There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Social Democracy entrenches Capitalism, it’s a Center-Right position.

    Additionally, the US has absolutely been fascist and has committed numerous genocides in its history.

    You would do well to read Leftist theory.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      You’ve been telling me what to do for a while now. I think reading theory is a good idea. Please read a US history book. I also recommend reading Ur Fascism.

      https://archive.org/details/umberto-eco-ur-fascism/umberto-eco-ur-fascism.lt/page/4/mode/2up

      Social democracy in the US is a center left position in the year 2024. Fascism did not exist before the 20th century. Genocides did. A county doing genocides does not mean they are a fascist country. We did that as a democracy. A flawed democracy, that suppresses majority rule, but as a democracy.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Social Democracy is a pro-Capitalist position that continues Imperialism and does not approach Socialism. Fascism is not just genocide, but the US has never been truly democratic.

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          The social democracy I am describing in my arguments would do away with capitalism but not market economies. The fact this doesn’t exist yet or isn’t in the theory you have read about social democracy isn’t relevant. The US has never had true majority rule. Our democracy overrepresents some people and thus underrepresents others. This must be fixed. The US is still fundamentally a democracy despite its flaws. That’s why the fascists want to do away with our democracy, so they can have total power, as just being overrepresented is insufficient for their aims.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            You’re describing Market Socialism, which is a thing, not Social Democracy, which is another thing.

            How do you want to “fix” US democracy? It’s working as it always has for hundreds of years.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’m describing what I’m describing. This is social democracy as I see it. I am arguing workers owning companies is not at odds with social democracy and is a policy that should be pursued as part of such a system.

              No, people have been trying to fix US democracy to be more inclusive for centuries. Black men got the right to vote in 1870. But of course people of color are still facing voter suppression to this day. Woman got the right to vote in 1919. People fought for these rights. We need to keep fighting until majority rule is established in the United States. Then we will need to fight to keep it that way. I’ll name a few things that we need to do, but this is not a comprehensive list. We need to abolish the electoral college, and make both the House of Representatives and Senate proportional to the population. The House of Representatives is currently capped at 435. And every state in the union needs to agree to change the Senate to be reflective of the population from the current two senators per state. As long as our democracy has these and other flaws fascists and corporations alike are going to have undue leverage over our democracy.

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

                Please understand that what you call “Social Democracy” is Market Socialism. If you use the term “Market Socialism,” everyone will understand what you are talking about. If you use “Social Democracy,” everyone will understand it as “Capitalism with robust safety nets.” These terms have long and historied uses, and that’s why using them correctly is the best way to talk to people. Not to reinvent terms.

                Black Americans did not recieve the right to vote electorally, but after violent struggle and civil unrest. My broader point is that enacting change is not truly possible electorally, it must come from outside pressure.

                Women got the right to vote with mass civil unrest.

                Abolishing the electoral college? Great. Making democracy more direct? Great. How do you practically see getting this accomplished? This is the crux of my point. Theory is nothing without practice, and practice is nothing without theory. Right now, you are arguing for utopianism, something that has failed numerous times. You cannot simply ask the ruling class to do better.

                That is why theory is important! It guides your practice and makes it sharper.

                • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Please understand that what you call “Social Democracy” is Market Socialism. If you use the term “Market Socialism,” everyone will understand what you are talking about.

                  I am talking about social democracy. I will explain what I mean.

                  If you use “Social Democracy,” everyone will understand it as “Capitalism with robust safety nets.” These terms have long and historied uses, and that’s why using them correctly is the best way to talk to people. Not to reinvent terms.

                  I am not reinventing a term. I am including the idea, that workers should own the corporations they work for, in social democracy. I am not the only or first person to do this. This does not stop what I am advocating for being social democracy. Over focusing on definitions is not an effective strategy for arguments.

                  Black Americans did not recieve the right to vote electorally, but after violent struggle and civil unrest. My broader point is that enacting change is not truly possible electorally, it must come from outside pressure.

                  Women got the right to vote with mass civil unrest.

                  As I said in my argument, they had to fight for those rights. But people who had the right to vote still had to vote. We need direct action and civil disobedience, but if people don’t vote then all that goes to waste.

                  Abolishing the electoral college? Great. Making democracy more direct? Great. How do you practically see getting this accomplished? This is the crux of my point. Theory is nothing without practice, and practice is nothing without theory. Right now, you are arguing for utopianism, something that has failed numerous times. You cannot simply ask the ruling class to do better.

                  With direct action, civil disobedience, and voting. I am arguing for social democracy. A set of ideas and policies that includes socialism and democracy.

                  That is why theory is important! It guides your practice and makes it sharper.

                  Theory is the backbone of practical application. We need theory, but we have to be willing to point out when something is wrong with the theory.

                  My point is that we need to vote in record numbers to correct for the overrepresentation of Republicans. So we need to address concerns people have with voting. A major concern I see on the internet are ethical concerns. That’s why it’s important to tell people there are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. The goal must be to reduce harm by voting for the candidate that does the least harm.

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

                    I finally see what you’re talking about! You are confusing Social Democracy with Democratic Socialism! Social Democracy is what I said, Capitalism with robust safety nets, and is practiced in Nordic Countries. Democratic Socialism is Socialism with Liberal Democracy, found in Bolivia and in Chile under Allende. That clears up a lot of what was wrong with what you were saying, haha.

                    Actually, voting mattered very little when it came to the Civil Rights Movement, Black American voting rights, and Women’s Suffrage. The US is not a direct democracy, there weren’t ballot questions. The government was legitimately worried about revolutionary uprising.

                    I am not telling you not to vote. I am telling you to reassess your priorities. Voting is the least effective way to get what you want. It helps, sure, so people absolutely should do it, but it doesn’t even come close to actual striking, civil disobediance, and mass protesting when it comes to effecting change.

                    Since you clarify wanting Socialism and Democracy, I need to clarify some things. Social in Social Democracy refers to Social Programs, like housing initiatives, and Democracy refers to Liberal Democracy, not direct democracy, Socialist Democracy, or otherwise. All Socialism must be democratic, otherwise it isn’t Socialism. The question becomes what type of Democracy. Democratic Socialism isn’t the only type of Socialist Democracy, rather, it’s a term for using Liberal Democracy with a Socialist economy.

                    As for theory, you have not pointed anything wrong with Marxism, just your lack of knowledge of it. This isn’t gatekeeping! You are free to learn it so that you can discuss why you agree or disagree with Marxism, but pointing at nonexistant holes you imaged Marxism has gets nobody anywhere.

                    As for voting, that’s a fine point to make, but it appears the backbone of that point is based on misrepresentation of other’s viewpoints, and as such will convince nobody. Most people already agree with you, and those that do not will not accept flimsy and broken logic.