PorkrollPosadist

Rudy Giuliani

They are going to put a legit demon in there. Some absolute grindset freak. They are not going to squander one of the most important offices of the executive.

In particular, it seems like sometimes the argument being made is "democracy is good and worthwhile, but Western countries aren't really democratic", and other times the argument is "actually democracy is an illusion and not worth aspiring to in the first place".

The first is pretty much it. The second is not something I have ever heard in abstract (only, perhaps, that specific "pro-democracy" movements do not have a liberatory foundation). The main problem is that Democracy means different things to different people. In practice, it is pretty much a meaningless term unless it is carefully defined in context.

To the Bourgeoisie, democracy means the freedom to enter markets. To the Liberal, democracy means a subset of society (citizens without a criminal record, for instance) get to vote for representatives, and a greater or lesser degree of civil liberties exist to engage in electioneering. To the US Founders, democracy was a framework for landowners and speculators to organize society without organizing the state around a bloodline. To the Marxist, democracy only exists to the extent that workers are able to decide how society is organized - what work shall be done, who is going to do it, how is it going to be done, to what degree, for what reasons, etc. Democracy itself literally translates as "rule of the people." The means by which the people rule (which of the "four boxes," for instance) is not included in the definition. The statement "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun," will make a Liberal's stomach churn, but it is not a fundamentally anti-democratic principle. The question is, who's holding those guns? Who are they being pointed at?

In the United States, we conflate electoralism with democracy. We're "democratic" because we have elections. The fact that we have two parties to choose from makes us more "democratic" than countries with a single party political system (ignoring the fact that Congressional approval routinely sits between 10-20%, while many one-party systems enjoy much higher public approval). The fact that we are a largely technocratic society where any decisions not being made by the administration are being made through bureaucracy or in the board rooms of private firms, rather than by the public, is irrelevant.

Please see the announcement: https://hexbear.net/post/3856299?scrollToComments=false

Lesser evilism should be applied along the lines of critical support. This "lesser" evil must actually be an indispensable bulwark against a greater evil. It is absolutely not something you should exhaust yourself on. There is a big difference between critical support and evangelism.

Liberals will readily describe their champions as a lesser evil, and use that as a license to evangelize for evil. As long as Hitler is out there somewhere wandering the globe, they are justified. They also often misidentify the greater evil for the lesser evil because idealism is a purely vibe-based ideological framework.

We're so back.

Welcome back

Yes, but don't worry.

YES. I heard some lib mention this settlement on WBAI earlier today (correctly pointing out that Trump will be no better for Palestine, but ignoring the fact that there was no notable Democratic opposition to these policies). This was before it exploded.

Though there are MILLIONS of shitlibs out there, this shit is definitely being turfed. The idea that heads must roll among the Democratic party elite is an incredibly dangerous thing. It is an idea which must be strangled in the crib. This was the whole purpose of Russiagate 8 years ago. To absolve the party leadership of their world-historic negligence. Nobody lost their jobs.

People get away with posting literally unreconstructed antisemitic memes day in and day out but if you criticize Israel for the crimes of genocide and apartheid you get the ban hammer.