• OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    We literally do not live in a democracy according to a bunch of empirical studies, and also according to basic material analysis.

    The opinion of the masses is never reflected in our government.

    Does your politics begin and end at participating in sham elections? Why aren’t you encouraging people to take meaningful political action?

    Imagine being Russian and the extent of your political activism is encouraging people to vote Putin out.

    That’s how ridiculous you are.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      We literally do not live in a democracy according to a bunch of empirical studies, and also according to basic material analysis.

      As far as I know, there is one study, and even that is under dispute on secondary analysis of the underlying data.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            If the bourgeoisie decide elections through lobbying and media it isnt a democracy in a meaningful sense.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                They don’t exactly decide, they influence the decision.

                “The didn’t do that, they just did something that will predictably result in that”

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Once upon a time that would have been a simple answer, given the concentrated ownership of news that could reach any one person. But now with the Internet, there is less and less control by any one group. Certainly the age of the rich effectively controlling the media is over.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            But now with the Internet, there is less and less control by any one group. Certainly the age of the rich effectively controlling the media is over.

            Pr teams have successfully learned how to use social media, and social media giants promote views that are beneficial to them like fascism while suppressing left wing content.

            I dont think the internet existing makes us a democracy, the parasocial nature of a lot of internet content actually makes it so people are more able to sell their propaganda.

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              There is plenty of media that exists outside of media giants. Case in point, there is a local blogger here in Portland, OR that runs bikeportland.org to cover bikes and related subjects. His blog posts and discussions on them are a major part of the local discourse around infrastructure in Portland. He’s not rich, but he exercises influence.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Okay, but you do see how thats pretty boutique compared to the local news channels, let alone the giants, right?

                Small things are allowed to exist that oppose the dominant ideology until they meaningfully threaten it.

                • pingveno@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Any grassroots media is going to be “boutique”. That doesn’t make it not influential, especially when considered as a whole.

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    If independent media, as a whole, got too influential to the point that it was threatening the system, it would be targeted. We’ve seen this play out over and over again under capitalism. You literally just have to look to history to see this.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You do realize your comment is just “You’re wrong!” with more flowery language right?