Comments | xephyr: Pity Democracy

xephyr

Pity Democracy

Sep 14, 2010 12:27

This essay from truthout speaks to many of the arguments made by some of my more radical friends. In essence, the essay says that the fundamental structure of the US, from top to bottom, is dominated by the very wealthiest, and their interests are that of multi-national corporate businesses. Therefore, we are urged to abandon the charade of ( Read more... )

domestic policy, democrats, corporations, politics, culture, activism

Comments 7

sophiaserpentia September 14 2010, 18:04:42 UTC

Elected officials can still pass laws that restrict freedoms, conscript soldiers, take property, and call for people to be arrested. So long as they can do those things, electoral politics is never irrelevant.

I agree, it's time to focus on building cooperatives and mutual-aid networks. In fact, I don't think we're ('we' being the other 98%) going to have any choice, really.

lassiter September 14 2010, 19:14:46 UTC

My own view, old guy that I am (and ever less inclined to man barricades and squat in abandoned tenements) is that the US really needs a European-style social democracy immediately. The type of thing the FDR Democrats would have pushed for. Alas, the current Democratic Party is a corporatist tool whose only function is to step in when the excesses of the Republicans becomes too great for them to hold power. The Dems then continue all the Republicans' policies, at a slightly slower pace, using the advantage of not having liberals and progressives protesting and organizing against those policies. In other words, electoral politics - sure, for the reasons you outline above. But we won't be able to move forward until we realize that the "party politics" charade is only there to divert our attention from what's really going on, namely the continued consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few, and the continued impoverishment of the rest of us ( ... )

jt93 September 14 2010, 20:16:26 UTC

color me old and very jaded. i don't see any change happening until there is a 2nd revolution. the entrenched power structure will never allow themselves to lose that power.

xephyr September 14 2010, 20:43:19 UTC

Your notion of a "second revolution" is exactly the sort of horror I fear we would get if we walked away from the existing system. To dispute this fear, I invite you to point to any historical revolution in a democratic nation that resulted in a superior government. If that bar is too high, instead, single out any revolution in history and show me how (a) the political structure fundamentally changed to benefit the poor and weak, and (b) didn't result in a great deal of death and discomfort for most everyone for a long time ( ... )

jt93 September 14 2010, 21:54:03 UTC

i agree any revolution will prob make things worse before they are better 100%. but, you can only push someone so long before they decide enough is enough.

the problem with the vote em out are multiple; the buying of mass media to secure votes with almost no limits. the suspectness of the closed voting machines we are forced to use. the recent presidential elections etc.
do you know our closed box voting via diebold type systems doesn't even meet the minimum for a un certified election.
i think any notion of fairness in the political system, from the advertising that passes for campaigning to the rigged voting system, to the systematic silencing / surveillance of anything deemed remotely non establishment, is long gone.

again, color me very jaded. i hope i am wrong and just seeing the bad potential. who knows, we could rise above it and get our shit together as a country / planet / species. but i doubt it.

lassiter September 14 2010, 22:51:25 UTC

All we have on our side is the ability to vote out of office anyone who fails to represent us

Not under an alleged "two-party system" where the party hierarchies control which candidates are "acceptable." Usually the choices, or at least the allowable parameters of policy, are predetermined.

and the ability to choose our economic partners.

Huh? Things like NAFTA and the WTO are designed so that none of the citizens of any signatory countries ever really get to vote on those issues. If you mean as individuals voting with our pocketbooks, then, yeah, within limits set by the relative few players who determine overall commodity and raw materials prices.

Our political system doesn't make accumulation of power simple or permanent, so we have that going for us.

It appears pretty permanent, pending either that admittedly unpalatable revolution, or a total collapse of the currency, etc.

If we all choose to only trade with our friends and neighbors and not feed the mega-corporations, and force the oligarchs to fritter away their ( ... )

Thread 5