|
I really don't think that it's a bizzare idea to suggest that you are very unlikely to be able to take over the democratic party because your opponents have far more resources than you, and if you had the kind of resources needed to beat them, you would be in a position to set up your own party with different organizational structure and directly crush the obviously failed organization of the democrats which clearly lends itself very easily to takeover by the rich.
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2018 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/970657684767813632
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
Vote dem because the republicans are worse, and please ignore when the dems vote for the republican policies.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Okay, so once you've replaced them, what keeps the new party from being exactly as bad. There's quite a lot of organizational changes you could make to a party to differentiate it from the structure of the democratic party and make it harder for any rich twat to take over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
Perhaps they do it for both those reasons? Perhaps therefore, they will never represent our interests and must be crushed as surely as the republicans?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
botany posted:and you are supporting the GOP by not voting for dems in the general, because that's what that means in a two party system I do find the prospect of forcing change while offering unconditional support for the status quo quite fascinating.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:*has voted for nobody elected to office in years* I mean if you get enough people to not do that, yeah?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
If a party appeals to idiot moderates by doing idiot moderate things then why do socialists want to vote for it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Most socialists I know do not want to. They just understand how politics works. Well, some do. Then why do they? Like, why do you vote for a party that acts wholly contrary to your political goals? How is that anything but ceding your political goals and becoming, functionally, an idiot moderate? If you keep voting for them they're going to win, and going to do the things you don't want to do, and you have achieved nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Like either you vote for democrats and get poo poo or you vote for republicans and get more poo poo. Why vote for poo poo? Why accept voting for poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Because I live in reality and people get hurt by politics in reality. The problem is a FPTP 2 party system. I can't ignore that because I don't want it to be like that. You can't change it if you keep offering uncondtional support to whoever has the blue rosette on. Because why are you going to get electoral reform if you achieve your end state of just electing any democrat that's on the ballot? Why are you going to get left candidates if literally anyone can show up and get the votes because people have to give them? Like, why are you a socialist if you think that oligarchs will just hand over power because you ask nicely while supporting everything they do? You don't get better wages by asking the boss for some but refusing to withdraw your labour. If dems want votes you have to make them work for them, because votes are the only thing they give a poo poo about, votes are their money, votes are their power, votes are what they need from you, you don't give them over freely and expect anything back in return do you? Why on earth do you treat democrats like some sort of ally or equal? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Apr 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Also where's this weird loving idea that people can't vote against their immediate interest and that anyone who doesn't vote dem because they're poo poo is clearly some kind of champagne swilling ultrabooj in disguise? Is it so weird to think that maybe people who need real change in their lives rather than platitudes can look at the situation and think "well I'm never going to get it by voting for megabucks mc cuntface with the blue pin on, so I'm going to vote against them as well as the republicans"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I've made this argument in the past. The issue is that the party doesn't look at your vote like this. If all you do is vote lesser evils, no you won't change the party. You need to vote lesser evils AND work at changing the party from the ground up. That takes work and that's why most internet posters end their involvement at protest voting. If they don't look at your vote like that, the issue is that you have not denied them enough votes. In a system where the majority of people don't vote, I would suggest this is already their error. A party should fear its voters. You can argue "well it's a two party system so that's never going to happen" in which case, perhaps the preferred goal is to render it no longer a two party system? By taking votes from either of the other parties?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's not how the system works. I would suggest that any change is going to require not voting for the democrats at some point. Because again, why are you going to get any change to the electoral system if you keep instilling the idea that people have to vote either democrat or republican? '"I want electoral change!" cries person actively reinforcing two party system' is not a very compelling argument. Neither party is going to want to change the electoral system if they're both capable of winning with it. Either you deny the republicans it long enough that they run with electoral reform on the ticket, or you deny the democrats it long enough that they do. And I would suggest that voting democrat at present is an excellent way to ensure that it falls right back into republican hands because they appear chronically incapable of doing lasting good with their time in office resulting in swings back to republican. Like, voting third party and encouraging everyone else to do so or just not vote seems by far the most sensible way to undermine the legitimacy of the current electoral system and also to force the existing parties to consider electoral reform to save their own skins, both of which seem like necessary steps to enact electoral reform. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Apr 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Maybe LGBT people might be better served trying to ensure the possibility that one day there will be a place on the electoral landscape for the big flaming gay parade party instead of saying "well pack it up folks we've got the LGBT people might be human if it helps us beat the republicans party and that's good enough forever" Maybe at least that's a legitimate view that LGBT people might hold with good reason.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
botany posted:here's the thing: courts don't give a poo poo if your health care benefits are the result of politicians afraid of not being re-elected. you think it matters if the people who voted for the civil rights act of '64 were reluctant? Well, yes it might go some way to explain why America is the way it is in terms of racial inequality in tyool 2018.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Do you think perhaps that maybe the democrats might peg your brilliant strategy of voting for anything with a D on it and just ignore or get rid of the first part? That perhaps voting for any democrat is pushing the other way?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i guess botany is just gonna run off without ever explaining how i'm terrible and fygm for being upset about macron stealing my raise It's only socialism if you don't benefit from it, hence the only true socialists are actually capitalists. Vote democrat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Because endlessly vacillating between some and none for the rest of time seems like a pretty poo poo option, and some people are willing to stake their wellbeings and, if it comes to it, the wellbeing of their fellows on trying for something better than that. I'm not going to have a go at you for not being comfortable making that decision personally because you may rightly feel bad about inflicting your convictions on others, a striker rightly fears the cost of losing their job to their family if they fail, and Capital has always preyed on that abundance of compassion to shield themselves. But it becomes objectionable when people try to paint the some/none false dichotomy as the only true and right path. What are they going to take from you, your life? They're going to take that from you anyway right now, just piece by piece, and the same from your children and family and everyone else, because it's worth more to them that way. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Apr 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Left/liberal isn't infighting. That's sort of the fundamental point.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If you're talking left of center politics, it's infighting. Why would "left of center politics" be a useful group in any way, and why on earth would you describe the democrats and liberals as being left of center? They're very clearly economically right and socially "eh". You need to drop this weird idea that the left and the democrats want the same thing or are on the same team or should even have anything to do with each other.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:We're talking in the US. In the US, liberals are left of center. The democrats cover some centrists, and some liberals, and a small amount of leftists. Basically everyone not outright fascist. Do you see the inherent issue with this sentence as an indicator of political utility?
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
"Everyone who isn't a fascist should vote for the oligarchy party" is an unironic position in tyool 2018.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:By not voting for the worthless dem, you do nothing. You'll get one of the two people running. That's how elections in the US work. It sucks, but pouting doesn't change that. Well voting for one of them is actively obstructing any chance of facilitating long term change and the other is voting republican.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This thread has cushioned itself from the reality that leftists are years away from being a real player in national politics because you can't get mad that Bernie didn't win and then follow like 3 progressive races and then say "gently caress it Dems are worthless I'm voting for RCP and posting on the internet" No, the thread is suggesting that the left is never going to become a player in national politics by slavishly supporting the democrats and limiting itself to the democratic elite's acceptable methods of activism.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You don't think getting a head like Cuomo or Feinstein on a pike would increase the left's power in national politics? I think that the democratic establishment is sufficient powerful and malign and distributed enough that the left won't actually achieve power in the party and devoting effort to supporting it at the expense of just nuking it and putting that effort into a different party or organization on the left's terms is futile.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:A third party is a pipe dream that is never going to happen. It would only serve to elect more republicans anyway. The only answer is pushing the democratic party to the left. If you're suggesting that the left can completely take over the democrats, why on earth in the next breath do you suggest they can never have another party? You know what's possible? Cleanly taking over the party of rich oligarchs. You know what's impossible? Destroying it.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Do you realize how much would need to change in american politics from where we are now for a 3rd party to be viable? It's a complete pipe dream and we already know that moving Dems to the left is possible because it's happening even though it's happening much too slowly. What do you think will happen to all that monetary backing if the democrats are successfully taken over? Do you think it's going to keep flowing? Because I suspect not. If you want the left to succeed in America you need to break the political system. Because otherwise the exact same forces that force a two party system are going to push the democratic party under in the extremely unlikely event that the left manges to take hold of it. You don't change the political system by voting for the establishment and you won't change it by trying to democratically take them over either.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Like there's a reason the US is split between the rich fuckers + jeebus party and the rich fuckers + reassuring platitudes party. It's because rich fuckers rule everything in its political system. That needs to change if you want to get an anti rich fucker party in.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Republicans won and there is an ethnic cleansing squad terrorizing people all over the country. Dismissing that as Like, do you not think that everything the republicans/democrats do is kind of interlinked? That the actions or inactions of one are the prelude to the actions of the other? And that the problem is maybe letting rich people set the political agenda?
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 21:24
|
|
is loving vile.
|
mcmagic posted:There is not one democrat in the country, even the ones i loving despise like Joe Manchin or Corey Booker who would be conducing this. Like, no the reason this is acceptable is because it's been built up to since at least 9/11, and no government since then has tried to stop it, and eight years of that has been under democratic control. And it will continue to be acceptable in some form or another as long as you rely on rich people who will never suffer because of it as the arbiters of political acceptability. We have a similar issue in the UK, where we're currently rounding up black people and shipping them off to jamaica, and this is quite clearly a result of general xenophobic acceptability which has again been fostered by all parties since at least 2001. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:33 on May 1, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Local action can be quite useful, I would dispute how useful it is if you manage to get everyone to just vote democrat whatever though.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
If voters are dumb it's because the society they live in has made them so, and that society is a product mostly of the government.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:
Capitalism is by defniition a description of a directionless process, however, and thus it is about as useful to complain about as gravity, or a finite human lifespan, or the fact that we aren't telepathic. The government is not directionless force, and thus it falls to it to improve society. Failure to do so or even to attempt it is an indictment of its competency.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
tbh I think the left winger who looks at the state of the american politcal landscape and thinks "I shall reform the democratic party by participating in its lovely rigged primaries" instead of "I shall harness the extant antigovernmental sentiment to push people towards some kind of libsoc/ancom party based on undermining the legitimacy of the current electoral system" is the dafter of the two. Like I'd prefer state socialism but given that your current choice is between two brands of demolishing the government I think honestly achieving an anarchist revolution or destabilizing the current governmental system is more likely than beating the dem establishment by playing by their rules.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
In which the spectacular improbability of the "support the dems to stop the republicans even if they're bad" strategy paying off, is relevant.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:"but how can you claim to be a socialist when you don't vote for one of socialist parties with zero power in a capitalist system that tries to keep them that way" I mean if you take the descriptive route then yeah if you vote consistently for lovely liberals you're a lovely liberal. You might be a lovely liberal that identifies as socialist though I guess?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
I merely illustrate why people might take umbrage with the claim to be a socialist if functionally what you achieve is the democrats.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
All the less reason to vote for them then?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
I'm suggesting that if you don't like the result of getting them in, you don't like being associated with them, it's probably not helpful to the process of advancing a left wing viewpoint in any sense (given that even by your strategy it's entirely separate from working to win primaries) and basically, it just seems like a terrible idea all around, one wonders why you think it's very important? Like at that point it looks like ritual self harm.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 03:33
|
|