you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 month ago (28 children)

Yeah it sucks. But, y'know, if the imperialism and genocide is invariant between the options, I'm still gonna vote for the one doing fewer other terrible things 🤷🏼

Obviously I'm also going to do everything I can to get to a point where I don't have an imperialist, genocidal government. Mutual aid, canvassing for leftists in the primaries, political organization, developing community, taking over small municipalities, labor organization, etc.

All of which is gonna be a lot harder now that this side has declared antifascists to be a terrorist organization, and arrests people for pamphlets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    That's a point we can debate (not that I feel like doing so right now, but it's at least connected to reality enough to be worth debating). My problem is with the parent commenter, who's acting like all the "purity tests" are about trivial minutae and not how many children each candidate wants to bomb to death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    To be fair, the original post is about leftist infighting, not liberals. A lot of the leftist infighting is about trivial minutae.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    But that just doesn't happen on a scale relevant to American politics. The informal progressive coalition is basically solid. If there's a place where this is supposed to be relevant, I don't know about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (22 children)

    But, y’know, if the imperialism and genocide is invariant between the options, I’m still gonna vote for the one doing fewer other terrible things 🤷🏼

    What's the worst that could happen if I let the democrats know that not even genocide will cost them the election? What's the worst that could happen by further entrenching the oligarchic uniparty? Surely the democrats won't ever put me in the camps!

    Obviously I’m also going to do everything I can to get to a point where I don’t have an imperialist, genocidal government. Mutual aid, canvassing for leftists in the primaries, political organization, developing community, taking over small municipalities, labor organization, etc.

    No critique here, glad to see at least one blue dog understands there's other tools.

    All of which is gonna be a lot harder now that this side has declared antifascists to be a terrorist organization, and arrests people for pamphlets.

    As opposed to the other side who also arrested peaceful protesters on bogus charges. Who also beat up protesters. Who also broke up strikes. Who also hounded leftist organisers.
    The difference is that the media is more critical of it now. People are much more agitated under Trump. Organizing is easier in many ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (21 children)

    if I let the democrats know that not even genocide will cost them the election

    I keep seeing variations on this, and no one has been able to explain to me how that communication vector works. When has that ever worked? They just double down or shift right to try impotently to scoop "moderate Republicans". If they really are a uniparty, do you think they really care that much about winning or losing anyway? They're gonna keep supporting genocide no matter how many times they lose.

    The point isn't to try to persuade the DNC (by doing literally nothing), the point is to slow the bleeding while we build what comes next.

    glad to see at least one blue dog understands there's other tools.

    Those are the main tools. Voting is the "other" tool. But it's an easy tool, and it scales well with community organization. Seriously, take over a small municipality.

    As opposed to the other side who also arrested peaceful protesters on bogus charges. Who also beat up protesters. Who also broke up strikes. Who also hounded leftist organisers

    Exactly. "Also"s don't matter when you make the choice. The things that are the same are gonna be the same either way. What matters are the differences, and there are obvious differences. Like labelling "aintifa" a terrorist organization.

    People are much more agitated under Trump. Organizing is easier in many ways.

    Of course, on the backs of already marginalized people. I don't have the stomach to knowingly increase the suffering of others for political gain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    Like labelling "aintifa" a terrorist organization.

    Hey. Remember when the Biden Administration listed "anticapitalist views" as a good reason to suspect someone of being a domestic terrorist?

    https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/22_1025_strategic-intelligence-assessment-data-domestic-terrorism.pdf

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-full-biden-administration-unveils-plan-to-combat-domestic-terror

    Of course, on the backs of already marginalized people. I don't have the stomach to knowingly increase the suffering of others for political gain.

    And yet you vote for the austerity party instead of going for any of the various left wing parties and devoting your energy there. You're here scolding people who held to their principles and voted for what they want instead of against what they feared, as if continuing the exact course of action that made Trump a viable candidate on the first place gives anyone an inch of moral high ground.

    If you're not gonna firebomb a Wal-Mart (which would be a stupid and pointless thing to do), then can you at least quit actively endorsing the status quo?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (17 children)

    Hey. Remember when the Biden Administration listed "anticapitalist views" as a good reason to suspect someone of being a domestic terrorist?

    No, and the documents you linked don't either. "Capitalism" only appears once, and while violent anti-government/anti-authority action is referenced, being anti-capitalist is not in itself started to be a cause for suspicion. They only talk about the targets violent anti-capitalists might choose.

    And yet you vote for the austerity party instead of going for any of the various left wing parties and devoting your energy there

    I spend my energy supporting a left wing party. I vote for that left wing party in Democratic primaries, when available. But voting for a third party in the general election helps no one except the fascists.

    You're here scolding people who held to their principles and voted for what they want

    What they want doesn't matter if they don't have the ability to get it. If we had ranked choice voting or something, you'd have a point. But we don't, so voting for what you want is mathematically worse than voting against the worst outcome.

    can you at least quit actively endorsing the status quo?

    If you think I'm endorsing the status quo, you haven't paid attention to a single word I've said. I'm very much not endorsing the status quo, I'm endorsing a specific action within the status quo to mitigate damage until we have the organized power to dismantle the status quo, and dismantling the status quo is in fact what I'm endorsing. But that takes time, and until then our best electoral action is voting for leftists in the primary, and voting against the far right in the general. Luckily, we're reaching a point where leftists are winning more primaries, so hopefully in a few cycles we won't have to vote lesser evil anymore. But I'm not going to pretend we're closer to that than we are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (16 children)

    Well if you're just going to lie about shit then there's really no point in continuing the discussion, is there?

    Both of those documents list anticapitalist views among warning signs of domestic terrorism. The existence of those documents gives Federal Authorities permission to use anticapitalist views as a reason to open an investigation into someone who isn't even accused of doing anything else.

    And since I now know you're definitely being either disingenuous or completely illiterate, I'm not going to waste any more time in your servile, cowardly bootlicking. Keep doing the thing that created the problem on the first place, some day it will solve the problem (by starving us all to death so we don't have any more problems).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    Both of those documents list anticapitalist views among warning signs of domestic terrorism.

    Prove it, because I looked and couldn't find it.

    permission to use anticapitalist views as a reason to open an investigation into someone who isn't even accused of doing anything else.

    Which is a different thing than using anti-capitalist views alone to arrest someone.

    Keep doing the thing that created the problem on the first place, some day it will solve the problem

    You're the one doing that. How many decades of protest voting, and what has it accomplished? We have this problem because of people like you, who confuse strategic action with boot licking. Without people like your, we would've gotten Gore in 2000, and we wouldn't be in this situation.

    Delude yourself well you like, but don't try to moralize your foolishness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (14 children)

    Prove it, because I looked and couldn't find it.

    Then either you're a fool with no idea how these documents are used and you're looking for it to openly say "anticapitalist sentiment is a valid reason to open an investigation", or you're being disingenuous. Second paragraph on page 41 in the first document, I'll leave the second as an exercise for the reader.

    Which is a different thing than using anti-capitalist views alone to arrest someone.

    That's not what I said they did, but the difference is largely academic. Once an investigation is opened a pretense for arrest can be manufactured easily at any time.

    We have this problem because of people like you, who confuse strategic action with boot licking.

    No, we have this problem because of people who confuse supporting Neoliberal ghouls who are polite about it over Neoliberal ghouls who are in your face and arrogant about it with harm reduction. Had the party you're scolding people for turning on not spent damn near half a century gleefully helping the other half of the uniparty gut the working class and force people into serfdom, Trump would never have gotten on the ballot in the first place. Sonyesz you are absolutely advocating for people to continue doing exactly what created the problem, and scolding people who won't join you in that because you don't understand the problem, nor how to solve it. And you never will as long as you accept the narratives about the problem that are pushed by the people who benefit from the problem not being solved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (13 children)

    Second paragraph on page 41 in the first document

    Yes, that was the one reference to capitalism which I referred to. It doesn't say what you're implying it does.

    That's not what I said they did

    No, but that is what the current administration is doing. So yes, there is a difference.

    Had the party you're scolding people for turning on not spent damn near half a century gleefully helping the other half of the uniparty gut the working class and force people into serfdom, Trump would never have gotten on the ballot in the first place.

    Hard disagree.

    you are absolutely advocating for people to continue doing exactly what created the problem, and scolding people who won't join you in that because you don't understand the problem, nor how to solve it.

    Again, no, that's you. Your suggested actions won't work, and you're scolding people for damage mitigation. No one here is supporting neo-liberals, they're fighting fascists. The fact that you're intent on demonizing damage mitigation for a delusional fantasy where you sway 150 million people is all the proof I need that you're not a serious adult worth continuing this conversation with. Come back after you've spent some actual time in the real world, and get some context for how social change works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (12 children)

    Hard disagree

    Can you find me a single example in history of fascism arising in a Democracy without the working class being under extreme enough pressure to make fascist strongman rhetoric appealing?

    Or are you arguing that the Democrats don't have a track record of hard Neoliberalism, or that that Neoliberalism isn't the cause of the working class pressure that led to Trump?

    Come back after you've spent some actual time in the real world, and get some context for how social change works.

    Ten years in the trenches working for Progressive Democrats' campaigns and seeing how the party functions from the inside was the real world. You should try it. Go volunteer for your local DSA. More importantly, start showing up to local Democratic Party meetings. See who weilds power there and how they do it. With the way things are going, it won't even take you ten years to realize how utterly futile it is to expect the Democratic Party to fight fascism in any effective sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (11 children)

    Go volunteer for your local DSA.

    I do.

    it won't even take you ten years to realize how utterly futile it is to expect the Democratic Party to fight fascism in any effective sense.

    Good thing I don't expect that. You've misunderstood my point really, really badly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

    You've misunderstood my point really, really badly.

    If that wasn't what you expect, how is being a safe vote for the Neoliberal ghouls any form of harm reduction?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (9 children)

    I expected it, I just hoped you were better than that. How is harm increase beneficial in any way? Absolute nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    Lol, I meant if you didn't expect the Dems to fight fascism, how is voting for them harm reduction. And I'm pretty sure you knew that and took the cheap dodge bcs you don't have a good answer but let's make that explicit and find out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    Because they do slightly less harm than the fascists. I'm not even voting for the Dems, I'm just voting against the fascists. It's not a cheap dodge, it's the whole principle. Voting isn't going to give us "good" anytime in the.near future, so trying to use it for that is foolish. The comparatively slow march towards fascism under the Dems gives us time to utilize tools besides voting: mutual aid, community building, workplace democracy, etc.

    I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of "harm reduction". It doesn't mean "Vote for Democrats because they will reduce the harm caused by fascists". It means "Both the Dems and fascists cause harm, but the Dems cause less harm, and since one of the two is going to win in the current political landscape, voting for Dems reduces the amount of harm added".

    The only rational voting strategy is voting for leftists in the Democratic primary, and then voting against the fascists in the general, even if that means voting for the neo-lib. If you want to vote against the fascists while also voting for a leftist, you need to make sure leftists win the Democratic primary. We're seeing that starting now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    The only rational voting strategy is voting for leftists in the Democratic primary, and then voting against the fascists in the general, even if that means voting for the neo-lib.

    That strategy is only rational if you believe that voting progressive in the primary will create change faster than the status quo will kill us all. And forty years of the party continually fucking off further right at the behear of it's Wall St paymasters screams loudly that that belief is a fantasy, and your strategy is delusional.

    You continue to hand power to the people making things worse and pretend you're doing harm reduction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    That strategy is only rational if you believe that voting progressive in the primary will create change faster than the status quo will kill us all.

    False. The best strategy is still the best strategy even if the outcome is still bad. Voting for a third party has a worse outcome. Not voting has a worse outcome. Despite voting for Dems still being a bad outcome, it is the least bad achievable outcome. Hence, harm reduction.

    And forty years of the party continually fucking off further right at the behear of it's Wall St paymasters screams loudly that that belief is a fantasy, and your strategy is delusional.

    On the contrary, it screams loudly that protest voting is not only ineffective, it's counterproductive. When they lose progressives, they don't shift left, they shift right to try to get more centrists.

    You continue to hand power to the people making things worse faster and pretend your protest achieves something. It does not, the rightward shift of the Democrats screams this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Voting for a third party has a worse outcome. Not voting has a worse outcome

    Only if you're a spoiled child incapable of thinking any further ahead than right now.

    In the king term your strategy has no chance of ever improving anything. Your best case outcome is "thing get much worse. But a little bit more slowly".

    You're clinging to the ratchet for fear of the wheel, when the only answer is to destroy the whole machine. Voting outside the duopoly or abstaining altogether offer even a slim chance of that. The good news is the chances get less slim with each person who gives up on the genocidal war party in disgust, so the numbers are shifting in ways that give me hope. In ankther cycle or two, when even more Dem voters realize that the DSA isn't going to change anything either, I expect the rate of attrition for the Neoliberal ghouls to increase starkly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Only if you're a spoiled child incapable of thinking any further ahead than right now.

    On the contrary, that's your position. You want the revolution right now without the work required to build it, regardless of who gets hurt in a failed attempt. Spoiled and short-sighted nonsense.

    the only answer is to destroy the whole machine.

    We don't have the organized power to do that yet.

    Voting outside the duopoly or abstaining altogether offer even a slim chance of that

    Only in your mind. Not in reality. There is absolutely zero evidence that that works.

    when even more Dem voters realize that the DSA isn't going to change anything either, I expect the rate of attrition for the Neoliberal ghouls to increase starkly.

    Counterproductive doomerism. You're not a serious adult.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You want the revolution right now without the work required to build it,

    Said the ShitLib to the people doing the work to build the revolution, despite the best attempts of the ShitLibs to convince them to abandon that work and vote for the status quo.

    We don't have the organized power to do that yet.

    And you never will if you're "organizing" with people who don't recognize the DNC as being just as much the enemy as the GOP. The Democratic Party absorbs and neuters any organizing it sees being done, just ask Occupy Wall St. Or wait 5 years and ask the DSA. If the climate wars haven't killed them all by then.

    There is absolutely zero evidence that that works

    There is a great deal more evidence this will work than there is that continuing to guarantee your vote to Neoliberal ghouls on exchange for no political concessions whatsoever will.

    You're not a serious adult. Oh no! The ShitLib lamb doesn't think I'm a serious adult, how will I ever console myself!

    You're still a selfish child voting to protect your privilege and comfort instead of being brave enough to abandon the reassurance of a mainstream party to try to affect real change. You're such a coward that you stand on the sidelines haranguing anyone who draws to step outside the lines painted by your masters, and it disgusts me. The Dems are already showing that they're about to throw trans people under the bus, so in two years when we do this again, you'll be arguing how we have to support that in order to keep some other imaginary worse thing from happening, and you'll still lack the self awareness to recognize that the "center" you're defending has once again lurched right and taken you with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    brave enough to abandon the reassurance of a mainstream party to try to affect real change

    Being bad at math and ignoring political reality does not make you brave. It makes you foolish and short-sighted. Like I said, an unserious, counterproductive child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I keep seeing variations on this, and no one has been able to explain to me how that communication vector works. When has that ever worked?

    Pretty simple. If I am doing a genocide, and you vote for me, it makes it clear you are at least apathetic about genocide.

    The point isn’t to try to persuade the DNC (by doing literally nothing), the point is to slow the bleeding while we build what comes next.

    Voting for the DNC does not slow the bleeding. Voting for the DNC makes it harder to build anything else.

    Those are the main tools. Voting is the “other” tool. But it’s an easy tool, and it scales well with community organization. Seriously, take over a small municipality.

    Depends on your analysis on electorialism in modern day America. I think it has some value locally, and in bigger elections its only positive use is to build momentum for leftist parties.

    "Also"s don’t matter when you make the choice. The things that are the same are gonna be the same either way. What matters are the differences, and there are obvious differences. Like labelling “aintifa” a terrorist organization.

    So not exactly, because I am arguing there is not practical difference between the two. I suppose the republicans are more overt, which is a positive, since it makes even liberals reel.

    I don’t have the stomach to knowingly increase the suffering of others for political gain.

    Sure you do. That's what you do by voting for democrats.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    If I am doing a genocide, and you vote for me, it makes it clear you are at least apathetic about genocide.

    That doesn't imply the converse, it doesn't mean that not voting communicates any information about your stance on genocide, it just makes it clear that you're apathetic in general.

    Voting for the DNC makes it harder to build anything else.

    How? The GOP is actively arresting people trying to build anything else. Attempts to co-opt a movement isn't harder to overcome than prison.

    I suppose the republicans are more overt, which is a positive, since it makes even liberals reel.

    Again, they are causing additional suffering. You think it's a positive because you're not one of the additional people suffering. My empathy won't allow me to ignore the additional suffering caused by my action, or lack thereof. I can't just take an ideological stand when I know it will increase the suffering of others.

    Constant suffering I've learned to cope with, since I'd be catatonic otherwise. But the people only on one list? I can't just stand by, I have to at least save them. I don't know how you can do it, my body physically revulses at just the thought of standing by even if the difference is only one person. I don't think I'd feel human.

  • source
  • parent