Though campaign donations for advertising? Or bribery?
Both, and more. The US State is designed against change, and the only parties of any federal relevance are the DNC and GOP, who are aligned in service to their donors, and maintain close business ties to the defense industry and banks.
Why do you think voting in national elections doesn’t matter?
Because the US is designed in a manner where you choose which of two far-right parties to support. The DNC always positions themselves as not quite as right wing as the GOP, so no matter how far right the GOP swerves, the DNC trails just behind.
Combined with major issues such as the electoral college, most votes don’t even have an influence on which of the two far-right parties wins, only those in swing states. The only election that matters for the vast majority are local elections.
Electoralism has been a dead strategy for Leftists for centuries, it’s an answered question and the answer is no, Revolution is necessary to enact change.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Please read theory, you’re speaking nonsense. No one is advocating for 3 random Communists to overthrow the state by themselves. There can be no revolutionary movement without the support of the masses.
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.
Both, and more. The US State is designed against change, and the only parties of any federal relevance are the DNC and GOP, who are aligned in service to their donors, and maintain close business ties to the defense industry and banks.
Because the US is designed in a manner where you choose which of two far-right parties to support. The DNC always positions themselves as not quite as right wing as the GOP, so no matter how far right the GOP swerves, the DNC trails just behind.
Combined with major issues such as the electoral college, most votes don’t even have an influence on which of the two far-right parties wins, only those in swing states. The only election that matters for the vast majority are local elections.
Electoralism has been a dead strategy for Leftists for centuries, it’s an answered question and the answer is no, Revolution is necessary to enact change.
Advertising can be controlled, and the US is more the exception rather than the rule.
Because of first past the post. Ranked choice would help greatly.
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.
Not in a Capitalist dictatorship. You can’t vibe beneficial policies into place.
You cannot vibe policies into place.
There can be no revolution without the support of the masses, are you talking about a coup? Who suggested that?
Nobody argued against checks and balances, but against a Capitalist state designed to not fulfill the will of the masses.
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.
Those systems were put in place after revolutionary pressure as concessions.
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?
Concessions were made in the context of struggle.
Could you elaborate?
Concessions were made in the context of struggle, ie without concessions there would be more pressure.
Please, read theory.
Do you think a socialist system is the will of the masses?
It will be eventually.
But until then, a revolution would necessarily be undemocratic.
Please read theory, you’re speaking nonsense. No one is advocating for 3 random Communists to overthrow the state by themselves. There can be no revolutionary movement without the support of the masses.
You can absolutely have a revolution without majority support, you just need support of the majority of the power.
Not exactly a revolution then.
A revolution inherently gets rid of the checks and balances. The problem is the time period before new ones are set up.
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.
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.
Sounds like you need to read theory and history. Marxists have advocated for democratic organizational structures for centuries.
But they don’t actually put it in place because of the pressures during a revolution.
Pressures on the system from destabilization are threats of revolution, hence revolutionary pressure.