• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’m pretty sure Marx lived in a country with a parliamentary system. Not a two-party, first past the post system.

    If you don’t understand what the difference is with regards to election outcomes, then I don’t know what to tell you.

    It’s absurd to pretend that the situation he’s referring to is anything close to what’s happening now.

    • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s true that Marx lived in a different political system, but the soul of his critique goes beyond the specifics of electoral structures.

      Marx’s analysis of class struggle and the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few is pretty much as relevant today as it was back then, regardless of whether we’re talking about a parliamentary system or a two-party, first-past-the-post system.

      Exploitation of the working class and the manipulation of political systems to serve the interests of the ruling class is still very very much present in our current system.

      To dismiss Marx’s ideas because the electoral mechanics are different misses the bigger point.

      No matter the system, those in power will often rig it to maintain their dominance and suppress genuine alternatives that threaten the status quo.