An Argument Against Vaush's Solutions to the Failure of Bourgeois Democracy
In a recent stream, Vaush talked about the failings of liberal democracy. This was one of many streams where Vaush has ranted about these issues, often including a declaration that he doesn't "believe in democracy" or support it.
As I understand it, his criticism is that under liberal democracy, the capitalist class is able to exert a great deal of control over the population and that control leads to outcomes that benefit the bourgeoisie at the expense of everyone else. The capitalist class does this via their control of numerous important institutions from the media to education, shaping the electorate to their own ends. These observations are true.
While Vaush is right in identifying the issue, his prescriptions to solve it are preposterous. The solution he most often proposes is to implement some sort of idealized version of poll testing and create a second-class citizenry by revoking voting rights from people who fail to pass it. I have deep ideological issues with this, but even from a practical point of view, I believe that this solution fails to achieve the desired outcomes.
What is the issue? As Vaush notes, under liberal democracy the capitalist class shapes outcomes in its interest, and so would it shape such a radical reordering of democratic rights. It wouldn't happen isolated from their influence, it would be structured in a way that's acceptable to them as a class. Just like the vast majority of efforts to limit voting rights in the United States now and in the past, it would be done to entrench the capitalist class further, not the disempower it. Any future where there are serious efforts to implement poll tests in the United States is a grim one. This is a road that leads from bourgeois democracy to bourgeois autocracy.
What's the solution? The capitalist class needs to be disempowered, 4Head. This is obviously easier said than done. When talking about the failure of liberal democracy, Vaush sometimes also mentions this, but he mostly likes talking about poll tests. The disempowerment of the capitalist class is necessary for democracy to have a real chance. Efforts to improve outcomes by limiting democracy before this step will have the opposite effect and therefore should be resisted. What about after? The conditions of a hypothetical world where the capitalist class has been disempowered will be very different than the one we're living in, so suggesting they should limit voting rights seems unjustified. At that point, the socioeconomic paradigm and balance of power have shifted so radically that there could be a dozen other measures to preserve a healthy democracy.
Some might argue that this solution is out of our reach. True! It's not going to happen in our lifetime, but neither is the Vaush approved idealized version of poll testing. That's not happening, and right now, I don't think people should have any notion in their heads that an effort to limit democracy could lead to something better, because it won't. In the meantime, the best course of action is to raise awareness of how the capitalist class shapes liberal democracy to be undemocratic, and to fight their efforts to further erode what's left of its democratic elements.
Finally, if we're dealing with far-fetched solutions under the current system, why is a frictionless spherical poll test the one Vaush jumps to? There are a dozen or more other unlikely measures that, if they were to be implemented, would improve outcomes under liberal democracy. Abolishing the senate, abolishing the electoral college, expanding the House of Representatives, banning corporate campaign contributions, publicly funded elections, and so on. All of these measures would expand democracy and likely improve outcomes, and none of them require going back to the 19th century for ideas.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.