Primaries are for pretending we’re a functioning democracy. The general is for acceptance.
My local district flipped blue for the first time in decades, local elections and primaries are very important
I'm sorry, it's probably considered some sort of a smug European truism by now, but I have to say it. There is no left in the US two-party system. It's right or center-right, that's the choices you have, a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
•
Is it really center-right? I think it is more far right and facist extreme right. Atleast when observed from scandinavia
There is but you have to think of each party as having sub-parties within them. There aren't external coalitions between parties but internal coalitions within the parties.
So a guy like Bernie Sanders is left, though not technically a Democrat, he caucuses with the Democrats effectively creating a coalition. There are many members within the Democratic Party that are also left wing, and others that are center, and others that could be considered right wing.
The Republicans are similar, but have an internal coalition with the far right MAGA faction. Which causes them a lot of problems.
The primary system is effectively a run off system which is used to determine a final two candidates to vote for in the final election. This system is old and has some bizarre traditions and has vulnerabilities to there being a third party spoiling everything.
Obviously it's a crusty system that developed without planning, but the the Presidential election it's not that dissimilar to France's run-off system, just takes more time. And the legislatures having coalitions between people with different politics happens everywhere, it's just happening within the parties and requires people to vote in primaries to get more representatives that have similar views to their own to make up a greater percentage of the coalition (which also happens everywhere).
In fact having coalitions within a party gives people more information when voting. If I'm voting for one of a dozen parties I don't have a say over how a coalition is formed after an election. Someone declaring which coalition they intend to be a part of before the electorate votes gives the electorate both a say as to which individual they want (via primaries) and which coalition they want (in the general election).
This isn't true in a global sense, nor is it true in a practical sense. There is a left in America, but it is tiny and rarely successful. Most liberal democracies are to the right of American Democrats at the global level on most issues. Every country has drifted rightward over the past half century, so the US isn't unique.
•
It can be both true that there is no true Left with any political power in the US - individual congressional delegates, maybe, but no coalition or party - and still recognize that there remain differences in the parties and differing outcomes from their governance.
It's not anything like the Southpark situation; leftists forget so easily what could - and has - been lost under conservative leadership, that would not have been lost if the person who won the popular vote in the past 6 elections. Women would still have protected body autonomy in all states - that loss was a direct consequence of the Trump administration.
•
I live in a red state so it doesn't make any difference who I vote for. I'm not voting for Biden because I don't want to support the Democrats and my vote doesn't matter anyway. If I lived in a state where it mattered then I would probably vote for Biden because he's not Trump.
•
that's totally fair...
depending on how red it is, some states do flip, especially with redistricting...
ive voted third party in a super blue state before... but against trump, i even swallowed my vomit and voted for hillary
i have a trans child, and i don't want them put into a concentration camp for sneezing in a school zone or whatever they're cooking up in Project 2025...
Please still vote though! At least rest of the way down the ballot. The more local the office the more weight your vote has. Plus there is legislation to vote on. Sorry if you were already planning to, this was also more for anyone who agreed with the sentiment and will stay home.
Agreed. Local candidates and referendum votes are often more directly impactful to local communities.
Things like legalization of weed, protection of abortion rights, and ranked choice voting usually show up as referendum votes. And when it comes to how homelessness, police, financial aid, schools, etc. in your area are managed, that's all local politics.
Exactly!!! Locally they are trying to recall a school board member for basically being liberal. Mask mandates, covid policies, some sort of race related class or club... you know the real egregious stuff. That's really where conservatives are more active too.
If Biden wanted my vote he could simply stop supporting genocide. Really quite a low bar for him to clear.
There's "holding your nose" and there's voting for someone actively aiding a genocide.
•
there's "administration aiding a genocide, but also doing so because they're being lied to by israel, who also has a massive propaganda campaign to manipulate americans into supporting them..."
versus
Project 2025 and their plans of a fascist dictatorship right here, complete with a genocide of trans people and hispanics... and muslims... AND a continuation of supporting israel...
oh and aiding russians commiting genocide in ukraine.
voting trump in won't save palestine, and it'll make it soo so much worse
Not voting is letting trump have an easier time at victory
I'd prefer he had the hardest time imaginable
Not voting is letting trump have an easier time at victory
The core of the GOP's strategy for holding on to power is the disenfranchisement of voters who are opposed to them. Not voting (or voting third party) is self-disenfranchisement and doing the GOP's work for them.
i mean to vote for someone who won't support the genocide, but i wouldn't fault anyone for looking at all the candidates and deciding none of them deserve to have the office.
I was young once too. Eventually you'll figure out that the party that got 1% of the vote last time isn't suddenly gonna sweep it with 51% this time. Every single person who has a nonzero chance of being president next year supports Israel, so you should vote based on what the best possible outcome is.
I was young once too
this is ad hominem. what i'm saying is true or false regardless of how old i am. also, you don't know how old i am. and on the internet, no one knows you're a dog: you could be 12 years old for all i know.
this statement is pure sophistry. it's disgusting rhetoric, and you should be ashamed.
Eventually you’ll figure out that the party that got 1% of the vote last time isn’t suddenly gonna sweep it with 51% this time.
no one proposed that
Every single person who has a nonzero chance of being president next year supports Israel, so you should vote based on what the best possible outcome is.
i only vote for someone i want to have the office. you don't get to tell my what i value or how i should express my values. you certainly don't get to tell me how to vote.
The best possible outcome for Palestine is Biden reversing his support for genocide. They don't have till the election.
Nobody running for president, ever, has deserved the office. I sincerely believe, as Douglas Adams so eloquently put, that “those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.”
I can’t think of any point in recent history where the choice is of who is deserving for office. The choice is, and has always been, who is the least undeserving of office (or the spoiler candidate). This year, I think it’s pretty obvious who is least undeserving of office.
The choice of who is deserving for office is reserved for everyone else further down the ballot.
The choice of who is deserving for office is reserved for everyone else further down the ballot.
maybe for you. I don't vote for someone unless I want them to win.
What happens in a FPTP system with only 2 viable parties when everyone doesn't vote for the least maniacal of the two?
Who do you think wins that bout?
whoever is first past the post. if you know I'm not voting for Biden and your only concern is keeping trump out of office, you shouldn't vote for Biden, either: vote for Jill stein or cornel west
vote splitting is a myth that relies on the presumption that I would vote for anybody except the candidate that I'm choosing. it presumes that The votes belong to some candidate and giving them to another candidate is siphoning them away. The truth is that the votes belong to voters and it's up to politicians to earn them.
Stop acting like Biden is just being lied to by Israel and is some helpless victim. He is absolutely responsible for his continued allowance of the genocide of Palestinians. Hold your politicians to a higher standard.
He is responsible, though I don't expect a different response from the majority of people in Washington. I hope regret about his continued complicity in genocide continues to weigh heavily on his shoulders.
I believe only 2 points about Palestine in this election:
-
Trump will be worse for Palestine than Biden.
-
Biden is likelier to switch positions on Palestine than Trump.
When I look at everything else Trump endangers on top of Palestine, it's not even a decision.
So the CIA, NSA, ... are just a bunch of idiots that can't have info on their own? Then why spend so much money on them?
If the CIA has to relay on what the Mossad says, they can't be considered an intelligence agency.
Do you really believe not voting for Biden deceases the likelihood of genocide in Gaza? Because the alternative seems so much worse in every way, both for Gaza and so many other massively important issues
You are on a different and better level. You are a Chad consequentialist. Managing probabilities, shooting for the best outcomes, minimizing losses. Setting up the group of ideologically aligned leaders for future success. Fighting off fascism for four more years against all odds.
They are a weak feelings voter. Hopes Biden senpai will notice them and throwing a temper tantrum when he doesn't. Talks about genocide, but doesn't actually care if Trump will handle the genocide any differently than Biden. Wants everyone else to suffer because they are suffering. Hoping if Trump gets elected that someone else will do the hard work and fighting to fix everything. Is burned out on politics, but instead of not voting quietly, makes big posts about how not voting is actually a good and very smart idea because they can't handle the fact that they need to rest.
Note: I despise Trump.
Maybe it does... But not in the way many think.
Imagine Trump wins, starts doing the shit he is saying he will do and the outcome is a civil war. I think Israel would stop being something the US would think about. And then the genocide stops... At least in one direction. But given the bad blood there is now there...
I think Israel would stop being something the US would think about. And then the genocide stops...
I don't think Israel would stop doing what they're doing just because support stops from the US. They still have a lot of support from Europe and their own resources besides. They're a nuclear power, they have however much leverage they want.
The US should cut ties to at least partially absolve itself of responsibility for the genocide, but Palestine is not going to be saved until some global power is willing to stand with Palestine against Israel.
So you're going to let the person who wants to genocide many groups of people and strip rights away from at least half of Americans have an easier time winning?
And instead, a genocide will still be on, and also more women will go to prison for seeking medical care, and also my LGBT friends will have their rights eroded even more, and also the new president will annoint more christofascist Godkings to the Supreme Court ensuring that any attempt to vote for an actual leftist in the future is impossible, and it'll be fine, because at least you didn't vote for the guy that wouldn't have done all that extra awful shit
A vote is not an endorsement, stop treating it like it is.
Wow that all sounds awful. Biden should really try to win in order to prevent that.
I suggest he make himself more appealing by being anti-genocide.
Yeah, he should, and if he doesn't, you still have to vote for him anyway, because the alternative is necessarily worse.
It absolutely sucks that Democrats are able to make zero effort and get votes based solely on the fact that they aren't Republicans, but that's the way it is. Vote in primaries, fight to make Republicans adopt better policies so that Democrats have to react, and vote blue in November, because the alternative is half the people in the community we're arguing in going to fucking jail for being trans.
No, it's not, unless you specifically decide to define the words to mean the same thing. A vote is simply a choice between two or more options. Voting for someone is not a way of showing approval of them, it's a way of saying that given the available options, one of them is preferable to the other, in much the same way that an appendectomy is preferable to dying from appendicitis. Anyone would rather do neither, but when you have appendicitis, neither isn't an option.
At least their conscience will be clean when our trans brothers and sisters are rounded up for extermination.
Biden isn't pro genocide, at least there is no evidence to say that. The Biden administration has been against the ground invasion from the start.
Biden has made some missteps in my opinion, but America pulling support for Israel was never a real option. Israel does require aid, but Netanyaho doesn't care if that aid comes from the US, or from his buddy Putin. Israel realigning with Russia would put Palestine in an even worse position because it would threaten their support from Iran.
Then, of course, there is the risk of a regional war breaking out of Iran takes the strained relationship between the US and Israel as an opportunity. That could easily pull other countries in and become WW3.
Foreign policy is about more than just virtue signaling. It's outcomes that matter, and what a lot of people are calling for will not get them the outcomes they are looking for.
Not that I'm shaming anyone for pressuring Biden. The positive movement on aid shipments was very likely helped along by the protest votes in Michigan.
How would aligning with Russia would help Israel when the US locks every weapon they can lock?
Israel does a lot of research and innovation for US technologies, including weapons. That would be of great value to Russia. I can't speak as to what weapons the US can and can't lock.
All of this is in a kind of unrealistic realm, because US support for Israel isn't going anywhere.
And I'm sure letting trump have an easier time getting elected will make things so much better.
I would recommend talking to your local representatives about the current situation and how important it is to you and expressing how you may support other people running against them if they don't support a ceasefire.
Local elections are really important.
And letting the greater evil in at the local level???!!!!1?!! Just admit you love Putin smdh smhmh
•
This is the stance I really don't understand. You do know that if Trump wins, even the limp-wristed calls for constraint go away? That Trump will actively encourage and endorse the genocide? That things will get measurably worse for the Palestinians?
I really do want to understand how people who hold this particular position think not voting for Biden will improve the lot of the Palestinians. Please, enlighten me.
I won't vote for someone who's pro genocide. It's pretty simple.
People who aid and abet genocide don't get my vote.
Biden's not changing course, so he clearly thinks he can win just with the votes of people who are okay voting for a pro-genocide candidate. That's his call to make.
•
Sorry for the delayed response.
This year, it's a choice between a person who's funding a genocide while applying (admittedly limited) political pressure to restrain Israel, and a person who's publically stated that he supports the genocide and thinks it isn't going fast enough, and who would increase funding to increase the speed of the genocide.
By not voting for the former, you are implicitly endorsing the latter (saying, he's just as hood as the former), and are culpable if he is elected - the definition of moral evil includes inaction. Sitting this one out because you like neither candidate is a moral evil, since one candidate is categorically worse (genocide-wise) than the other.
Biden has agency here. He could very easily get my vote, but chooses not to. He's making conscious decisions with expectations to how people will receive them. That leaves us with two possibilities, which I alluded to earlier:
- He cares more about genocide than winning the election.
- He thinks he can win without the anti-genocide vote.
If it's 1, I don't want him as my president. If it's 2, he's not expecting my vote and nor shall he get it.
Accelerationism is literally foreign propaganda, and has its roots in a few European leftists that had their views hijacked as a way of pushing radicalisation to status quo liberals.
It's literally nonsense, and the equivalent of Christian Zionism / eschatology in that it's a set of incredibly harmful, baseless beliefs that advocate for mass misery in the name of vague hope of an accelerated magical delivery of human kind to a new era of happiness and joy.
The US is well past the point where radicalization is an unreasonable response. It's radicalization paired with stupidity that's a problem, and that's what we have with the accelerationists and MAGA.
I used to know a poli-sci researcher who was trying to take a big-data look at the success and failure of revolutions, taking in variables like "how many demonstrators rallied against the government?" "How many dissidents were disappeared by internal security forces?" and even things like "how many bullet holes are there on the buildings around the main protest venue in the capital?"
I asked him once if he'd discovered the secret to a successful revolution, and he just grimaced at me.
I love how people take the Soviet revolution as some sort of example of success, when what actually happened was that the original government collapsed because it was getting the shit kicked out of it by Germany, then a new government took over and got the shit kicked out it of by Germany before also collapsing, then the Bolsheviks strolled into literally empty government buildings and took over - against the judgement of most of the Bolsheviks who still thought the time wasn't right to take over. Hardly a replicable or generalizable sequence of events.
What's a little Third Reich here or Reign of Terror there between friends, eh? Besides , it's not like a little bit of anti-intellectual purging or nationwide famine isn't worth enduring to get to a better world for the people left afterwards!
re the reign of terror. Extremely bad yes but I think this quote by mark Twain highlights flaws in how we think about this stuff.
THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
They were trying to throw off a horrifically oppressive system that had been going on centuries. Defs killed too many innocents, defs had problems with paranoia. Also the lesser violence in the struggle between nobles and everyone else.
The book is awesome btw
•
American here, asking genuinely: how was the American revolution unsuccessful? My understanding is that the goal was to make the British go away, and that they did accomplish that in the end. What am I missing?
The goal wasn't to make the British go away, the goal was to have representation and more than half of the people in the colonies weren't even for the revolution. This is why they dressed up as natives for the Boston tea party so they could blame that shit on the natives.
The support of independence wasn't much till Paul Revere demonized the Boston massacre into being much more villainous than it was.
The colonies kinda got what they want in revolution with the articles of confederation but with the rise of the federalists the US was created as a V2 of the British empire.
The "more villainous" part is odd to me, but the subjective claim that the federalists were just v2.0 of the British empire is strong "don't tread on me" libertarian vibes ngl
Most of history is made up of stories.
We can tell different stories of history and many even conflicting ones can be true, but they don't all have the same weight in their impact to the course of events.
Yeah just like how Paul Revere made up the story about the Boston massacre to sell papers.
You were talking to a moron then. Because Apartheid South Africa doesn't exist anymore.
Here's an amazing conversation which answers your question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69pEzsfX8Aw
And all the countries that kicked off colonial rule in the C20th. Sure a lot of them got refucked in the long run but they were ostensibly successful revolutions.
Not sure if this can be compared to a revolution against local rulers. Wasn't the main reason for the success of many of the initial revolutions against colonial rulers that keeping the colonies became to expensive? The colonies were mostly business ventures for the colonial powers after all.
How can we take a lesson from this for local revolutions?
I would have thought any successful revolution would need for the state to be wobbling in some fashion.
Even those countries that are now financial colonies are starting to break loose from the IMF with BRICS. Of course that has its own problems, but our monopoly on colonialism is starting to shake.
North Korea 2024
People don't seem to realize, as it becomes easier to automate and maintain oppressive systems, the more scarce that democracy will be. Ask Russians.
Trying to switch the term Troglodyte with Luddite makes your comment even more ironic. The British government ultimately dispatched 12,000 troops to suppress Luddite activity, and as Lord Byron denounced "I have been in some of the most oppressed provinces of Turkey; but never, under the most despotic of infidel governments, did I behold such squalid wretchedness as I have seen since my return, in the very heart of a Christian country".
It isn't the technology, it's how it's used, and authoritarians are being much quicker on the uptake because of the iffiness of democratic infighting that has also been unable to topple, suppress, or even stop the power of authoritarian states from growing.
The Luddites weren't against technology. They were against technology taking their jobs.
Authoritarianism is extremely vulnerable to natural disasters, ask Syria. Climate change will ultimately being about the collapse of all authoritarianism because there simply won't be enough excess to support hierarchy. The question is if we will be smart enough to being about that change before material conditions force it to happen.
It's necessary to hold two truths: liberalism always leads to fascism and accelerationism does not prevent fascism. So one should both delay the inevitability of fascism by participating in liberal democracy and do everything possible to make liberal democracy unnecessary as quickly as possible before the collapse.
The thing that can be especially hard for some people to understand is that not everyone experiences fascism at the same time. It's not a switch. It's a decline. Some people have been expecting fascism for decades or generations now. So people will be at different places in terms of interacting with the system. We are all trying to survive. We need as much time as possible to build a resistence movement, but, at the same time, no matter what compromises we get via electoralism those can be destroyed instantly if we only rely on the state to protect them.
Since when is accelerationism associated with the left? This is righty race war rapture shit.
"The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation."
- Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
This is pretty straightforwardly an accelerationist tactic. It might not have been called that at the time, but strategically pushing crises over the tipping point, in order to take advantage of their fallout, wasn't invented by the boogaloo boys in 2017.
So, you're saying that anything aside from acquiescence is accelerationism?
I feel like if MLK Jr had been advocating Wallace for president that might make a little sense. Assembly against the government/institutions is well within the political sphere.
Martin Luther King Jr wasn't even opposed to the states monopoly on violence. He was just clever about using that violence against the State. Clever and pretty self sacrificial. There was routine bodily and financial harm performed by the state against African Americans. Manson was trying to promote a race war to overthrow society. MLK was trying to fix society.
He was a radical, but not an accelerationist.
•
You're trying to read too much into this.
When the state doesn't work for enough people anymore, it collapses into fascism. It always does. Unless it collapses to foreign forces of course.
Accelerationism at this point is merely an argument for liberals to convince people who are not fascists to support their liberalism as a lesser danger.
It won't work. Liberalism will have to do something, not the people who don't believe the bullshit anymore. And interestingly, throughout history, liberals always choose fascism over anything else that would remove them some power.
So don't pretend it's up to the leftists to choose. You, the liberals, did this to the world. Time to open your eyes.
Liberalism is responsible for this fascist doom, not the left. That's not only true for the US. That's also true for all of Europe. Liberals vanquished the left. Now is the time to fight fascism. That's what you earned. The left will fight. Will the liberals do it?
Accelerationism at this point is merely an argument for liberals to convince people who are not fascists to support their liberalism as a lesser danger.
You make me mad. You make me mad because you've deluded yourself into believing fatalistic death cult BS, willing to drag other people down with you. Liberals might be deluded and wrong, but you're honestly worse. Liberals are more open minded than you, more hopeful than you, and believe in building a popular coalition. I don't care if you recognize capitalism is bad, you're not helping anyone do anything about it.
"Eat shit and die" is what I'm hearing from your empty justifications for inaction. I've barely started living my life, and you're saying "it just needs to end. Sorry. Nothing to be done." I like my life, unlike you apparently, so I'm going to reject your ideas emphatically.
Fuck your opinion. Just like fascist dribble, it deserves no respect.
•
You don't understand. I did not deluded myself to anything. I abandoned a system that's working against so many people.
The question is not for the left whether to support liberals or fascists. The question is for liberals whether to support socialism or fascism. It's the people in power who get to choose. And liberals are in power for so many decades that they have no excuse for the shit we're in now.
The system is broken, fucked, dysfunction, shitty, and unacceptable. That doesn't change the fact that it's better than openly genocidal fascism. I might die under Democrats; I will die under Republicans.
We inherently lack freedom of choice on most things. You don't choose the class of your parents. You don't choose your gender, sex, attraction, neurotypicality, ethnicity, race, culture, or access to learning as a child. You have to play the cards you're given.
In a purely descriptive sense, Republican control will result in every bad thing that would happen under Democrats, plus all the promises they're making about LGBTQ genocide, absurd deregulation, removal of every social program, invading Mexico, targeted prosecution of political threats, and mandatory fascist propaganda in schools. Those are just some of consequences id Republicans win.
The cost of the 2nd amendment is thousands of deaths from guns every year that wouldn't have happened without it. 2nd amendment advocates constantly ignore that consequence. If you try to show it to them, they mentally cannot perceive it. They ignore the costs and live in the delusion that they get a free lunch. A lot of conservative logic hinges on ignoring "externalities," that they don't personally have to deal with. They love talking about basic economics, but their supposed worldview cannot accept it.
Even the cynical conservatives are often living a delusion. They recognize the direct pain they cause to poor people, but they fail to recognize the long term cost of their behavior. Encouraging global fascism has the adorable effect of increasing the risk of global conflict. Just as most liberals ignored the fascism that capitalism leads to, fascists ignore the serious war that nationalism leads to.
Modern war between nations cannot be won by the participants. Liberals aren't much better on this front, nor are many socialists for that matter. The reality is that we need deescalation or everyone might lose. We don't just need to not accelerate, we need to slam on the breaks. The odds are stacked against success, but fueling the fire is joining the global death cult that fascists and liberals are unwittingly leading.
In short, you're thinking small like humans are designed to do. Humans are dangerous, so not trying to exploit them isn't just morally right, but prudent.
•
I'm not fueling any fire. It's already burning, and voting for liberals is what fuels the fire.
You're talking about US politics. Isn't the situation dire already? Republican already are indirectly supporting Russian war, fomenting civil war, and destroying people rights. Are you telling me that media are overstating all of this? That the situation is fine actually and it can go like this for many more years yet?
How did it got better with Biden in 3 and a half year?
It would have been worst is always the predicament of the liberals. Everything else is worse. There is no alternative. But it's a dead end. And we're on the wall already.
Supporting the liberals is fighting those who want to make a better world. It's supporting fascism.
And to get back to the subject : not voting is a right, and it is the only vote that doesn't support fascism.
You can choose to commit suicide. It is an option. That doesn't mean you should take it.
•
So you're actually the desperate one if you think that not voting this election is committing suicide.
Yes. I am desperate to live. That's a virtue, not a vice.
At the end of the day, you just have an inaccurate view of reality. You're motivated by anger to think prolonging liberalism isn't worth it because it's a shit worldview that should be destroyed. I agree that it sucks and should be replaced, but I recognize that empowering fascism has no real upside. It doesn't matter what liberalism "deserves," as blame is only useful in guiding us to real justice. Mechanically, what is the best strategy for minimizing harm and maximizing well being?
•
Another thing : my view is not doomerism. I merely stop to fight for the liberals. Chaos bring opportunities. Liberals are doing everything to keep a status that's rottening. They are actively supporting fascism to keep the status quo. I'm not sure if they're blinding themselves into believing that they can keep the fascism away, or if they are actively pushing for it willingly. But it's happening.
I'm not saying that all is lost and there's no hope. I'm saying that helping the liberals today is only helping the fascists tomorrow. Things will get worse. That's not doomerism, that's a hard fact. Something must be done now.
Sorry, but there aren't opportunities in chaos. That's some cringe edgelord larping. There are no opportunities gained in chaos, only death and suffering.
Honestly, your goofy accelerationism seems more like the cope of someone that's given up what they see as "the first game." You think you can come back in the second game and win a best of 3. Again, I'm sorry to disappoint, but there probably won't be a 2nd game for you unless you're incredibly lucky.
I'm not betting on a second chance. There's no benefit to not trying my hardest on game 1 if won't do much to improve my chances of making it to game 2. If your strategy is to hide, you're a privileged coward. Most people won't have that chance, and betting that you aren't most people is wistful thinking.
•
And what are you doing in this game 1 exactly to succeed? Voting for the lesser evil? Unless something is in the bag for the next term to radically change how it's going, it'll only get worse. I don't see how a liberal will radically change anything.
This battle is lost already. It was lost when Biden was made the candidate. Now it's time to prepare for the next battle. Because fighting this one will only make you weaker for the next one.
Fortunately, voting isn't that much of a burden relatively speaking. It can also be a springboard for popularizing leftist ideas and attitudes. There aren't significant downsides except leftist pride(which is less than worthless). I'll vote for that lesser evil AND prepare for a potential disaster because they aren't mutually exclusive you arrogant block of lead.
•
Because you don't see the downside doesn't mean there aren't. It's ironic that you talk about arrogance when you're so blind, disrespectful and comfident in your opinion.
Socialism will never happen in the United States. It is antithetical to the entire format of the country. It'll take the US collapsing before the slightest glimmer of possibility happens. Not to mention that there is no organized group of socialists in the US.
Arrested development, they talk about couples therapy, the guy is a therapist in the show
If you ask me, the point isn’t to not vote for Biden, but rather to show him that’s vote for him isn’t automatic just because the opponent is Trump. Maybe if Biden listened when a lot of people said he was too old and lot people said don’t give Israel weapons used to kill women and children he wouldn’t be in this predicament. It’s funny how the leftists in do the same thing they always do that only works for millionaires work and then get mad at the working class when they don’t vote for them.
The Democrats chose Biden in 2019, 2020. The thing is, the Democratic party is, itself, right wing. Neoliberalism is pretty far right, it's just not crazypants far right than the Republican party.
If you're EU centrist, you don't have a voice in Washington. Heck, the Democratic party is looking for ways to oust Occasio-Cortez and Sanders, no matter how popular their positions might be.
Don't vote for Biden, rather vote against the GOP. Any vote for a Republican is a vote to end democracy and let them rule as autocrats. Any vote against the Republican party (specifically your one vote for the next popular guy -- that is, the Democrat) is a vote to hold onto the US' meager democratic features.
If you're wanting to make a statement, your vote for officials is not where to make it, no matter how fervent your feelings about it. Elections are where you get to choose between King Log and King Heron. (And Heron will eat all the frogs.) Make your grievances known through other activism.
Engage in mutual aid now, so that you don't have to engage in sabotage and resistance against an overwhelming foe later.
If you want to make a point your vote in the only place to do it. Sure you can march in the streets for party change, but if you are going to vote for the person anyways you won’t be taken seriously. The point of all this is to show Dems that a Biden vote isn’t guaranteed like they think it is.
As I said, your vote isn't for the Democrats, it's against the Republicans.
The first amendment right to petition our representatives for the redress of grievances is a right with no teeth. Our representatives cannot listen and retain their career. This is an example of regulatory capture and government failure.
But activism is not just about sending messages to officials, rather it's about resisting, whether causing inconvenience through civil disobedience to organizing to outright sabotage (such as blowing up oil pipelines ). If you cant participate in civil action yourself, support those who do. Materially, if possible, but even thank you letters and cookies can help.
The US is dying. But we can hang on until the GOP dies first, or we can let them take over and burn out in a blaze of facism and war, in which case you can be sure Palestine will be razed to the ground.
In the meantime, the Biden administration is arranging for air drops and trying to secure an armistice, no matter what a dick Biden is, the White House seems aware the clime has change regarding universal tolerance of the Palestinian holocaust.
I agree! But it is the state of the federal government in the US. Then again, at the point they included the Electoral College and the 3/5s clause in the Constitution, the democracy of the US was made in bad faith anyway, at least it was founded as a means by which aristocracy ruled without a permanent king.
But any election system that uses first-past-the-post voting is going to ultimately fail as a democracy, since they always reduce to two party systems. One-person-one-vote means you'll always be voting against the worst evil by voting for the next guy, and it is an indictment of the US that we've not been able to get any election reform through. At least not in federal elections. Some states have made a little bit of progress.
It's also telling that SCOTUS is able to veto anything or even legislate from the bench when a group controls a majority of the judges, such as the Federalist Society. Yes, the US system sucks, which is why we're stuck surviving it, rather than striving to change it for the better.
That’s the problem, though, isn’t it? Biden is expecting people to vote for him just because he’s not Trump. And the fact of the matter is, if the goal was to defeat Trump, Biden wouldn’t run. So why is it selfish not to vote for Biden, but not selfish for Biden not to run and let another candidate with a much better chance of defeating Trump run on the ballot?
but not selfish for Biden not to run
How is that an argument to not vote against Trump?
This is your argument, tell me if I"m wrong: "I will not vote against Trump because Biden acted selfishly."
To point out the obvious, nobody prevented anyone else from running for president. Several people did and Biden has beaten them all. How can you expect someone to beat Trump who can't beat Biden?
First of all, I never said I wouldn’t vote for Biden. Second, I don’t want Donald Trump either and we have a better chance of not getting him without Biden. So yes, it is selfish of Biden to make the move that increases our chances of Trump. And telling everyone you have to vote Biden when they have seen his actions lead to death and destruction of their families and families’ homes in Palestine isn’t going to work. It’s not Dems vs. Republicans, it’s rich vs. working class. And Biden and Trump only care about the rich.
Did voting for Biden stop Trump this last election? How many times are we supposed to vote Democrat against our own interests and better judgment until Trump is successfully stopped? What about when Trump stops being the face of fascism, an ideology and not a man, and the fascists prop up another candidate? Will it always be "neoliberalism or fascism" every election from here until fascism wins anyway because neoliberalism doesn't work for the majority of people either?
Did voting for Biden stop Trump this last election?
Um, yes? It didn't stop Trump from breathing, but it stopped him from being president this term. Even if it somehow eliminated Trump, there is always the next Trump. There is no point where we can stop fighting to preserve past victories, even as we fight for new ones.
How many times are we supposed to vote Democrat against our own interests
None. Voting Democrat is always in your interests. (At least until something major changes) Voting corrupt Democrats out in primaries is even moreso. It would be nice if we lived in a system that can support more than two parties, but we don't.
Will it always be "neoliberalism or fascism" every election
That's why we fight to take over the Democratic party. Every obstacle to defeating Democrats in primaries has a corresponding obstacle to winning a general with a third party candidate. Winning as a third party is both more difficult, and more risky.
You want a shortcut, but there isn't one.
I don't have much to respond to because I appreciate what you've said and even agree for the most part, however:
Voting Democrat is always in your interests.
The Democratic party is not some force of good, and their administrations and policies still harm the working class and other marginalized groups. They just manage to do less harm and placate us slightly more than their primary opponents.
Voting democrat is more in my interest than voting Republican, but not as much as having an ancom in office. It is not in my interest in general, as I will still be shooting myself in the foot because it's better than having someone else shove electrodes into my brain.
You may say that it's the effect of "corrupt dems," but that's a myopic understanding of the party and its motives. It is an ideologically driven party, it's just that that ideology is an uncomfortable truth: liberal capitalism. In service of that, it allows the input of marginalized groups, but will never allow us to gain full autonomy and control over our own lives as that would not serve capital.
I refuse to buy this narrative that any progress be made has to be made under the banner of a particular party/organization/group.
This "they'll win anyway" is some miserly nihilistic take - we've won against the Nazis before we'll win again.
"how many times are as supposed to vote to prevent the fascists from gaining power?"
Until you can no longer physically vote.
You are part of a society that still allows you to politically organise around your beliefs, so get involved in your local politics and help bring your vision of a better future to more people - change doesn't happen by itself.
Join a union. Get out there and make it happen.
Please do not project onto me when addressing my questions/comments. Just because I get frustrated with "vote blue no matter who" rhetoric online doesn't mean I cease existing offline; I do have a life irl where I have been occasionally known to engage in my community and political projects.
“how many times are as supposed to vote to prevent the fascists from gaining power?”
despite the quotation marks, that is not a question I asked. Please do not put words in my mouth
This “they’ll win anyway” is some miserly nihilistic take - we’ve won against the Nazis before we’ll win again.
I am not a nihilist, and, based on context, I don't think you meant that word anyway. Perhaps "defeatist"?
Paraphrasing me as saying "they'll win anyway" in regards to fascists (nazis or otherwise) strips what I said of important context: my point was that if the rhetoric stagnates in the choice of "neoliberalism or fascism" the fascists will eventually get a win for two reasons:
-
the status quo, neoliberalism, isn't working out for the majority of people, and historically whenever that happens, societies undergo major upheaval. If the public only ever knew two options prior to that revolution, they—as a mob, not a collection of rational individuals—will take the second
-
It frames the fight in such a way where the fascists "only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always."
I didn't project beyond what conclusions your comment lead me to.
Please do not put words in my mouth
See, if I were to quote you directly I would have done it like this.
Instead I used quotes without the indent, to paraphrase you in a way that I thought both accurately condensed and focused what you wrote in a way that highlighted what it came across to me as a ridiculous question.
Given the threaded discussion structure where anyone can go back and see exactly what a person has written, the idea that I am somehow able to misrepresent you is a rather odd take.
Perhaps "defeatist"?
No.
Sounded more like existential nihilism to me.
Paraphrasing me as saying "they'll win anyway" in regards to fascists (nazis or otherwise) strips what I said of important context.
You literally wrote
until fascism wins anyway
But I did strip the context of neoliberalism because I answered it a sentence later by urging you to get involved to make the world you want.
There's nothing "lucky" about voting, anymore there's lucky in cleaning. You either clean or you'll live in filth. You either defend your rights or you have them eroded and taken away.
The Republicans were not always fascists and the Democrats were not always so neoliberal which means things can change if enough people get involved to change them.
Unions, local elections, political activism etc all matter.
You don't expect perfection, you get involved and you vote in the public transport analogy.
Yes. Exactly that. Our federal elections have been corrupt since the 1800s. The Republican effort to curtail the Democratic party and erect an autocratic state started in the 1960s (though there were earlier efforts in the 1920s and 1930s).
I get that it sucks that the US is not at all what we were promised it would be, but letting the Republican party destroy the Democratic party is only going to make things way, way worse for the majority of Americans. And civil war and its aftermath is going to take decades (if not over a century) to resolve.
The French Revolution started in 1789. The Third Republic was founded in 1870, between which the guillotines had to be rolled out several times, and Napoleon had to go to war with the rest of Europe. When the two-state system falls in the US, you can expect chaos and bloodshed for the rest of your life, including kids prostituting themselves on the streets for food (what was seen in post-Soviet eastern bloc states after the USSR fell in the early 1990s). It's going to be grisly for anyone who doesn't flee abroad, and for some who do.
As per Bertrand Russell, war doesn't decide who is right, only who is left. And this includes civil war.
I have no interest in motivating revolutionary efforts that will lead to disaster.
The truth of the matter, is we're flying blind when it comes to moving the progress of a society forward: The promise of politicial power is overwhelmingly tempting, like the One Ring. And like the Ring it also lies. Most revolutions that aren't suppressed are followed by a run of short-lived oppressive dictatorships.
Meet the new boss: Same as the old boss.
Let's not do that. The thing is, we dont know how. Our theorists like Marx, Smith and Kropotkin each had only a piece of the elephant, and we don't have enough historical data to show how to prevent those with power from consolidating it into rule by the owning class yet again. Democracies are often formed when everyone in the nation is related to the casualty of a recent war and they're just tired.
I've had fantasies about putting together an ironclad batch of constitutional clauses and guaranteed rights (a thing Napoleon did to rally the people to his imperial claim). But it's difficult to gather a cabal of legal experts, or even create a webclient by which to crowdsource it. I can't even promise that would work.
I can't say I know what the solutions are, but those seeking rallying speeches typically get themselves slaughtered in a doomed revolutionary effort. Suicides and rampage killings continue to rise.
Putting your energy into a mutual aid effort in your neighborhood will make real but local differences. But it takes multiple exponents of such an effort to bring about revolution. Civil war is quicker, easier, more seductive.
The point is to vote for him but also maybe not vote for him?
Doesn't seem like that's much of a point to me.
The US is dabbling with fascism from many different angles. GOP is all about US fascism. The Tankies support foreign fascism that's in opposition to the US. Rightwing extremists say Biden is far left. Tankies say Biden is right wing.
Are you so upset over Gaza that you want the same thing to happen to US cities? This is a possible outcome of allowing authoritarians to run your country.
Am I upset that women and children are being murdered? Yes. I guess you’re ssying I’m supposed to be fine with that. Sorry, I can’t be blind to atrocities just because they aren’t happening in my backyard. Seems like you are. You know that you can be against Trump AND murder, right?
Sure it's fine to be upset, but being upset 100% of the time means you're vulnerable to emotional manipulation and become disconnected from reality. Trump supporters also have good reason to be upset about current economic conditions, don't they? But they're upset at the wrong people because they're blasted with emotion non-stop and don't ever think about how things are.
The political leadership of Hamas are billionaires living in luxury in Qatar while their people die. The local leadership in Gaza living in underground bunkers that keep them safe while the people above them die. They use religion to justify their actions. Like all authoritarian regimes they are very good at propaganda to keep their population in line and to gain support from foreigners.
This fascist organization launched an attack on October 7, 2023 where they went into villages and murdered women and children. How upset does that make you? Apparently not that much, which is concerning. The goal of this attack was to start the war you're seeing play out now. During that attack they took hostages to force Israel into a ground campaign. Ground campaigns in a densely populated area is known by everyone to result in the highest amount of civilian casualties. Hamas knew this, it's what they wanted. Because they can use this to create effective propaganda.
The emotions you're feeling is proof of the effectiveness of Hamas's plan. They made this happen to make you sympathetic to them. And because of how effective this has been they will likely do it it again.
In a few decades time when this all happens again, you'll be saying the same things to the younger generation as I'm saying to you now. This cycle won't end until we have a generation that can see they're being manipulated. Unfortunately you're not the generation that will end the cycle of violence. Maybe Generation Z+1 will be the ones that won't fall for the propaganda. If we survive that long.
Are you seriously trying to say that if people are upset that innocent Palestinians are being murdered, they are being manipulated by Hamas? Dude, I come from a Jewish family. I’m pretty sure Jews know a thing or two about systematic extermination. You’d be the person telling Jews that being upset about concentration camps means they’re playing into political hands. What happened to the Jews at the hands of Hamas is terrible, and I wish it hadn’t happened, but just because innocent Israelis were killed doesn’t mean innocent Palestinians should be killed in retaliation. Even if the goal is get Hamas, you don’t do that by attacking areas where innocents are and where innocents will get killed. And you don’t deprive Palestinians of food and water. I just heard yesterday that Palestinians have been reduced to eating grass because the food they have been eating (that is normally given to animals) has run out.
Now, there is absolutely no doubt Trump is a terrible person, and I will be voting for Biden, but I can certainly see why people who have seen their ancestors and families die at hands of Israel, would not automatically want to support the man who is continuing to give the money and weapons being used to do that killing. I hope you never have to go through what the Jews and Palestinians have been through, but I also hope you have some perspective in the future.
I want to be clear that this is a discussion and I am not trying to call you bad person (or anything close to that or of the sort). I just want you and others to understand why people would be hesitant of a Biden vote and why they aren’t supporting Trump just because they are.
Dude are you saying Trump voters don't act against their own self interest because of propaganda? So why would you think your ethnicity makes you less susceptible to propaganda.
Your social media is probably full of "news" items telling you to not vote for Biden because he's an evil demon the same as the MAGA social media feeds. Probably sewing the same distrust of "mainstream media" as their feeds are doing.
I've had discussions with the "genocide joe" types and discussions with the MAGAs. They are the exact same kinds of discussions. Same outrage same distrust of anything that doesn't fit the narrative. Same ignorance, same disregard for self interest thinking it's noble act to make things worse.
Honestly, the Palestinian movement is a violent blood and soil antisemitic movement. They're good at propaganda because it's what fascists do. Even Jews fell for this kind of thing the last time it happened. They only hate the Cosmopolitan Zionist Jews, you'll be ok as long as you go along with them, right?
When my Grandfather's generation was done with the country that was spouting this kind of shit last time the cities of that country looked a lot like Gaza does now. They put fascists in power, we all hoped that movement would fizzle out but it didn't. The world would be better off if Hamas didn't exist but it got too much outside support to die off on it's own. Maybe this conflict will at least weaken them enough so their River to the Sea movement will die out. Or maybe it will continue because of outside support. Which case this all happens again in another generation.
So tell me do you want this to happen again? Support Hamas and it will. So if you support Hamas, and that results in this happening again, who's the one that's really promoting genocide? It ain't "genocide joe" who's doing everything he can to end it.
Ah but you're too upset to even consider how support for a Palestinian movement that has refused to separate itself from Hamas makes you complicit in genocide. That's an accusation you like to throw at others, and you're too emotional to consider your own actions. And always the point of fascist propaganda. Too emotional to think about the repercussions of your actions.
Ok, well, if you think the Palestinians and Jews are to blame for all this, we have nothing else to discuss. I no longer think you want to have legitimate discussion. Personal advice, be less bigoted the next time you want to discuss this.
What's bigoted? Thinking that Palestinians are people and are therefore responsible for their actions?
And I did mention that Palestinian fascism has a lot of support from the outside. Oil rich assholes, Iran, naive westerners. Lots of outside support which keeps Palestinian leaders corrupt and authoritarian. Which is the major obstacle for Palestinian statehood. Not that most people care about that, it's only maintaining a righteous anger that matters, right? Hamas might've faded from existence if it weren't for this.
See the emotional narratives have gotten you so wound up you don't have any rational arguments anymore. So just default to calling anyone you disagree a bigot and refuse to think about anything that conflicts with your emotions.
Make your own decision: see the facts not the talk. Biden in Europe is considered full right or at least center-right. And we have fascists all over Europe.
Biden in Europe is considered full right or at least center-right.
This is talk, not facts. Yes if you're in a bubble where everyone is talking the same way, it might feel like a fact, but that's all just talk and feelings. In the end all of politics is just talk despite what the ideologues might tell you.
I'm telling you, as a Spaniard, that Biden is not left wing. And the same could tell you any French, German or Italian. Except for the far right nuts.
Yes, you're saying your opinions. Are the opinions of Spaniards somehow more relevant than other people's?
No. But can give you a different POV. And is one that almost all in Europe share, that US politics range from center right to far right. Even US expats share that POV.
It’s funny how the leftists in do the same thing they always do that only works for millionaires work and then get mad at the working class when they don’t vote for them.
Will you please phrase this another way? For some reason I am unable to parse it.
What I mean is, it’s funny how Leftists support millionaires/billionaires and fuck over the working class and then are surprised that people don’t like it. If we had a progressive candidate people would be happier, even if they don’t know it yet. Bernie Sanders tried that and was defeated when the Dems made sure Hillary won despite everyone saying they wouldn’t vote for her. It’s time to stop repeating the mistakes of the past.
Social crises happen; capitalism makes social crises more likely because of its contradictory dynamics; it also responds to them when they hit a certain pitch with fascism; given that this is an ingrained historical dynamic of capitalism and liberals have a profoundly shit-awful track record of fending off fascism in spite of how intelligible its dynamics really are, I don't see what's wrong with planning around the crises that cyclically come and go within capitalism and just assuming that we are going to be dealing with fascism.
This is different than placing our hopes and dreams in a social crisis. I only bring this up because over the years I've talked to lots of liberals who can't tell the difference between not believing, ahistorically, that liberals are the best bulwark against fascism, and actively wanting fascism.