That is certainly not what I am advocating for when I say go vote for who you want to fight against.
The correct thing to do is to fight to get rid of the owner and this system, to create a new system that is truly democratic, that will listen to the workers.
Voting does not prevent you from building dual power.
at best you get to choose who interprets the owners orders.
And that has material consequences. To ignore that is to limit who you are able to work with.
Say the people who have exactly zero interest in fighting against the Democrats. So are you going to be voting for the Republicans? Or are you giving us advice you would never take yourself
Nah, I’m voting for the working family party or peace and freedom when that is an option. Where i live the national always goes dem so there is no chance of spoiling the vote.
Except in Amerika you’re not voting for who you’re fighting against you’re simply voting for which mask the actual people in power put forth (the good pr nice mask (democrats), the tough and mean mask (republican)). The real boss is not the American president, or Congress, etc but the capitalists behind them who you very specifically get no vote on and to who your vote by design has no tangible material effect on.
Being not Amerikan it is true for me in a way but not in the way you’re implying. You genuinely believe your vote at the Amerikan ballot box has tangible material effects on capitalists interests? That’s a pretty extreme stance that even most liberals would retreat from if pressed.
Any revolution predicated on ignoring the material reality of the masses is doomed to fail.
This is a nonsequitor that doesn’t address anything I said.
It’s only a non-sequitor if you replace what I said about the interests of the masses with the interests of the capitalist class.
I get that it is difficult to both participate in the system while also dismantling it - that is by design. It is also designed to alienate those who participate from those who do not. That is one of the ways the system defends itself.
No it remains a nonsequitor as pointing out voting in America is a charade over choosing which mask capital wears as opposed to having any material effect on who is in power (the boss which needs fighting) has nothing to do with being detached from the needs of the masses.
So long as you ignore the lived experiences of Americans they will never behave as you think they might. If it were as you said, detached from the needs of the masses, then the grip held by the electoral system would be a simple matter to defeat.
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m accurately characterising a system that not once in its entire existence has challenged the interests of capital. Your response to this has been nonsequitors and leftist vocabulary used as buzzwords you don’t seem to entirely grasp.
My response is rooted in a structuralist critique of the system that incentivizes participation. You have said nothing of the incentives other than to assert there is none. What do you hope to accomplish by disparaging me instead of the argument?
I see. I should have said “vote for where you want to fight; in a concentration camp or in the streets”. I meant it reflects the quality of the fight, not that the fight goes away.
That is certainly not what I am advocating for when I say go vote for who you want to fight against.
Voting does not prevent you from building dual power.
And that has material consequences. To ignore that is to limit who you are able to work with.
“Vote for who you want to fight against!”
Say the people who have exactly zero interest in fighting against the Democrats. So are you going to be voting for the Republicans? Or are you giving us advice you would never take yourself
Nah, I’m voting for the working family party or peace and freedom when that is an option. Where i live the national always goes dem so there is no chance of spoiling the vote.
Except in Amerika you’re not voting for who you’re fighting against you’re simply voting for which mask the actual people in power put forth (the good pr nice mask (democrats), the tough and mean mask (republican)). The real boss is not the American president, or Congress, etc but the capitalists behind them who you very specifically get no vote on and to who your vote by design has no tangible material effect on.
That may be true for you, but it is not true for others. Any revolution predicated on ignoring the material reality of the masses is doomed to fail.
Being not Amerikan it is true for me in a way but not in the way you’re implying. You genuinely believe your vote at the Amerikan ballot box has tangible material effects on capitalists interests? That’s a pretty extreme stance that even most liberals would retreat from if pressed.
This is a nonsequitor that doesn’t address anything I said.
It’s only a non-sequitor if you replace what I said about the interests of the masses with the interests of the capitalist class.
I get that it is difficult to both participate in the system while also dismantling it - that is by design. It is also designed to alienate those who participate from those who do not. That is one of the ways the system defends itself.
No it remains a nonsequitor as pointing out voting in America is a charade over choosing which mask capital wears as opposed to having any material effect on who is in power (the boss which needs fighting) has nothing to do with being detached from the needs of the masses.
So long as you ignore the lived experiences of Americans they will never behave as you think they might. If it were as you said, detached from the needs of the masses, then the grip held by the electoral system would be a simple matter to defeat.
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m accurately characterising a system that not once in its entire existence has challenged the interests of capital. Your response to this has been nonsequitors and leftist vocabulary used as buzzwords you don’t seem to entirely grasp.
My response is rooted in a structuralist critique of the system that incentivizes participation. You have said nothing of the incentives other than to assert there is none. What do you hope to accomplish by disparaging me instead of the argument?
So you’re saying if we vote for party1, all party2 members will magically disappear and we don’t have to fight them anymore?
Am I to take your question in good faith? Because I really don’t understand how you made this leap from what I said.
You said “Vote for who you want to fight against”, which may make sense in a videogame, but not irl, so I pointed out the contradiction.
I see. I should have said “vote for where you want to fight; in a concentration camp or in the streets”. I meant it reflects the quality of the fight, not that the fight goes away.
You can’t vote for where you want to fight.
“Nuh uh”. Good point!