If Mamdani wins and keeps his mandate strong to the point that opposition to him is career suicide, he can implement some amazing improvements.
Bernie’s success in Burlington was never going to translate to broader America, but NYC is hard to ignore.
The real test will be what Democrats do nationwide in response to a Mayor Mamdani administration. If they do the same old New Democrat/Third Way bullshit they’ve been doing since Bill Clinton won* in 1992, they’ll continue to be irrelevant in the face of populist hucksters like Trump.
Democracy can and will work once a simple rule is implemented. Namely: no one who wants the power to rule should ever be allowed anywhere near power. Of course the rich won’t allow such a law to be passed, and enforcing it is the stuff of thought crime dystopic nightmares, but I’m sure we can overcome those small issues.
I don’t follow, do you mean that goverment jobs should be like a civil duty? Randomly select people to goverment posts or something like that?
.worlder, can’t see your comment.
These liberals really need to read Lenin before commenting. A certain OP may have even read it aloud for them so they can just listen to it if reading is too hard.
https://www.marxists.org/audiobooks/archive/lenin/1917/staterev/index.htm https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjoatUez9-2vaAvB78afoKNRC
I really like the idea of randomly elected representatives. Sure, they will try to better their situation for afterwards but with enough corruption control (which is probably easier to implement), this will only ensure that they support their kind of workers a bit more than the rest.
It would be a disaster but a funny disaster ngl.
ngl I do hate this kind of nhilism in terms of democracy. Like I agree with that one quote from that greek guy which says that a democracy needs smart people, but democracy is the best system we’ve come up with that to a small extent, makes politicians meet the peoples needs.
The ancient greeks did not consider electoralism to be democracy. They used a combination of direct democracy and sortition. And it should be apparent now that they were right, and we’ve been played for fools for 200 years by the capitalist class who holds all of the true power in our states.
Electoralism =\= Democracy
The problem isn’t democracy, it’s democracy under capitalism, and the idea that we can actually transition to socialism via electoralist means.
Democracy has as a necessary precondition that people are intelligent enough to differentiate good candidates from bad candidates.
The real question therefore is whether the people are intelligent enough. That decides their fate.
Democracy has as a necessary precondition that people are intelligent enough to differentiate good candidates from bad candidates.
This is just fundamentally impossible, 99.9% of people only relation to candidates is what they see in social media or other ads. People really have no idea who they’re choosing and its entirely a vibes based decision, i.e. candidate A speaks elocuently, candidate B is charming, etc…
I would replace intelligent with well educated, at least
I have come to dislike the word “education” as it refers to plato’s cave analogy in such a way that somebody else leads you out of it.
“Education” is therefore not something that you do yourself, but that somebody else does on you. It is therefore objectifying and puts the humans in a passive position.
Meanwhile, “insight” or “inspiration” is something that you do yourself as it is you who brings up the interest to learn something. Therefore it is a much better word.
I think your capacity to think is irrelevant or even played against you when the elites pour obscene amounts of money to change your perception of reality. Even the greatest minds can’t escape this.
Removed by mod
Too bad we only get genocide enjoyers.
Liberals mocked Antifa for not voting, saying left extremists turn right eventually
I hate liberals man.
Removed by mod
Fuck off
Why? What fact checking did you do?
Hi, I’ve trained machine learning models. I’ve been creating and studying them for over six years.
ChatGPT is not capable of fact checking. It stylistically outputs data based on the input data it was trained on, and it’s important to understand why that’s different to fact checking even when it can sometimes state facts.
It CAN fact check. You just have to prompt it to
For those downvoting
https://chatgpt.com/share/68fb4d04-9960-8001-91f3-b8ab0e4f1808
For the inquisitive
Counterpoint, acturally I dont even need to make a counterpoint you literally just posted an AI screenshot
Yeah… IMO it is important to fact check especially when someone tries to push views that seem extreme and missing the nuance I would expect from reality. But fact checking with AI might be too lazy.
There is no such thing as fact checking with AI.
Who to believe - a random image online or a neural net with the ability to search a few pages online?
We’re so doomed, the idiots are using the garbage generator as fact checking on lemmy too…
You literally could have just read the sources posted by the OP when someone asked, 3 whole hours before you posted this
Neither, think and research for yourself.
Not to mention that to everyone else your comment is the random image online.
Your use of “work” is doing a lot of heavy lifting and is very reductive. I’d recommend reading theory until you properly understand the issue, Dessalines.
Is your “theory” originating from three letter organisations or have you never actually read it yourself?
See, the problem with Dessalines’ meme is that it uses “work” as a binary category. As in, something either has no effect or it completely restructures society. It is absolutely true that electoralism can’t completely restructure society, and there are many valid explanations for why that is in communist theory. However, Dessalines reveals his lack of understanding by equating completely restructuring society with “working”.
If we were to construct a true binary between working and not working, it would be between having zero effect, and having any effect, no matter how small. The beating of a butterfly’s wings has some effect on the world, and could theoretically contribute towards a tornado that sucks up all the bourgeoisie and allows the workers to democratise the means of production. So obviously voting has some tiny effect, since it’s stronger than a butterfly’s wings. Voting works, in other words. But that’s a virtually meaningless statement if we’re constructing a binary as Dessalines did.
The correct approach is to ask “how much can voting accomplish”, and with that question we can actually arrive at an answer with some nuance and a justification from within the theory. But the binary question Dessalines asks can afford no nuance, and is obviously not supported by theory or anything else. Which proves that even if Dessalines read theory, he didn’t understand much of it.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
The socialist alliance party is working with Israel? Wowzers, I didn’t know that! Can you provide a source, or are you making things up?
Removed by mod
I think the fundamental issue is that “works” doesn’t have a good measurable metric and so when discussing it tends to fall into that false binary that you correctly identified.
The best I’ve seen that attempts to work around this problem was this paper from back in 20141. Unfortunately their results showed that while you’re correct that causitive impact is not zero that <5% correlation, especially for a field with as high a signal/noise ratio as political science, is an incredibly disheartening answer for “how much can voting accomplish?”
So while you are likely correct that it’s not nothing, it does suggest reality is much closer to the meme than your attempt at “nuance”.
If you have any sources that cite measurable and non-anecdotal impact that tell a different story I’d love to read them.
^1 linking the preprint because it’s not paywalled^
Closer than my attempt at nuance? I didn’t know I made an attempt at nuance yet. I thought I just vaguely gestured towards the nuance and said it exists. Can you please explain what my position is on how much I think voting can accomplish so I’m all caught up with the conversation?
The correct approach is to ask “how much can voting accomplish”, and with that question we can actually arrive at an answer with some nuance
I’m with you here, you’re “just asking questions” and I provided context on my understanding of the answers to those questions.
But the binary question Dessalines asks can afford no nuance, and is obviously not supported by theory or anything else.
A “theory” is a reductionist model that is falsifiable, by claiming that the level of nuance you suggest proves Dessalines understanding is “not supported by theory” you explicitly state that nuance as an empirical contradiction of the theory.
Either: A. You have some measure or metric which wasn’t clearly communicated showing how that nuance falsifies the theory. ^Which was my initial understanding and was hoping to clear up the miscommunication there.^
B. You’re doing a tiresome argument from ignorance thing and simply muddying the waters because the “theory” conflicts with your pre-formulated understanding of reality and you haven’t put in any effort to actually validate your own understandings.
You claim, rather rudely I might add, that “Even if Dessalines read theory, he didn’t understand much of it.” Don’t do the glib, spineless, two-faced “I didn’t make any claims yet”.
Prove it pot, say it with your chest.
Lmao I read that whole entire comment, and it wasn’t easy, and it’s all frantic backpedaling.
For the record I think the study you’re citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy, but I have no intention of elaborating because you’re not arguing in good faith and you’re just going to waste everyone’s time.
Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.
Which liberal theory do you recommend? Star wars, or Harry Potter?
Which greek philosophers said that? and what did they say? do you have any sources to confirm?
Both plato and aristotle, but aristotle thought that any election-based state turned out in practice, to be an oligarchy or aristocracy, not a democracy (which he define as rule by the poor, with random selection by lot).
Aristotle’s politics books 4-6 talk a lot about this:
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.4.four.html
In other words, what today we call “representative democracy”, the ancient greeks correctly identified as oligarchy.
Did the greeks suggest any replacement?
I see electoralism weaknesses, but what other systems are less prone to power capture and then raw authoritarianism?
If people don’t choose their representation, then who does? Or is representation the flaw?
Socialist democracy. The political structure is a way to reinforce the economic base, so by moving onto socialism, the working class is in control of the state. The issue isn’t with voting, period, but the idea that we can escape capitalism just by doing so.
That is more clear. I think I should have better defined “electoralism”. Social democracy sounds much better than raw unfettered capitalism.
Social democracy is capitalism with safety nets, I mean socialism. Rather than private ownership being principle, ie covering the large firms and key industries with the state dominated by capitalists, public ownership should be principle and the working class should dominate the state.
Your response is rational, informational, based in fact, and measurable.
The original image is uncited incendiary garbage. This is not a time where we need more division and infighting. If you can’t be nice, please just stick to the facts.
Removed by mod
We want unity, around correct political lines. The point of agitprop is to get people talking and coming to a consensus on the correct line to follow.
I’m on the instance that I own and operate, Redlemmy.com. If I interact with you it’s because I choose to.
Are you not familiar with the concept of a meme?
The original image is a meme designed for humor over rational argument…
Cool
You’re giving the liberals too much credit by saying they admit that electoralism has never worked.
The liberal position is not only that electoralism works but that it is the only thing that works.
True. After years of letdowns, some might accept that electoralism is a rigged game, but then the next generation completely forgets everything.
And for all of them, the socialist road is demonized and kept hidden, so no alternative seems possible.
Liberals believe electoralism doesn’t work because not enough people believe in it and we can fix it by voting harder.
Actually existing electoralism
Real electoralism has never been tried before
There’s a split in liberalism, between true believers and those disillusioned but who can’t see a way out. I believe the latter are more common these days, and are the target of the meme. The cure is organizing and reading theory, becoming a leftist in the process, but right now they still cling to faux-progressivism and electoralism.
For many liberals having elections is the highest political priority.
So electoralism working is a tautology for them.
Obviously, the problem is with the voters, not the system
Real liberal democracy has never been tried
It’s just the outside forces that have made it fail. In theory it’s perfect system
Bonapartists look good only next to modern day liberals, at least they’re honest.
Communal society: Electoralism is cringe.
Slave society: Electoralism is cringe.
Feudal society: Electoralism is cringe.
Liberal society: noooooo, electoral democracy portents the end of history elections are based nooooo
Socialist society: Electoralism is cringe.
Communist society: Electoralism is cringe.
The great lie of liberal democracy is the idealist notion that literally anything can be voted in if enough people vote for it, and that this will have political supremacy over those in power. This analysis puts the state outside of class struggle, above it, and not as the mutually reinforcing superstructural aspect of society. The role of the state is to reinforce the base, ie the mode of production, and it does so through propagating ruling class ideology (ie, liberalism), and through a monopoly of violence.
Electoralism is a sham. The lessons of the failures of electoralism scar the global south, the coup against comrade Allende taught us all too well. The state is not outside or above class struggle, but is mired in it. Without replacing the bourgeois state with a socialist, proletarian one, the ready-made levers for reinforcing the bourgeois mode of production will cause a reversion. The Paris Commune was the first such example of this failure in action, and it has happened again, such as with the coup against Allende and the installment of Pinochet.
What is there to do, then? Organize. Build up parallel structures that take the place of existing capitalist mechanisms. Join a party, read theory, and solidify the politically advanced of the working class under one united banner. Build a dedication to the people, defend and platform the indigenous, colonized, queer, disabled, marginalized communities, and unite the broad working class. It is through organization and revolution that we can actually move on into a better world.
If anyone reading wants a place to start with theory, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, aimed at absolute beginners. Give it a look!
Without replacing the bourgeois state with a socialist, proletarian one, the ready-made levers for reinforcing the bourgeois mode of production will cause a reversion. The Paris Commune was the first such example of this failure in action.
The Soviet Union was one of the latest. Yeltsin taking office, failing to get his way, and then shelling parliament into surrender being the most prominent example of the failures of electoralism, even in an ostensibly proletarian state.
Gaza also a great instance of the wages of strict electoralism. You rally your people behind a more militant political body (Hamas in 2006) and the end result is your heavily armed neighbors using the results of an election as causa belli. Hell, the American Civil War is another great example, what with a Southern coup government rising up after a Presidential election defeat.
It is through organization and revolution that we can actually move on into a better world.
It gives us a fighting chance, at least. But it is also hard, painful, and requiring enormous self-sacrifice particularly among the early adopters.
deleted by creator
im gonna voooooote!!!
