• celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    It’s not supposed to counter capitalism or any one political ideology. It’s supposed to create more proportional representation. If everyone in a city is a conservative, then ranked voting will still skew conservative.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      In Poland we currently have 17 political parties and 42 independents on 460 seats in sejm. Yes, that’s potentially 59 different political stances… but every single one is still neoliberal.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Its impossible to have a government that represents the people, if capital stands above the political system.

      • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Actually, it’s very possible. Capital, despite being a tool of oppression, is also a tool that pays for roads, schools, hospitals, and everything else that the government funds. Capitalism is definitely not the best system, but it’s the one that’s currently available, and despite the common narrative here on lemmy, there are people that work at the Federal level that aren’t being actively lobbied that do indeed pass good legislation. The way to improve the system is by implementing ranked voting, which increases the equity of representation in DC. Voters in Wyoming shouldn’t have the same say in politics as voters in New York or other more densely populated congressional districts.

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 minutes ago

          Capitalism is not a tool that pays for social services. Its a system that allows private individuals to own the means of production (and along with those, the political systems, laws, and media of their domiciled countries) with the goal of extracting a profit from the sale of commodities produced by wage workers they employ.

          Capitalists only apportion some of the surplus value stolen from workers to public services, when forced to by political agitation from below.

          These proposals for ranked choice voting are a dead-end, because they already exist in many capitalist countries, and it doesn’t fix anything. They just stack any number of candidates they like, and have their media push the most friendly ones.

          If you allow capitalists to own production, then the political system will always be subservient to them, and be nothing but puppets to serve their interests. Anyways here’s some more resources:

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          The way to improve the system is by implementing ranked voting

          Then do it. Try to test your ideas against reality. You’ll find that RCV

          1. Will only be allowed in small amounts as a show of feasibility, without affecting major change

          2. Will be gutted if it ever does get implemented and stands chance of changing anything.

          The path forward is revolution, not a giant prayer for RCV to be implemented magically.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        You fix that by seizing the means of production, generally with unions.

        You protect union rights by both voting for candidates that will protect unions, and also fighting to unionize your own workplace.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          While your proposition is still better than the neoliberal merry-go-round, unions can only serve as a base for vanguard worker’s party. Unions by themselves never once seized the means of production and ultimately most of them turned into tools of class collaboration.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 hour ago

              What’s wrong with Marxism? Why do you advocate for Syndicalism, does it just sound good to you, or is there a materialist reason for it?

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 hour ago

                First off, nobody takes Marxism by itself. If it’s accepted, it’s always with extra things attached and other parts removed.

                Second, my issue in this case is the Lennist part. A vanguard party degrades into cult-like behavior, and this is very consistent with ML groups big and small.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  47 minutes ago

                  First off, nobody takes Marxism by itself. If it’s accepted, it’s always with extra things attached and other parts removed.

                  What on Earth do you mean? What do people remove?

                  Second, my issue in this case is the Lennist part. A vanguard party degrades into cult-like behavior, and this is very consistent with ML groups big and small.

                  What do you mean “cult-like behavior?” Why do you believe this “cult-like behavior” arises? Where does Lenin deviate from Marx?

                  Why do you advocate for Syndicalism, because it sounds good to you? You aren’t making any analysis nor points, you just seem to be contrarion. Surely you have some reason for wanting syndicalism, no?