Actively trying to tell people voting doesn't matter (which, yes, we all know is true). It puts sympathetic libs off. It's frankly bad messaging. Also. If it doesn't matter why do you care if someone votes?
I think expressing the idea that both sides are the same and that no matter what big business always wins is a pretty valid argument that even a lot of libs are starting to agree with. That said, you're right about the fact that we shouldn't be pushy about it or try to get people not to vote because it will only alienate the average person.
i also think "both sides are the same" is a poor argument that puts people off. the easy responses are to call you an enlightened centrist (yeah, i know, but people do it all the time), or just to point to some small differences between the parties as if these are major ideological divides, and ultimately its easy for people to dismiss you
"they are both ultimately in service to the same interests" seems to me a much better argument
I mean getting people not to vote quite literally only helps the fash, of course the left shouldn't be doing it. The left should be pushing people to do more than vote, not less.
"Your boss does more than vote, your landlord does more than vote, your insurance company does more than vote, and you need to as well if you want to beat them."
The left needs to push "both sides are bad" (which is true), not "both sides are the same (which is false).
Pushing people to do more is absolutely good but first you have to get them to believe that's there is a reason they should. Pushing people not to vote isn't going to help but clearly stating that no matter who's in charge the government doesn't care about them is an important first step to getting them to see the need for more direct action. "Fortunately" Biden is really helping on that front.
Both sides are bad is true but shallow. "Neither side will give you what you need to live and thrive. Alone you are powerless, together we can demand and not beg" is much more powerful. Getting into the details of what we should demand is best kept for more committed comrades. (it's communism)
I've always phrased these things as "voting is important but insufficient" and "dems might be less actively hateful but they ultimately answer to the rich too" and [insert that chart of rich vs poor getting their favored policies passed]
Voting takes like an hour tops for most people and does have effects, what you want is for people to start thinking of voting as the bare minimum of political acts instead of the pinnacle.
Hate to burst your bubble here but local politics are just as hopeless as national politics. The same structures are still in place (exhausted workers trapped in ideological prison / good old boys network / who’s counting the votes? / omnipresence of police and heavily armed reactionaries / threat of lawsuits or capital flight if any reforms actually go through) and quite effectively prevent things from changing. Source: am recovering local politician. If this were untrue, some leftwing reforms at least would have succeeded somewhere, but I can’t think of any (correct me if I’m wrong).
Yeah, local politics aren't going to change the world. I just mean that in some places, local politics can be changed more easily than national, and are likely to have a more immediate and direct effect on your life.
It's still a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, of course.
I have won local elections. I recently quit an elected position I had because I was tired of watching the chummy libs and chuds vote more money for the Nazi police force and I also had zero support (there isn’t even a DSA here). We need armed organizations if we’re going to get anywhere.
Getting small wins is also motivating and tells people the next step is possible. Even draws or well-spun losses can attract more people for the next/other actions.
I mean this is an example of that. Voting does matter, it's just that it can't be the end-all, be-all of your politics. Most politics takes places outside of the ballot box and most of our work should too, but the "voting doesn't matter" left sound like idiots because people experience material differences in their lives depending on their elected officials.
Leftists who believe voting does not matter are to the right of leftists that understand it does.
Leftists who believe voting does not matter are to the right of leftists that understand it does.
I don't really think right/left are the right terms for this, tbh.
Voting doesn't matter in some places, depending on how the votes are counted. If you're in an area where one party always wins, your vote will achieve exactly nothing, and voting can actually be significantly difficult (especially for lower-income people). Other than that, agreed.
How is voting for a neoliberal against another neoliberal matter in parliamentary elections? Especially when looking at a bigger historical perspective? How is this different from liberal lesser evilism?
Leftists should draw lines in the sand. If there's no candidates on the left side of that line, I will skip this election. Simple as that.
I thought this had been argued to death last year.
I think it's worse than bad argumentation, there's an attitude online that not voting is a kind of praxis, as if getting voter participation rates low enough in itself will have some kind of effect on the electoral system.
The real pill is that obsession with electoral politics is like putting a muzzle on your brain, it makes you ideologically unequipped to engage in effective political action. If instead of arguing online about who to vote for, you argue online about whether to vote, you've only experienced a surface-level shift in your thinking.
Actively trying to tell people voting doesn't matter (which, yes, we all know is true). It puts sympathetic libs off. It's frankly bad messaging. Also. If it doesn't matter why do you care if someone votes?
:geordi-no: voting doesn't matter
:geordi-yes: voting isn't nearly enough, organize!
Yup. My favorite variant of this line:
"Voting is not enough. It is also necessary."
I think expressing the idea that both sides are the same and that no matter what big business always wins is a pretty valid argument that even a lot of libs are starting to agree with. That said, you're right about the fact that we shouldn't be pushy about it or try to get people not to vote because it will only alienate the average person.
i also think "both sides are the same" is a poor argument that puts people off. the easy responses are to call you an enlightened centrist (yeah, i know, but people do it all the time), or just to point to some small differences between the parties as if these are major ideological divides, and ultimately its easy for people to dismiss you
"they are both ultimately in service to the same interests" seems to me a much better argument
That is what I'm trying to say but your phrasing probably expresses the idea more clearly.
I mean getting people not to vote quite literally only helps the fash, of course the left shouldn't be doing it. The left should be pushing people to do more than vote, not less.
"Your boss does more than vote, your landlord does more than vote, your insurance company does more than vote, and you need to as well if you want to beat them."
The left needs to push "both sides are bad" (which is true), not "both sides are the same (which is false).
Pushing people to do more is absolutely good but first you have to get them to believe that's there is a reason they should. Pushing people not to vote isn't going to help but clearly stating that no matter who's in charge the government doesn't care about them is an important first step to getting them to see the need for more direct action. "Fortunately" Biden is really helping on that front.
Don't push people not to vote, push them to end their belief that you can accomplish anything good through voting.
Both sides are bad is true but shallow. "Neither side will give you what you need to live and thrive. Alone you are powerless, together we can demand and not beg" is much more powerful. Getting into the details of what we should demand is best kept for more committed comrades. (it's communism)
I've always phrased these things as "voting is important but insufficient" and "dems might be less actively hateful but they ultimately answer to the rich too" and [insert that chart of rich vs poor getting their favored policies passed]
Voting takes like an hour tops for most people and does have effects, what you want is for people to start thinking of voting as the bare minimum of political acts instead of the pinnacle.
deleted by creator
Local politics are one place where voting can actually matter quite a bit.
deleted by creator
Hate to burst your bubble here but local politics are just as hopeless as national politics. The same structures are still in place (exhausted workers trapped in ideological prison / good old boys network / who’s counting the votes? / omnipresence of police and heavily armed reactionaries / threat of lawsuits or capital flight if any reforms actually go through) and quite effectively prevent things from changing. Source: am recovering local politician. If this were untrue, some leftwing reforms at least would have succeeded somewhere, but I can’t think of any (correct me if I’m wrong).
Yeah, local politics aren't going to change the world. I just mean that in some places, local politics can be changed more easily than national, and are likely to have a more immediate and direct effect on your life.
It's still a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, of course.
I have won local elections. I recently quit an elected position I had because I was tired of watching the chummy libs and chuds vote more money for the Nazi police force and I also had zero support (there isn’t even a DSA here). We need armed organizations if we’re going to get anywhere.
100%. :bpp:
Getting small wins is also motivating and tells people the next step is possible. Even draws or well-spun losses can attract more people for the next/other actions.
deleted by creator
I mean this is an example of that. Voting does matter, it's just that it can't be the end-all, be-all of your politics. Most politics takes places outside of the ballot box and most of our work should too, but the "voting doesn't matter" left sound like idiots because people experience material differences in their lives depending on their elected officials.
Leftists who believe voting does not matter are to the right of leftists that understand it does.
I don't really think right/left are the right terms for this, tbh.
Voting doesn't matter in some places, depending on how the votes are counted. If you're in an area where one party always wins, your vote will achieve exactly nothing, and voting can actually be significantly difficult (especially for lower-income people). Other than that, agreed.
Does voting matter when the available choices are different flavours of right wingers?
Yes. It still matters, it just doesn't matter that much.
How is voting for a neoliberal against another neoliberal matter in parliamentary elections? Especially when looking at a bigger historical perspective? How is this different from liberal lesser evilism? Leftists should draw lines in the sand. If there's no candidates on the left side of that line, I will skip this election. Simple as that.
I thought this had been argued to death last year.
I think it's worse than bad argumentation, there's an attitude online that not voting is a kind of praxis, as if getting voter participation rates low enough in itself will have some kind of effect on the electoral system.
The real pill is that obsession with electoral politics is like putting a muzzle on your brain, it makes you ideologically unequipped to engage in effective political action. If instead of arguing online about who to vote for, you argue online about whether to vote, you've only experienced a surface-level shift in your thinking.
First time?