We peacefully transitioned into a technocracy with a wanna-be dictator idiot at the helm.
As an exercise for anyone reading this who doesn’t already know: How did Hitler got into a position of power? Look that up, don’t use AI, actually check up on that yourself.
Just a dictionary thing, Technocracy != tech bro president:
Government by technical specialists.
A system of governance where people who are skilled or proficient govern in their respective areas of expertise. A type of meritocracy based on people’s ability and knowledge in a given area.
When you call someone a technocrat, it means they’re more interested in research and quality than political debate
The US has purportedly been a technocracy for a few decades now. The second election of Trump will likely mark the end of the technocracy and the official start of something worse…kakistocracy, full blown oligarchy, kleptocracy, pick whatever word you want.
The administrative state – the exact thing Elon and his doge goons are targeting – is the home of the technocrats.
Technically the Nazis lost that election, but the Conservatives who won turned around and handed power to Hitler, all to prevent the Left from gaining power.
That’s not how elections work here. There is not really a “winner” in elections unless someone gets an absolute majority, which is almost never. Parties form a coalition to have a majority together.
That’s how it is nowadays, but I think the old system had coalitions too.
Alien school: For todays class we will begin Earth history, please open your text book titled “Earth: All to Prevent the Left From Gaining Power.” This book covers the vast majority of Earth history.
How about single party socialism? Has that ever turned back into stateless communism, comrade? Or did it turn into “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, Putin’s Russia, Pol Pot, and the DPRK that Trump wants to turn the US into?
The Khmer Rouge was never socialist, they were some weird feudal ideology, hence why the CIA supported them and the US recognized them as the legitimate government of Cambodia for like 30 years after Vietnam liberated them and put an actual socialist government in power.
Russia hasn’t been socialist since 1992; Putin’s Russia is what happens when you overthrow a democratic state run by the workers for the workers with a vibrant, multiparty capitalist “democracy”.
“Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is more democratic than the US; the average Chinese person feels they have far greater influence on the government than the average American. They tend to be confused why Americans hate and fear the police and why we aren’t able to vote for politicians who will fix the problem.
There’s also Cuba, who had a referendum on a new constitution a few years ago. After years of debate at the community level, they came up with a final draft that 92% of Cubans voted yes on. Could you imagine if we had that level of influence over our own government?
See the thing you’re missing is that the communist parties of these countries themselves democratic; they’re typically structured such that every member above the rank-and-file is elected, with instant recall and “give us a better candidate” options.
They weren’t socialist bc they took a step past socialism and into communism directly. They abolished money, replaced army with armed militia, achieved direct democracy, abolished institution of family, replaced farmers with agrarian proletariat, achieved 100% public housing. USSR is a capitalist shithole compared to Democratic Kampuchea.
They fit almost all of the criteria of communism. If Democratic Kampuchea haven’t achieved communism, it was very-very close to it. Much closer than any other country. If you disagree, please provide something substantial. What are the necessary criteria for communism that Democratic Kampuchea didn’t fit?
Your conclusion is wrong, in that I didn’t say they’re fake, I said that they serve as a way for different mega wealthy people to take turns at serving their own interests. Which may be a synonym or not, depending on your perspective.
But I did imply that non-plutocrats have zero sway in elections, because of how the system is stacked for the two parties because of many different aspects, but one of the obvious ones is just how much money you need to run a successful campaign.
Are you arguing my point for me? Indeed, Sanders is exceptional, truly one of a kind - I’m not being sarcastic here, he really is a remarkable person.
But how many times did he get to run for president? Zero. Both times he was shut down. In any normal country, I have no doubts he would have been president.
What conclusions you decide to take are up to you, don’t make that my responsibility. You can take it lying down if that’s what you prefer, we tend to go out and make a bit of a mess around here.
Did you just get radicalized? Yes they are basically fake.
To quote Bill Hicks, sometimes the ship leans a little to the left and sometimes it leans a little to the right, but it’s still going the same direction.
But now it’s going clear off to the right, which actually fucked with a lot of neoliberal agendas that they’ve been enacting for decades regardless of who was in office.
And I hesitate to even call that a real election, even though the train went off the rails. Considering Trump blabbered about how Musk helped him steal it.
I did though, I live on the train. I may hate the direction it’s been going, that doesn’t mean I want it to go off the rails and blow up the whole goddamn planet.
So yeah, you don’t know me. Don’t pretend like you do.
It’s not about the elections it’s about who gets the support and opportunity and resources to win elections.
A footrace can be executed completely fairly and transparently but if you need to buy special expensive shoes to participate and you receive them at someone else’s discretion and you need to join one of two private clubs to get an invitation and the leaders and members of those clubs also apply discretion then a lot of unfair choices and decisions are being made before the starter pistol goes off.
Sure mate. Hereditary successions were usually smooth. In elective monarchies, there were more power struggles. Do you have anything to add other than insults?
Is that so? I would assume democracies last a lot longer than 10 to 50 years? Considering that most of the world has democracies and they tend to be at least since WW2 that does not feel right.
Considering I don’t know any democracy that laster longer than 200-300 years and there are a lot of monarchies that lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years.
The only party willing to accept defeat and not cry foul until their cult riots lost. It will never happen the other way around are you’d have be to a deeply vastly empty head to not know that.
Degree of democracy has more to do with the size of the ruling coalition relative to the size of the pool of the interchangeables. When power is shared within a large ruling coalition, there tends to be a louder and more influential voice by the interchangeables, leading to more democracy and better living conditions for everyone, including those in the losing coalition. Autocracies on the ruling spectrum tend to have tiny ruling coalitions.
Source: my memory of reading The Dictator’s Handbook by Bueno de Mesquita and Smith. Highly recommended reading.
If the ruling coalition of the US is much smaller than it appears to be, then yeah, it’s at risk of losing its foothold as a democracy.
It depends on the state. It does tend to be a bit broader than that and most states allow early voting.
However, red states tend to put more hurdles in to maintain their power, limiting polling access in working class districts, especially ones that aren’t predominantly white. Forcing folks to stand in long lines or get across town to cast a ballot. Or scrutinizing and tossing out more mail in ballots in those districts over something petty. Folks don’t have the spoons for that between bills, kids, work, and chores.
Also factor in that a lot of folks abstained because they know their state is already blue or red, and at least, in the swing state I live in, the turnout was actually very high.
Anyway, it’s not as simple as 1/3rd of folks abstained. While I imagine some did, just out of apathy toward the federal government and not understanding how dangerous Trump is to our planet, it’s just not the whole story is all I’m saying.
The US has a long history of making voting a privilege based on class. And while on paper it’s not supposed to be the case, there are certainly mechanisms at play that disinfranchise folks who would likely otherwise vote.
Also factor in that a lot of folks abstained because they know their state is already blue or red, and at least, in the swing state I live in, the turnout was actually very high.
I see your points overall but this one seems meaningless to me. This is the kind of apathy that got you here. Even if they’re guaranteed to win any percentage of voters they lose is ideally one they’ll appeal to next time.
deleted by creator
Really? Seems like we had a peaceful transition of power just this year.
'Bloodless coup" comes to mind…
We peacefully transitioned into a technocracy with a wanna-be dictator idiot at the helm.
As an exercise for anyone reading this who doesn’t already know: How did Hitler got into a position of power? Look that up, don’t use AI, actually check up on that yourself.
Just a dictionary thing, Technocracy != tech bro president:
When you call someone a technocrat, it means they’re more interested in research and quality than political debate
The US has purportedly been a technocracy for a few decades now. The second election of Trump will likely mark the end of the technocracy and the official start of something worse…kakistocracy, full blown oligarchy, kleptocracy, pick whatever word you want.
The administrative state – the exact thing Elon and his doge goons are targeting – is the home of the technocrats.
Technically the Nazis lost that election, but the Conservatives who won turned around and handed power to Hitler, all to prevent the Left from gaining power.
That’s not how elections work here. There is not really a “winner” in elections unless someone gets an absolute majority, which is almost never. Parties form a coalition to have a majority together.
That’s how it is nowadays, but I think the old system had coalitions too.
Alien school: For todays class we will begin Earth history, please open your text book titled “Earth: All to Prevent the Left From Gaining Power.” This book covers the vast majority of Earth history.
Unironically though, you can see the same pattern going all the way back to Rome.[Michal Parenti’s The Assassination of Julius Caesar]
Something about the history of all hitherto existing society being the history of class struggles.
Required reading in my history class at a public school.
Wait a minute, so democracy brings people like Trump, Hitler and Hamas to power? Does it mean that democracy is shit?
How about single party socialism? Has that ever turned back into stateless communism, comrade? Or did it turn into “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, Putin’s Russia, Pol Pot, and the DPRK that Trump wants to turn the US into?
The Khmer Rouge was never socialist, they were some weird feudal ideology, hence why the CIA supported them and the US recognized them as the legitimate government of Cambodia for like 30 years after Vietnam liberated them and put an actual socialist government in power.
Russia hasn’t been socialist since 1992; Putin’s Russia is what happens when you overthrow a democratic state run by the workers for the workers with a vibrant, multiparty capitalist “democracy”.
“Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is more democratic than the US; the average Chinese person feels they have far greater influence on the government than the average American. They tend to be confused why Americans hate and fear the police and why we aren’t able to vote for politicians who will fix the problem.
There’s also Cuba, who had a referendum on a new constitution a few years ago. After years of debate at the community level, they came up with a final draft that 92% of Cubans voted yes on. Could you imagine if we had that level of influence over our own government?
See the thing you’re missing is that the communist parties of these countries themselves democratic; they’re typically structured such that every member above the rank-and-file is elected, with instant recall and “give us a better candidate” options.
Yeah it’s really amazing the number that Western propaganda has done on folks perception of China
They assume democracy requires more than one party. When it should be people you vote for, rather than raw tribalism.
They weren’t socialist bc they took a step past socialism and into communism directly. They abolished money, replaced army with armed militia, achieved direct democracy, abolished institution of family, replaced farmers with agrarian proletariat, achieved 100% public housing. USSR is a capitalist shithole compared to Democratic Kampuchea.
Communism isn’t when everyone lives like a farmer from 200 BC.
They fit almost all of the criteria of communism. If Democratic Kampuchea haven’t achieved communism, it was very-very close to it. Much closer than any other country. If you disagree, please provide something substantial. What are the necessary criteria for communism that Democratic Kampuchea didn’t fit?
I’m not a communist bro.
Democracy isn’t defined solely by peaceful transfer of power. Our government is completely captured by monied interests. Public opinion has a near zero influence on policy.
Optical illusion. Plutocrats sharing power among themselves is not democracy, friend.
conspiracy theories about elections are hardly democratic
What part of it is theory? Citizens United was the final confirmation that made it legal and ever since it’s done in broad daylight.
I’d hardly call it a conspiracy theory that both the Democrats and Republicans serve the wealthy.
“sharing power” implies that non-plutocrats are not involved in the decision, i.e. implying elections are fake
Your conclusion is wrong, in that I didn’t say they’re fake, I said that they serve as a way for different mega wealthy people to take turns at serving their own interests. Which may be a synonym or not, depending on your perspective.
But I did imply that non-plutocrats have zero sway in elections, because of how the system is stacked for the two parties because of many different aspects, but one of the obvious ones is just how much money you need to run a successful campaign.
I didn’t know Bernie Sanders was a plutocrat. Just because one race is inaccessible from the working class doesn’t mean all elections are rigged.
Learned helplessness.
Are you arguing my point for me? Indeed, Sanders is exceptional, truly one of a kind - I’m not being sarcastic here, he really is a remarkable person.
But how many times did he get to run for president? Zero. Both times he was shut down. In any normal country, I have no doubts he would have been president.
What conclusions you decide to take are up to you, don’t make that my responsibility. You can take it lying down if that’s what you prefer, we tend to go out and make a bit of a mess around here.
Did you just get radicalized? Yes they are basically fake.
To quote Bill Hicks, sometimes the ship leans a little to the left and sometimes it leans a little to the right, but it’s still going the same direction.
But now it’s going clear off to the right, which actually fucked with a lot of neoliberal agendas that they’ve been enacting for decades regardless of who was in office.
And I hesitate to even call that a real election, even though the train went off the rails. Considering Trump blabbered about how Musk helped him steal it.
yeah you weren’t going to vote either way
I did though, I live on the train. I may hate the direction it’s been going, that doesn’t mean I want it to go off the rails and blow up the whole goddamn planet.
So yeah, you don’t know me. Don’t pretend like you do.
It’s not about the elections it’s about who gets the support and opportunity and resources to win elections.
A footrace can be executed completely fairly and transparently but if you need to buy special expensive shoes to participate and you receive them at someone else’s discretion and you need to join one of two private clubs to get an invitation and the leaders and members of those clubs also apply discretion then a lot of unfair choices and decisions are being made before the starter pistol goes off.
I would assume most monarchies transitioned just as peaceful. What does that prove?
Every 4-8 years to all elected opponent?
I mean, term limits don’t make a democracy and there have been elective monarchies.
The Vatican is an elective absolute monarchy.
When do Catholics vote for the Pope?
When the Conclave elects a new one.
Uh huh.
No, but it’s irrelevant to the question.
…You might want to study some more history there bub
Sure mate. Hereditary successions were usually smooth. In elective monarchies, there were more power struggles. Do you have anything to add other than insults?
Not to mention that monarchies last way longer than democracies on average throughout history.
Is that so? I would assume democracies last a lot longer than 10 to 50 years? Considering that most of the world has democracies and they tend to be at least since WW2 that does not feel right.
Considering I don’t know any democracy that laster longer than 200-300 years and there are a lot of monarchies that lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years.
And how are the material conditions for the average working-class person in those monarchies?
How much autonomy did they have over their lives compared to the 200 or 300 years they would have lived under a democracy?
How much suffering happened under monarchy compared to democracy?
Because if all of you are measuring is how long the ruling class can subjugate the working class, then sure I’m monarchy is better.
It doesn’t mean I want to live under one, but you go ahead.
The only party willing to accept defeat and not cry foul until their cult riots lost. It will never happen the other way around are you’d have be to a deeply vastly empty head to not know that.
That makes one in a row now.
Degree of democracy has more to do with the size of the ruling coalition relative to the size of the pool of the interchangeables. When power is shared within a large ruling coalition, there tends to be a louder and more influential voice by the interchangeables, leading to more democracy and better living conditions for everyone, including those in the losing coalition. Autocracies on the ruling spectrum tend to have tiny ruling coalitions.
Source: my memory of reading The Dictator’s Handbook by Bueno de Mesquita and Smith. Highly recommended reading.
If the ruling coalition of the US is much smaller than it appears to be, then yeah, it’s at risk of losing its foothold as a democracy.
That’s not the only quality of a democracy.
How many eligible voters abstained?
Is there any way to tell who abstained and who just chose not to take time off work so they could pay their bills?
Unfortunately the system is fucked.
Yeah for sure.
How long is the voting window? Is it like 9-5?
It depends on the state. It does tend to be a bit broader than that and most states allow early voting.
However, red states tend to put more hurdles in to maintain their power, limiting polling access in working class districts, especially ones that aren’t predominantly white. Forcing folks to stand in long lines or get across town to cast a ballot. Or scrutinizing and tossing out more mail in ballots in those districts over something petty. Folks don’t have the spoons for that between bills, kids, work, and chores.
Also factor in that a lot of folks abstained because they know their state is already blue or red, and at least, in the swing state I live in, the turnout was actually very high.
Anyway, it’s not as simple as 1/3rd of folks abstained. While I imagine some did, just out of apathy toward the federal government and not understanding how dangerous Trump is to our planet, it’s just not the whole story is all I’m saying.
The US has a long history of making voting a privilege based on class. And while on paper it’s not supposed to be the case, there are certainly mechanisms at play that disinfranchise folks who would likely otherwise vote.
I see your points overall but this one seems meaningless to me. This is the kind of apathy that got you here. Even if they’re guaranteed to win any percentage of voters they lose is ideally one they’ll appeal to next time.