this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
292 points (81.1% liked)
Asklemmy
44152 readers
1909 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If she loses there won't be a next election
Sure there will be. Elections, especially the carefully controlled elections in the usa, are a great method of social control. If people are allowed to vote for someone it maintains the veneer of democracy, and reduces civil unrest.
Imagine if the party funded by billionaires didn't let you vote at all. It would be very clear that you live under a dictatorship of the wealthy owner class. But if instead you can vote for 2 candidates, both funded by the owner class, you "have a choice" and it appears democratic.
As well, with such a stranglehold on information/media, the same donors can accept third parties as they will never get enough votes for it to change the power structure. But what happens if a third party has a bit too much support? Well you can't have that, so the parties you fund work to get them taken off the ballot based on some law that is intended to maintain the status quo. That way you maintain "legitimacy" in the eyes of the people, remove the threat, and continue controlling the population for your own benefit.
Excellent answer. We need to compile yours and a bunch of other Marxist critiques of bourgeois "democracy", and how truly effective it is at manufacturing consent and giving the illusion of choice, for capitalist rule.
I know this is the argument people think is the most compelling. But in reality, this is not hitting with the electorate. Calling him weird was much more effective. Even post Jan 6th!
Trump bad, Trump fascist, for some reason that's preaching to the choir; the urgency is already felt with the people who are gonna feel it. The campaign could realize this, and could pivot and focus entirely on abortion and economy, because they won't touch the war. But Kamala is currently stumping with Republicans on a "Trump Bad" ticket. Fuck the Cheneys.
Basically Trump = fascist, even if true, is ineffective, and is losing the election as Trump picks up immigration votes from minorities and protest votes from Muslims.
After what we've allowed and contributed to in Gaza, maybe we don't deserve another election.
They still have elections in Russia /s