256
I'm vooooting! (lemmy.ml)
submitted 16 hours ago by dessalines@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

But whose turn is it?

[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 13 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

The Nepalese figured out how to make their votes count….using this one weird trick

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 31 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Some more context for anyone wandering over from an anti-communist / pro-capitalist space:


Socialists view democracy under capitalism to be impossible. Most current-day systems are better labeled as Bourgeois Democracy, or democracy for the rich only, which socialists contrast with proletarian democracy. Under capitalism, political parties, representatives, infrastructure, and the media are controlled by capitalists, who place restrictions on the choices given to workers, limit their representative options to vetted capitalist puppets, and limit the scope of public debate to pro-capitalist views.

Bourgeois democracies are in reality Capitalist Dictatorships, resulting in legislation favorable to the wealthy, regardless of the population's actual preferences. The Princeton Study, conducted in the US in 2014, found that the preferences of the average US citizen exert a near-zero influence on legislation, making the US system of elections and campaigning little more than political theater. Multi-party, Parliamentary / representative democracy has proven to be the safest shell for capitalist rule, regardless of voting methods or differing political structures, for countries as diverse as Australia, Japan, Sweden, the UK, the US, South Korea, or Brazil.

Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle more accurately defined Democracy as rule by the poor, and they considered states based on elections to be anti-democratic Aristocracies, since only the wealthy and ruling families have the resources to finance elections. They contrasted this with random selection / sortition, and citizen's assemblies, as being the defining features of democracy, both of which are non-existent in the countries listed above. Today, liberal / parliamentary "democracies" are dominated by wealthy candidates, and entrenched political families, with Capitalists standing above political power.

This system of sham elections acts as a distracting theatre piece, giving the illusion of democracy, whilst in reality it serves to platform capitalist views, make them appear more popular than they are, and manufacture consent for the system itself.

Some more resources:

[-] washbasin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 hours ago

If only some of the 1/3 who didn't vote in the US gave a shit... This is a garbage take. Vote like your life depends on it.

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 hours ago

If only more people voted for the genocidal nazi we wouldn't be stuck with the genocidal nazi

[-] limer@lemmy.ml 28 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I’ve think voting in the USA is a faith driven social event, mixed with a mentality of watching sports.

It’s like a purification ritual , and is a descendant of the big tent Christian rivivals seen in the 1800s.

“Have you been saved” and “have you voted” are inflected the same ways in speech patterns.

Edit typo

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 17 points 13 hours ago

100%. Its about identifying with "the team", and declaring your allegience to the US system, not about substantive democracy.

[-] limer@lemmy.ml 6 points 12 hours ago

In states that do not use counting methods approved by the United Nations, voting provides legitimacy to ongoing multi-decade scams.

If the vote counting is illegitimate, should one vote for the better candidate anyway? This is an intensely debated thing over history in many countries.

Solving that, then voting is like you describe.

There are many layers to just how wrong voting is in the USA. And many of these scams, and the toleration of them, definitely affects reforms in unrelated areas other than the direct elections

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 11 points 14 hours ago

fwiw: it's adherence is like a faith driven event in that a very large percentage don't even engage but pretend that they do.

[-] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Vooooooooting

[-] Womdat10 8 points 13 hours ago

While I agree with you, there is no harm in voting, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 12 points 13 hours ago

there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.

Read my comment below, because it gets into this. It can't make things better, because it historically has never done so, only protests with the threat of violence from below (and completely outside of bourgeios democracy) have.

[-] Womdat10 4 points 12 hours ago

Except that it has historicaly made things better, sure, not in massive scale votes, but in smaller votes? In local elections? I fully agree that protests are necessary, and they are alot of what causes positive change, but that doesn't render voting completely useless. In the current systems that exist, capitalism does turn large votes into what is essentially a dick measuring contest. But in smaller scale, local votes there is less money being put into the system, so voting becomes more impactful.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 9 points 12 hours ago

Even locally, it would take some incredible magic for the capitalists who rule a given city or town's politics, to enact or enforce laws than go against their interests / profits, especially without a fight. Scale isn't relevant here, since local elites use the city/town police as goons to protect their property.

Unless you can give some examples, I don't believe it, and I certainly can't think of any time in my city's history where they've willingly allowed something against their interests.

[-] Womdat10 4 points 12 hours ago

My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists. In smaller scale elections, people can actually have a real choice to vote for a socialist, or communist, or other similar left wing leader.

Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting. As far as I know, those aren't typically financially very good for the rich who control the government. If I am incorrect about this, please correct me.

Also, I apologize, I am really not in the mood to do a bunch of research to find examples currently, if I remember about this in the future I will, but that is, unfortunately, far from a guarantee.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting.

Minimum wage, the 5-day work week, and other workers gains took decades of violent struggle and organizing by socialists, communists, and anarchists in nearly every country.

My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists.

That's not how it works in any capitalist country. Political power is subservient to economic power, and is toothless without it.

[-] limer@lemmy.ml 6 points 13 hours ago

Like many things in life, it gets complicated based on where you are at, what you believe, and personality.

If it’s important to you, then vote.

If you feel like your vote counts, vote.

If it is a small town election and the ballots are counted by people in the town, then vote.

For everything else, it’s shades of gray

this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
256 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

52621 readers
366 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS