Way to go, guys!

You're viewing a single thread.

969 comments

And what did Marx think about voting for the lesser evil:
Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, London, March 1850
- Trump and his cult will be a little more than "a few reactionaries in the representative body".
  
  And Marx is talking about Parliamentary systems here, which may color the analysis.
  
  Maybe an American opinion:
  I will be no party to it and that will make little difference. You will take large part and bravely march to the polls, and that also will make no difference. Stop running Russia and giving Chinese advice when we cannot rule ourselves decently. Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have. Democracy is dead in the United States. Yet there is still nothing to replace real democracy. Drop the chains, then, that bind our brains. Drive the money-changers from the seats of the Cabinet and the halls of Congress. Call back some faint spirit of Jefferson and Lincoln,and when again we can hold a fair election on real issues, let’s vote, and not till then. Is this impossible? Then democracy in America is impossible.
  -Why I Won't Vote: W.E.B. Du Bois
  
  That's a very poignant piece, and it was my motivation back in 2000 when I refused to vote for Bush or Gore. It was also before I knew anything else about Du Bois and the context in which he wrote that piece, and it certainly wasn't when a guy like Trump was running.
  
  So, you’re the reason Gore lost? /s
  
  I mean, in the greater sense yes. I was one of countless apathetic or cynical people who could have actually voted and possibly made a difference. People have been reposting and miscontextualizing this Du Bois bit since the 50's, trying to trick people who think their smart into feeling good about not voting. They do this because they know it works.
  
  What is out of context?
  Du Bois couldn’t be any clearer: our votes don’t really matter in a system that isn’t committed to changing the conditions facing marginalized groups.
  
  He was a 90 something year old black man when he wrote this piece in 1956. Compared to the things he lived through earlier in his life, the stakes in 56 were a little less urgent. Likewise the stakes he lived through in 56 weren't as urgent as the stakes this year.
  He also wrote it in the hopes that voter apathy would send a message. He was right... but not how he hoped. It sent a message that spreading voter apathy was a better tactic than changing policy. Again, there's a reason why this piece is trotted out every four years.
  
  He also wrote it in the hopes that voter apathy would send a message. He was right... but not how he hoped.
  I’d be interested to read more about how he intended it differently, if you have it available.
  Edit: I can’t find where he regretted it. You didn’t just make that up, did you?
  
  I didn't say he regretted anything, just that unscrupulous people seized on the perceived theme of apathy and have tried to weaponize it ever since.
  Edit: from this op-ed
  W.E.B Du Bois (1868-1963) was an African American civil rights activist, sociologist and philosopher. He developed a theory of how one should vote tactically. Crucially, Du Bois did not equate voting tactically with voting for the lesser of two evils. In his essay I won't vote (1956), Du Bois outlines his general strategy for how to cast your vote. You should:
  Research who best represents your interests. Go with the candidate, not necessarily with the party (in Du Bois' case, he looked at the extent to which a candidate was willing to help the cause of African Americans)
  If none of the main candidates represents your interests, you should vote "for a third party even when its chances [are] hopeless."
  "If the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, [you should be] voting for the lesser of two evils."
  If there is no third choice, and you are deeply dissatisfied with the candidates on offer, it is acceptable not to vote. This was controversial, especially given Du Bois' earlier insistence on tactical voting. Yet, Du Bois believed this could send a strong signal "It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of their own accord…this might make the American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of protest."
  So Du Bois' understanding of tactical voting is much richer than merely voting for the lesser of two evils (although he did think it was sometimes necessary, see (3)). You don't always vote to change the outcome. You may also wish to vote — especially in a safe seat — to give a signal. Refraining from voting also sends a signal, but needs to be done only in extreme cases where you have not a single acceptable candidate and all candidates are equally bad.
  
  lovely
  bravo
  just perfect
  would that we could hear it in his own voice
  
  Parliamentary is still FPTP for members of parliament.
- Marx and Engels had proportional representation to work with instead of first past the post. This is exactly why the US needs proportional representation, at least for congress, to break the de-facto two party system.
  
  That doesn’t prevent the workers from forming their own party and promoting their own candidates. Circumstances in every country will always be different.
- Most people are trying to bring in social programs, not communism. The Democrats can do social programs, and they can do them better when we move the Overton window left by continually voting in Democrats
  
  The Democrats can do social programs,
  But won't.
  
  Obamacare. Try voting and moving the Overton window and they can do more.
  
  I do vote. The window keeps moving to the right. To the point where a handout to the insurance industry is considered a social program.
  
  Just think about how much worse it could be.
  
  Oh, I'll just have to wait. The overton window isn't going to move to the left. It's already so far to the right that the "left" party supports genocide.
  
  Do you honestly think it hasn't moved right because Trump won? Now think what will happen if he wins again.
  Ps you're what the meme is about. Except the meme is wrong, didn't save anything because Trump would escalate it.
  
  And there it is, like clockwork.
  The assumption that anyone who doesn't love genocide must be a Trump supporter.
  
  And there it is, the strawman.
  Cheers.
  
  Huey Long on the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
  
  Lol 'both sides same' BS again. How many years have you missed? About 23.
  
  I’m not sure what you mean.
  
  You missed the last 23 years. Gore in office would have been dramatically different than Bush. Obama gave healthcare, no way the Republicans would have done that. Trump literally tried a coup. But you want to say 'both sides same' lol. You missed the last 23 years.
  
  Okay, got it. In regards to capitalism, “both sides” are the same. I missed way more than 23 years before I found Marxism, lol.
  
  You think trying to overturn Chevon precedent is both sides the same? Overturning EPA decision making ability? Basic rules and regulations? You know all these things that hand in hand with companies and free market? Taxes both personal and corporate. No they are not the same lol. Not to mention that you are trying to artificially limit this to capitalism as if elections are limited to that, which you are still wrong about. Sorry to say at this point you are wilfully ignorant and bad faith, I'm not going to waste any more breath.
  
  Sorry I upset you. That was not my intention. Don’t let anyone on the internet anger you, it’s not worth your energy.
  
  I'm simply pointing out your willful ignorance and bad faith. Funny that you have to put that to upset (more bad faith lol, see what I was talking about?). But I'm going against my own advice, enjoy the next attempt to squiggle out.
  
  hey do you have a Mastodon or anything? a peertube channel? time for new friends?
  
  No other social media, just Lemmy. How ‘bout a comrade instead?
- How did that strategy work out for them?
  
  Pretty good
  
  I consider China "state capitalism" (I don't think the workers even own the means of production). Certainly not the kind of authoritarian "Marxism" I'd want anyway.
  I skimmed through the article, and it makes a lot of mentions of Germany and France, so I'm guessing it didn't work out to well in those countries.
  
  I don’t think anyone really wants authoritarian Marxism, but they established a legacy that is still studied today. It would be interesting to know what they thought of the movement today.

969 comments