• 14 Posts
  • 62 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 13th, 2022

help-circle



  • The irony is that the Americans are slaves to their electoral system. Liberal democracies are one big, pathetic myth where they make the masses believe that they are the ones in control of the polity and just like they elected someone into a position of power they can dismiss them in later elections.

    The discourse that has been happening shows quite a different reality: Americans are treating the elections as if there is no alternative. Even if there indeed was no alternative, they don’t bargain with the ones in power, they don’t use their vote as a bargaining chip for political change. They are ready to vote unconditionally because they accept their candidate as is.

    You don’t see democrat voters pressuring the Biden administration to put an end to the genocide in Palestine. They feel uneasy towards what’s happening but ultimately they consider themselves to be powerless. Western democracy and constitutionalism have politically alienated the people.




  • The term “social democracy” is very deceiving nowadays since it does not pertain anymore to the roots of the ideology which has changed quite drastically in the last century.

    The original premise was that socialism could be achieved through reform and not revolution (hence it parted ways with the Marxist position). That is, the State’s institutions were suitable enough to “eventually” or “some day” lead to a socialist mode of production, and so cooperation with the state and, by extension, the bourgeoisie were incremental for socialism. This is why socdem parties were firm believers that change comes from the parliamentary electoral structure (Esson, 2022). I am not going to argue why this is problematic—Marx and Engels have said enough regarding this.

    However, social democracy as we know it in the modern age is vastly different from what it used to be. The ideology in the 70’s has become attached to the Third Way and socdem parties throughout the world gradually adopted neoliberal policies, pressured by electoral competition. And the Scandinavian countries, home of social democracy, are an exemplary case to this. Just compare their parties’ agenda before and after WW2 and you will see what I am talking about.

    To refer to “social democracy” as anything less than capitalism would be factually fallacious.

















  • See, you’ve written this long reply (and I appreciate your commitment) to attack republicans, yet you still could not credibly defend the Democratic Party. To be against the Republican Party does not automatically make you a Democrat, truly such a one-dimensional spectrum is only conceivable in the land of incoherences of yours. For instance, communists staunchly attack republicans, yet they equally attack the democrats, arguing (rightfully, in my opinion) that both are two sides of the same coin which is capitalism/liberalism.

    I want to go back to the roots of our debate in order to recalibrate, and that is the fact that you’ve created quite the frail and unnecessarily complicated moral compass which, ironically, adds no philosophical value. Instead of basing your evaluation of SBF on a shallow criterion of political funding (which leads to many problematic conclusions due to the ideological indeterminacy which plagues American political parties), you can directly employ, like any sane person would, a humanist compass (granted that humanism has its caveats). You should then be asking whether EA conforms to the conceptions of humanism, on the short but also long term, and should future generations be prioritised over present beings?