4 ms·

I can't see that happening. Cheering these facts doesn't cost anything so people do it without issues. Any sort of revolution requires sacrifice which the vast

I can't see that happening. Cheering these facts doesn't cost anything so people do it without issues. Any sort of revolution requires sacrifice which the vast majority is not willing to do. That's not only in the USA, it's worldwide. Capitalism killed revolution in rich countries. Even the French known for their protests and civil unrest can't get meaningful change anymore. You're right that whoever promises what they want (but won't fight for) will likely win, but very little will change. After all it's still the rich that elect our officials.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
I don't think that you can say that "whoever promises what they want (but won't fight for) will likely win", and also say "it's still the rich that elect our officials". Either the votes of those on the underside of the system who want change (without sacrifice on their part) matter enough to affect who gets elected, or they don't.
- Draiken 1y ago
  Our votes are limited by who we can vote for. That's where the rich come in. The two party system is a great example of how to stop the masses from messing their plans too much. They can pick two candidates that are corporate friendly, finance their campaigns, so it doesn't matter which one wins, they win. Even without the two party system, the financing of politics is what determines this and it's absolutely corrupt. It's publicly known that corporations blatantly contribute to both sides to ensure that whatever happens they have control over it. The US had a great example just now: Bernie. He's not even as extreme as he should be IMO but even if people WANTED to vote for him, they couldn't. They had to choose between two corporate candidates. In this case without even a vote (I think the fake "pre-election" the USA does is ridiculously fake, but that's another issue). If we then add the fact that they own the media and the vast majority of the population can't think for themselves, we have what I described: the rich controls who wins. No matter the party (americans are obsessed with left/right simplifications), the one constant is that the lives of the rich will get better at the cost of the lives of the poor. Maybe one day folks will understand that. Maybe not.
thrance 1y ago
I'm not speaking revolutionism here, simply populism.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

I don't think that you can say that "whoever promises what they want (but won't fight for) will likely win", and also say "it's still the rich that elect our officials". Either the votes of those on the underside of the system who want change (without sacrifice on their part) matter enough to affect who gets elected, or they don't.

Draiken 1y ago
Our votes are limited by who we can vote for. That's where the rich come in. The two party system is a great example of how to stop the masses from messing their plans too much. They can pick two candidates that are corporate friendly, finance their campaigns, so it doesn't matter which one wins, they win. Even without the two party system, the financing of politics is what determines this and it's absolutely corrupt. It's publicly known that corporations blatantly contribute to both sides to ensure that whatever happens they have control over it. The US had a great example just now: Bernie. He's not even as extreme as he should be IMO but even if people WANTED to vote for him, they couldn't. They had to choose between two corporate candidates. In this case without even a vote (I think the fake "pre-election" the USA does is ridiculously fake, but that's another issue). If we then add the fact that they own the media and the vast majority of the population can't think for themselves, we have what I described: the rich controls who wins. No matter the party (americans are obsessed with left/right simplifications), the one constant is that the lives of the rich will get better at the cost of the lives of the poor. Maybe one day folks will understand that. Maybe not.

thrance 1y ago

I'm not speaking revolutionism here, simply populism.