I'm vooooting!
I'm vooooting!
55 comments
-
-
plot twist their last card is a skip
-
oh wait nvm for some reason i thought they would go next im stupid
-
-
If it didn't count, disenfranchisement wouldn't be such a heavily wielded tactic
-
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.
-
-
voooting works, just look at how Europe is (not) supporting Palestine!
-
Until voting doesn't count, this is a fed post.
-
But whose turn is it?
-
Either a fascist or a fascist enabler. There are no other parties.
-
-
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:
- Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy's job for them. Youtube Audiobook
- Halim Alrah - Why liberal democracies are a sham.
- What about social democracy / democratic socialism / the Nordic model? Isn't Sweden socialist?
- On the unraveling of the Nordic welfare states: increasing inequality and forced austerity.
- Scandinavia's covert role in western imperialism
- Why can't you acheive socialism through voting in our current democracies?
- Paul Cockshott - On Socialism and Democracy. 2 3
- Comrade Hakim - Why electoralism always fails.
- Why not just vote leftists into office: what's wrong with democratic socialism?
-
The Nepalese figured out how to make their votes count….using this one weird trick
-
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
-
100%. Its about identifying with "the team", and declaring your allegience to the US system, not about substantive democracy.
-
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
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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
-
-
-
putin to-do list:
- influence american elections by posting memes on a niche social media network, 3 years away from american elections
- more soldier in ukraine
-
The apex of liberal thought here
-
Stupid response, you have no evidence for it and even if that were the case it doesn't make them any less correct
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
If only more people voted for the genocidal nazi we wouldn't be stuck with the genocidal nazi
-
-
-
-
-
"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?
-
-
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.
-
Authoritarian checklist:
- You want to exist outside of US domination and control.
- End of list
-
-
Vooooooooting
55 comments