it’s designed to only function as advertised if there’s full participation
Uh, what? Are you forgetting that suffrage was originally limited to land-owning men?
It was never designed for full participation - universal suffrage has been repeatedly rejected in favor of ‘compromised’ exclusions since our founding.
Our system has been quite literally designed to prevent full participation, idk where this idea comes from that full participation is somehow the true spirit of american democracy.
Either way, it’s much easier to convince people to go out and vote than it is to convince them to take up arms in a revolution, kill their opponents, and risk being killed or imprisoned as a consequence
It’s not an exaggeration to say that basically every bit of progress for labor and democratic rights in the US has been won by violent struggle, and it’s never been by a ‘majority’ of voters.
The US’ democracy is advertised as giving the population what they want, but it’s designed so that it doesn’t give the population what they want unless everyone votes and does so in their best interests, and it’s also designed so that lots of people don’t vote and if they do, they vote against their interests. That way, there’s the illusion of giving people what they want so they don’t revolt, but powerful people have their interests prioritised.
Because the system has to have an illusion of working in normal people’s interests, it’s got a failure mode where it starts approximating working in people’s interests when more people vote and more people engage enough to know which options on the ballot are closest to being in their interests.
I’m not saying that magically getting everyone to know who they should vote for and then show up to the polls is feasible, just that refusing to participate because the system’s ‘broken’ is what the system wants and how it makes sure it keeps doing the things it does.
I’m not saying that magically getting everyone to know who they should vote for and then show up to the polls is feasible, just that refusing to participate because the system’s ‘broken’ is what the system wants and how it makes sure it keeps doing the things it does
Making it difficult to vote is a reason it’s designed to fail, but it’s very possibly the least impactful.
Even if everyone participates, there are still dozens of ways in which capital restricts the options/neuters governance against the interests of the working class. Historically, it has almost never been turnout that drives progress, but dedicated, persistent, and quite often violent action by a relatively small number of actors. Nearly all of our basic labor rights came not from the working-class voter turnout but by armed protest and seizure of capital and infrastructure. Even when representation overwhelmingly ‘supports’ reform, the pressures of capital dis-incentivize regulation if they can avoid it (else they catch the blowback from unhappy capitalists, who quite literally control the nation’s productive capacity and resources) - it isn’t until the working class shows their willingness to disrupt the flow of profit that true progress is made.
I understood your whole comment, but my point isn’t event just that our system is designed to prevent participation, it’s also designed to prevent populist movements from making progress to begin with. “The system doesn’t want you to participate” is only a very small part of the story - it also does not need to listen to the popular will unless it’s backed by an implicit threat of violence.
I’m not even telling you not to vote, just that voting alone will never be enough, not even with total participation - especially when we have already reached the point in capitalist decay where fascism has taken control of governance. You cannot vote your way out of fascism, and the sooner people realize this the sooner people will stop being content with merely voting.
None of that takes anything away from my original point that participating more can make things less bad. I never even said that violent action was distinct from participation, just that it’s not the easiest form of participation to convince people to do, and that attempting a revolution (which is a huge step up from bombing a few factories and assassinating a few CEOs) won’t go well if it’s not got broad popular support or police and military backing. I’ve had enough arguments with tankies who insisted that it was easy to overthrow a capitalist state with twelve guys who believed hard enough in communism to magically generate an army, and there was no point in any other form of participation, that the thread looked to me like it might be about to summon the never vote, just wait for a revolutionary communist army to form people.
Uh, what? Are you forgetting that suffrage was originally limited to land-owning men?
It was never designed for full participation - universal suffrage has been repeatedly rejected in favor of ‘compromised’ exclusions since our founding.
Our system has been quite literally designed to prevent full participation, idk where this idea comes from that full participation is somehow the true spirit of american democracy.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that basically every bit of progress for labor and democratic rights in the US has been won by violent struggle, and it’s never been by a ‘majority’ of voters.
I think you’ve misunderstood a lot of my comment.
The US’ democracy is advertised as giving the population what they want, but it’s designed so that it doesn’t give the population what they want unless everyone votes and does so in their best interests, and it’s also designed so that lots of people don’t vote and if they do, they vote against their interests. That way, there’s the illusion of giving people what they want so they don’t revolt, but powerful people have their interests prioritised.
Because the system has to have an illusion of working in normal people’s interests, it’s got a failure mode where it starts approximating working in people’s interests when more people vote and more people engage enough to know which options on the ballot are closest to being in their interests.
I’m not saying that magically getting everyone to know who they should vote for and then show up to the polls is feasible, just that refusing to participate because the system’s ‘broken’ is what the system wants and how it makes sure it keeps doing the things it does.
Making it difficult to vote is a reason it’s designed to fail, but it’s very possibly the least impactful.
Even if everyone participates, there are still dozens of ways in which capital restricts the options/neuters governance against the interests of the working class. Historically, it has almost never been turnout that drives progress, but dedicated, persistent, and quite often violent action by a relatively small number of actors. Nearly all of our basic labor rights came not from the working-class voter turnout but by armed protest and seizure of capital and infrastructure. Even when representation overwhelmingly ‘supports’ reform, the pressures of capital dis-incentivize regulation if they can avoid it (else they catch the blowback from unhappy capitalists, who quite literally control the nation’s productive capacity and resources) - it isn’t until the working class shows their willingness to disrupt the flow of profit that true progress is made.
I understood your whole comment, but my point isn’t event just that our system is designed to prevent participation, it’s also designed to prevent populist movements from making progress to begin with. “The system doesn’t want you to participate” is only a very small part of the story - it also does not need to listen to the popular will unless it’s backed by an implicit threat of violence.
I’m not even telling you not to vote, just that voting alone will never be enough, not even with total participation - especially when we have already reached the point in capitalist decay where fascism has taken control of governance. You cannot vote your way out of fascism, and the sooner people realize this the sooner people will stop being content with merely voting.
None of that takes anything away from my original point that participating more can make things less bad. I never even said that violent action was distinct from participation, just that it’s not the easiest form of participation to convince people to do, and that attempting a revolution (which is a huge step up from bombing a few factories and assassinating a few CEOs) won’t go well if it’s not got broad popular support or police and military backing. I’ve had enough arguments with tankies who insisted that it was easy to overthrow a capitalist state with twelve guys who believed hard enough in communism to magically generate an army, and there was no point in any other form of participation, that the thread looked to me like it might be about to summon the never vote, just wait for a revolutionary communist army to form people.