Libs straight up create the conditions that enable fascism.
Which is what makes them preferable, in a two-party state, to the fulfilled fascists. Baby tigers grow into adult tigers, but if I have the chance to choose which one I’m locked in a cage with, it’s gonna be the baby.
And this community has rules against disparaging anti-electorialism.
Stupid rules, if you ask me. It is always preferable to try to nudge things in your favor, if even slightly. I’m an anti-electoralist in the sense that it’s obviously insufficient to enact actual change, and no one should be encouraged to rely solely on electoral reform; that would be equally stupid. But it is an available tool. Even if it only makes things slightly easier for all the other, more effective means of enacting change, that’s still a valuable tool.
I’ll quote Lenin
Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.
Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.
He’s advocating running a communist electoral party as a means to spread the communist message and gitate amongst the masses, not voting for Graham totenkopf Planter or Copmala Harris. Literally the opposite of the point your trying to make about “lesser evil voting”.
He’s advocating running what you can to reach the yokels. Sometimes that’s someone who once was so ignorant they accidentally got a totenkopf tattoo. Platner and Harris are further left than most of the masses are willing to go as it is. We’re fighting an uphill battle, and there are like a handful of proper options across the entire nation. Your work with what you’ve got, and we’ve got work ahead of us. That work isn’t going to get any easier if we keep trying to fight the greater evil.
Again not at all what he’s advocating. Did you even read the book? I’m not particularly interested in arguing the point at large but if you’re going to make the point you should at minimum use quotes that actually agree with you. Lenin’s point in that passage is not “support whatever vaguely left bourgeois candidate is available because the masses are backward”. It is that communists should not abstain from bourgeois parliaments while workers still have illusions in them. The “you” in the passage is communists, organised independently, entering reactionary institutions under their own programme in order to reach workers, expose bourgeois democracy, and build communist influence. That is completely different from backing liberals/progressives/Democrats as the best available option. “Work within reactionary institutions” does not mean “support the candidates produced by those institutions.” It means communists use those arenas as platforms for communist agitation rather than standing outside them.
I did read it, and I think you’re interpreting the point far, far too narrowly.
But that’s besides the point entirely. The point is, Lenin disparaged anti-elecrorialism. Having rules against disparaging anti-elecrorialism is stupid.
I think you’re interpreting the point far, far too narrowly.
I disagree especially when taken into account with how much time he spent writing polemics about how terrible and idiotic all the Kautskyites, social chauvinists, etc were.
Having roles against disparaging anti-elecrorialism is stupid.
I would agree if the rules were against the Leninist view of electoralism as a platform for agitation etc but I believe the rules are more targeted towards your view of vote blue no matter who and the view of electoralism as a means to bring meaningful change. It is however an anarchist community that I’m not 100% acquainted with so I could be wrong but that’s the vibe I get from it and other communities with similar rules.
I believe the rules are more targeted towards your view of vote blue no matter who and the view of electoralism as a means to bring meaningful change.
I never said electoralism was a means to bring meaningful change. My argument is that it’s one tool that can be used to slightly influence the landscape to mitigate the worst of the damage. Obviously real change comes from dual power and organization, voting blue just gives us a slightly easier battle, and slightly slows the descent into fascism.
never said electoralism was a means to bring meaningful change.
I never said you did and If I did it was an accident I meant to say your views of vote blue no matter who (as you advocate voting for, as far as I’m aware, unrepentant enforcer for the empire Graham Totenkopf Planter over running a PSL or otherwise communist/leftist candidate) and other people’s views of voting being a means of real change as 2 separate views on electoralism that would be banned under my understanding of the rules.
Libs straight up create the conditions that enable fascism. No leftist wants to partner up the with light-right.
And this community has rules against disparaging anti-electorialism.
Which is what makes them preferable, in a two-party state, to the fulfilled fascists. Baby tigers grow into adult tigers, but if I have the chance to choose which one I’m locked in a cage with, it’s gonna be the baby.
Stupid rules, if you ask me. It is always preferable to try to nudge things in your favor, if even slightly. I’m an anti-electoralist in the sense that it’s obviously insufficient to enact actual change, and no one should be encouraged to rely solely on electoral reform; that would be equally stupid. But it is an available tool. Even if it only makes things slightly easier for all the other, more effective means of enacting change, that’s still a valuable tool.
I’ll quote Lenin
He’s advocating running a communist electoral party as a means to spread the communist message and gitate amongst the masses, not voting for Graham totenkopf Planter or Copmala Harris. Literally the opposite of the point your trying to make about “lesser evil voting”.
He’s advocating running what you can to reach the yokels. Sometimes that’s someone who once was so ignorant they accidentally got a totenkopf tattoo. Platner and Harris are further left than most of the masses are willing to go as it is. We’re fighting an uphill battle, and there are like a handful of proper options across the entire nation. Your work with what you’ve got, and we’ve got work ahead of us. That work isn’t going to get any easier if we keep trying to fight the greater evil.
Again not at all what he’s advocating. Did you even read the book? I’m not particularly interested in arguing the point at large but if you’re going to make the point you should at minimum use quotes that actually agree with you. Lenin’s point in that passage is not “support whatever vaguely left bourgeois candidate is available because the masses are backward”. It is that communists should not abstain from bourgeois parliaments while workers still have illusions in them. The “you” in the passage is communists, organised independently, entering reactionary institutions under their own programme in order to reach workers, expose bourgeois democracy, and build communist influence. That is completely different from backing liberals/progressives/Democrats as the best available option. “Work within reactionary institutions” does not mean “support the candidates produced by those institutions.” It means communists use those arenas as platforms for communist agitation rather than standing outside them.
I did read it, and I think you’re interpreting the point far, far too narrowly.
But that’s besides the point entirely. The point is, Lenin disparaged anti-elecrorialism. Having rules against disparaging anti-elecrorialism is stupid.
I disagree especially when taken into account with how much time he spent writing polemics about how terrible and idiotic all the Kautskyites, social chauvinists, etc were.
I would agree if the rules were against the Leninist view of electoralism as a platform for agitation etc but I believe the rules are more targeted towards your view of vote blue no matter who and the view of electoralism as a means to bring meaningful change. It is however an anarchist community that I’m not 100% acquainted with so I could be wrong but that’s the vibe I get from it and other communities with similar rules.
I never said electoralism was a means to bring meaningful change. My argument is that it’s one tool that can be used to slightly influence the landscape to mitigate the worst of the damage. Obviously real change comes from dual power and organization, voting blue just gives us a slightly easier battle, and slightly slows the descent into fascism.
I never said you did and If I did it was an accident I meant to say your views of vote blue no matter who (as you advocate voting for, as far as I’m aware, unrepentant enforcer for the empire Graham Totenkopf Planter over running a PSL or otherwise communist/leftist candidate) and other people’s views of voting being a means of real change as 2 separate views on electoralism that would be banned under my understanding of the rules.