96
submitted 6 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -5 points 6 months ago

That’s not a political system at all. It’s a process that could be implemented in many styles of government. It is not incompatible with representative democracy either. It is a bad idea though. It means that a government has a hard time changing course, even when it needs to. Because it silences people from questioning decisions.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago

Everyone can see that the US government is ossified, incapable of changing course (or of representing the people). And it’s no accident: it was designed to be so. The Separation of Powers is BROKEN, Here’s Why

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 6 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

The Separation of Powers is BROKEN, Here’s Why

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 6 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

The Separation of Powers is BROKEN, Here’s Why

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -4 points 6 months ago

You’re talking about an implementation of representative democracy and you’re not offering any concrete alternative. So I refer you to my first comment where I said that representative democracy is bad, but still better than the others.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago

I was talking about bourgeois democracies, which have only ever represented the capitalist class. A concrete alternative has already been suggested, socialist democratic centralism, a form of proletarian democracy, but you dismissed it as not even being a political system, despite it having been practiced in various countries throughout the last century. Capitalist states and corporate media label socialist states as “authoritarian,” because the capitalist class doesn’t want us to consider any alternatives that would usurp them.

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -3 points 6 months ago

Can you link something describing what that system of government looks like. Because all I’ve heard of is descriptions of the principles and the Italian party from history. And looking how, that’s all I can find also.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago

This is demonstrably false because in the real world Chinese system has proven itself to be far more flexible and adaptable than any western regime. That's the reality. In fact, it's obvious that multiparty parliamentary systems are the ones that have hard time changing course. They're literally designed to prevent that. It's not possible to do any sort of long term planning when governments keep changing and people keep pulling in different directions. The horizons for planning become very small. And of course, it's pretty clear that western systems do a great job silencing opinions that fallout of the Overton window. Entire books have been written on the mechanics of this.

this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
96 points (91.4% liked)

World News

32218 readers
793 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS