He got me to read the Manifesto and would have hours' long debates with our social-democratic roommate and now this. It's really shaking me up a bit.
He is on the whole defeatist 'nothing will fundamentally shake the imperial machine so might as well pick the wardog with better domestic policies' tip. I want to get through to him but I am getting stuck.
For example:
i also refuse to not vote my conscience but i figured this time its not like doing this abstract process to pick if id prefer -100 points vs -200 points is gonna matter that much if i genuinely believe itll even be slightly better under kamala i might as well
I agree that voting doesn't matter in terms of making a material difference in the social hierarchy because the US is not a democracy. However, who a person votes for (or whether they vote) is an indication of their values, which are in turn an indication of their future behavior, and anyone who votes for the regime that is currently conducting a fucking genocide demonstrates either their ignorance (which it seems OP's friend cannot claim as a so-called socialist) or a fundamental lack of solidarity with those who are being dehumanized, tortured, and murdered, the victims of that genocide. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of solidarity with all oppressed peoples of the world. Just because voting doesn't matter with respect to who wins the election, it sure as hell matters on an interpersonal level.
It has next to nothing to do with electoralism as it is only tangentially related to the election itself. Again, it is about a person's position relative to class struggle. If a member of the ruling class were murdering your family and your friend decided to throw in their support to that murderer with the rationalization that that murderer might benefit your friend more than some other murderer, it doesn't matter how inconsequential their support is - it still tells you a great deal about your friend's priorities and interests which don't actually include your dying family or other oppressed people, only themselves.
Everything else aside, this is still terrible advice. Lie to your friend about your principles regarding genocide to "better maintain a friendship"? Gross.
Socialism is not nihilism.
The issue I have with this argument is that i feel like it is confusing voting for someone with endorsing them publicly. An argument I've heard from socialists online that has really resonated with me is that yes, voting for president in a liberal democray is a way that you can influence politics but it is literally the least powerful and least effective way to do so. Therefore if we, as people who call ourselves socialists and who want to change society for the better, if we spend a large percentage of our time online arguing with people about voting, we are being tricked into believing in this lie that voting between two bourgeoisie candidates is meaningful. The clearest way this manifests is in so-called socialists who demand that other socialists vote for Democrats. These people are obviously betraying their values and have become party hacks for the libs.
But another way that I think this manifests, and that ties back to this thread, is when we go out of our way to spend time and effort demanding that people write in a third party candidate or abstain instead of voting tactically. Initially this was really counterintuitive for me because I hate Kamala and the Democrats so much for enabling genocide that I couldn't stomach the idea of anyone I cared about actually voting for them. But upon reflection, what I was really disgusted by was the idea of someone endorsing or supporting them. Because that is what makes a material difference. If someone is spending time and energy getting people to vote for Kamala, or any other liberal war criminal, then they are knowingly or not working to preserve the current system of oppression. But if all someone does is bubble in her name instead of trumps, they are not materially supporting genocide. While I personally don't buy into the idea of voting as harm-reduction on a presidential level, if someone else wants to I'm not going to argue with them about it. What matters so much more to me is what we do with the rest of our time. If we can make material differences in our communities during the other 364 days of the year, that makes 10,000x the difference than a harm-reduction vote. (Again this only applies to the vote itself, if someone is going around advocating for others to vote blue then that's a different story)
For context on where I'm coming from, I voted for De La Cruz but I don't live in a swing state so my vote is purely symbolic anyway.
Anyway for OP don't lie to your friend, that's kinda shitty. I'd say if he wants to vote kamala as a token 0.1% harm reduction then by all means, but maybe point out that all of this energy he is spending convicing others to vote blue could be better spent doing literally anything else.
It's not that I really disagree with this, I just think it's mostly moot. Overall, it's splitting hairs in a somewhat odd way, and especially considering the context of OP, where their friend is pressuring OP to vote Democrat, it just doesn't apply. It's almost obvious that what we are talking about here is not some secret schroedinger's voting booth vote that no one else knows about, but a vote that is announced and therefore is a form of, as you put it, public endorsement. If someone secretly votes Kamala without telling a soul, especially if they're doing real community work that benefits people in material ways, then sure, none are the wiser and the actual work that person is doing supercedes whatever asymptotically minuscule effect a single vote has. But then we're almost getting into "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" territory.
Though that's not really what we're talking about here. Going back to my analogy above about a friend supporting the murder of your family (and to be clear, I know you're not the same person I was responding to with that analogy). If you are completely and forever ignorant of your friend's support for that person murdering your family, and their support of that murderer doesn't actually change the ability of that murderer to do any more harm, then of course, you would have zero reason to think or feel negatively about your friend and no material difference is made. I would still contend that your friend is a shitty friend and a shitty person, but again, "if a tree falls in the forest..."
But that also does bring up another aspect of this. The person who voted blue (or in the analogy the friend who secretly gave their insignificant support to your family's murderer) still themselves know what they did. So it matters to them. And while it may make zero difference to the outside world in that very moment or by that specific act, it still "matters" in the broad sense depending on their reasoning. If a person votes blue, or red for that matter, so long as they're voting for fascists, is it because they do feel that the benefit to themselves outweighs the genocidal harm that candidate has done and will do? Is it because they laughingly did it in a cynical fit knowing that their vote doesn't mean shit, though they actually despise the person they voted for and recognize they won't benefit from that vote? If it's the former, then that person is still someone who can't be trusted to do the right thing, even if no one is aware of it. If it's the latter, then sure, but I think their jokerification is approaching worrisome levels even if no one else knows. To put it one last way, if someone is secretly a racist, but never expresses it and only does things that positively effect the people they hate, then "no harm, no foul" but I still think that in the real world, a person who is racist will always tend to behave in ways that have negative effects in the world. And so too with secret Harris voter. No one might hear that one tree, but there is a near certainty other trees are going to fall when people are around to hear it.
Edit to add:
In short, I'm with @frauddogg@hexbear.net on this one.