• MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    And we should do this by strengthing the very power structures that destroy the movement, control the narrative against it, and continue to vote for those doing both those and the genocide at the same time? Does that sound like a winning strategy to you?

    • notabot@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ideally not strengthening the power structures (that would be what giving the republicans power would do), but not deliberately giving power to the more tyrannical and despotic presidential candidate and his party would seem like a sane approach. Given the reality we face, that either Biden or trump will be the next president and that each legislative houses will be controlled either by the Dems or republicans, what would you personally suggest people do, and what do you think the short and long term outcomes of that approach would be?

      • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        (that would be what giving the republicans power would do)

        Nope. Both parties are the same power structure. Try again.

        Organise in opposition, using any and all methods to produce results including but not limited to; protest, strike action, lawfare, self-governance, direct action, sabotage, and armed resistance.

        The outcomes will be what they have always been, some losses and some victories, but history has proven these tactics and struggles to have produced great leaps forward and historic gains that have been very difficult to roll back. Including almost all of successes for the global working class, minority populations, and social progress for hundreds of years.

        This is historical fact.

        Now please provide some examples of historic postive change brought about purely by electoralism. And you can have extra points if you can name some brought about purely by electoralism that did not include either withholding or threatening to withold votes, since that’s the hill you’ve decided to die on.

        • notabot@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Both parties are the same power structure.

          Sure, but one side is currently on a zealous charge trying to extend it far harder than the other.

          Organise in opposition

          Would be a fine idea if the party who would have power in the interim were not basically religious zealots hell bent on destroying everything that previous movements have built up. By the time the Dems had reorganised and rebuilt there would be little left for them to govern.

          all methods to produce results including but not limited to; protest, strike action, lawfare, self-governance, direct action, sabotage, and armed resistance.

          These are all good methods for getting noticed, yes. The question is, do you want to get your way because you made more noise than the other side, or because enough people believe in the same thing as you? The former is precarious, as it can be rolled back in the same way. the latter is more enduring. Maybe you can do the first and then back it up with the second, I’m not sure. Protests of various sorts can be useful to gain recognition and get people to think about your cause, but only up to the point you inconvenience them too much. After that you start to see opinions hardening against the cause.

          And you can have extra points if you can name some brought about purely by electoralism that did not include either withholding or threatening to withold votes, since that’s the hill you’ve decided to die on.

          I think I’ve been unclear somewhere, as withholding votes is what I’ve been saying everywhere, but do it in a coordinated and widespread way, not ad-hoc as people seem to be suggesting here. A small number of votes withheld without a clear explanation to the candidates as to why, and enough time for them to incorporate that into their strategy, says nothing to them and risks handing power to a worse and less controllable option. Get enough people together that their votes are actually consequential and have everyone contact the candidates explaining what they need to do to win their votes, then you’ll have a reliable effect.

          • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Sure, but one side is currently on a zealous charge trying to extend it far harder than the other.

            They’re the same side. You could do with improving your reading comprehension.

            Would be a fine idea if

            Handwaving bullshit excuses. Not the time. Most important election of our lifetimes. Unique threat. Blah blah blah Already addressed elsewhere.

            By the time the Dems had reorganised and rebuilt there would be little left for them to govern.

            No one here is advocating for reforming the Democrats. Again, zero reading comprehension, zero understanding.

            hese are all good methods for getting noticed, yes. The question is,

            Ahistorical nonesense. Change has almost never been made by electoral majority but by the threat of the alternative being less palatable to the ruling class / party than changing their position. As stated elsewhere there are countless examples throughout history both recent and ancient. Go and read something, anything really. You haven’t provided a single example of success for your proposed method dispite me asking numerous times for some. Because you’re full of shit.

            I think I’ve been unclear somewhere, as withholding votes is what I’ve been saying everywhere, but do it in a coordinated and widespread way, not ad-hoc as people seem to be suggesting here.

            No, your original premise was that you cannot withhold your vote for Biden because Trump would be worse. You’ve moved the goalposts when people have taken apart that circular logic. Now you say you can withhold your vote, but only if you’re guarunteed a certain victory within a set of arbitrary paramaters set by you that make it impossible, while hand-waving away or outright opposing and even supportive non-electoral strategy - just like you did with the point above. Almost as if you’re totally full of shit.

            The vast majority here think electoralism is worthless and have made this point to you. You’ve then proposed and even more limited and worthless version of it. Plus showing almost total ignorance of the very basics of how it even works.

            And then you copy and paste, repeat, copy and paste, repeat… we’re done here, I’m bored now.