there is a significant difference. — Michael

No there isn't.

Great conversation... Really nailing this topic. I expect readers are riveted.

As the OP mentions Chomsky's view in 2008, maybe it's worth considering his more recent view.

Chomsky: Republican Party 'most dangerous organisation on earth' (2017)

Noam Chomsky: The GOP Is a “Gang of Radical Sadists” (2021)

Noam Chomsky Says GOP 'Not a Political Party' but a 'Radical Insurgency' (2022)

I suspect he's changed his mind in 14 years.

I think @Count Timothy von Icarus did a good job at outlining some of the major differences:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/802555

Yes, for all practical purposes, the two parties form some kind of symbiosis of a status quo that (in its other symbiotic relationship: corporations, banks, etc) bizarrely needs increasingly large amounts of everything: money, resources, land, people, energy, blood... Of course the two parties are different. They are like a married couple. The husband is a heartless gangster. The wife is friendly and elegant, but fully knows what is going on. Her charm makes the crimes more acceptable. She is the public relations, in effect.

If one eats nothing but ice cream for a week, even different flavors of the desert will all seem the same. Arguments of “but this ice cream is different! It’s ORGANIC CHOCOLATE MOCHA WITH HAZELNUTS!” will not persuade.

A few years ago, I started a similar thread with a poll attached. I asked if US politics was a monopoly. There were some questions about that choice of wording. But of the 17 people who voted, only one said the US system was NOT a “monopoly”.

I think Count Timothy von Icarus did a good job at outlining some of the major differences:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/802555 — universeness

Not disputing there's differences. The argument was about how significant they are, and I see no one addressing that beyond just declaring them to be.

In my unfailing and mysterious crystal ball, I see the coming of many strange and troubling things...

I behold the chilling vision that, as a result of the Monolithic entity controlling the USA (and its failure to deliver all that it promised), a large number of good and decent citizens will become extremely dissatisfied and restless. Their unrest will become so volcanically overwhelming that they will espouse (to them) a powerful manifesto of facts and beliefs. Neutral commenters may call it “mythological”. Detractors will label it whole affair “pathological delusions”. All will agree that the situation is explosive and impossible to ignore.

A leader will emerge who will personify this entire group’s anger. He will be a outsider who claims to be above the muck of the United Status Quo. He will lead the way with the Light of Righteousness in one hand, and the Sword of Divine Power in the other. (Or maybe it’ll just be a light saber in one hand lol).

He will lead an army of holy warriors!

This potentially bloody vision terrifies me. Gosh, it could never really happen in the USA! Right?

The argument was about how significant they are and I see no one addressing that beyond just declaring them to be. — Isaac

You don't see a significant difference between Democrats wanting to codify abortion rights in law and Republicans passing laws against abortion that don't even allow for exceptions for rape or incest, or when it's a pregnant 10 year old?

At least 11 US states – including Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas – have passed legislation that bans abortion without any such exceptions. Where Republicans once believed that absolute bans were unpalatable and “toxic” with voters, the party’s legislators have now adopted the language once promoted by the most extreme anti-abortion activists in the country who say any such exceptions are “prejudice against children conceived in rape and incest”.

A pre-teen girl was denied abortion in the US state of Texas in a case that blatantly highlights the ill aftereffects of SCOTUS’ decision to scrap federal abortion rights. The 10-year-old, hailing from Ohio, was reported to be six weeks and three days pregnant, as reported by The Hill. According to Texas state law, females cannot get a fetus aborted after its cardiac activities begin, around six weeks.

Noam Chomsky maintains that the US is a one-party state. The Business Party rules, and maintains the illusion of a two party system through the continual jockeying between its two very similar wings. — BC

I wonder if anything more than the illusion is even possible, short of civil war? The US and the UK versions of democracy effectively limit parties to 2. Multi-party systems are available, and may be more 'representative' of the diversity of interests and views. It would clarify the argument if Chomsky could point to, or at least provide criteria for, a non-one-party state.

I think conflict theory is a useful way to look at societies. The assumptions that there are always conflicting opinions, loyalties, and interests in any society to do with issues of class, race, culture, religion, gender, profession, age-group, etc. The recipe for a peaceful society is that these conflicts are internalised within each individual, such that the individual identifies with many different groups according to the particular issue.

Violence becomes more likely when the society becomes polarised. That is when there is a strong correlation between various divisions, for example when one race is overwhelmingly poor, of the same religion, working class, they will form a faction that agrees with itself about everything and opposes a similarly factionalised polar opposite group. When a society is polarised, people live more in an echo-chamber of similar views, and become more intolerant of what they think of as deviant views.

In these terms, to claim that the US is a single party state seems to suggest that it has become polarised and intolerant, and that the same faction controls both parties - in this case white, wealthy, male, Christian, old ... leaving the 'two' parties bickering furiously about which end to open their boiled eggs.

It’s clearly not a one party state otherwise it would be dictatorship but it’s evidently a constitutional democracy, and to claim that this democracy is illusory is to be dealing in conspiracy, simple as.

It’s clearly not a one party state otherwise it would be dictatorship but it’s evidently a constitutional democracy, and to claim that this democracy is illusory is to be dealing in conspiracy, simple as. — invicta

Now that's what I call polarised intolerance. You disagree? you must be insane!

Only intolerable of far-fetched ideas such as the one proposed in the OP, or more outlandish ones such as the Earth is flat, world is run by lizards, there’s microchips in vaccine and other such delusional craziness.

Though the two parties may both be equally incompetent or corrupt does not mean the whole thing is a make believe show for the gullible.

Here's income inequality.



Notice any radical changes with the different parties in power? No, neither do I.

Here's the gap between black and white income.



Notice any radical 'Democrat-induced' closing of the gap during the years they were in power? No, neither do I.

Here's absolute poverty over time.



Notice any major ups and downs as political power swings? No, neither do I.

The argument was about how significant they are — Isaac

Well, do you have a gradation system in mind, that would satisfy your measure of significance here?Beyond the widely available statistical evidence or personally reported affects, that a particular governmental policy/legislation/initiative has had or is having, on the daily lives/rights/security/well being of citizens

You don't see a significant difference between Democrats wanting to codify abortion rights in law and Republicans passing laws against abortion that don't even allow for exceptions for rape or incest, or when it's a pregnant 10 year old? — Michael

Yes, now you mention it I do see a significant difference. The latter are some actual laws and the former are, as yet, empty promises.

See above.

Only intolerable of far-fetched ideas such as the one proposed in the OP, or more outlandish ones such as the Earth is flat, world is run by lizards, there’s microchips in vaccine and other such delusional craziness. — invicta

Hey Forum members! It’s time to play Name That Fallacy! :nerd:

The winner will receive a year’s supply of Turtle Wax. (And a supermodel of your choice to apply it every day).

The latter are some actual laws and the former are, as yet, empty promises. — Isaac

They're not empty promises.

Blue states have been preparing to become abortion safe havens

So far in 2022, at least nine Democrat-controlled legislatures have passed legislation affirming that abortion is a legal right, protecting those who seek abortions and perform them, and expanding access to the procedure, sometimes using considerable public funding.

...

16 states and Washington, DC, have laws that protect abortion rights, as of May 1.

...

Other measures to protect abortion rights have passed at least one chamber in several states, but actually enacting them may be difficult. In Washington state, for instance, abortion rights are protected under the law, and lawmakers have considered an amendment that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. But Democrats don’t have a supermajority in either chamber of the state legislature, and state law requires a two-thirds majority to put an amendment on the ballot.

Democrats are doing what they can to protect abortion rights, but where they don't have enough votes the Republicans' anti-abortion policy is a roadblock.

What are you on about ? What’s your belief…

IMHO if you really believe the US are living under a one party system then you’re prone to believing in conspiracy

Conveniently, I have previously offered several posts in this thread that reflect my ideas on this very subject. My “joke” was that there was a fallacy typed within your post. Accidentally, one assumes.

I’ve read that, seems you allude to it being husband and wife running the house.

Can you make your views a bit more explicit as the analogy doesn’t fully describe US two party politics

Yeah, but the stats you highlight are globally true, yet despite your chosen charts, we also have indicators of the hard work done by all humanists/socialists etc worldwide such as Steven Pinker's chart below:

Wealth disparity isn't the only measure of the differences between political parties.

Democrats are doing what they can to protect abortion rights, but where they don't have enough votes the Republican's anti-abortion policies are preventing protections for abortion. — Michael

Agreed.

Doing "what they can" with the votes they can muster in half the states (with little chance of achieving any stability, or consistency), and all of which overturned as easily as Roe was, at the drop of a hat, is not what I call "significant"

Fuck all on climate change, fuck all on poverty, fuck all on inequality... I really do feel for those poor women who find themselves in need of an abortion in Republican states (or God forbid, a Republican presidency), but their plight, no matter how much we might sympathise with it on a personal level, is a pin-prick compared to the haemorrhage of climate change, rising inequality, militarism, Israeli occupation, modern slavery, drug crises, fuel monopolies... none of which show the slightest sign of being addressed by either party.

Abortion policy is a complete irrelevance when it comes to the major issues civilisation faces.

Wealth disparity isn't the only measure of the differences between political parties. — Michael

No, but I'm not disputing the differences. I'm disputing the significance of them.

the stats you highlight are globally true — universeness

Exactly. Further proving the point that it makes fuck all difference which party is in power.

we also have indicators of the hard work done by all humanists/socialists etc worldwide — universeness

No we don't. We have a statistic. Absolutely nowhere do we even have a correlation with any causative factors, let alone proof of the significance or fit of that correlation. It might, for all we know, be a result of the earth warming, or just the gradual growth of the economy.

the analogy doesn’t fully describe US two party politics — invicta

Analogies and metaphors are not meant to “fully describe” anything.

Yes, for all practical purposes, the two parties form some kind of symbiosis of a status quo that (in its other symbiotic relationship: corporations, banks, etc) bizarrely needs increasingly large amounts of everything: money, resources, land, people, energy, blood... Of course the two parties are different. — 0 thru 9

This should sum up my views enough for the careful reader. This is “in a nutshell”. I will post in this thread my full manifesto concerning this issue as soon as humanly possible.

Still none the wiser as to whether you believe that the two party system in US is just a façade or that it’s an actual reality of stateside politics.

You can state your conviction in a few words not weird analogies, thanks.

Abortion policy is a complete irrelevance when it comes to the major issues civilisation faces. — Isaac

Well that's a very selfish outlook.

You just seem to be arguing that because the differences between Republicans and Democrats don't affect you then they're not significant. I disagree.

No we don't. We have a statistic. — Isaac

But that was all YOU offered, statistics!

Absolutely nowhere do we even have a correlation with any causative factors, let alone proof of the significance or fit of that correlation. It might, for all we know, be a result of the earth warming, or just the gradual growth of the economy. — Isaac

That's a rather large stretch you are attempting. Would you not agree that since the days of the ancients, the level of global poverty has significantly reduced for a large portion of the global population and that this has been hard fought for?

You just seem to be arguing that because the differences between Republicans and Democrats don't affect you then they're not significant. I disagree. — Michael

None of the issues I mentioned affect me. I'm perfectly well off financially, I'm white, and I'll be dead before climate change has any effect.

It's not selfishness. It's an objective assessment of the number of people affected.

But that was all YOU offered, statistics! — universeness

No, it wasn't all I offered. Parties change, the measures I gave haven't. It's easy to demonstrate a lack of effect. It's just hard to demonstrate the presence of one.

Would you not agree that since the days of the ancients, the level of global poverty has significantly reduced for a large portion of the global population — universeness

Depends when the "days of the ancients" were, and how you want to measure poverty.

and that this has been hard fought for? — universeness

Sure. But that tells us nothing about which policies worked and which were entirely incidental, or even hampered progress.

It's an objective assessment of the number of people affected. — Isaac

You've just said that more people are affected by X than by Y. There's no "objective measure" for how many people must be affected by something for that thing to matter. I say it matters that Republicans are restricting abortion rights, and this policy is one area in which there is a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats.