He didn’t like political parties 'cause everyone should just get along and do what’s clearly best for everyone*, they ended up forming parties around Jefferson and Hamilton’s opposing positions anyway
I know you’re memeing, but really he supported a no-party state. Many of USAmerican founding fathers believed that one’s virtue (and the amount of capital you had was equivalent to your inner virtue) was what made them worthy of leading, and that party divisions prevented this natural, virtuous, meritocracy from elevating the right people to govern.
What they failed to realize is that the world doesn’t care about your virtue, and material conditions rule all. What no Dialectical Materialism does to a mf
From an outside perspective understanding how ““parties”” work in the US that kinda looks exactly like what they built too. No other country in the world allows anyone into political parties and gives no central control to party leadership over who can declare affiliation etc. Those are two state controlled factions of capitalism, red or blue, that anyone is allowed to declare themselves part of. It’s nonsense and they’re not real parties.
I’m like half-memeing because I would generally identify a no-party state as a one-party state unless it’s a direct democracy or something (as you allude to with his belief in a united ruling class of the wealthy, which I’d call a party), but thank you for the elaboration regardless.
I dead ass analogize a communist party 1 party state to Da Libs by saying “it’s really more like if Washington made a Constitution Party, the party where you have to support the constitution” just like that.
As we know: , there’s a lot of ideological flex in a single communist party anyway.
close enough, welcome back george washington
?
He didn’t like political parties 'cause everyone should just get along and do what’s clearly best for everyone*, they ended up forming parties around Jefferson and Hamilton’s opposing positions anyway
*white land owners
Authoritarian Washington supports a one-party state
I know you’re memeing, but really he supported a no-party state. Many of USAmerican founding fathers believed that one’s virtue (and the amount of capital you had was equivalent to your inner virtue) was what made them worthy of leading, and that party divisions prevented this natural, virtuous, meritocracy from elevating the right people to govern.
What they failed to realize is that the world doesn’t care about your virtue, and material conditions rule all. What no Dialectical Materialism does to a mf
From an outside perspective understanding how ““parties”” work in the US that kinda looks exactly like what they built too. No other country in the world allows anyone into political parties and gives no central control to party leadership over who can declare affiliation etc. Those are two state controlled factions of capitalism, red or blue, that anyone is allowed to declare themselves part of. It’s nonsense and they’re not real parties.
I’m like half-memeing because I would generally identify a no-party state as a one-party state unless it’s a direct democracy or something (as you allude to with his belief in a united ruling class of the wealthy, which I’d call a party), but thank you for the elaboration regardless.
I dead ass analogize a communist party 1 party state to Da Libs by saying “it’s really more like if Washington made a Constitution Party, the party where you have to support the constitution” just like that.
As we know:
, there’s a lot of ideological flex in a single communist party anyway.
Forming a Gorbin’ Out Over Here Party where our policy positions all involve getting drunk and rowdy at Pizza Hut
Oh hell yeah redistribute da Pepsi and Za