| |
| ▲ | paxys 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's no need to dissolve congress. You instead make sure that (1) a single party stays in power (through gerrymandering, voter suppression and more), (2) the courts are stacked with loyalists and (3) the legislature and courts rubber stamp all decisions of the executive regardless of legality or anything else. | | |
| ▲ | redhed 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah this is usually how it happens. Whether its ancient Rome, modern Russia, Venezuela, etc all the dressings of the old Republic stay but become subverted by an autocrat. | |
| ▲ | louthy 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You also need a country name with 'Democratic' in it: Democratic People's Republic of America. That's how you know it's a fully totalitarian state. | |
| ▲ | victorbjorklund 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yea, US is probably gonna end up as Russia if nothing changes. On paper a democracy with elections. In practice a dictatorship. | | |
| ▲ | whimsicalism 3 days ago | parent [-] | | utter nonsense, i truly don't see how people can live in the US and be left with this impression. |
| |
| ▲ | axus 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Democracy with Chinese Characteristics | | |
| ▲ | kazen44 3 days ago | parent [-] | | atleast the people's republic of china never claims to be a democracy in the liberal western, sense of the word. Politically (on paper atleast) the chinese goverment is very much a marxist state, and it is very clear about that. |
| |
| ▲ | lazide 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure, but also why wouldn’t they? It’s historically unpopular as an institution, and clearly toothless. | | |
| ▲ | victorbjorklund 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | For the same reason russia and north Korea has elections? It sounds better to pretend the dictator is chosen by the people | | |
| ▲ | kazen44 3 days ago | parent [-] | | it is also a very easy pathway to create controlled opposition.
When you are a totalitarian dictator without elections, opposition of any kind is hard to control. With faux elections you give people a "choice" which seems reasonable compared the usual extremes in an totalitarian state. |
| |
| ▲ | Sevrene 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Democratic institutions only have as much power as they're given. | | |
| ▲ | lazide 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Have you not been paying attention? | | |
| ▲ | Sevrene 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Can you expand on this, what do you think I'm missing? | | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent [-] | | the Weimar Republic (a democracy) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic] certainly never directly voted to make Hitler a dictator - they voted him in, and he used the mechanisms of the state against itself (and crisises, both real and imagined) to seize power completely and become the official Dictator (Fuhrer means ‘leader’ in German). Here is a write up [https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-...]. Italy transitioned from a regency into democracy - which the fascists used to seize power and form a dictatorship [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism]. When the USSR collapsed, there was a temporary fledging democracy that started to form - that was then hijacked by Putin and twisted to support his now obvious Dictatorship. In the US, while one can certainly argue ‘they knew what they were voting for’, the Trump voters I knew vehemently denied what is now the obvious plan re: economic policies, starting new wars/crises, etc. that are now the norm. The current actual behavior of the US gov’t seems to align quite well with historical norms on this front, and continue to escalate. If ‘the people give them the power’ means ‘it’s legal’ (aka it is within a law the people’s agents have voted on and made official), or was voted on by the people, it’s clear the vast majority of high profile behavior of the gov’t lately doesn’t care about it. If anything, Democracies seem to be inherently ‘dumb’ when it comes to these types of situations. | | |
| ▲ | Sevrene 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The idea that democracy either created hitler or wasn't able to stop his rise via democratic action at all is often spruiked in anarchist communist circles, while it's true hitler wasn't voted in the literal sense, neither is Australia's Prime Minister. That doesn't make the PM undemocratic, it's just its own democractic institution inside the party. There's actually nothing in the Australian consitution about PMs. It doesn't mean you couldn't unelect the party democratically and thus the leader. The public can unelect them from power by voting out the Nazi party of which Hitler was leader (through again, a vote). So this is a case of what I'm saying actually being relevent – if people voted against the nazi party, hitler would not have risen to power. He only gained that power because the democratic institutions, the people let him. This is a case for more and better democracy, of valuing that institution. I've encountered Trump voters who were actually bernie bros and accelerationists - they voted for trump as a fu to the establishment. I think the have a moral responsibility to not vote on those urges and whims. I think this that's bad, even if I can feel the sentiment sometimes, and I think that sort of "democracy bad" is actually a harmful to discourse and simply not true. We need to bolster democracy for the people, not call it toothless while invoking communism and fascism. I don't ultimately blame Trump for his rise to power, I blame the people for being fickle and perfectionists. Democracy is precarious and precious, not a perfect ultimate catch all. The people need to foster it otherwise the rising tide of populism and fascism will drown it. | | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Huh? Do you even listen to yourself? | | |
| ▲ | Sevrene 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It would be a lot clearer to everyone if you said what you think. I don't think it's extreme to believe that democracy is the best tool to fight authoritarianism. That's why people like Trump deride democratic institutions and those important to it's function. | | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You asked for examples where democracies degraded to authoritarianism. I provided 3 recent ones, and yes the US is clearly currently in an authoritarian gov’t. Your response is to… assert they didn’t happen, and to do nothing different? While being completely unsure of what I’m saying when it sure seems pretty clear? | | |
| ▲ | Sevrene 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You've not understood what I said at all. I didn't ask for examples, I asked what you thought I was missing. Turns out I wasn't missing these things at all, we just disagree on the lessons learned there within. Fair enough, we can disagree, but to say I am denying it happened and not to do any different when my entire point was that we need to be MORE democratic, not less – by valuing democracy and not allowing people to tear it down, exactly what I am trying to do now. Democratic institutions only have as much power as they're given. | | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What democratic institutions do you think don’t have the power to deal with the current (or those past) situations? I’m not seeing any. | | |
| ▲ | Sevrene 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I return to you "Have you not been paying attention?" Trump didn't rise to power because of democracy, it was in spite of it, Trump literally tried to overturn the election results and still subverts the people's choice by continuing to spread that lie. He talks of jailing his opponents, plays dirty, doesn't respect the rules or democratic institutions. He is the antithesis of democracy and the people (using democracy) voted him in. The people failed themselves and their own people but they did so not as first order goals. Spartacist uprising, mensheviks vs bolsheviks, etc- people didn't turn away from democracy because democracy itself failed them, they turned away from democracy because they had some idealist world they wanted to get to– by force (i.e not democratic). This is what motivated communist uprises and hitler's brownshirts to subvert the election. Note that this says nothing as to whether they are correct or not in their worldview. Hitler shares this type of thinking and he took advantage of it – just like Trump destroys the media "fake news" or makes voting harder, if we, the people, didn't allow it, we would prevent it one way or another. The problem with Trump or Hitler isn't that they're "too democratic", it's that they subverted the process debasing it in turn. There is power in the collectve. Unions got this via bloodshed so that they need not bleed more. If we devalue unions because some unions are bad we just live in a world in which capital get to rule and bloodshed returns. It's a regression. It's not the right strategy, we need to work together despite our differences in solidarity despite the fact democracy sometimes leads to imperfect outcomes, all in order to prevent dictators, ensuring they govern with mandate and consent, not authoritarian force. It's not one single institution like "Congress". Democracy isn't just voting it requires free and fair elections which require free and fair political discourse which requires transparency, and mass media that informs doesn't distorts, etc. If we don't value these the next step isn't voting on it democratically, it's violence to enforce totalitarianism. In some ways, we're already there. Lets not inadvertently enable it. | | |
| ▲ | lazide 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You seem profoundly confused about cause and effect, and even the meaning of your own prior words. These things are all happening because enough people are turning into greedy short sighted idiots and overwhelmed/disengaged folks with no balls. None of this is about ‘power in democratic institutions’ - they have plenty, which is why they are being turned into powering the authoritarianism. Same as in those prior examples. ‘Why doesn’t anyone do anything?!?’ they say, as they refuse to do anything, or allow anyone sane to do anything either. Because the obvious thing - stand up and use the existing tools to do what needs to be done - requires effort and risk. And the only ones willing to do that are the greedy or insane. | | |
| ▲ | Sevrene 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's possible we just see things different, I'm not sure why you're so keen to say I'm "profoundly confused"- entirely possible we just have different perceptions no? Lets be more charitable. I agree things have deteriorated, I agree the state is centralising it's power and becoming more authoritarian that's true. I agree that through democracy authoritarianism can rise, and does. What I don't agree is that this by it's nature is because people value democracy, it's the opposite. Upholding democratic institutions might include a citizen doing their part to understand the policy, it might be the ICE agent or brownshirt, it might be judges refusing subverting traditions and spirit of law simply because it's not currently being enforced (much of democratic power is procedural and traditional, not by actual force). If people don't value it, it erodes and disappears. > None of this is about ‘power in democratic institutions’ - they have plenty, which is why they are being turned into powering the authoritarianism I think we might just both have a superficial disagreement with each other, when I say 'democratic institutions only have the power given to them' I mean to say the power of democracy is derived from the people, therefor if the state decides for the people (authoritarianism) and the people reject this but the state retains that power, well- that is treason not democracy. This is what made Hitler a dictator, he wasn't really into democracy, even though he subverted it, and he also used it to get into power. I'm not sure we actually disagree we might just have different framing. I consider this a failing of the people, yet you consider it a failing of the system (I assume). Both are valid I think. To me, if people decide through democracy to elect a dictator that shows a reluctance of the population to care about democracy or institutional norms. That's why this stuff happens during broader social & economic downturns. If people want to elect a person who wants to spend the entire GDP on producing paperclips, well I can't really fault them- that is democracy, the only other choice is authoritarianism isn't it? > ‘Why doesn’t anyone do anything?!?’ they say, as they refuse to do anything, or allow anyone sane to do anything either. Yep, I agree with this. We do need to be smarter and work together. We do have freedom, including the freedom to harm ourselves. People need to respect that and be more responsible, be more virtuous. If not, we get the government we deserve but not the one we might need. | | |
| ▲ | lazide 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | If your answer is ‘people need to be better’ while they are actively being manipulated and controlled by a bad actor in a position of authority over them (one that was manipulating them to get elected in the first place!), while said actor clearly is getting no negative consequences, my answer is ‘that clearly doesn’t seem to usually happen’ and ‘how do you expect that to occur once they are in power’? Notably, Brazil seems to have dealt with Bolsanaro - but that was because the gov’t in power actually recognized the danger and put him in jail in a timely fashion, and stopped him from continuing to do what he was doing. Something, notably, that none of the other examples I gave were able to do (despite some attempts). The only other way out, based on historical precedent, is blood. A lot of it. But hey, I’d love to be wrong! Maybe if we keep ragebaiting on social media about every fault of the opposition while refusing/unable to actually do anything about it - or even rally together for any meaningful course of action - victory will be ours! (/s) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | stackedinserter 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | TBH these steps are not that easy and probably are not possible in a federated country like US. | | |
| ▲ | joshred 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Gerrymandering already exists. Voter suppression was huge in the past, and may become huge again. The supreme court made sure of that. And also... the supreme court keeps issuing partisan decisions. So... what is left? Number 3? I guess you're arguing that federalism protects people, but how does it do that in a way that isn't already being eroded? | | |
| ▲ | stackedinserter 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There's no voter suppression in US, and it won't stand in courts even if somebody pushes it. Supreme court keeps using partisan decision in favour of Dems and GOP, so it remains balanced. What's left is everything you mentioned. |
|
| |
| ▲ | googlywoogly 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's no need to do any of things you mention considering that both parties are owned by the same people and are essentially two faces of the same party in practice. Also - almost all the powers that be - including courts and Congress are already for sale/at the service of big tech. | | |
| ▲ | leptons 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Both sides are not the same,not even close, and the voting record proves it. | | |
| ▲ | jdmichal 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > the voting record proves it. Putting on my tin-foil, devils-advocate hat... AKA I don't necessarily believe this but I also have no counter-argument: Mostly performative. When it's decided that something actually needs to pass, then you'll get some sacrificial lambs that vote across the aisle. Typically they'll be close to retirement or from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote. | | |
| ▲ | leptons 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not performative when people are losing health insurance and other people are at risk of starving. I agree with holding out on the government shutdown to try to prevent Americans losing healthcare. But when Republicans are absolutely fine with poor people starving so that they can take away people's healthcare, with a bonus that they get to shut down the government and say "see, government doesn't work", it becomes clear that letting the government shut down (especially food program shutdowns) continue is going to hurt more people than the government shutdown is going to help. So, when you say "performative" it sounds like you support the "both sides are the same" meme, but the ideologies are vastly different - one side is fine with people starving indefinitely, and the other actually doesn't want that. I would think at least some of this should be obvious, but I guess not? | |
| ▲ | gusgus01 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean at some point arguments like this become more akin to Russell's Teapot. If you're making an almost unfalsifiable claim, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it and not others to disprove it. From a political standpoint, the statement "from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote" is a weird way to put it, since if you framed it in a positive light it would sound more similar to "the state population falls on both sides of the issue and thus either vote could make sense from their legislator depending on exigent circumstances and other factors" or any number of other explanations depending on the vote and populations. |
| |
| ▲ | googlywoogly 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Both sides are exactly the same when it comes to big tech and the voting record proves it. | | |
| ▲ | leptons 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That's funny, because the president (Republican) just signed an executive order forbidding states from enacting their own AI regulations. Meanwhile, California's governor (Democrat) is trying to regulate AI. Please explain how that's "exactly the same". | | |
| ▲ | googlywoogly a day ago | parent [-] | | We'd have the exact same situation in reverse if democrats were in the white house. | | |
| ▲ | leptons a day ago | parent [-] | | No, we definitely would not, but you aren't here to engage in any kind of honest discussion. Your assertions are simply not supported by reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | whimsicalism 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I will bet you up to $1000 at 2:1 odds that in 5 years we will still have the same constitution and congress will not have been dissolved at any point. perhaps we ought to consider banning social media for adults or maybe just dystopian movies. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Right, because there's no need to change the Constitution when you have a captured Supreme Court to help you ignore it, and no need to dissolve Congress when they've steadily made themselves less and less relevant over the past few decades. | |
| ▲ | XorNot 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Russia still has a constitution, a parliament, separation of powers, and an independent judiciary. It even has opposition political parties and elections. And yet... | | | |
| ▲ | fridder 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I do wonder about the normalization of dystopian ideas. Take even a show like Scandal. The fact that one of the big reveals is that billionaires stole the election by targeted hacking of election machines is kinda messed up. |
| |
| ▲ | ipaddr 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | pessimizer 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everybody seems to have missed the memo that all power was concentrated in the Executive branch since the Bush Doctrine, and that since 2016 people have started insisting that the Executive doesn't even have any obligation to the President, the only important vote left (although limited to choosing between two private clubs funded by the same donors.). If Congress steps away from doing anything but serving donors (helped by the filibuster), and the captured regulators don't have to obey the President, there's actually no democracy left. We're in the impossible situation where Trump not being in control is scarier than Trump being in control. Even scarier is that the people saying that we're on the way to becoming an authoritarian state are saying that because they think that the voters get too much say. Authoritarianism is when we don't beatify Dr. Fauci, or agree that it's fine for pregnant women to take Tylenol. The upper middle class, in its complete narcissism and fall into self-indulgent fantasy, is entirely focused on aesthetics. edit: when replies that say that there's already a problem, but seem to be heretical about the covid response get flagkilled, there's a blessed opinion. I have no idea how elite echochambers are supposed to avoid an authoritarian state. Your bosses are kissing Trump's ass, and you're working hard doing things that advance their agenda. They couldn't do it without you. |
|
