“If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal.”
Is this a good rhetoric considering the history of universal suffrage and all, voting was illegal for large parts of the population throughout history? Of course liberal democracy is shit, but I don’t think hard fought concessions necessarily legitimizes the system.
It’s a pretty well known phrase in the US (I don’t know where you’re from). Capitalist countries throw out rights and institute reactionary/fascist dictatorships to rediscipline the working class and the quote was the first thing I thought of to explain my views on what it would take for the US to revoke them. It’s not literally true but it’s spiritually true. Those rights were given out a concessions and are subject to change or being revoked like abortion.
Ultimately, we’re in a very far left internet space and if I was talking to a “normal person” I’d gauge their politics and try to figure out how to talk to them without seeming weird.
It’s actually a good thought experiment. Giving the franchise to people who have been oppressed for years is a great way of losing control of the system. So, how did they maintain control despite expanding the franchise? They separated voting from land ownership and ensured the power remained with the ownership and not the vote. Voting changed things in and amount the American bourgeoisie before the expansion of the franchise. In preparation for the expansion of the franchise, the American bourgeoisie made voting less and less likely to change anything. This, if voting changed anything, they would make it illegal, and in fact they did, and they made it legal after it wouldn’t change anything.
Is this a good rhetoric considering the history of universal suffrage and all, voting was illegal for large parts of the population throughout history? Of course liberal democracy is shit, but I don’t think hard fought concessions necessarily legitimizes the system.
It’s a pretty well known phrase in the US (I don’t know where you’re from). Capitalist countries throw out rights and institute reactionary/fascist dictatorships to rediscipline the working class and the quote was the first thing I thought of to explain my views on what it would take for the US to revoke them. It’s not literally true but it’s spiritually true. Those rights were given out a concessions and are subject to change or being revoked like abortion.
Ultimately, we’re in a very far left internet space and if I was talking to a “normal person” I’d gauge their politics and try to figure out how to talk to them without seeming weird.
It’s actually a good thought experiment. Giving the franchise to people who have been oppressed for years is a great way of losing control of the system. So, how did they maintain control despite expanding the franchise? They separated voting from land ownership and ensured the power remained with the ownership and not the vote. Voting changed things in and amount the American bourgeoisie before the expansion of the franchise. In preparation for the expansion of the franchise, the American bourgeoisie made voting less and less likely to change anything. This, if voting changed anything, they would make it illegal, and in fact they did, and they made it legal after it wouldn’t change anything.
Enfranchising more people is always risky, yes, but as time bore on its pretty evident that the franchise in America is a very weak form of voting.