• Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world
    11·
    2 个月前

    Politicians shouldn’t be elected. If they want to rule, they should take control by force like in the old times.

    That’s how you cull the useless leaders. They perish

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    449·
    2 个月前

    Never ask a man his salary

    Never ask a woman her age

    Never ask what George Orwell was doing in Myanmar in the 1920s

    • anus@lemmy.world
      15·
      2 个月前

      Orwell wrote openly about the things he did throughout his life, both in casual letters and widely read short stories

    • Velypso@sh.itjust.works
      15·
      2 个月前

      He literally wrote a novel that was heavily inspired about his time in Myanmar.

      You can kinda ask him yourself.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        20·
        2 个月前

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_Days

        Set in British Burma during the waning days of empire, when Burma was ruled from Delhi as part of British India, the novel serves as “a portrait of the dark side of the British Raj.” At the centre of the novel is John Flory, “the lone and lacking individual trapped within a bigger system that is undermining the better side of human nature.”[1] The novel describes “both indigenous corruption and imperial bigotry” in a society where, “after all, natives were natives—interesting, no doubt, but finally…an inferior people”.[2]

        To be clear, that last bit of that last sentence is meant to be read as hideously haughty and privileged… it is dripping with irony, a self-cariacature, as the novel showcases the craven nature of characters in all kinds of social positions, from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds.

        The whole thing is meant as an unflinching critique of how colonialism ruins everyone involved.

        I guess we could also maybe ask Orwell what he was doing in Spain in the 1930s, but at the time, he would again have difficulty telling you.

        Turns out that when you join an internationalist anti fascist militia to go personally shoot fascists yourself, well, sometimes they shoot back, and sometimes they hit you in the neck.

        … thankfully, writing exists.

        I find it absolutely incredible that George Orwell, a man who has likely personally shot more fascists than probably anyone you’ll find on the internet… somehow doesn’t clear the ideological purity test these days.

        And that is because Orwell, while literally shooting at fascists in Spain, also found himself as the target of a pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin smear campaign, which tried to paint him and his outfit as Trotskyists and also as fascists.

        Apparently, this smear campaign remains quite influential, to this day.

  • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
    231·
    2 个月前
    The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

    Douglas Adams

  • hark@lemmy.world
    333·
    2 个月前

    In 2016 both Hillary and Trump had a lower than 50% approval rating and yet they were the frontrunners: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/

    Congress has a less than 50% approval rating and it’s made up of elected politicians: https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/

    We don’t have a democracy, we have a system where you can only choose which representative for billionaires you dislike the least. They’re all corrupt, any that aren’t are quickly drowned out by well-funded opposition.

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 个月前

      People tend to approve of their own representatives, and blame others in Congress for unsolved issues. We have become good at identifying problems while minimizing our own contributions to them. And in general, as a country we are very divided on the way things should be changing.

      For presidential candidates especially, I’ve found people tend to latch on to reasons to dislike someone and ignore positive things, except perhaps for their favorite candidate. It’s a form of tribalism. But from what I remember Trump and Hilary were both considered distinctly weak candidates at the time.

      • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
        21·
        2 个月前

        Hilary […] considered distinctly weak

        Not by the same proto blumaga libs who insisted Biden and Harris were strong candidates. If you pointed out people were suffering and her policies and messaging was “get a high paying job lmao”, you got bombarded with “sHE iS ThE mOsT qUaLiFiEd cAnDiDAtE iN hIsToRy”.

    • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
      21·
      2 个月前

      I believe that’s an overstatement, not all politicians are corrupt. There are many members of Congress that are working to make things better and pass progressive legislation. AOC and Bernie for instance haven’t been silenced and replaced by big corporations.

      I agree with you that the US’ federal Congress is more pro-billionaire, but there are still people that want to make things better. The issue is that those people do not have the votes to pass progressive legislation. Lots of people are seemingly happy with the status quo given that half of the states predominantly vote Republican each election cycle.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 个月前

        The non-corrupt ones are a tiny minority and get drowned out by well-funded opposition. If the tide even hints at turning then the billionaires turn to straight-up fascism, as we’re seeing now.

        • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
          2·
          1 个月前

          I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily tiny but they are a minority by far. 94/213 of the Democrats in the House are part of the progressive caucus for instance, which is 94/435 total seats in the House. Having 1/100 of the seats in the Senate by comparison.

          Imo they just do what they can get away with. Which will continue for the foreseeable next three years at minimum.

          For progressive change, it really needs to happen at the state level within Blue states. We need those programs passed at the state level and then we can sell how successful they are to the other states.

    • LunatiQue Goddess @lemmy.worldOP
      118·
      2 个月前

      You are right. Americans are slaves, tricked into thinking their votes count. But people must understand the enemy is the corruption found by members of both parties. Democratic and Republican

      • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
        2·
        2 个月前

        I wouldn’t say Americans are tricked, but a vote for positive change tends to be met with a vote for ‘changing nothing’ by someone on the other side of the aisle.

        People’s best bets is really to focus on making their own states more progressive and pass those progressive programs at the state level. Banking on having the federal government pass the progressive programs people want is not going to work

        People living in Purple and Red states are going to need to see Blue states thriving from progressive policies if they’re going to be convinced to change their voting habits. People living in Blue states should no longer be banking on doing the more caring option of passing progressive programs federally, instead Blue States should be willing to go into debt to fund these progressive programs.

  • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
    1810·
    2 个月前

    On the one hand yeah sure, but on the other hand in the USA youre an accomplice if you didnt vote or if you wasted your vote on a 3rd party.

    Vote for baddy, your fault. Vote for less baddy, youre propping up the system. Vote for good guy, you wasted your chance to vote against baddy. Dont vote, you wasted your chance yo vote against baddy.

    Everyone gets the boot on the neck, everyone gets the blame, there are no winners

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    127·
    2 个月前

    This includes people who give everyone shit for not voting for the “lesser” corruption. Accomplices all.

  • SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one
    1·
    2 个月前

    I’d throw in the people who stand by and let Nazis take power. They enabled the steamrolling of human rights.

    But oh right, OP is a skink.

  • stringere@sh.itjust.works
    11·
    2 个月前

    All according to plan so farmland can be bought up by large corporations and billionaires. They want to control and commodify every aspect of survival.

  • Commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    52·
    2 个月前

    Yeah, it’s your personal responsibility to vote for the “good” candidate, with voting for the “bad” candidate being an individual’s moral and mental failure as opposed to it being caused by shifting material conditions, crises or simply just failure of liberal political side to garner enough support or them targeting only the affluent middle-class intelligentsia.

    Why don’t everyone just vote for the good guys, are they stupid?

  • CleoCommunist@lemmy.ml
    5·
    1 个月前

    The people represent the government, i am ashamed of my people.

    Or mabye im not, here in Italy the meloni got elected by only 40% of the people, only beacouse of a law made by the DC