• Barx [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    18·
    6 months ago

    Depending on what you mean by ‘fighting the system’ I think we’re saying roughly the same thing. Electoral politics is upon us right now though, and in truth is always there to be dealt with, so needs to be engaged with constantly.

    I’m saying the exact opposite. Electoral politics is something to spend something like 1% of your political thoughts on unless you are personally running or supporting an electoral anti-capitalist campaign. It is a distraction that gives you the false impression that your lone vote or nagging people to vote for capitalist politicians is doing anything good, let alone worth spending any real time on. If you’re spending much of your political focus on this you’re just a dancing monkey for the ruling class. This includes local campaigns. If you deviate from this line you’ll actually be working against the oppressed and marginalized people around you and in other countries.

    Make sure your representative knows your name and what you stand for.

    A complete waste of time. You do not matter, politically, as an individual. The other people who have their ear have tens of thousands of dollars to drop on them. You think you’re going to compete with that by having the super smartest arguments and “a relationship” with this stooge that knows exactly who butters their bread? At most they will use you as a prop for their own ends. And if they are a capitalist politician, which is nearly all of them, you will be speaking to a brick wall that will never do what is necessary for justice.

    From what I can see they mostly don’t get that much input from voters, so your voice is louder when you talk directly to them.

    Bruh liberals are constantly organizing letter writing campaigns and calling offices and trying to get meetings with their reps. They are routinely ignored. Only organized actions with leverage ever do anything and again, it’s only within very limited confines of capitalist discourse.

    In contrast, donors get to go to special events at the mansions of party insiders where they get to tell the candidate all about their latest Brown Child Exploder 3000 and how important it is that they don’t get in the way of its sales and hey here’s $30,000 from all of our executives that just happen to be donating to you as individual private citizens.

    You do not register on their radar. You’re the goofball they make fun of to their sides later. At most they will use you as practice for how to handle people that want things they will never be provided with.

    The electoral system can be changed, but as you say, it’ll take fighting for that.

    In your mind, what does it mean to change the electoral system and how does it compare to what is necessary to undo the intrinsic violence and disposession of the capitalist system?

    Fighting the system directly won’t gain much as it’s just that, a system.

    Why not?

    It’ll have to be a ‘hearts and minds’ job amongst the electorate to show people there is a better way and get them to vote for candidates who support that.

    You do need to communicate with the public but feeding into the false notion that you’re just going to vote out capitalism will lead to almost immediate distrust because you will fail right away.

    It can work, that’s ultimately how things have drifted to the right over time, people believe that’s the ‘better’ way.

    You think people have drifted to the right because they were offered a better future by politicians that had personal relationships with random right wing constituents?

    • notabot@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      6 months ago

      Electoral politics is something to spend something like 1% of your political thoughts on unless you are personally running or supporting an electoral anti-capitalist campaign.

      I haven’t talked about capitalist politics or trying to change that at all. If you want to change the system that much it’s going to be a much longer, harder job. From a change point of view, what I’m talking about are more immediate issues like the voting model in use or the stance the government should take on minority rights. What I was initially talking about, way up at the top of the thread, was simply that trump had stuffed the supreme court and that maybe it would be a good idea to avoid giving him another chance to do that and worse.

      Bruh liberals are constantly organizing letter writing campaigns and calling offices and trying to get meetings with their reps. They are routinely ignored.

      I talk about making sure your representative knows who you are, and gathering enough other’s together to do the same because I have seen it have a positive effect, in the context of what I was talking about. Yes, you’re not going to change the fundamentals that way, and a large enough inducement from a ‘donor’ could turn any candidate, even if they know it’ll mean they’re out at the next election, but we’ve seen biden’s tone on israel change when he came under pressure, so it does work, even if the changes are initially small.

      In your mind, what does it mean to change the electoral system and how does it compare to what is necessary to undo the intrinsic violence and disposession of the capitalist system?

      Changing the electoral system from FPTP to some form of more representative system would be a start. If we stick with local representatives then something like the STAR system might give a fairer result and avoid the need to vote for a candidate just to avoid biasing the outcome to another candidate. A proportional system might work and give a fairer, more representative result in many places. I realise these probably aren’t the sorts of changes you are referring to though.

      Fighting the system directly won’t gain much as it’s just that, a system. Why not?

      It’s a concept, and idea, not a tangible thing. What is tangible is the implementation of that. Rather than fighting that, changing the system we’re implementing would seem like the way to go. I realise though that we are talking about rather different things.

      You do need to communicate with the public but feeding into the false notion that you’re just going to vote out capitalism will lead to almost immediate distrust because you will fail right away.

      I agree, but I’ve not said anything about voting out capitalism.

      You think people have drifted to the right because they were offered a better future by politicians that had personal relationships with random right wing constituents?

      I think people have drifted right because right wing candidates told people that they can make it all better and generally done a better job of “hearts and minds” in certain demographics than left wing candidates have so people start believeing that’s the ‘better’ way.

      • Barx [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        I haven’t talked about capitalist politics or trying to change that at all. If you want to change the system that much it’s going to be a much longer, harder job.

        I talked about this right from my very first response. It’s been described and then assumed that it is necessary to end capitalism to address, in this case, the homelessness is intrinsically produces as well as the horrific, dehumanizing treatment of the homeless it produces. The topic of this thread is the SC allowing local authorities to criminalize homelessness. In contrast to what you have been saying and implying, it is Democrats, including the most “progressive” ones, implementing this in large cities. Anyone that spends any significant amount of time actually doing anything on this issue is fully aware that they will fight you tooth and nail, lie about you, lie about your actions, and do so at the behest of the chamber of commerce, their real primary constituents. And you’re not going to resolve the core problems while maintaining capitalism itself. None ever have. This is, in fact, one of the striking differences that many have noted when traveling to various countries run by socialists: they have often eliminated homelessness or have otherwise made major strides despite the economy and geopolitical positions they inherited. The sociopathic generation and treatment of homeless people is a social choice, but one inextricable from capitalism.

        From a change point of view, what I’m talking about are more immediate issues like the voting model in use or the stance the government should take on minority rights.

        The voting model won’t change how capitalism works. The stance the government “should” take is immaterial.

        What I was initially talking about, way up at the top of the thread, was simply that trump had stuffed the supreme court and that maybe it would be a good idea to avoid giving him another chance to do that and worse.

        Which, as has been noted by multiple people, misses the point that this is actually a bipartisan position. Los Angeles’ city council, controlled by Democrats, is among the loudest of anti-homeless voices and policies.

        Why have you not acknowledged this obvious contradiction of your logic?

        I talk about making sure your representative knows who you are, and gathering enough other’s together to do the same because I have seen it have a positive effect, in the context of what I was talking about.

        What was the “positive effect”? Let’s see what can be accomplished, maybe, through this process. I’ve spoken with city council members, state legislators, and members of Congress several times.

        Yes, you’re not going to change the fundamentals that way, and a large enough inducement from a ‘donor’ could turn any candidate, even if they know it’ll mean they’re out at the next election, but we’ve seen biden’s tone on israel change when he came under pressure, so it does work, even if the changes are initially small.

        Who gives a fuck about “tone” when he provides complete support and funding for the genocide of Palestinians? You are letting yourself become desensitized to the gravity of what is at stake because you choose to let them keep lying to you and playing you.

        In reality, Biden has leveraged a PR team to “handle” dissent. Congratulations, you were handled. Such a victory. Meanwhile whole families are slaughtered by the limitless supply of JDAMs and the perpetrators are shielded by your country. You are celebrating your own pacification, having achieved nothing on this. Then you advocate for others to do the same. This is actually counterproductive and I hope nobody ever listens to you in this. Please introspect.

        Changing the electoral system from FPTP to some form of more representative system would be a start. […]

        You answered half the question.

        It’s a concept, and idea, not a tangible thing. What is tangible is the implementation of that. Rather than fighting that, changing the system we’re implementing would seem like the way to go. I realise though that we are talking about rather different things.

        How is directly fighting the system intangible? Presumably if it is direct, it is focused in an actual thing (the system) and doing something to it. I think you are confusing yourself over your own language.

        Have you considered that you might not actually know what other people do re: politics?

        I agree, but I’ve not said anything about voting out capitalism.

        But this is what is necessary to achieve the necessary changes re: homeless. I said this right off the bat. If you think capitalism can be maintained while addressing this, I suggest you read a little history and actually get involved locally to see how and why attempts fail. You will, eventually be forced to understand through constant and inevitable failure. Or maybe you won’t because despite not actually housing the people in your town you’ll get a change in “tone” and call it a day. I hope you rid yourself of that self-insulting logic.

        I think people have drifted right because right wing candidates told people that they can make it all better and generally done a better job of “hearts and minds” in certain demographics than left wing candidates have so people start believeing that’s the ‘better’ way.

        The second thing is tautological. If you get more votes you must have, by necessity, done better in some demographics. It means nothing in itself.

        So the summation of your political theory is that right wing politicians said they can make it all better. And so they won. Really?