Harm Reduction Rulelocked
There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
A referendum will be held alongside the general election in Oregon, USA to switch to ranked-choice voting.
To any fellow Oregonians reading this, vote yes and tell all your friends to vote yes as well!
Register to vote:
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.
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.
It's frustrating for sure, I was even more annoyed when we had a referendum in BC and people opted to keep things the same.
Oof, yeah, thats pretty bad. As an Albertan, I definitely feel the pain of ignorant voters.
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_British_Columbia_electoral_reform_referendum
It was a two-prong campaign, and he did legalize weed. The election thing still pisses me off though.
But the sonic meme says voting is unethical
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: https://ncase.me/ballot/
That was a very informative and interesting read. Thank you for sharing!
Love me some approval voting!
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.
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.
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.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Maybe you should direct the same level of energy at actual MAGA instead of attacking leftists who have constantly told you dorks he's going to lose..
Open your eyes.
LinkOpensChest.wav
And saves millions of lives at home and abroad.
What population of people outside of your country is going to be "saved" by a round-2 Biden ticket exactly?..
You can't possibly believe in the man taking >$5.5M from Israel to run the Palestinian state into the dirt, right?
You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train
Your options are:
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.
:::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.
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.
You haven't provided any reason why the situations aren't comparable. If you introduce more parties, it doesn't change the dynamics of the situation.
Because the parties you established are the voter, and the party asking for votes. Those are not the parties presented in the original argument.
Of course it does.
That's called an analogy.
No it doesn't.
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?
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.
Do you mean giving to? If we're still talking about Biden then I believe he will do the least harm.
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.
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.
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?..
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 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.
No, Russia will conquer Ukraine if someone doesn't support them. Trump isn't going to support Ukraine. Biden will.
No, Trump will encourage Israel to finish the genocide.
From China who famously wants to invade Taiwan.
Oh, you meant donations he received. Yeah, most US politicians have through AIPAC. I had no idea what you were talking about.
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
I actually drink a lot of Kool-Aid with Stevia In the Raw. It helps me stay hydrated. My favorite is the Sharkleberry Fin flavor.
^ what it looks like when a both-sideser gets cornered, folks!
The lot of you are going to be so surprised when your posturing leaves you confused/scared under the dumb orange man:
Why go further left when you can shoot yourself in the foot and go further right?
It didn't warrant a response because, again, it's entirely state-narrative dribble coupled with an army of upvote-bots.
Voting for 99% fascism over 100% fascism isn't really the "gotcha" you think it is ;)
In regards to the Palestinian state, they likely won't even be alive by the time Biden loses, so it's really a moot point regardless..
Enjoy the fall comrades ✌️
We won't be confused, we'll know people like you allowed it to happen.
If you think throwing away your vote means going further left, then I have a bridge to sell you.
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.
Lmao the person you couldn't argue against did exactly that.
Imagine you spent the effort you are here petulantly calling me a bot trying to spin up an actual counter-argument.
Your little head would probably explode.
"Ukraine's war" but Palestinian genocide. The situation in Ukraine is no less of a genocide, and it's Russia's war, Ukraine is just trying to survive.
You can't simultaneously think they have a chance of winning AND that they're losing so badly it's a genocide.
Palestine is roughly 100:1 KD and you libs are calling it a war.
This feels like hella AstroTurf from the dumbies that moved from Reddit
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.
Russia has abducted 20k Ukrainian children. Russia has destroyed museums, schools, cultural monuments, and churches. Russia has changed the language in the regions they conquered. It has been declared a genocide by many nations, scholars, and the international criminal court.
What "KD ratio" is required for a genocide to count in your mind?
It cannot be both a genocide and a war. You're intentionally misrepresenting the situation while using the state narrative's verbiage.
Also the Germans didn't lose the war to the Jewish population specifically so what is your point?..
Is it a war in Palestine or a slaughter?
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?
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
Not necessarily. They might just be some mug repeating the talking points of one.
Thanks! Im gonna take this. Lemmy is finnaly big enough for Russian disinformation Agents 🥲
What's this mean? I'm OOTL.
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.
Russian disinformation Agent
It is harm reduction to vote for the less fascist of the two fascist candidates with a chance of winning.
So, do you start licking the boot from the toe or the heel?
Or are you the kind of person who just deep-throats the whole boot?
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
Ratio
It is harm reduction. Fewer people will be harmed if we elect the candidate that will do the least harm.
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.
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.
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.
Social Democracy entrenches Capitalism, it's a Center-Right position.
Additionally, the US has absolutely been fascist and has committed numerous genocides in its history.
You would do well to read Leftist theory.
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.
https://archive.org/details/umberto-eco-ur-fascism/umberto-eco-ur-fascism.lt/page/4/mode/2up
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.
You're describing Market Socialism, which is a thing, not Social Democracy, which is another thing.
How do you want to "fix" US democracy? It's working as it always has for hundreds of years.
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.
I am talking about social democracy. I will explain what I mean.
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.
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.
With direct action, civil disobedience, and voting. I am arguing for social democracy. A set of ideas and policies that includes socialism and democracy.
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 responded to this in one of the other comment chains. I am a social democrat. I want to achieve change through a political revolution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Obvious troll or clinically idiotic patsy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_reduction
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.
Made sense to me, even knowing the original meaning of the phrase. Good splainer though
Is this /s?
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.
I genuinely will never understand the libs that vote for the "least fascist" option as if that's ever going to improve your life.
Maybe vote w/ your conscience instead of pushing further to the right than y'all already are?
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.
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 wish it were /s, but I don't think so
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.
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.
You won't get through to him, he's way too deep in dreamland. Just check his history.
Oh hi, I think you meant to reply to this person, because I didn't say any of that horseshit you're arguing against
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.
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.
Not in the US you can't. It's basically the same as not voting. You can argue that it's in favour of republicans, even.
Okay what about the other things I just said?
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.
Voting for someone who supports genocide is understandably something people don't want to do. Or have you forgotten the point of this conversation?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think you'd benefit from reading Leftist theory. Marxism and Anarchism are the two largest overall currents in leftist theory.
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.
It's certainly possible! I comment quite a lot and try to encourage people to read more theory.
Is there anything keeping you from "picking" a current, or anything you wish you knew more about, specifically?
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.
Voting for the Green Party is the bare minimum. Voting for Democrats or Republicans is capitulation.
I'm thinking about the people who could lose their lives and families because there is something that can be done about that.
I'm not sure voting will do anything about that
We have a full-blown fascist party and a right-wing liberal party that has shown itself willing to capitulate in every way to said party
Directly or indirectly, Project 2025 is coming, it seems
The United States needs to cease to exist before it's too late
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.
I don't think that voting for the same two parties is going to change that. Those two parties got us into this; they aren't going to get us out.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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. Workers do not own the Means of Production in Nordic Countries.
I believe reading Leftist theory would do a lot for you.
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:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/carlo-cafiero-karl-marx-s-capital
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
There are four I'd personally recommend.
There are non-monetized youtube channels with free audiobook versions of all of these books, if you prefer audio.
If the libs could read, they'd be furious with you right now 😂
I do get a lot of liberal anger sent right to my inbox
Sure wish they'd direct some of that rage toward the people who are killing us and our planet, but I suppose I'm an easier target lol
It's not just about president, but also cabinet positions. And Bidens cabinet is pretty decent. Trumps cabinet is awful
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
You can either choose to give a little support to the better part of our awful system in our awful world
Or you can stay in your fantasy land where the 2 parties are absolutely identical and your Itty bitty push back is more effective
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.
Biden doesn't give 2 shits about trans rights...
You genuinely think the old-ass catholic man cares (outside of expanding your future military drafts)?
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.
"Luckily"???
Luckily was sarcastic you idiot.
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.
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.
Totally an "anarchist" who relentlessly echoes pro-state neoliberal propaganda and insults anyone who doesn't accept it. Mhm surrrrrre you are
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". (https://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" and discarding the lives of Palestinians and immigrants
Solidarity means if they harm one of us, it harms us all. What they do to Palestinians, they do to me.
I'd say the same about immigrants except I've actually had family deported under his fascist ass
If voting is best, so be it, but fuck right off with being so callous as to refer to it as "harm reduction"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see something fine, and now your meme is mine!