• purahna@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    One party where a basic platform is defined and differences are expressed vibrantly on top of that is better than two parties that brand themselves as different but only offer a couple of aesthetic differences and concessions to keep people mad at the opposing party and not the underlying structure

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      …You’re really saying that one party where you have no functional choice is better than a multi-party system, just because you think that Republicans and Dems are too alike, while ignoriing the plethora of other parties that not only actually exist in the US, but hold office at local and state level?

      Shouldn’t expect any more from a tankie though.

      • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        friend. You’re so worried about a one party system because you’re thinking of American parties. You know how Mike Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders are both ran under the same party? In a proper single party state there’s more range than that.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One party with multiple functional approaches that get whittled down through democratic consensus is more democratic than being told to pick between two relatively similar options. There is more of a gap between liberals and Maoists in the CPC, both of which hold power in office, than there are between the democrats and republicans.