this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
344 points (82.8% liked)

Memes

52745 readers
911 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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:

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 40 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

100%. Its about identifying with "the team", and declaring your allegience to the US system, not about substantive democracy.

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago

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

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] redparadise@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Plot twist: The liberal has a +4 and gets to win a verbal acknowledgement before the cycle resumes.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The Nepalese figured out how to make their votes count….using this one weird trick

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Either a fascist or a fascist enabler. There are no other parties.

[–] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 week ago

Ah Capitalism! The system got such a huge political range. At its peak, it transforms into imperialism. And at its decay, it transforms into fascism.

[–] OmegaLemmy@discuss.online 8 points 1 week ago

voooting works, just look at how Europe is (not) supporting Palestine!

[–] Womdat10@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Vooooooooting

load more comments
view more: next ›