I'm not asking this to bait you. It's not a trick question. I genuinely want to know.
Biden himself has stated multiple times that he wants to "reach across the aisle" (his exact words) and work with Republicans. You know, the same Republicans that are banning abortion and LGBTQ+ people? The same Republican party that has literal white supremacists in its political ranks? I earnestly want to know why you still back a party that openly wants to work with fascists.
The only answer I've ever seen liberals give is that the Republicans are worse... and they are, yeah, but if your choices are pure evil, and the guy who works with pure evil, doesn't that suggest that both of them should be opposed? And as we've seen, a democratic government won't fight to protect marginalized groups from the bigoted laws the Republicans are passing, so even voting for them to protect those groups from fascism just isn't working.
And what do you make of Biden telling his wealthy donors that "nothing will fundamentally change." and Biden boasting about the economy while rent skyrockets people live out of their cars and struggle to feed themselves? How can you call yourself a leftist or a even progressive if you stand by that?
Again, I'm not saying these things to be abrasive, I genuinely want an honest answer.
I don't think my question was so much for you, as you don't seem like the type to totally defend the Dems and Biden, but thanks for answering anyway.
That's the problem. What we have is flawed and corrupt. If you have to ask "Who else am I going to vote for?" then you need to start organizing and supporting leftist organizations and revolutionary communists, my friend.
Understandable, but again, a fascist has voting power in a fascist system, we do not. Getting involved with democracy only works if you have a people's democracy, not an oligarchy decided by the capitalist donor class. You can see for yourself that even getting student loans forgiven is being easily stopped by unelected loan companies stepping in and threatening to sue. How is that democratic?
None of these people are left. None of them want to abolish capitalism. Like, I get you're trying to vote as left as possible. But the system will never let these people win. As we saw with the smear campaign against people like Bernie (and Corbin for a UK example) as soon as they got popular. That's not me trying to be defeatist, that's just the reality of the situation, and if we continue to try to fix things that way we're going to be stuck butting our heads against a wall while the planet burns. Hell, even if those 'left as possible' candidates do get popular they aren't allowed to win. Bernie was exceedingly popular during the 2020 primaries. To put it in perspective, people outside of the US knew who he was, none of them knew who Biden was. Was anyone passionate about Biden other than the donor class? No, yet he suddenly beats everyone else? Even Warren was more popular than him. But the oligarchs decide, not us.
Exactly, if the ruling wealthy donor class wants someone to win, these are the people that will get the most advertising and donor support and those are the people who will win. And like I said, even if a grassroots movement does get popular, even the mildest leftist won't be allowed to win.
That will never happen in America. They won't allow it. Even in countries that do have it, like mine, it doesn't change anything. Western capitalist democracies are simply corrupt. I mean, vote all you want, but understand that without organizing against the system, nothing will fundamentally change.
Fair enough -- I definitely feel called out by some hexbear content that I see (posts, comments from users) so figured I might also be the type that this was directed at, but if not, ... great? :)
For most of the rest of what you wrote, I think the viewpoint you're presenting is a more strongly worded but can't really say I disagree in a way that's worth debating. Though I am not so pessimistic to agree that it is completely unchangeable from within, just that it is slow going.
The only substantive point I feel I can continue meaningful discussion with is in regards to this:
This is a common refrain I see in these discussions (even specifically in other comments in this thread) and I really don't know what to make of it. It seems to be encouraging one of two things:
But the end result of either seems the same on a larger societal level, i.e. nil -- and so the effect such advice has on me are slim to none since there doesn't seem to be a point. Am I misinterpreting? What actual change can come of such recommendation?
I think there's a third option: a group that actually does meaningful outreach that improves the material conditions of your community. What exactly that's going to look like (or what specific group it will be) depends a lot on where you are. Food Not Bombs is one that's pretty easy to recommend to just about anyone, as they have a presence in lots of places and do really great work that goes beyond performative protest (which, as you say, doesn't really amount to much), but there are other options. Community organizing, union organizing work, LGBT advocacy/support, and other things like that are really great choices. Anarchists talk about the importance of building "dual power" structures, in which we come together to meet the material needs of the community when the entrenched power structures (like the government and private organizations) either can't or won't meet those needs. That's truly revolutionary action, and it's also the best sort of outreach and recruitment you could possibly do. Nobody pays much attention to people unobtrusively marching around with signs, but everyone is going to remember who fed them when they were hungry.
I do agree that it is a meaningful action with greater real impact than the other two strawman examples I mentioned. But I'd clarify that though it is compatible with "support leftist organizations and revolutionary communists" -- it is not nearly as ideological and instead more practical, with a broader base of people engaged in and supporting their goals without rallying around a specific ideology which they may feel is alienating.
It's not like non-leftists participating in these groups were tricked -- they legitimately believe in and support these causes too. In the other direction, these types of groups that you mentioned aren't going to "abolish capitalism" either (to borrow the phrase from OP's comment), and likely don't even have that as a stated goal even if some of their members might want to.
I understand your equating practical/real communal efforts with revolutionary action in an increasingly individualistic society, but surely it falls a little short of the usual rhetoric I see in hexbear content (posts, comments from users)? I mean, if that's what folks mean when they use "revolutionary" language then that's great. My feel is that it is usually meant more literally (i.e., armed conflict or other violence). I definitely don't think "oh yea they're suggesting I go help out at the homeless outreach center". But hell, maybe I know more communists than I thought ;)
I mean, some of what you're seeing on Hexbear is deliberately over the top performative
rhetoric. There are a lot of people who think that armed conflict is inevitable (or even to be desired), but there are also a lot of people who see community organizing and actually helping their fellow humans as equally important. We tend to play up the violence stuff for laughs (and as a way of pushing back against civility culture), but my impression is that there are lots of us who are genuinely out there trying to make the world a better place.
This is almost certainly true, even if they don't know it themselves. See David Graeber's "Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You!"
Yea I totally get that performative aspect, and I appreciate it even if I haven't developed the sense to differentiate it all the time. I'm working on it, I know more exposure will help. Lol