https://lemmy.world/comment/5295708
the favorite passtime of libs is to say "we're heading into fascism" to shame others into voting for their -1% fascist candidate but not doing anything about it and never thinking about how fascism comes to be
but not doing anything about it
What would you suggest an individual interested in preventing fascism should do in the western world?
It isn't the end all be all of antifascism, but joining an organization is a great start!
*removed externally hosted image*
link because HexBear doesn't show embedded external images
(Replace with org of choice where applicable)
There's nothing an individual can do that doesn't stray into adventurism, but pretending like voting for Democrats is gonna do anything and spending any amount of organizational energy on that empty well is counter productive.
Volunteering at a local soup kitchen does infinitely more for socialism and countering fascism than voting for Dems.
Same thing individuals have done every other time this has happened; get several million of your best friends and start killing fascists. Idk what's so hard about this. what to do is easy and obvious. How to do it? That's tricky. But what to do is well established and indisputable.
Spend 1% of the time and energy you use screaming at people to vote for Joe to join and help an organization doing actual on the ground work, organizing protests, educating people, striking or helping those who are by joining them on the picket lines. Showing up to counter fascists when they march in the streets. Spending 1% of the time you currently do screaming vote blue on those things instead would be 100 times more impactful than what you are currently doing.
Libs think that governments with high approval ratings are authoritarian but a system that consistently produces widely unpopular political leaders is democratic
Seriously, look at the generally abysmal approval ratings of elected officials in the international community.
There's an old saying about both sides being unhappy as the sign of a good compromise.
I wanna piss on the grave of whoever said it first
Except the rich. They must always be happy because who else would innovate?
The rich are actually unhappy. They would be happy if stripped of their wealth and left to play clicker games where they can harmlessly make number get bigger.
I knew that, but it's not like they even know it since they live in a bubble world.
vegetable eating homework enjoyers don't want good things because they enjoy performatively suffering through bad things
Death to America
I love having my existence up for debate with no room for actual changes that would benefit me and my community. I love being whipped with my rights used as a carrot to coerce me into having to vote for the lesser evil candidate that is obnoxiously evil. I absolutely enjoy all of this and love having liberals yell at me that not voting is a privilege while they feel zero heat or impact from the constantly increasing heat.
Damn, CPSU should've brought back the Mensheviks after the war smh
As someone living in the multiparty system, there is absolutely zero difference, well, maybe except that there always needs to be some sort of coalition to form a government which makes watering down any promises even easier.
I disagree. The problems with a multiparty system are the problems with democracy: most people have no understanding of the problems they're voting on. It's still representative of what people want, it's just that people are stupid.
This is in contrast to a two-party system, which has all the problems of a multiparty system but tacks on fun things like "doesn't actually represent what people want, but tries to avoid what people don't want." In a two-party system, you vote people out rather than voting people in.
You are comparing potential with reality, this is exactly how it work in the current conditions, because this is how it is made to work, minor parties are still excluded by the election rules favouring major parties, it's just not that blatantly undemocratic as US system.
This is in contrast to a two-party system, which has all the problems of a multiparty system but tacks on fun things like “doesn’t actually represent what people want, but tries to avoid what people don’t want.” In a two-party system, you vote people out rather than voting people in.
Funny that you mention it, because it is exactly like "multi" party system works too, ultimately you're up to two candidates or two major parties and you vote for the one you hate less, with "electability" and all the major bullshit, and the two parties are almost everywhere where such systems exist, liberal and conservative. Just they are never able to form the government by themselves, so that's why there is also secondary liberal and conservative parties around. Imagine the usual single capital party having not two wings but 3-5. And all of them only represent the capitalists and compradors.
That’s funny. What about when the security police domed JFK in the head lol. Is this from like Hannah Arendt’s totalitarianism or something?
It is from a textbook called 'The Soviet System of Government' by John N. Hazard 🏴☠️ and while it has interesting info on the structure of the Soviet government, it's filled with eye rolling bits like this. One of the best chapters, in my opinion, was where it discussed the employment situation.
edit: I mean that legitimately btw. Chapter 12 Employment by the State is a fascinating read and it's worth downloading just for that.
Well, you see, an overwhelming majority of Soviet citizens actually hated living under a state that was aggressively rooting out fascists instead of engaging with the fascists in the marketplace of ideas.
"Democrats will let you have the luxury of voting Republican in 2028."
That's not the sell you think it is.
Love my democracy that exports barbarism and is constantly on the brink of turning that violence inwards.
Surely better candidates will appear if we always do what we are told
Call me idealist but… whatever happened to that notion of voting for a candidate you actually like, agree with, and think would be a good president? I was reading up on the PSL presidential candidate Claudia de la Cruz the other day. She seems hella cool and I can’t find any position she has that I disagree with. She would be the best president the US ever had by a long shot. I like her and support her, so why shouldn’t I vote for her?
Do we live in a country of liberal democratic values or not? If America is this city on a hill, and our most cherished value is to be able to vote to express our values, why would it matter if my preferred candidate won’t win? All I ever hear from liberals is that America’s system of governance is better than China’s because we can choose from more than one party, and in America I can vote along with my conscious since we (on paper) have multiparty elections (just pay no attention to the stats on which country more of their own citizens think is a democracy). But then every 4 years we have to chuck all that, hold our nose, and only vote for a candidate that can win. And if that’s all that voting is now in America, then why even bother with this farce that western style liberal democracy is the highest form of governance. If all we can do is vote for candidates we hate, then no, our version of democracy sucks ass, this country sucks, and we should just throw the whole thing out and try something radically different. But in the meantime fuck it, if I’m forced to live in this shithole that likes to pretend it’s the greatest country on earth, then come Election Day I’m gonna vote the way I’m told by the slick marketing materials I’m supposed to vote: for someone who represents my values and who I think is best suited to lead the country.
Always vote for the PSL candidate as a write in in my state. I'm not in a swing state so it doesn't matter but I'm proud to be one of the 400 or so people who vote for PSL.
if you don't have the luxury of voting for what you want you already don't enjoy or have democracy
"Mom, can we have democracy?"
"We already have democracy at home."
Democracy at home:
