• OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are empirically incorrect, studies show the US is an oligarchy. Bribery is literally legal in the US as long as the right procedures are followed.

    • trailing9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. As long as you don’t believe in Santa Claus, who is there to make a change?

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I would maybe research historical examples where land reform has worked instead of continuing to pester me.

        • trailing9@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Give me a hint. Are there reforms without staging a revolution? How can you dream of revolutions without believing in voters?

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How can you dream of revolutions without believing in voters?

            You’re the one who doesn’t believe in the masses.

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t believe in revolutions, that’s a difference.

              Let me ask again:

              How can you dream of revolutions without believing in voters?

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t believe in revolutions

                Like, that they historically exist and have resulted in massive gains for the working class, or what?

                Do you think not believing voting can affect change is the same as thinking the masses aren’t capable of affecting change?

                • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Revolutions needed 2% of the population to fight. Voters are 50% and you need a majority, so in total 25% of the population.

                  That made revolutions easier historically because you just needed guns and food for those 2%.

                  Now look at Ukraine, are guns and food enough?

                  You have to convince the population anyway or there will be a counter revolution. So I think if something is worth changing, it should be changed by voters.

                  That said, let me ask again, why do you prefer revolutions?

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I didn’t say I prefer them, I said that historically over and over again they get the goods. The problems you’re asking about are questions all successful revolutions have succeeded at grappling with.