• sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I personally don’t have a problem with communists. But

    Sounds like you have a problem with communists, or do you think that the country with the biggest army, police force, and imprisoned population (disproportionately of racial minorities) is somehow not authoritarian?

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have a federal presidential constitutional republic or FPCR in the US. It has three branches of government at the federal level that ideally work as checks and balances on each other. Then there are many subordinate state governments that act as a means of delegating responsibility for the federal government. Our representatives in federal, state, and local governments are democratically elected and ideally should represent the majority of the population. We the people rule in America. The US is not without its flaws, but we are a democracy.

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We are circling the fascist drain. A fascist take over could happen in the 2024 election cycle next year. It’s not really surprising how low confidence is in our intuitions when Republicans are actively dismantling them for power.

          • The Democrats have been active participants in that though. They’ve been in power since 2020 and they fucked around making up excuses about imaginary roadblocks (like the parliamentarian) to doing shit people actually wanted. Their inaction and abject failure has hurt a lot of people who voted for Democrats in real ways and that’s why people are losing faith in governance, among many, many other things.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Democrats had a tight majority because of flaws in our democracy that allow Republicans to disproportionately represent themselves. Democrats had to negotiate around Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. It honestly impressive Democrats got anything done at all, but the legislation they did pass is not enough on its own. If we don’t fix the issues with our democracy soon we are going to lose it, because Republicans are going to keep exploiting everything they can until they get total power.

                • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I really care. Without democracy, people like me and the people I care about are going to end up in death camps. American prisons are probably where it will happen. Once Republicans ram through the death penalty everywhere.

                  • How exactly has the democracy prevented that? The American ‘democracy’ has overseen many genocides in its past, I don’t see this as a deviation from form. I’ve pretty sure I’d be on the chopping block too, but the key distinction is I’m not putting my faith in voting as a preventative measure for that

      • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The US is not without its flaws, but we are a democracy.

        We literally had a bunch of unelected people in robes declare the president, just over 2 decades ago.

        Our representatives in federal, state, and local governments are democratically elected and ideally should represent the majority of the population.

        ideally should is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence- They don’t. Local governments are often dominated by landlord interests, as well as homeowners- that’s often accomplished by systematically disenfranchising renters.

        Again, the unelected people in robes declared that money is speech, not only swaying elections but allowing influence to be bought directly. How is that a democracy?

        You seem to be conflating the concept of ‘democracy’ with the freedom to spend money however it may hurt someone else structurally. That’s pretty authoritarian if you’re someone without money.

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The Supreme Court has numerous issues. For starters, they aren’t elected so they aren’t beholden to the people. They have minimal ethics guidelines so they can accept bribes from billionaires. They don’t have term limits, so they are effectively 9 kings and queens. The electoral college allowing two presidents to win their first term without the popular vote and the Senate giving conservative states over representation has allowed conservatives to capture the court. edit: typo

          These compounding issues are destroying our democracy. If we don’t fix these issues we will not have democracy. The Supreme Court is already stripping rights from people, it’s only a matter of time before Republicans win back the Congress and the Presidency. If the Republicans are still controlled by fascists then and we haven’t fixed these problems we are going to be trouble.

          ideally should is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence- They don’t. Local governments are often dominated by landlord interests, as well as homeowners- that’s often accomplished by systematically disenfranchising renters.

          Yeah, rent is way too expensive. Another reason for socialism to the pile. edit: spacing

          • I would make the case that the supreme court has never been anything other than a reactionary institution, and it sounds like you agree.

            I would go on to point out that the rights ‘won’ by the supreme court are ephemeral and can be snatched away at any moment-

            Take some of the examples of ‘liberal’ rulings- Roe vs wade came about the whole question of abortion from a liberal angle of privacy. Rather than simply providing a universal standard of prenatal healthcare to people, they opted for this sideshow. It’s never been about life, maternal mortality is ridiculously high in the the US, it’s about maintaining the profitable status quo.

            The gay marriage ruling is another example of how worthless rights won by supreme court are- and how we should expect them to be retracted at any moment.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, with the way the Supreme Court is now definitely. The concept of settled law was bullshit. It’s nine votes and whoever has the most wins. McConnell understood that better than most apparently. Hopefully we will be able to fix this in time to stop a fascist take over.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The PRC has the same three branches of government, including a President at the head of the executive branch, and a constitution that lays out their roles (more thoroughly than the US does the power of the judiciary), and it also holds direct elections for municipal offices. Neither country directly elects its President, as the PRC has elected officials vote and the US has the Electoral College say “just trust me bro” before giving the election to the other guy half the time (based on elections this century).

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We can see how the electoral college votes, just as we can see that China’s elections are a sham. Loyalty to Xi is the only thing that matters in Chinese politics now.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We can see how the electoral college votes, hence why I wasn’t worried about asserting that it just hands the votes to the other guy half the time, because if you are going to have a popular vote anyway, there’s not much cause to just tip the scales in the direction of land owners unless you were against democracy.

            Have you ever made the slightest effort to investigate China’s elections? Or do you just believe what the western press tells you about them? There’s that saying that there is no need to burn books if you can just persuade people not to read them and we have here a demonstration why.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The electoral college is one of the flaws I would like to see fixed. We should abolish the electoral college. It disproportionally benefits Republicans because they control more land, as you said. Representative democracy is supposed to represent the majority of people not a minority.

              I read a variety of what the free press has to offer about China. Xi has clearly consolidated power around him. It’s not a secret.