Young people have not been as enthusiastic supporters of the Biden administration [even] before President Biden was elected. So what’s different about Gen Z generation in particular, who’s known to be politically active, also very diverse and caring about a variety of social issues, is that when they’re disappointed in what the government is doing or what the leaders are showing them, they’re willing to take the issue in their own hand and try to intervene, try to get involved sometimes by speaking up by their vote.
But by and large, they have voted more than other generations have as youth, regardless of how disappointed they say they are in the government. So if the past couple of elections’ trends hold, young people have been disappointed in the government and their elected leaders, but they voted.
[Bolding added]
The big thing is that movements start from local political offices and can grow from there.
It can start with representatives, the rare senator, or even taking over of a party at the state level:
Participate in local elections, back primary candidates. Once the numbers are there at the nationwide level, we can push for a more representative electoral system.
We can push system that uses ranked choice voting like Alaska did. We can also increase the size of the house of representatives to better match the idea of representation the founding fathers had for us. It’s been nearly a 100 years that the house was capped at 435
The founding fathers had envisioned a house that grew with the size of the country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment
This laid the intent that we have 1 rep per 30,000 people and increase the constituents per rep by 10,000 each time the house reached another 100 seats.
Or in other words, the max constituents represented by each rep in the house should be:
30,000 + RoundedDown(Number of house seats/100)*10,000
So at 400+ seats (1 rep per 70,000) would make sense for a country of 28 million. Really, with the wording of the amendment and understanding that the examples lay out a mathematical formula for expanding the house indefinitely (but with more people per rep as it goes up) we would have over a 1,000 reps! In fact, some quick math shows that per the original intents, we would have 1700 reps with at most 200,000 constituents each. This would hold until our population reaches 340 million when we’d switch to 1800 reps and a cap per rep of 210,000.
There’s a current “Uncap the House” movement, however, I’m unsure of how much momentum they’ve been gaining.
To see how the number of constituents has grown per member over the years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#Number_of_members
In other words, we’re being shorted almost 1300 reps!
Wait, we’re not supposed to be disappointed in our government? Could have fooled me.
Ah, nice, maybe we’re not entirely doomed.
Removed by mod
I blame selfish uncompromising Boomers for electing Biden in the 2020 primaries.
Removed by mod
I’ve been voting for 20 years bud. I’ve phone banked, canvassed and donated. I voted for Biden in the 2020 general because I wanted to give the claim that we could “push Biden to the left” a chance. It was a lie.
I will be voting in the upcoming general election as well. Just not for Biden or Trump. And when Biden loses I’ll hear you asking “how could this happen??” instead of just acknowledging reality: you need to compromise with leftists if you want our votes. Otherwise you’re going to lose to fascists for a second time.
both parties ultimately stand for the same values
This is an extremely privileged take. Yes, both parties support corporations and capitalism. However, one party also supports the eradication of people they don’t like. This is a very significant difference.
Both parties support the eradication of people they don’t like.
Who do the Democrats want to eradicate? Republicans are already very well-documented.
Let me think. Bombing Yemen Destroy Laybia Bombing Syria Bombing Iraq Bombing Palestine Bombing Yemen …
I think there is a pattern their but I can not tell exactly who they want to eradicate…
Removed by mod
I can assure you nobody destroyed Laybia.
It got a little roughed up but it’ll be alright.
Palestinians…
Are they Americans? I’m sorry if it’s not the most sensitive take. But I vote for people that don’t DIRECTLY want others to die. Giving money is not as linear as they give weapons = they pull the trigger.
What did you just type?? Seriously, I’m including to screenshot your message and send it back to you in 5 years so you can realize how insane your current viewpoint is
It’s not insane to think taking care of our own house is a bigger priority than the rest of the world.
Its also an extremely privileged take to presume that financial destitution can’t be just as crushing. We all face eradication, and trying to sideline economic issues for issues of human dignity will lose on both. It’s divide and conquer politics. We are either unified, or we’re not.
deleted by creator
If voting prevents literal murder then both parties obviously don’t stand for the same values.
… or one party is more efficient at facilitating murder
Yeah one party is so bad they repeal things like DoMA while the other literally persecutes LGBT groups
And, who was it that signed DoMA into law? Ah, yes, Bill Clinton.
LGBT became good business so the Democrats jumped on the bandwagon. I’m glad they are on the right side, but they are followers, not leaders. They support the disenfranchised when it benefits their larger cause of shoveling wealth to the top.
Was DoMA not a massive improvement compared to the situation before?
Improvement how? The whole point of DoMA was to kill gay marriage, and it worked until the court killed it.
The Democrats were being given credit for killing it but 1) the court killed it and 2) A Democrat signed it into law.
Sorry, I got DOMA and DADT mixed up
Ah, that makes a lot more sense.
Both parties stand for the same values? Lol, what?
America has a right wing party, and a party of hyper right wing nutcases.
Unfortunately it’s a flaw in FPTP voting systems. The biggest thing that would help (in any country with FPTP) would be to move to almost any other sort of voting. Ranked choice would be the least disruptive, in the short term, but still allow for long term corrections to function.
Yeah, RCV or STV voting would immediately solve a lot of our social and political problems, by forcing politicians to be cooperative and constructive rather than destructive and adversarial.
It also allows you to vote for who you really want, rather than against the people you really DON’T want.
Why not approval voting? Instead of ranked choice
There are a few variants. Any are a lot better than FPTP. Approval could get difficult to tally up. As well as educating people in it. It’s also better to ultimately have 1 person, 1 vote. If you could split your vote, the system collapsed back down to effectively FPTP.
You know, the values of keeping rich people rich and poor people poor.
Oh is that why Democrats keep promoting social welfare programs, social mobility, and public safety nets? Keeping the poor poor is more of a republican thing.
This is the game Republicans play, block any progress, then get blame shifted to Democrats for not implementing their goals. Prove government doesn’t work by making it not work, because the voters want it all immediately, regardless of procedure.
Democrats make plenty of policies that hurt poor and marginalized communities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act
Are they promoting them or actually implementing them? All they do is talk about what they’re gonna do to get the votes.
Don’t get me wrong, anyone voting for republicans is a moron, but anyone who thinks democrats are good guys, is a moron too.
deleted by creator
That’s ridiculous - the group you’re part of should be judged as individuals, the group you’re not part of should be judged as a whole? That’s some double standard.
Republicans as a party, campaign on things like ending social safety nets.
So even if you can cherry pick a single republican that didn’t try to stop something like free school lunches, it doesn’t redeem the whole party because they didn’t all work together towards it.
Democrats as a party, campaign to improve safety nets so even if you can cherry pick an example where individual democrats didn’t then that doesn’t apply to the group because it wasn’t the party working together towards it.
I hope that helps you understand.
deleted by creator
You understand that Bill Clinton decimated welfare, right? Like, I don’t agree that the parties are the same, especially now that a large portion of Republicans are openly promoting facism, but if you think that Democrats are protecting welfare programs and the social safety net you’re kidding yourself.
Obama also almost cut social security, and only didn’t because gop couldn’t govern then
He also chose to bail out the banks instead of homeowners, and reneged on his pledge to reform bankruptcy laws to allow judges to lower mortgage payments. Instead we got HAMP, a failed attempt to bribe mortgage brokers into modifying loans. And he pushed all this through with a Democratic super majority.
There are things that I have to give him some credit on. For example, the concessions he got the auto-workers to take screwed them longer term, but they were necessary at the time and the bailout did save a lot of jobs. The UAW considered the deal a win. But I don’t think the mortgage crisis would have been any different for home owners if Bush had still been in office.
Both are political liberals (as in: foCus on policies that benefit the wealthy) deal with it.
Neither party wants to usurp capitalism, yet they are still wildly different and have wildly different values. The left is far more likely to tax the wealthy than the right is.
The Dems aren’t left.
Neither party wants to usurp capitalism
You’ve found the crux of their argument
Well most Americans don’t want to usurp capitalism either, most of us on the left just want public health care and a viable social safety net, and a more equitable economy for everyone, not just those at the top. Something like the Nordic model which is still quite capitalist.
And look how the nordic countries also fall victim to far right parties. Just like the rest of Europe.
The largest donors to the dems (and cons) are massively wealthy people.
If they do tax the rich, there will be holes
Historical data from the past 50 years in the US disagrees.
Not sure what you’re referring to. Citation?
I mean the supposed “good guy” president is currently giving tons of weapons to help people kill a bunch of innocent babies, so you can miss me with that shit
Are we supposed to go Yay, the economy is doing great so we will forgive all the fucking innocent, people you’re killing?
I shouldn’t have to say this, but you don’t support anyone at all who wants to commit genocide.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how any fucking thing else goes, if they are supporting, killing, innocent babies
This tired argument again. So what’s your proposal? Throw away your vote on a 3rd party candidate this election cycle? Not vote?
So if Trump wins, do you honestly believe things would be better? Nothing will change in Israel, except we’d have all sorts of new humanitarian problems across the globe.
If Biden loses, it will be because not enough people were convinced to vote for him. So if dems want to prevent a Trump presidency, the smart move probably would be (or would have been, maybe, since y’all think it’s too late) for Biden to step down and endorse a Dem who has not openly supported Israel’s current campaign. That is, if they think that those voters are necessary to win. If they think those voters can be written off and they’ll still win, let 'em try. No politician is owed a vote simply because they are the incumbent, though. Nor are they owed the votes of people who are displeased with their work. They hoping that everyone will just fall in line on election day. What if that doesn’t happen? Do you think the future of our country is something that octogenarians should be gambling with?
Oh, ok. So you’re a troll. Got it.
For any ody that happens by in the future…
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-of-tax-historical-income-tax-rates
Thanks for the citation, marginal income tax rates going down for the highest percentage is an interesting data point, but It hardly refutes my point as there is no analysis there regarding which party those changes came from. I think there was a northwestern study that showed that politicians in general care about issues that wealthy people care about that would better illustrate your point, but I think both of these are more examples of regulatory capture and a system that requires donors to elect candidates, than it is evidence that the left and right share values.
My statements that the left is far more likely to tax the wealthy, and that they have wildly different values still stand.
I’m a troll because I asked you for more information to understand your ambiguous claim? Yeah okay pal. 🙄
You’re a troll because you’re still pretending not to know documented history. You know each of those tax rates had years net to them. Guess what you could do if you had an iota of curiosity in you…
The US democratic party is just as happy to cut taxes for the rich as the republican party. They’re also just as happy to cut spending on social welfare programs.
deleted by creator
Bombing brown children, and pumping record amounts of oil.
Removed by mod
Well if you don’t like our “trends” like don’t block strikes and don’t support genocide find the votes you need elsewhere.
We don’t have fascism in the US yet. We have a party trying to get into fascist control. Voting can still stymie their attempts to do so and exposing their plans can cause them to lose supporters. Using the legal system to remove those breaking the laws and impeaching justices not upholding the constitution are how you prevent this.
These things are hard. If it was easy to prevent fascists from seizing power, we wouldn’t have ever had fascist takeovers. Stopping fascism from taking root requires eternal vigilance as fascist sympathies ebb and flow.
I heartily disagree with the last panels initial premise: both parties don’t stand for the same values. They both share values among some of their most prominent members. Namely neoliberal economic policy. But they are clearly not in sync with all policies: hence only one party attempting a fascist takeover. Ignoring the other things Democrats have accomplished that absolutely help people because they aren’t the huge sweeping reforms we hoped for is doing the fascists’ jobs for them.
These memes also press for Revolution, which is definitely the dumbest thing to propose at this point. Revolution definitely has its place: namely if fascists actually disband democracy. But a revolution is a HUGE risk no matter who does it. Look at revolutions in the rest past, especially those started by popular sentiment: many ended in a totalitarian government, often backed by the military, who took power the moment the leaders faltered. In many of these instances the people didn’t win; they just traded one dictator for another. In order for a revolution to succeed, those revolting need to have both coordinated force of arms and a method of government ready to step in and take control to prevent societal collapse.
But revolution also devalues what HAS been achieved by those still working within the system. The most obvious of these in the US are the great strides unions have made in recent years. Unions went from something only a handful of industries had and were largely despised by the general population, to exploding in numerous industries.
Counterpoint to yours on revolution: democratic systems are revolutionary. Elections can result in the overthrow of current governments in favor of new ones with the peaceful transition being a key factor.
I heartily disagree with the last panels initial premise: both parties don’t stand for the same values. They both share values among some of their most prominent members. Namely neoliberal economic policy. But they are clearly not in sync with all policies: hence only one party attempting a fascist takeover. Ignoring the other things Democrats have accomplished
While I agree with your stance, I don’t think that conflicts with the panel’s stance or the way many of the memes are posing.
I think the point here is more “they’re slightly different shades of the same color, but we need something very different.” In the grand scheme of politics and views, US Democrats and Republicans are extremely similar, especially right now. I wouldn’t discount democrats refusal to step into fascism, nor some of the progressive policies they push for, but these are minor differences in the grand scheme of things. Many of the things many people want in this country are vastly different than either party’s stance, and that’s what’s being pointed to.
These memes also press for Revolution, which is definitely the dumbest thing to propose at this point. Revolution definitely has its place: namely if fascists actually disband democracy. But a revolution is a HUGE risk no matter who does it. Look at revolutions in the rest past, especially those started by popular sentiment: many ended in a totalitarian government, often backed by the military, who took power the moment the leaders faltered.
I think you’re blowing this out of proportion. They’re pressing for drastic change. Is that revolution? Sure, but it’s not necessarily violent. The majority of these memes don’t seem to push that. Maybe some do, but those are definitely not the majority here.
I’d summarize by this comment lower in this thread - I think it summarizes the same stance as these memes from an outsiders perspective:
Can you US people make a party that isn’t a bunch of ghouls already so we can stop having this argument every day
More important than the president or Congress, remember that you’re also voting for a ticket to the supreme Court, and that vote really really fucking matters.
deleted by creator
Voting takes like 10 minutes
100% false. In the 2020 election in Mississippi, I had to wait in line for 2 hours. My wife had to call into the vet clinic she worked at to make sure she could to take a 3 hour lunch to vote even though it was 2 miles from where she worked. It was so disorganized and so slow.
I’m so glad I vote via mail now in Washington.
It was so
disorganizedsabotaged and so slow.FTFY
That’s not the worst of it, people were waiting for over 10 hours in Georgia. All because the GOP rigged it so there’d be a shortage of voting locations. And they have the nerve to turn around and lie about the dems stealing the election. Absolute scum.
I voted by mail in 2016 and my ballot never got counted even though it was sent weeks before the deadline. I now vote in person unless I have no other choice.
The great thing about Washington is that it’s opt out mail in voting. When you get your license, you register to vote at the same time, and they just send your ballot via mail. It’s nice!
That is nice as long as they actually count it once you send it in lol
Voting is the minimum effort required of actual change the system. Any arguments about it being hard are here to stop more direct action.
Removed by mod
Idk why you’re equating far leftists and marxist-leninists. Lemmy will have a political bias depending on what your instance is. But the majority of Lemmy has had in the past, continues to have in the present, and for the foreseeable future will have a leftist bias. The software is made by leftists and has strong ties to the self hosted and GNU communities, which themselves are heavily associated with leftists and leftist politics.
It’s way out of proportion to the tiny percentage of the politically active left that doesn’t vote or doesn’t vote Democratic. It’s a feel-good virtue-signaling that does nothing but validate the lame excuses the establishment uses every time they lose to a fascist.
Despite the noise you see online (from people who’s mind you won’t change) leftists overwhelmingly hold their noses and pull the Democrat lever every 4 years. We don’t need to be reminded of how much it sucks every damn day.
It’s the ordinary non-policy-wonks that stay home on election day, and it’s pathetic Democrats that make that happen. Sane Americans have checked out of the process because they don’t see the point and have better things to do. They also aren’t here to be preached at.
You don’t need the left to show up to vote. We already do that. You need us donating to campaigns, passing out flyers, making phone calls, and countering the endless flow of bullshit from the right, and all the other things that you aren’t doing because you are here feeling good about preaching to the choir.
The Democrats have my vote, but I can’t stomach doing the establishment’s work anymore. Just once I would like to be able to confront a rightist and not have them be able to counter with accusations of elitism and corruption that are absolutely true. Just once I would like to explain to someone how the Democrats actually will help them figure out how to get out from under a mountain of debt. I just don’t have whatever it takes to advance campaigns of grift, elitist bluster, and empty promises.
Removed by mod
You mean the voters who didn’t show up to vote for Hillary Clinton didn’t show up for Joe Biden? How could they??
Where’s your ire for the people who voted for Biden in the primaries and fucked over progressive and leftist efforts hm? No lectures for them?
Removed by mod
Alright then enjoy fascism.
You got the talking point wrong. 12% of Bernie’s supporters voted for Trump, but that doesn’t mean what you think. This has been analyzed into the ground. Bernie attracted the left, but he also attracted generally anti-establishment centrists. The Democrats lost those votes by going with Mr. Establishment, just like they lost them with Mrs. Establishment 4 years prior.
The ENTIRE argument for Biden in the primary was that he could get pro-establishment centrists to beat Trump. Are we now being told that being able to reach voters that other Democrats can’t is a bad thing? (By the way, pro-establishment centrists barely exist, but that’s another issue.)
Now look at how many Hillary supporters voted for McCain instead of Obama.
Removed by mod
Buddy, those were traditionally Republican voters who decided to vote for someone running as a Democrat. That’s how much appeal Bernie had. I know this because I phone banked during the primaries and after people living in open primary states realized how primaries worked and I wasn’t calling to fight Trump they got excited hearing about Bernie.
You’re imagining that a bunch of voters who voted for Obama suddenly voted for Trump in 2016. Sure bud.
Removed by mod
Oh I definitely bailed. I’m not denying that at all. But we were talking about Bernie supporters who voted for Trump. I voted but I didn’t vote for Trump or Hillary.
First of all, fuck you for “Bernie Bros” slur. Bernie had the most inclusive campaign of any candidate.
The people who stayed home were not steadfast Bernie supporters. If they were, they would have done what Bernie asked them to do when he endorsed Hillary, and then Biden. Also, 12% is the smallest number we have seen in the last 50 years.
A huge part of this country absolutely hates establishment politicians of either party. Voter turnout in the US is abysmal because of that. Bernie had a unique ability to rouse those voters, and we could have had them in the general, bot nothing was going to make them show up for Joe Biden.
The insane logic behind your tantrums is that being a politician with a broader appeal than other politicians in your party is a bad thing. It’s no wonder Democrats managed to lose to a circus clown.
You are not going to berate anti-establishment voters, especially conservative anti-establishment voters, into showing up at the polls. That is not a thing that happens in this reality. The only thing you might achieve is to convince even more voters that the system is hopeless and not worth their time to get involved.
The bottom line is, that this country was very likely doomed when Biden won that primary. He was the wrong candidate, and the reasons why are playing out before your eyes. The absolute best case scenario is that Biden manages to edge our Trump, and then God help the Democratic party in 2028.
Removed by mod
Yeah, getting pissed about genocide actually is kinda like getting pissed about a medical system that is killing people by the thousands. Setting aside your slur, you aren’t entirely wrong.
If I were a Republican strategist, I would have trolls doing exactly what you are, in addition to trolls attacking Biden. Maybe that’s even you, but I don’t know how we could tell.
If you want to argue that Biden isn’t as culpable for what’s going on as many think he is, I think there is a case to be made. Biden sure makes it difficult, not to mention Pelosi’s latest idiocy, but foreign policy is complicated. I personally don’t think “Genocide Joe” is entirely fair, but I also know that you aren’t going to convince people of that by being an asshole and throwing slurs at them.
Absolutely. So glad that under Biden the lives of many non white men got better.
- Police don’t attack black people anymore
- Abortion is now legal again thanks to Biden’s efforts
- Native Americans recovered so much of their land
- Puerto Rico got fully rebuilt
- There isn’t an army on the southern army calling itself “The Army of God”
- The country isn’t aiding genocide
- Americans can afford basic necessities even houses
This country was ran so differently under Trump. I couldn’t even recognize it anymore. So different. Well, at least we know the secret that our two parties are so different. Stupid tankies and their talk of making things better.
Removed by mod
Those things have/haven’t happened under EVERY president
Isn’t that the problem?
Removed by mod
I do agree with you people should vote [but for a third party]. I misread your comment as basically saying “you people not supporting Democrats are just tankies doing a protest” which is nonsense I see all over Lemmy. I have seemed to mix up several topics. I do apologize for missing your point. Voting is important.
Still:
- You agree that the meme says that voting is near useless (except it “helps certain minorities”).
- Then you agree with that minorities have the same issues no matter who gets voted in.
- Now I have to go look for a specific time where someone did not vote and was still satisfied with the outcome? Every election has those kind of people. Not all non-voters are mad at the results of every election.
- Voting for the MAIN two parties doesn’t improve the status quo.
Removed by mod
Nah the leftists are still here. We’re either on burner accts and lurking or on defederated instances maintaining our peace from the rest of y’all.
Removed by mod
I wonder what you think your place is
Removed by mod
🤣
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Never said you weren’t here, just that a lot of you are finally being put in your place.
As a POC, this reads like some old, condescending racist wrote it.
Removed by mod
Tell me, what “place” do I need to be put in, Pratai? Is it one where I do as I’m told and vote along the party line, in fear of the exact same shit happening no matter who’s in charge?
Removed by mod
I hope you stub your toe today.
More Bjork memes please
I thought I could organize freedom
10 minutes might be the average, as even my backwards Republican controlled state has moved to vote by mail. I get the ballot, do a quick internet search on people or issues I don’t understand, and move on with my day in less time than that typically. As a bonus, mail ballots are far easier to audit and recount than those ridiculous electronic voting machines which print the voter’s choices next to the non-human readable QR code which is actually used for counting.
I don’t have experience in states which put up barriers or hours of waiting in line for in-person and mail voting, and I admire those who put up with that shit
Man, this is drenched in Anarchy overtones. If voting can help groups not get murdered how is it not also able to fight fascism and capitalist oppression? Seems like the latter would include the former in it.
Oh right, it’s a meme, not an actual thought out take. Damn it.
The tone of your comment kind of suggests that you don’t want an answer, but…
Voting is still an institutional structure (in the US).
We’re only allowed to vote on the issues that the government brings forth on a national or state scale. The government is literally never going to bring capitalism to the table to vote, and fascism infiltrates the system before the vote by design. Those are two things that aren’t ever going to be voted on here, at least not directly.
Unfortunately, the issues that tend to make it to the vote are popular ones that politicians attach they’re names to so that they can stay in office. That’s why it’s possible to vote on (comparatively) smaller, more popular issues like trans rights, student loan debt, health care, etc.
As a direct answer to your question, the system is never going to allow the citizens to wholly change it. Systems like these are only ever changed with blood. But it might allow the citizens to decide what it supports and pays for.
Well I hear a lot of revolutionary LARPers so I do tend to get exhausted hearing about Anarchy and how it’s the solution to all our problems. Elected politicians still have a good degree of power, we still elect them to power, so I feel like there’s still a lot more we can do within the system before burning it down becomes a serious solution.
If you want to burn down the Supreme Court, okay. Congress? Hell yeah. Two party voting? Absolutely. But the entire system, top to bottom, definitely doesn’t need a full restart. The things we want are hard, will be slow, but I’ve never thought “Man, we’d get a lot more done if there was more civil unrest.”
Except marxists also believe in revolution and aren’t anarchists. Not all revolutions or revolutionaries are anarchists.
Capitalism was founded on overthrowing the monarchy in many countries including France and England. In the US the entire country was founded by revolt against the British. Large political changes are often accompanied by violence and civil war. That’s how things have always happened. It’s not a uniquely anarchist idea.
You do see how unappealing it is to say “Hey, we need to start a bloodbath on the level of a civil war before you can be paid a livable wage. If we decide to do wages. We’re not entirely sure what we want just yet but it isn’t this. We’re also going to do this in one of the heaviest armed countries with the most deadly weapons on the face of the Earth against people who would rather die than be poor.” right?..
Back in the day you just needed a big 'ol blade and some civil unrest but to overthrow a government and reestablish an entire economic system overnight? I think the last decade have been eventful enough…
100% understand what you mean. Can honestly say I am glad I don’t live in the USA. It’s a depressing reality to face but this is what history tells us unfortunately. If you can find another way that would actually work go for it! Good chance you can’t though…
Honestly though the USA has been bullying other countries for decades now. It’s the reason why lots of other regimes and revolutions failed. Not because they were bad inherently, but because of USA interference. The USA collapsing would be helpful to some parts of the world, and would definitely make things interesting for sure.
We’re not entirely sure what we want just yet but it isn’t this
I’ve actually seen marxists say pretty much this. I think anarchists are actually the better of the two in this regard as they believe in building up communities, co-ops, and mutual aid networks before you start overthrowing governments. There actually are some solid ideas on how you could run a non-capitalist society out there. They don’t get talked about enough honestly as people seem to think it’s a boring detail rather than a critical issue for some reason. I think choosing which is best is probably the most difficult part. I can link you to introductory videos on some of these systems if you want.
How has “changing things slowly from within the bounds of the system” been working out for America so far? Just saying but democrats won the last election and civil rights, women’s rights, and cost of living have all gotten worse, and America’s boundless support for imperialism hasn’t really changed at all. Is the status quo forever fine in your view? Do you think that there will just somehow never be another republican president, and that by continually voting in whoever the DNC decides should represent their interests next, you’ll somehow stave off the descent into American Christian fascism? How about all the times that Republicans and fascists blatantly break the law and are entirely unpunished (judicially) for doing so? What power do lawmakers supposedly wield to better the system if they can’t even punish Republicans for breaking the laws that already exist and blatantly, openly, talking about turning the country into a dictatorship?
Anyone who says anarchy is a solution is a grade A moron. Anarchy by definition isn’t even a system. It’s just a bunch of people doing what they want. The best case scenario is that anarchy results in a bunch of smaller, more community catered systems. Which at that point it’s not anarchy anymore. Even then, every smaller system is vulnerable to the very human tendency of being swallowed up by the guy with the bigger stick.
In fact, if anything, anarchy would slip into fascism as soon as it becomes clear what coalition has the bigger guns.
So feel better knowing that anarchy larpers are really just getting their rocks off on how they imagine it would be, when in reality most everyone would just end up yeilding to the biggest guns because we fear for our lives.
You don’t seem to understand what anarchy is or what anarchist politics is. You should know what you’re talking about before you speak with confident derision.
an·ar·chy noun 1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems. 2. the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.
Want to enlighten me? Because based on the raw definition, what I said is consistent. But please do explain to me how anarchy is supposed to work for 350 million people
That second definition is really weird. An organization on the basis of voluntary cooperation is a government.
Really this just highlights the absurdity of anarchy. It’s more of a libertarian myth than anything else.
That second definition is really weird. An organization on the basis of voluntary cooperation is a government.
Dictatorships are a form of government that isn’t based on voluntary cooperation. In fact almost no government has 100% support of it’s citizens. That’s why we have things like the police and military. You’ve just shown you don’t see any of the threats or violence involved in state craft, or are pretending not to.
Really this just highlights the absurdity of anarchy. It’s more of a libertarian myth than anything else.
What kind of libertarian are you talking about specifically? The word has become very muddied and represents very different groups and ideologies.
Republicans want to stop young pe4ople from voting.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-want-raise-voting-age-184406390.html
edit =‘peop4le’ should be read as people. It was an innocent typo, not a secret signal. Really, not a secret signal at all. Nope, not a signal.
Why did you censor “people”? 🤔
lol! I’m going to have to think long and hard about what it says about the world in general because I don’t know why you’d think I was censoring ‘people’ instead of assuming it was a typo.
I’ve noticed it’s a bit of a thing on lemmy to censure words or names of things you’re talking about. I’ve seen discord, blizzard, Twitter, and a couple other named of both companies and people censured either with an asterisk or leet speek. It’s so weird. Maybe they don’t want people from those companies to be able to Google their comment? Who knows.
I was just going to fix the typo, but decided to go full drama instead.
It’s deeply ironic the use of an Icelandic singer in a meme to justify participating in the performance of the Theatre Of The Vote in the, unlike in Iceland, far from Democratic American Duopoly system.
Unironic would be to use Putin or some well known Russian figure.
Also, she’s an anarchist so I’m not entirely sure this is even the kind of advice she would give.
Now you’ve made me curious. The depths of the interwebs reveal that she says she casts an empty ballot, no reasoning given. Iceland doesn’t have compulsory voting.
Staying in Iceland: Jón Gnarr is also an anarchist and ran for office. Then, I’m an anarchist and the opposite of anti-electoral, if nothing else it’s necessary to combat depoliticisation and protect liberal democracy as the stopgap measure it is. Fascists won’t stop voting to try and capture the state least you can do is cancel out their vote by voting non-fascist.
I’m not even sure there’s many anti-electoral anarchists around, actually arguing against voting instead of simply personally not voting (which lots of people do for various reasons), practically all the arguments you hear from that side is egg-headed theoretical moralising without reference to praxis.
I love björk so much she’s so awesome
Darn you american liberals are getting desperate. This is a fellow kids-level “please vote for the lesser evil” type of meme. But I am not american and have trouble seeing if your argument is a pipedream worthy of a genocide to pursue.
Thing is. It was under Biden the US decided we where lucky enough to get american bases on our soil. I really don’t see much difference for people in the rest of the world.
I do however believe in democracy. Indirect democracy, where you vote for rulers, must have meaningful choices in order to be democratic.
I guess what I really am trying to say is. The rest of the world don’t have a say in who decides if we get trade deals or tanks in the streets.
And if USA was my country I would have a difficult time voting for someone so cruel. Even if he was the lesser evil. Because democracy is built on the notion that you have to believe in free choices.
You get one of the evils - vote for the lesser one on election day, then spend the rest of the election cycle pushing for better.
The problem with that is that if all votes are guaranteed for the lesser evil, then there is no incentive to put up a better option ever.
How many elections must we have where the options are bad and apocalyptic?
You don’t get better if the fascists win, dismantle democracy and commit a series of genocides. Do the bare fucking minimum - vote - then spend the rest of the election cycle pushing for better.
You don’t get better by pissing away your vote on a meaningless virtue signal - you get fascism.
Sure, that is fine and dandy.
But I dont think its entitled to ask for a good option.
There is, right now, an enthusiasm gap, and to overcome it, whether you like it or not, Biden is simply going to have to do better.
Thats the utilitarian reality. Now is exactly the time for progressives to make demands, and its exactly the time for him to meet them
For some reason. Your type doesn’t see better as an option from Biden.
What do you think happens when you vote third party (or don’t vote)?
Maybe (and I strongly doubt this) the Dems get the message, and get a little better as you empower those that have clearly and repeatedly signalled that they don’t care about democracy - you get an election cycle with the fascists, and all that costs us, then you may never get another election in which you’d elect the improved Democrats.
Congratulations - you fucked the country because you refused to do the bare minimum.
The election booth isn’t the place for activism - it’s a place to pick the lesser evil, because you don’t get a third option. Fight for better options the other 1,458 days of the election cycle, then vote for the best available.
Im not saying withholding the vote it the right or wrong answer, Im saying its up to politicians to earn their votes.
I think the reason the options are so poor right now is because we’ve created a system where we arent allowed to ask for more.
So again, the reality is the reality. There is an enthusiasm gap. How is Biden going to fix it? Because trying to shame or scare would be voters is not the answer. Try again.
Biden isn’t going to push for the change I’m looking for. You’re fix it by keeping the fascists out of power on election day while doing everything you can to push them to do better or be replaced by someone who will outside election day.
As for scaring voters? The GOP is evidence that’s an incredibly effective strategy.
