We vote. We debate. We argue over politicians like they’re the real decision-makers. But are they really in charge? Or are they just well-dressed puppets, reading from a script written by those with real power?

Behind every election, there are corporations, lobbyists, billionaires, and hidden networks pulling the strings. Policies aren’t always shaped by public interest but by those who fund campaigns, control the media, and influence economies.

The question is: Who truly holds the power? The government? The wealthy elite? Tech giants? Intelligence agencies?

And if politicians are just the face of a system much bigger than them, does voting even matter? Or are we just choosing between different masks of the same machine?

  • The Boob Sniffer@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    The downgrade to a “flawed democracy” highlights the reality of a system that’s never truly been for the people it’s always been about serving the interests of the capitalist class. A “full democracy” is a myth in a society where the economic system is designed to prioritize a select few. The real solution isn’t about restoring a broken democracy but about dismantling the capitalist structures that prop it up. A good dictatorship, one that truly serves the people and removes the influence of the elite, could be the only way to actually return power to the masses.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      A good dictatorship, one that truly serves the people and removes the influence of the elite, could be the only way to actually return power to the masses.

      A “good dictatorship” in the Dark Enlightenment sense of the people skulking around the White House right now, or a “good dictatorship” in the Marxist sense?

      • The Boob Sniffer@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        A “good dictatorship” in the Marxist sense

        One that dismantles capitalist structures, redistributes power, and serves the working class free from elite manipulation. Not the kind that exists to maintain power for a select few under the guise of order.

    • Binx85@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I, personally, don’t accept any kind of dictatorship can ever be good. That there is a series of humans with self interest in between the resources of a nation and the populace of a nation leads me to doubt that possibility. If it were possible, we would have seen more than a few prosperous Marxist nations.

      • The Boob Sniffer@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        I, personally, don’t accept any kind of dictatorship can ever be good. That there is a series of humans with self interest in between the resources of a nation and the populace of a nation leads me to doubt that possibility. If it were possible, we would have seen more than a few prosperous Marxist nations.

        A “good dictatorship” in the Marxist sense isn’t about a singular tyrant, but the working class collectively taking control to dismantle capitalist power.

        The reason Marxist nations have struggled is due to elite corruption, not the ideology itself. Dictatorship, when it’s truly for the people, can redistribute power and create equality.

        The real issue with capitalism is that it claims to be democratic but is manipulated by the wealthy elite. True democracy can only exist when economic power is decentralized, and that’s something capitalism can never achieve.

        • Binx85@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          The reason Marxist nations have struggled is due to elite corruption, not the ideology itself.

          I think this is kind of my point exactly. I misunderstood the dictatorship of Marxism, but I’m not sure I believe there can be a “good” Marxist dictatorship that is broadly cooperative on a national scale because it will require intermediaries who are themselves susceptible of corruption. Occupy Wallstreet seems to be a great example of that working locally, but I’m skeptical it can be easy to coordinate nationally as a market can. On paper, the Marxist ideology is sound, in practice, human self-interest seems to not want it to work, though there is always an opportunity to try again somewhere. That being said, markets come with their own distinct style of corruption, as we’re currently seeing playing out right now.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago
        • Binx85@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I am (perhaps naively) hopeful that there can be mechanisms in place to avoid this. Ranked Choice Voting seems like one possible lever, but I think it’s probably true that any certain that has a hierarchy is vulnerable to capture by those with access to the most resources.

          Genuinely: What are some political systems capable of avoiding capture by the elite (Bourgeoisie, Royal, etc. classes?