You're viewing part of a thread.
I'm quite clear: electoral politics is merely a distraction for left/progressive forces. Rather, you should organize with your fellow exploited siblings and built opposing power structures from the bottom up.
He demands the opposite than wishful thinking, or "teleporting".
Is there a succinct way of articulating why we can't do both? (e.g. vote for the lesser evil while also doing all the mutual aid and whatnot that we can?) Does it boil down to the argument that voting makes people less likely to build said alternative power structures?
I'll watch the video when I have time, but communicating an actionable strategy I think is essential to folks in crisis.
Is there a succinct way of articulating why we can't do both?
You can, if you want to. Just don't waste your time on electoral politics.
but communicating an actionable strategy I think is essential to folks in crisis.
Yes. Organizing is an actionable strategy.
Horses and water and drinking and whatnot
Ok, so why not vote for the lesser evil then? It would increase the amount of time we have to organize without fascists cracking down on us.
The fascists have already been cracking down on people trying to organize.
So your solution is defeatism?
A bold strategy, let's see how it pays off. /s
Yes! Why not vote for the lesser evil to prevent harsher crackdowns than you would otherwise get?
Because it doesn't prevent anything.
At the end, yes, both outcomes are the same unless organization is successful. Why make organizing any harder than it needs to be?
I am confused by your reply. What is the "rock" I am buying?
Did you watch the video? The rock that keeps tigers away is like voting that makes organizing easier.
Politicians react to organized mass movements, rather than elections. You got it backwards.
I'm not arguing against voting. I'm claiming that it's not a valid strategy. You can partake, if you really want to.
Ok, this could just be me getting lost in the comment chain. To be clear you don't think voting for the lesser evil is harmful, but you also don't think it is a valid strategy. If that is true, I see no inconstancies in your arguments.
Pretty much. Since electoralism is inconsequential for progressive change: vote if you want.
Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.
Advocating voting for a lesser evil could be considered harmful, though.
Why?
Because it suggests that it's sufficient for progressive change.
I don't think it does.
Don't get me wrong. I know people who want to believe voting is all that is necessary for progressive change, but they are wrong.
Edit: How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it's sufficient for progressive change?
How does voting for the lesser evil suggest that it's sufficient for progressive change?
I said advocatingy for voting...