this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
1167 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Another clever solution, but where's the log? I don't see one there, and the trolley is too close for you to have time to go off to find one.
What even is the log in this scenario, another insurrection? Not voting isn't throwing a log, it's just not pulling the lever.
What makes you think the accelerationist position of "exposing the fallacy" would actually make anything better? It's very possible, I'd argue probable, that it would just make a lasting fascist regime more likely. What reason do you have to believe that a more transparent lie would be enough to make people actual do anything different?
Personally, I don't think that's a gamble with very favorable odds.
Fixed it
As I see it, the lever is the choice being made, in this case dem. or rep., the tracks are the electoral system and the log is the third option they dont want us to give and have taught us it doesnt exist.
In a true democracy we should be able to say "we dont like options given, do better" but those voices are conveniently ignored.
The first step in demanding the true is to realize you've been lied to. If everyone is voting it must mean that they agree the system works because people dont usually waste time in tasks that they believe are fruitless. I believe people will realize something is wrong with their "democracy" when its minorities choosing for everyone else and start demanding true democracy.
Also, the fact that they, the rulling class, seems to be afraid of it. As I mentioned before, australia making vote compulsory when the numbers were geting "too low for comfort" is a good example.
Its possible it could backfire, yes. And, as I said in another comment, right now wouldnt be the best time to do it. Vote, but be aware that the system you participate in is just mitigating the symptoms of a desease and not treating it. Pretending otherwise is not a good gamble either.
Actions must be taken to change it. An organized effort to sabotage the elections by not voting could be one option.
And you forget the fact that even if most people votes theres a chance trump will still win. Even if biden gets the popular vote, just like it happened in 2016. Who will you blame then?
The way these types of conversations can get so heated is an indicator that people is still not placing the blame where it should be. People need to be shown the truth, which is hard when our whole lives we've been "educated" to believe a lie, and again, I think electoral sabotage is a good attempt at that.
In any nation with first past the post elections, like the United States, Leftists have exactly one rational voting strategy:
Step 1. Identify the two front-runner parties, and determine which of the two is further left relative to the other.
Step 2. Vote for that party in every single election (don't forget midterms and local elections). Encourage everyone you know to do the same.
Step 3. Once the (relative) left party has an overwhelming majority (over 2/3) and the relative right party becomes vanishingly irrelevant (under 1/3), then split the (relative) left party into its own relative left and right.
Step 4. Repeat steps 1-3 with these new front-runner parties.
Step 5. Iterate step 4 until your relative left party passes election reform such that elections are no longer susceptible to Duverger's Law.
Certainly try to push for reform within the relative left party between elections and during primaries, but at the ballot box the above is the only rational strategy. Voting third party, or refusing to vote the lesser evil, is not a rational strategy.
Democrats aren't open to having these discussions. The moment people started criticizing Biden for opening more concentration camps, Democrats dug in their heels and became defensive, lashing out at anyone with valid criticism and calling us "Russian bots," accusing us of secretly supporting Trump, and this behavior has continued since then, and it seems to emit from the majority of all centrist and conservative Democrats.
The idea that we can push for change is a nice thought, but it doesn't work when they're not open to valid criticism of a sitting president.
Even this pretty moderate post has been reported by liberals and other bad-faith actors who are not open to discussing anything to the left of Reagan.
Sure, but by focusing on that line, which was a nice afterthought ,you're ignoring the rest of the comment, which was the functionally important part. Regardless of any other actions and considerations, it is imperative to vote in every election, and to vote for the further left of the two front-runner parties, which at the moment would be the Democrats.
Every other other action is, pragmatically, secondary to increasing Leftist voter turnout. Any action that discourages Leftist voter turnout (e.g. refusing to vote for the lesser evil on principle because it's still evil) is counterproductive. Democrats don't care about having discussions with progressives because progressives don't show up to vote, and they know the ones that do know better than to split the vote.
If every progressive voted, and Democrats consistently won 70% of the vote, the Republican threat would disappear, and the Democrats would not longer be safe by virtue of Duverger's Law. Then a Progressive party could meaningfully emerge, meaningfully threaten Democrats, and Democrats would have to actually have those discussions.
People have straight up gloated to me that something like 70% of voters support our fascist border policy and arming a genocidal state. What makes you so sure we can fix this by voting?
Also, I don't buy the idea that right-wing liberals would listen to leftists if we vote. I vote in every election, but they still treat me like absolute trash. They love that people are suffering and that they can gloat that there's no effective way to save them.
FFS look at the maniacal comments in this thread. And this is actually better than the norm.
If we can't fix this by 100% voter turnout, then our ideals aren't popular, and democracy has spoken.
What is your pragmatic alternative? What strategy is 1. Actionable and 2. Effective 3. Incompatible with the process I outlined above? Widespread change will be a function of multi-modal effort, there's no reason not to commit to higher turnout while simultaneously pushing for change in other ways. Defeatist outlooks are what the opposition wants, don't reward them.
So in other words, doing exactly what I've been suggesting this entire time? Or what do you think that I've been saying? I vote in every election, and I'm still not allowed to complain when my president commits genocide? Is that what you're saying, or what exactly is your point?? What is it you're trying to convince me of that I'm not already doing?
And there are supposed to be failsafes to prevent tyranny of the majority. Did you forget that? Was slavery ok in the antebellum south because the majority supported it? No. You can't just trample on human lives simply because a majority support it.
Anarchism has failsafes for this since hierarchical structures are by definition not welcome. Our system does not? Then let's burn it to the ground.
I know the answer btw. I'm speaking rhetorically. It's obvious that our system results in genocide. I mean, we have an active genocide against indigenous people.
Do you support trampling on human rights and committing atrocities like genocide simply because the majority support it? Please answer this, because if you think this is fine, then I'm done trying to get through to you.
Edit: And before you say "of course that's not what I'm saying," I've had a centrist liberal tell me recently that yes, these atrocities are fine as long as the majority support them, and that was told to me by PugJesus, right-winger and mod on lemmy.world
How does it enforce that unwelcomeness? As much as I ideologically align with anarchism in principle, I don't see the mechanism for it to preserve what is and isn't "allowed" under it's principles. Especially not the ad hoc, spontaneous, nominal anarchism that would result if you burned the current system to the ground.
What stops a charismatic figurehead from rallying the portion of the population that finds authoritarianism comforting, and starting their own fascist hierarchy? The current system may not be perfect, but at least the checks and balances provide some obstacle to despotism. What do you replace that material obstacle with? "Hey! You're not supposed to do that!"?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
I am familiar with the literature. As I said, I identify with it ideologically. It presents philosophical ideals and optimistic, aspirational hypotheticals, built on microscopic examples. Speak for yourself. You tell me how a population not yet widely versed in, and committed to, stable anarcho-communism, prevents the rise of authoritarianism in the ashes of our system, recently burned.
Not a stable anarchic society, a chaotic power vacuum; the transitory state of lawlessness. Explain to me how a stable anarchy spontaneously emerges, because I can show you dozens of historic examples of how authoritarianism spontaneously emerges.
I've been working 12 hours, and I'm too tired to express myself to someone who's done nothing but interpret my comments in the most exhaustingly inhospitable manner and has done nothing but fling irrelevant "gotchas" and other troll-like rudeness at me for days.
Refer to my other comments. I've said what I said.
Edit: If you were familiar with the literature, you wouldn't be asking such baby questions and making clearly incorrect claims about anarchist societies when that book I linked is teeming with examples that contradict your statement.
ITT you've done nothing but rabidly defend the status quo and our genocidal system, and anyone who believes you're anarchist or even leftist is a fool. You're obviously a status quo defending neoliberal troll, and you're part of the problem.
Despite your hostile attitude, I've been nothing but patient and matter-of-fact. You're the one throwing around accusations of supporting genocide, among other varieties of unsubstantiated name-calling. Search my comments for a single similar accusation, there's only been one rude troll in this conversation.
That's exactly my point though. If it works so well, why are all the examples short-lived footnotes of history? If the literature is to be believed, the world should be an anarchist utopia by now. Why isn't it? Why didn't any of those success stories stick the landing on a scale larger than a minor metropolitan commune? What has stopped the spread of true, pure democracy? What justification do you have to believe that it will succeed this time, if we just burn everything down?
Recognizing the material obstacles to anarchism doesn't mean I don't believe in it. It just means I'm not foolish enough to delude myself into thinking it'll just spring up spontaneously from some impassioned violent insurrection. It's gonna take epic quantities of time, work, and education. Any flash-in-the-pan approach is going to fizzle out, be it by authoritarian oppression, disorganization, or the natural decay of dwindling commitment. "Burn it all down" is not an educated strategy.
Your comment history is public. Anyone who checks can see what you are.
A leftist wouldn't come into a thread guns blazing to defend someone like Biden.
You've made no points, and you've not been patient in the least. Everything I've done to try to educate you has been like water off a duck's back.
Neoliberal troll.
Yes? And that history is consistent with what I've said. You clearly haven't read any of it, even this comment chain.
Where have been the "guns blazing" defenses of Biden? All I've offered is a sober analysis of the be efficacy of various methods of trying to effect Leftism.
I have made several points which you have chosen not to engage with because they reveal your behaviors to be nothing but whinging and bluster. Your attempts to "educate" me have been ineffective because in every case either 1. I was already familiar with your education material and found it lacking in the practical implementation department or 2. your attempts were devoid of any rational content.
Keep calling other leftists who disagree with you "neoliberal trolls". What exactly is your position? That the "status quo" needs to be dismantled and replaced with something but what? Democracy is out obviously because of the tyranny of the masses, they don't know what's best (remember slavery?), and even most of the Leftists are apparently neoliberal trolls.
So what you're saying is that the future system needs to be the one that conforms precisely to what you, and an extremely small portion of people who exactly agree with you and drive your purity tests, have decided that it should be. Whatever you call that system, materially. It looks a whole lot like authoritarianism.
😬
Well, those aren't comments I made, and are in fact the exact opposite of comments I made seeing as they're removed comments, but I'll bite nonetheless, and fill in summaries of the actual comments these refer to:
Debatebro = not being a tankie sycophant on hexbear. I'm unashamed.
Transphobia = saying that maybe gender roles themselves are an archaic concept that only obstruct true equality. That while anyone is free to dress and act and present as they please, the more we try to tie that to the gender concept, the more we implicitly legitimize sex discrimination. I'm likewise unashamed.
You've successfully shown that two reactionary echo-chambers are in fact reactionary echo-chambers. But I get it, anything to avoid acknowledging or engaging criticisms you're unable to refute. I have indeed noticed that you're continually trying to divert attention away from the same questions every time I ask them.
You still haven't answered how stable anarchy triumphs over authoritarianism after you "burn it all to the ground" (nevermind how you do that in the first place). I've, shockingly I know, read Gelderloos before, and he does not answer it either. If it is indeed a baby question, it should have a simple answer.
But if my experience holds, you won't give one. You'll deflect again, you'll say I'm not worth the time, that you're "not reading all that", you'll throw out words like "sea-lioning" and "bad-faith", you'll accuse me of being a secret fascist or a Neo-lib or some other go-to slur, you'll find other links to other texts that wax philosophical or provide short-lived examples while skirting around how short-lived they were, or any other tactic you can use to divert attention from your inability to answer the most basic, fundamental questions of implementation.
😬
As I said.
😬
Cope
What I fail to understand Is how will you split the left party (step 3).
Do citizens in the US can choose what candidates the parties push forward?
If not: Why would the left party propose leftier candidates? They know that as long as their guy is not as "bad" as the competition you will vote for them and they are "sponsored" by the same corporations which dont like leftist policies.
Theres no incentive for them to turn further left; Is it?
Voting third party splits the vote. Once over 2/3s of voters are voting for the left party, voters can comfortably vote for a more progressive party without worrying about vote splitting. For example, if Democrats consistently get 70% of the vote, progressive voters can rally behind a progressive party. It's not that you're actually splitting the Democratic party, you're just splitting the voters between the Democratic and Progressive parties.
That kinda makes sense, but for the dems to consistently get 70 what needs to change is the political views of the voters, right? For that to happen they need to believe the dem party is actually the best option and for that to happen the dem party must lean way more left. But again; Why would they do that if you are already rewarding them for being "not as bad".
I forgot to mention before that you are basing this strategy on another fallacy. "First past the post" means nothing when hillary won the popular vote in 2016 and still lost the presidency.
The fact that the relevant electors are Electoral College members, and not the general population, doesn't change FPTP.
Further, the Dems are unambiguously the better option. Them not being good enough doesn't make than worse than Repubs. Expecting them to change is not a voting strategy. Running about it as "rewarding" them is counterproductive. What needs to change out is progressive turnout, Once we have the turnout then we can start talking about better alternatives to the Dems. Until then it's a moot point. Progressives refusing to settle for the lesser evil is why they don't have 70% representation
I just don't see what any of this has to do with correctly pointing out that our sitting president is complicit in genocide among other atrocities. Do you think we should only say nice things about him and that we should respect him no matter what? Because this is not gonna happen. I'm a bad person, but I'm not so bad that I'm willing to tolerate genocide or the victims of our manufactured border "crisis." Fuck all of that completely.
The only reason I see any point in voting is if we can demand more of the president. Are you part of a cult? Because unquestionably following a leader and shielding him from all criticism on the grounds that someone worse might win is straight up creepy and cultlike.