Some more context for anyone wandering over from an anti-communist / pro-capitalist space:
Socialists view democracy under capitalism to be impossible. Most current-day systems are better labeled as Bourgeois Democracy, or democracy for the rich only, which socialists contrast with proletarian democracy. Under capitalism, political parties, representatives, infrastructure, and the media are controlled by capitalists, who place restrictions on the choices given to workers, limit their representative options to vetted capitalist puppets, and limit the scope of public debate to pro-capitalist views.
Bourgeois democracies are in reality Capitalist Dictatorships, resulting in legislation favorable to the wealthy, regardless of the population’s actual preferences. The Princeton Study, conducted in the US in 2014, found that the preferences of the average US citizen exert a near-zero influence on legislation, making the US system of elections and campaigning little more than political theater. Multi-party, Parliamentary / representative democracy has proven to be the safest shell for capitalist rule, regardless of voting methods or differing political structures, for countries as diverse as Australia, Japan, Sweden, the UK, the US, South Korea, or Brazil.
Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle more accurately defined Democracy as rule by the poor, and they considered states based on elections to be anti-democratic Aristocracies, since only the wealthy and ruling families have the resources to finance elections. They contrasted this with random selection / sortition, and citizen’s assemblies, as being the defining features of democracy, both of which are non-existent in the countries listed above. Today, liberal / parliamentary “democracies” are dominated by wealthy candidates, and entrenched political families, with Capitalists standing above political power.
This system of sham elections acts as a distracting theatre piece, giving the illusion of democracy, whilst in reality it serves to platform capitalist views, make them appear more popular than they are, and manufacture consent for the system itself.
Some more resources:
- Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy’s job for them. Youtube Audiobook
- Halim Alrah - Why liberal democracies are a sham.
- What about social democracy / democratic socialism / the Nordic model? Isn’t Sweden socialist?
- On the unraveling of the Nordic welfare states: increasing inequality and forced austerity.
- Scandinavia’s covert role in western imperialism
- Why can’t you acheive socialism through voting in our current democracies?
- Paul Cockshott - On Socialism and Democracy. 2 3
- Comrade Hakim - Why electoralism always fails.
- Why not just vote leftists into office: what’s wrong with democratic socialism?
I’ve think voting in the USA is a faith driven social event, mixed with a mentality of watching sports.
It’s like a purification ritual , and is a descendant of the big tent Christian rivivals seen in the 1800s.
“Have you been saved” and “have you voted” are inflected the same ways in speech patterns.
Edit typo
100%. Its about identifying with “the team”, and declaring your allegience to the US system, not about substantive democracy.
In states that do not use counting methods approved by the United Nations, voting provides legitimacy to ongoing multi-decade scams.
If the vote counting is illegitimate, should one vote for the better candidate anyway? This is an intensely debated thing over history in many countries.
Solving that, then voting is like you describe.
There are many layers to just how wrong voting is in the USA. And many of these scams, and the toleration of them, definitely affects reforms in unrelated areas other than the direct elections
fwiw: it’s adherence is like a faith driven event in that a very large percentage don’t even engage but pretend that they do.
While I agree with you, there is no harm in voting, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.
there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.
Read my comment below, because it gets into this. It can’t make things better, because it historically has never done so, only protests with the threat of violence from below (and completely outside of bourgeios democracy) have.
Except that it has historicaly made things better, sure, not in massive scale votes, but in smaller votes? In local elections? I fully agree that protests are necessary, and they are alot of what causes positive change, but that doesn’t render voting completely useless. In the current systems that exist, capitalism does turn large votes into what is essentially a dick measuring contest. But in smaller scale, local votes there is less money being put into the system, so voting becomes more impactful.
Even locally, it would take some incredible magic for the capitalists who rule a given city or town’s politics, to enact or enforce laws than go against their interests / profits, especially without a fight. Scale isn’t relevant here, since local elites use the city/town police as goons to protect their property.
Unless you can give some examples, I don’t believe it, and I certainly can’t think of any time in my city’s history where they’ve willingly allowed something against their interests.
My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists. In smaller scale elections, people can actually have a real choice to vote for a socialist, or communist, or other similar left wing leader.
Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting. As far as I know, those aren’t typically financially very good for the rich who control the government. If I am incorrect about this, please correct me.
Also, I apologize, I am really not in the mood to do a bunch of research to find examples currently, if I remember about this in the future I will, but that is, unfortunately, far from a guarantee.
Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting.
Minimum wage, the 5-day work week, and other workers gains took decades of violent struggle and organizing by socialists, communists, and anarchists in nearly every country.
My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists.
That’s not how it works in any capitalist country. Political power is subservient to economic power, and is toothless without it.
Like many things in life, it gets complicated based on where you are at, what you believe, and personality.
If it’s important to you, then vote.
If you feel like your vote counts, vote.
If it is a small town election and the ballots are counted by people in the town, then vote.
For everything else, it’s shades of gray
voooting works, just look at how Europe is (not) supporting Palestine!
Removed by mod
RIP ✊️
Gotta love the liberals coming over here to whine about the “tankies”.
Why are you still replying to a deleted comment?
Don’t care, go back to your anti-communist safe spaces where they let you whine about the tankies / commies or whatever term you liberal witch-hunters are using.
“authoritarian” is a thought-terminating buzzword employed by spineless liberals too terrified of the idea of wielding power for good to actually do anything to help
Hi, anarchist here. What word should we use to differentiate y’all from us? Liberals use tankie to mean anyone further left than biden (and it obv has a strong negative connotation), and y’all define authoritarian and state in a way that makes those labels unhelpful. Without having to know someone’s specific ideology, what word should be used if not authoritarian?
The entire “authoritarian” vs “anti-authoritarian” distinction doesn’t correspond to reality, and isn’t real. There is no history of any human society, that doesn’t make rules, norms, and customs for their group, and enforce them.
“Authoritarianism”, just like “Totalitarianism”, are only used to demonize workers and working-class movements who dared to construct systems existing outside of capitalist authority. Even the historical anarchist experiments found that they needed to enforce rules if they didn’t want to deconstruct within days, and were also labelled as “authoritarian” by opponents to their left and right.
Yeah, I’m familiar with this argument, I just don’t agree with the way you’re using the word (and tbh I don’t think it’s worth arguing over- I just want a better word to use to avoid having to avoid this argument)
You can just say socialist, communist, Marxist, etc.
I’m trying to find a word that I can use in contexts like, e.g., “As an anarchist, I don’t agree with ____s.” I can’t do that with socialists and communists because I do jive with libertarian socialists and anarcho-communists. I suppose the only safe option is to just be specific and say Marxists/Maoists/etc, but I was hoping there’d be a word to describe the “archist” component of these ideologies that I don’t vibe with without having to get so specific.
Can we just steal “archists” back? Lol (From Marsden, I mean)
To be fair, in common lingo, communist is pretty much 1 to 1 associated with Marxism. Socialism is more broad, and anarcho-communism is nearly always prefixed with anarcho-, due to communism being historically affixed to Marxist movements. I think if you use “archist,” most won’t understand what you mean.
In my eyes, the 2 most relevant umbrellas of leftist thought are Marxism and anarchism. “Libertarian socialism” is a bit of an odd one, it’s closer to a non-commital anarchist than an actual coherent ideology with its own history and theory. Syndicalism is kind of its own thing, and mostly relegated to a specific historical period. Other, local ideologies like Zapatismo, or ideologies like Nkruhmahism-Touréism that are their own thing, don’t quite fit in either.
So, I think the easiest answer is just “Marxist.” Maoists consider themselves Marxists, Marxist-Leninists are Marxists, I think it makes the most sense that way. Crucially, what makes Marxism and anarchism the two real umbrellas is that Marxism essentially posits full collectivization of production and distribution in classless society, while anarchism posits full horizontalism and decentralized networks devoid of hierarchy within cells. These are pretty much opposite approaches, Marxism seeking liberation of the individual through liberating the collective, and anarchism seeling liberation of the collective through liberating the individual.
Hope that helps make the case for just using “Marxist.” Easiest way to not be confrontational.
Communist
Idk I feel like that’s not the kind of distinction I’m looking for, because I like anarcho-communism
Edit:
If anarcho-communism isn’t communism, why is “communism” in its name?
What? I didn’t say it’s not communism, I’m saying that calling y’all communists isn’t necessarily a distinction from anarchists, bc there’s an anarchist version of communism.
I don’t care what you’re looking for, especially if you feel the need to distance yourself from communism in any way
What? I pretty explicitly said the opposite
Removed by mod
Those states owning the means of production is exactly why bourgeois states call them authoritarian. The bourgeoisie are supposed to own the MoP, not the state.
Authoritarian checklist:
- You want to exist outside of US domination and control.
- End of list
Until voting doesn’t count, this is a fed post.
plot twist their last card is a skip
oh wait nvm for some reason i thought they would go next im stupid
