International Oligarchy is not just a Russian phenomenon. It exists right here in the USA.

[Sinister]

i agree with this, but there's no place on earth that doesn't curtail criticism in some way. obviously, there's a scale, and many do it worse than others. while tito was certainly fascistic in many respects, he was certainly way less fascistic than other comecon nation leaders of the time like stalin, hoxha, and gottwald.

absolutely. i think all you can do in hindsight is look at the context. who were the voices being suppressed and what were they saying? at the time, a lot of the people being exiled or taken as political prisoners were usually nazis, spies, or people who wanted to resist collectivization and profit off of things like real estate or education.

like for example, the US made a fascistic decision to outlaw slavery, and there was plenty of dissent. so much so that it led to war. was that a bad decision simply because it was fascistic?

but you are essentially saying true democracy can never exist without anarchy then. which i don't think is true or even possible. it's a catch 22. when people make choices equally and democratically, there is bound to be some dissenting opinions. and there needs to be some sort of a monopoly on force to make sure those with dissenting opinions can still comply with the new laws/leaders/etc.

and in many ways, i think that's the right call. i don't think having supreme figureheads who are ultimately responsible for managing the nation is inherently immoral or fascistic. there just needs to be ultimate power in the hands of the people

I just think that the kinds of people who always pursue power will be problematic with paranoia of being out of power. Kind of like how the best leaders are either always people who are reluctant to lead, or people who dont want themselves celebrated because they led. How they speak about having power with caution. I'm always immediately skeptical of braggadocio. Self-aggrandizement. The "only I can fix this" mentality.

I dont think abolishment of slavery was fascistic. Slavery was institutionalized in our Constitution...THAT was fascistic. Leave us not use the trope that voting away fascism is also fascism. Also it wasn't the United States that initiated the War. That was the Confederacy.

I'm not making an argument for anarchy. Just being closer to direct democracy. And unlike most of the fake @ss "conservatives" around here I'm ok with deferring to smaller Governance for varying opinion. So long as the opinions we're speaking of isnt sh*t like that minorities and the poor are lesser people. But we've seen plenty of so-called "small Government Conservatives" applaud it when Texas overrules Cities to tell them workers cant have more water breaks.

And that's the thing. The Founding Fathers wanted to reduce the amount of power in the hands of the people and make sure that capital interests were ultimately served at least equal to the will of the people on the whole. Then Citizens United tipped the scales and we've done nothing about it, except that the Democrats saw the writing on the wall and started catering to the donor class, trying to balance between that and Union representation.

I was discussing this with one of my students earlier today and he said: "The Democrats are just perceived as representing corporations, because they do. And they dont dispute that they do. Republicans do even more, but they're better at convincing people that they represent them."

I dont think this was the right call. They were just TERRIFIED that, given direct Democracy, the people would vote against capital interests. Because they do. Hell even during slavery there was clamoring that within the Slave States, people wanted to vote away slavery. Some for ideological reasons, some for economic (people wanted jobs and there was no need to hire people if there was free exploitable labor who had no legal protections). Washington was even written to about how people who fought in the Revolutionary War wanted the pay they'd been promised and the letters between he and his friend (I forget his name) spell out how there's just no way that's gonna happen. Kinds reminds me of the whole Visa argument going on.

I guess the overall point is the US has always had this tiered Democracy that only partially gave people power. The Senate was created to curtail it. The SCOTUS unconstitutionally gave themselves "judicial review" which tipped the scales so that they can essentially declare any law the people want "unconstitutional" and now they're openly suggesting that the other branches cant do boo about it. This was always a fallacy of Democracy in some sense.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

I just think that the kinds of people who always pursue power will be problematic with paranoia of being out of power. Kind of like how the best leaders are either always people who are reluctant to lead, or people who dont want themselves celebrated because they led. How they speak about having power with caution. I'm always immediately skeptical of braggadocio. Self-aggrandizement. The "only I can fix this" mentality.

and again, i completely agree with this. but there are examples of leaders doing right by their people. they're few and far between, but it's happened.

I dont think abolishment of slavery was fascistic. Slavery was institutionalized in our Constitution...THAT was fascistic. Leave us not use the trope that voting away fascism is also fascism. Also it wasn't the United States that initiated the War. That was the Confederacy.

the confederacy was the united states though, they became the confederacy because they seceded due to what they perceived as fascism, even if they didn't have a word for it at the time. and without some sort of supreme monopoly on power, those states would have been left to keep enslaving people, because that's what they wanted.

I'm not making an argument for anarchy. Just being closer to direct democracy. And unlike most of the fake @ss "conservatives" around here I'm ok with deferring to smaller Governance for varying opinion. So long as the opinions we're speaking of isnt sh*t like that minorities and the poor are lesser people.

and i agree with your sentiment, but that's the thing, some people are fucking awful human beings and will democratically vote for things like that. that's why there needs to be a system in place to not allow it.

But we've seen plenty of so-called "small Government Conservatives" applaud it when Texas overrules Cities to tell them workers cant have more water breaks.

yeah it's disgusting.

And that's the thing. The Founding Fathers wanted to reduce the amount of power in the hands of the people and make sure that capital interests were ultimately served at least equal to the will of the people on the whole.

this is true. the freedoms in the constitution were only for land-owning white men. not peasantry, not slaves, etc. people love to forget that.

Then Citizens United tipped the scales and we've done nothing about it, except that the Democrats saw the writing on the wall and started catering to the donor class, trying to balance between that and Union representation.

I was discussing this with one of my students earlier today and he said: "The Democrats are just perceived as representing corporations, because they do. And they dont dispute that they do. Republicans do even more, but they're better at convincing people that they represent them."

this is also true.

I dont think this was the right call. They were just TERRIFIED that, given direct Democracy, the people would vote against capital interests. Because they do. Hell even during slavery there was clamoring that within the Slave States, people wanted to vote away slavery. Some for ideological reasons, some for economic (people wanted jobs and there was no need to hire people if there was free exploitable labor who had no legal protections). Washington was even written to about how people who fought in the Revolutionary War wanted the pay they'd been promised and the letters between he and his friend (I forget his name) spell out how there's just no way that's gonna happen. Kinds reminds me of the whole Visa argument going on.

I guess the overall point is the US has always had this tiered Democracy that only partially gave people power. The Senate was created to curtail it. The SCOTUS unconstitutionally gave themselves "judicial review" which tipped the scales so that they can essentially declare any law the people want "unconstitutional" and now they're openly suggesting that the other branches cant do boo about it. This was always a fallacy of Democracy in some sense.

i completely agree. i don't think the US has the kind of democracy it pretends to.

i think ultimately, you and i agree on these things, just with some small differences.

 

[filthybliss]

sure, i also don't like authoritarianism. i fully believe in democracy, as did tito. tito's yugoslavia was a very democratic society, more than ours in practice, even though he ruled as the PM and president over it for almost 40 years. i would definitely look into his writings and his policies if you haven't. he wasn't a free speech kind of guy, though. i'll admit that.

Ruling over 40 yrs and being skittish about free speech is indeed extremely undemocratic.

the confederacy was the united states though, they became the confederacy because they seceded due to what they perceived as fascism, even if they didn't have a word for it at the time. and without some sort of supreme monopoly on power, those states would have been left to keep enslaving people, because that's what they wanted.

Do you feel the same about Crimea and Donbas? Its a random question but I am curious

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Ruling over 40 yrs and being skittish about free speech is indeed extremely undemocratic.

extremely is a stretch.

Do you feel the same about Crimea and Donbas? Its a random question but I am curious

in which direction?

 

[filthybliss]

extremely is a stretch.

Benevolent Dictatorships are not democratic in any form what so ever.

in which direction?

Do you see them as a part of Ukraine or Russia?

 

[Yehudim]

Stop looking at it so logistically. Politics is a shitshow. “Moderates” don’t know what the fuck centrism is. So why appeal to them? Most of them vote on MAGA slogans or the Snow-White casting.

You have to promise them big things like universal healthcare, meals for children in every school, reducing college fees and reinstalling Roe V Wade. The path to it or even if you accomplish it is meaningless as shown by Trump’s comeback.

You might as well go full on populist since the republicans will smear everything that democrats do as “socialism”.

The change won’t happen overnight but it’ll put the republicans on defense to redefine themselves with more progressive policy.

I don’t quite get your post, but are you saying that bringing back a right to abortion and free school meals for all children are big ticket issues for the American people?

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don’t quite get your post, but are you saying that bringing back a right to abortion and free school meals for all children are big ticket issues for the American people?

I think what he's getting at is that its more important to have simplistic slogans as policy and to hammer that home as your vision rather than getting into details which unfortunately seems about right.

People often criticize Kamala for having "no policies" even though she did in fact have policies. I thought some were bad(e.g. cracking down on "price gouging", subsidy for first time homebuyers) but they were there and yet no one cared. Why? Because they're not easily boiled down into slogans like "$15 MW" or "universal healthcare" which are what low info progressives and left leaning moderates need if you want them to vote for you. Not only that but your beating of the drum can make a non-issue into an issue. Trump is good at that part.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Benevolent Dictatorships are not democratic in any form what so ever.

even if they wholly serve democracy and stay in power democratically? interesting.

Do you see them as a part of Ukraine or Russia?

they were ukrainian in every way, politically, legally, and ethnically. russia invaded them as a sovereign nation. that's not an opinion though, that's just what happened. what are you asking my opinion on?

 

[Yehudim]

I think what he's getting at is that its more important to have simplistic slogans as policy and to hammer that home as your vision rather than getting into details which unfortunately seems about right.

People often criticize Kamala for having "no policies" even though she did in fact have policies. I thought some were bad(e.g. cracking down on "price gouging", subsidy for first time homebuyers) but they were there and yet no one cared. Why? Because they're not easily boiled down into slogans like "$15 MW" or "universal healthcare" which are what low info progressives and left leaning moderates need if you want them to vote for you. Not only that but you're beating of the drum can make a non-issue into an issue. Trump is good at that part.

That is what it was mostly about, but basically what I understood is that slogans or dumbing down are needed for those policies and I think it is hilarious that he thinks the right for a woman to kill her unborn baby is so powerful to American’s, since it clearly isn’t.

And the free school lunch is the most retarded moral outrage ever since not only do we have free school lunch (or heavily discounted) for poor kids, the parents can just lie about it and the kids free lunch. It’s a non-issue and it doesn’t make sense to spend a ton more money to give middle class and rich kids free lunch. No kid has starved because of paid lunches.

UHC is the big one that would need a good slogan that may resonate with people, and while student debt is not a big issue for the wider American public, there’s at least a lot of sympathy there, IMO.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That is what it was mostly about, but basically what I understood is that slogans or dumbing down are needed for those policies and I think it is hilarious that he thinks the right for a woman to kill her unborn baby is so powerful to American’s, since it clearly isn’t.

The Dobbs decision helped mute the so called "red wave" in 2022 so I think it clearly does matter but my guess is it matters the least in the "big" elections like for president and more so for things like midterms and special elections where activist minded voters are disproportionately influential. Basically we now have committed feminists competing with right wing Boomers in the elections most of us don't care about. Won't win the presidency in 2028 but could help in the 2026 midterms or in niche special elections where the GOP candidate is explicitly anti-choice.

And the free school lunch is the most retarded moral outrage ever since not only do we have free school lunch (or heavily discounted) for poor kids, the parents can just lie about it and the kids free lunch. It’s a non-issue and it doesn’t make sense to spend a ton more money to give middle class and rich kids free lunch. No kid has starved because of paid lunches.

Its not going to move the needle much either way without a concerted marketing push but I also think its a no brainer policy to implement. Its not uncommon for liberals to insist on education reform with dubious merit but making food more available for kids is going to help and I don't think we need to be means testing them for it. Its probably the one thing liberals ask for in schools that could make any difference. Sure no kid is starving but there's gradations between "starving" and "well fed" and you want as many kids as possible in the "well fed" category. There's only so much you can do with school breakfast/lunch if the kids parents don't care but its better than nothing.

 

[filthybliss]

That is what it was mostly about, but basically what I understood is that slogans or dumbing down are needed for those policies and I think it is hilarious that he thinks the right for a woman to kill her unborn baby is so powerful to American’s, since it clearly isn’t.

And the free school lunch is the most retarded moral outrage ever since not only do we have free school lunch (or heavily discounted) for poor kids, the parents can just lie about it and the kids free lunch. It’s a non-issue and it doesn’t make sense to spend a ton more money to give middle class and rich kids free lunch. No kid has starved because of paid lunches.

UHC is the big one that would need a good slogan that may resonate with people, and while student debt is not a big issue for the wider American public, there’s at least a lot of sympathy there, IMO.

You are being pedantic with the examples. IIRC, people were bitching about Walz making school lunches free for children because "it is socialism" and they didn't want their taxes spent on "rich" kids eating....

"Right to kill her unborn baby" is an immature way at looking at it. We respect the autonomy of dead people's organs when they could be used to save another person's life. So why would we subject living women to go through the burden of a pregnancy that she didn't consent to?

The issue with democrats is that they try to play it sophisticated when the average voter is dumber than rocks. Saying things like "threat to democracy" or "fascist" come off as condescending to Trump or "Centrist" Voters because those words are beyond their comprehension level. That was the main point of my post.

 

[filthybliss]

even if they wholly serve democracy and stay in power democratically? interesting.

Define democratically, it sounds unbelievable that a leader that suppresses speech would be fairly voted in for 40 yrs....

they were ukrainian in every way, politically, legally, and ethnically. russia invaded them as a sovereign nation. that's not an opinion though, that's just what happened. what are you asking my opinion on?

Glad that you don't have double standards when it comes to imperialism.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Define democratically, it sounds unbelievable that a leader that suppresses speech would be fairly voted in for 40 yrs....

a couple things here. i wasn't saying that was the case for tito, i was just posing it as a hypothetical. that said, he was very pro-democracy regarding society and labor. in addition, you did just kinda describe all of congress lol

Glad that you don't have double standards when it comes to imperialism.

of course not. imperialism is bad. even colonialism is bad. across the board. that's one of the biggest things that drew a divide between tito and stalin btw. tito was anti-imperialist.

 

[filthybliss]

a couple things here. i wasn't saying that was the case for tito, i was just posing it as a hypothetical. that said, he was very pro-democracy regarding society and labor. in addition, you did just kinda describe all of congress lol

Tito still had this version of the KGB or SAVAK known as UDBA that would capture political rivals or critics. His oppression of Albanians is something that you are overlooking too. Additionally, comparing that to congress is bad faith because congress people cannot suppress the population to that extent and they face the risk of being voted out.

of course not. imperialism is bad. even colonialism is bad. across the board. that's one of the biggest things that drew a divide between tito and stalin btw. tito was anti-imperialist.

That is good. I can respect the consistency.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Tito still had this version of the KGB or SAVAK known as UDBA that would capture political rivals or critics. His oppression of Albanians is something that you are overlooking too.

i hear you, but albania at the time was batshit fucking crazy. hohxa was a psycho. that doesn't make oppression okay, but context does matter.

Comparing that to congress is bad faith because congress people don't have that kind of power to suppress the population and they face the risk of being voted out.

i wouldn't say bad faith. its the same thing but do a lesser degree, i'll admit. congress doesn't have ULTIMATE power like a dictator would, but they do have a shitload of power. and they pass unconstitutional shit all the time and stay in power.