Watch the full conversation here: https://youtube.com/live/OVl9FGe8fno?feature=shareChris, Marcelina, and Max join Katie to discuss the historic UAW strike. ...
Why should I care if their political project fails?
Because people get hurt.
Democrats might suck as far their desire, willingness, and ability to implement actual leftist reforms, but they are not as purposefully cruel. Suffering is real, more suffering is worse than less suffering, and one party is openly sadist.
Also, one party will make your goal of making the world a better place (which I assume is your ultimate goal) much more risky than the other. Why would you make your goal more difficult to achieve out of spite?
(This is your cue to bring up black vans at BLM and say that Democrats are no better).
I realize that the Democrats are not going to bring about communist utopia, but as a trans person, one party winning power makes me scared of going about daily life, makes me wonder if my medication will be banned, whether I'll be prohibited from public areas because of my identity -- the other doesn't. But I guess you don't care about any of that.
If you think voting Democrat will make your revolution less likely or take longer, and you are willing to let harm happen to make it happen faster than you are an accelerationist - a morally tenuous position at best.
Democrats might suck as far their desire, willingness, and ability to implement actual leftist reforms, but they are not as purposefully cruel. Suffering is real, more suffering is worse than less suffering, and one party is openly sadist.
Republicans are obviously more cruel than Democrats and I'll even throw in that they're generally dumber as well. But I do think you're underselling just how dog shit and cruel Democrats are. We have somewhere between 50-90k people dying each year due to lacking healthcare in this country and Democrats have absolutely no desire to stop it. Nada, zilch, none, 200-360k people will have died in the US under Biden presidency that didn't have to.
Republicans are dumb antivaxers who don't understand science, but Democrats claim to, which makes their COVID response a cruel and disgusting genocide on those with disabilities.
whether I'll be prohibited from public areas because of my identity -- the other doesn't. But I guess you don't care about any of that.
I can't speak for the person you responded to, but I would assume that they care about trans rights and existence.
I do think two things are worth noting:
Your and my votes generally do not matter because a single vote usually is not going to make a difference we could have every Hexbear user vote, even the non-American ones, and it would not move the needle.
The attack on trans people is happening while Democrats are in power and rather than confronting it in any meaningful way they've equivocated about the complexity of childs sports.
If you think voting Democrat will make your revolution less likely or take longer, and you are willing to let harm happen to make it happen faster than you are an accelerationist - a morally tenuous position at best.
Capitalism is going to do what it does regardless of which party we vote for. This is because the contradictions are very apparent and neither party is capable of addressing them. Republicans will continue to scapegoat trans people and probably immigrants and Democrats will continue to be cowards while hogs shoot up schools and gay bars. And that's it. Nothing will be done about it.
Your and my votes generally do not matter because a single vote usually is not going to make a difference... (which seems to me to imply (in this case) don't bother voting, revolution is the only way to make things better)
I see this attitude a lot in the auth-left. Is this a general thing or only counts when talking about voting?
What about driving SUVs? I'm just one person, doesn't matter if I drive an SUV right? It's only one automobile. And promoting the concept that people shouldn't drive SUVs would be silly right?
What about consuming animal products? It wouldn't matter if people become vegan or not right?, the cow is already dead, the carbon emissions already emitted, and one person eating a hamburger won't make any difference, no sense in eating less meat or trying to promote eating less meat, it'd be no more useful than voting/promoting voting. The only solution would be to outlaw being non-vegan, and anyone who wants a burger deserves the wall right?
There is no fucking "auth-left" get outta here with that liberal bs. Also real "you want to decolonize? wow so you want to shoot all white people" energy there
What should I use instead? And what other ways should I differentiate myself, an anarcho-communist, from other leftists who want to use state power to get their way? Is that not authoritarian?
There may be dumb people making dumb memes about it, but I haven't seen anything that makes more sense. If you can point me to something better I'd appreciate it.
the political compass was invented solely to make "right libertarianism" look like a real ideology. It was pushed by billionaire money into schools to rot peoples brains. Its not real and provides no insight, it only furthers political illiteracy in the US. Its not a random statement, its a bullshit concept
There was a thread maybe a month back where we all took the test and everyone is "left libertarian," because the entire design of this thing is ridiculous.
The idea of voting is for collective action (maybe). If 51 % vote for something, the we all are supposed to do the thing.
It would be like, "If 51% of people went vegan, then 100% of the population would be required to be vegan. But since vegans are not 51% of the people, no concessions should be made towards their beliefs."
Honestly, the Republicans and conserva-Dems are doing that right now with an transphobic arguments along the line of, "Hey, trans people are such small portion of the population, wouldn't it be easier for them all to just, you know, not be trans?"
I agree with everything but I think this is a weak line to use:
a single vote is not going to make a difference
it's true that leftists are too small in number to sway an election, but with that line you're just gonna get "what if everyone thought that way." You can see how the lib you were talking to latched onto that one line and ignored everything else.
more importantly, the whole purpose of denigrating voting is to get people to organize. As long as people organize, whether or not they also vote in national elections is of little consequence imo, as long as they have realistic expectations. If they think there's some marginal harm reduction, that's fine, as long as they don't pin all their hopes on some crisp, bloodless Democrat who'll let Citibank pick their cabinet like Obama did in 2008.
People need to understand that, even when the majority votes blue, their votes do not actually result in policy. We have to break the false sense of political agency that voting gives people. But the purpose is ultimately not to stop people from voting, but to make them start organizing.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
[...]
In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
I really like your point about voting not resulting in policy, I'd completely forgotten about that study and will be using it. But I'd like to clarify something:
a single vote is not going to make a difference
it's true that leftists are too small in number to sway an election
It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative or a leftist any single vote doesn't matter because single votes do not typically determine elections. Like you can be a liberal in a conservative area you'll be out voted or a liberal in a liberal area will likely have their candidate win by a significant margin meaning their vote didn't really matter either.
again, you'll just get "What if everyone thought that way."
but I agree it's worth pointing out that a lot of ballots are basically thrown in the trash, if you don't live in a swing area in this gerrymandered hell country.
Capitalism is going to do what it does regardless of which party we vote for. This is because the contradictions are very apparent and neither party is capable of addressing them. Republicans will continue to scapegoat trans people and probably immigrants and Democrats will continue to be cowards while hogs shoot up schools and gay bars. And that’s it. Nothing will be done about it.
So then why not look for realistic solutions to ending capitalism rather than entertain the idea that a few thousand people (who spent lots of energy in the meantime pissing people off online for fun) are going to persuade enough people to join them in a successful communist revolution?
I'm an anarcho-communist, so I'm not saying the solutions to the world's problems can be solved within the system, but I also think there is value in being realistic and reducing harm with available tools and not making my enemy more powerful out of spite.
I'll reply to both of your comments just to be coherent:
(which seems to me to imply (in this case) don't bother voting, revolution is the only way to make things better)
I did not say this. Voting can make things better it just often doesn't. My mentality on voting is that if it's easy to do then do it but there are counties where I live where people will have to wait for up to 3 hours to vote and often have to get to work. Is it worth it to browbeat these people who would rather do anything else? I would say not.
A single person being a vegan or driving an SUV does not matter in aggregate for the climate because there are systematic problems that pollute significantly more than any single person will in infinite lifetimes.
So then why not look for realistic solutions to ending capitalism rather than entertain the idea that a few thousand people (who spent lots of energy in the meantime pissing people off online for fun) are going to persuade enough people to join them in a successful communist revolution?
My brother/sister/nb in Christ are you really saying that it is more "realistic" to vote out capitalism than it is to have a revolution? There have been numerous revolutions and zero elections that have overthrown capitalism.
If you want to vote to improve things Godspeed and I'll even join you, but the notion that you'll achieve your goals of Socialism through voting is absurd. Direct action gets the goods and is infinitely more important than voting.
I did not say this. Voting can make things better it just often doesn’t.
Amazing! I'd call this progress.
counties where I live where people will have to wait for up to 3 hours to vote
You know why they have to wait 3 hours to vote? Because Republicans gain power and make it more difficult to vote for those in areas they think may not support them. This problem would be easy to solve by increasing non-Republican voters (interestingly Taylor Swift may be helping here lol).
A single person being a vegan or driving an SUV does not matter in aggregate for the climate because there are systematic problems that pollute significantly more than any single person will in infinite lifetimes.
Ok, at least that's a consistent position. I expect to not see you denigrate people for eating meat or driving large vehicles.
My brother/sister/nb in Christ are you really saying that it is more “realistic” to vote out capitalism than it is to have a revolution?
Nope. But I think having people in power that don't have a particular boner for cruelty will make any attempts at moving beyond capitalism easier. As far as methods of moving beyond capitalism, I'm in favor of things like dual-power, mutual-aid, community level resilience and independence from capitalist and state systems -- and having fascists in power makes those things harder and riskier. When we know where our food is coming from when the grocery store is not an option, we can consider being able to fight for more than 2 days.
You know why they have to wait 3 hours to vote? Because Republicans gain power and make it more difficult to vote for those in areas they think may not support them.
Yes, it is Republicans I'm not going to dispute that, but when Democrats are in power in these areas they do not wield power in a way that propagates it. And our state wide democratic party is extremely dysfunctional and unpopular. There are federal regulations that could be implemented by Democrats to reduce voting shenanigans and they did not pass it when they had the House, Senate, and Presidency. So again, if when Democrats get the vote they're unwilling to make changes that will make it easier for them to get elected why should I brow beat some person making $10 an hour to forgo $30 they need when Democrats won't do the best minimum to win? I would rather spend my time at our food pantry/garden.
I think having people in power that don't have a particular boner for cruelty will make any attempts at moving beyond capitalism easier.
No disagreement here I'm not an accelerationist, but I will reiterate that that is not an option in my area, the state run democratic party is extremely corrupt and useless. There's a lot of mutual aid groups in my area that get tacit support of conservatives because they're "apolitical" and are best able to function in this way. If Democrats get their shit together maybe it would be worth putting in effort for them, but as of now they're functionally Republicans who fund education in this state.
Ok, I get that the Democrats are disfunctional, ineffective, and unpopular in your area. What if people like yourself ran for office so that it could become more effective (even if just locally) and then maybe become more popular? This will never happen if all the good people forfeit the game.
but as of now they’re functionally Republicans who fund education in this state.
That alone would be enough to get me off my couch to vote D. Perfection is the enemy of progress.
Hope -- hope that others will do the same and work together to make a better future. The pantry will be there next weekend.
This is some Obama era shit. Hope isn't feeding people.
What if people like yourself ran for office so that it could become more effective (even if just locally) and then maybe become more popular?
I am finishing my PhD and getting the fuck out of this state. Once I have the means I will absolutely run for school board to keep a lib or a hog out of the spot and promote a Marxist indoctrination of our nation's youth.
That alone would be enough to get me off my couch to vote D.
Again, I'm not against voting for the lesser of two evils, but I am not going to spend my time advocating for an anti-choice, anti-trans, anti-gay hog. We have "progressives" who gain traction on a state wide basis and the Democratic party systematically kneecaps them every time because it is an old boys club.
Perfection is the enemy of progress.
I am not asking for perfection I am asking for the Democratic party to be a functional party, which it isn't despite having the governorship in my state.
Is that really how I'm using it? Am I asking anyone to shut up? No, you gave me a simple straw man argument and knocked it down.
No, I'm asking my comrades not be idiots that think we're really close enough to full on communist revolution that it's worth it to let fascists hurt people until we get there. Be realistic, if you really want to help people, pissing people off and letting fascists take power out of spite is not the way.
Voting for a piece of legislation, cool. Which is why all the cool things that people want don't get put up for public votes, we might actually get good stuff.
Voting for a person, who then gets to whatever they want carte blanche style for their entire term, meh.
So then why not look for realistic solutions to ending capitalism rather than entertain the idea that a few thousand people (who spent lots of energy in the meantime pissing people off online for fun) are going to persuade enough people to join them in a successful communist revolution?
No one here is pretending that having fun online is really advancing a revolutionary agenda. That's pure projection. You think you're doing something by voting and by telling us to vote. Its an empty sacrement that absolves you by participating in it. And like all hollow religions, its adherents need others to believe.
You might want to consider looking for realistic solutions rather than entertaining the idea that one person will convience a few thousand people (who spend free time pissing people off by being openly communist while online for fun) of the importance of ing in a fake democracy
No one here is pretending that having fun online is really advancing a revolutionary agenda
I disagree here - I think cultural change is the harbinger of societal change. I for example called myself liberal, capitalist, and the thought of abolishing the police was unthinkable - until I was exposed to Beau of the Fifth Column and people on Reddit a bit like yourself but nicer (i.e. anarchists not Marxist types) that exposed me to new ideas.
I'd imagine if Beau called me an idiot and transphobe I probably would not have been convinced. I'm currently working to build community, this started online.
I know you disagree, that's why you're all worked up about on a communist site. You're projecting that onto us.
people on Reddit a bit like yourself but nicer (i.e. anarchists not Marxist types)
I'll overlook the petty sectarianism here, and just say that we are nice, just not toward people hectoring us about like we don't already know. Some of us do, some of us don't. Some of us see the point in strategic voting if you live in the handful of states (counties really) where you vote matters in a presidential election, and some of don't care even for that arguement.
What we all agree on is that the kind of evangelism your on about is nonsense.
Weird definition of liberal but I'll take it. My panties are not in a bunch because people call me a liberal, especially when it has to be redefined to apply.
You do not have a morally superior position because you personally feel scared by one of the two sides of the increasingly fascistic coin of american politics. I'd argue that dismissing the immense suffering of huge swathes of the world let alone the USA in exchange for personal security is an immensely selfish (at minimum amoral) stance. Especially when that security is built on a house of cards that can be taken away at any moment when the Democrats find it "politically inconvenient" to support trans people.
Also, yes, lots of dems are intentionally cruel, so socialists support and organize with socialist/left parties. Wild that. The binary of Republican-Democrat is such an obviously bullshit creation; it's incredible that in the year 2023 people are still browbeating people for not caring about presidential elections. It might be worthwhile to interrogate why you think that the mass amounts of violence that the Democrats support (often, in conjunction with the Republicans or as continuation of Republican policy) can be so readily dismissed.
If you think that voting in US Presidential Elections will make your country any better, and you are willing to ignore harm happening to the already hyper-exploited and oppressed populations of the world, then you are a misguided electoralist - a morally tenuous position at best.
Republicans are the drunken father that comes home and beats you with his belt and Democrats are the mother that cries about it but keeps buying him beer. I get why you might like her better but the cycle of abuse doesn't stop until you grow the fuck up and start hitting back
You don't get to pick one. They're both part of same problem. The sadist and the person who chooses to side with sadists both result in more sadism. Metaphors aside I don't think which geriatric bigot sits in the big fancy chair and signs the bills matters nearly to the extent you believe it does when they're the same bills. Having a democrat in the oval office just gives libs an excuse to look the other way while the stuff they don't like is going on.
I knocked on doors in poor areas for the Nader campaign when I still believed in electoralism and I heard the same answers constantly. Poor people don't vote not because they're ill informed but because they're well aware that it won't make a difference. They've long since learned that they don't have any friends in Washington.
When the day comes to start shoving people like you and me into boxcars the democratic party will wring their hands and weep big salty tears and go right back to cashing the checks they get from selling our teeth.
Mom. That’s why I won’t be giving her part of my paycheck so she can go out and get more beer for dad. I’m fighting mom right now. She’s the one driving the car currently. Why would an appeal to “dad is worse” make me want to do anything but call mom an asshole and resist empowering her any chance I get? I get a lot of mileage out of forcing her to reckon with her behavior that she’s only apologetic for when she needs my support. Why the fuck would I reward that narcissistic shit?
Said the individual campaigning for votes for dems.
If you and the people you are organizing with (I'm sure you organize irl) decide to engage in entryism. Good for you, hope it goes well. I'll tell you, historically, it typically doesn't go great.
Newsom literally just vetoed a bill to protect trans kids in california despite overwhelming democrat representation and approval, that's the most recent ratfuckery the democrats have pulled in a long line of them. You're telling people to run for office? Tell me what happened to Bernie, an extremely milquetoast left option but still too disruptive to DNC corporate interest.
I agree with you people should vote, they should vote for third parties. they should communicate to political institutions that what we have is not working. But too many Americans have latched onto their dumb sports team red-blue politics game rather than trying to actually understand what political power is materially, theoretically, and historically. If we do engage in entryism (we shouldn't) it should be organized so as not to get subsumed and crushed. If you are personally compelled to vote for the democrats out of personal interest, I will not stop you. But I am not interested in crumbs dusted from the table.
First off, you'll notice people calling this a "betrayal", because they expected more from a Democrat, this and worse would be typical and expected for a Republican. Second of all, I didn't read the law but read Newsom's note about it and kinda agree. Newsom is not motivated by trans hate lol.
Ohhh okay, so the dems can actually be heinous and throw trans folks under the bus but it needs to be cold and calculated and maybe pretend to be sad about it. Gotcha. As long as the calculus lines up, right? All your whinging about trans people getting better treatment under dems was complete bullshit, i guess. Do you actually care? are you comfortable and insulated and don't actually feel the impact of dem Policy? The fact that this act doesn't disgust you speaks volumes.
'Capitulating to the right is good actually! Only the leftists are giving up when they refuse to play by the rules set by the house! The dems are allowed, however, to do anything and everything that they want because they aren't fascists! and we can't criticize them because that's the same thing as being fascist!'
When I was young and dumb, I worked on a bunch of political campaigns (gubernatorial, presidential, congressional). The thing that struck me was the number of people who didn't give a shit about the democratic party because their lives weren't improved by it at all, and these were not politically illiterate people. They were fully able to point to issues in their communities or in their state, what have you, that would have changed things for the better. Ask me how the political careers of those democrats went and what harm they prevented.
Math doesn't give a shit about opinions, voting third party in our system is a losing proposition. Use it for signalling in safe districts.
Ooohh, now math doesn't give a shit. Earlier you were giving people grief for saying their individual votes didn't matter. So we can break out the math and realize that our individual votes don't matter in most cases.
Voting third party is the most bare minimum basic thing people can do. If you aren't seeing the tangible and meaningful impact that effective political organizing can achieve, then it is on you to rectify that if you truly have ideals which align with anarcho-communism. If you are saying that voting for dems is a worthwhile strategy because they are ineffectual, you can communicate that point without going whole hog defending the dems. I disagree, but it's a more defensible position. Also, quick aside, why do you think that without meaningful socialist organizing that the leftists would take power after ineffectual dem governance? its just as likely, if not more, that the rightwing with false populism would rise to replace the dems, especially if what little organized left was shown to be in bed with the dems.
Ohhh okay, so the dems can actually be heinous and throw trans folks under the bus but it needs to be cold and calculated and maybe pretend to
be sad about it. Gotcha. As long as the calculus lines up, right?
Nah, I just don't think any law that purports to be pro-trans necessarily is a good idea. Sometimes laws can be written poorly and not take into consideration how fascists could use it to hurt people. Have you read the law? Newsom's response? Can you tell describe to me how it helps and how it definitely won't backfire?
I want to be clear, I'm not a Newsom apologist, but pointing to one vote and ignoring everything else and how it would compare to a fascist admin is dishonest. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/09/23/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-supporting-lgbtq-californians/
Do you actually care? are you comfortable and insulated and don’t actually feel the impact of dem Policy?
I'm a trans Mexican woman, my family immigrated from Mexico, me and my family have been affected by government policy very much in good ways and bad. What about you?
The fact that this act doesn’t disgust you speaks volumes. ‘Capitulating to the right is good actually! Only the leftists are giving up when they refuse to play by the rules set by the house! The dems are allowed, however, to do anything and everything that they want because they aren’t fascists! and we can’t criticize them because that’s the same thing as being fascist!’
This is too dumb to reply to.
Ooohh, now math doesn’t give a shit. Earlier you were giving people grief for saying their individual votes didn’t matter. So we can break out the math and realize that our individual votes don’t matter in most cases.
Yes, because math matters, individual votes matter that's why billions are spent to influence individuals by targeting groups. That's why I'm bothering to argue with you guys, because I see y'all have empathy you're just misled into thinking Xi and Putin (two of the richest most powerful men the world has ever seen) actually are interested in your well being. There are many MAGA people in your same situation that think Trump is interested in their well being. They've been told their enemy is minorities, you've been told your enemy is everyone not wanting to destroy America at any cost and not all about sucking Xi dick.
you can communicate that point without going whole hog defending the dems.
I've mentioned in my comments repeatedly that I'm an anarcho-communist and encourage voting Democrats because Democrats are conservative and conservatives are less immediately dangerous than fascists and will this will buy us time to try to actually fix things outside of electoral politics. I wouldn't call this "whole hog endorsement".
Voting third party is the most bare minimum basic thing people can do.
Ah, so voting is not useless huh? Great. Now just learn more about how two-party systems are traps, and we're stuck in it. Voting third party doesn't get you out of the trap, doesn't break the trap. Unless there is actually MASSIVE support of this third party, the probability of that party winning is negligable, to risking harm to your comrades for that tiny chance your guy will win and the fascists won't is a dangeros game, and I'm gonna pay the consequences personally, directly, and soon . In our system for people who want to actually end capitalism, you don't vote FOR people, you vote AGAINST people by throwing your vote the other way. It's effectively the only mathematical sound argument. Really, what are the chances your third party will win in a FPTP system?
Also, quick aside, why do you think that without meaningful socialist organizing that the leftists would take power after ineffectual dem governance?
Socialist organizing is pro-state. I've mentioned repeatedly that I think organizing is pretty much the most important way to change the future, I just don' t think doing so in a pro-state organization will lead to the best outcome. States don't give up power, I'm not interested in getting my guys into power, that's the mistake of history. Nobody deserves power.
Nah, I just don't think any law that purports to be pro-trans necessarily is a good idea. Sometimes laws can be written poorly and not take into consideration how fascists could use it to hurt people. Have you read the law? Newsom's response? Can you tell describe to me how it helps and how it definitely won't backfire?
You're the newsom/dem supporter; you tell me. How does vetoing a bill that was largely supported by its constituency protect trans kids? Is even this limited bourgeois democracy too much for you? Seems authoritarian to me. Also, how does this track with this statement at the end here.
Socialist organizing is pro-state. I've mentioned repeatedly that I think organizing is pretty much the most important way to change the future, I just don' t think doing so in a pro-state organization will lead to the best outcome. States don't give up power, I'm not interested in getting my guys into power, that's the mistake of history. Nobody deserves power.
'Socialist organizing is pro-state, but organizing is important.' wtf? How can you even marginally support the dems if this is your ideology? So you don't think people should organize around socialist concepts? what kind of anarcho-communist are you? because even if you decry all extant orgs as "statist" presumably you are organizing (if you actually are) with leftists... every socialists/communists/anarchists who I have organized with wouldn't bristle at being called socialist in a casual context. You clearly don't understand why leftists engage in electoralism, especially when there isn't a good chance of them winning. Do you think that voting for 3rd parties in the presidential is to get elected? If it happens that's great (it won't), but it is primarily to spread your political message, the majority of the work of any well-meaning left org is not electoral, it is on the ground and in the community. I don't understand how this specific action is pro-state outside of some of the participants not being anarchists. Leftists should support leftist political projects and parties and not the political parties of empire. I don't understand why this is so fucking hard to understand.
Yes, because math matters, individual votes matter that's why billions are spent to influence individuals by targeting groups. That's why I'm bothering to argue with you guys, because I see y'all have empathy you're just misled into thinking Xi and Putin (two of the richest most powerful men the world has ever seen) actually are interested in your well being. There are many MAGA people in your same situation that think Trump is interested in their well being. They've been told their enemy is minorities, you've been told your enemy is everyone not wanting to destroy America at any cost and not all about sucking Xi dick.
And there we have it. Like clockwork, the chauvinism that plagues the western left rears its rotting head. Absolutely incapable of looking at things from another perspective, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Ignoring the homophobic/problematic aspects of this tirade, why do you believe that you can completely disregard history? because the american leftist project is going to supercede anything those damn others do? I don't like Putin, you'd find a significant portion (if not majority of the people on this site) don't, but I actually pay attention to history and don't let myself be dragged around by the nose by the US state department. Most of my attention is in my immediate surroundings and community. I am, in fact, not motivated by fucking xi or putin you goddamn weirdo, I'm motivated by the fucking horror show that is the USA. I'm motivated by my friends who were murdered by the state. I'm motivated by the fact that we have fucking full blown nazi acceptance in the west (yes, by the dems). Again, if you want to vote for dems, I don't fucking care, but don't expect roses and applause when you get in people's face about bullshit while the world is crumbling around them.
How can you even marginally support the dems if this is your ideology? So you don’t think people should organize around socialist concepts? what kind of anarcho-communist are you? because even if you decry all extant orgs as “statist” presumably you are organizing (if you actually are) with leftists… every socialists/communists/anarchists who I have organized with wouldn’t bristle at being called socialist in a casual context
Socialism and communism are terms without firm commonly understood meanings. I was using socialism as "on the path to stateless moneyless communism" - it's a way of using the state in more cooperative way vs an exploitative way, but it's still state oriented. As an anarchist, I'm not really that interested in promoting groups who want power. But I'm not really "against" people organizing in socialist contexts (I'm actually in the the DSA and RSA), again, I don't promote state power. I don't brisle at being called a socialist in a casual context. I would not call our conversation casual.
Also to be clear, as an anarchist, I vote because I'm also realistic and don't think a successful anarchist revolution is around the corner and I want my miinority and POC comrades to avoid the wrath of fascists while I work on furthering my goals in other ways.
The rest of your comment is full of insults, straw men, and other fallacies and I have to work.
Reducing harm by voting for the dixiecrat who stood by and let Roe v Wade get shredded, and then dismantled the railroad strike, which coincidentally led to a 38-car train derailment and massive chemical spill in Ohio just a few weeks later
Well it could be all of the above + drag queens in jail, plus you jail for your radical communist ideas, + me not able to get my medication + gay people not getting married and afraid to come out in fear of losing their jobs. But I guess it's all the same right?
it's still going to be those things. republicans are effective at moving toward those goals, and democrats are ineffective at stopping them. they're two parts of a one-way ratchet.
vote if you want, but don't sell it as a solution. you're not going to get real change that way, and pretending otherwise is just a way to anesthetize yourself and not organize.
Was what they did to Libya not purposefully cruel? are mandatory minimums and three strike laws not purposefully cruel? is mass deportation not purposefully cruel? Are sanctions on Venezuela not purposefully cruel?
Was what they did to Libya not purposefully cruel?
Not sure what this is about
Are mandatory minimums and three strike laws not purposefully cruel?
Yes, and I'd imagine there's much more support for this type of law amongst Republicans then Democrats. I'd imagine you're going to point out the '94 crime bill or something and Democratic support. Well, understand I'm not a Democrat apologist, I don't think they are without blame or do no wrong, they are just not as bad as Republicans.
is mass deportation not purposefully cruel? Are sanctions on Venezuela not purposefully cruel?
Yes, do you think Republicans would not do these things? And much worse? I'm not saying Democrats are good.
Google how Gaddafi died and then what Hillary had to say about it, for one.
But what happened to the country was that it was bombed back to the stone age and what was once one of the better countries in Africa for the poor became one that has open air slave markets.
Ah ok, I don't defend that. I am not a Hillary apologist, I don't support U.S. colonialism. I simply think Republicans are worse for the well being of people that live in the U.S. than Democrats are. All else being equal, I prefer the party not actively trying to erase my existence. And I think organizing to make real change is less risky under Democrats (conservatives) than Republicans (fascists).
When it comes to international relations, I don't believe morality, cruelty, etc are really part of the calculation. It's all about power.
I told you to look up Saddam's cause of death and Hillary's commentary on it for a reason. They weren't there for the sake of satisfying their personal cruelty, but that sure didn't stop them.
Virtually no policy is motivated by personal cruelty, foreign or domestic, all of it is about power. Rarely, a politician has a genuine personal bone to pick with someone they legislate against (see McCain vs Vietnam, I suppose), but generally these things should be analyzed on the level of material interests.
I disagree with this post being removed. First of all, I think trans people who are afraid of the GOP's genocidal actions against trans people should have room to express that fear. I've always said that still clinging to the idea that there is hope to save trans people in voting for Democrats is an understandable if wrong position. I empathize with it.
Second, I think there should be room in leftist circles to discuss whether lesser evilism and harm reduction are acceptable positions. I don't think it should be dismissed as liberalism. I was a comunist who still believed in lesser evilism for a looooooong time and to this day I would vote Democrat in presidential elections if I lived in a state where my vote mattered. Honestly, with lesser evilism its more that I've accepted the party line without really understanding it rather than really truly getting why its wrong, so Ilike discussions about it to happen because I learn best through discussion.
Obviously I disagree with them that there is any hope in the Democratic party. I'm past that point. But I don't think they said anything removable. Nothing that makes this space unsafe for Hexbears.
What got removed? Did I get removed? Is Hexbear scared of me? lol
Y'all define liberalism as anyone not 100% pro Xi Jinping Thought. A liberal is a proponent of capitalism right? I am not.
I'd like to point out in a binary system, i.e. "lesser evilism" vs "more evilism", the choice should be clear. Voting Democrat is not about thinking the "lesser evil" will fix things, it's about not making things unnecessarily worse.
You are still riddled with liberalism as a philosophy, regardless of your stated desires to end capitalism. It's a framework within which you've learned literally everything up until you read works from feudal peoples or Marxists. But even pre-maexist/pre-liberalism works have been absorbed by liberal context and reinterpreted through that lens. You are still here.
Stalin wrote about anarchism as an idea which exists in every socio-economic system. It's what happens when someone is part of that system but wanting to be independent of it. We don't just want independence from capitalism, but the overthrow of it, and that's why we are Marxists. I think there are anarchists (mostly only ever seen here on hexbear) that are real comrades which Stalin's analysis missed, those that see the crushing of the state needing to happen and be pushed for faster. I fully agree but think patience is a better tactic unfortunately.
You are not that though, you are just the kind Stalin talked about
Okay... So... there were some headlines at the beginning of the year talking about how many anti-trans bills the Republican party had been flooding the various states' Congresses' with. The number was in the hundreds across the USA.
You know what I never read a headline about? How many pro-trans bills the Democratic party were flooding those same Congresses' with in response. So like, no only would they be vocal and voting against the anti-trans stuff but being vocal and pushing for pro-trans stuff. But that didn't seem to happen. One party not only said what they believed, they actually tried to legislate in accordance with their stated beliefs. The other party will talk about believing something but get really waffley when it comes time to actually do the thing.
Also, if you live in a red state, the "harm reduction" argument doesn't apply. Unless you vote for team red, your vote is wasted on a candidate.
The other party will talk about believing something but get really waffley when it comes time to actually do the thing.
I transitioned just over 20 years ago, at the time in California I had no right to housing or employment (i.e. it was perfectly legal for a landord to say "we don't rent to your type"). Guess who changed that?
Also, if you live in a red state, the “harm reduction” argument doesn’t apply.
I don't believe this bill was that clear cut, I don't think Newsom did anything seriously wrong here. Did you read his response? I think it makes sense, as a trans person I agree with his vote.
Democrats might suck as far their desire, willingness, and ability to implement actual leftist reforms, but they are not as purposefully cruel. Suffering is real, more suffering is worse than less suffering, and one party is openly sadist.
Cop City is a complete counter to this argument. It's in Atlanta, a Democrat stronghold. It's obvious Cop City is a response to the George Floyd uprising, which the Democrats alongside the Republicans suppressed through counterinsurgency. Your fundamental error is believing the two parties aren't part of a domestic counterinsurgency apparatus. An effective COIN apparatus employs the carrot and the stick. Of course the carrot is less immediately painful than the stick. That's the function of the carrot. But do you think the good cop is somehow better than the bad cop, especially when they're working together as a team?
Also, one party will make your goal of making the world a better place (which I assume is your ultimate goal) much more risky than the other. Why would you make your goal more difficult to achieve out of spite?
This is not really substantiated. You could easily make the argument that the Republicans are so openly reprehensible that people are far more likely to rise up like we saw with how the George Floyd uprising was partially fueled by Trump being an open fascist. Both this argument and your argument make the error that the Republicans and Democrats aren't working together. Just because they have different roles doesn't mean they aren't part of the same team.
I realize that the Democrats are not going to bring about communist utopia, but as a trans person, one party winning power makes me scared of going about daily life, makes me wonder if my medication will be banned, whether I'll be prohibited from public areas because of my identity -- the other doesn't. But I guess you don't care about any of that.
Democrats don't enshrine anything into law, meaning whatever fascist bullshit the Republicans come up with will be put up without a fight. Plus, federalism means those bullshit laws get passed anyways regardless who's president. We saw this with Roe vs Wade where Democrats didn't do shit after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of reproductive rights. They don't do shit when they're in power, and they aren't an opposition party when not in power.
If you think voting Democrat will make your revolution less likely or take longer, and you are willing to let harm happen to make it happen faster than you are an accelerationist - a morally tenuous position at best.
Voting Democrat is at best a stalling tactic until Republicans drive the car off the cliff. If it's in the context of you and your loved ones fleeing the US to a more progressive country, then yes, voting Democrat makes perfect sense since you would be out of the car when the car goes overboard. But if you have no real plans of immigrating to another country, voting Democrat means nothing since the car is going overboard anyways. Or it would be going overboard unless we wrestle control of the car from both the Democrats and Republicans.
You could easily make the argument that the Republicans are so openly reprehensible that people are far more likely to rise up
This is accelerationism, it harms people and the outcome is very uncertain so it's not worth it, I am not for it.
Democrats don’t enshrine anything into law, meaning whatever fascist bullshit the Republicans come up with will be put up without a fight
So Democrats are not your ideal communists so you're just gonna let fascists in power?
Voting Democrat is at best a stalling tactic
YES!!!! FUCK!!!! You get it! Vote Democrat and stall the fucking shit hitting the fan and build dual power, build community. Dunking on people ain't the way to make progress.
You completely miss my point about the Democrats and Republicans being part of domestic counterinsurgency. And as for your point about stalling, stalling itself isn't a real political strategy. The problem is that you're elevating what is at best a mediocre political tactic into a political strategy. It's not "you should vote," but "you should vote for this particular referendum because the local community is politically engaged and actually wants this referendum to pass." But as a tactic, there will be plenty of cases where the pursuing this tactic is a complete waste of time and energy. Presidential elections are a complete waste of time for people outside of battleground states. I live in a state, county, and city where the presidential results have been the same since Reagan. Literally everyone here knows which presidential candidate will win in 2024 and 2028 and 2032 and so on, so there's really no point in voting for who gets to be president. The time spend canvasing or donating money or even trying to convince strangers to vote is better off just feeding homeless people.
Votes are earned.
Because people get hurt.
Democrats might suck as far their desire, willingness, and ability to implement actual leftist reforms, but they are not as purposefully cruel. Suffering is real, more suffering is worse than less suffering, and one party is openly sadist.
Also, one party will make your goal of making the world a better place (which I assume is your ultimate goal) much more risky than the other. Why would you make your goal more difficult to achieve out of spite?
(This is your cue to bring up black vans at BLM and say that Democrats are no better).
I realize that the Democrats are not going to bring about communist utopia, but as a trans person, one party winning power makes me scared of going about daily life, makes me wonder if my medication will be banned, whether I'll be prohibited from public areas because of my identity -- the other doesn't. But I guess you don't care about any of that.
If you think voting Democrat will make your revolution less likely or take longer, and you are willing to let harm happen to make it happen faster than you are an accelerationist - a morally tenuous position at best.
Trans liberation will NOT come from voting democrat
Nobody said this, I don't know what the point is to bring this up.
Republicans are obviously more cruel than Democrats and I'll even throw in that they're generally dumber as well. But I do think you're underselling just how dog shit and cruel Democrats are. We have somewhere between 50-90k people dying each year due to lacking healthcare in this country and Democrats have absolutely no desire to stop it. Nada, zilch, none, 200-360k people will have died in the US under Biden presidency that didn't have to.
Republicans are dumb antivaxers who don't understand science, but Democrats claim to, which makes their COVID response a cruel and disgusting genocide on those with disabilities.
I can't speak for the person you responded to, but I would assume that they care about trans rights and existence.
I do think two things are worth noting:
Your and my votes generally do not matter because a single vote usually is not going to make a difference we could have every Hexbear user vote, even the non-American ones, and it would not move the needle.
The attack on trans people is happening while Democrats are in power and rather than confronting it in any meaningful way they've equivocated about the complexity of childs sports.
Capitalism is going to do what it does regardless of which party we vote for. This is because the contradictions are very apparent and neither party is capable of addressing them. Republicans will continue to scapegoat trans people and probably immigrants and Democrats will continue to be cowards while hogs shoot up schools and gay bars. And that's it. Nothing will be done about it.
I see this attitude a lot in the auth-left. Is this a general thing or only counts when talking about voting?
What about driving SUVs? I'm just one person, doesn't matter if I drive an SUV right? It's only one automobile. And promoting the concept that people shouldn't drive SUVs would be silly right?
What about consuming animal products? It wouldn't matter if people become vegan or not right?, the cow is already dead, the carbon emissions already emitted, and one person eating a hamburger won't make any difference, no sense in eating less meat or trying to promote eating less meat, it'd be no more useful than voting/promoting voting. The only solution would be to outlaw being non-vegan, and anyone who wants a burger deserves the wall right?
There is no fucking "auth-left" get outta here with that liberal bs. Also real "you want to decolonize? wow so you want to shoot all white people" energy there
Polcomp is a stupid meme that it is below you to believe in even as a liberal
What should I use instead? And what other ways should I differentiate myself, an anarcho-communist, from other leftists who want to use state power to get their way? Is that not authoritarian?
There may be dumb people making dumb memes about it, but I haven't seen anything that makes more sense. If you can point me to something better I'd appreciate it.
You can just say Marxist
Ok
The political compass makes no sense
Chain link fences are useless. See I can spout random statements that sound like facts too.
Removed by mod
Just to point out how bullshit it is.
There was a thread maybe a month back where we all took the test and everyone is "left libertarian," because the entire design of this thing is ridiculous.
Removed by mod
Bad examples.
The idea of voting is for collective action (maybe). If 51 % vote for something, the we all are supposed to do the thing.
It would be like, "If 51% of people went vegan, then 100% of the population would be required to be vegan. But since vegans are not 51% of the people, no concessions should be made towards their beliefs."
Honestly, the Republicans and conserva-Dems are doing that right now with an transphobic arguments along the line of, "Hey, trans people are such small portion of the population, wouldn't it be easier for them all to just, you know, not be trans?"
I agree with everything but I think this is a weak line to use:
it's true that leftists are too small in number to sway an election, but with that line you're just gonna get "what if everyone thought that way." You can see how the lib you were talking to latched onto that one line and ignored everything else.
more importantly, the whole purpose of denigrating voting is to get people to organize. As long as people organize, whether or not they also vote in national elections is of little consequence imo, as long as they have realistic expectations. If they think there's some marginal harm reduction, that's fine, as long as they don't pin all their hopes on some crisp, bloodless Democrat who'll let Citibank pick their cabinet like Obama did in 2008.
People need to understand that, even when the majority votes blue, their votes do not actually result in policy. We have to break the false sense of political agency that voting gives people. But the purpose is ultimately not to stop people from voting, but to make them start organizing.
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens (2014)
I really like your point about voting not resulting in policy, I'd completely forgotten about that study and will be using it. But I'd like to clarify something:
It doesn't matter if you're liberal or conservative or a leftist any single vote doesn't matter because single votes do not typically determine elections. Like you can be a liberal in a conservative area you'll be out voted or a liberal in a liberal area will likely have their candidate win by a significant margin meaning their vote didn't really matter either.
again, you'll just get "What if everyone thought that way."
but I agree it's worth pointing out that a lot of ballots are basically thrown in the trash, if you don't live in a swing area in this gerrymandered hell country.
So then why not look for realistic solutions to ending capitalism rather than entertain the idea that a few thousand people (who spent lots of energy in the meantime pissing people off online for fun) are going to persuade enough people to join them in a successful communist revolution?
I'm an anarcho-communist, so I'm not saying the solutions to the world's problems can be solved within the system, but I also think there is value in being realistic and reducing harm with available tools and not making my enemy more powerful out of spite.
I'll reply to both of your comments just to be coherent:
I did not say this. Voting can make things better it just often doesn't. My mentality on voting is that if it's easy to do then do it but there are counties where I live where people will have to wait for up to 3 hours to vote and often have to get to work. Is it worth it to browbeat these people who would rather do anything else? I would say not.
A single person being a vegan or driving an SUV does not matter in aggregate for the climate because there are systematic problems that pollute significantly more than any single person will in infinite lifetimes.
My brother/sister/nb in Christ are you really saying that it is more "realistic" to vote out capitalism than it is to have a revolution? There have been numerous revolutions and zero elections that have overthrown capitalism.
If you want to vote to improve things Godspeed and I'll even join you, but the notion that you'll achieve your goals of Socialism through voting is absurd. Direct action gets the goods and is infinitely more important than voting.
Amazing! I'd call this progress.
You know why they have to wait 3 hours to vote? Because Republicans gain power and make it more difficult to vote for those in areas they think may not support them. This problem would be easy to solve by increasing non-Republican voters (interestingly Taylor Swift may be helping here lol).
Ok, at least that's a consistent position. I expect to not see you denigrate people for eating meat or driving large vehicles.
Nope. But I think having people in power that don't have a particular boner for cruelty will make any attempts at moving beyond capitalism easier. As far as methods of moving beyond capitalism, I'm in favor of things like dual-power, mutual-aid, community level resilience and independence from capitalist and state systems -- and having fascists in power makes those things harder and riskier. When we know where our food is coming from when the grocery store is not an option, we can consider being able to fight for more than 2 days.
Yes, it is Republicans I'm not going to dispute that, but when Democrats are in power in these areas they do not wield power in a way that propagates it. And our state wide democratic party is extremely dysfunctional and unpopular. There are federal regulations that could be implemented by Democrats to reduce voting shenanigans and they did not pass it when they had the House, Senate, and Presidency. So again, if when Democrats get the vote they're unwilling to make changes that will make it easier for them to get elected why should I brow beat some person making $10 an hour to forgo $30 they need when Democrats won't do the best minimum to win? I would rather spend my time at our food pantry/garden.
No disagreement here I'm not an accelerationist, but I will reiterate that that is not an option in my area, the state run democratic party is extremely corrupt and useless. There's a lot of mutual aid groups in my area that get tacit support of conservatives because they're "apolitical" and are best able to function in this way. If Democrats get their shit together maybe it would be worth putting in effort for them, but as of now they're functionally Republicans who fund education in this state.
Forgot to add
Hope -- hope that others will do the same and work together to make a better future. The pantry will be there next weekend.
It's false hope, and that false hope brings complacency. why organize when voting is sufficient?
Ok, I get that the Democrats are disfunctional, ineffective, and unpopular in your area. What if people like yourself ran for office so that it could become more effective (even if just locally) and then maybe become more popular? This will never happen if all the good people forfeit the game.
That alone would be enough to get me off my couch to vote D. Perfection is the enemy of progress.
This is some Obama era shit. Hope isn't feeding people.
I am finishing my PhD and getting the fuck out of this state. Once I have the means I will absolutely run for school board to keep a lib or a hog out of the spot and promote a Marxist indoctrination of our nation's youth.
Again, I'm not against voting for the lesser of two evils, but I am not going to spend my time advocating for an anti-choice, anti-trans, anti-gay hog. We have "progressives" who gain traction on a state wide basis and the Democratic party systematically kneecaps them every time because it is an old boys club.
I am not asking for perfection I am asking for the Democratic party to be a functional party, which it isn't despite having the governorship in my state.
And when the D's lose... because the D's lost enough times that the R's now run the state... what do you do then?
This phrase is the enemy of progress.
Its always used to argue for why we need to allow some lib bullshit, and shut up.
Is that really how I'm using it? Am I asking anyone to shut up? No, you gave me a simple straw man argument and knocked it down.
No, I'm asking my comrades not be idiots that think we're really close enough to full on communist revolution that it's worth it to let fascists hurt people until we get there. Be realistic, if you really want to help people, pissing people off and letting fascists take power out of spite is not the way.
Voting for a piece of legislation, cool. Which is why all the cool things that people want don't get put up for public votes, we might actually get good stuff.
Voting for a person, who then gets to whatever they want carte blanche style for their entire term, meh.
Direct democracy, I agree would be better than representative, and maybe now even possible/practical with the internet.
No one here is pretending that having fun online is really advancing a revolutionary agenda. That's pure projection. You think you're doing something by voting and by telling us to vote. Its an empty sacrement that absolves you by participating in it. And like all hollow religions, its adherents need others to believe.
You might want to consider looking for realistic solutions rather than entertaining the idea that one person will convience a few thousand people (who spend free time pissing people off by being openly communist while online for fun) of the importance of
ing in a fake democracy
I disagree here - I think cultural change is the harbinger of societal change. I for example called myself liberal, capitalist, and the thought of abolishing the police was unthinkable - until I was exposed to Beau of the Fifth Column and people on Reddit a bit like yourself but nicer (i.e. anarchists not Marxist types) that exposed me to new ideas.
I'd imagine if Beau called me an idiot and transphobe I probably would not have been convinced. I'm currently working to build community, this started online.
I know you disagree, that's why you're all worked up about
on a communist site. You're projecting that onto us.
I'll overlook the petty sectarianism here, and just say that we are nice, just not toward people hectoring us about
like we don't already know. Some of us do, some of us don't. Some of us see the point in strategic voting if you live in the handful of states (counties really) where you vote matters in a presidential election, and some of don't care even for that arguement.
What we all agree on is that the kind of
evangelism your on about is 
nonsense.
Removed by mod
This is actually not the part that makes you a lib. Hectoring people in a left space about VOTE is what we consider lib
Weird definition of liberal but I'll take it. My panties are not in a bunch because people call me a liberal, especially when it has to be redefined to apply.
You do not have a morally superior position because you personally feel scared by one of the two sides of the increasingly fascistic coin of american politics. I'd argue that dismissing the immense suffering of huge swathes of the world let alone the USA in exchange for personal security is an immensely selfish (at minimum amoral) stance. Especially when that security is built on a house of cards that can be taken away at any moment when the Democrats find it "politically inconvenient" to support trans people.
Also, yes, lots of dems are intentionally cruel, so socialists support and organize with socialist/left parties. Wild that. The binary of Republican-Democrat is such an obviously bullshit creation; it's incredible that in the year 2023 people are still browbeating people for not caring about presidential elections. It might be worthwhile to interrogate why you think that the mass amounts of violence that the Democrats support (often, in conjunction with the Republicans or as continuation of Republican policy) can be so readily dismissed.
If you think that voting in US Presidential Elections will make your country any better, and you are willing to ignore harm happening to the already hyper-exploited and oppressed populations of the world, then you are a misguided electoralist - a morally tenuous position at best.
I have a morally superior position because I'm trying to reduce harm while you're trying to get your party into power.
Republicans are the drunken father that comes home and beats you with his belt and Democrats are the mother that cries about it but keeps buying him beer. I get why you might like her better but the cycle of abuse doesn't stop until you grow the fuck up and start hitting back
Right!!! Now who would you rather fight? Big strong sadistic dad or milquetoast mom?
You don't get to pick one. They're both part of same problem. The sadist and the person who chooses to side with sadists both result in more sadism. Metaphors aside I don't think which geriatric bigot sits in the big fancy chair and signs the bills matters nearly to the extent you believe it does when they're the same bills. Having a democrat in the oval office just gives libs an excuse to look the other way while the stuff they don't like is going on.
I knocked on doors in poor areas for the Nader campaign when I still believed in electoralism and I heard the same answers constantly. Poor people don't vote not because they're ill informed but because they're well aware that it won't make a difference. They've long since learned that they don't have any friends in Washington.
When the day comes to start shoving people like you and me into boxcars the democratic party will wring their hands and weep big salty tears and go right back to cashing the checks they get from selling our teeth.
Mom. That’s why I won’t be giving her part of my paycheck so she can go out and get more beer for dad. I’m fighting mom right now. She’s the one driving the car currently. Why would an appeal to “dad is worse” make me want to do anything but call mom an asshole and resist empowering her any chance I get? I get a lot of mileage out of forcing her to reckon with her behavior that she’s only apologetic for when she needs my support. Why the fuck would I reward that narcissistic shit?
Said the individual campaigning for votes for dems.
If you and the people you are organizing with (I'm sure you organize irl) decide to engage in entryism. Good for you, hope it goes well. I'll tell you, historically, it typically doesn't go great.
Newsom literally just vetoed a bill to protect trans kids in california despite overwhelming democrat representation and approval, that's the most recent ratfuckery the democrats have pulled in a long line of them. You're telling people to run for office? Tell me what happened to Bernie, an extremely milquetoast left option but still too disruptive to DNC corporate interest.
I agree with you people should vote, they should vote for third parties. they should communicate to political institutions that what we have is not working. But too many Americans have latched onto their dumb sports team red-blue politics game rather than trying to actually understand what political power is materially, theoretically, and historically. If we do engage in entryism (we shouldn't) it should be organized so as not to get subsumed and crushed. If you are personally compelled to vote for the democrats out of personal interest, I will not stop you. But I am not interested in crumbs dusted from the table.
Removed by mod
Says Lucy as she places the football
Ohhh okay, so the dems can actually be heinous and throw trans folks under the bus but it needs to be cold and calculated and maybe pretend to be sad about it. Gotcha. As long as the calculus lines up, right? All your whinging about trans people getting better treatment under dems was complete bullshit, i guess. Do you actually care? are you comfortable and insulated and don't actually feel the impact of dem Policy? The fact that this act doesn't disgust you speaks volumes. 'Capitulating to the right is good actually! Only the leftists are giving up when they refuse to play by the rules set by the house! The dems are allowed, however, to do anything and everything that they want because they aren't fascists! and we can't criticize them because that's the same thing as being fascist!'
When I was young and dumb, I worked on a bunch of political campaigns (gubernatorial, presidential, congressional). The thing that struck me was the number of people who didn't give a shit about the democratic party because their lives weren't improved by it at all, and these were not politically illiterate people. They were fully able to point to issues in their communities or in their state, what have you, that would have changed things for the better. Ask me how the political careers of those democrats went and what harm they prevented.
Ooohh, now math doesn't give a shit. Earlier you were giving people grief for saying their individual votes didn't matter. So we can break out the math and realize that our individual votes don't matter in most cases.
Voting third party is the most bare minimum basic thing people can do. If you aren't seeing the tangible and meaningful impact that effective political organizing can achieve, then it is on you to rectify that if you truly have ideals which align with anarcho-communism. If you are saying that voting for dems is a worthwhile strategy because they are ineffectual, you can communicate that point without going whole hog defending the dems. I disagree, but it's a more defensible position. Also, quick aside, why do you think that without meaningful socialist organizing that the leftists would take power after ineffectual dem governance? its just as likely, if not more, that the rightwing with false populism would rise to replace the dems, especially if what little organized left was shown to be in bed with the dems.
Nah, I just don't think any law that purports to be pro-trans necessarily is a good idea. Sometimes laws can be written poorly and not take into consideration how fascists could use it to hurt people. Have you read the law? Newsom's response? Can you tell describe to me how it helps and how it definitely won't backfire?
I want to be clear, I'm not a Newsom apologist, but pointing to one vote and ignoring everything else and how it would compare to a fascist admin is dishonest. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/09/23/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-supporting-lgbtq-californians/
I'm a trans Mexican woman, my family immigrated from Mexico, me and my family have been affected by government policy very much in good ways and bad. What about you?
This is too dumb to reply to.
Yes, because math matters, individual votes matter that's why billions are spent to influence individuals by targeting groups. That's why I'm bothering to argue with you guys, because I see y'all have empathy you're just misled into thinking Xi and Putin (two of the richest most powerful men the world has ever seen) actually are interested in your well being. There are many MAGA people in your same situation that think Trump is interested in their well being. They've been told their enemy is minorities, you've been told your enemy is everyone not wanting to destroy America at any cost and not all about sucking Xi dick.
I've mentioned in my comments repeatedly that I'm an anarcho-communist and encourage voting Democrats because Democrats are conservative and conservatives are less immediately dangerous than fascists and will this will buy us time to try to actually fix things outside of electoral politics. I wouldn't call this "whole hog endorsement".
Ah, so voting is not useless huh? Great. Now just learn more about how two-party systems are traps, and we're stuck in it. Voting third party doesn't get you out of the trap, doesn't break the trap. Unless there is actually MASSIVE support of this third party, the probability of that party winning is negligable, to risking harm to your comrades for that tiny chance your guy will win and the fascists won't is a dangeros game, and I'm gonna pay the consequences personally, directly, and soon . In our system for people who want to actually end capitalism, you don't vote FOR people, you vote AGAINST people by throwing your vote the other way. It's effectively the only mathematical sound argument. Really, what are the chances your third party will win in a FPTP system?
Socialist organizing is pro-state. I've mentioned repeatedly that I think organizing is pretty much the most important way to change the future, I just don' t think doing so in a pro-state organization will lead to the best outcome. States don't give up power, I'm not interested in getting my guys into power, that's the mistake of history. Nobody deserves power.
You're the newsom/dem supporter; you tell me. How does vetoing a bill that was largely supported by its constituency protect trans kids? Is even this limited bourgeois democracy too much for you? Seems authoritarian to me. Also, how does this track with this statement at the end here.
'Socialist organizing is pro-state, but organizing is important.' wtf? How can you even marginally support the dems if this is your ideology? So you don't think people should organize around socialist concepts? what kind of anarcho-communist are you? because even if you decry all extant orgs as "statist" presumably you are organizing (if you actually are) with leftists... every socialists/communists/anarchists who I have organized with wouldn't bristle at being called socialist in a casual context. You clearly don't understand why leftists engage in electoralism, especially when there isn't a good chance of them winning. Do you think that voting for 3rd parties in the presidential is to get elected? If it happens that's great (it won't), but it is primarily to spread your political message, the majority of the work of any well-meaning left org is not electoral, it is on the ground and in the community. I don't understand how this specific action is pro-state outside of some of the participants not being anarchists. Leftists should support leftist political projects and parties and not the political parties of empire. I don't understand why this is so fucking hard to understand.
And there we have it. Like clockwork, the chauvinism that plagues the western left rears its rotting head. Absolutely incapable of looking at things from another perspective, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Ignoring the homophobic/problematic aspects of this tirade, why do you believe that you can completely disregard history? because the american leftist project is going to supercede anything those damn others do? I don't like Putin, you'd find a significant portion (if not majority of the people on this site) don't, but I actually pay attention to history and don't let myself be dragged around by the nose by the US state department. Most of my attention is in my immediate surroundings and community. I am, in fact, not motivated by fucking xi or putin you goddamn weirdo, I'm motivated by the fucking horror show that is the USA. I'm motivated by my friends who were murdered by the state. I'm motivated by the fact that we have fucking full blown nazi acceptance in the west (yes, by the dems). Again, if you want to vote for dems, I don't fucking care, but don't expect roses and applause when you get in people's face about bullshit while the world is crumbling around them.
Socialism and communism are terms without firm commonly understood meanings. I was using socialism as "on the path to stateless moneyless communism" - it's a way of using the state in more cooperative way vs an exploitative way, but it's still state oriented. As an anarchist, I'm not really that interested in promoting groups who want power. But I'm not really "against" people organizing in socialist contexts (I'm actually in the the DSA and RSA), again, I don't promote state power. I don't brisle at being called a socialist in a casual context. I would not call our conversation casual.
Also to be clear, as an anarchist, I vote because I'm also realistic and don't think a successful anarchist revolution is around the corner and I want my miinority and POC comrades to avoid the wrath of fascists while I work on furthering my goals in other ways.
The rest of your comment is full of insults, straw men, and other fallacies and I have to work.
Reducing harm by voting for the dixiecrat who stood by and let Roe v Wade get shredded, and then dismantled the railroad strike, which coincidentally led to a 38-car train derailment and massive chemical spill in Ohio just a few weeks later
We've reduced so much harm!
Well it could be all of the above + drag queens in jail, plus you jail for your radical communist ideas, + me not able to get my medication + gay people not getting married and afraid to come out in fear of losing their jobs. But I guess it's all the same right?
i've always found 'it could always be worse' to be the most compelling argument out there
it's still going to be those things. republicans are effective at moving toward those goals, and democrats are ineffective at stopping them. they're two parts of a one-way ratchet.
vote if you want, but don't sell it as a solution. you're not going to get real change that way, and pretending otherwise is just a way to anesthetize yourself and not organize.
Was what they did to Libya not purposefully cruel? are mandatory minimums and three strike laws not purposefully cruel? is mass deportation not purposefully cruel? Are sanctions on Venezuela not purposefully cruel?
Not sure what this is about
Are mandatory minimums and three strike laws not purposefully cruel?
Yes, and I'd imagine there's much more support for this type of law amongst Republicans then Democrats. I'd imagine you're going to point out the '94 crime bill or something and Democratic support. Well, understand I'm not a Democrat apologist, I don't think they are without blame or do no wrong, they are just not as bad as Republicans.
Yes, do you think Republicans would not do these things? And much worse? I'm not saying Democrats are good.
Google how Gaddafi died and then what Hillary had to say about it, for one.
But what happened to the country was that it was bombed back to the stone age and what was once one of the better countries in Africa for the poor became one that has open air slave markets.
Ah ok, I don't defend that. I am not a Hillary apologist, I don't support U.S. colonialism. I simply think Republicans are worse for the well being of people that live in the U.S. than Democrats are. All else being equal, I prefer the party not actively trying to erase my existence. And I think organizing to make real change is less risky under Democrats (conservatives) than Republicans (fascists).
When it comes to international relations, I don't believe morality, cruelty, etc are really part of the calculation. It's all about power.
I told you to look up Saddam's cause of death and Hillary's commentary on it for a reason. They weren't there for the sake of satisfying their personal cruelty, but that sure didn't stop them.
Virtually no policy is motivated by personal cruelty, foreign or domestic, all of it is about power. Rarely, a politician has a genuine personal bone to pick with someone they legislate against (see McCain vs Vietnam, I suppose), but generally these things should be analyzed on the level of material interests.
I disagree with this post being removed. First of all, I think trans people who are afraid of the GOP's genocidal actions against trans people should have room to express that fear. I've always said that still clinging to the idea that there is hope to save trans people in voting for Democrats is an understandable if wrong position. I empathize with it.
Second, I think there should be room in leftist circles to discuss whether lesser evilism and harm reduction are acceptable positions. I don't think it should be dismissed as liberalism. I was a comunist who still believed in lesser evilism for a looooooong time and to this day I would vote Democrat in presidential elections if I lived in a state where my vote mattered. Honestly, with lesser evilism its more that I've accepted the party line without really understanding it rather than really truly getting why its wrong, so Ilike discussions about it to happen because I learn best through discussion.
Obviously I disagree with them that there is any hope in the Democratic party. I'm past that point. But I don't think they said anything removable. Nothing that makes this space unsafe for Hexbears.
Fair points.
What got removed? Did I get removed? Is Hexbear scared of me? lol
Y'all define liberalism as anyone not 100% pro Xi Jinping Thought. A liberal is a proponent of capitalism right? I am not.
I'd like to point out in a binary system, i.e. "lesser evilism" vs "more evilism", the choice should be clear. Voting Democrat is not about thinking the "lesser evil" will fix things, it's about not making things unnecessarily worse.
You are still riddled with liberalism as a philosophy, regardless of your stated desires to end capitalism. It's a framework within which you've learned literally everything up until you read works from feudal peoples or Marxists. But even pre-maexist/pre-liberalism works have been absorbed by liberal context and reinterpreted through that lens. You are still here.
Stalin wrote about anarchism as an idea which exists in every socio-economic system. It's what happens when someone is part of that system but wanting to be independent of it. We don't just want independence from capitalism, but the overthrow of it, and that's why we are Marxists. I think there are anarchists (mostly only ever seen here on hexbear) that are real comrades which Stalin's analysis missed, those that see the crushing of the state needing to happen and be pushed for faster. I fully agree but think patience is a better tactic unfortunately.
You are not that though, you are just the kind Stalin talked about
hehe... HAHAH... HAW HAW... GUFFAAW!
Okay... So... there were some headlines at the beginning of the year talking about how many anti-trans bills the Republican party had been flooding the various states' Congresses' with. The number was in the hundreds across the USA.
You know what I never read a headline about? How many pro-trans bills the Democratic party were flooding those same Congresses' with in response. So like, no only would they be vocal and voting against the anti-trans stuff but being vocal and pushing for pro-trans stuff. But that didn't seem to happen. One party not only said what they believed, they actually tried to legislate in accordance with their stated beliefs. The other party will talk about believing something but get really waffley when it comes time to actually do the thing.
Also, if you live in a red state, the "harm reduction" argument doesn't apply. Unless you vote for team red, your vote is wasted on a candidate.
I transitioned just over 20 years ago, at the time in California I had no right to housing or employment (i.e. it was perfectly legal for a landord to say "we don't rent to your type"). Guess who changed that?
So you're saying it matters?
Lol tough timing for that argument Newsom literally just vetoed a bill defending Trans people.
I don't believe this bill was that clear cut, I don't think Newsom did anything seriously wrong here. Did you read his response? I think it makes sense, as a trans person I agree with his vote.
Cop City is a complete counter to this argument. It's in Atlanta, a Democrat stronghold. It's obvious Cop City is a response to the George Floyd uprising, which the Democrats alongside the Republicans suppressed through counterinsurgency. Your fundamental error is believing the two parties aren't part of a domestic counterinsurgency apparatus. An effective COIN apparatus employs the carrot and the stick. Of course the carrot is less immediately painful than the stick. That's the function of the carrot. But do you think the good cop is somehow better than the bad cop, especially when they're working together as a team?
This is not really substantiated. You could easily make the argument that the Republicans are so openly reprehensible that people are far more likely to rise up like we saw with how the George Floyd uprising was partially fueled by Trump being an open fascist. Both this argument and your argument make the error that the Republicans and Democrats aren't working together. Just because they have different roles doesn't mean they aren't part of the same team.
Democrats don't enshrine anything into law, meaning whatever fascist bullshit the Republicans come up with will be put up without a fight. Plus, federalism means those bullshit laws get passed anyways regardless who's president. We saw this with Roe vs Wade where Democrats didn't do shit after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of reproductive rights. They don't do shit when they're in power, and they aren't an opposition party when not in power.
Voting Democrat is at best a stalling tactic until Republicans drive the car off the cliff. If it's in the context of you and your loved ones fleeing the US to a more progressive country, then yes, voting Democrat makes perfect sense since you would be out of the car when the car goes overboard. But if you have no real plans of immigrating to another country, voting Democrat means nothing since the car is going overboard anyways. Or it would be going overboard unless we wrestle control of the car from both the Democrats and Republicans.
This is accelerationism, it harms people and the outcome is very uncertain so it's not worth it, I am not for it.
So Democrats are not your ideal communists so you're just gonna let fascists in power?
YES!!!! FUCK!!!! You get it! Vote Democrat and stall the fucking shit hitting the fan and build dual power, build community. Dunking on people ain't the way to make progress.
You completely miss my point about the Democrats and Republicans being part of domestic counterinsurgency. And as for your point about stalling, stalling itself isn't a real political strategy. The problem is that you're elevating what is at best a mediocre political tactic into a political strategy. It's not "you should vote," but "you should vote for this particular referendum because the local community is politically engaged and actually wants this referendum to pass." But as a tactic, there will be plenty of cases where the pursuing this tactic is a complete waste of time and energy. Presidential elections are a complete waste of time for people outside of battleground states. I live in a state, county, and city where the presidential results have been the same since Reagan. Literally everyone here knows which presidential candidate will win in 2024 and 2028 and 2032 and so on, so there's really no point in voting for who gets to be president. The time spend canvasing or donating money or even trying to convince strangers to vote is better off just feeding homeless people.
Ok, this makes sense (sorry for the necro-reply, I've been mostly away from Lemmy), I agree it's a waste to campaign for president in certain states.