe beneficial policies into place.
You cannot vibe policies into place.
There can be no revolution without the support of the masses, are you talking about a coup? Who suggested that?
Nobody argued against checks and balances, but against a Capitalist state designed to not fulfill the will of the masses.
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.
Do you think a socialist system is the will of the masses?
A revolution inherently gets rid of the checks and balances. The problem is the time period before new ones are set up.