• NeilBru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    What you’ve listed are critiques. I agree with many of them. What I’m asking specifically is if not democracy, then what instead?

    On paper, the United States is a federal republic, that votes for representatives for a bicameral parliamentary system that derives jurisprudence from English Common Law.

    In practice, it’s a plutocratic oligarchy.

    For context, I consider myself to be a market socialist who still wants a representative federal republic for the United States.

    I have my own ideas for re-enfranchisement for the working class:

    • abolish “first-past-the-post”
    • restructure gerrymandered voting districts
    • implement ranked choice voting
    • constitutional amendment for term limits for every elected position
    • allow cross-party voting in primaries
    • abolishing Citizens United (what a cynically ironic name for what it actually allows for)

    These points are only achievable by voting for candidates who advocate for such policies which is admittedly a long shot, given the average citizen’s knowledge of civics, political theory, economics, and statistics but it’s what I believe can work.

    Or would you prefer autocracy? The “dictatorship of the proletariat”? Monarchy? Theocracy? Anarchy? Oligarchy? Syndicalism?

    My ultimate point is that you seem to still want “democracy”, but you want it in practice, not just on paper, despite your claim of the point of democracies is to “keep capitalists in power”.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      These points are only achievable by voting for candidates who advocate for such policies which is admittedly a long shot

      Politics is the art of the possible. The entire job of political leadership is to advocate for policy change.

      • NeilBru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Again, My question to you is if not democracy, then what? Or do you actually want democracy? Please propose your alternative to democracy, given your claim about its purpose in “keeping capitalists in power”.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Or do you actually want democracy?

          I want good policy.

          If my democracy is producing bad candidates and bad policies, what purpose does it serve?

          your alternative to democracy, given your claim about its purpose in “keeping capitalists in power”.

          Capitalism is serviced by the illusion of choice in a functional monopoly. The solution is to break up the monopoly.

          But that’s a Herculean task.

          • J Lou@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            You can’t get good policy without democracy because democracy is part of all good policy. Non-democracy violates inalienable rights, which makes it inherently bad policy

            @politicalmemes

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              You can’t get good policy without democracy

              Put two policies on a coin and flip it. Half the time you’ll get good policy. No democracy required.

              Democracy grants input from a broad base of social perspective. But if that persective is polluted by propaganda and haunted by historical bigotry, you’ll get out what you put in.

              An apartheid democracy is less preferable than revolutionary anarchy, even if you didn’t all get to line up at a voting booth and decide to overthrow the corrupt establishment

              Non-democracy violates inalienable rights

              If you can consistently violate a set of rights, they aren’t inalienable. Pretending social obligations and taboos are written into the stars is what gets us some of the more destructive social impulses (abortion clinic bombings, white power marches, etc).

              • J Lou@mastodon.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                The coin flip is inherently part of policy, and it is bad policy to decide on policies with a coin flip

                Inalienable rights are moral rights that can’t be given up or transferred. It doesn’t mean that the legal system can’t fail to enforce the right such as by legally treating it as alienable like capitalism does in the employment contract. If the legal system doesn’t grant it, that’s a bad legal system.

                Moral concepts have an objective sense that is unknowable.

                @politicalmemes

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  it is bad policy to decide on policies with a coin flip

                  A/B testing is a classic tool for evaluating a range of options for best results