Is there a third option where it’s like “Nobody’s really been planning anything for centuries and everything’s just continuing and everyone knows there ought to be something different but nobody can agree on what that thing ought to be”?
lenin lenin lenin
The GOAT
Things are working great and you people need to quit complaining
I’d like to purchase some PORNOGRAPHY :)
The system is working even more efficiently than ever intended and needs to be dismantled and buried so it can never return
Where did you find this picture lol
Okay but those glasses actually go so hard.
Why do you have the netscape logo?
Because it’s cool. When I first made my Lemmy account, I was looking through my computer’s saved images. I had this saved from earlier because it looked so cool. It felt right because federated social media feels like a return to the old web in some ways, prior to the abundance of walled gardens. So a retro logo felt like a cool choice. But it was really just because I saved it when I saw it somewhere so it just happened to be here when I made my account!
I want these glasses you’re advertising.
The Case for a Third Reconstruction
The scale and depth of the attack on our institutions means that there is no simple way for a pro-democracy coalition to flip the lights back on after Trump. We need transformative thinking.
Better yet, let’s learn from the success of socialist countries and smash the capitalist state, replace it with a socialist one, and gradually collectivize production and distribution with a focus on meeting the needs of the people.
A socialist state will always be recaptured by capital. The state must be smashed, repeatedly and relentlessly, until no state can ever rise again.
Guardrails are only enforceable by the state. Without the state to smash capitalism and enforce guardrails against corruption and the power of greed, capitalism and authoritarianism will always step in to fill the power vacuum.
This is why communism has always failed within a few months to a few years of initiation: lack of guardrails and laws that are effectively enforced against capitalism or authoritarianism. It’s why every “communist” state in history devolved into an authoritarian, anti-communist political structure very, very quickly. Hell, even in Russia communism was effectively dead by 1918.
We are so close to having the technology to implement direct participatory democracy (A.K.A., political communism), where things like presidents and premiers and politicians in general just don’t exist, and only minor functionaries and coordinatinative councils remain to carry out the people’s directives.
What is still needed, however, is a highly educated and literate population that values education, facts, and meritocracy - thereby suffocating conservatism and strangling it to death - and for that population to have an exceedingly tiny level of economic inequality, such that the wealth is returned properly into the hands of the Working Class that created it, and most people can then acquire the mental headspace to focus on more than just daily survival needs (as in, focus on community-level or even nation-level subjects).
A strong state is not necessarily a dangerous one. What makes ours dangerous is that power is concentrated at the top, with those who have money (capitalists) calling the shots. A distributed, citizen-directed state that is utterly immune from money and power hierarchies can be built that will only ever feel oppressive to those who are inherently abusive, greedy, and malicious.
You can’t collectivize all of production and distribution if you keep smashing the state, you’ll just create a bunch of communalist cells at best, at worst you’ll recreate capitalist relations and a new state. The state must wither, and it does so by erasing the basis of the state, ie by erasing class. You can’t erase class without collectivizing all of production and distribution.
Anarchism is primarily about communalization of production. Marxism is primarily about collectivization of production.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Abolishing the state overnight would not create the kind of society Marxists advocate for advancing towards, and if anything, would result in the resumption of competition and the resurgance of capitalism if Marx and Engels predictions are correct.
Trotskyist permanent revolution bullshit.
Ok, but how do we get there? How do we keep oligarchs, (like the ones who own Palantir and work with other oligarchs like Netenyahu using remote weapons of mass genocide to fight for them and gain ground in order to control others), from taking advantage of the power vacuum left by destabilization?
Again, taking cues from socialist countries, creating a mass working class party to overthrow and replace the state. We aren’t talking about just attacking with no plan going forward, but organizing directly so as to already have an organization in place. Capitalists only have the power they do because of the state, if we smash and replace it they have no power.
Which socialist country would be the best example?
Capitalists only have the power they do because of the state, if we smash and replace it they have no power.
The state, as well as the public and private military and resources they hoard and control.
The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and many more serve as valuable lessons for us. We can’t cleanly map their conditions onto ours, as the US is a dying Empire rather than an underdeveloped/agrarian society liberating themselved from colonialism like many of these countries were before socialism, but we can still learn from their methods.
As for the millitary, that’s an aspect of the state. Capitalists only control the resources they do because the state backs them up. Revolutionary history teaches us how this unfolds.
USSR
Uhh…
History should teach you that the co-founder of the Heritage Foundation was traveling around Moscow and Eastern Europe when the Soviet Union collapsed, but it never really gets talked about for some reason.
A conservative who essentially birthed Project 2025 and is famously quoted as saying “I don’t want everyone to vote,” was sneaking in computers and other electronics to Soviet dissidents while teaching soviet politicians all about American “democracy” just prior to the collapse.
Then he and several other members of Heritage were ready to fill the power vacuum and help establish the first go between for U.S. and Russian capitalist businesses.
“You capture the Soviet Union --I’m going to capture the states.”-Thomas Roe, Heritage Foundation board member and founder of the State Policy Network to fellow Heritage Foundation board member Robert Krieble.
In 1989, the Krieble Institute was created “to promote democracy and economic freedom in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.”
1989: A Republican in Moscow (WaPo article about Weyrich holding mock elections)
PBS Documentary about Weyrich and Krieble involvement in Collapse of USSR Playing For Power (2012)
I’m aware of the dissolution of the USSR. It lasted for nearly a full century, and the causes of its dissolution have been studied by every single communist party in existence thoroughly. They didn’t dissolve because a random far-right Statesian whispered evil things, that was a symptom of the dissolution.
Further, without the US Empire, there aren’t going to be nearly as many ways for the remaining capitalists to exert their will or coup.
You realize that all of those are a massive failure right? Living in those places was and is a nightmare. You know that right? If not, then you’re not smart enough to be replacing any form of government.
You can tell the terminal reddit shitlibs by the combination of extreme smugness while also being completely wrong
God, what a nightmare
But maybe I’m just not smart enough to read this graph correctly. Maybe it’s actually upside down.
It’s much the opposite, living in those places was and is very good, especially when viewed over time and not as an individual snapshot. The USSR, for example, managed to double life expectancy, provide free, high quality healthcare, education, and low-cost or free housing for all, lowered working hours, and had one of the fastest growing economies in the world while democratizing society. The PRC is on track to become the world’s indusputably most advanced country in the following decades. What’s going on is that socialism and socialist countries have been systemically demonized in the west to prevent the working classes from seeking an alternative.
I’m not a genius by any stretch, but I’ve studied these countries, engaged with theory, organize in real life, and more. I’m smart enough to understand this, which I’d say everyone is if they put in the effort. Intelligence isn’t nearly as striated as liberals would have you believe.
Trump is normal for America and how America acts around the world, you guys are just upset it is happening at home now and not Iraq.
Folks can’t remember Bush Jr at all, much less Clinton, Bush Sr or Reagan. They can barely remember Obama, except through a haze of nostalgia.
What’s notable about Trump isn’t his fascism - plenty of presidents have been openly fascist. What’s notable is how many middle class white people are getting sucked up into the current dragnet.
I don’t really get how that contradicts needing a 3rd reconstruction that dismantles the government agencies that carry out that kind of shit and didn’t even exist until WWII rather than dismantling a democracy?
you guys are just upset it is happening at home now and not Iraq.
Can’t argue with you there, but that’s also part of what makes me question who’s best interest would be dismantling U.S. democracy instead of dismantling specific agencies within the government, with no plan for where we go next?
Because it kinda seems like those agencies would carry on doing whatever they want even after a union fully dissolves. They would just have fewer obstacles in their way.
When you think about how an American agency, for example, the CIA operates this playbook in other countries, what is their intended goal?
Their goal is to destabilize a country in order to remove any obstacles to taking full control. They usually achieve destabilization by undermining public trust in a system and the leaders of that system, so that the public will either dismantle the government for them or be less resistant once it is dismantled (see the Soviet Union in the late 80s). Once that happens, they already hold all the resources and power, and install somebody they already have lined up.
Considering that there seems to currently be a global campaign to spread disinformation and install far right leaders across the globe, it makes me question if this is happening everywhere bc global destabilization is the goal.
Currently, just about anywhere in the world, who holds the majority of the resources? The people or a small group of oligarchs? When destabilization happens and a local government collapses who has the upper hand when it comes to filling the power vacuum?
In socialist countries, the working classes are in control. We can learn from them.
No no no. In socialist countries, the Big Government is in control. There’s no freedom. Everyone lives in fear. You don’t even own your own toothbrush.
Anyone who supports socialism is a Tankie who just wants to kill rich white people for fun and doesn’t understand how awful their lives will be afterwards.
I genuinely can’t tell whether this is satire or not.
All good, it’s satire
Like which countries specifically? Bc I can almost guarantee there is currently a far right disinformation campaign targeted at undermining that country’s government.
Yeah, a disinformation campaign being run by the same US government you’re desperate to preserve.
🙄 reconstruction was a response to oligarchs who wanted to ignore progress. They have always fought laws and regulations that threatened their power. There was literally a civil war fought over this.
America’s unending struggle between Oligarchy and Democracy
Even after losing a war, they continued to scheme and manipulate others to stack the decks in their favor. They continued to do it after the first reconstruction, and the second reconstruction, and they will certainly do it again after the 3rd.
That’s why it is (and always will be) a completely bullshit argument that the safety nets, laws, and regulations created to keep these assholes in check, allegedly no longer serve a purpose and only serve to place an unfair burden on society based on the mistakes of the past.
The callousness, selfishness, and greed that fueled the “mistakes” of the past were never unique to the time period. They have always just been human flaws, and should serve as reminders that every human is corruptible. The worst traits of humanity are never just magically going to disappear someday. They exist in every corner of the world, under every government. They always have and they always will.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
the disinformation campaign has been running since the mid 1930’s and it’s been taught in our schools and disseminated via legacy media since the 1940’s.
a key feature of the campaign is to make americans predisposed to outright reject the alternatives that have already been proven to work in irl and all of those alternatives are aligned with what @[email protected] already told you.
anything else is going to be a rinse and repeat of what we already have.
a key feature of the campaign is to make americans predisposed to outright reject the alternatives that have already been proven to work
Not just with socialism. This was the response to the civil rights movement of the 60s/70s, to the environmentalism of the 80s/90s, and to the anti-war movement of the 00s/10s.
Every progressive position is pillared as unworkable, overly expensive, and jobs-killing.
Meanwhile, we sink $1T/year into chat bots that spam your Twitter feed with racist porn and armies of tweaked out sheriffs deputies to crash their cars into anyone they consider illegally brown
those were all socialist aligned movements:
the civil rights movement – the black panthers in particular – was literally socialists and bombed (also literally) because of it. MLK jr.'s cadre took great pains to ensure that their efforts didn’t get labeled as socialist because of it. the environmentalists of the 80’s/90’s – green peace in particular – was also heavily socialist influenced and got labeled as such for not making efforts like MLK jr did.
now-a-days, the campaign misinforms americans that leftists don’t reliably vote despite examples like clinton and obama proving otherwise and there being enough green, psl, dsa, cpusa votes to counter republicans easily. this misinformation is done to cover for the fact that the democrats don’t want to adopt platforms that left leaning voters want and this is most recently self evident in kamala harris’ campaign and its attempt to sway republicans to vote democrat rather than shore up her democratic base.
Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, etc. There are far-right disinformation campaigns from western countries trying to undermine them, but these countries have sovereignty over their media, industry, and infrastructure, and thus show no signs of collapse. If the US Empire was overthrown, there’s no chance the EU could meaningfully overturn that, they are far too weak at this point, and couldn’t even overturn the soviets when Europe was stronger and right next door.
I don’t really get how that contradicts needing a 3rd reconstruction that dismantles the government agencies that carry out that kind of shit and didn’t even exist until WWII rather than dismantling a democracy?
- You don’t have a democracy, you live in a dictatorship of capital
- You never completed the second reconstruction, what makes you think you can handle a third
What makes you think oligarchs haven’t been continuing to undermine and dismantle the second reconstruction this entire time, and aren’t using their established global institutions (like banks, corporations, and conservative think tanks) to do exactly what they’ve been projecting and accusing progressives of doing?
Do you honestly think there isn’t a good chance a global cabal of far right conservatives might be ready to use their collective wealth and resources they hoard and pass down for generations to take full global control?
Or Steve Kangas on the Origins of the overclass and the crimes of the CIA
What exactly is your point? If they undermined and dismantled the second reconstruction, why wouldn’t they the third?
They are attempting to undermine and dismantle it. It took over 50 years of scheming and clawing their way into government to gain enough power to try and tear down from the inside out.
And they will continue to attack and try to dismantle it. That’s what enemies and bad actors will always do. That’s why the article lays out a strategy for creating a system that allows more flexibility in response to these attacks.
And why would they not do that again?
I started to read ultimately skimmed through a lot of flowery language and hot air that seems to toe the center left message of just organize, protest, and vote harder. Did I miss something?
Yep pretty much it seems that’s all we can do, which is why we haven’t been able to affect much change. We need revolutionary uprising and revolting, but that requires every oppressed person to be in solidarity on one united front but many of them are so brainwashed by the media which is genius at dividing people against each other. As long as they can keep the plebeians in-fighting and arguing with each other about stupid inconsequential things, the plebeians cannot rise up to revolution and revolt against the true oppressors.
•to move us from our undemocratic present to a more democratic future, we need to institutionalize our commitments to a more inclusive and responsive democracy in more durable forms. These might encompass everything from alternative economic regulatory institutions and new approaches to anti-discrimination to a more universal safety net that secures the essential guarantees of health, housing, and income that individuals and communities need to thrive.
•A second reconstructionist strategy lies in containing reactionary power and backlash. We should presume that there will always be efforts to roll back egalitarian expansions of democracy. Part of how democracies survive and thrive is through institutions that contain the potential resurgence of anti-democratic policies and forces. The democratic institutions of the future will similarly need to develop ways to contain authoritarian power. This will require laws and institutions that respond to techniques that are emerging in the current moment, such as new forms of state and private surveillance, or the weaponization of presidential control of funding flows.
•The third institutional transformation strategy is to democratize our governing institutions, making policymaking more directly responsive to and shaped by ordinary constituents. One important area is the balance of power between the branches. Even before Trump, the trend has been to centralize power in an imperial presidency. The legislature, by contrast, has been central to past moments of democratization. Any future reconstructionist agenda will need to be built on congressional majorities and a legislature willing to check and permanently shift away from the overreliance on presidential power.
Where’s the 2nd one from
Both from good omens, I think
Yep, top is Aziraphale and bottom is Crowley.
no way, Aziraphale is definitely the bottom, he wouldn’t be able to top to save the world (except that one time when he terrified everyone in hell)
nah, Crowley’s far too bratty to be exclusively a top. they switch whenever they feel like it
but it feels to me like Aziraphael would have a panic attack of Crowley started bratting to him. i couldddd see a soft dom potential but a fragile one
posiwid
In the past I’ve heard the second opinion primarily from people who say that a system is intended to work in the way that it does. Which makes the statement tautological: The system is working exactly as it works. I find this view unconvincing.
There is a difference is saying “I does what it does” and “what it does is per design”. The latter assigns a responsibility.
In OP Aziraphale gives socienty the responsibility to fix a broken system incrementally and Crowley gives the people in power the fault of intentionally creating a bad system and calls for revolution.
But you don’t need to misuse language to assign responsibility. It is their responsibility for breaking the system. Saying the system was always designed for this removes responsibility.
The system being broken by design doesn’t absolve anyone acting within it from the responsibility of their actions. No one is forcing anyone to game the system as effectively as possible to the detriment of the majority. Acknowledging the system itself is fundamentally broken is pointing out that its design rewards bad actors; bad actors are still acting badly and are responsible for those actions.
But you don’t need to misuse language to assign responsibility.
What? I am interested… How else would you assign the responsibility to people that designed something intentionally bad, if you cannot used language?
“Misuse [of] language” is a concept I cannot even begin to wrap my head around…
Do I loose the warranty if I use language in unintended ways?
It is their responsibility for breaking the system.
You just ‘misused’ language to assign responsibility to people for breaking the system.
Saying the system was always designed for this removes responsibility.
No? Responsibility is not a binary concept. Someone can kill someone else, and would be responsible for that death, and the people around that killer could also share responsibility for not noticeing their unusual behavior. And the system could also be responsible for not giving the killer the support they needed, which drove them to kill someone. And the people that designed or constructed that system could also be responsible for not caring enough about these kinds of deaths to prevent them systemically.
POSIWID is a reminder to analyse the system the way it is, not the way it should be.
Bit of both.
these are not two sides. The system is working as some intend so needs to be dismantled, at least large parts of it, to fix it.
People always forget, nuance exists.
You can’t fix capitalism, though, that’s the point.
we don’t have capitalism. But fuck any ism, just find the broken shit and fix it. People think there’s one trick, one system, one thing that will fix shit. Nothing will but work, time, effort, good judgement. What worked yesterday, won’t work tomorrow, at least without updating it.
Yeah, capitalism is fucked. I don’t want to put in another fucking ism, I want to buckle the fuck down and fix the shit that’s wrong.
we don’t have capitalism.
🤦 To say that is to say you don’t have even a Wikipedia-level understanding of capitalism.
People think there’s one trick, one system, one thing that will fix shit.
No, people don’t think that.
Nothing will but work, time, effort, good judgement.
Correct.
What worked yesterday, won’t work tomorrow, at least without updating it.
Correct.
I don’t want to put in another fucking ism, I want to buckle the fuck down and fix the shit that’s wrong.
People who don’t learn or develop theory can buckle down all they want, but they’re not going to get very far because they don’t understand anything.
It is a lot of work, time, and effort, and some of that is necessarily intellectual work, if you actually want to succeed in changing the world. Otherwise it’s like saying you want to be able fly without developing theories of physics, aerodynamics, and internal combustion engines.
I’m not going to reply to any more stupidity in here. Go theorize all you want. I’ll just leave one comment.
Otherwise it’s like saying you want to be able fly without developing theories of physics, aerodynamics, and internal combustion engines.
Check a history book, that’s precisely how we started flying.
The Wikipedia page for the Wright brothers suggests otherwise. Preceding theory informs practice, which in turn informs theory, ad infinitum. They wouldn’t have gotten off the ground without standing on the shoulders of giants’ previous theories, or without creating/updating theories from their experiments and then putting those theories to the test in practice.
Marx, Engels, and Lenin didn’t sit in a room and build castles in the sky. They (1) learned their predecessors’ theories, (2) deeply investigated the contemporary moment of the world, (3) updated preceding theories and developed new ones based on those investigations, (4) tested those theories in the real world, and so on in a dialectical manner.
The Wright Brothers did not know everything about flying, physics, engines, etc. They knew enough to do it, and did. In the years since we have written millions more pages and tried so many more things that if I want to fly, I don’t need to reinvent the airplane. This is the superpower of humanity, we don’t have to reinvent every time.
We all know enough about capitalism, socialism, etc. to act. Instead we prefer to sit and wank longer about the best possible society; meaning all we can do is endlessly talk about the best possible society.
The only way to actually build one is to learn what’s needed and act. Who cares what label it has, who cares if the theory is sound or not. If it doesn’t work in practice, you iterate forward.
And how are you going to fix things with no framework to analyze and determine how? You’re just going to “buckle the fuck down” and…? What? What specifically are you going to do to “fix the shit that’s wrong”?
The western world absolutely has capitalism. We don’t need to say “fuck -isms,” we need to understand what works and what doesn’t, and what works is socialism. You can’t just fix critical flaws with capitalism like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall or the profit motive.
It has a corrupt form of capitalism. It also has corrupt socialism.
So, do the good shit and I personally belive a socialist style system will result. It’s the work against the corruption that is the hard part.
How do you people manage to be so ignorant but also do confidently wrong?
It has a corrupt form of capitalism.
I AGREE! We must return to a more pure form of capitalism by repealing the Chimney Sweepers Act 1788! Boys younger than eight should be allowed to be apprentices! Master sweeps should be allowed to take them on without getting their parents’ consent, a four year old young man is able to make his own decisions!
Capitalism and socialism aren’t like yin and yang, they describe over-arching systems. Capitalism is best described as a mode of production where private ownership is principle and capitalists in control of the state, and socialism where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control. Western countries are capitalist, socialist countries include Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc.
I’m well aware. I guess good luck instituting socialism then. I bet you get far.
To not be a dick. Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. We have don’t have a coherent system, we have aspects of many, but the western ‘cult’ worships at the alter of capitalism. But we have a very corrupted version of it, that includes socialist, and authoritarian, and fascist tendencies. Things are far too entrenched to simply say, replace the system we have with this other one.
No system has ever been instituted to its definition, there is always unique challenges and differences and personalities. Spending time instituting a whole scale replacement, is time that will be wasted. Instead, we need a strategy of implementation through attrition. Forget the isms, just work on addressing the problems, and eventually we can build a better system.
I don’t think you’re understanding me. There’s absolutely nothing socialist about western countries. Western countries don’t have a “corrupted” version of capitalism, that’s just capitalism in action.
Ideologies like Marxism-Leninism are useful because they help us better understand the world, and what we need to do to move onto a better world. Destroying the capitalist state, replacing it with a socialist one, and gradually appropriating and collectivizing all production and distribution is a time-tested method for doing so.
Ok centrist
People always forget, nuance exists.
Amen.
(to noticing and remembering nuance exists)
(ps, Good luck with that other conversational cascade here… recent experience taught, that one’s not at all inclined to nuance, open minded conversation, or entertaining ideas (nuanced or otherwise), or anything other than unreasonably repeating dogma with fallacies galore.)
In other words, they categorically schooled you and you’re to much of a stubborn baby to accept that.
You dodged my arguments and got a LLM to do your arguing for you. It hallucinated points and continued to dodge every single one of mine.
Lemmy politics i find a bit confusing and maybe i dont understand it very well but all forms of black and white communism /marxism-leninism always seemed to have lead to totalitarian states… like correct me if wrong, its fair and completely normal to say that whatever the west amd especially countries like USA an UK are bullshit and need to dismantled atleast large parts of it… but i dont understand why they jump instantly to models of china and Russia… like i said maybe i dont understand it well enough…
The vast majority of Marxist-Leninists in the west only gradually come to understand and accept existing socialism, like the former USSR and current PRC. It’s usually a years, even decades-long process of studying Marxism-Leninism, existing socialism, and peeling back layers and layers of anti-communism instilled from birth.
AES countries are not “totalitarian,” at least not evenly. They have all been dramatically liberating for the working classes, while being horrfying for capitalists, landlords, fascists, slavers, etc from their prior systems. In the west, we get an exaggerated boogeyman version of these countries beamed into our heads, from the ruling class perspectives, to prevent us from seeing how we could benefit by learning from them.
Marxism-Leninism is by no means black and white. Nuance is build into Marxism, its key philosophical outlook is dialectical materialism.
Thanks for ur perspective, i think they r fair points, but you are giving up a lot of personal liberty and freedom of expression if you are OK with systems of something like PRC, but i suppose that can be classified as a choice However I think that the censorship that goes around such countries also makes it harder for us to know anything other than for example China might want to show us, we dont really have much idea of how internal dynamics work there and if u choose to believe personal testimonies its not pretty…
I’m not a capitalist, the amount of freedom I’d have if I lived in the PRC would increase dramatically. Despite popular misconception, we do have a good idea of what goes on in China. They have english-speaking news like CGTN, their processes are observed and reported on, and if you believe personal testemonies it’s actually fantastic:
The problem is that western media obfuscates or slanders a lot of this reporting. It’s a much more insidious form of censorship, it pretends it doesn’t exist. China controls and censors the speech of capitalists and wreckers, yes, and this is approved by the vast majority.
I dont think even you would agree that china is democratic tho… not to say the west are perfect democracies, and the data u provided reflects people thoughts… the china one raises some questions…
China is democratic, though. Why do you say they aren’t? They elect officials, have large feedback polls and national suggestions for Five Year Plans, and there are local and regional governments with their own autonomy. Popular support in China is well-documented.
Peoples satisfaction isnt a metric of democracy, are a lot of people happy with chinas government? Maybe, minorities certainly arent tho But the reason its undemocratic is that there isnt really anything to challenge the CCP or its policies, and dissent is punished and censored, people have historically been happy under monarchs, but doesnt make them democratic…
The system worked like that for a few millennia. We’re just looking at not even a century that’s the exception and assume it’s the new norm. No, it’s just reverting to the old state now that the period of cheap and easy resources is gone.
Capitalism is only a few centuries old, and capitalist imperialism only really solidified around 1900. The era of US Imperialism (not just settler-colonialism) truly came into existence after World War II. It’s not that this is an exception, it’s a rapidly declining system.
Yes, with a short golden age roughly between WWII and the seventies, and going downhill for most people since then.
Not exactly. The “golden era” was financed off the backs of the global south, causing untold misery on Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Palestinians, Iraqis, and much more. Now, the global south is doing more south-south trade, escaping unequal exchange, and China is rising as the world’s most advanced socialist state. The west is dying, but the global south is rising.
The system has always oppressed somewhere and has never been good.
