Cyanova comments on If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice…

[–] Cyanova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Too many don't, they vote and consider it done with, but the voting is not the solution part of this. With how things are, particularly under FPTP voting systems, it is mostly holding off the worst of it until enough people feel disenfranchised enough to either not bother or vote for some far right conman or another...

Our only way out is by building systems of mutual support for ourselves and one another, but regrettably voting is much easier than that, so it rarely happens.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (12 children)

And yet so many people don't vote. And even more people don't vote in primaries.

Like, I genuinely believe that if everyone just voted on the primaries (incl. for local govt) we'd be fine. That's where the problem really lies IMO. We get shit candidates because nobody shows up to vote for the good candidates in the primaries.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Cyanova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

Voting will not save us, huge numbers of problems stem from fundamental imbalances in power, power which the political class require in order to impose their will (or that of whomever they serve further up the chain), even when their will is genuinely benign.

Voting just decides which people (with already powerful people/structures frequently playing an outsized role in exactly who you get to choose between) get into power, then this power both alters their brain and causes their lived experiences to diverge from those of the electorate.

Our solutions need to include a fundamental redistribution of power or we are just maintaining the conditions (a key component being the concentration of power centres, which has been dramatically accelerating for the past few decades regardless of how people have voted) that will lead us right back here. This redistribution is not going to come from people who, however pure their intentions, require power over others to fulfil these intentions.

I won't discourage voting,^*^ but we have to stop pretending that we just need the right rulers and everything will be fine, voting is not enough.

*Although I do understand people; particularly in FPTP safe seats; who choose not to play their part in the theatre of pretending that we are granting them some kind of justified authority over us- if not one single vote was placed, they would just choose how to distribute power amongst themselves after all, they wouldn't leave the seats empty to reflect the outcome of the theatre, because that isn't where their power actually comes from. This becomes clear when you consider ideas such as designated survivors, they collectively assume power over all of us and have a clear delineation of the rulers and the ruled.

If a primary motivation is fear of the 'wrong' people getting into power, that structure was not built to serve you.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (10 children)

That was a whole lot of words without actually providing a single recommended course of action. I continue to hear a lot of general have waving and dissatisfaction from people who say we need a new system, but fail to describe that system in any meaningful detail, or how we will transition to that system without significant bloodshed.

This country has changed a lot over the past 250 years and most of it happened through protest and voting at various levels of government.

You know what the crazy thing is? We have a means to overthrow Congress. We just don't have the state and local leaders to do it. A second Continental Congress is what we need if we want a massive system overhaul. And for that you need state and local governments in sufficient numbers to act without the approval of the Federal Congress.

Voting fucking matters. The likes of MLK are a once in a century deal. Everything else happens through protest and voting at a variety of levels.

The problem is that people hear "go vote" and all they think about is federal level general elections.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Cyanova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

We are going to have bloodshed no matter what, when state power feels threatened it will lash out violently, we don't get to decide this.

There is already bloodshed, and there always was, states fundamentally rely upon violence to enforce their interests both domestically and internationally. The point is to finally stop this cycle.

Personally, I feel that our best hope lies in parallel power structures, so the best place to start with that would be in trying to organise members of your community to get together and sort x problem yourselves. It doesn't matter what the problem is, it's fine to start anywhere, it just seems to me that an important step is in people realising how much power they have when they work together.

Everything else happens through protest and voting at a variety of levels.

That is just simply not true, unless you use a very broad definition of protest which goes up to and including the Coal Wars, but given the general sentiment I expect you have calmly marching along and begging for your masters to consider you for once in mind.

Even if it was true, you still haven't attempted to address the power problem that I discussed at length (that being the point of my comment, not the broad solutions that you appear to deem a requirement), I have fulfilled your arbitrary demand, now please answer what I actually said.

Edit: Also, to respond to a comment centred on voting not being a solution due to the fundamental structure this takes with "actually, you just need to vote more", without even mentioning a single point I raised, is incredibly obnoxious.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (8 children)

No thanks. You've just admitted your position that you expect, and welcome, bloodshed as a necessary part of progress.

I have no interest in engaging with an anarchist who won't even consider peaceful progress as an option to pursue.

Nor am I interested in further subsidizing the wealthy by digging even deeper into my paper thin emotional and financial reserves to support the welfare of my community any more than I already am through taxes, charity, and personal outreach to people in need. I am already completely tapped out. And any further subsidy is a tacit admission that the wealthy will never pay their share.

So yeah, hard pass on whatever arguments you want to make.

Have a great day/night!

EDIT: No disrespect, btw. You are welcome to your opinion. I just consider the discussion a waste of time because our fundamental goals are too dramatically different.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Cyanova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

That's a complete misread of what I said, I said that bloodshed will be inflicted upon us, I said it already is. You are ignoring that in the name of 'progress'.

Okay, but stop pretending that you are offering anything more than burying your head in the sand, it's embarrassing.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I would argue you're the one buying your head in the sand, as you offer "community recycling" sized solutions to an "industrial pollution" sized problem. You play into the hands of the very authorities you claim to oppose.

Good luck with that!

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Cyanova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 weeks ago* (5 children)

I recommended a place to start, I am not naive enough to think that jumping to the end is any way viable, and that was just to make you happy so that you might engage with what was actually being said. My aim has always been to encourage people to think for themselves, not to tell them what to think or do.

It is also worth noting that you haven't offered any solution yourself, just saying 'vote' doesn't mean anything unless your whole recommended course of action is just to vote (blindly? Blue no matter who?) and wash your hands of it. That is also known as a capitulation.

You also recommended thinking more locally, it's almost as if you acknowledge that proof of concept on smaller scales empowers people to try it for themselves in other contexts, including those same people as they suddenly find themselves with a group of people to start from. Honestly, I appreciate that it sounds a bit airy-fairy, but experiencing such things for ourselves can have a transformative effect upon you and your perspectives.

Why argue when you won't actually argue the point? Trying to pretend that you are being polite whilst dismissing someone out of hand without the decency to explain why (beyond a few common sidestepping soundbites that don't) is just condescending. Especially to not suggest any proposal for stopping the bloodshed that hitherto has gone hand-in-hand with the structure that you are publicly throwing your support behind, I thought bloodshed was important to you, or does it only feel real when it has a perceived chance of pointing at you?

People's first reactions are most often fears of things that already happen getting worse, because we desperately crave stability and force ourselves into a sunk cost fallacy (prisoners dilemma, if you prefer) on that basis. This is unfortunately a huge misdirect on ourselves- if you have the conditions for something to already exist or happen, the subtle changes in condition are usually what lead to this getting worse (often cumulatively as a misdirect itself from where power actually lies, immigration is a great example with its consequences currently laid bare). Plus, it is already happening, if we can't bring ourselves to care just because it doesn't directly affect us, we probably shouldn't be proposing any societal solutions or paths of action as we are clearly unable to operate adequately on a societal level.

Apologies for how worked up I have got at a couple of points, absolutely nothing personal, I just feel passionately about these things and have seen decades go by where we have loudly shouted what will happen only to be ignored and later asked (rhetorically, of course) 'how could this have happened?' over and over again... It's hard not to get frustrated, but none of that is your fault, so I'm sorry.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago* (4 children)

I'm just as frustrated as you and that is where your emotions are misplaced.

The point of this post was "people who don't vote because they object to all candidates are silly and short-sighted". It sounds like you agree with that. Nobody said "only vote" just the same as you didn't say "only do local". That was kind of my point, in a roundabout way.

We need to vote local. We need to work with our communities to find and elevate good candidates. That involves exactly the kinds of grass-roots activities your describe but that doesn't justify not voting.

To quote Aaron Sorkin's West Wing, "Decisions are made by people who show up." If you don't show up to the table where the decisions are happening, no matter what else you do, you're giving your choice to someone else, because he decisions still get made, except now it is by people you had literally, voluntarily no say in choosing.

I will never support the idea of "we shouldn't vote for the better candidate because they're not good enough". We're not going to overthrow the government next month. So we should exert whatever influence we can wherever and whenever we can.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Cyanova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Nobody says only vote, but by design people do only vote. It's made to disguise inaction as action, to make you feel like you have done something when all you have done is wash your hands of the responsibility.

That involves exactly the kinds of grass-roots activities your describe

Hard disagree on this one, there is a qualitative difference in acting to empower yourselves and acting to empower somebody above you, anyone who has done more than a little of both is conscious of this.

One of my 'favourite' experiences along these lines was during the lockdowns, local anarchists set up mutual aid groups and helped people do so across the city I was living in at the time (not a small one). After a point local politicians recognised that there was political capital to be made by involving themselves, so in many cases they barged in and took over, pushing everything through their own networks, and both the quality and quantity of assistance consistently declined in the places that they were successful. Their actions killed people, and not only will they never be held accountable, they got celebrated for it.

Absolutely everything here still runs foul of my original concern, when you have systemic forces pushing towards the concentration of power, anything you do (whilst of course still varying in severity) whilst not addressing this is both temporary and superficial^*^ as more and more things get redirected to serve and feed these concentrations. This necessarily leads to conflict and potential collapse, as these concentrations run out of sources of power that aren't held by other concentrations, they begin to come into conflict. You see an example in the economy at large, first they eat all of the little fish, then the big players start targeting each other with leveraged buyouts and the like. Their power lies in money, so their violence is felt and expressed in financial terms, state power lies in the threat of physical violence.

We can't just ignore the more passive (in our direct experiences) violence. As I said before, if the conditions for it exist then it will grow, and there are systemic pressures maintaining these conditions that need to be addressed before this gets any more out of hand, no matter what brief respite the next election brings.

Edit: * Superficial in that it doesn't address the problem, not that it doesn't necessarily have tangible positives for people, hence why I say "voting is not enough" and not "don't vote" (not to accuse you of suggesting otherwise, you have been clear there).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

And my entire point is that you came into a thread about people who say "don't vote", tried to tell everyone "voting isn't enough", and justifiably got told "hey, stfu, nobody is saying voting alone is enough, but you still have to fucking vote".

Like, I understand everything you're saying and I don't even disagree but you picked the wrong time and place to get annoyed with people who were venting their frustrations over a specific type of person that says "don't vote, it's ethically unjustifiable".

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Cyanova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

I brought it here because I feel that the discussion misses the point and redirects anger away from the systems and structures that actually cause it onto other people in the same position as them. It is important that people understand what is happening or this and similar lines of divide and conquer (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, you name it) are going to keep recurring. You might all be good eggs in every other regard, I have no reason to doubt that you are, but if you see how it can happen to you, you start to understand how it happens to others in worse ways. Understanding something is the first step in remedying it.

I definitely can see how it might just seem irrelevant from your perspective though, so that's absolutely fair enough.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] neatchee@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago

And I'm trying to tell you that most of us understand it already, and are still frustrated with the people trying to convince everyone not to vote as some kind of valid form of protest.

Your approach antagonizes your allies. Accelerationists who want people not to vote are not your allies and they're not mine. They are overwhelmingly people in positions of privilege who can afford to watch everything burn down because they aren't the ones who will be hurt by it. That's not "people like you and me". That's selfish people with an axe to grind

permalink

fedilink

source

parent