this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
167 points (96.1% liked)

Asklemmy

54307 readers
414 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz -3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (3 children)

The difference in what we're saying is semantic.

They fundamentally want the US to continue

If this means a government "of the people, for the people, by the people" that maintains a monopoly on violence to ensure no one is above the law/Constitution, then I disagree.

If this means a puppet state that the "elite" holds oligarchal control over, but maintain whatever facade of democracy they need to, then I agree. But I would not call that the US govt. You could say that because they call it the "US Govt" it's still the US govt, and you could say that because they call it the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, it's a democratic republic. But I would disagree on both points.

Yeah obviously they're not going to personally crown themselves as supreme ruler on a towering citadel constructed where the whitehouse once stood like a caricature of a villain. But if the structure of "government" that we end up with is completely powerless against them, then it's objectively not the US anymore; it's just the "elite", the govt is whatever they say, they are the govt, wealth only flows wherever they say it's allowed to in order to maintain power.

And that's always their goal, to become the govt, that's what I mean.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

If this means a government “of the people, for the people, by the people” that maintains a monopoly on violence to ensure no one is above the law/Constitution, then I disagree.

Given that the US was never that, obviously that isn't what it means.

If this means a puppet state that the “elite” holds oligarchal control over, but maintain whatever facade of democracy they need to, then I agree. But I would not call that the US govt.

Incredible. No notes.

But if the structure of “government” that we end up with is completely powerless against them, then it’s objectively not the US anymore

Fucking incredible

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It's always been an oligarchy. At no point were the masses in charge of the US. It was founded by rich, landed gentry from Europe leading the common man to battle under the banner of liberal values, but they formed the entire government to be by of and for the land owners. They even gave MORE power to land owners who also owned people. That's how committed they were to oligarchy from the beginning. It's always been a structure by which the elite manage their affairs including how best to prevent a revolt by the masses.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz -3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Tell me not to go vote in midterms, then.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don't waste time telling people how to vote. Electoralism is a total waste of time. I vote how I vote, keep it to myself, and spend the rest of my time not thinking about electoralism. None of these politicians deserve my free labor when 100+ Democrats just voted to expand ICE and DHS power to obtain consumer data from retail companies to use in their operation. I put my labor into deconstructing white-supremacist patriarchal capitalism in the hearts and minds of my people in my neighborhood and online, and when I do put in physical effort equivalent to door knocking, it's doing food distribution for the people around me who need food.

Go ahead. Vote in the midterms. The Ds in the house just proved to you that they're onboard with the whole fascist panopticon policing program. They've always been collaborators with the Rs. But vote. It's literally the least you can do. Don't let anyone stop you. And then, forget about elections immediately after and do something about the fact that your neighbors, their kids, and their teachers are all replicating the white supremacy myths of this country into every single generation and glossing over it all with a simple "vote for the good guys and bad things are because of the bad guys" narrative.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I put my labor into deconstructing white-supremacist patriarchal capitalism in the hearts and minds of my people in my neighborhood and online, and when I do put in physical effort equivalent to door knocking, it's doing food distribution for the people around me who need food.

That's great!

But vote. It's literally the least you can do.

And yet you agree that if everyone does all of the first part, but none of the voting, things get worse, right?

with a simple "vote for the good guys and bad things are because of the bad guys" narrative.

I'm sorry your teachers taught you that, I agree our public education system is in shambles. I was raised to believe democracy is the worst option, except for all the others. And that even if my options are between "Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche", informed voting is critical to a democracy.

And that's my point, you can't both think we don't live in a democracy AND think that voting is important. You can be cynical about the electoral process, or the direction of the country, but that's just called living in a democracy. This isn't even the first time the world has tipped toward fascism, and as dire as it looks, I maintain that until a system breaks apart completely, the only way we make a "more perfect union" on the other side is by voting.

All that other stuff is vital too, particularly when it comes to crossing the critical "when everyone knows what everyone knows" threshold. That's the "informed" part of the equation.

And how 'bout that Mamdani? Balanced budget! And he's not the only Democratic Socialist gaining steam. Maybe I'm naive, but it feels like people are finally figuring out which candidates they need to push for if they want to survive late stage capitalism.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe I'm naive

I do think you're naive, but maybe I'm just cynical. I think the whole concept of "we live in a democracy" is not a materialist concrete sentence but a virtue signalling idealism. The Soviet system was democratic. The Chinese system is democratic. The US system is democratic. All of these statements are true given what you're willing to define as democracy. The USA has voting for representatives, but the research shows that only the wealthy have influence over what laws get passed. That's been true since the founding of the country and it was by design. The expansion of the franchise in the US was always coupled with a pulling back on the effect of the vote. There's a saying that "In the US you can change the party but you can't change the policies, and in China you can change the policies but you can't change the party".

yet you agree that if everyone does all of the first part, but none of the voting, things get worse, right?

I don't agree that voting prevents things from getting worse. I think the evidence is clear on that. Remember that people not voting is not the cause of the problems, it's the other way around. People don't vote for Democrats because Democrats have terrible policies and terrible behaviors. It's not that Democrats have terrible policies because people don't vote. The two party system is just a PR show by the ultra wealthy and that's why people don't vote at all. It's not the case that the two party system is just a PR show by the ultra wealthy because people don't vote.

with a simple "vote for the good guys and bad things are because of the bad guys" narrative.

I'm sorry your teachers taught you that, I agree our public education system is in shambles.

You are literally saying that if we vote for the right people in an informed way that things will not get bad. This is your position, don't distance yourself from it.

I was raised to believe democracy is the worst option, except for all the others.

I'm glad that you recognize this as social indoctrination instead of a conclusion you came to through rigorous analysis of history and political science. Now your task is to actually work through your social indoctrination to come to your conclusions based on reality instead of instilled beliefs.

The reality is that Western democracy has been both a great experiment in sufferage and also a failed experiment - one that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people all over the world. When the settler states are finally dismantled we can finally begin the next series of democracy experiments in earnest. We can get back to exploring the functioning of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and how that form of democracy can be a better form of government than this blood thirsty genocidal rapacious form of democracy that exists primarily to legitimize what the European elite have been doing for at least a millennium. FFS we're a democracy but we're still executing King Richard's Crusades against literally the same people he was fighting. If this is the best system you can think of, that's a failure of imagination, and honestly a failure of research at this point. There are way better systems than the settler democracy.

And that even if my options are between "Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche", informed voting is critical to a democracy.

Let's just take this. You do see how this entire framing is a complete failure of imagination and is completely coerced into you by external forces right? If I took a bunch of young non-white kids who grew up outside of the Eurocentric empire and said "Hey kids, we're going to manage this neighborhood together. We're going to govern ourselves to create the best outcomes for ourselves" do you really think they would think that this means voting for a representative from among a choice of two representatives, with both representatives being controlled entirely by people who don't share their interests? This is what you think democracy means? It's ridiculous. Yes, we are required to call this democracy because people can vote and we pretend they can run for office. But the reality is that the rich always get what they want, the bombs always drop, the corporations tell the military what to destroy (seriously, look it up), the prisons get bigger and more brutal.

I mean for fucks sake as a democracy we have fucking prison guards protesting that the legislature in NYS decided to restrict the use of solitary confinement, which is a form of torture recognized internationally. That's a democracy? Yes we love unions too, but that doesn't mean we need to defend the police union as a real union. This is the best you can imagine for democracy?

Meanwhile in the USSR and then again in China the single party system eliminated any possibility of the rich having direct control over the government and what happened? Massive and blindingly fast poverty alleviation. Massive and blindingly fast industrialization. The end of centuries-long famine cycles. The defeat of the Nazis. Incredible benefits of humanity in medicine, science, technology, food, energy, logistics, etc. These societies are democracies too, because they are literally organized around the masses interests and preventing the ultra minority of elite from controlling everything for their own benefit at the expense of the masses. They just don't look Western democracies, so we "are raised to believe" that these are not democracies and they are worse than our glorious homeland "despite our faults" when our faults are literally open execution of genocides and mass murders and war crimes all over the world.

No. The US has not gotten better from voting. It is fundamentally a flawed system, designed by ultra wealthy minoritarians, slave rapists, genocidaires, and ecociders, and they designed it to protect and empower people like them and to disempower the masses. They wrote about it explicitly, they designed the Constitution that way. The system's fundamental flaws remain 250 years later, first and foremost being that the entire country exists as a genocidal settler state that can never ever be brought to justice.

The big lie is that the whole thing can be reformed by all the various mechanisms in the constitution. The reality is that the levers of power are in the hands of the elite by design and the only power the masses have is the power to overthrow them through mass organizing. And when that finally happens, the Constitution will be fundamentally rewritten, not because we voted for the right set of presidents or senators but because we deposed all of those leaders and took control, cratos, back into the hands of the people, the demos, and actually reasserted a democracy over what we currently have, an mass murdering white supremacist oligarchy where we get to vote on the branding.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago

I don't agree that voting prevents things from getting worse....You are literally saying that if we vote for the right people in an informed way that things will not get bad.

But you recognize that's not what I said, right? I said if you don't vote, things will get worse. P->Q doesn't imply ~P->~Q. Classic fallacy of the inverse.

People don't vote for Democrats because Democrats have terrible policies and terrible behaviors. It's not that Democrats have terrible policies because people don't vote. The two party system is just a PR show by the ultra wealthy and that's why people don't vote at all. It's not the case that the two party system is just a PR show by the ultra wealthy because people don't vote.

But it's clearly both. It's a vicious cycle. The data shows that the boomer generation still votes more than any other generation, and as a result, they always get their way. 4 boomer presidents in a row, topped off with Biden from the Silent generation! Yes, the boomers currently hold more wealth than the rest, and yes there is a correlation between being wealthy and being able to cast a vote that matters, but if non-boomers showed up at the same rates as boomers 10-20 years ago, we would be in a much better situation right now. So far, the ones who vote are having their wealth protected.

Now your task is to actually work through your social indoctrination to come to your conclusions based on reality instead of instilled beliefs.

Hey man, don't sink to that level, please. I'm trying to have a respectful, constructive conversation. Whether intentionally or not, you've repeatedly misinterpreted my position.

For ex.

This is the best you can imagine for democracy?

I never said that, you're arguing against a straw man.

Consider the extent to which you're upset with reality. The US is not uniquely flawed. Find me a time in human history where none of the crimes against humanity you mention were being committed. But chart crimes over time and I assure you we're trending better as a species.

And I know you're capable of seeing that, because in spite of the crimes against humanity committed by the USSR and China, you're able to see all the good they did too.

They wrote about it explicitly

I'm very interested in any sources you have for this. I would love to have those in my back pocket for future discussions.

not because we voted for the right set of presidents or senators but because we deposed all of those leaders and took control, cratos, back into the hands of the people, the demos

But you see why that argument can always be made to justify throwing out an imperfect system, right? It's easy to start from scratch, but it's also the most costly (in terms of lives). It's much harder to work diligently to make positive, gradual change over time, but historically, we're doing that. Sure, we can go the overthrow-the-government route, but there's no guarantee that what replaces it will adequately serve the people. So we'll overthrow that one too? How many times should that loop happen? As many as it takes? As many lives as it takes?

And what if, when you try to take a stand against the state, the government quashes the attempt using violence, and then punishes anyone who ever so much as mentions the incident going forward? I assume you have examples of that happening in the US. Are you aware of any famous cases of that in China? I wouldn't presume that this is "the best you can imagine for a democracy", though.

Again, I'm not here to say the US is any better ethically than China. I'm not going to take the bait on whether china is a democracy, or whether they even claim to be one. But we have to be fair: they're both guilty of a huge number of crimes against humanity, they've both gradually improved the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, and both of them are underserving their minorities and younger generations right now in favor of late stage capitalism. But I would feel more confident about being able to affect meaningful change both in policy and party in the US than in China today. Though I ernestly hope that one day the Chinese are able to affect similar change there too.

[–] TiredTiger@lemmy.ml 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The US has always been a project of the elite; US democracy was only ever a facade.