I’d love to have a discussion about this. I am a socialist through and through. I believe that the system needs to be dismantled to achieve any meaningful change, and that no progress can realistically be made within the system.
I’d argue that there are 4 actions within the system. Vote red, vote blue, vote third party, and don’t vote.
I’d argue that all 4 options will never lead to meaningful change. However, given this, every American who is eligible to vote is forced into playing the game, there is no way to abstain. Even not voting leads to a meaningful outcome within the system, and thus is still playing the game.
If no actions within the system can change things, I pose that the only way to disrupt this system is by dismantling it from the outside via revolution.
This however, cannot be done overnight, even if you are consistently acting on it. These types of things take a general sense of civil unrest to get kicked off. I believe that under capitalism, this unrest is inevitable, and once it hits a tipping point, the revolution will start. In the meantime, I feel we have two actions we can take.
First, we should be ushering in the revolution. Organize, make people aware of the alternative, disrupt the system in any means you reasonably can, try to get people to be sympathetic to the cause, etc. Don’t slack on your responsibility to prepare and eventually initiate the revolution.
Second, since we have no choice but to play the game we’ve been dropped in to, you should vote for short term damage mitigation. If you are forced to take an action within the system, I feel people have a moral obligation to try to reduce the harm to others as much as possible. This involves making a vote, since not voting results in almost the same outcome as a vote for the candidate furthest away from the one you considered least harmful.
I have yet to see an argument that shows how not voting is going against or dismantling the system. However, considering so many people believe that not voting is the right choice, I’m really interested in hearing someone explain it to me, as there must be some reasoning behind it that I’m not seeing.
The simple argument is that electoralism cannot work. Therefore, workers should front and vote for our own parties, to measure strength and prove the inability to gain change via electoralism.
I don’t know if I understand what you are suggesting. Are you saying the working class should vote third party, or each person should vote for themself? Or when you say vote for our own parties do you mean not vote at all?
If you abstain from voting then you’re basically lumping yourself in with people who don’t care or actually are fine with the status quo. If you cast a blank vote then you’re expressing your disapproval of all the candidates. Essentially saying “I’m willing to vote, but it won’t be for any of you guys”. This would make sense if the system worked but it doesn’t.
I agree with both of you that we need to vote for socialist parties and organize with them. But that doesnt mean to support the lesser evil argument. Lesser evil argument will be that we need to vote for Hillary in order to avoid Trump for example, that is absurd and is the reason we cannot support this lesser evil stupidity. I hope Carrot is not defending this lesser evil position.
You make it seem so black and white. I don’t think it’s as simple as the lesser evil choice is 100% wrong full stop. For instance, I support the lesser evil mindset over the not voting mindset. However, if one exists, I support voting for a politician that genuinely supports your views over the lesser evil mindset.
Not voting makes no sense to me, because a null vote has the same effect as a vote for whichever candidate you like the least.
I’d argue that there are 4 actions within the system. Vote red, vote blue, vote third party, and don’t vote. I’d argue that all 4 options will never lead to meaningful change.
Second, since we have no choice but to play the game we’ve been dropped in to, you should vote for short term damage mitigation.
Let’s draw the logical conclusion here.
Short term damage mitigation is the goal. There are three options that incur short term damage. Option 4, however, lets one continue working or resting, therefore incurring no damage at all.
As all 4 options don’t lead to any meaningful change, option 4 is the best option.
I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that the time it takes to look into a candidate is the damage being done? I was thinking on a larger scale. All 4 options lead to a politician getting sworn in, who will inevitably, directly cause people to die. Picking the option that appears to be likely to kill the least people would theoretically cause the least damage in their 4 years. I’m calling 4 years the short term here.
how not voting is going against or dismantling the system.
Its refusing to play their rigged game, and spending your energies elsewhere.
Every single positive change from the US came not through voting or participation in the electoral process, but from force or the threat of force from below, usually in the form of mass protests, or enemies of the US empire defeating them militarily.
I’d love to have a discussion about this. I am a socialist through and through. I believe that the system needs to be dismantled to achieve any meaningful change, and that no progress can realistically be made within the system.
I’d argue that there are 4 actions within the system. Vote red, vote blue, vote third party, and don’t vote. I’d argue that all 4 options will never lead to meaningful change. However, given this, every American who is eligible to vote is forced into playing the game, there is no way to abstain. Even not voting leads to a meaningful outcome within the system, and thus is still playing the game.
If no actions within the system can change things, I pose that the only way to disrupt this system is by dismantling it from the outside via revolution.
This however, cannot be done overnight, even if you are consistently acting on it. These types of things take a general sense of civil unrest to get kicked off. I believe that under capitalism, this unrest is inevitable, and once it hits a tipping point, the revolution will start. In the meantime, I feel we have two actions we can take.
First, we should be ushering in the revolution. Organize, make people aware of the alternative, disrupt the system in any means you reasonably can, try to get people to be sympathetic to the cause, etc. Don’t slack on your responsibility to prepare and eventually initiate the revolution.
Second, since we have no choice but to play the game we’ve been dropped in to, you should vote for short term damage mitigation. If you are forced to take an action within the system, I feel people have a moral obligation to try to reduce the harm to others as much as possible. This involves making a vote, since not voting results in almost the same outcome as a vote for the candidate furthest away from the one you considered least harmful.
I have yet to see an argument that shows how not voting is going against or dismantling the system. However, considering so many people believe that not voting is the right choice, I’m really interested in hearing someone explain it to me, as there must be some reasoning behind it that I’m not seeing.
The simple argument is that electoralism cannot work. Therefore, workers should front and vote for our own parties, to measure strength and prove the inability to gain change via electoralism.
I don’t know if I understand what you are suggesting. Are you saying the working class should vote third party, or each person should vote for themself? Or when you say vote for our own parties do you mean not vote at all?
The working class should vote for socialist parties like PSL, participate in them, and organize with them.
Oh, then I think we agree with each other. I’m specifically wondering why someone would abstain from voting
If you abstain from voting then you’re basically lumping yourself in with people who don’t care or actually are fine with the status quo. If you cast a blank vote then you’re expressing your disapproval of all the candidates. Essentially saying “I’m willing to vote, but it won’t be for any of you guys”. This would make sense if the system worked but it doesn’t.
I agree with both of you that we need to vote for socialist parties and organize with them. But that doesnt mean to support the lesser evil argument. Lesser evil argument will be that we need to vote for Hillary in order to avoid Trump for example, that is absurd and is the reason we cannot support this lesser evil stupidity. I hope Carrot is not defending this lesser evil position.
You make it seem so black and white. I don’t think it’s as simple as the lesser evil choice is 100% wrong full stop. For instance, I support the lesser evil mindset over the not voting mindset. However, if one exists, I support voting for a politician that genuinely supports your views over the lesser evil mindset.
Not voting makes no sense to me, because a null vote has the same effect as a vote for whichever candidate you like the least.
Let’s draw the logical conclusion here.
Short term damage mitigation is the goal. There are three options that incur short term damage. Option 4, however, lets one continue working or resting, therefore incurring no damage at all.
As all 4 options don’t lead to any meaningful change, option 4 is the best option.
I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that the time it takes to look into a candidate is the damage being done? I was thinking on a larger scale. All 4 options lead to a politician getting sworn in, who will inevitably, directly cause people to die. Picking the option that appears to be likely to kill the least people would theoretically cause the least damage in their 4 years. I’m calling 4 years the short term here.
All 4 options lead to the same politician getting sworn in.
Its refusing to play their rigged game, and spending your energies elsewhere.
Every single positive change from the US came not through voting or participation in the electoral process, but from force or the threat of force from below, usually in the form of mass protests, or enemies of the US empire defeating them militarily.
emphasis on spending your energy elsewhere. like actually go do stuff, and i don’t mean the no kings parades.