this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2022
9 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

3896 readers
17 users here now

Europa

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It isn't very big unfortunately. But lmao at the Free French flags - does it meant they correctly recognised NATO as fascist and Macron as collaborator or that's some far right current year thing or maybe gaullist carcass?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Looks like French are slowly starting to figure things out.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This poll is showing a +20 point net approval rating as of June. Protests mean little if they don't reflect the underlying views of the populace, and that's all for the better. People shouldn't be able to override popular will simply by holding a protest.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nobody realized how bad things were going to be back in June. Now that the crisis is in full swing opinions are rapidly changing. There are protests and strikes happening all across Europe right now. People protesting is literally the expression of the will of the people.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Until someone gets a solid poll in front of me, I really don't care about protests. If decisions were made by protest alone, Donald Trump would still be president.

[–] seanchai@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's right, because the suffragettes got the right to vote from polls, not protest!

Stonewall polls were a crucial part of gay rights!

Solid polls are always political indicators, that's why there was a massive series of polls to secure civil rights <3

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sorry, my point was unclear. Well functioning liberal democracies work by having groups working to further various interests, whether it be gay rights, workers rights, business interests, or environmentalism. Protests can be part of the political process, either as a rallying point or a show of dissatisfaction. But a protest does not on its own show that the cause reflects the will of the people. That's why free and fair elections are so vital, as well as direct contact with representatives.

[–] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's really sad that people still look at liberal democracies and think, yup this is a well functioning system. Free and fair elections don't happen in liberal democracies (notice how it's the same people and organizations calling western elections free and fair and election elsewhere rigged when they don't like the outcome). There is no direct contact between the people and representatives beyond maybe the city/county level.

The rights of capital and private property trump everything else, because capital and private property are in control of the institutions of power. The only reason we have any rights beyond the right to die when we're unable to work is precisely due to protest movements forcing capital and politicians to make small compromises in order to maintain their balance of power.

Thinking that liberal democracy functions well for all and is the peak of political development is just another facet of the capitalist propaganda we of the imperial core are immersed in from birth. Thinking that protests are only a small but ultimately inconsequential part of the political process is a further facet of this propaganda.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s really sad that people still look at liberal democracies and think, yup this is a well functioning system.

Versus a system where the only real option to change governance is violent overthrow? Where press freedom is systematically suppressed? Look at Iran right now, the government would rather kill people than listen to them or make changes. Or Russia, where dissent that makes a difference could well land you in jail. The democratic process is messy, no doubt about it, but it's a far sight better than one where the leadership answers only to their peers and to pitchforks.

[–] knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Alright, it's spooky season, I'll allow a giant scarecrow sized strawman.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Last I checked your country doesn't have any democracy to speak of, maybe that's something you should care about

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

The whole reason Trump exists is because your country is deeply undemocratic, and the oligarchs have been fucking over the rest of the people for many decades resulting in a huge number of dissatisfied people who are now willing to listen to anybody who says they're not the establishment.

You know how you got any of the rights you still have in US? That was through massive strikes, protests, and other forms of civil disobedience back in the 1930s. That scared your government enough to pass the New Deal. And that's been systematically dismantled over the following decades leading to where you are now.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's an old study. It has since had some rebuttals that took a second look at the data and paint a much more nuanced picture. The rich and middle class are more or less in lockstep, and when they weren't the difference wasn't by much. Also the areas where they differ are not where you might expect. For instance, rich people were more likely to support public financing, which would at least in theory reduce their influence. The poor is where the larger break is. They are mostly in lockstep on issues, but where there are splits they win out about 18% of the time. That said, this narrative that there is no democracy and the rich always win is straight out false.

There is also the last sentence from your image:

Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

IMHO, this and cultural divides are far more important for understand political outcomes in the US than a solely class-based analysis provides.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

The study analyzes many decades of US policy, and there has been no fundamental changes in how things work today.

It's also important to mention that the capitalist class owns all the media in US, and uses it to propagandize people. Many books have been written on the subject with studies and discussions of how this works in practice. Manufacturing Consent and Inventing Reality being two prominent examples. Again, it's hard to call a country a democracy when the media is pretty much exclusively owned by the oligarchy.

Cultural divides narrative is a great example of how people are distracted from the class analysis. As Michael Parenti put it:

Class gets its significance from the process of surplus extraction. The relationship between worker and owner is essentially an exploita­tive one, involving the constant transfer of wealth from those who labor (but do not own) to those who own (but do not labor). This is how some people get richer and richer without working, or with doing only a fraction of the work that enriches them, while others toil hard for an entire lifetime only to end up with little or nothing.

Those who occupy the higher circles of wealth and power are keenly aware of their own interests. While they sometimes seriously differ among themselves on specific issues, they exhibit an impres­sive cohesion when it comes to protecting the existing class system of corporate power, property, privilege, and profit. At the same time, they are careful to discourage public awareness of the class power they wield. They avoid the C-word, especially when used in reference to themselves as in "owning class;' "upper class;' or "moneyed class." And they like it least when the politically active elements of the owning class are called the "ruling class." The ruling class in this country has labored long to leave the impression that it does not exist, does not own the lion's share of just about everything, and does not exercise a vastly disproportionate influence over the affairs of the nation. Such precautions are them­selves symptomatic of an acute awareness of class interests.

Yet ruling class members are far from invisible. Their command positions in the corporate world, their control of international finance and industry, their ownership of the major media, and their influence over state power and the political process are all matters of public record- to some limited degree. While it would seem a sim­ple matter to apply the C-word to those who occupy the highest reaches of the C-world, the dominant class ideology dismisses any such application as a lapse into "conspiracy theory." The C-word is also taboo when applied to the millions who do the work of society for what are usually niggardly wages, the "working class," a term that is dismissed as Marxist jargon. And it is verboten to refer to the "exploiting and exploited classes;' for then one is talk­ing about the very essence of the capitalist system, the accumulation of corporate wealth at the expense of labor.

The C-word is an acceptable term when prefaced with the sooth­ing adjective "middle." Every politician, publicist, and pundit will rhapsodize about the middle class, the object of their heartfelt con­cern. The much admired and much pitied middle class is supposedly inhabited by virtuously self-sufficient people, free from the presumed profligacy of those who inhabit the lower rungs of soci­ety. By including almost everyone, "middle class" serves as a conve­niently amorphous concept that masks the exploitation and inequality of social relations. It is a class label that denies the actu­ality of class power.

The C-word is allowable when applied to one other group, the desperate lot who live on the lowest rung of society, who get the least of everything while being regularly blamed for their own victimiza­tion: the "underclass." References to the presumed deficiencies of underclass people are acceptable because they reinforce the existing social hierarchy and justify the unjust treatment accorded society's most vulnerable elements.

Seizing upon anything but class, leftists today have developed an array of identity groups centering around ethnic, gender, cultural, and life-style issues. These groups treat their respective grievances as something apart from class struggle, and have almost nothing to say about the increasingly harsh politico-economic class injustices perpe­trated against us all. Identity groups tend to emphasize their distinc­tiveness and their separateness from each other, thus fractionalizing the protest movement. To be sure, they have important contributions to make around issues that are particularly salient to them, issues often overlooked by others. But they also should not downplay their common interests, nor overlook the common class enemy they face. The forces that impose class injustice and economic exploitation are the same ones that propagate racism, sexism, militarism, ecological devastation, homophobia, xenophobia, and the like.

source

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

"Good to hear"

  • Belarus, Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan, Bolivia, Cuba, entire former soviet bloc and all other countries targeted by colour coups

Also defining dictatorship of bourgeoisie in France as "popular will" is kinda stretchy like measured in AU.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Belarus, Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan, Bolivia, Cuba, entire former soviet bloc and all other countries targeted by colour coups

Many of those countries listed hold only fake elections, if they hold any at all. There is simple no established way for the average citizen to hold their leaders accountable besides a complete revolution.

Also defining dictatorship of bourgeoisie in France as “popular will” is kinda stretchy like measured in AU.

I'm talking about whether French popular sentiment supports aid to the Ukrainian government to fight Russia. You can brush off their opinion as meaningless if you want, but I prefer to take

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

L.M.A.O. "democracy is when NATO (approve)"