The working class in the US doesn't even vote though. Look at graphs correlating election participation with annual income. The US is a one party state of capital, with two factions that appeal to different facets of the upper class and their middle class comparadors. The Democrats appeal to PMC liberals with office jobs in the city, the Republicans appeal to jet ski and boat dealership owners. And the candidate with the most votes doesn't even win the election a third of the time! The split of congress into senators and representatives, the fact that political parties can directly influence the judicial branch of government at the highest level in the supreme court, it's all inherently undemocratic!
The specific combination of factors in the historical formation of U.S. society—dominant “biblical” religious ideology and absence of a workers’ party—has resulted in government by a de facto single party, the party of capital. The two segments that make up this single party share the same fundamental liberalism. Both focus their attention solely on the minority who “participate” in the truncated and powerless democratic life on offer. Each has its supporters in the middle classes, since the working classes seldom vote, and has adapted its language to them. Each encapsulates a conglomerate of segmentary capitalist interests (the “lobbies”) and supporters from various “communities.”
American democracy is today the advanced model of what I call “low-intensity democracy.” It operates on the basis of a complete separation between the management of political life, grounded on the practice of electoral democracy, and the management of economic life, governed by the laws of capital accumulation. Moreover, this separation is not questioned in any substantial way, but is, rather, part of what is called the general consensus. Yet that separation eliminates all the creative potential found in political democracy. It emasculates the representative institutions (parliaments and others), which are made powerless in the face of the “market” whose dictates must be accepted.
This is something I have suspected of being true but haven’t yet seen the hard data. Nearly every American (even those who don’t vote) see election results as broadly indicative of the populace’s preferences. That whether 20% of the people vote or 70%, that’s seen as a representative sample so we just assume that non-voters would break along similar lines. But I really don’t think that’s true, I don’t know. But this doesn’t even account for the millions of people who live and work here but aren’t allowed to vote (undocumented workers).
Even if the America electoral system somehow produced the results it claims to, I still don't think it would represent people's broad interests. Americans think deeply about their ideology about 5 minutes per year. People vote completely on vibes and at no risk to themselves.
Places that have more participation based democracy, like Cuba, have citizens actually attend meetings and work out policy together. There are multiple rounds of referendums and the policies impact more than just which person goes in what chair.
In America you're clicking a name and a party after standing in line once every two years. There's a correlation with winning and being named at the top of the ballot form too. I have to believe at least 5% of people are voting completely at random too.
The working class in the US doesn't even vote though. Look at graphs correlating election participation with annual income. The US is a one party state of capital, with two factions that appeal to different facets of the upper class and their middle class comparadors. The Democrats appeal to PMC liberals with office jobs in the city, the Republicans appeal to jet ski and boat dealership owners. And the candidate with the most votes doesn't even win the election a third of the time! The split of congress into senators and representatives, the fact that political parties can directly influence the judicial branch of government at the highest level in the supreme court, it's all inherently undemocratic!
Julius Nyerere, actually.
This is something I have suspected of being true but haven’t yet seen the hard data. Nearly every American (even those who don’t vote) see election results as broadly indicative of the populace’s preferences. That whether 20% of the people vote or 70%, that’s seen as a representative sample so we just assume that non-voters would break along similar lines. But I really don’t think that’s true, I don’t know. But this doesn’t even account for the millions of people who live and work here but aren’t allowed to vote (undocumented workers).
Even if the America electoral system somehow produced the results it claims to, I still don't think it would represent people's broad interests. Americans think deeply about their ideology about 5 minutes per year. People vote completely on vibes and at no risk to themselves.
Places that have more participation based democracy, like Cuba, have citizens actually attend meetings and work out policy together. There are multiple rounds of referendums and the policies impact more than just which person goes in what chair.
In America you're clicking a name and a party after standing in line once every two years. There's a correlation with winning and being named at the top of the ballot form too. I have to believe at least 5% of people are voting completely at random too.
The Samir Amin quote is thought-provoking. Thank you for sharing.