• teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    The difference in what we’re saying is semantic.

    They fundamentally want the US to continue

    If this means a government “of the people, for the people, by the people” that maintains a monopoly on violence to ensure no one is above the law/Constitution, then I disagree.

    If this means a puppet state that the “elite” holds oligarchal control over, but maintain whatever facade of democracy they need to, then I agree. But I would not call that the US govt. You could say that because they call it the “US Govt” it’s still the US govt, and you could say that because they call it the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it’s a democratic republic. But I would disagree on both points.

    Yeah obviously they’re not going to personally crown themselves as supreme ruler on a towering citadel constructed where the whitehouse once stood like a caricature of a villain. But if the structure of “government” that we end up with is completely powerless against them, then it’s objectively not the US anymore; it’s just the “elite”, the govt is whatever they say, they are the govt, wealth only flows wherever they say it’s allowed to in order to maintain power.

    And that’s always their goal, to become the govt, that’s what I mean.

    • freagle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It’s always been an oligarchy. At no point were the masses in charge of the US. It was founded by rich, landed gentry from Europe leading the common man to battle under the banner of liberal values, but they formed the entire government to be by of and for the land owners. They even gave MORE power to land owners who also owned people. That’s how committed they were to oligarchy from the beginning. It’s always been a structure by which the elite manage their affairs including how best to prevent a revolt by the masses.