Changing the way future governments are elected is the most important thing. That way people can actually vote for what they like and not for what they dislike less.
Then once that’s in place stuff will definitely get better unless the whole country is stupid and reelects people who bring back the old system.
Not to mention, “the proletariat in charge” is a very utopic system and no country ever managed to successfully put it in place. The proletariat in charge of actually deciding who’s in charge is already more feasible.
You call revolution utopic. To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing anything but sliding back to where it started.
And yes, countries have successfully put it in place. The US sadly didn’t allow them to continue existing.
It baffles me that you don’t feel patronised when you’re told you have so much choice, when all you get to do is pick between two pre-chosen representatives of the ruling class. To choose which dick fucks you, but no choice in whether you’re fucked.
You call revolution utopic. To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing anything but sliding back to where it started.
…you don’t know what utopic means, do you? Nvm I can’t read
And yes, countries have successfully put it in place. The US sadly didn’t allow them to continue existing.
Give me one example of a country that actually did that then. I’m curious.
It baffles me that you don’t feel patronised when you’re told you have so much choice, when all you get to do is pick between two pre-chosen representatives of the ruling class. To choose which dick fucks you, but no choice in whether you’re fucked.
…I’m literally saying that’s bad. Breaking the two-party system and implementing RCV is LITERALLY aimed at obtaining actual democracy instead of the farce we call so. But we don’t necessarily need communism to do that.
I can’t even imagine the depths of arrogance necessary to say this. You’re so convinced you’re right, so dogmatic in your belief that reformism is a realistic strategy, that your first response to a person doubting its possibility is to question their vocabulary. It’s almost funny.
Give me one example of a country that actually did that then. I’m curious.
The Chinese revolution achieved proletarian rule through the Mass Line.
…I’m literally saying that’s bad. Breaking the two-party system and implementing RCV is LITERALLY aimed at obtaining actual democracy instead of the farce we call so.
It’s aimed at it, but it will be woefully ineffective. Don’t get me wrong, if it’s proposed, I’d back it. I’m for the idea, not against it. But if you think the bourgeois state will allow a genuinely radical party into the system, you’re living in a dreamland.
But we don’t necessarily need communism to do that.
I can’t even imagine the depths of arrogance necessary to say this. You’re so convinced you’re right, so dogmatic in your belief that reformism is a realistic strategy, that your first response to a person doubting its possibility is to question their vocabulary. It’s almost funny.
Ok, I’m very sorry. I somehow read the comment as “To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing something, but sliding back to where it started” and that was clearly someone that didn’t know “utopic” means something that would be good if achievable. I’ve argued with a lot of people with vocabulary issues so I erroneously assumed the worst, my mistake.
The Chinese revolution achieved proletarian rule through the Mass Line.
That’s still not the Proletariat in charge. That’s one single person in power, which may or may not accept suggestions from the Proletariat filtered through his cadres who are all trained to follow his ideals. If the entire population decided Mao had to die, he still wouldn’t have killed himself. That’s not what “being in charge” means.
It’s aimed at it, but it will be woefully ineffective. Don’t get me wrong, if it’s proposed, I’d back it. I’m for the idea, not against it. But if you think the bourgeois state will allow a genuinely radical party into the system, you’re living in a dreamland.
It can’t be ineffective at bringing democracy. In that utopic hypothesis that a coup in the US actually happens and the new government is all on board with making RCV work, there’s nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.
But let’s not forget that this was all a gigantic what-if to explain what would have to happen to actually have an option that’s better than “vote for Least Bad Party”, I don’t think it’s feasible either.
That’s still not the Proletariat in charge. That’s one single person in power, which may or may not accept suggestions from the Proletariat filtered through his cadres who are all trained to follow his ideals.
You don’t know what the Mass Line is, then. Just google it.
In that utopic hypothesis that a coup in the US actually happens and the new government is all on board with making RCV work, there’s nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.
Yes there is. The exact thing that’s stopping it now: the neoliberal capitalist state. Changing how you vote for bourgeois parties doesn’t change the fact that you are voting for bourgeois parties.
If you want to get rid of the corruption that erodes our democracy, you have to get money out of politics. And to do that, you have to get rid of capitalism.
You don’t know what the Mass Line is, then. Just google it.
That’s exactly what I did. One thing is what the Mass Line is in theory, and another is how it was executed. Again, if the entire population decided Mao had to die, he wouldn’t have cared. He always was the final judge of every decision. Link me to a better source if you think that isn’t true, but considering all the dissidents he had to murder, I don’t think he was that popular among the whole country.
Yes there is. The exact thing that’s stopping it now: the neoliberal capitalist state. Changing how you vote for bourgeois parties doesn’t change the fact that you are voting for bourgeois parties.
I’m saying you overthrow the entire political class. The hypothetical resulting state would allow radical parties in the RCV pool, because it is only composed of people whose goal is to have the masses actually vote for what they want.
I’m not a native speaker so it’s probably my fault, but I read the first 4/5 pages plus the titles of every section and I didn’t really get which part is supposed to refute my assumption. If you can point me to a specific section that details how the interests of the masses are obtained and conveyed to authorities I’d appreciate it.
Yes, and I’m saying this is politically naive
Again, it’s a hypothetical, it wasn’t meant to be realistic. And why would your idea be able to work if it involves an even deeper change in the system?
Changing the way future governments are elected is the most important thing. That way people can actually vote for what they like and not for what they dislike less.
Then once that’s in place stuff will definitely get better unless the whole country is stupid and reelects people who bring back the old system.
Not to mention, “the proletariat in charge” is a very utopic system and no country ever managed to successfully put it in place. The proletariat in charge of actually deciding who’s in charge is already more feasible.
You call revolution utopic. To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing anything but sliding back to where it started.
And yes, countries have successfully put it in place. The US sadly didn’t allow them to continue existing.
It baffles me that you don’t feel patronised when you’re told you have so much choice, when all you get to do is pick between two pre-chosen representatives of the ruling class. To choose which dick fucks you, but no choice in whether you’re fucked.
…you don’t know what utopic means, do you?Nvm I can’t readGive me one example of a country that actually did that then. I’m curious.
…I’m literally saying that’s bad. Breaking the two-party system and implementing RCV is LITERALLY aimed at obtaining actual democracy instead of the farce we call so. But we don’t necessarily need communism to do that.
I can’t even imagine the depths of arrogance necessary to say this. You’re so convinced you’re right, so dogmatic in your belief that reformism is a realistic strategy, that your first response to a person doubting its possibility is to question their vocabulary. It’s almost funny.
The Chinese revolution achieved proletarian rule through the Mass Line.
It’s aimed at it, but it will be woefully ineffective. Don’t get me wrong, if it’s proposed, I’d back it. I’m for the idea, not against it. But if you think the bourgeois state will allow a genuinely radical party into the system, you’re living in a dreamland.
I’m not necessarily talking about communism.
Ok, I’m very sorry. I somehow read the comment as “To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing something, but sliding back to where it started” and that was clearly someone that didn’t know “utopic” means something that would be good if achievable. I’ve argued with a lot of people with vocabulary issues so I erroneously assumed the worst, my mistake.
That’s still not the Proletariat in charge. That’s one single person in power, which may or may not accept suggestions from the Proletariat filtered through his cadres who are all trained to follow his ideals. If the entire population decided Mao had to die, he still wouldn’t have killed himself. That’s not what “being in charge” means.
It can’t be ineffective at bringing democracy. In that utopic hypothesis that a coup in the US actually happens and the new government is all on board with making RCV work, there’s nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.
But let’s not forget that this was all a gigantic what-if to explain what would have to happen to actually have an option that’s better than “vote for Least Bad Party”, I don’t think it’s feasible either.
You don’t know what the Mass Line is, then. Just google it.
Yes there is. The exact thing that’s stopping it now: the neoliberal capitalist state. Changing how you vote for bourgeois parties doesn’t change the fact that you are voting for bourgeois parties.
If you want to get rid of the corruption that erodes our democracy, you have to get money out of politics. And to do that, you have to get rid of capitalism.
That’s exactly what I did. One thing is what the Mass Line is in theory, and another is how it was executed. Again, if the entire population decided Mao had to die, he wouldn’t have cared. He always was the final judge of every decision. Link me to a better source if you think that isn’t true, but considering all the dissidents he had to murder, I don’t think he was that popular among the whole country.
I’m saying you overthrow the entire political class. The hypothetical resulting state would allow radical parties in the RCV pool, because it is only composed of people whose goal is to have the masses actually vote for what they want.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/188965
Yes, and I’m saying this is politically naive
I’m not a native speaker so it’s probably my fault, but I read the first 4/5 pages plus the titles of every section and I didn’t really get which part is supposed to refute my assumption. If you can point me to a specific section that details how the interests of the masses are obtained and conveyed to authorities I’d appreciate it.
Again, it’s a hypothetical, it wasn’t meant to be realistic. And why would your idea be able to work if it involves an even deeper change in the system?