Comment by FiskFisk33@startrek.website on The lesser dumpster fire

true, but both sides do need to be criticizeable, not just the worse one.

Criticizing is great, putting it like OP with “they’re the same, democrats just put on a hat” is dishonest and reductionist. This kind of thing actively causes harm and plays into the hands of the party that’s objectively worse for anyone that’s not rich.

This kind of thing actively causes harm and plays into the hands of the party that’s objectively worse for anyone that’s not rich.

No, you.

https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/

No shit, Sherlock. And that’s why you’re helping the fascists with this comparison. You’re working in a two party system, being an idiot about how to actually change shit.

You’re not changing the one party that can be used for change for the better, you’re just whining and making them seek votes elsewhere.

You don’t change anything when you are conveniently forbidden from criticism.

Use constructive criticism. Criticize the issues. Don’t put false equivalencies first.

Fix something and you won’t be accused of doing nothing.

Criticizing is great, putting it like OP with “they’re the same, democrats just put on a hat” is dishonest and reductionist.

It’s really not. My favourite example is Roe v. Wade - how long did democrats have to fix it? How long did they use it in their campaigns in the lines of “if you don’t vote democrats, republicans will overturn it”?

Yeah, they’re the better choice, for sure, but they’re not a good choice.

And your own words show exactly what I mean.

There’s a marked difference between lazy fucks who didn’t properly bring it across the finish line and people actively working to make things worse. Correct my believe if I’m wrong: unless it’s a constitutional amendment, laws are fairly easy to overturn still.

And to ‘how many years’… How many years did people have to vote for progressive candidates in the lower levels to change the actual base of the party to where they want it to be? How many years have the voters not used to make it the party they want it to be?

This kinda shit is so fucking often due to progressives wanting things to be a certain way, but not putting in the legwork because “it’s a lost cause anyway”. With the democrats you have a chance to change the party into the progressive direction. Take an example from those maga assholes - it doesn’t take a lot of them to shift the republicans to be even worse.

There’s a marked difference between lazy fucks who didn’t properly bring it across the finish line and people actively working to make things worse.

Yes, there’s a difference between perpetrators and bystanders who can help but choose not to.

But the bystanders keep expecting praise for helping when they haven’t.

This argument would be fine if the DNC actually let people select progressive candidates. But they almost never do. The DNC is controlled by committee, not by democracy, ironically.

And who do they draw from? The active base. If the complaints are loud enough, broad enough, from inside the party, that’s when they will have no choice.

“Oh there’s the dnc, can’t do anything, move on” is not a productive way to fight these things.

Neither is “The other side is worse, guess the DNC gets to do whatever the fuck they want.” If I only have two choices, then I’m going to be loud and annoying when those choices aren’t acceptable to me. I don’t care what you say.

US citizens need to destroy the first past the post voting system. It’s fucked and undemocratic and it needs to be replaced.

US citizens need to destroy the ~~first past the post voting~~ system. It’s fucked and undemocratic by design and it needs to be ~~replaced~~ abolished.

FTFY

https://web.archive.org/web/20230803021951/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/22/american-democracy-was-never-designed-to-be-democratic

I’m not sure I get you point.

This article is very US centric and it only talks about (the obvious) flaws in the US system. Other democracies might not be perfect, but many don’t have the problems mentioned there.

We could completely abolish any system of government, but cooperating in societies of thousands and millions of people would be close to impossible.

The problem is that only people who came into power using the current system would have a chance to change the system. And why would anyone want to change the system that brought them to power?

This is broadly true, but it’s not completely unheard-of for systems to change despite this.

Mostly though through revolutions, wars or some other extreme crisis.

Yeah, unfortunately. But let’s think positive! How many such events in history can we think of that went relatively violence-free? I can think of two off the top of my head:

The end of apartheid in South Africa. All they did was to force them to free Nelson Mandela, who then promptly got elected. No major government overthrow.
East Germany. After the fateful press conference that caused everyone to storm the border crossings, the government basically accepted that their economy could no longer hold up, and they disbanded without a fight.
Honorable mention: The disbanding of the Soviet Union within Russia. There have certainly been violent revolutions in the other socialist republics, but Russia didn’t need one because Yeltsin could just declare Russia independent from the Soviet Union.

Are there others I missed?

All of these happened in the wake of major crises.

Apartheit in South Africa ended, because of massive protests in the country (including violence), massive international pressure (the UN labelled apartheit as crime against humanity and lots of countries banned imports from South Africa), and the South African economy was collapsing due the price of gold dropping a lot.

East Germany collapsed because of massive economic problems. Storming the border crossings was just the last push. If that would have happened 10 years earlier, the police would just have shot the first row of people trying to cross the border and the rest would have fled. The DDR was already collapsing at that point. And the press conference that caused the storm on the border crossing was actually about East Germany opening the border in a month’s time. So even without the storm on the border crossings, the same thing would have happend, just a month later.

The Sovjet Union, again, collapsed due to economic problems. Their economiy completely collapsed and with it their power over all the different SSRs. Russia, being the largest and most powerful SSR, being able declaring itself independent of all these other countries that really didn’t want to be part of the USSR without having to use violence is really not surprising.

It’s kinda as if Great Brittain declared itself independent of the Brittish Empire.

All these situations you mentioned where already under way for a decade or so, before the events you mentioned did the last push. And all of them where only possible to massive crises.

It’s one of many things that need to be done to fix the US.

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

The lesser dumpster fire(lemmy.world)

Political Memes

!politicalmemes@lemmy.world

Community stats

Community moderators