• JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Advertising can be controlled, and the US is more the exception rather than the rule.

    the only parties

    Because of first past the post. Ranked choice would help greatly.

    two far-right parties

    Ranked choice would help. But do you think a large majority of voters are significantly further left than the DNC? Really?

    I think the average opinion is between the two parties. So a socialist revolution would be against a democratic consensus. That means you wouldn’t be able to set up a democracy post revolution, because it would be unpopular.

    Plus getting rid of the checks and balances is really dangerous in letting people like Stallin, Mau, or Kim Il weasel their way into power and consolidate it to stay there.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Advertising can be controlled, and the US is more the exception rather than the rule.

      Not in a Capitalist dictatorship. You can’t vibe beneficial policies into place.

      Because of first past the post. Ranked choice would help greatly.

      You cannot vibe policies into place.

      I think the average opinion is between the two parties. So a socialist revolution would be against a democratic consensus. That means you wouldn’t be able to set up a democracy post revolution, because it would be unpopular.

      There can be no revolution without the support of the masses, are you talking about a coup? Who suggested that?

      Plus getting rid of the checks and balances is really dangerous in letting people like Stallin, Mau, or Kim Il weasel their way into power and consolidate it to stay there.

      Nobody argued against checks and balances, but against a Capitalist state designed to not fulfill the will of the masses.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Most democracies around the world have ranked choice or similar voting systems. Similarly, most have strict regulations on what campaign contributions can be used for. Those did come about by ‘vibing’ (as you call it) rather than revolution.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Really? What revolutionary pressure was it Papua New Guinea under in 2008? What revolutionary pressures were on the UK in the 2000s to further regulate campaign finances?

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Concessions were made in the context of struggle, ie without concessions there would be more pressure.

                  Please, read theory.

                  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Could you point me to secularly resources I should read on these revolutions?

                    But if you’re taking about the pressure voters put on elected officials, I’m all for it. But I’d hardly call that a revolution. That’s just how the system is designed to work.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        A revolution inherently gets rid of the checks and balances. The problem is the time period before new ones are set up.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That’s why you set up the org that carries out the revolution in a democratic manner with checks and balances to begin with.

          Please read theory.

          • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            A revolution in a democratic manner? We are taking about a violent armed revolution, right? For that, you need a military power structure, and big charismatic leaders to rally behind. There’s no way a revolution would try to hold fair elections while they are fighting.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sounds like you need to read theory and history. Marxists have advocated for democratic organizational structures for centuries.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Pressures on the system from destabilization are threats of revolution, hence revolutionary pressure.

                  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Do you think a democratic bureaucratic fully checked and balanced revolution would succeed in overthrowing the structure?