a liberal democracy¶

If you take them at their word, the parties in a liberal democracy each want this outcome for themselves. According to the Democrats, you HAVE to vote for them, otherwise the Republicans will destroy America--and vice versa. They present themselves as diametrically opposed. https://t.co/n3ASnBFy2z For Democrats to present themselves as the better option, they need to convince you that your choice matters, and there is a correct choice. That obviously means that you, as a rational person, should always vote for them, and so should everyone else. The ideal is 100% Dems. And yet, they claim to not want that. You should always vote for Dems, and yet they want there to magically be a 50/50 split in the end, so we can have a "functioning democracy." This conflicting philosophy actually makes perfect sense once you understand what the parties are. The point of the electoral system in a bourgeois democracy is not to best represent the people's interests, but to create the illusion of choice between parties that each governs on behalf of the capitalist class. We can illustrate this with a thought experiment. Imagine that overnight, the entire Republican party disappeared. Some die, some retire, some "see the light" and switch parties. What would happen in the next election? Would the Dems see it as a victory for democracy that those no-good Republicans are out of the way? Obviously not. The party would split into "left" and "right" flanks, each once again positioning themselves as the only rational choice. Former Democrats across the spectrum, flanking the same "center" the current parties do. This would be necessary for a "functioning democracy." Each party in a liberal democracy gains its legitimacy only in the context of opposition to the other parties. A one-party regime under capitalism would not have mass support; every policy would be graded directly on its impact on the working class, and would be found wanting. If Democrats governed alone and did all the things they do now, there would be uprisings every day. If they fulfilled the half measures they promise they really want (like $15 minimum wage), the people would quickly demand more, and those demands would be met with obstinance. A new left party would open up, promising $25/hr, and garnering an ever-increasing proportion of votes. But they'd somehow find themselves needing to "compromise" with an intractable old guard. They'd water down the proposed reforms to reach some ill-defined "centrist voter." By the time the two parties are neck-and-neck, their policy proposals would look roughly the same again. The one-party duopoly would be restored, with a refreshed veneer of "left-right compromise." Worker exploitation, imperialism, and white supremacy would be maintained.