The comic isn’t ignoring the details or redefining the Forward Party’s rhetoric at all. The message, which I agree with, is that the party’s platform doesn’t promise any fundamental change to the underlying system, but rather is intended to address glaring problems that represent a risk to the longevity of the system.
It’s a bit like the new deal, which was intended to take the steam out of the US labor movement (and succeeded). The goal, ultimately, is the short-term appeasement of those who have been disillusioned with the current system in order to preserve the greater status quo (capitalism).
The Forward Party isn’t advocating for anything close to a New Deal level appeasement policy after it abandoned UBI. It got taken over by conservatives and is a shambling corpse of something that was always a cover for the technocracy in the first place.
Knowing basically nothing about anything that’s relevant here, so pardon any ignorance, but it does sound to me like anything that moves the US towards a true multi-party system would be a pretty fundamental change?
To our democracy, sure, but not to our economic system. As long as our economic system is capitalist our democracy will always be beholden to the ultra rich, even if it is multi-party. Campaign finance reform is good, but nowhere near enough to eliminate the influence of capital on the political process.
I’m not so sure. I’m from a multi-party democracy, and while the ultra-rich (or, well, mega-rich I suppose - the US’s ultra-rich are at a different level I think) certainly have their interests catered to, I feel like on balance the scales are tipped to their benefit to a way smaller extent, largely thanks to the multi-party system.
What country? Virtually every liberal democracy is currently experiencing a far-right resurgence right now, with similar themes of austerity and lower taxes on the rich. Multiparty democracies, especially those with parliamentary systems, have greater immunity, but they’re all suffering from the same disease because they have the same foundational flaws.
In the EU, but my point is that the scale is way different. I’m in the Netherlands, and the far-right resurgence here is still being kept in check to some extent by the other parties. I shudder to think what would happen if they could do what they want just because they’re the largest, but they can’t.
The Netherlands has extra immunity beyond just the political system by way of a strong social safety net as well. Fascism thrives on poverty and resentment. But keep in mind, the Netherlands is practically the perfect example of social democracy and yet still the far-right is able to find a foothold to power. The Netherlands does a great job treating the symptoms of capitalism, but the foundations can still rot.
Agreed, although I’d posit that we were able to get the strong social safety thanks in large part to the multi-party democracy. But otherwise, yes, agreed on all counts.
The comic isn’t ignoring the details or redefining the Forward Party’s rhetoric at all. The message, which I agree with, is that the party’s platform doesn’t promise any fundamental change to the underlying system, but rather is intended to address glaring problems that represent a risk to the longevity of the system.
It’s a bit like the new deal, which was intended to take the steam out of the US labor movement (and succeeded). The goal, ultimately, is the short-term appeasement of those who have been disillusioned with the current system in order to preserve the greater status quo (capitalism).
The Forward Party isn’t advocating for anything close to a New Deal level appeasement policy after it abandoned UBI. It got taken over by conservatives and is a shambling corpse of something that was always a cover for the technocracy in the first place.
I wasn’t aware they abandoned UBI, but I can’t really say I’m surprised.
Knowing basically nothing about anything that’s relevant here, so pardon any ignorance, but it does sound to me like anything that moves the US towards a true multi-party system would be a pretty fundamental change?
To our democracy, sure, but not to our economic system. As long as our economic system is capitalist our democracy will always be beholden to the ultra rich, even if it is multi-party. Campaign finance reform is good, but nowhere near enough to eliminate the influence of capital on the political process.
I’m not so sure. I’m from a multi-party democracy, and while the ultra-rich (or, well, mega-rich I suppose - the US’s ultra-rich are at a different level I think) certainly have their interests catered to, I feel like on balance the scales are tipped to their benefit to a way smaller extent, largely thanks to the multi-party system.
What country? Virtually every liberal democracy is currently experiencing a far-right resurgence right now, with similar themes of austerity and lower taxes on the rich. Multiparty democracies, especially those with parliamentary systems, have greater immunity, but they’re all suffering from the same disease because they have the same foundational flaws.
In the EU, but my point is that the scale is way different. I’m in the Netherlands, and the far-right resurgence here is still being kept in check to some extent by the other parties. I shudder to think what would happen if they could do what they want just because they’re the largest, but they can’t.
The Netherlands has extra immunity beyond just the political system by way of a strong social safety net as well. Fascism thrives on poverty and resentment. But keep in mind, the Netherlands is practically the perfect example of social democracy and yet still the far-right is able to find a foothold to power. The Netherlands does a great job treating the symptoms of capitalism, but the foundations can still rot.
Agreed, although I’d posit that we were able to get the strong social safety thanks in large part to the multi-party democracy. But otherwise, yes, agreed on all counts.