Advertising can be controlled, and the US is more the exception rather than the rule.
Not in a Capitalist dictatorship. You can’t vibe beneficial policies into place.
Because of first past the post. Ranked choice would help greatly.
You cannot vibe policies into place.
I think the average opinion is between the two parties. So a socialist revolution would be against a democratic consensus. That means you wouldn’t be able to set up a democracy post revolution, because it would be unpopular.
There can be no revolution without the support of the masses, are you talking about a coup? Who suggested that?
Plus getting rid of the checks and balances is really dangerous in letting people like Stallin, Mau, or Kim Il weasel their way into power and consolidate it to stay there.
Nobody argued against checks and balances, but against a Capitalist state designed to not fulfill the will of the masses.
Most democracies around the world have ranked choice or similar voting systems. Similarly, most have strict regulations on what campaign contributions can be used for. Those did come about by ‘vibing’ (as you call it) rather than revolution.
Really? What revolutionary pressure was it Papua New Guinea under in 2008? What revolutionary pressures were on the UK in the 2000s to further regulate campaign finances?
Could you point me to secularly resources I should read on these revolutions?
But if you’re taking about the pressure voters put on elected officials, I’m all for it. But I’d hardly call that a revolution. That’s just how the system is designed to work.
A revolution in a democratic manner? We are taking about a violent armed revolution, right? For that, you need a military power structure, and big charismatic leaders to rally behind. There’s no way a revolution would try to hold fair elections while they are fighting.
Please read theory, you’re speaking nonsense. No one is advocating for 3 random Communists to overthrow the state by themselves. There can be no revolutionary movement without the support of the masses.
Depends. You’re very interested in avoiding reading books, so I don’t really care to play semantical games with you when you don’t know what we are talking about to begin with.
Not in a Capitalist dictatorship. You can’t vibe beneficial policies into place.
You cannot vibe policies into place.
There can be no revolution without the support of the masses, are you talking about a coup? Who suggested that?
Nobody argued against checks and balances, but against a Capitalist state designed to not fulfill the will of the masses.
Most democracies around the world have ranked choice or similar voting systems. Similarly, most have strict regulations on what campaign contributions can be used for. Those did come about by ‘vibing’ (as you call it) rather than revolution.
Those systems were put in place after revolutionary pressure as concessions.
Really? What revolutionary pressure was it Papua New Guinea under in 2008? What revolutionary pressures were on the UK in the 2000s to further regulate campaign finances?
Concessions were made in the context of struggle.
Could you elaborate?
Concessions were made in the context of struggle, ie without concessions there would be more pressure.
Please, read theory.
Could you point me to secularly resources I should read on these revolutions?
But if you’re taking about the pressure voters put on elected officials, I’m all for it. But I’d hardly call that a revolution. That’s just how the system is designed to work.
I didn’t call them revolutions. Please read theory, history books, and my replies.
A revolution inherently gets rid of the checks and balances. The problem is the time period before new ones are set up.
That’s why you set up the org that carries out the revolution in a democratic manner with checks and balances to begin with.
Please read theory.
A revolution in a democratic manner? We are taking about a violent armed revolution, right? For that, you need a military power structure, and big charismatic leaders to rally behind. There’s no way a revolution would try to hold fair elections while they are fighting.
Sounds like you need to read theory and history. Marxists have advocated for democratic organizational structures for centuries.
But they don’t actually put it in place because of the pressures during a revolution.
Pressures on the system from destabilization are threats of revolution, hence revolutionary pressure.
Do you think a democratic bureaucratic fully checked and balanced revolution would succeed in overthrowing the structure?
Has before and will again.
Do you think a socialist system is the will of the masses?
It will be eventually.
But until then, a revolution would necessarily be undemocratic.
Please read theory, you’re speaking nonsense. No one is advocating for 3 random Communists to overthrow the state by themselves. There can be no revolutionary movement without the support of the masses.
You can absolutely have a revolution without majority support, you just need support of the majority of the power.
Not exactly a revolution then.
What’d you call a overthrow of the government with say 30% popular support? A coup?
Depends. You’re very interested in avoiding reading books, so I don’t really care to play semantical games with you when you don’t know what we are talking about to begin with.