You're viewing part of a thread.
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 did watch the video. I agree that mass movements are what is required for change. I don't understand, what am I buying?
You're "buying" that elections make organizing easier. Just like Homer is buying that a rock can keep tigers away.
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...
Ok how does advocating for voting for the lesser evil suggest that voting for the lesser evil is sufficient for progressive change? Is that better?
It suggests that people need to vote for progressive change and that congludes their options to enact power on the system.
Yeah, that makes some sense. But you could just tell people that voting for the lesser evil alone is not enough, you also need to organize. I feel like that is pretty clear. That way you can have your cake and eat it too.