There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.

  • @ToastedPlanetOP
    link
    English
    22 months ago

    I appreciate the recommendations.

    No leftist theory of which I’m aware seeks change (at least, not the bulk of its change) through the existing system. This would be absurd in that it is true that there will always be inequities inherent to capitalism. Take the most socially democratic state in the world, and they’re still relying on wage inequities, forced labor, and worse.

    Theory is great, but we have to apply the theory to our real lives as best we can. As I said, how effective existing social democracies have been is debatable, but they are a working model of some, but not all, of the ideas and policies. Grassroot movements seek to radically change the system using the system. That’s the modern progressive experiment. The only way to find out if it works is to do it. Like anything else I believe success is possible, but not guaranteed.

    • LinkOpensChest.wav
      link
      22 months ago

      “working” model in that they’re working as intended-- by churning profits out of an inherently inequitable system.

      Sounds like you might be a neoliberal tbh

      • @ToastedPlanetOP
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        What I don’t understand is your fixation with claiming that people aren’t what they claim to be. I’ve seen it in this comment section. You did it with another anarchist. I am a social democrat. I don’t know any neoliberals who would say any of the things that I believe in and tell people about.

        You’ve said many times that you’re an anarchist on lemmy. I don’t see why you would lie about that. But I really don’t get why you engage in this discourse this way. You are by no means the only person who does this by the way. So, it’s been nagging at me. I go around telling people about my socialist political views in my day to day life when politics comes up.

        You are an anarchist in real life right? You tell people something to the effect of “I’m an anarchist and I think we should live in some form of stateless society” when discussions of politics come up. Your political views as an anarchist are not some internet persona you adopt for fun right? This isn’t some kind of fictional fan wiki page you like to maintain? You actually want to live in a state of anarchy IRL? I am genuinely asking, this is not a rhetorical line of reasoning.

        If social democracy is to out there for you to see working in real life, I can’t image you wanting to be an anarchist. We don’t have a way to make a true stateless society work at the scale of 8.1 billion people. It would be cool if we did. I think it’s possible. I just don’t know how to make that work yet. Hopefully someone actually figures it out one day.

        We have concrete ideas and policies to purse with social democracy so that is why I purse creating that system. If I had a better system to pursue I would do so. I believe social democracy is not the end all be all of political and economic inventions. Just a strict improvement over liberal democracy.

        I think the worlds nations adopting social democracy is not detrimental to anarchism. If anything, I think it would broaden people’s horizons to the possibility of some kind of stateless society. So I don’t see why an anarchist would be against social democracy. It’s probably not an anarchist’s ideal society, but I don’t see why it would necessarily be something to oppose. There is a progression to any technology. Political and economic ideas are no different. We have to crawl before we can walk.

        Inclusive political and economic intuitions like democracy and socialism are about people deciding how to run things for themselves. We use representation in democracy to make it scale, not because we want some absolute authority to dictate to use how to live our lives. We want leaders not rulers. We want freedom so we create and maintain systems that include the people who live in them so we can all make decisions about our own lives. But the systems have to work for the hundreds of millions or even billions of people who live with those systems. The answer to our current societal problems cannot be, let almost everyone die, so the survivors can live under a more ideal system that scales to their smaller population. People matter. edit: typo

          • @ToastedPlanetOP
            link
            English
            22 months ago

            Okay, I don’t follow. But please answer my question. It wasn’t rhetorical. If me just asking you this bugs you so much, so you wouldn’t answer the first time I asked, I don’t get why it would be a go to option for you to say to other people. Is this just gatekeeping then?

            • LinkOpensChest.wav
              link
              32 months ago

              No it’s literally them espousing pro-state liberal propaganda while calling themselves anarchist

              Thats not me gatekeeping, that’s just them lying

              • @ToastedPlanetOP
                link
                English
                22 months ago

                Am I also a liar espousing state propaganda according to you? There is no possibility we could be ideologically aligned in anyway?

                • LinkOpensChest.wav
                  link
                  32 months ago

                  I thought as much at first, but I think you just need to read some theory and stop listening to liberals

                  That other user has an extensive comment/post history defending the establishment

                  I can’t imagine how many mental gymnastics it would take to try to make that reconcile with anarchism

                  It’s simular to Biden claiming not to be a fascist while doing … what he’s doing

                  • @ToastedPlanetOP
                    link
                    English
                    22 months ago

                    Alright. I still think what we believe is not in conflict with each other. But I am going to agree to disagree on what we should do about the election.