▲ -2 ▼ Bakunin? Kropotkin? Never heard of them... (crazypeople.online) submitted 11 months ago by hamid@crazypeople.online to c/memes@lemmy.ml 28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 child) Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that "voting convinces people that they've done all they need to" idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can't fundamentally change things. Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that's something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I'd love to be proven wrong here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 child) Mate, I read the whole thing. The only claim I saw as to why voting is counter productive is that "voting convinces people that they've done all they need to" idea, which I think is flawed. All the other arguments are talking about voting having low impact and it can't fundamentally change things. Please, if there is another part that I missed, tell me what it is, whether that's something backing up the complacency claim or another claim entirely. I'd love to be proven wrong here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] hamid@crazypeople.online [S] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago OK maybe I read that wrong. The way I interpreted it, I read "electoralism" as using voting as a primary tool. Using that definition, I agree with that paragraph. Voting alone is nowhere near enough to produce real change. But if the definition of "electoralism" is using voting in addition to direct action, I don't think that paragraph gives much reasoning behind itself. It's a good statement, but it needs more backing it up permalink fedilink source parent