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?
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?