If a solution doesn't have a realistic path to implementation, it doesn't matter. The system itself is designed against change, RCV is something neither party actually wants.

Some few Democrats or states are allowed to support it as far as it gives RCV supporters some semblence of power, without actually pressuring the system.

Even if RCV was implemented, and a Third Party candidate won, the 2 establishment parties would work against any radical change.

[–] would_be_appreciated@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

It pressures the system in those cities or states, which is actual pressure to the system, just not direct pressure on the federal government. History shows you can mount pressure through local and state changes until it gets overwhelming support on a federal level.

You can make the argument there might be more effective or quicker solutions, but this is unquestionably one path toward it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

My point is that tiny, inconsequential pressure is allowed so that you think it applies pressure. Whenever it gets close to making a difference, it won't.

[–] serendepity@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You say that with a lot of certainty, but without any evidence to back it up. If history is any indication, lasting change is won from the bottom-up. You have to get the masses at large on your side first and the best way to do it is to show them, in small steps, that it can be done and that it’s effective.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If history is any indication, lasting change is won from the bottom-up. You have to get the masses at large on your side first and the best way to do it is to show them, in small steps, that it can be done and that it’s effective.

This is the opposite of correct, the ruling class will never do something because it's right or effective, but because they need to. Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, you're repeating the errors of the Owenites.

[–] serendepity@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree that the ruling class won’t do something that doesn’t align with their interests. I’m saying that they will be forced to enact reforms once the political zeitgeist changes. The state has an exponentially larger capacity for violence than us. Our only viable option is the threat of non co-operation. The nuance lies in doing it in a way that we don’t lose the progress we have already made. That means aligning with the Democratic Party until we have enough political capital to form a viable third party. Owen was apolitical, I am not.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

I’m saying that they will be forced to enact reforms once the political zeitgeist changes.

Are you suggesting genuine revolutionary pressure, or suggesting that public opinion meaningfully sways the parties?

The state has an exponentially larger capacity for violence than us.

Correct.

Our only viable option is the threat of non co-operation.

Not sure what this means, are you suggesting working outside the electoral system, or within it?

The nuance lies in doing it in a way that we don’t lose the progress we have already made. That means aligning with the Democratic Party until we have enough political capital to form a viable third party.

Where does this political Capital come from? How do you grow it if not working with Third Parties to begin with?

More importantly, if we side with the Dems, why does that increase the political capital of leftists? The GOP will not go away, even if the party itself crumbles, what will replace it will be another far-right party, because the material conditions for that remain as long as we continue to exist in decaying Capitalism.

Owen was apolitical, I am not.

Not sure what this means.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider yourself? Marxist, Anarchist, Liberal, etc.?

load more comments (2 replies)