…I’m not sure what conspiracy stuff you saw in my links. But neither mentioned the “New World Order” or the “Illuminati” if that helps.
But in a true dictatorship it’s NOT opposition. The electoral process is purely a charade for the reputation of the dictator (e.g. this or this). Participating in it is not opposition it’s collaboration.
We are not in a dictatorship, yet. We still have meaningful elections which can harm the regime. Saying that’s not true is fatalism that enables the wannabe fascist dictator.
Then we are NOT in a dictatorship! If we can still have meaningful elections that can make things better then we aren’t in a dictatorship yet.
Absolutely- the 2025 elections proved that.
Just had another thought that I’ve had for a while but never really been able to nail down:
I think that some people (again, not necessarily on this board) believe that America is the point where engaging with the system is pointless and we need to go further, where “further” starts at “general strike regardless of personal risk” and advances into territory where specifics would put me onto a federal watch list. In that case, they probably think that those not willing to take that personal risk are some combination of ignorant, stupid, fascist, and/ir cowardly, and would have a lot of contempt for such people.
I think the chain of thinking is at least reasonable. We see it all the time in any number of issues, like Gaza. What is unresolved in this specific case is the question of whether we’re at that point yet where those unwilling to take extreme action against the system can be judged by outsiders as morally deficient.
Consolidation of American media into the hands of extremely wealthy individuals and corporations is “conspiracy stuff?”
Seriously?
I’ll be damned.
I mean, if I thought this country was as far gone as the “Trump is gonna cancel all elections and be president forever and send the military into every city to keep us in line and nobody is going to stop him” crowd does, I wouldn’t be on here posting about it - I’d be converting my assets into gold, stockpiling food and weapons, and looking for somewhere off the grid to hole up with my fellow maquis in preparation for the coming guerilla campaign.
…the thread is about the US being “post Democracy.” That doesn’t explicitly mean “dictatorship.” It’s obviously short-hand for :: wave hands :: whatever is happening right now. But if you go back and read the original exchange, its clear that YOU bought up “fascist dictatorship” in the original exchange with madmonk28. I used it in my original response to you largely in the context of responding to your direct points, and used “fascist dictatorship” largely in quote marks.
But I, personally, think its much more nuanced than that. We are writing history. Not looking back at history. Historical terms and references largely aren’t entirely useful.
What “post-Democracy” means to me is that we are past the point where “normalcy” will eventually prevail. There used to be an equilibrium. The Democrats would win…then the Republicans would win. Both sides generally respected the “rules of decorum.” The “pretend” rules that kept either side from doing ridiculous things kept them in check.
That changed when we saw the rise of the Tea Party. But it didn’t start there. And the Tea Party morphed into MAGA and now here we are.
This is obviously the abridged version. But this isn’t a “fascist dictatorship”. This is an entirely new thing. 100 years from now the history books won’t call it a “fascist takeover.” They will call it something different.
And I think ultimately thats my point here. If you are waiting for the “fascist dictatorship” that might not ever come…not according to the dictionary definition.
But explain to me the Supreme Court. What are basically a group of unelected clerics who are appointed for a lifetime that rule the highest court of the land…which for at least the next generation will almost always vote in favour of this administration.
Or explain your militarised police forces, where the NYPD is basically a standing army, that has intelligence officers stationed all across the world, where the LASD is full of gangs, where the “local sheriff” might be elected by his white supremacist buddies.
Or how media ownership is consolidated in the hands of powerful oligarchs. How “democratic” the electoral college really is.
America has always really stretched the definition of what a “democracy” is. And you’ve all just accepted that.
Many are past the point of believing that now. And for me: that’s what “post Democracy” means.
So that doesn’t mean you stop fighting. That doesn’t mean you don’t stop trying to make democracy work where you can. So I’ll come back to I don’t understand your original question. I never argued we are “truly in a dictatorship” or that “the Democratic process is purely a meaningless Potemkin Village to make the dictator look good, then we shouldn’t be engaging with it.” My position is nuanced.
I actually think the internet posting can be relevant. The more people I can get to agree with me, the more likely that organized resistance will develop, and that’s a lot more likely to succeed in making change than a bunch of rugged individualists hunkering down to wait things out.
CNN is owned by Warner bros. Who owns them? The largest part is the Vanguard group, thru index funds, 401k, and so forth. In other words- the American public, including of course the rich.. The CEO of Warner is definitely rich, worth like $100 Million, considering stock options and the like. Way short of a billionaire. There is no ruling “oligarch” class in America, altho of course they are important due to their wealth.
So yeah, there are big companies in America- and in the UK, France, Germany, and especially Japan.
And NPR is owned by us- it is a non-profit organization.
If I believed a fascist dictatorship was already in place, or was going to be imminently, though? Not here where there’s a record of my thoughtcrimes against Dear Leader. That’s what the good Lord invented the dark web for.
Vanguard has a very partial method for index fund shareholder democracy, as explained here:
But proxy voting is an highly imperfect tool. There is no way for me to vote that CBS News should be run the way it used to be before Bari Weiss. The choices I am given are irrelevant to that, even if I was inclined to use Vanguard’s proxy voting system, which, like almost all other Americans holding index funds, I do not.
If we ever get past MAGA, it would be interesting to speculate how stockholder democracy could be modified to reduce the chances of media being taken over by ideological oligarchs. It will not be easy. And shareholder democracy has no role there now.
This paints a fuller picture, though it’s a few years out of date (during which time, the concentration has only increased):
Also (13-page PDF, also dated; almost certainly understates the case pretty dramatically)
I see. Sure, but I was just checking my News feed and i got Al-Jazeera and the Guardian, and some others. Those are controlled by The US , also?
And sure, Big Medi is a thing but still the liberal big media does attack trump and his policies, and does some pretty good fact checking.
Nonsense. They can be vocal and visible in the House and in the media. They are more than just voters in Congress. They can’t pass legislation, but they can be an effective opposition.
Democrats should be producing a weekly paid TV broadcast designed to break MAGA and restore American aspirational rhetoric. Each week could spotlight a Democratic district.
I don’t see any evidence that trying to play the game conservative media does will do anything but waste a ton of money that could’ve gone to better use.
Though what that better use is, I’m not sure. As I’ve said before, this is a question that I’ve been wrestling with for a long time now. It’s a pretty old question. Like, if a Palestinian could see my honesty pretty cushy middle class life right now, I’m not sure I could blame them if they hated my guts. “He could be doing something to help me and my family: why isn’t he doing something?!?”
Same thing here. I know that many folks out there, including some on this board, have a lot of obvious contempt for adult Americans for not doing enough about our domestic issues. Are we bad/evil people? Am I in particular? It’s discomfiting that I can’t bring myself to immediately say no. (I’ve sometimes wonder if Americans or American culture is seen as uniquely bad or dumb or selfish or whatever compared to the rest of the world, but that’s another topic.)
If it’s “obviously short-hand for :: wave hands :: whatever is happening right now” then it’s tautologically true that we are in fact in it right now since we defined “it” as “whatever is happening right now”. I can think of very few claims that are less interesting or less useful than that.
In order for the claim to mean anything, we need to define what “post Democracy” means and then show that this description actually matches reality, not insist on tautologies.
…I mean: isn’t that the point of the thread?
Go for it. I’ve given my definition. What’s stopping you?
And for clarity this was my actual definition, found further down that post:
The Republicans no longer respect what was regarded as the “norms.” The Democrats are ineffective and even if elected will mostly maintain the status quo rather than push back.
You want me to define a term I don’t use? Fine.
My definition of “post-Democracy” as I see it used in political discussions, IE outside of particular scholarly work, is “Politics I [the speaker] don’t like”.
I saw that, but it claimed that, for example, the Supreme Court are ‘clergy’, so it clearly isn’t an accurate reflection of the real state of society, either.
True!
This, I disagree with.
The Democrats are not “ineffective” nor are they pushing the “status quo” which is at the moment MAGA nonsense.
Democrats are Liberals who favor Liberal policies. Some Democrats are also Progressives who favor Progressive policies, but not all of them are. And a tiny handful of them - Bernie, AOC (who is more and more Liberal nowadays, to her great credit), and a couple of others - are Democratic Socialists.
And so we often see people who are further Left than the Liberal mainstream of the party criticize it because it is not full throatedly Progressive or because it doesn’t support the ideas proposed by DemSocs like Bernie or AOC. And they criticize it as being “controlled opposition” or “pushing the status quo”. This is, of course, nonsense.
The fact that the Democratic Party (which is composed almost entirely of Liberals, partially of Progressives, and only to the tiniest extent of Democratic Socialists) ends up pushing mostly Liberal ideas, mixed in with some Progressive ones, and with only the slightest nod to the DemSocs, does not mean that we live in a “post-Democracy”.
…they lost the House, the Senate, the Executive and the Supremes.
If they do get back into power in any capacity at the next election it won’t be because of anything they’ve done, it will be because just enough people hate the current administration enough they will vote for the alternative.
But that will be the same as last time. People came out to vote in numbers because Trump and his administration was so awful.
What happened after that?
This isn’t a “progressive vs liberal” debate. I have no interest in that here. The Democrats simply failed to recognise the threat to democracy Trump and Co posed. And I fail to see anything in what they are doing that shows they have changed. They are going to do that again.