united states

cuteroid · 2025-06-24T11:09:51.377025-07:00

the u.s. calls itself a democracy, but in practice it’s more like a system that just looks like one on paper. first off, the u.s. is not a true multi-party system. it’s structured to push everything into two poles: democrats and republicans. technically there are other parties, like the green party, libertarians, and a few others, but the system is designed so they can’t really compete. why? because the u.s. uses a “winner-takes-all” voting system. whoever gets the most votes in a state wins all the representation, and everyone else gets nothing. so if a candidate gets 49% of the vote, they get zero representation. smaller parties with 2 or 3% of the vote get completely shut out. over time, voters learn that voting for anyone besides the two big parties is basically wasting their vote. so even if someone likes what the green party stands for, they’ll think “if i vote green, it’ll only help republicans win.” tactical voting becomes the norm: “i can’t pick what i really want, but at least i can try to block what i really don’t want.” this is why third parties get called “spoilers.” then there’s money. running for office in the u.s. costs millions. the big parties can easily tap into corporate money. the media focuses only on the two big parties, and third parties barely get heard. parties that aren’t seen as having a shot get treated like a joke. the most blatant example of the system’s flaws is the electoral college. americans don’t elect their president by popular vote. they vote for electors, and those electors decide. with 538 total electors, a candidate needs 270 to win. this system makes it possible for someone to lose the popular vote by millions and still become president. it’s happened more than once: in 2000, al gore got about 540,000 more votes than bush and still lost. in 2016, `hillary clinton` got around 3 million more votes than trump and still lost. so “one person, one vote” isn’t really a thing here. the system also forces candidates to only campaign in swing states. voters in places like california or texas basically get ignored. now add lobbying. the 2010 citizens united supreme court ruling made things even worse. it said that spending money on elections is a form of free speech. so now corporations, unions, and the super-rich can pour unlimited money into “super pacs” that run ads and shape public opinion. politicians can’t really win without tapping into this money. and after the election, these donors have huge influence on what laws get passed. ordinary people have little voice compared to big donors. so how do americans still think they live in a `democracy`? because at this point “democracy” is more of a brand than a real system. like “freedom” or “justice” or “peacekeeping.” it’s a label people have been taught to be proud of since childhood. public schools teach that the u.s. system is unique and the freest in the world. the media repeats this constantly: “look at `china`, look at russia.” they never say “look at `switzerland` or `norway`.” so americans grow up believing “sure, our system has flaws, but it’s still the best.” for most people here, democracy means: do we have elections? yes. can i vote? yes. can i criticize the government? usually, yes. so that must mean it’s a democracy. but things like fair representation, media monopolies, and the influence of money barely register for most people. criticizing the system feels like criticizing america itself, and people get defensive. it’s less about what democracy actually is and more about what it symbolizes. for many americans, democracy isn’t a functioning system, it’s part of their national identity.

america isn't really a capitalist country anymore. that’s ancient history. nowadays, it’s an oligarchy. every single industry is dominated by three to five major players who hold almost the entire market share. they just keep steamrolling ahead by gobbling up and absorbing any competitor that crosses their path.

laws have allowed this ever since the reagan era. the whole logic of "you can merge as long as you don't hike prices" has made these massive acquisitions possible. just look at disney buying fox, or the rumors about warner bros potentially getting scooped up by netflix or paramount.

microsoft was the one that really kicked off this trend. whenever a rival challenged their software, microsoft would either crush them with a copycat product or just buy them out outright. meta and google are doing the exact same thing—acquiring platforms like instagram, whatsapp, and youtube to keep their momentum. these companies have made hundreds of acquisitions like this. it’s basically "squashing the competition while it’s still small."

there's no way for america to break out of this oligarchic structure now. we're already down to just a handful of players in every sector. broadly speaking, more than half the u.s. economy runs on just 5 to 10 massive corporations. they control the entire infrastructure. as they grow, they don't just outpace their rivals; they outgrow the government itself. and that’s exactly the problem. nothing can stop a corporation that’s more powerful than the state.

modern america doesn't have a capitalist system that says, "let new rivals rise and competition thrive." it has a system that says, "five companies run the show, and everyone else just exists to feed them." this system is so entrenched now that even the government is powerless to change it.