Correlarion is not causation. One party autocracies will lead to worse outcomes in regards to (everyone,) the global south et al, not better.
Politicians being captured by corps has led to them pursuing unpopular policies, and corporate media misleading people, people that overwhelmingly would oppose such policies in an honest discussion you better believe it.
You’re right that correlation isn’t causation, but you’re refusing to look at the cause.
The cause isn’t “one-party rule” versus “multi-party rule.” It’s class rule. In our system, the competing parties are still captured by capital. You get a choice between two management teams for the same corporate state.
You say people would oppose these policies in an honest discussion, but that’s the point: the system is structurally designed to prevent that honest discussion. The media, the lobbying, the campaign finance, it’s all part of the machine.
Meanwhile, the “autocracy” you fear has in many cases been the tool that broke the power of the feudal lords and colonialists to industrialize, educate, and lift hundreds of millions from poverty in a generation, something the “representative” systems you defend never did for their own colonies.
The primary question is: who does the state serve? Capital or the people? Our state serves capital, regardless of how many parties are at the podium.
You are associating representative government with this system that has been engineered to side with capital. When representative government has to large degrees been forced to serve people and not just capital previously. Where the system has been ripped from serving capital alone. It was just re-captured.
Without contest for leadership things will only get worse, especially here.
That’s a fair point, and it’s one I actually agree with. You’re right, through immense struggle, through unions and mass movements, people have forced the representative system to serve them at times. The New Deal, the weekend, the forty-hour work week, those were victories wrestled from capital. That history is crucial.
But that’s my point exactly. The system didn’t grant those things out of its inherent virtue; they were taken by force through class struggle. And the moment that popular pressure waned, capital began a fifty-year project to re-capture it, as you said, and make that recapture permanent.
So the question becomes: is “contestation” within a system permanently rigged by capital’s wealth and media power enough? Or does building a system that by its structure prioritizes people over profit, a structure built on that history of struggle rather than one that constantly fights against it, actually offer a more stable guarantee against that recapture?
You fear no contest will make things worse. But what if the most important contest isn’t between two parties, but between two classes, and one class has permanently rigged the party system in its favor?
Correlarion is not causation. One party autocracies will lead to worse outcomes in regards to (everyone,) the global south et al, not better.
Politicians being captured by corps has led to them pursuing unpopular policies, and corporate media misleading people, people that overwhelmingly would oppose such policies in an honest discussion you better believe it.
You’re right that correlation isn’t causation, but you’re refusing to look at the cause.
The cause isn’t “one-party rule” versus “multi-party rule.” It’s class rule. In our system, the competing parties are still captured by capital. You get a choice between two management teams for the same corporate state.
You say people would oppose these policies in an honest discussion, but that’s the point: the system is structurally designed to prevent that honest discussion. The media, the lobbying, the campaign finance, it’s all part of the machine.
Meanwhile, the “autocracy” you fear has in many cases been the tool that broke the power of the feudal lords and colonialists to industrialize, educate, and lift hundreds of millions from poverty in a generation, something the “representative” systems you defend never did for their own colonies.
The primary question is: who does the state serve? Capital or the people? Our state serves capital, regardless of how many parties are at the podium.
You are associating representative government with this system that has been engineered to side with capital. When representative government has to large degrees been forced to serve people and not just capital previously. Where the system has been ripped from serving capital alone. It was just re-captured.
Without contest for leadership things will only get worse, especially here.
That’s a fair point, and it’s one I actually agree with. You’re right, through immense struggle, through unions and mass movements, people have forced the representative system to serve them at times. The New Deal, the weekend, the forty-hour work week, those were victories wrestled from capital. That history is crucial.
But that’s my point exactly. The system didn’t grant those things out of its inherent virtue; they were taken by force through class struggle. And the moment that popular pressure waned, capital began a fifty-year project to re-capture it, as you said, and make that recapture permanent.
So the question becomes: is “contestation” within a system permanently rigged by capital’s wealth and media power enough? Or does building a system that by its structure prioritizes people over profit, a structure built on that history of struggle rather than one that constantly fights against it, actually offer a more stable guarantee against that recapture?
You fear no contest will make things worse. But what if the most important contest isn’t between two parties, but between two classes, and one class has permanently rigged the party system in its favor?