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.
…you don’t know what utopic means, do you?
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’m not necessarily talking about communism.
