The way to tell MAGA propagandists from real lefitst activists is that propaganda will ignore primaries and local elections. General elections in America are for forming coalitions, not rejecting them.
Anyone making memes telling you not to form a coalition against MAGA is working to further the goals of MAGA.
To be clear, I’m using this meme to address ethical concerns I see people have with voting. Namely that we should ignore those concerns. I think we should vote for Biden in 2024.
I saw your comment further down and I wanted to address any potential confusion where it can be seen. I think we fundamentally agree that people should vote.
But the sonic meme says voting is unethical
No, just that there are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. For example, abstaining from voting is a choice even if it’s not voting. Voting for the candidates, not just the president, that will result in the least amount of harm to people is what is optimal. People use ethical concerns as a reason to not vote, but no matter what a person chooses, even the least bad choice is still unethical. Therefore these ethical concerns should not weigh into our decision making process.
This is comparable to no ethical consumption under capitalism. Steve Shives made a good example in his video on Don’t Look Up, so I’m going to steal it here. We shouldn’t dismiss Hollywood out of hand for making movies like Don’t Look Up even though everyone who works in the film industry benefits from capitalism in unethical ways. Even though it is true that they benefit in unethical ways, this line of reasoning would silence everyone. We all benefit in unethical ways from capitalism. It’s the nature of living in a capitalist system that we cannot escape as long as we live under capitalism. Even the least bad consumption is still unethical. So these ethical concerns shouldn’t weigh into our criticism of a movie like Don’t Look Up.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. There are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. So, these ethical concerns should not weigh into our criticism of capitalism or our decisions about who to vote for. We should vote even if the choice of who we vote for isn’t ethical. The goal should be to reduce the most harm to people.
Thank you for the explanation. I essentially agree with your position, but also fear most of the people upvoting this meme aren’t appreciating a distinction between choosing “no ethical action” and “inaction”. Things inside the US are slowly, but unquestionably moving in a better direction today than they have been the past century. It’s upsetting when people who claim to care for their fellow citizens advocate for surrendering the already extremely limited power they posses to turn the steering wheel.
I finally figured out what some people were concerned about. Apparently there is already a phrase called harm reduction or harm minimization that I wasn’t aware of. This phrase specifically refers to reducing harm around drug and sex related activities. This is a naming collision on my part for the title of the meme.
However I stand by my usage of the words for the title. I was using the words harm and reduction together because that is what makes sense to me for the topic based on the definitions of those individual words. I wasn’t referring to harm reduction the phrase and I think that was clear to most people. Also, it’s just for the title of an internet meme. No one is co-opting the phrase harm reduction or using that phrase incorrectly. I hope that clears up that confusion.
What population of people outside of your country is going to be “saved” by a round-2 Biden ticket exactly?..
People living in Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan to name a few. Also everyone in countries in Europe besides Ukraine. In fact most of the countries of the world, because authoritarian dictatorships will carve the world into spheres of influence. To be clear, dictators will be killing millions of people in their spheres of influence with genocides and ethnic cleansings.
You can’t possibly believe in the man taking >$5.5M from Israel to run the Palestinian state into the dirt, right?
Do you mean giving to? If we’re still talking about Biden then I believe he will do the least harm.
You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train
This supports my argument as I am arguing we need to pick the side that will do the least harm. There is no way to be neutral with FPTP voting.
People living in Ukraine, Gaza, and Taiwan to name a few.
Ukraine’s war will continue regardless.
The Palestinian genocide will continue regardless.
Taiwan isn’t under any threat of being killed by the millions at the moment, so I’m not even sure how he would “save” them?..
Do you mean giving to?
No 😂. Look up a list of the most “donations” taken from Israel by any political candidate. Did you genuinely not look into things like this before defending him with a shitty Sonic meme?
This supports my argument
This is also wrong. You are allowing genocide to continue by agreeing with the current status-quo. Acting like voting in the same man taking in millions to kill over 100,000 brown people (most of which are women and children) will somehow SAVE Palestine (I noticed you used “Gaza” there by mistake, nbd I fixed that for you) is so painfully ignorant it just has to be on purpose.
Stop drinking the state-narrative kool-aid you dork.
I said they’re both genocide. Just because the oppressor could lose doesn’t remove the possibility of genocide. Germany lost WW2, but they absolutely committed genocide.
Historically that’s total nonsense. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were at war during the Nazi Holocaust in Russia that killed over a hundred thousand people. Are you saying that wasn’t genocide? I find that absurd.
Israel declared war on Hamas, but that’s still a genocide. Russia didn’t declare war until last month. Ukraine hasn’t declared war, they’re being invaded. So how does your distinction make any sense?
No, Russia will conquer Ukraine if someone doesn’t support them. Trump isn’t going to support Ukraine. Biden will.
The Palestinian genocide will continue regardless.
No, Trump will encourage Israel to finish the genocide.
Taiwan isn’t under any threat of being killed by the millions at the moment, so I’m not even sure how he would “save” them?..
From China who famously wants to invade Taiwan.
No 😂. Look up a list of the most “donations” taken from Israel by any political candidate. Did you genuinely not look into things like this before defending him with a shitty Sonic meme?
Oh, you meant donations he received. Yeah, most US politicians have through AIPAC. I had no idea what you were talking about.
This is also wrong. You are allowing genocide to continue by agreeing with the current status-quo. Acting like voting in the same man taking in millions to kill over 100,000 brown people (most of which are women and children) will somehow SAVE Palestine (I noticed you used “Gaza” there by mistake, nbd I fixed that for you) is so painfully ignorant it just has to be on purpose.
No, Trump will encourage Israel to finish the genocide. All Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel will be killed. Gaza is just one part of Palestine, not the whole thing. edit: typo
Legit nobody has correctly identified why the people in this thread are completely avoiding using the word “Palestine” and are instead using “Gaza.”
You’re either a bot (AI profile picture, so it seems fairly likely), or you’re posturing for whomever is paying you to sit in that chair and flame lefties instead of actually, idk, changing the policies of your genocidal party.
No mate, you will be why it falls.
2016 round-2-electric-boogaloo is going to suck for those of you dumb enough to remain in your doomed country after all of this shit.
we need to pick the side that will do the least harm. There is no way to be neutral with FPTP voting.
I don’t think you need to actually “pick a side,” in the sense like they’re the team you support and root for. Vote for the best candidate available to you, yes; but don’t stop complaining about the paltriness of your choice. Don’t stop agitating for an end to an ongoing genocide that is being supported by your best-of-two-bad-choices rep.
Keep the train going as it is while yelling at the conductor to stop the train.
Replace the conductor with a guy who is obviously going to speed up the train and kill even more people. In fact, they’re going to implement multi-track drifting and start killing people that weren’t in any danger from the first guy.
I dunno, seeing as how those really are my only two choices, one of them seems a lot better than the other.
I’ve never seen any sort of logical response to this argument.
Person A: Maybe we should reduce harm
Person B: But Biden is bad and evil!
Person A: I agree, but Trump is worse and more evil.
Person B: These are both the same!
Clearly, there are people that will be under attack under Trump that won’t under Biden. I’m not voting Republican or Democrat in the primaries, but I’m voting against Trump in the general. Not for Biden, but against Trump, because he’s far more dangerous in the same ways that Biden was, and spreads out his harm to others as well.
I’ve never seen any sort of logical response to this argument.
:::spoiler I can provide one, and I’ll also say, I’ve never seen a logical response to this argument, beyond drive-by downvotes.
Voters have something politicians want (votes) and politicians have something voters want (the ability to set policy). That means that there’s a negotiation to be had. And the worst thing you can do in a negotiation is to say that you’ll unconditionally agree to whatever terms the other side offers.
To use an example, there’s a game/social experiment called “The Ultimatum Game.” In it, the first player offers the second player an offer on how to split $100, and the second player chooses to accept or deny the offer. If both players behave as rational, “homo economicus” the result will be that player 1 offers a $99-$1 split. But in practice, most second players will reject offers beyond a certain point, usually around $70-$30, and most first players will offer more even splits because of that possibility. The only reason that the $99-$1 case is “rational” is because it’s a one-off interaction. There is a cost associated with accepting such a deal, and that cost is that you’ve established yourself as a pushover for all future interactions, and there is no reason that anyone would offer you more than $1 if the game were repeated.
In the same way, an organized political faction that can credibly threaten to withhold support unless a baseline of demands are met will have more political leverage compared to a faction that unconditionally supports the “lesser evil.” If a politician only needs to be marginally less bad than the alternative to win your vote, then they have no incentive to be more than marginally less bad. It’s the same way that if you know the second player will act rationally, you can get away with only offering them $1 because $1>$0. Declaring a minimum baseline and sticking to it is a valid political strategy, in the same way “I won’t accept less than $30, even if it means I get nothing” is a valid game strategy.
Whether you think that applies in this particular case is another question, but if you were looking for an logical explanation of the reasoning, there it is.
Whether you think that applies in this particular case is another question
If this was what you were presenting this as (a logical response to the argument above) then it shouldn’t be another question. It should apply directly to this argument.
Your comment only applies to a negotiation between 2 parties and doesn’t address the actual problem at hand whatsoever. So yeah, its not a logical response to the above argument at all.
It establishes the logical framework for the opposing case. Making the opposing case requires additional assumptions, such as, where your minimum requirements ought to be set, exactly how good/bad Biden is, etc. Those would be tangents that I don’t really want to get sidetracked by, because my goal was just to establish the logical framework for the opposing case. My comment was long enough as it is, and I’ve frequently had comments that long been (rudely) dismissed as being too long. My purpose for that comment is not to persuade but to explain.
It certainly does not establish “the logical framework” for the opposing case. Again, as I explained, the framework deals with 2 parties negotiating, which is not applicable to the argument presented.
Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous. I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.
Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous.
That’s not at all how the burden of proof works.
I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.
You’re leaping to the assumption that the scenario you provided is even analogous to the one you replied to. It isn’t. You need to start by proving that it is.
but have you considered: what if I drain you of twelve gorillion dollars, or give you nothing, and that’s the negotiation? what then? have you considered that: what if I just like heedlessly extend the metaphor to the current political state of affairs in such a way that it reinforces my own biases and points, what then, what would you do then? surely, the logic doesn’t hold up if I tell you that the alternative is horrible, right?
wait, you’re telling me the logic does hold up still in that instance? how about no? have you considered what if I just said no, to that? what if I just denied the logic and decided to be obstinate, what then? what if actually, I like eating shit, huh?
This isn’t harm reduction. Stop co-opting real leftist terms for this crap. The USA has always been fascist and will always be so until it is destroyed. You people won’t learn till you get all of us killed for the little bit of privilege afforded to you thru this colonist imperial hellhole
I gotta say this is a little bit funny to post this and then also there’s another guy posting this in the same reply, it’s very botlike. no comment on the politics but I find it amusing as a response
The Russian military is known to employ “disinformation officers” to spread discord or undermine trust in Western democracies online. A very common talking point they use is how the US (or whatever other country’s citizens they are targeting) is a fascist state and your vote doesn’t count, so you should not vote. Other common tactics include deliberately bringing up obscure conspiracy theories to lend them more credibility, spreading fake news, and posting lots of comments that sound right at a first glance but are complete BS once you think about them/research them. They are known to target both left and right-leaning people.
Generally, the most vulnerable are those who are not aware of their presence (and thus absorb the ideas like a sponge) or already hold the extreme political views they spread. These people are likely to propagate the content in question, increasing the damage. Remember, their goal is not to convince you to agree with them—it’s to get you to distrust your government and your country’s institutions.
Disinformation officers aren’t an idea unique to Russia. China has also been accused of hiring people to do the same thing (“wumaos”), and the Israeli army openly brags about their disinformation officers, although they don’t call them that, obviously.
The picture depicts one such (alleged) Russian disinformation officer. I am using it to accuse the parent commenter of being a disinformation officer or someone who repeats the ideas spread by a disinformation officer.
We have a system, and we do not have the political will to get rid of that system. Go ahead and build a coalition towards a better system, but until that coalition is tangible, harm reduction is not complicity.
It is harm reduction. Fewer people will be harmed if we elect the candidate that will do the least harm.
Stop co-opting real leftist terms for this crap.
I am a social democrat which is a leftist political position. This is a real leftist term. Gatekeeping won’t get rid of this idea. Internalize it.
edit: To be clear, I’m referring to: There are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. I hope that clears up any confusion.
The USA has always been fascist and will always be so until it is destroyed.
There has been a fascist movement in the United States since the 30’s. Hitler and the Nazis copied off of the US’s Jim Crow era laws. But the US as a nation state has never been fascist. If Republicans win this November then the US will become a christo-fascist authoritarian dictatorship for the first time and probably for a long time.
You people won’t learn till you get all of us killed for the little bit of privilege afforded to you thru this colonist imperial hellhole
The people who are going to get us all killed are the privileged accelerationists who think they stand to benefit from sacrificing us all to fascism. They think they going to accelerate social change, but there won’t be anyone left to benefit from it.
You’ve been telling me what to do for a while now. I think reading theory is a good idea. Please read a US history book. I also recommend reading Ur Fascism.
Social democracy in the US is a center left position in the year 2024. Fascism did not exist before the 20th century. Genocides did. A county doing genocides does not mean they are a fascist country. We did that as a democracy. A flawed democracy, that suppresses majority rule, but as a democracy.
Social Democracy is a pro-Capitalist position that continues Imperialism and does not approach Socialism. Fascism is not just genocide, but the US has never been truly democratic.
The social democracy I am describing in my arguments would do away with capitalism but not market economies. The fact this doesn’t exist yet or isn’t in the theory you have read about social democracy isn’t relevant. The US has never had true majority rule. Our democracy overrepresents some people and thus underrepresents others. This must be fixed. The US is still fundamentally a democracy despite its flaws. That’s why the fascists want to do away with our democracy, so they can have total power, as just being overrepresented is insufficient for their aims.
I’m describing what I’m describing. This is social democracy as I see it. I am arguing workers owning companies is not at odds with social democracy and is a policy that should be pursued as part of such a system.
No, people have been trying to fix US democracy to be more inclusive for centuries. Black men got the right to vote in 1870. But of course people of color are still facing voter suppression to this day. Woman got the right to vote in 1919. People fought for these rights. We need to keep fighting until majority rule is established in the United States. Then we will need to fight to keep it that way. I’ll name a few things that we need to do, but this is not a comprehensive list. We need to abolish the electoral college, and make both the House of Representatives and Senate proportional to the population. The House of Representatives is currently capped at 435. And every state in the union needs to agree to change the Senate to be reflective of the population from the current two senators per state. As long as our democracy has these and other flaws fascists and corporations alike are going to have undue leverage over our democracy.
Please understand that what you call “Social Democracy” is Market Socialism. If you use the term “Market Socialism,” everyone will understand what you are talking about. If you use “Social Democracy,” everyone will understand it as “Capitalism with robust safety nets.” These terms have long and historied uses, and that’s why using them correctly is the best way to talk to people. Not to reinvent terms.
Black Americans did not recieve the right to vote electorally, but after violent struggle and civil unrest. My broader point is that enacting change is not truly possible electorally, it must come from outside pressure.
Women got the right to vote with mass civil unrest.
Abolishing the electoral college? Great. Making democracy more direct? Great. How do you practically see getting this accomplished? This is the crux of my point. Theory is nothing without practice, and practice is nothing without theory. Right now, you are arguing for utopianism, something that has failed numerous times. You cannot simply ask the ruling class to do better.
That is why theory is important! It guides your practice and makes it sharper.
Please understand that what you call “Social Democracy” is Market Socialism. If you use the term “Market Socialism,” everyone will understand what you are talking about.
I am talking about social democracy. I will explain what I mean.
If you use “Social Democracy,” everyone will understand it as “Capitalism with robust safety nets.” These terms have long and historied uses, and that’s why using them correctly is the best way to talk to people. Not to reinvent terms.
I am not reinventing a term. I am including the idea, that workers should own the corporations they work for, in social democracy. I am not the only or first person to do this. This does not stop what I am advocating for being social democracy. Over focusing on definitions is not an effective strategy for arguments.
Black Americans did not recieve the right to vote electorally, but after violent struggle and civil unrest. My broader point is that enacting change is not truly possible electorally, it must come from outside pressure.
Women got the right to vote with mass civil unrest.
As I said in my argument, they had to fight for those rights. But people who had the right to vote still had to vote. We need direct action and civil disobedience, but if people don’t vote then all that goes to waste.
Abolishing the electoral college? Great. Making democracy more direct? Great. How do you practically see getting this accomplished? This is the crux of my point. Theory is nothing without practice, and practice is nothing without theory. Right now, you are arguing for utopianism, something that has failed numerous times. You cannot simply ask the ruling class to do better.
With direct action, civil disobedience, and voting. I am arguing for social democracy. A set of ideas and policies that includes socialism and democracy.
That is why theory is important! It guides your practice and makes it sharper.
Theory is the backbone of practical application. We need theory, but we have to be willing to point out when something is wrong with the theory.
My point is that we need to vote in record numbers to correct for the overrepresentation of Republicans. So we need to address concerns people have with voting. A major concern I see on the internet are ethical concerns. That’s why it’s important to tell people there are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. The goal must be to reduce harm by voting for the candidate that does the least harm.
I finally see what you’re talking about! You are confusing Social Democracy with Democratic Socialism! Social Democracy is what I said, Capitalism with robust safety nets, and is practiced in Nordic Countries. Democratic Socialism is Socialism with Liberal Democracy, found in Bolivia and in Chile under Allende. That clears up a lot of what was wrong with what you were saying, haha.
Actually, voting mattered very little when it came to the Civil Rights Movement, Black American voting rights, and Women’s Suffrage. The US is not a direct democracy, there weren’t ballot questions. The government was legitimately worried about revolutionary uprising.
I am not telling you not to vote. I am telling you to reassess your priorities. Voting is the least effective way to get what you want. It helps, sure, so people absolutely should do it, but it doesn’t even come close to actual striking, civil disobediance, and mass protesting when it comes to effecting change.
Since you clarify wanting Socialism and Democracy, I need to clarify some things. Social in Social Democracy refers to Social Programs, like housing initiatives, and Democracy refers to Liberal Democracy, not direct democracy, Socialist Democracy, or otherwise. All Socialism must be democratic, otherwise it isn’t Socialism. The question becomes what type of Democracy. Democratic Socialism isn’t the only type of Socialist Democracy, rather, it’s a term for using Liberal Democracy with a Socialist economy.
As for theory, you have not pointed anything wrong with Marxism, just your lack of knowledge of it. This isn’t gatekeeping! You are free to learn it so that you can discuss why you agree or disagree with Marxism, but pointing at nonexistant holes you imaged Marxism has gets nobody anywhere.
As for voting, that’s a fine point to make, but it appears the backbone of that point is based on misrepresentation of other’s viewpoints, and as such will convince nobody. Most people already agree with you, and those that do not will not accept flimsy and broken logic.
I finally see what you’re talking about! You are confusing Social Democracy with Democratic Socialism! Social Democracy is what I said, Capitalism with robust safety nets, and is practiced in Nordic Countries. Democratic Socialism is Socialism with Liberal Democracy, found in Bolivia and in Chile under Allende. That clears up a lot of what was wrong with what you were saying, haha.
I responded to this in one of the other comment chains. I am a social democrat. I want to achieve change through a political revolution.
Actually, voting mattered very little when it came to the Civil Rights Movement, Black American voting rights, and Women’s Suffrage. The US is not a direct democracy, there weren’t ballot questions. The government was legitimately worried about revolutionary uprising.
Voting was essential. Representatives who agreed with the ideas of the Civil Rights Movements, Black American voting rights, and Women’s Suffrage voted for them in Congress. Black American voting rights and Women’s Suffrage also had to passed at the state level as part of the ratification process. People who agreed with these ideas had to get them over the finish line. This is an essential part of progressive change. The government isn’t some collective hive mind that only responds to fear. Democracy is in fact a market place of ideas. People need to be convinced that the ideas are good and then vote for representatives that will pursue those ideas as policies.
I am not telling you not to vote. I am telling you to reassess your priorities. Voting is the least effective way to get what you want. It helps, sure, so people absolutely should do it, but it doesn’t even come close to actual striking, civil disobedience, and mass protesting when it comes to effecting change.
Voting is an essential part of social change. If people do the actual striking, civil disobedience, and mass protesting, but then don’t vote it will have been for not. The Republicans want to rule people not lead and are controlled by fascists. They will not respond to anything. So they need to voted out of office. They are attempting a fascist takeover of the US. If they succeed, there will be no democracy at that point. They will use the power of the state to kill everyone that openly disagrees with them. To avoid this outcome we must win elections in addition to adopting socialism and fixing our democracy. Since Republicans are overrepresented by our democracy we must vote in record numbers to achieve the elections outcomes that we want. So getting as many people to turn out to vote is the priority for this election year. And every election year going forward until our democracy moves past FPTP and fully embraces majority rule.
This is a tangent but honestly we should have mandatory voting and a person can mark no vote if they don’t want to choose someone. Like we have compulsory jury duty, because the system wouldn’t have enough jurors otherwise. How we could be ok with not everyone voting when the decisions will impact everyone is becoming more and more silly to me.
Since you clarify wanting Socialism and Democracy, I need to clarify some things. Social in Social Democracy refers to Social Programs, like housing initiatives, and Democracy refers to Liberal Democracy, not direct democracy, Socialist Democracy, or otherwise. All Socialism must be democratic, otherwise it isn’t Socialism. The question becomes what type of Democracy. Democratic Socialism isn’t the only type of Socialist Democracy, rather, it’s a term for using Liberal Democracy with a Socialist economy.
Social programs are part of socialism. Democracy refers to democracy. In the US we have a federal presidential constitutional republic. This is the kind of democracy I want in America, but it needs to fixed to not overrepresent particular groups of people. Representative democracy doesn’t mean minority rule, it just uses representatives to scale to the population. I am not necessarily advocating for direct democracy exclusively in our economic systems. I think the workers would decide for themselves what form of internal democratic system they use based on the number of workers at the company. What the workers choose should be some form of democracy that ensures majority rule. Although I assume large companies would use a representation model and small companies would choose a direct model. Liberal democracy are democracies with a capitalist economic system. Social democracies are democracies with a socialist economic system. There I think I clarified what I mean which is relevant since its what I am arguing. The terms and definitions and categories you are trying to box my argument into are not what am I arguing and are not relevant.
As for theory, you have not pointed anything wrong with Marxism, just your lack of knowledge of it. This isn’t gatekeeping! You are free to learn it so that you can discuss why you agree or disagree with Marxism, but pointing at nonexistant holes you imaged Marxism has gets nobody anywhere.
I have in the other comment thread. I have pointed out a flaw with Marxism. You have not provided any argument to refute my central point just ad hominem attacks designed to make me seem less knowledgeable than you. Which of us is more knowledgeable about Marxist theory in general is not relevant to the discussion about this or any particular point of Marxist theory. But it is gatekeeping. Here is the point again. It is about perhaps the most well known claim from Karl Marx. We are discussing whether material conditions induce a socialist revolution.
No, I am making a point about one part of Marxist theory that is well known. For all your obfuscation and gatekeeping you have not refuted this point.
Marx said that material conditions like the ones we see in the modern day under neoliberalism would inspire the people to a socialist revolution. The material conditions have not done that. Neoliberalism did not exist when Marx wrote his theories. He could have only guessed the ways in which neoliberalism would condition people to reject the tools of their own liberation. Wealth redistribution is essential to correct the wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 99% of people. But most people would have you know that is, to paraphrase, ‘an immoral infringement of property rights’. People think they would be losing wealth when of course they would be the ones gaining that wealth. There are people, usually conservatives, who think that their should be an economic hierarchy. And that a person’s place on that hierarchy is justified by the circular reasoning that they are on that place in the hierarchy. This idea is incompatible with wealth redistribution and must be full internalized as an incorrect idea by as many people as possible. Then people need learn that wealth redistribution is an essential part of maintaining a functioning economy.
I recommend addressing your arguments at my arguments instead of at me. Again the material conditions under neoliberalism are there, but the socialist revolution is not. In fact we are in the verge of a populist christo-fascist takeover.
As for voting, that’s a fine point to make, but it appears the backbone of that point is based on misrepresentation of other’s viewpoints, and as such will convince nobody. Most people already agree with you, and those that do not will not accept flimsy and broken logic.
This is a better description of your arguments than what I am going to be able to come up with. So congratulations on that. Again ad hominem attacks, misrepresenting my arguments, and splitting hairs over definitions are not an effective strategy for arguments. I am not misrepresenting anyone’s view points. I have seen, many people give ethical concerns as their reason for not voting, on the internet. You don’t need to take it from me though, there are plenty of examples on lemmy. Thus I took an idea that addresses those concerns and put it in a meme. We need to spread pro-democracy and socialist ideas to people. The fascists are spreading their ideas to everyone. We are in an information race against fascists to reach the most people before the election.
Being a Social Democrat means you want Capitalism with Social Safety Nets. Wanting change via reform is called Reformism, not Social Democracy. You can be a Reformist Democratic Socialist.
Secondly, you really need to revisit history. American democracy is not a marketplace of ideas, but lobbyists and money. The parties in power are those that can fundraise the best, and they do so via capitulating to the wealthiest. The only trend against this comes from outside pressure.
Again, your stance on electoralism is unfounded and immaterial. Yes, voting is good, no, you will not get the change you want past FPTP by voting for it.
You again are completely butchering what Socialism and Social Democracy mean. Social Programs are government programs, they are a part of almost all systems. They are not synonymous with Socialism. Social Democracies are Capitalist states with large safety nets, otherwise they would be Socialist Democracies.
You did not point out a flaw with Marxism, you pointed out a flaw in your understanding of Marxism.
For the last time, the material conditions are NOT THERE in the US for a Socialist Revolution, as long as the US retains it’s status as an Imperialist state that props up higher standards of living off the backs of the third world. That is why republicans exist, Proletarians in the US are largely reactionary because they benefit from the status quo. The US is a dying empire, and soon there will be the material conditions for a Socialist Revolution, but fascism is also the violent outcome of Capitalism in decline. You have not once addressed any of this.
I have not done any Ad Hominem attacks, I have not misrepresented your arguments. I have attempted to fix your misconceptions of Marxism, Social Democracy, and Socialism in general, none of which constitutes misrepresentation or ad hominem.
Being a Social Democrat means you want Capitalism with Social Safety Nets. Wanting change via reform is called Reformism, not Social Democracy. You can be a Reformist Democratic Socialist.
I can be whatever I want thanks. In this case a social democrat. I want a market economy with social safety nets.
American democracy is not a marketplace of ideas, but lobbyists and money.
It is both and that is why we need to vote in record numbers. This is supporting my argument that we need to increase voter turnout.
Again, your stance on electoralism is unfounded and immaterial. Yes, voting is good, no, you will not get the change you want past FPTP by voting for it.
History and election results support my argument. Also the word is democracy. I have not interest using electoralism as it is exclusively used by people who either want to get rid of or do not value democracy. Voting is great. We need to vote for candidates who will advance a progressive agenda, including election reform. We will of course need to participate in the FPTP voting system to accomplish this. That is the system we have currently, so it is what we must use to eventually get rid of it and then replace it with a better voting system.
You again are completely butchering what Socialism and Social Democracy mean. Social Programs are government programs, they are a part of almost all systems. They are not synonymous with Socialism. Social Democracies are Capitalist states with large safety nets, otherwise they would be Socialist Democracies.
This again is your argument using strict definitions and categorization to bypass having an actual discussion. Most systems are socialist in some way because they have social programs. Using such a narrow definition of socialism is self-defeating. People need to realize they are already benefiting from many socialist policies. This realization will help them internalize and adopt additional socialist ideas. Social democracies can have capitalist economies, but their market economies do not have to be capitalist. They can have mixed economies as the ones that exist currently do. There is no reason why a socialist democracy’s market economy could not shed the remainder of capitalism from the mixed economy.
You did not point out a flaw with Marxism, you pointed out a flaw in your understanding of Marxism.
Ad hominen. I refuted you argument again.
For the last time, the material conditions are NOT THERE in the US for a Socialist Revolution, as long as the US retains it’s status as an Imperialist state that props up higher standards of living off the backs of the third world. That is why republicans exist, Proletarians in the US are largely reactionary because they benefit from the status quo. The US is a dying empire, and soon there will be the material conditions for a Socialist Revolution, but fascism is also the violent outcome of Capitalism in decline. You have not once addressed any of this.
The wealth disparity in the United States is there. I’m just going to quote Bernie here. So the material conditions are there. I would say that it is common knowledge in fact. It is felt by many people who are left behind after each bust in the cycle.
Today, the top one-tenth of 1% owns nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. The economic game is rigged, and this level of inequality is unsustainable. We need an economy that works for all, not just the powerful.
The wealth the US steals through imperialism is extracted via capitalism by the owner class. Even the worker class’ tax dollars go to the military industrial complex that profit off of American military adventurism. It is a big part of why neocons existed, but they have fallen by the wayside. It’s the fascists who are control of the Republican party now. Capitalism is not in decline, simply reaching its late stages. We’ve seen what we will become with the current Russian Federation. The winners of capitalism become the oligarchs that are subservient to the dictator. If the fascists succeed in their takeover the United States will become a christo-fascist dictatorship. This dictatorship will not form an empire, but a sphere of influence. The sphere of influence will expand, consume, and kill out-groups until there are no more out-groups left and the nation state fully self-cannibalizes or it is defeated militarily. There is no socialist revolution that occurs in any part of this process. Fascism is methodical method of self-destruction.
If we want a socialist revolution then we need to make it happen. And we might as well make it happen as a political revolution now when all we need to do is things like direction action, civil disobedience, sharing ideas, and voting.
I have not done any Ad Hominem attacks, I have not misrepresented your arguments.
You have done both of these things multiple times.
I have attempted to fix your misconceptions of Marxism, Social Democracy, and Socialism in general, none of which constitutes misrepresentation or ad hominem.
This is directed at me. I am not in anyway shape or form relevant. My argument is not derived from a misconception, but an observation of the modern reality we live in that contradicts Marx’s theory.
For anyone wondering why the first-past-the-post voting system (used by most countries) is bad, what the alternatives are, and why those alternatives are better, Nicky Case has an excellent write-up that covers all of that: ncase.me/ballot/
That might be true for head of state, but not so clear for legislature houses. From a look at the maps on this wiki page I’d say a majority of countries have some kind of at least limited PR.
Arguing against voting for Biden is a pro-genocide tactic because it increases the probability of more genocide. Anti-voting activism is an inviable strategy.
Gotta change the voting system if you want to make it safe to vote for your favorite. Anything that satisfies no favorite betrayal would work. My favorite is Approval Voting but any of them would work.
Seems pretty tasteless to call something “harm reduction” when it literally involves supporting the person making a genocide possible. Imagine being a person who lost their entire family in Palestine to torture and starvation and reading this post.
Which members of his cabinet are trying to cease funding of Israel and how?
Which ones are actively opposing border fascism?
Which ones want to defund the racist police?
Which ones want to replace the inherently destructive economic system?
Which members of his cabinet believe housing is a basic human right?
Which support the immediate release of all those wrongly incarcerated for unjust reasons such as drugs?
Which support the immediate cessation of our reliance on slave labor?
Which support the removal of the barriers to communists and anarchists becoming citizens?
There is nothing salvagable about the United States. When you say Biden’s cabinet is “pretty decent,” you’re doing so from a position of blind privilege. They may be good for certain demographics, but even though I’m living paycheck to paycheck, I’m still in the upper crust of this awful system. I’ve not seen one “pretty decent” person in Washington. The closest would be, say, people like Ilhan Omar, AOC, and Sanders, but even they are moderately right-wing and ultimately support a system that will forever oppress marginalized groups until it is forcibly removed.
Bruh there are a multitude of issues that the cabinet handles. As much as what’s happening in Palestine is abhorrent, there are in fact other important things happening everywhere all the time. If you look at only one single issue, then you are blind to a great many things. And if you neglect the fact that one side would also handle that particular issue with even more bloodlust, then you’re just not a serious person.
This is downplaying a genocide, and it’s really cold and gross to refer to a fucking genocide as “one single issue”
Pretty easy not to fund a genocide, eh? Just … do fucking nothing, and you’ve succeeded
You liberals love to act like it’s such a high bar to clear to just not commit atrocities, and it’s absolutely appalling
Not to mention that I listed a whole slew of atrocities Democrats are complicit in, and those are just off the top of my kinda tired brain. “One single issue” my ass
Oh my mistake, the party that capitulates unceasingly to the christo-fascist party and in some cases even extends their fascist policies (more immigrants deported under Biden than under Trump, etc.) is absolutely so much different than the christo-fascist party itself! We should be very grateful for all they’ve done for us
I’ll be sure to save this for when my trans ass is thrown in a gulag by trump and I can show the immigrants in there with me that you thought everything would be same either way.
I’ll be sure to let you know when Biden deports my gay immigrant husband
Got a secret for you: The Democrats would run us over with a tank if it were politically convenient. You think a party that’s ok with child murder will protect our marginalized asses? Think again.
Got a secret for you: The Democrats would run us over with a tank if it were politically convenient.
And the fascists would do it gleefully, likely finding additional ways to incorporate cruelty and torture. Anti-electoralism is statistically indistinguishable from supporting the fascists or accelerationism. Accelerationism has no hard data showing that it actually works, only that it increases suffering.
He isn’t trying to kill me. He opposes bans of our medical care. If trans rights ended up on his desk, I think he’d sign it. So yeah, I do like him a lot better than the other candidate who literally wants us dead. The difference is subtle but I would rather be alive and lightly supported instead of dead and hated
We need to change the United States into a socialist country with unimpeded majority rule before it is too late. Our only chance to do that is by delaying the fascist takeover for another four years. The United States becoming a christo-fascist dictatorship would be disastrous for everyone not just the US. Authoritarian dictatorships would start carving up the world into spheres of influence. Millions of people would die from dictators enacting genocide and ethnic cleansing in their spheres of influence.
The Democrats are not going to get us out of this, but we need time to convince people that socialism is the answer to our economic problems. We are going to have to elect socialist politicians. We need our democracy, as flawed as it is, in order to do that.
You might be interested in reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels. Ideas take hold in a population based on their material conditions, not by “convincing them.” This was tried numerous times in the past, all of them abject failures.
Yes, convincing people that Socialism is good is a good thing to do, but that isn’t going to be what makes or breaks the movement.
In the US, people are attempting grass roots movements to enact progressive change. To do this we need as many people to vote as possible for the most progressive candidates available to correct for the overrepresentation of Republicans. To get more people to vote for progressives we have to convince them that progressive and socialist ideas have merit.
Convincing people is essential to the modern progressive movement. This is because living under neoliberalism inherently conditions people to reject systemic change to political and economic systems and thus by extension they are conditioned to reject socialism. If you’ve ever talked to people in person about socialism you’ve undoubtedly heard the phrase “socialism doesn’t work” without any supporting evidence or maybe a reference to the Soviet Union collapsing.
This is what socialist theory gets wrong. A person’s material conditions do not suddenly make them a socialist or any other ideologue. Ideas have to be internalized and adopted one at a time by a person. All a person’s material conditions do is make a person look for answers to their problems. On their own, a person attempts to solve their problems with the tools they’ve been given by the system they live under. In the case of the US, that system is neoliberalism. They work three jobs, work overtime, work themselves sick even. I’ve heard people quoted as saying something along the lines of, “I did everything I was supposed to.” As in they played by what they thought were the rules of capitalism and don’t realize that the extraction of their wealth is the goal of the system.
Fascists understand this need to educate people. They rush to exploit desperate people who are losing everything under capitalism. They present them with their ideas, primarily that some out-group is the source of their problems. They blast the airwaves with propaganda to brainwash people by trapping them in information silos. They get out the vote to advance fascists causes. This is how the fascist movement, that has existed since the 30’s in America, has been growing in America since Regan.
Neoliberalism makes people desperate enough that they will try anything, especially fascism when presented with it. It’s easy for people to think other people dying is the answer to their problems. When in fact our future depends on us adopting better economic and political ideas. Also, neoliberalism tends to obsess over civility politics and a strict adherence to law and order. Thus even people who aren’t fascists themselves don’t balk at the totalitarian and/or authoritarian nature of the fascist regime they end up in. They either won’t notice the difference or if they do assume it was a natural correction to what our society is ‘supposed to be’. While living in a neoliberal society, people end up thinking that either the systems they live under can’t be changed or even that they shouldn’t be changed. Rather than convincing people to change the system, the fascists convince people to remove other people. Thus they bypass people’s acquired resistance to societal change. No where in this, do people naturally internalize and adopt socialist ideas. People who believe in progressive and socialist ideas have to get these ideas in front of people’s eyes so that they have a chance to mull them over.
We need to reach out to people by taking advantage of the Internet 2.0, social media, which is not something that was available in the 20th century. We need to convince people that fascism is a self-destructive ideology. That neoliberalism, in a vacuum, inevitably leads to fascism because of the societal and material conditions it imposes. People double down on what they know and make a more extreme and worse version of it, instead of radically changing it. And that socialism is the answer to people’s economic problems.
-Electoralism is nice, but has historically been extremely ineffective. This is because the parties in power will be the ones that can best raise funds from the people with the most money.
-Yes, I have spoken with many people about Socialism, I am familiar.
-See, this is exactly why you need to read theory. No, Socialism does not say that people magically gain Socialist ideas based on their material conditions, but that they are susceptible to them. That’s why the US has a vast amount of reactionaries, the US is an Imperialist state super-exploiting the third world for super-profits, creating a labor aristocracy.
Please, read theory. You are clearly well-intentioned, but you don’t actually understand societal mechanics and thus have a Utopian mindset. You’re again confidently incorrect.
Democracy is the best political system that we have and it has been the most effective system we’ve ever had. Populist grassroot movements have fundamentally challenged the notion that only political parties can raise money. Trump is going to end up raising a ton of money because of he made Truth Social public. His supporters are going to end up driving up the stock price like Wallstreetbets did with GameStop stock.
but that they are susceptible to them
This is what I’m saying the flaw in the theory is. It’s the reverse of what we would want. Neoliberalism makes people susceptible to fascism and resistant to socialism. That’s why people have this knee jerk reaction to socialism and are sleep walking into fascism. We have to actively correct for this before the fascists complete their takeover.
Also, I like reading theory. But I want to apply what I learn to my life.
What form of Democracy? In what metric is it the most effective? The US isn’t particularly democratic, but absolutely helps the ruling class.
Please explain why it is a “flaw” in Socialist theory, and not just something you dislike. Neoliberalism does not make people susceptible to fascism, crumbling Capitalism does that. People have a knee-jerk reaction to Socialism in the US because they are a part of the Labor Aristocracy, a status that would not change even if the US became a Social Democracy.
I understand that you like to read theory, I am just curious why you are intent on rejecting all of it in favor of your personal vibes. Have you read any Anarchist or Marxist theory, or just liberal theory?
What form of Democracy? In what metric is it the most effective? The US isn’t particularly democratic, but absolutely helps the ruling class.
The kinds that exist currently. Compared to all other forms of governments that exist currently. Yes US democracy is flawed. Yes, the owner class benefits immensely from our current liberal democracies.
Please explain why it is a “flaw” in Socialist theory, and not just something you dislike. Neoliberalism does not make people susceptible to fascism, crumbling Capitalism does that. People have a knee-jerk reaction to Socialism in the US because they are a part of the Labor Aristocracy, a status that would not change even if the US became a Social Democracy.
You said it yourself, you have also experienced people saying “socialism doesn’t work”. There is a reason for that and it’s not that people are more susceptible to socialist ideas. I don’t like that reality either, but it is reality as we have observed it. It directly contradicts socialist theory. If socialist theory was correct people would respond with “tell me more” when they hear socialism.
People have a knee-jerk reaction to socialism because they know it involves systemic change and wealth redistribution. As part of living in neoliberalism, people are told they are living at the end of history. That change comes in incremental steps and our institutions are fundamentally good and just need good people in charge of them. If anyone is struggling, it’s an issue of personal responsibility. And that wealth redistribution is theft. That they would be denied having wealth and the little wealth that they have would be taken from them. When in fact capitalism is inherently about wealth extraction. We would all be making more if owned the companies we worked for instead of them being privately owned or owned by share holders.
To Republican evangelicals who don’t know better, Trump is that good man who is going to make a supposedly good system work for them. They think if he can just be allowed ‘to do what has to be done’ removing the people who make up the out-groups they’ve been told to hate, things will get better for them. This is of course a fascist lie. We have to work to correct this.
I understand that you like to read theory, I am just curious why you are intent on rejecting all of it in favor of your personal vibes. Have you read any Anarchist or Marxist theory, or just liberal theory?
I’ve read the Communist Manifesto and Zimmerman. I have not read the Anarchist and Marxist theory that you are referring to. I think I’ve read some stuff on the anarchist library before though. I know enough about political science, history, and current events to have informed opinions on current political and economic issues. Gatekeeping is counterproductive. edit: typo
No, what form of Democracy, and by what metrics? Why do you say bourgeois dictatorships are better?
Again, no. You are entirely missing the point. People will not be swayed by learning Socialism is better, without material conditions matching said ideas.
Listen, I know you’re trying your best, but only reading the Manifesto, a pamphlet to energize the workers, does not make you equipped to discissing if Marxism is outdated or not. I’m not even gatekeeping, you are making numerous false assumptions about Marxism that I have tried to point out.
Specifically, you are falling for the well-studied failures of Utopian Socialists like the Owenites, described in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
No, what form of Democracy, and by what metrics? Why do you say bourgeois dictatorships are better?
Again review the countries that exist. Google maps exists. Also call them what they are, liberal democracies, thank you. People fought hard for those democracies.
Again, no. You are entirely missing the point. People will not be swayed by learning Socialism is better, without material conditions matching said ideas.
No, these martial conditions, under neoliberalism, despite matching the material conditions of a worker class oppressed by an owner class, make it harder to learn that Socialism is better. This is why it’s hard to even engage people about Socialism. This is the specific part of Marxist theory we are disagreeing about by the way, not Marxist theory in general. Neoliberalism makes it much harder for us to engage people with socialist ideas. Where as people are primed for fascist ideas. This is the problem we face that exists in the modern day. It started with Thacher in 1979 in the UK and Regan in 1980 in the US so as interesting as the Owenites are, they are not relevant.
does not make you equipped…I’m not even gatekeeping,
These statements contradict each other. It’s not for you to decide what makes someone qualified to discuss anything. To be clear, I do not have to have read all the theory you have to discuss this topic.
There are many types of democracy. Representative, direct, parlimentary, and so forth. Even as liberal democracies, these were erected in revolutions led by the bourgeoisie alongside the Proletariat against the Aristocracy, and as such serve the Bourgeosie and suppress the Proletariat. You haven’t indicated which of these you support, or why they are better.
As for your disagreements with Marxism, by your own admission you have only read the Manifesto, which is an inflammatory pamphlet for workers. Under what pretense could you hope to discuss something you haven’t investigated? What is there for us to discuss if we have one person who understands Marxist theory, and someone who rejects it without having read it?
I absolutely agree with you in saying that you do not need to have read theory to have opinions. What I have been trying to say is that you need to read theory to have opinions on said theory. You are rejecting Marxism without knowledge of it, which makes discussion difficult and incomplete, especially because you have been against my clarifications on the topic.
No, I am making a point about one part of Marxist theory that is well known. For all your obfuscation and gatekeeping you have not refuted this point.
Marx said that material conditions like the ones we see in the modern day under neoliberalism would inspire the people to a socialist revolution. The material conditions have not done that. Neoliberalism did not exist when Marx wrote his theories. He could have only guessed the ways in which neoliberalism would condition people to reject the tools of their own liberation. Wealth redistribution is essential to correct the wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 99% of people. But most people would have you know that is, to paraphrase, ‘an immoral infringement of property rights’. People think they would be losing wealth when of course they would be the ones gaining that wealth. There are people, usually conservatives, who think that their should be an economic hierarchy. And that a person’s place on that hierarchy is justified by the circular reasoning that they are on that place in the hierarchy. This idea is incompatible with wealth redistribution and must be full internalized as an incorrect idea by as many people as possible. Then people need learn that wealth redistribution is an essential part of maintaining a functioning economy.
No, Marx did not say that “material conditions would inspire the people to Socialist revolution.” That cuts the entirety of Dialectical Materialism out of the equation.
I cannot stress this enough, you are misconstruing Marx’s arguments here.
Marx said that Matter creates ideas. This is the underlying concept of Materialism. However, Marx was not simply a Materialist, but a Dialectical Materialist. You have eliminated the Dialectic from Marxian analysis and additionally added a supernatural element to Materialism in one fell swoop!
The Dialectic is a way of looking at the progression of Matter. What once was seen as a snapshot becomes more valuable when analyzed in motion.Even if people became aware of Socialism individually, the Mode of Production dictates the overarching ideology of society, and the types of ideas that take hold.
The US is additionally not simply Capitalism in decline, but an Imperialist state super-exploiting the third world for domestic super profits. This creates a Labor Aristocracy, a class of Proletarians that are reactionary because their standard of living is inflated by global Capitalism. THAT is why the US is not revolutionary. The Third World will be revolutionary before the US as it shakes off the yokes of Imperialism, a fact we can see in real life.
Neoliberalism isn’t something Marx did not predict. He didn’t predict the name, but he absolutely predicted the process and ideology. Imperialism was elaborated on by Lenin, but Marxism still allowed for that analysis to be made in line with Marxism.
If you take nothing from this conversation except for this, please listen to the following statements:
You are deeply misinformed on what Marxism is and isn’t, and as such none of your points on Marxism hold any water. I can offer recommendations for reading, if you wish, but if nothing else I ask that you refrain from continuing to confidently misrepresent Marxism, as that only adds confusion.
I implore you to address you argument at my argument. Your reliance on directing your argument at me is not effective. I am not the subject of debate. Nor is over complicating a simple issue.
I am not adding a supernatural element. Just that the essential claim is that people will rise up against their oppressors. And specifically that this uprising would be economic in nature and that it would achieve socialist ends. This has happened throughout history. There have been socialist revolutions. I am arguing the people are not going to rise up in a socialist revolution on their own in modern day America. Neoliberalism is actively working against that outcome while at the same time allowing fascism to take root. People who know pro-democracy and socialist ideas have to spread them and fast. The ideas will not spread themselves. Neoliberalism leads to fascism. To achieve a different outcome is to work against people’s natural inclination to internalize their societies flaws as values and then implement those values into worse systems. People work with the tools they have been given. We have to give them better tools. Then they can have those tools implemented via democracy.
We are not discussing imperialism. The hundreds of millions of civilians in America aren’t oppressing anyone. The US governments actions in the rest of the world are not relevant to the specific topic of Americans forming a political revolution or any revolution at home. The domestic policy is what is relevant. US military spending of course decreases available funding to social programs, but the specific actions of the military are not relevant to this discussion. While wealth was introduced to America via imperialism the boom and bust cycle of capitalism is inevitably extracting that wealth from the working class. The conditions are there but we see a populist christo-fascist movement instead of a socialist movement.
You are deeply misinformed on what Marxism is and isn’t, and as such none of your points on Marxism hold any water.
Again ad hominem. Refuting this line of reasoning is trivial.
I can offer recommendations for reading, if you wish, but if nothing else I ask that you refrain from continuing to confidently misrepresent Marxism, as that only adds confusion.
Your argument is introducing confusion where there need not be any.
You did indeed add a supernatural element, you claimed that Marx claimed Material Conditions force ideas, when that isn’t true nor his argument. Base and superstructure, after all.
We are discussing Imperialism, to ignore Imperialism is to ignore Marxism. The United States super-exploits the third world for super-profits domestically, which does inflate lifestyles. No, the average American is not knowingly choosing this, but this is the inevitable endpoint of Capitalism as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall causes developed corporations to seek higher and higher profits from greater and greater exploitation. Neoliberalism is a side effect of Imperialism.
Yes, the American proletariat is oppressed by the American Bourgeoisie, but the American Proletariat is also the benefactor of American Imperialism and as such is largely reactionary. This is why fascism is rising, not Neoliberalism, not the ideas of Reagan and Thatcher but the Material Conditions caused by Capitalism shifting towards Imperialism.
It is not Ad Hominem to point out over and over that you misrepresented Marx and Marxism. I showed you where and why you misrepresented Marx and you call it Ad Hominem.
If you do not wish to engage with Marxism that’s fine, but don’t try to pretend you understand it enough to discredit it, that’s all I ask. You don’t have to take reading recommendations from me, you can find them elsewhere and decide for yourself if they contradict your current understanding.
You did indeed add a supernatural element, you claimed that Marx claimed Material Conditions force ideas, when that isn’t true nor his argument. Base and superstructure, after all.
No, not force, naturally lead to. It is logical for the oppressed to want to overthrow their oppressor.
We are discussing Imperialism, to ignore Imperialism is to ignore Marxism.
I’m ignoring both of those things because they are not relevant to the discussion. Only the specifics of the flaw in Marxism we are discussing and domestic policy implications of imperialism are relevant. Your argument is effectively trying to justify the veracity of the Bible with Bible verses. Your argument is self referencing. I addressed the rest of this paragraph in the other comment chain, except the last line.
Neoliberalism is a side effect of Imperialism.
Neoliberalism is a political invention. You’ll notice the UK adopted it as well, a year earlier than the US. Even though the UK’s actual empire had collapsed at that point. Imperialism had nothing to do with it. Conservatives needed a new ideology to combat progressives movements that were taking hold in those countries. So they came up with neoliberalism.
the American Proletariat is also the benefactor of American Imperialism
This is the part I addressed in the other comment chain again, but here you go. Any benefit they experience is quickly extracted from them. The owner class always wins in the end. The boom and bust cycle is the gradual extraction of wealth. With each bust more American families lose the ability to participate meaningfully in the economy. Where as the owner class is always there to benefit from the next boom.
It is not Ad Hominem to point out over and over that you misrepresented Marx and Marxism. I showed you where and why you misrepresented Marx and you call it Ad Hominem.
This is an ad hominem attack in a nut shell. Your argument is directed at me. The veracity of my argument doesn’t depend on me.
If you do not wish to engage with Marxism that’s fine, but don’t try to pretend you understand it enough to discredit it, that’s all I ask.
Ad hominem. Again. What I am doing to refute your argument is trivial. Anyone can do this. I highly recommend you try a different approach.
You don’t have to take reading recommendations from me, you can find them elsewhere and decide for yourself if they contradict your current understanding.
I’ll take recommendations, but Marxist and anarchist theory in general is not relevant to this discussion.
This is certainly a defensible position, yes. I’m just not so sure we’re going to avoid the christo-fascist dictatorship with the Democrats. They forever capitulate to our christo-fascist party, and they themselves are authoritarian at heart. Just look at the White House and its support for genocide, border fascism, subjugation of protestors, defending of an inequitable hierarchical economic system that relies on forced labor, and those are just the first examples that come to mind
I think the Democrats are not a great political party. I’m registered independent. They are the only mainstream political party for pursuing progressive change that we have at the moment. We have to take our chances with the Democrats because it’s the clearest path to a better future that we have.
We do need to adopt socialist policies as a country in addition to that though. If we stick with neoliberalism then we are going to keep having this problem. The fascist movement will inevitably grow as the wealth disparity gets worse in the US. People are going to be looking for solutions to their problems, but neoliberalism inherently denies them the tools to fix the systemic issues they face. Neoliberals cling to civility politics and value property over justice for people to name a few. Fascism will provide them with easy, but incorrect, solutions in the form of out-groups to hate. The answer to our problems is socialism, but we need time to convince people.
I know it’s a long shot, because people are effectively conditioned from living in a neoliberal society to reject socialism without any evidence. But we have to try. The only way this gets better is convincing people that socialist ideas have merit while neoliberal and fascist ideas do not. People’s lives depend on nations developing and maintaining inclusive political and economic institutions. We are going to need to have this ideological reckoning at some point, so we might as well have it sooner rather than later.
Trying and then failing presents the same consequences as not trying. So we might as well do it now.
This sounds like you want to implement social changes within the existing system. This is the lie of progressives and radlibs. It will never work. We need to dissolve the United States of America. There is nothing here worth salvaging, save the people.
This sounds like you want to implement social changes within the existing system. This is the lie of progressives and radlibs. It will never work.
No, I want to radically change the system. Doing that of course involves using the system. We need to move from liberal democracy to social democracy. And our democracy must be fixed to have majority rule. It can work, but nothing is guaranteed. This is no different than how a revolution can succeed, but has no guaranteed outcome. As long as we have a democracy we might as well use it.
We need to dissolve the United States of America. There is nothing here worth salvaging, save the people.
Dissolving the US will result in the death of hundreds of millions of people. People have to eat. When societies collapse, their populations tank with them, because the people lose the state centralization they are dependent on to get basic necessities.
There is no saving the people without inclusive political and economic institutions. If we value people then we must fix the systems they depend on to live.
Social democracy is a farce. That’s exactly what I mean. It’s a fairy tale told by progressives and radlibs
Dissolving the US will result in the death of hundreds of millions of people. People have to eat. When societies collapse, their populations tank with them, because the people lose the state centralization they are dependent on to get basic necessities
Sounds like you desperately need to read some theory. This is some liberal shit
Edit: I see in your comment history you calling yourself a “progressive.” You’re lying now and saying leftist. I think you’re completely untrustworthy.
Social democracy is a farce. That’s exactly what I mean. It’s a fairy tale told by progressives and radlibs
It’s a political ideology with a set of ideas and policies. Social democracies have existed in Nordic countries for decades. How they have done is debatable, but they do exist.
Sounds like you desperately need to read some theory. This is some liberal shit
I recommend Why Nations Fail. It’s been really good so far, but I’m still only half way through. So far, they seem to have missed that capitalism is inherently extractive and thus always at odds with an inclusive political institution like democracy. Private corporations are inherently incentivized by profit margins to undermine democracy. To remove regulations, oversight, taxes, etc. This is the contradiction of liberal democracy that social democracy solves. By adopting socialism, so the workers own the companies they work for, workers are included in both the nation’s political and economic intuitions. Since only the worker class exists, there is no one being incentivized to undermine the people’s institutions.
I hope neoliberals like Biden starts saying stuff like that, that would be awesome.
Social Democracy isn’t Socialism, it’s Capitalism with safety nets.
It is is a form of socialism. The fact it has a market economy does not mean it is capitalism.
Workers do not own the Means of Production in Nordic Countries.
I didn’t say they did. Like most countries they have a mixed economy. No one has yet abandoned capitalism entirely. The fact they haven’t adopted every socialist position does not mean they aren’t socialist. I am saying social democracies need to adopt that policy. Workers owning corporations as apposed to share holders is not incompatible with social democracy, but a logical inclusion.
I believe reading Leftist theory would do a lot for you.
You know this stuff isn’t just theory right? It has practical applications in real life too.
Social Democracy is not Market Socialism. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expansive social safety nets, not Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. This is fundamental. Again, Social Democracy is not a transitional state towards Socialism nor Socialism itself, but welfare Capitalism.
Leftist theory does in fact have practical applications. Being confidently incorrect as you have been is impractical, hence the importance of theory.
Social Democracy is not Market Socialism. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expansive social safety nets, not Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. This is fundamental. Again, Social Democracy is not a transitional state towards Socialism nor Socialism itself, but welfare Capitalism.
This is a description of current working social democracies which have not fully adopted socialism and still have potential in that regard. Social democracy is a collection of ideas and policies. Workers owning companies as opposed to share holders is not incompatible with social democracy even if it’s not something that’s being done currently at scale. Again market economies are not inherently capitalist. Welfare is also a part of the picture, but it’s not enough it’s own. Welfare is covering for systemic issues that have to fundamentally fixed.
Leftist theory does in fact have practical applications. Being confidently incorrect as you have been is impractical, hence the importance of theory.
Yes, it does have practical applications. I have nothing to do with the veracity of the ideas I espouse. Theory can only take us so far. I’m not interested in being limited by our current iteration of social democracy or our current definitions of socialism or social democracy. If we go with the description of social democracy in your argument, then that will be insufficient to fix our current societal problems.
Believe me, I understand what Capitalism is and isn’t, what Socialism is and isn’t, and what Social Democracy is and isn’t. Social Democracy isn’t Socialism, and the Nordic Countries are not Socialist, nor are they moving towards Socialism.
Yes, Social Democracy is insufficient. We need both leftist theory and practice. You are attempting to reject what leftists have learned and built on to do what has already failed, a mistake no leftist should be making.
Believe me, I understand what Capitalism is and isn’t, what Socialism is and isn’t, and what Social Democracy is and isn’t. Social Democracy isn’t Socialism, and the Nordic Countries are not Socialist, nor are they moving towards Socialism.
Social democracy is a form a socialism. Social democrats in Nordic Countries apparently are aligning themselves with groups on the right. I am saying we need to move to socialism.
Yes, Social Democracy is insufficient. We need both leftist theory and practice. You are attempting to reject what leftists have learned and built on to do what has already failed, a mistake no leftist should be making.
I think we are talking past each other at this point. I’m very much saying we need workers to own corporations as part of social democracy.
You aren’t advocating for Social Democracy then, but Market Socialism. Why call it something it isn’t? That’s like saying you want Communism with Capitalists, you’re redefining established terms.
I would argue the majority of what I argue for is social democracy. The fact I’m arguing for workers owning their companies does not exclude the system I’m arguing for from being social democracy. I want a market economy, I just want the workers to own that market economy.
So you don’t want Social Democracy, you want Market Socialism. Absolutely none of what you have said so far indicates Social Democracy over Market Socialism.
Again, a worker owned market, is Market Socialism, not Social Democracy.
We are discussing workers owning the companies they work for. I don’t need to explain every other idea I hold because the one being discussed could fit in another box. My point is that workers owning the companies they work for fits into social democracy. Ideas do not respect your rigid categorizations. And this splitting hairs is effectively a moot point.
No, workers owning the companies they work for is not compatible with Social Democracy. Your point is akin to saying you want Communism with Capitalists, or a state with Anarchism.
Let me ask this: what do you believe Social Democracy is, and why are you against advocating for Market Socialism, which is exactly what you have been advocating for if we take you at your word?
Social democracy combines the inclusive economic institution of socialism with the inclusive political institution of democracy. In short people have a say in both their economy and government. Listing things off the top of my head that a social democracy should include are things like health care paid for by the government, a government run retirement program like social security, food stamps provided by the government, government housing, government maintained public drinking fountains, government provided internet access. If something is needed routinely by people in order to survive then the government should have a hand in making sure that they get that thing. Market economies by default fire the poorest customer in pursuit of profit. It isn’t profitable to house everyone, so not everyone gets a roof over their head, but everyone needs shelter in order to live.
In the spirit of inclusive economic and political institution alone, I would say workers owning the companies they work for is consistent with social democracy. Corporations will still be pursing the profit motive. The difference is that the C-staff will beholden to make profit for the workers and not the share holders. The system is still reliant on a welfare state to avoid people falling through the cracks and make sure everyone gets their basic necessities. I’m sure some social democrats would say we don’t have to go this far and that a mixed economy is sufficient. I have come to the opinion that we do need to go farther in this specific regard. As long as the owner class exists, even with sufficient wealth distribution, which is still needed, they will be incentivized to overthrow democracy. By having one class of people, workers, there is no class with the incentive to overturn democracy for profit. We need to have a real say in our place of work, as it has a tremendous impact on our lives and the best way to do that is for workers to own it.
Not all people of any given ideology agree. I am going to focus on a distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy I believe is important, this is not the only distinction. Democratic socialism is democracy agnostic. They are fine with socialism being achieved with a democracy or with a revolution. I want democracy and socialism. And I want to achieve socialism through a political revolution. Unlike democratic socialists, this a non-negotiable point for me as a social democrat. In the event, we lose our democracy, I’m not going to obstruct somebody’s revolution. Pickers can’t be choosers. But as long as we have a democracy I am going to leverage that power to achieve a social democracy. Political revolution is the way I want to achieve socialism. And if I did have to hypothetically achieve socialism as part of a violent revolution, a social democracy is the kind of system I would like to create.
You’re a reformist Democratic Socialist, who wishes to create Democratic Socialism.
Social Democracy is first and foremost Capitalism with Social Safety Nets. The underlying principle of Social Democracy is that Capitalism is unjust if left alone, but can be weilded in the interests of all. You clearly disagree with this notion, so why identify with it?
I recommend a descriptive approach to definitions as opposed to a prescriptive approach. I think that would resolve a lot of the discourse we are having. I have explained what I mean in my argument. Your argument centers on this false idea that definitions can limit what a person thinks and believes. But definitions are only as useful as they help us communicate.
This book and the things you’re describing here may be left of, say, typical neoliberalism in that it entertains some thoughts about the perpetual threat of revolution, but ultimately it is yet another propaganda piece published in a desperate attempt to maintain the chains of capitalist society. Of course, some leftist theories don’t even seek change through revolution, opting instead for more of a community-style approach, which is why you see groups like the Zaptistas. No leftist theory of which I’m aware seeks change (at least, not the bulk of its change) through the existing system. This would be absurd in that it is true that there will always be inequities inherent to capitalism. Take the most socially democratic state in the world, and they’re still relying on wage inequities, forced labor, and worse.
Here are some personal suggestions, as a starting point:
No leftist theory of which I’m aware seeks change (at least, not the bulk of its change) through the existing system. This would be absurd in that it is true that there will always be inequities inherent to capitalism. Take the most socially democratic state in the world, and they’re still relying on wage inequities, forced labor, and worse.
Theory is great, but we have to apply the theory to our real lives as best we can. As I said, how effective existing social democracies have been is debatable, but they are a working model of some, but not all, of the ideas and policies. Grassroot movements seek to radically change the system using the system. That’s the modern progressive experiment. The only way to find out if it works is to do it. Like anything else I believe success is possible, but not guaranteed.
What I don’t understand is your fixation with claiming that people aren’t what they claim to be. I’ve seen it in this comment section. You did it with another anarchist. I am a social democrat. I don’t know any neoliberals who would say any of the things that I believe in and tell people about.
You’ve said many times that you’re an anarchist on lemmy. I don’t see why you would lie about that. But I really don’t get why you engage in this discourse this way. You are by no means the only person who does this by the way. So, it’s been nagging at me. I go around telling people about my socialist political views in my day to day life when politics comes up.
You are an anarchist in real life right? You tell people something to the effect of “I’m an anarchist and I think we should live in some form of stateless society” when discussions of politics come up. Your political views as an anarchist are not some internet persona you adopt for fun right? This isn’t some kind of fictional fan wiki page you like to maintain? You actually want to live in a state of anarchy IRL? I am genuinely asking, this is not a rhetorical line of reasoning.
If social democracy is to out there for you to see working in real life, I can’t image you wanting to be an anarchist. We don’t have a way to make a true stateless society work at the scale of 8.1 billion people. It would be cool if we did. I think it’s possible. I just don’t know how to make that work yet. Hopefully someone actually figures it out one day.
We have concrete ideas and policies to purse with social democracy so that is why I purse creating that system. If I had a better system to pursue I would do so. I believe social democracy is not the end all be all of political and economic inventions. Just a strict improvement over liberal democracy.
I think the worlds nations adopting social democracy is not detrimental to anarchism. If anything, I think it would broaden people’s horizons to the possibility of some kind of stateless society. So I don’t see why an anarchist would be against social democracy. It’s probably not an anarchist’s ideal society, but I don’t see why it would necessarily be something to oppose. There is a progression to any technology. Political and economic ideas are no different. We have to crawl before we can walk.
Inclusive political and economic intuitions like democracy and socialism are about people deciding how to run things for themselves. We use representation in democracy to make it scale, not because we want some absolute authority to dictate to use how to live our lives. We want leaders not rulers. We want freedom so we create and maintain systems that include the people who live in them so we can all make decisions about our own lives. But the systems have to work for the hundreds of millions or even billions of people who live with those systems. The answer to our current societal problems cannot be, let almost everyone die, so the survivors can live under a more ideal system that scales to their smaller population. People matter. edit: typo
Okay, I don’t follow. But please answer my question. It wasn’t rhetorical. If me just asking you this bugs you so much, so you wouldn’t answer the first time I asked, I don’t get why it would be a go to option for you to say to other people. Is this just gatekeeping then?
Alright. I still think what we believe is not in conflict with each other. But I am going to agree to disagree on what we should do about the election.
That’s fair. I’ll probably end up voting for whatever ghoul (Biden) wins the primaries, but if I do I’m sure as hell not going to let them know that’s what I’m doing. Democrats need to stop this good cop/bad cop act if they expect us to vote for them.
Biden makes Jeffrey Dahmer look like Mary Poppins by comparison
You’d prefer the party that got Roe v Wade overturned then? Cause not voting Dems is being fine with whatever happens. And no, no silly revolution is gonna happen that will save you. Get out of dreamland now and accept this shitty choice put before you and just do the bare minimum at least.
There are things you can do outside of voting for one shit party. You could vote for a different party for example, push for voting reform, protest, bomb military installations and other guerrilla tactics, go and help people directly, make propaganda, etc. In my own country that just had a local election more seats were won by the lib dems (normally a minority party) than the conservatives who are the party currently in charge.
Revolutions don’t happen because people like you don’t want them to happen. That and because people fall for pro-government propaganda.
The other things are not related to voting. Do all those things you want to do, but voting takes 30m and almost zero effort. If you can manage to do those other things, you can and should vote as well. The effort to outcome ratio is much higher, even though the outcome is fairly small. The effort is essentially zero.
Also it’s not 30 minutes. It requires registering to vote whenever you move address, and for you to actually be in the country. Then there is setting reminders it’s election day, which requires watching the news to know there is an election.
Being in the country doesn’t take effort. It’s only true or not. (Also, mail in voting is allowed for people outside the country I believe. I know military personnel stationed outside the US still vote.)
Sure, you need to register, but you can do that at the DMV when you get/renew your drivers license. Yeah, if you don’t drive then it’s extra effort, though still not much.
Updating your location when you move can be done online or through the mail I believe.
Also obviously you need to know an election is happening. How the hell would you not know that though? Either you’re politically motivated and actually want change, in which case you almost certainly know when an election is happening even if you’re not participating for whatever stupid reason, or you aren’t politically motivated, in which case I’m not talking about them.
I am not an American. We don’t have a DMV. Why the heck would vehicles and elections be organised in the same place? It takes actual time to register here (up to several months).
Unless it’s a general election people don’t take that much notice, and it’s hard to find out about one when people only talk about American elections online and you also aren’t always in the country.
I am not an American. We don’t have a DMV. Why the heck would vehicles and elections be organised in the same place? It takes actual time to register here (up to several months).
For most people, your main form of government issue ID is your drivers license. Since they’re a government agency, and they have all your information, they let you register at the same time. Its actually pretty convenient, though the DMV itself is very slow and inconvenient.
Unless it’s a general election people don’t take that much notice, and it’s hard to find out about one when people only talk about American elections online and you also aren’t always in the country.
That’s true. Most people only pay attention to the general. Even still, when there’s a local election you’ll almost always see political things around town, so if you care it’s not hard to keep track of.
I have not forgotten. Like I said, it’s like a version of the trolley problem. The trolley is going to run over 100 people, but you can pull the lever and it’ll only hit 1. Not pulling the lever is a choice and you’re complicit in that choice. It doesn’t matter if you took action or not, the choice is made. Not voting against the person who said he wants the genocide to be scaled up makes you complicit if they get elected.
Peoples feeling are being manipulated and they’re being told not voting makes them not complicit. It does not though. It does not remove the fact they made a choice to not take an action they could have taken. They should be made to feel like not voting is the choice that it is and they should use their choice to ensure as good a possible outcomes happens as they can. The trolls from the right are ensuring they are made to feel bad about preventing them from gaining power, so they can take over. This will not be a good outcome, and people should be afraid and ashamed if they allow that.
It’s pretty weird that you hold up the fucking lib Dems as your party of radical revolution.
The fact of the matter is that we are never going to get a radical left government, regardless of the voting system. Unless you’re spending time in an ivory tower of academia, you will know that the majority of people in this country are centrists of some flavour. Corbyn got massacred at the polls, and he was Labour leader. Going back you’ve got Foot.
The best we’ve ever had it is when Atlee, an ex army major who practically ran the home war effort, couched left wing reforms (foundation of the welfare state, nationalisation of coal and rail) as nationalistic. That’s how we get these things through. You’re never going to change the minds of British people by bombing.
If you’re of an anarchist mindset, then it’s far more beneficial to vote for harm reduction one day per four years, and organise in parallel outside that
I am not holding them up as a revolutionary party. All I was saying is they are becoming more popular than a current majority party. I am trying to make the point that voting for a traditionally minority party isn’t always fruitless.
The fact of the matter is that we are never going to get a radical left government, regardless of the voting system. Unless you’re spending time in an ivory tower of academia, you will know that the majority of people in this country are centrists of some flavour. Corbyn got massacred at the polls, and he was Labour leader. Going back you’ve got Foot.
My comment was aimed at Americans who don’t want to vote for the democrats. Not at labour voters in the UK. I am not against voting for labour. If I am still here at the time of the general election I will probably be voting for them or for the Green party. I wasn’t able to vote in the current election as I wasn’t in the country and also wasn’t on the electoral register for the area I would be living in if I was.
I don’t think I qualify as an anarchist. Though I do like some anarchist ideas. I personally don’t understand politics well enough to have an exact position with certainly like some people seem to. I am somewhat of a fan of socialist market economy, but I don’t think you can truly know if something does or doesn’t work until you actually try it.
Fair enough; I got the wrong end of the stick. I apologise.
I think the best case for the argument is also around in the UK, which is that reform UK (which, for those abroad, is our resident right wing nutjob party) has put electoral pressure on the party and pulled them to the right, and the same thing has happened with the greens on the left.
That being said, I think the best time to cast that vote is during local elections (or MEPs back when we were still in Europe) where there’s something closer to proportional representation, or when you don’t live in a swing seat. For those in the US who are in safe republican seats, I’d agree that 3rd party is a pretty good way to get your voice heard. In knife edge places, I’d argue for tactical voting, but equally it’s not my country.
WRT anarchism: it’s a philosophy I think we should implement a lot of concepts from (mutual aid, parallel organisation). The reason I mentioned it was that some have the view that we shouldn’t vote full stop; I am of the view that voting is not the be all and end all – vote tactically, be that for harm reduction if your vote is likely to count significantly, or third party if it won’t, and then go and advocate for your causes in the other days of the four year election cycle.
Yeah I’ve only actually been able to vote once. Missed one (forgot which day) and was out of the country for another. I wouldn’t have left for as long if I actually knew there was an election, but that’s hard to know when you don’t watch the news. Plus moving around a bunch means I am rarely actually on an electoral register to vote.
I have read some theory and I do know those are the main two currents. Doesn’t mean I know enough about them or politics in general to choose either them or something else. Most of the books people actually recommend are ancient and hard to understand even if they are relevant. We have actually spoken about politics before somewhere if I remember correctly.
Pretty bold of you to bring up Roe V Wade as an example of why we need more democrats. Roe V Wade was one of the best examples of democrats effortlessly orienting liberals with the democratic party by sitting on their hands for years as the threat of having abortion rights taken away become more and more clear. The democrats could have codified it, but they didn’t because they knew that abortion rights were one of their main avenues to muster up enthusiasm and support for their party. By letting Roe V Wade get eviscerated, the democrats secured support from oblivious liberals for years to come.
“Vote for us, or you’ll lose abortion rights! (as the democrats do jack shit to protect the right)”. The democrats would rather lose than shift left, and that revelation becomes terrifying when the issue comes down to genocide.
The same is true for Trump. The man that liberals get into such a tizzy about was literally propped up by the democrats in order to orient liberals and centrists with the democratic party. By propping up Trump, democrats have coerced liberals into writing a blank check and offering blind support to whoever isn’t the republican. And now we’ve seen the logical conclusion of this strategy: liberals supporting genocide since at least genocide isn’t as bad as orange man.
The point is never that we need more democrats. The point is always that we need fewer Republicans. Democrats refuse to make things better, but they typically block things from getting worse, which is a better starting point than anything the GOP would give us.
So please, organize, protest, do whatever activism you can do, but on voting day take the little bit of time and effort to block Republicans from undoing all that hard work, even if it means voting strategically for a pile of shit.
The left will always be fighting against the administration to some extent, and through voting we get to pick our enemy, and the dems are going to be an easier fight and on fewer fronts.
They can’t think of any other options for political change other than voting. In that way american indoctrination has worked wonders for the ruling elite.
Yeah, luckily not voting and Trump getting elected that person wouldn’t be thinking of their lost family. They wouldn’t be thinking about anything for that matter, as they’d be fucking dead. Trump has demonstrated his support for expanding the conflict and finishing the job. It is absolutely better for that person who lost their family to not be dead.
And yeah, it sucks but so do so many other things we have to choose in life. Cleaning up shit from a pet isn’t fun, but sometimes it needs to be done. Sometimes we also need to choose the president that’s not going to do as much damage. You have to get your hands dirty.
Not voting shouldn’t keep your conscience clean. Its like the trolley problem. 100 people on one track, one on the other. You can choose to pull the lever or not. Not pulling it is still a choice. There’s no option where you aren’t complicit because you could have done something.
Ok but what else are we going to do? What can we do to stop the genocide? Are we in favor of dismantling the system that made this happen, or are we ok with it?
Protest, take direct action, whatever you want. Get organized with some other groups. There are plenty. (Edit: nothing you do is going to stop this genocide though. It’s far too late, though we can decrease the harm that is done.)
Telling people not to take an action isn’t helpful. You always see people (who say they’re leftist, although some are certainly right wing trolls) saying not to vote, and they never advocate for doing other things. How about protest, but also vote? Why would anyone advocate for not doing something? The only reason I can think of us to get their guy elected instead.
If your contribution is saying to do less, fuck off. If you’re saying to do more then welcome. You may actually help.
Yes, a million times this. Voting is just one small part of what we must do to fight for a better future. Giving up is not an option, there is far too much at stake. Vote, protest, occupy, run for office, take direct action, organize, and create a better world for the people who come after us. Solidarity forever.
Also, there’s no need to call me “idiot,” and being honest it’s quite ableist
Funny how liberals are always calling leftists things like “idiot” – really shows their complete disdain for anyone to the left of Reagan. I’ve had liberal Democrats straight-up gloat that they don’t care what leftists think. Mask. Fucking. Off.
Dude, I’m an anarchist. Don’t kid yourself that you’re the only real leftist because you tell people not to vote. Just fuck off with that shit.
Idiot also isn’t really ableist. It isn’t the medical term it used to be. It’s to call someone stupid, which was either willful or not. I don’t know. It feels more like prupsoeful misrepresentation of what I wrote, or you didn’t even try to understand it, because even the most impaired person almost certainly could.
Yeah, because only neiberals say to vote! Only a true leftist would be self-defeating! /s
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated in The Communist Manifesto and later works that “the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy” and universal suffrage, being “one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat”. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism)
There is something to be said for the idea that you only have two choices, although that is a matter of fact because of the “[c]onstitution…which makes it appear as though every vote were lost that is cast for a candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties.” (Engels to Frederick Adolph Sorge, December 2, 1893, in Marx and Engels on the United States (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979), p. 333.) We need to change how this works, but that needs to be done through a grassroots movement for local level elections at first. This requires voting and participation.
A revolution almost certainly isn’t happening, and it’s not going to go the way you want. If it were to happen, it’d be bloody and brutal and you wouldn’t enjoy it. Also, it’s not exactly guaranteed that the leftists win. If anything, I’d bet against it because the other imperialist nations wouldn’t want that to happen.
Good thing we’re off to a great start showing unity by calling allies “idiots”…
Don’t be an asshole and seemingly purposefully misrepresent what people say. That’s far more harmful than anyone being called an idiot. Practice what your preach if you’re so high and mighty with speech.
… and discarding the lives of Palestinians and immigrants
Where am I discarding their lives? Please, point to it. I’ve only said things that say they need us to vote or things will be worse for them. Stop strawmaning me and sealioning. If Trump gets elected they’re going to be massacred. Trump will endorse the genocide and he’ll also ramp up anti-immigrant actions. Sure, Biden sucks but he does speak out against Israeli actions now and they are trying to limit some support.
If voting is best, so be it, but fuck right off with being so callous as to refer to it as “harm reduction”
I didn’t call it that, but what would you call it? Its something that decreases the amount of damage that’s being done while not fully resolving the issue. It’s reducing the effects of something harmful. It’s harm reduction.
That’s not what harm reduction is. That’s never how the term’s been applied. I know language can change, but abruptly fabricating an opposite meaning in an attempt to dodge consequences for one’s bad actions (potentially losing a campaign due to one’s undying dedication to genocide and fascism) is not an appropriate treatment of the term.
No, I am serious. If people have an ethical concern about voting in the US, this is my response. It’s comparable to no ethical consumption under capitalism. Vaush explained the idea in one of his streams.
Yeah, I quit watching him. Dude is pretty problematic. “Genocide is bad and wrong, but still vote for Biden, because party loyalty is more important.” At least he has the balls to criticize Biden, which is more than I can say for some people.
Vaush isn’t perfect, but no one is arguing party loyalty is what is important here. There are no ethical choices in FPTP voting so we have to make a decision that reduces the most harm.
This is the fun part about arguing with Russian agents and people who drank the kool-aid, they shove words into your mouth. Either they’re deliberately trying to make you look bad, or they’re so stuck in their own world view they can’t hear anything other than what they already believe.
I’m jealous. Here in Canada, our current PM’s entire election campaign was based on the promise of scrapping FPTP. Then he reversed course pretty much day 1 after getting elected.
That was by design. BC used a FPTP voting system for the referendum, with multiple options for “which system would you prefer?” and no option for “I would prefer any of these over FPTP.” So FPTP “won” while “Not FPTP” had their votes split.
I could be wrong but I remember voting and they actually had it split into two questions. The first was whether you wanted to keep the current system, and the second was if no what system would you prefer. Unfortunately people just decided to stick to what they were familiar with even if it’s a flawed system.
EDIT: Double checked and yeah, it was two questions the first of which was whether the system should change or not. 61% of voters opted to keep the existing system. en.wikipedia.org/…/2018_British_Columbia_electora…
There are important ballot measures in a ton of states this year as well. If you’re in a blue area, there might even be a decent candidate or 2. Always check to see what’s happening in your community, if only to prevent harmful stuff from slipping through unopposed.
Your landlord and bosses vote, so you should as well. Don’t make things easy for them. Make them require voter suppression to stand a chance. Power will never be given, so it must be seized.
Add comment