Hell yea I would love to vote for the people I actually want to vote for

Ranked-choice voting is a decent choice for uninominal elections.

Proportional elections are a popular alternative, and they are arguably fairer than even RCV because they are not susceptible to gerrymandering or votes otherwise being weighted by geography (i.e. your vote still matters just as much as anyone's if you live in Redneckville, Mississippi). They do have other downsides though.

Unfortunately here in Belgium we do proportional voting and the Prime Minister is nonetheless a far-right separatist in charge of a right-wing coalition so, uh, maybe FPTP is not the only thing that stands between the citizenry and a communist utopia lol

“Voting is actually bad” Tankies 🤝 Nazis

hear, hear

Yeah, but the question ultimately lies in how many bad and straight up harmful policies are worth the small step toward an egalitarian society? Where does it become ignoble to vote for one policy, when there are ultimately many more harmful ones outweighing the positive? Because it’s kinda rare that we get to vote on policy. We vote for people, with the vague promise of policy ideas that face an uphill battle and watering down— not to mention the straight up bastardization of those good policies, turning them into terrible ones.

I wish it were so black and white as us getting to vote on policy. The policymakers surely seem to be unable.

I’ll work with anyone as long as it’s toward an egalitarian society with wealth redistribution.

Okay, but here me out? What if we just privatize the mechanism of wealth redistribution? Also we're going to be spending a bunch of money on foreign wars, but don't worry - this time the people were fighting are ontologically evil, we promise. Yes, we will have to make deep cuts to social services in order to pay for the war (while still running enormous deficits because haha, psych, deficits don't matter), but it will be vital to get the Moderate Conservative on board with our program.

Also, we control every branch of government, but we still need to compromise with fascists in the opposition.

Okay, why are you leaving? You're clearly not serious about progressive reforms.

And STOP SAYING NICE THINGS AND CHINA! This is a red line we will not tolerate!

You know what? You're not serious. We're forming a coalition with Liz Cheney. See you in the losers bracket next year.

...

You're the reason we lost control of the government.

...

Okay, now stop voting for a popular leftist mayor, or we'll burn this whole party down.

The issue is that you're a minority in your camp. Broadly speaking, the left sees compromise as weakness, neutrality as cowardice, working with opposition towards a common cause as treachery. These are all symptoms of purity testing, and it's the reason why the left in so many places is completely paralyzed.

Grass is dangerous, specially if you have allergies. My advice is to never touch grass!

Can we smoke weed instead? It's also green.

You're right, BUT it will never happen. Hearing different perspectives and understanding other viewpoints will not only broaden your horizons, but it will also deradicalize you... but the people who you are asking to do this are the radicals who are allergic to ideologically diversity. Purity testing is one of the hallmark defining traits of the modern left, and the further left you go the more extreme it gets. The far left will excommunicate anybody who doesn't agree with on just about everything. You simply can't have a serious movement with this type of mentality being as prominent as it is.

Chinese civil war be like:

A lot of the far left types would rather have fascists rule and ruin everything just to spite their opposition rather than make compromises by working with them.

The infighting amongst the left is entirely self inflected

I believe you are missing the forest for the trees. First, I acknowledge your examples are separate ideologies.

That concept also applies to the right... social conservatives, right-libertarians, and neoliberal ideologies are equally separate. However, those practitioners have no qualms about banding together to suppress dissent (or until such time they are the only voices).

Where the left leaning practitioners are unable to do so, they will be forever tyrannized by the banded majority.

To put it more succinctly, the enemy of my enemy is my friend (when freedom is on the line).

Leninism, Anarcho-primitivism and Social democracy (for example) are not different approaches to “leftism” that ultimately want the same things; they are completely separate ideologies that naturally come into conflict.

In a fascist dictatorship, they have a lot more in common than opposition. What's more, there's ample room for compromise when members of these caucuses are able to communicate and collaborate freely.

The biggest hurdle to Left Unity I consistently see is Liberal Wreckers stepping in to insist any one ascendant philosophy is unserious and counterproductive, right before they form a coalition with corporationists and fascists.

you should give up the idea that all “leftists” are somehow natural allies

There's a material basis of alliance that stems from the communities that form the base of each faction.

The idea that a Social Democrat like Lulu or Sheinbaum can't form coalition with Anarcho-Prim native people in the rural Brazilian/Southern Mexican territories is demonstrably untrue.

The idea that a Leninist like Castro or Mandela couldn't lead a popular Socialist revolution in Cuba or South Africa is demonstrably untrue.

The idea that Bookchin-style Eco-socialists can't find allies in Xi's China or among the Maoist factions of North India is demonstrably untrue.

It takes work and it takes the right historical moment, but not everything has to end like the Spanish Civil War. Left Alliance isn't some impossible dream.