The only nugget of broadly correct advice. To do things IRL. The rest is garbage though. Liberal republic is a spectacle tinnily veiling the dictatorship of Capital, which can, absolutely, quell any dissent until it destabilizes its own foundation. Not to mention that normie crap.
Sodom and Gomorrah do not seek salvation
Kayden Bell
Jordan Gray
...
Zachary Reyes
History teaches us that no oppressed class ever did, or could, achieve power without going through a period of dictatorship, i.e., the conquest of political power and forceable suppression of the resistance always offered by the exploiters—the resistance that is most desperate, most furious, and that stops at nothing. The bourgeoisie, whose domination is now defended by the Socialists who denounce “dictatorship in general” and extol “democracy in general", won power in the advanced countries through a series of insurrections, civil wars, and the forcible suppression of kings, feudal lords, slaveowners and their attempts at restoration. In books, pamphlets, Congress resolutions, and propaganda speeches, Socialists have everywhere thousands and millions of times explained to people the class nature of these bourgeois revolutions and this bourgeois dictatorship. That is why the present defense of bourgeois democracy under the cover of talk about “democracy in general", and the present howls and shouts against proletarian dictatorship under the cover of shouts about “dictatorship in general", are an outright betrayal of socialism
Jose Brooks
Whether you're right or wrong just depends on how much free will we think humans have.
If humans have total free will, you're right and people just have to choose to vote for a better world.
If humans don't have free will then their vote is totally determined by the world they were born into.
The latter is probably true, but who knows.
Eli Turner
Ayden Diaz
Liam Allen
How it really worked out though is that the old aristocracy and rising bourgeoisie joined forces during the 19th century, once it was obvious that industrial capitalism was going to be the thing and feudalism wasn't coming back. Conservatives dug in and tried to fight the change for a while, and still feign resistance in their messaging towards the poor, but there is no doubt now that conservatives are firmly on board with the free market system and don't particularly mind liberalism's effect on culture (only exploiting the opportunity to rile up the lower classes who don't like the changes liberalism and capitalism has brought to the culture).
That's probably how "socialism" will come to pass in the long term too; it will be elements of the current middle class and a few bourgeoisie (and yes, even some of the old aristocracy) that see the writing on the wall and realize capitalism is coming to an end, and that these classes seeking political power will understand the need to join forces and build over time a new order.
I don't see that change happening for a while though. Capitalism has a ways to go where it can continue to exploit and immiserate the masses. WW3 would end it (and any pretense of democracy) as soon as the first nuke is fired, but aside from that, international finance can keep playing a shell game for quite some time, and the threat of even riots is minimal due to the overwhelming police force and the way present society is organized specifically to prevent anything like revolution.
Jackson White
What about the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark ?
I feel like you're all just trying to sweep the issue under the rug here. You give good points about the difficulties socialists would have or do have to get to power from the bourgeoisie, but you wilfully ignore how the public opinion contributes to these difficulties and how they don't always affect it. You make out public opinion to be the end product when it's not.
Doesn't exist by law, even in the US. It appeared independently in almost all democracies that didn't restrict the number of parties. The media is to blame in part, but don't forget journalists are people. It seems that there's a deep tendency for people to separate in two teams of comparable strength.
You sure can. In my country, where they need support from hundred of mayors to run for president, there's always one or two trotskyist candidates. They get 1% of the vote.
Indeed, but very few expect to get shot. The gilets jaunes were surprised by the brutality of the police. So if workers don't vote for revolutionaries, it's not because they're afraid of the state's response. It's the reverse.
Ideological domination is not only something that the bourgeoisie built on purpose. It's also accidental.
What I am trying to get at is that we need to navigate between these two monsters of fatalism, and avoid them at all costs : that the bourgeoisie will always win as long as it is in power, and that the workers will always be on our side in the end.
Blake Ward
The two party system is for all intents and purposes enshrined by law in the US. (The two parties themselves are basically arms of the ruling elite, rather than genuine "political parties" in the sense that Labour or the Tories are political parties. This, if you recall, was an argument implied by Russiagate, where an attack on the ostensibly private DNC was an attack on the American system itself, with the implication that airing their dirty laundry and having any free press at all is actually criminal unless it is limited to printing approved facts.)
Robert Morales
But it's not. There's no law against other parties. The election rules make it hard for them to win, but they can campaign and get votes. I just saw that in 92, the third candidate got almost 20% of the popular vote.