"Not about moral high ground. One's an ideology my morals agree with, one isn't."

Is believing people should have a choice a moral high ground now?

modo_mario 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You have a 2 party system where on many fronts both parties tow (almost) the same line and roughly behave like a oneparty system.

▲

NoGravitas 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

China has one proletarian party. The US has two bourgeois parties. One might think the ideal would be to have one bourgeois party, and one proletarian party, but that hasn't seemed to work out anywhere.

▲

ButlerianJihad 2 days ago | parent [-]

Well done! You're on your way to your Lounge Suite!

https://youtu.be/vZ9myHhpS9s?si=UkviDqG2NBQVd_IK&t=131

	▲	NoGravitas 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Except I don't know who won the 1972 English Football Cup.

▲

SmirkingRevenge 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The two parties couldn't be more different today. Republicans are basically an authoritarian party that would be more at home in a place like Russia - or China - today.

That being said, democracies are about generating consensus between factions with otherwise irreconcilable differences.

There should be overlap on many fronts - that's kind of a feature, not a bug - at least in many cases.

▲

kaoD 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No, but believing our so-called "democracy" (quotes intended, read: "21st century western systems") is how you give people "a choice" is the moral high ground. That is your axiom, but it's often touted as a tautology.

The name says "demos" and "kratos" but names are names, not facts.

There are many ways to give people a choice and this one has proven to be quite ineffective at that, as it slowly devolved into a plutocracy/oligarchy. Iron law of oligarchy, yadda yadda.

What they are very effective at though: crushing dissent, calming the masses with a reassuring illusion of choice, and touting itself as the "one true way".

When I look at the outcomes I don't see any semblance of democracy, only a ritual dance/theatre show every 4 years. A farce as big as the "democratic" instruments on the PRC.

There's a reason this "democracy" is very diligent at discouraging association and unionizing. Those give actual power to the people (and with power comes choice). That's dangerous. People might start believing they can actually influence the outcomes.

"Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos"

▲

sofixa 2 days ago | parent [-]

> our so-called "democracy" (quotes intended, read: "21st century western systems")

Do not conflate the broken American political system, the semi-broken British one, and the whole rest of the "west". Each country has its own political system, and they are wildly different.

> crushing dissent

Democracies are good at crushing dissent? Compared to other political systems? That's just not true. All other political systems rely on universal truth and unwavering trust in a person / religion / clique of people, who can do no wrong and can never be criticised.

> There's a reason this "democracy" is very diligent at discouraging association and unionizing

What? You are probably talking about a specific democracy, and the most broken one at that.

▲

kaoD 2 days ago | parent [-]

> and they are wildly different

As someone from the "whole rest of the west", no, they're not different at all. Very minor details change, but the net outcome is the exact same and suffer from the exact same problems.

You can't escape the iron law of oligarchy.

> Democracies are good at crushing dissent?

They're not only good: they are the best. You don't need to curb dissent by violence if you discourage dissent by social manipulation. It's the cheapest and most effective tactic: keeping the populace docile.

If you manage to equate "democracy" (again, quotes intended) with democracy (lack of quotes intended), most of the work is already done.

"What are you, antidemocratic!?"

"Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos"

There's a reason my country's system trembled when the bipartisan system was challenged as new parties emerged... but it was curbed within two legislatures without a single shot fired and now we're back to an even stronger bipartisan representation. Quite the fine job, actually.

We even have a name for this: "the state's sewers". They're very effective. There's a reason the state's armed forces routinely infiltrate unions and other citizens participation platforms.

▲

sofixa 2 days ago | parent [-]

> As someone from the "whole rest of the west", no, they're not different at all. Very minor details change, but the net outcome is the exact same and suffer from the exact same problems.

Such as? There are countries such as Poland with a political duopoly, but in most European countries, there are multiple parties that work with or against each other. There are different coalitions with varying compromises between them.

> They're not only good: they are the best. You don't need to curb dissent by violence if you discourage dissent by social manipulation. It's the cheapest and most effective tactic: keeping the populace docile.

Nonsense, because autocracies do both, and the threat by violence is very real and makes sure that social manipulation is more effective.

	▲	kaoD 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> There are different coalitions with varying compromises between them. They all failed and were subsumed by the two (read: one) big groups in Europe. Far left and libertarians were crushed in the past two legislatures. Now it's PfE's turn but the antibodies are already in the bloodstream (the two big groups are already signing their covenants to protect the oligarchy) and Trump did them dirty (they're now scrambling to distance themselvesb from USA's and Israel's ties) so they're DoA and will fail too. This said: I understand your points, and thanks for the civil discussion.