Not really true. Since voting in a capitalist dictatorship makes people have faith in their current system, threatening (and trying) to take it away lets people retreat to a position that capitalists also ultimately approve of and control. Its similar to candidate stacking: if both choices are pro-capitalist, then its strategically beneficial.
Would they rather eliminate voting entirely? Not really, because voting as a rigged game has proven its usefulness historically by giving people the illusion of choice, being a useful spectacle / popularity contest, and building faith in the system. Its really useful in preventing the alternative: which is worker’s taking power, and its why all working class states aim to overthrow bourgeios democracy.
Bourgeois democracy is a completely rigged game, and has proven the safest and most reliable shell for capitalist rule, regardless of voting methods or form, whether its in the US, UK, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Australia, etc.
One other thing I wanted to add: Bourgeios democracy / parliamentarism as a form of government is historically far more brutal than even fascist regimes. The UK and US genocided entire continents and killed millions of people under this form of “democracy”.
The empire of the rising sun, the nazis, and Italian fascists and the only tried and failed to do what the UK and US had already acheived, under a far more stable form of government for capitalist-imperialism.
Giving a toddler a couple approved choices works better than dictating everything. It’s a shame the same technique works so well with a good portion of the adult population.
If voting didn’t matter they wouldnt be working so hard to rat fuck the elections.
They are trying more to meddle in other countries elections than their own.
Not really true. Since voting in a capitalist dictatorship makes people have faith in their current system, threatening (and trying) to take it away lets people retreat to a position that capitalists also ultimately approve of and control. Its similar to candidate stacking: if both choices are pro-capitalist, then its strategically beneficial.
Would they rather eliminate voting entirely? Not really, because voting as a rigged game has proven its usefulness historically by giving people the illusion of choice, being a useful spectacle / popularity contest, and building faith in the system. Its really useful in preventing the alternative: which is worker’s taking power, and its why all working class states aim to overthrow bourgeios democracy.
Bourgeois democracy is a completely rigged game, and has proven the safest and most reliable shell for capitalist rule, regardless of voting methods or form, whether its in the US, UK, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Australia, etc.
One other thing I wanted to add: Bourgeios democracy / parliamentarism as a form of government is historically far more brutal than even fascist regimes. The UK and US genocided entire continents and killed millions of people under this form of “democracy”.
The empire of the rising sun, the nazis, and Italian fascists and the only tried and failed to do what the UK and US had already acheived, under a far more stable form of government for capitalist-imperialism.
Giving a toddler a couple approved choices works better than dictating everything. It’s a shame the same technique works so well with a good portion of the adult population.
Because the only thing both Democrats and Republicans care about is the color of the trolley.