• Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    We haven’t had a vote on the shape or priorities of our economy since 1980. This is an economic dictatorship, and has been longer than most of us here have been alive.

    We just get a vote on how/if to address the social wedge symptoms that economy either causes or exacerbates.

    And only IF addressing them won’t meaningfully harm quarterly earnings expectations for our sociopath class. Example: you know what would drastically reduce the number of abortions without any kind of ban? A living wage that can support a family. But that would cut into corporate metastasis and is therefore a non-starter by either party in anything more than rhetoric.

    You can have scapegoating® or affirmation ribbons(D), so long as you vote for for profit prisons, legal murder for profit, millions of Americans dying of exposure on the streets, crumbling commons, public education in utter ruin… Freedom!

    • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      Most of the “Democracy” status countries are bull shit anyway. They are heavily weighed on “Economic Freedom” which is a fancy way of saying the freedom for which Imperialist nations corporations are able to exploit third world countries resources.

      Nationalize your oil system and have the profits of it go directly back to your people for the improvement of social programs? Damn, that sounds like Communism!

      Sell oil drilling rights to Shell to “bring jobs” to your country that pay poverty wages, destroy local ecosystems, and extract all your resources with no benefits to the local population? Well, that’s “Economic Freedom” baby!

        • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I wasn’t referencing the article I was speaking more generally on things like “Democracy Index” or others that care more about a country having unregulated free markets than they do about citizens having healthcare. This is often what these “democracy” surveys refer to as Economic Freedom. You can pretend it’s how they act like it’s defined like “oh the government can’t tell you what business you can run as a poor mom and pop shop”. But in reality it’s the biggest players that benefit from unregulated markets on a global scale.

          It’s why a capitalist hellhole like Argentina is considered a “flawed democracy” and Cuba is considered “Authoritarian”. It’s just neoliberal bull shit.

  • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    Could? Lmao. Don’t you need laws and elected officials to count as a democracy to begin with?

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    America deserves to be recognized as a Third World Country. I say this as an American, it’s deplorable how the citizens are treated.

    • Corgana@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      To be clear- this is just your personal “vibe” and not an actual fact, because the term “third world country” literally means a country that is not aligned with the US or USSR. If you meant “developing nation” that term also has a definition the US does not meet.

    • eldain@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      The cold war is over, they are called developing countries now. Your point still stands, the US has lots of developing to do, especially on the social/society front.

    • P00ptart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      We’ve been a third world country for a several decades already. Just because we use to change out guys in the office every 4-8 years, doesnt mean it was ever all that good here.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      It’s not exactly new, it’s just that we’re seeing clarification of changes that have been in the works for the last 20 years or longer, depending if you want to go back to Reagan.

      And not surprisingly, he has to try to grab power as quickly as possible. If things collapse slowly then the people will still have the ability to rise up against him.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    Oh, but were not a democracy, were a constitutional republic hardy har har har har

    • my republican friends.
    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      constitutional republic

      So we’re going to follow the constitution?

      ohh

      It’s like talking to MAGA about Christianity So you’re going to follow the bible?

      ohh

      • ObtuseDoorFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        I wish I could award this comment. It follows my occasional and unfulfilling conversations with Republicans extremely closely. If the conversation doesn’t end with wanting to pull my hair out and put my head through the nearest available drywall, did I really talk to Republican?

    • Rusty Shackleford@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      we’re a constitutional federal republic, with democratically elected representatives, but a plutocracy, in practice

      • me, a political science pedant of highest/worst order
        • Rusty Shackleford@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          FilthyHookerSpit

          Discount for you, but on one condition:

          You gotta spit on all of my tankie “friends” over at lemmy.ml, hexbear, and lemmygrad and say, “This service was prepaid, and I made a handsome profit, ultimately at your expense and exploitation.”

      • Deathray5@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        “me, a political science pedant of highest/worst order”

        Yo you single

        spoiler

        Sorry just funiest response I could think of

      • Astra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        As a political science pedant, can you explain to me the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic? I tried to Google “constitutional republic” but I just got a Wikipedia page that said they were the same thing.

        Which I guess would fit, since republicans are absolute dumbfucks, but if there’s actually some nuance there, I’m curious to know.

        Thanks!

        • Rusty Shackleford@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          If the question is “What’s the difference?”, then, as is tradition, we must figuratively clear our throats before such discourse with the well-worn adage, “It depends.”

          As a disclaimer, much of this content was copied from Wikipedia and arranged in a way to support my opinion; none of this should be taken as Gospel. This is not financial advice. And please accept my apologies for the tedious length.

          If we limit our terms’ definitions to their etymological roots, then:

          Democracy

          • The term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens during classical antiquity. The word comes from dêmos ‘(common) people’ and krátos ‘force/might’.

          • In a direct democracy, the people have the direct authority to deliberate and decide legislation. In a representative democracy, the people choose governing officials through elections to do so. The definition of “the people” and the ways authority is shared among them or delegated by them have changed over time and at varying rates in different countries.

          Republic

          • The term originates from the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia into Latin as res publica, and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic (or similar terms in various European languages). The term can literally be translated as ‘public matter’. It was used by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the period of the Roman Empire. The term politeia can be translated as form of government, polity, or regime, and it does not necessarily imply any specific type of regime as the modern word republic sometimes does.

          • A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica (‘public affair’ or ‘people’s affair’), is a state in which political power rests with the public (people) through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy. Although a republic is most often a single sovereign state, subnational state entities that have governments that are republican in nature may be referred to as republics.

          • Representation in a republic may or may not be freely elected by the general citizenry. In many historical republics, representation has been based on personal status and the role of elections has been limited. This remains true today; among the 159 states that use republic in their official names as of 2017, and other states formally constituted as republics, are states that narrowly constrain both the right of representation and the process of election.

          • The term developed its modern meaning in reference to the constitution of the ancient Roman Republic, lasting from the overthrow of the kings in 509 BC to the establishment of the Empire in 27 BC. This constitution was characterized by a Senate composed of wealthy aristocrats wielding significant influence; several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates from the populace and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.

          Plutocracy

          • A plutocracy (from Ancient Greek πλοῦτος (ploûtos) ‘wealth’ and κράτος (krátos) ‘power’) or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income. The first known use of the term in English dates from 1631. Unlike most political systems, plutocracy is not rooted in any established political philosophy.

          • Some modern historians, politicians, and economists argue that the U.S. was effectively plutocratic for at least part of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era periods between the end of the Civil War until the beginning of the Great Depression.

          • President Theodore Roosevelt became known as the “trust-buster” for his aggressive use of antitrust law, through which he managed to break up such major combinations as the largest railroad and Standard Oil, the largest oil company. According to historian David Burton, “When it came to domestic political concerns, TR’s bête noire was the plutocracy.” In his autobiographical account of taking on monopolistic corporations as president, Roosevelt recounted:

          …we had come to the stage where for our people what was needed was a real democracy; and of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy.

          On paper, we (the U.S.) are a not a direct democracy, though we do vote directly about some issues via referendums; our constitution codifies the extents and limitations of legislation, enforcement, and jurisprudence of our laws and our rights as citizens.

          We directly elect representatives to carry out the business of governance from local, state, to the federal level as our country’s political union is a federation of States that simultaneously retain their autonomy via the parameters outlined within the constitution and cede ultimate authority of jurisprudence to our bicameral national assembly (in our case, Congress) and Supreme Court.

          In practice, due to regulatory capture, political expedience and corruption, and the realities of our global economic expansion, our country is effectively ruled by 2 factions of a political class of wealth that use faux-populism to maintain their power and influence.

    • CalipherJones@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Land of the free founded on slaves. America really is just a big pile of hypocrisy under the hood of vain surface level patriotism.

    • ksigley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      Having a for-profit prison system was a bad choice.

      Who could have seen it coming ?

      • Ilixtze@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        And a pay to win political candidate system, and a heavily monetized educational system. Who is surprised about the decline of the man who steps on his dick and machineguns his own foot?

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    The US is one of the most watered down democracies, even for a liberal democracy (which is severely watered down). Its a system where the needs of the many are filtered through the needs of the few. We dont need to “fix” liberal democracy, we need workers democracy (syndicalism).

      • tomi000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        I think what they mean is, in theory in Democracy the majority decides about political actions by electing their representatives who in turn act on their behalf. In the US this is heavily manipulated by e.g. only giving a very limited number of choices which dont represent most peoples opinions. Not everyones opinion is worth the same, you buy influence with money.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    And a few days after that, PragerU releases a video titled “Why democracies will fail eventually”, which tells its viewers that democracy creates “moral decadence”, and now a “strong leader” is needed to fix the issue, who might have told some noble lies like a parent tells their kid the stork brings the children when they’re not ready for reality. And the video ends with a “Roman salute” over “God Bless America”.

  • liverbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    “You’ve only been a democracy for only 50 years. Not unless you don’t count black people… you are nearly as mature democracy as Botswana.” - Lukas Matsson (Swedish guy) on Succession