We are constantly told that solutions to some of the greatest challenges facing poor and working class people in the U.S. do not exist. Meanwhile, billions taxpayer dollars are being used to fund the genocide of Palestinians.
That very money could have ended homelessness in the United States.
Money for our needs, not the U.S.-Israeli war machine!
By all means, vote independent in state and local elections. We need more choices than a two-party system offers. If the candidate seem qualified, then help new parties establish themselves. Once they build enough followers to make a difference, we can start electing senators. Then the presidency becomes a serious option.
Unfortunately, there aren’t currently any third party candidates with a realistic chance of winning. The only responsible thing we can do for now is choose the lesser of two evils.
You should be using your voice to pressure Democrats to change their stance on genocide, not shaming voters into becoming complicit in the genocide. This is the one time you have any power and if you back down now, it will not end. You are a coward if you continuously put yourself above the project of ending American empire.
Either candidate who has a real chance of winning endorses genocide. One hates millions of Americans; the other doesn’t. I don’t understand how siding with those millions means I’m putting myself “above” them. The accusation of cowardice is laughable.
Advocating for third parties under our current voting system, and at the current moment, is indistinguishable from advocating for Trump.
The responsible thing is to fully endorse genocide?
The responsible thing to do is to mitigate the damage.
Genocide is inevitable regardless of which candidate wins. I’m not happy about that, but that’s the situation we’re in. The less awful thing to do is pick the candidate who will protect women and immigrants. I am not willing to sacrifice their well being in order to make a political statement.
Genocide is never inevitable. It says a lot about the US’s supposed “democracy” that you think it is.
Cherry-picking statements to make a point is a bad habit to get into. Try to void it in the future.
Genocide is not inevitable if we respect one another, and politicians become more empathetic. Unfortunately, genocide is inevitable in the current US election, because both major candidates support Netanyahu.
This is liberal idealist nonsense. Genocide isn’t happening because we’re insufficiently respectful of one another or because our politicians are insufficiently empathetic.
That does tend to be a “flaw” of mine. I expect better of people. I think that “matter” bit is garbage, but that’s not the point.
Are you saying that disrespect and a lack of empathy don’t play a significant role in genocide? That doesn’t seem right, either, though.
Most liberals are idealists*, so they usually do.
Base and superstructure
You can look at it that way, but it’s not very helpful. It’s a bit like blaming a ball for rolling on account of it being round. It’s rolling because the surface isn’t level. You’re not going to un-round a ball, but strap it in place, level the surface, place a wedge, etc. And plenty of people in the world are no less disrespectful and unempathetic who aren’t genociding. And the people genociding are disrespectful & unempathetic to specific people under specific conditions for specific reasons. Those are symptoms, not causes.
*You do find the occasional materialist liberal. Realists sometimes are, for instance.
The tiny minority of sociopaths that sit at the top of the pyramid of US corporations and its state are the self-selected few who got to where they are because they lack empathy. They’re the ones who can’t be convinced out of it.
Take any large group of ppl and there will be a few assholes among them. What’s unique about the capitalist mode of production, is that it makes sure those people run the entire society, and control the nuke codes.
Removed by mod
I understand your confusion. The campaign names at the bottom are what set me off. Candidates are taking advantage of people’s anger over the genocide in Palestine and using it to siphon votes. It irritated me, so that’s what I responded to.
Removed by mod
Thank you for your highly intelligent reply. I wish I lived in a utopia like you apparently do.
Removed by mod
I don’t know anyone who thinks this is about winning. Everyone knows their third party vote isn’t going to result in a win for their candidate, and their candidate also knows this, and they know their candidate knows. When you lecture someone on what they already know, all you do is annoy them. You’re not going to get far with them if you don’t understand what their reasons really are. I can’t tell you; you’ll have to ask them.
One reason for some, that I think you can easily understand, is that unless you live in a swing state, it costs nothing to vote left of genocide. There is no downside, and it may make the Democratic party sweat enough to move slightly left. The party isn’t going to move left if they know you’ll always vote blue no matter who: all that does is make you a reliable and politically irrelevant punching bag.
Swing states aren’t the only states that matter. Also, states “flip”, surprising even experts.
Do you understand how incredibly privileged your stance is? You’re willing to let a horrible person take control of the country just so you can make a point.
Everyone also knows that states flip.
Are the undecided Palestinian-American voters whose families and friends are being slaughtered by the current administration also incredibly privileged?
Pick a lane.
There is no good solution to the problem we’re currently facing - at least, not one that’s legally available to us right now. I’m simply advocating for the option that does less damage.
American women, immigrants, and minorities are particularly in danger. That includes Palestinian-Americans. They have the especially unpleasant choice of voting for a candidate who supports genocide, voting for another candidate who also supports genocide and has promised to discriminate against them, or boycotting the election/voting 3rd party, which for them is effectively the same as option #2.
Let’s imagine that voting 3rd party does actually change things for the better. How much will that matter to the Palestinian-Americans who are illegally deported and get sent home to die? What about the women who will die because of complications during pregnancy? What about the further erosion of civil rights in this country? Will those precious lessons that Democrats may learn ever even matter? We could ALL become politically irrelevant punching bags.
I don’t understand how those concerns can be so easily dismissed.
That’s fair. It’s not entirely without risk, and polling isn’t magic. The deeper
$COLORa state is, the less risky, and if it’s deep enough it approaches nil. Wyoming isn’t going to pick Harris and D.C. isn’t going to pick Trump.This was a description of one reason that some people are voting third party. It’s not comprehensive by any means, and I don’t even know if it’s a predominant reason people abstain or vote third party.
I wonder if Claudia should rebrand their logo (that they have in the bottom right hand corner of OP) to say something like “*swing state? Vote Harris”
There’s no way she wants 45 to become 47. So she must have some guilt about marketing herself and Karina where a swing state voter might accidentally help get a bad man elected.
(I don’t know anything about her but I’m trusting she has her heart in the right place and is alarmed at all the same things the average Lemming is)
PSL is a Marxist Party. They believe revolution is necessary, and despise the Democrats and Republicans alike. They want their voters to vote in swing states to advertise their party platform and delegitimize the failure of the electoral system in general. They aren’t pulling punches because, like all Marxists, they believe the Democrats are unacceptable as well as the Republicans.
There’s a part of my brain that totally gets the logic behind needing a revolution to shake up the system, but then the other part of me is like, ‘Violence? Nah, hard pass.’ So I end up with this funny little cognitive dissonance. I’m all, ‘Yeah, REVOLUTION!’ and at the same time, ‘But let’s make sure no one gets hurt, okay?’ It’s like being stuck between a revolution and a group hug, if that even makes sense!
“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”
― Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court
people are experience violence in this genocide to maintain the lifestyle that we’re accustomed to.
we’re still choosing violence when we support politicians who enable violence; it’s just that, that violence isn’t for us this time around.
our declining status gaurantees that the violence will eventually come back to bite us in the ass and the sooner we change things; the less violent it will be.
this is the most succinct argument illustrating the issue that I’ve seen so far, kudos!
unfortunately for us we’ve doing it for around 100 years so far so violence is already a guarantee.
the best we can do is minimize it; but an overwhelming majority hold a similar opinion to the one you shared and are acting upon it by voting for politicians whose actions are in direct contradiction to that minimization.
The current system is holding up a violence far beyond any revolution. And the violence doesn’t have an end. It is selfish and cowardly to not oppose such a system.
This is a good article on why pacifism has not helped us overturn injustice historically, and won’t in the future.
You’re thinking of non-violent pacifism. I am a violent pacifist. I say all the non-gunned people should attack guns people with their bare hand and destroy the guns unless there’s no more guns, no more gunplants. Punch them in their disguisting face until they’re bloody remains are nothing but meated flesh.
And them cut them dicks
I do understand this to some degree, and unfortunately, only through the lens of privilege, I’m sure. I will have to read this in full later, but my quick glance take-away is that, by being a pacifist you essentially will be ruled by those who don’t care at all and will commit atrocities against you, and, the least anyone can do is to defend themselves? Please correct me, and as I said, still need to read the entire thing!
I’ll let you read the thing first.
deleted by creator
Marxists would pick reform 100% of the time. The reason Marxists are revolutionary is not because they desire violence, but because reform is about as likely as asking the owner-board of your local megacorp to hand over the regins. Impossible without force.
Trying to plead with corporatists to reform is wasting your breath as they will offer empty promises to do something after your support is required then inevitably do fuck all afterwards, saying either they need to get so many other things done or they’ll look at your concerns at the next election cycle/when they need your support.
Also when corporatists realise their coercion has failed, they will immediately use violence to obtain your complicit obedience.
Yes, that’s also why Marxists are revolutionary. Reform is impossible because there are more layers than a croissant required to work through, and each layer is made of iron.
Absolutely, it’s unfortunately a law of the status quo. My biggest concern is that once force is used to take the reins, you’re stuck defending them, which just brings us back to the same place. I’ll admit, I’m likely ignorant of many Marxist ideas. Maybe they have a solution for that, but knowing how humans tend to operate, things often fall short of ideals. Are there any proposals in Marxist thought that address how to avoid falling into the trap of constantly defending the new status quo? I’d love to understand more about that, because honestly, I don’t know what the solution would be. That’s way above my pay grade!
That’s a complicated question. The short answer is that, until Socialism is established world-wide, states are necessary, along with millitaries to defend them. All AES states have had to defend themselves, the USSR was invaded by 14 Capitalist nations right after the October Revolution.
Additionally, Socialism is not “the same place as before.” Establishing Socialism through revolution has fundamentally changed who has the reigns, the bourgeoisie vs the proletariat.
Have you read any Marxist theory? I can give some reading lists, either a “full course” or I can recommend specific works going over the Marxist theory of revolution and the state, but that may raise more questions than it answers.
Honestly, as an American, I’ve avoided diving into Marxist ideas because they tend to carry a lot of ‘baggage’ here and are seen as a touchy subject by many. That said, the more I learn, the more I realize that I probably align with some aspects of Marxist theory, having arrived at similar basic concepts on my own, though I’ve always been puzzled why we don’t embrace these ideas. I haven’t really read any Marxist theory directly, mostly because of the negative bias around it, but I’d love to start somewhere. If you could recommend some beginner-friendly resources to help me get my feet wet, I’d really appreciate it. I also assume that there are resources here on Lemmy? Thanks!
This is not about winning. Putting votes on third parties is a long term investment. It directly shows both evil parties they are missing out on votes.
Votes they would have had if they changed their agenda.
Rewarding a “lesser evil” for not appealing to left wing voters will teach them they need to keep doing evil because that is what makes them win.
Real human beings could suffer because of your decision, but apparently that’s fine, as long as YOU are heard. That’s the kind of selfish hypocrisy we’re supposed to be fighting.
real human beings are already suffering, both abroad due to the genocide and endless wars our country funds, and also at home where people are condemned to the slow deaths of poverty and homelessness. you are privileged enough that the suffering has not reached you yet, but it will. I would argue that the selfish hypocrisy here is voting to preserve your own comfort at the cost of the countless people suffering that you can’t see.
Read the thread again. You have it precisely backwards. I’m arguing to reduce the suffering of others as much as possible.
And in doing so, not demanding an end to the actual suffering currently occurring.
Removed by mod