|
Condiv posted:assuming the next dem is macron-like (and why wouldn't I? democrat supreme obama endorsed macron) and wants to dismantle every social program he/she can the second they hit office, should i bother voting for this lesser evil? seems to me like lesser-evilism is just being a loving idiot and supporting evil Well, you make sure you don't get to a position where the choice is between an awful right wing social liberal & an awful right wing fascist. Obviously if it does happen you have to judge just how lesser that evil is. If it's a Trump vs Clinton type of deal again you probably have hold your nose and mark the Clinton box because accelerationism just isn't something the poor can afford to deal with. But the best bet is to make sure you never get in that situation. Work for people trying to primary terrible incumbent Dems. Accept that you'll lose more than you win in the short term, but build the ground game up, have a generation of younger activists with experience of campaigning for genuinely progressive candidates.
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Condiv posted:Yes, but that sidesteps the question. I can go ahead and get involved with good dems like the DSA, and choose to only vote for good dems. Lesser-evilism demands I vote for dems always, regardless of how terrible they are, and that conflicts with entryism because I'm just giving my enemies more power to lock my ideology out if I vote for the "lesser evil" Don't vote for terrible candidates. Terrible candidates who do nothing to win your vote because you've got no alternative don't deserve your vote, it's as simple as that. But you have to find where the line is between terrible and "bad but still noticeably better than the alternative". I can't tell you where that line is for you, but I do think the line probably moves in a Presidential race as opposed to a more local one, just because stopping Republicans from appointing Supreme Court Justices is such a big deal. Clinton was a lovely candidate with lovely beliefs and yet even as a socialist a vote for her was easily justified because of dead Scalia along with a bunch of other aging judges. What I'm saying is the American system is loving terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:That line is at loving over the poor to enrich the ultra-rich, and the dems are dancing all over that line right now. Also, the dems practically gave away that SC seat to the republicans Yeah, cool, sounds like you know where the line is and have already made your mind up. That's fine. I'm sure as poo poo not going to try & convince anyone to vote for more neoliberalism. Voting for the lesser evil over the actual pure, undiluted evil is a totally defensible position to take though. It's not like your own vote legitimises them any more than you abstaining delegitimises them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:It doesn't legitimize them, but it does give them power over the dem party, which they then use to block any shifts leftward. For example: Obama helping install empty suit Tom Perez as DNC chair so that a bernie endorsed choice who was and still is way more qualified doesn't get any power. Mate, they do that whether or not you vote. The only way one lone individual will ever have an impact on a democratic system is through an act of terror. How does your vote stop Obama shilling for the lovely empty suit neoliberal? That's what he's going to do, support other neoliberals, can't envisage a scenario where the Democratic establishment don't do what they can to stop a populist taking over the party establishment. asdf32 posted:Canditades moving towards the center to maximize votes, incrementalism and an opposition trying to do things you don't want is what democracy looks like. What garbage. Just because it is doesn't mean it has to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it stops him by he might not get elected to a higher position of power, denying him more power over the dem party. I doubt senator obama would have as much sway as president obama does. like I said, it doesn't seem to help the left at all to help centrists have greater power over the party, as they sabotage the left and screw over the poor and helpless to help the rich. I'm pretty sure Obama became President by virtue of more than 1 vote. And yeah, liberals will never do anything for the left, that's the nature of that particularly lovely beast. But do you really think accelerationism is the answer? Coz just gifting Republicans the White House until the Dems stop with lovely mediocre candidates is going to be far loving worse for the people you want to in the short to medium term. You might be able to survive it but lots won't so be mindful of that. All you can do is keep working to prove socialism benefits the majority while still being fully compatible with democracy and social freedoms. It'll be a long slog because you are starting from nowhere. Whether or not you vote in Presidential elections is just a bit of a distraction.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 16:41
|
|