While I don't agree with the way Congress is arranged with a clearly establishment-favoring Senate, we shouldn't take this to mean there's no such thing as a tyranny of majority as we've literally seen it play out historically many times. Look at Jim Crowe laws passed by majority white populations that harshly kept black Americans down for years up into living memory. Or anti-gay laws... tyrannies of majority 100% happen and it's a big reason why we have specific Constitutional rights that try to prevent it. Groups using democracy as a cudgel to smack down other groups certainly happens though. I would agree that the Senate is more about preserving current power structures than actually trying to prevent that though.

I also just don't agree at all that Biden wanted Trump to win... I think this is a hammer looking for a nail and seeing one, honestly. We just aren't going to agree on that point and aren't going to see each other's point of view, and we're not going to be able to prove hidden intentions, so I'm not sure this point is worth harping on. What I would say is that as Democrats and Republicans are both neolibs, Democrats would sooner see a Republican elected over someone they deem to be an actual threat from the left.

[–] ILikeToMeow@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This post is an excellent example of why reading Marxist Leninist Theory should not be treated as optional, there is so much wrong with the post I'm not even sure where to start, and I don't really have the energy for it either, so unfortunately we'll just have to leave it at that. (BTW Cowbee has an excellent guide to help you get started Basic and Advanced)

[–] huey_m@reddthat.com 0 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I'm very well aware of it and have studied it in an academic setting. It isn't all correct. It has insightful points that should be incorporated into a more well-rounded worldview rather than slavishly adhered to. But I came here to avoid reddit passive aggressive toxicity, so we'll just leave this conversation at that.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 25 minutes ago

Theory is a guide to action, not a dogma. This is a core tenet of Marxism-Leninism. Theory and practice mutually reinforce each other, truth comes from practice and this informs theory. How have you studied Marxism-Leninism in an academic setting, and what is incorrect about it? What is "missing" from it that a well-rounded view has? Perhaps the academic setting is impressing upon you conclusions friendly to capitalism and dismissive of socialism.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I’m very well aware of it and have studied it in an academic setting

I don't wish to be dismissive I simply find it exceedingly hard to believe that in Amerika land of McCarthyism home of the red scare it is possible to achieve anything even close to a proper study of Marxism-Leninism in an academic setting.

[–] huey_m@reddthat.com 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Then you should probably reconsider if maybe your assumptions about my background were probably a bit too hasty and reconsider how you approach people going forward? I never said I studied it in America, and I do not live in America.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago

Not really the wild assumption you're attempting to make it out to be.

we have specific Constitutional rights

You're clearly Amerikan the vast majority of which have never left Amerika. My doubt in the proper study of Marxism-Leninism in academic settings also extends to every US client state (all of Europe including the UK, Japan etc.).