Sure, but by focusing on that line, which was a nice afterthought ,you’re ignoring the rest of the comment, which was the functionally important part. Regardless of any other actions and considerations, it is imperative to vote in every election, and to vote for the further left of the two front-runner parties, which at the moment would be the Democrats.
Every other other action is, pragmatically, secondary to increasing Leftist voter turnout. Any action that discourages Leftist voter turnout (e.g. refusing to vote for the lesser evil on principle because it’s still evil) is counterproductive. Democrats don’t care about having discussions with progressives because progressives don’t show up to vote, and they know the ones that do know better than to split the vote.
If every progressive voted, and Democrats consistently won 70% of the vote, the Republican threat would disappear, and the Democrats would not longer be safe by virtue of Duverger’s Law. Then a Progressive party could meaningfully emerge, meaningfully threaten Democrats, and Democrats would have to actually have those discussions.
People have straight up gloated to me that something like 70% of voters support our fascist border policy and arming a genocidal state. What makes you so sure we can fix this by voting?
Also, I don’t buy the idea that right-wing liberals would listen to leftists if we vote. I vote in every election, but they still treat me like absolute trash. They love that people are suffering and that they can gloat that there’s no effective way to save them.
FFS look at the maniacal comments in this thread. And this is actually better than the norm.
If we can’t fix this by 100% voter turnout, then our ideals aren’t popular, and democracy has spoken.
What is your pragmatic alternative? What strategy is 1. Actionable and 2. Effective 3. Incompatible with the process I outlined above? Widespread change will be a function of multi-modal effort, there’s no reason not to commit to higher turnout while simultaneously pushing for change in other ways. Defeatist outlooks are what the opposition wants, don’t reward them.
If we can’t fix this by 100% voter turnout, then our ideals aren’t popular, and democracy has spoken.
And there are supposed to be failsafes to prevent tyranny of the majority. Did you forget that? Was slavery ok in the antebellum south because the majority supported it? No. You can’t just trample on human lives simply because a majority support it.
Anarchism has failsafes for this since hierarchical structures are by definition not welcome. Our system does not? Then let’s burn it to the ground.
I know the answer btw. I’m speaking rhetorically. It’s obvious that our system results in genocide. I mean, we have an active genocide against indigenous people.
Do you support trampling on human rights and committing atrocities like genocide simply because the majority support it? Please answer this, because if you think this is fine, then I’m done trying to get through to you.
Edit: And before you say “of course that’s not what I’m saying,” I’ve had a centrist liberal tell me recently that yes, these atrocities are fine as long as the majority support them, and that was told to me by PugJesus, right-winger and mod on lemmy.world
Anarchism has failsafes for this since hierarchical structures are by definition not welcome.
How does it enforce that unwelcomeness? As much as I ideologically align with anarchism in principle, I don’t see the mechanism for it to preserve what is and isn’t “allowed” under it’s principles. Especially not the ad hoc, spontaneous, nominal anarchism that would result if you burned the current system to the ground.
What stops a charismatic figurehead from rallying the portion of the population that finds authoritarianism comforting, and starting their own fascist hierarchy? The current system may not be perfect, but at least the checks and balances provide some obstacle to despotism. What do you replace that material obstacle with? “Hey! You’re not supposed to do that!”?
I am familiar with the literature. As I said, I identify with it ideologically. It presents philosophical ideals and optimistic, aspirational hypotheticals, built on microscopic examples. Speak for yourself. You tell me how a population not yet widely versed in, and committed to, stable anarcho-communism, prevents the rise of authoritarianism in the ashes of our system, recently burned.
Not a stable anarchic society, a chaotic power vacuum; the transitory state of lawlessness. Explain to me how a stable anarchy spontaneously emerges, because I can show you dozens of historic examples of how authoritarianism spontaneously emerges.
I’ve been working 12 hours, and I’m too tired to express myself to someone who’s done nothing but interpret my comments in the most exhaustingly inhospitable manner and has done nothing but fling irrelevant “gotchas” and other troll-like rudeness at me for days.
Refer to my other comments. I’ve said what I said.
Edit: If you were familiar with the literature, you wouldn’t be asking such baby questions and making clearly incorrect claims about anarchist societies when that book I linked is teeming with examples that contradict your statement.
ITT you’ve done nothing but rabidly defend the status quo and our genocidal system, and anyone who believes you’re anarchist or even leftist is a fool. You’re obviously a status quo defending neoliberal troll, and you’re part of the problem.
Despite your hostile attitude, I’ve been nothing but patient and matter-of-fact. You’re the one throwing around accusations of supporting genocide, among other varieties of unsubstantiated name-calling. Search my comments for a single similar accusation, there’s only been one rude troll in this conversation.
that book I linked is teeming with examples that contradict your statement.
That’s exactly my point though. If it works so well, why are all the examples short-lived footnotes of history? If the literature is to be believed, the world should be an anarchist utopia by now. Why isn’t it? Why didn’t any of those success stories stick the landing on a scale larger than a minor metropolitan commune? What has stopped the spread of true, pure democracy? What justification do you have to believe that it will succeed this time, if we just burn everything down?
Recognizing the material obstacles to anarchism doesn’t mean I don’t believe in it. It just means I’m not foolish enough to delude myself into thinking it’ll just spring up spontaneously from some impassioned violent insurrection. It’s gonna take epic quantities of time, work, and education. Any flash-in-the-pan approach is going to fizzle out, be it by authoritarian oppression, disorganization, or the natural decay of dwindling commitment. “Burn it all down” is not an educated strategy.
What is your pragmatic alternative? What strategy is 1. Actionable and 2. Effective 3. Incompatible with the process I outlined above? Widespread change will be a function of multi-modal effort, there’s no reason not to commit to higher turnout while simultaneously pushing for change in other ways. Defeatist outlooks are what the opposition wants, don’t reward them
So in other words, doing exactly what I’ve been suggesting this entire time? Or what do you think that I’ve been saying? I vote in every election, and I’m still not allowed to complain when my president commits genocide? Is that what you’re saying, or what exactly is your point?? What is it you’re trying to convince me of that I’m not already doing?
Any action that discourages Leftist voter turnout (e.g. refusing to vote for the lesser evil on principle because it’s still evil) is counterproductive.
Sure, but by focusing on that line, which was a nice afterthought ,you’re ignoring the rest of the comment, which was the functionally important part. Regardless of any other actions and considerations, it is imperative to vote in every election, and to vote for the further left of the two front-runner parties, which at the moment would be the Democrats.
Every other other action is, pragmatically, secondary to increasing Leftist voter turnout. Any action that discourages Leftist voter turnout (e.g. refusing to vote for the lesser evil on principle because it’s still evil) is counterproductive. Democrats don’t care about having discussions with progressives because progressives don’t show up to vote, and they know the ones that do know better than to split the vote.
If every progressive voted, and Democrats consistently won 70% of the vote, the Republican threat would disappear, and the Democrats would not longer be safe by virtue of Duverger’s Law. Then a Progressive party could meaningfully emerge, meaningfully threaten Democrats, and Democrats would have to actually have those discussions.
People have straight up gloated to me that something like 70% of voters support our fascist border policy and arming a genocidal state. What makes you so sure we can fix this by voting?
Also, I don’t buy the idea that right-wing liberals would listen to leftists if we vote. I vote in every election, but they still treat me like absolute trash. They love that people are suffering and that they can gloat that there’s no effective way to save them.
FFS look at the maniacal comments in this thread. And this is actually better than the norm.
If we can’t fix this by 100% voter turnout, then our ideals aren’t popular, and democracy has spoken.
What is your pragmatic alternative? What strategy is 1. Actionable and 2. Effective 3. Incompatible with the process I outlined above? Widespread change will be a function of multi-modal effort, there’s no reason not to commit to higher turnout while simultaneously pushing for change in other ways. Defeatist outlooks are what the opposition wants, don’t reward them.
And there are supposed to be failsafes to prevent tyranny of the majority. Did you forget that? Was slavery ok in the antebellum south because the majority supported it? No. You can’t just trample on human lives simply because a majority support it.
Anarchism has failsafes for this since hierarchical structures are by definition not welcome. Our system does not? Then let’s burn it to the ground.
I know the answer btw. I’m speaking rhetorically. It’s obvious that our system results in genocide. I mean, we have an active genocide against indigenous people.
Do you support trampling on human rights and committing atrocities like genocide simply because the majority support it? Please answer this, because if you think this is fine, then I’m done trying to get through to you.
Edit: And before you say “of course that’s not what I’m saying,” I’ve had a centrist liberal tell me recently that yes, these atrocities are fine as long as the majority support them, and that was told to me by PugJesus, right-winger and mod on lemmy.world
How does it enforce that unwelcomeness? As much as I ideologically align with anarchism in principle, I don’t see the mechanism for it to preserve what is and isn’t “allowed” under it’s principles. Especially not the ad hoc, spontaneous, nominal anarchism that would result if you burned the current system to the ground.
What stops a charismatic figurehead from rallying the portion of the population that finds authoritarianism comforting, and starting their own fascist hierarchy? The current system may not be perfect, but at least the checks and balances provide some obstacle to despotism. What do you replace that material obstacle with? “Hey! You’re not supposed to do that!”?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
I am familiar with the literature. As I said, I identify with it ideologically. It presents philosophical ideals and optimistic, aspirational hypotheticals, built on microscopic examples. Speak for yourself. You tell me how a population not yet widely versed in, and committed to, stable anarcho-communism, prevents the rise of authoritarianism in the ashes of our system, recently burned.
Not a stable anarchic society, a chaotic power vacuum; the transitory state of lawlessness. Explain to me how a stable anarchy spontaneously emerges, because I can show you dozens of historic examples of how authoritarianism spontaneously emerges.
I’ve been working 12 hours, and I’m too tired to express myself to someone who’s done nothing but interpret my comments in the most exhaustingly inhospitable manner and has done nothing but fling irrelevant “gotchas” and other troll-like rudeness at me for days.
Refer to my other comments. I’ve said what I said.
Edit: If you were familiar with the literature, you wouldn’t be asking such baby questions and making clearly incorrect claims about anarchist societies when that book I linked is teeming with examples that contradict your statement.
ITT you’ve done nothing but rabidly defend the status quo and our genocidal system, and anyone who believes you’re anarchist or even leftist is a fool. You’re obviously a status quo defending neoliberal troll, and you’re part of the problem.
Despite your hostile attitude, I’ve been nothing but patient and matter-of-fact. You’re the one throwing around accusations of supporting genocide, among other varieties of unsubstantiated name-calling. Search my comments for a single similar accusation, there’s only been one rude troll in this conversation.
That’s exactly my point though. If it works so well, why are all the examples short-lived footnotes of history? If the literature is to be believed, the world should be an anarchist utopia by now. Why isn’t it? Why didn’t any of those success stories stick the landing on a scale larger than a minor metropolitan commune? What has stopped the spread of true, pure democracy? What justification do you have to believe that it will succeed this time, if we just burn everything down?
Recognizing the material obstacles to anarchism doesn’t mean I don’t believe in it. It just means I’m not foolish enough to delude myself into thinking it’ll just spring up spontaneously from some impassioned violent insurrection. It’s gonna take epic quantities of time, work, and education. Any flash-in-the-pan approach is going to fizzle out, be it by authoritarian oppression, disorganization, or the natural decay of dwindling commitment. “Burn it all down” is not an educated strategy.
So in other words, doing exactly what I’ve been suggesting this entire time? Or what do you think that I’ve been saying? I vote in every election, and I’m still not allowed to complain when my president commits genocide? Is that what you’re saying, or what exactly is your point?? What is it you’re trying to convince me of that I’m not already doing?