Comment by GPerson
1 day ago
“Sounds great, except it ignores the fact that capital interests have controlled the levers of our faux democracies for decades, with no end in sight.”
This is not election denialism. This is almost just a fact except they also subjectively declare that we have a faux democracy (which also seems accurate to me).
Yes it is. If you insist that the result of a democratic election does not reflect the will of the people, that, and nothing else, is election denialism.
At most the American people have a recurring dilemma. There really isnt choice in the meaningful sense of the word
> If you insist that the result of a democratic election does not reflect the will of the people, that, and nothing else, is election denialism.
No.
This reflects the common understanding of the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_denial_movement_in_th...
> The election denial movement in the United States is a widespread false belief that elections in the United States are rigged and stolen through election fraud by the opposing political party. Adherents of the movement are referred to as election deniers.
It requires that people still believe they're being given legitimate choices. My comments above do not.
No it’s not. Election denialism in 2026 in an American context refers to Donald Trump and his supporters denying the results of the 2020 election (and related claims). Pretending that capital does not significantly affect our elections contributes to the deterioration of democracy.
If you actually don’t believe capital plays an outsized role in elections and government then take a gander at the Wikipedia page called Campaign finance in the United States. There is a chart called Percent of races won by top spending candidate… and lots of other information. Also looking into the role of lobbying in American politics.
Election denialiam can and should mean more than just the current thing. If you want to use a proprietary definition, then so can I.
It is not less dangerous because you include Marxist delusions like "capital" in your description, as if "capital" is an autonomous entity with a will and interests of its own. In fact, it takes money to run a campaign, and that money comes from a large variety of interests and sources, all of which are competing and not by any means unitary, anf among which include very not "capital"-like things such as workers unions, individual donations, groups set up by citizens, etc.
You don't get a pass because you think your election denialism sounds sophisticated and progressive by inserting Marxist terms into the picture.
If "capital interests" (ugh, capitalism) controlled democracy, please esplain:
- Michael Bloomberg - Hillary Clinton (both in the 2008 primary and 2016 general) - Alex Vindman ...
a simple Google search reveals that while there is some threshold amount of dosh necessary to get noticed, _more money != more votes_. To believe otherwise is is willful ignorance. Sometimes your favorite candidate loses because the median actual voter (you know, the guy who actual fills out the form) prefers the status quo for their own reasons and not because they're brainwashed or whatever it is that "capital interests" do to them.
3 replies →
It does reflect the will of the people, but the causal chain doesn’t stop there.
The will of the people is the result of the corporate interests that control the democratic system.
Manufacturing Consent is an excellent read - and don’t stop at Chomsky, read Bernays, who pretty much codified the system as it runs today. Propaganda is a good place to start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays