now whose being deceitful? you completely skipped the 38 million figure. not a word. that’s not an accident or an oversight. that’s how this system wants you to see it. that’s the body count of your “pragmatism” – people killed by us sanctions, not genocides or ethnic cleansing like everyone else is talking about here. just policy, managed death and you call it “mitigating damage.”
you say refusing to vote does nothing. but what has voting done? the system you’re defending has killed atleast 38 million people outside american borders while saving dramatically fewer inside. that’s not a trade-off. that’s a slaughter you’ve learned to call realism.
you say “managing genocide is better than nothing.” but managing genocide IS genocide. slower, cleaner, easier to ignore like the democrats prefer it. you’re not pulling a lever to save people. you’re pulling a lever to feel like you tried while simultaneously legitmizing more tracks getting laid.
and here’s the biggest dodge: you say “when you have a strategy to actually make a difference, i’m all ears.” i don’t have a plan, but marxists have a plan and it’s been around for almost 2 centuries now. it’s called refusing to legitimize the system, building dual power, organizing outside the two-party death cult, and ultimately abolishing the conditions that make genocide a natural outcome. it’s fine to disagree with it, but don’t pretend the only choices are lever a or lever b.
you’ve already decided that anything outside voting for the lesser evil isn’t a strategy. that’s not pragmatism; it’s learned helplessness with a moral license.
also refusal to cooperate isn’t plugging your ears. refusal is the only leverage people have when the game is this rigged. you don’t delegitimize a system by playing along; you delegitimize it by withdrawing cooperation. that’s not childish; it’s literally how every actual movement for abolition in history started – by refusing to play.
so no, i don’t have a plan to stop the train tomorrow with a single vote. neither do you. the difference is i’m not pretending my lever-pulling is saving anyone while atleast 38 million lie dead at the feet of your “realism.” and at least leftists are actually building something instead of just managing the bleeding.
now whose being deceitful? you completely skipped the 38 million figure.
Still you, because your refusal to participate does nothing to reduce that figure.
you say refusing to vote does nothing. but what has voting done? the system you’re defending has killed atleast 38 million people outside american borders while saving dramatically fewer inside. that’s not a trade-off. that’s a slaughter you’ve learned to call realism.
Refusing to vote didn’t save those 38 million, it just condemned others. Voting helped install people who at least rendered some degree of aid, which again is better than the literally nothing that refusing to vote accomplishes. The 38 million is only relevant to your choice if you can make a choice that saves them. You made your choice, they were not saved. It’s a purely emotional attack with no actual bearing on the choice.
i don’t have a plan, but marxists have a plan and it’s been around for almost 2 centuries now. it’s called refusing to legitimize the system
Around for 2 centuries with no actual material success. It’s time to stop pretending that this is a useful strategy. It’s time to stop pretending that it’s anything other than childish self-soothing.
building dual power, organizing outside the two-party death cult, and ultimately abolishing the conditions that make genocide a natural outcome
This is closer to an effective strategy, but it’s in no way incompatible with voting lesser evil in the meantime. The only ones who think it is are self-centered deontologists who forever let perfect be the mortal enemy of better. Do you think leftist voters don’t also organize? Don’t also try to build dual power? Don’t also try to abolish genocidal conditions? They’re just wise enough to use all the tools at their disposal to the degree that they can be used. Refusing to use a tool because it doesn’t solve every problem is asinine.
it’s fine to disagree with it, but don’t pretend the only choices are lever a or lever b.
When you’re standing at the lever, those are the only choices. That doesn’t mean you can’t take other actions, but those are your only actual choices in terms of lever pulling.
you’ve already decided that anything outside voting for the lesser evil isn’t a strategy. that’s not pragmatism; it’s learned helplessness with a moral license.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. That precisely describes refusing to vote because the system is rigged. You can’t fix every problem with voting, so abandon voting so you can feel morally superior.
refusal is the only leverage people have when the game is this rigged. you don’t delegitimize a system by playing along; you delegitimize it by withdrawing cooperation. that’s not childish; it’s literally how every actual movement for abolition in history started – by refusing to play.
No it isn’t. Again, “delegitimization” isn’t a real thing with any actual material effect, and you need to divest yourself of the illusion that it is. Withdrawing cooperation doesn’t dismantle the system, it just forfeits your ability to give input. The illegitimate system is going to keep chugging along without you.
so no, i don’t have a plan to stop the train tomorrow with a single vote. neither do you.
I never claimed to. I only claim to have some small input to mitigate damage. Solving the problem requires other actions, but voting is one action to make the problem easier to solve, and less damaging in the meantime.
the difference is i’m not pretending my lever-pulling is saving anyone while atleast 38 million lie dead at the feet of your “realism.” and at least leftists are actually building something instead of just managing the bleeding.
Except your non-lever-pulling is equally responsible for 38 million dead. I am a leftist, I am actually building something. I just haven’t internalized your helplessness to believe that managing the bleeding is incompatible with that. Managing the bleeding is what preserves something to save. You’re content letting the world go up in flames so you can have a revolution in the ashes. I’d like for there to be people left to save by the time the left gets its act together.
Voting helped install people who at least rendered some degree of aid, which again is better than the literally nothing that refusing to vote accomplishes.
I sure hope you’re not referring to USAID here. It was a weapon, not a charity organization.
I, a leftist, really think you all need to put down those goo-goo-gaa-gaa ass marxism books. You just want to feel superior and you’re stupid babies. What you need to do is BUILD something. By voting! You need to MANAGE the bleeding by CAUSING the bleeding. You are content to watch the world burn. I vote for the people who burn it. We are not the same.
Of what? If you’re ideologically opposed to voting in bourgeois elections, read what one of those goo-goo-gaa-gaa Marxist books had to say on the subject
I have read it. And either you’re just cynically referencing an argument you haven’t read yourself, or you’re missing two key points of what Lenin’s saying there. First, he’s not talking about voting for ‘the lesser of two evils’ he’s talking about voting for an explicitly socialist party with revolutionary politics. And the point of doing that isn’t to do democratic socialism, it’s to demonstrate to the masses the conflict between liberal democracy and actual liberatory politics. The ruling class would never allow a peaceful surrender of their power so a truly socialist party would be stymied and sabotaged by all methods, dirty and illegal included.
What you’re arguing has nothing to do with what Lenin’s arguing in that link.
That’s awfully presumptuous. His argument is to cater your suite of strategies to the citizenry you’re surrounded by, and their class consciousness. Strategies ill-suited to the material conditions you find yourself in do not help your cause. Insofar as the proletariat is invested in the system, you must use that system.
Yes, obviously, endeavor to enlighten them. But the people are slow learners, and just because your leftist friends are ready to derail the tram does not reflect the class consciousness of your countrymen. Even the Germans in question had a higher level of class consciousness than modern Americans. Lenin’s argument logically extends.
now whose being deceitful? you completely skipped the 38 million figure. not a word. that’s not an accident or an oversight. that’s how this system wants you to see it. that’s the body count of your “pragmatism” – people killed by us sanctions, not genocides or ethnic cleansing like everyone else is talking about here. just policy, managed death and you call it “mitigating damage.”
you say refusing to vote does nothing. but what has voting done? the system you’re defending has killed atleast 38 million people outside american borders while saving dramatically fewer inside. that’s not a trade-off. that’s a slaughter you’ve learned to call realism.
you say “managing genocide is better than nothing.” but managing genocide IS genocide. slower, cleaner, easier to ignore like the democrats prefer it. you’re not pulling a lever to save people. you’re pulling a lever to feel like you tried while simultaneously legitmizing more tracks getting laid.
and here’s the biggest dodge: you say “when you have a strategy to actually make a difference, i’m all ears.” i don’t have a plan, but marxists have a plan and it’s been around for almost 2 centuries now. it’s called refusing to legitimize the system, building dual power, organizing outside the two-party death cult, and ultimately abolishing the conditions that make genocide a natural outcome. it’s fine to disagree with it, but don’t pretend the only choices are lever a or lever b.
you’ve already decided that anything outside voting for the lesser evil isn’t a strategy. that’s not pragmatism; it’s learned helplessness with a moral license.
also refusal to cooperate isn’t plugging your ears. refusal is the only leverage people have when the game is this rigged. you don’t delegitimize a system by playing along; you delegitimize it by withdrawing cooperation. that’s not childish; it’s literally how every actual movement for abolition in history started – by refusing to play.
so no, i don’t have a plan to stop the train tomorrow with a single vote. neither do you. the difference is i’m not pretending my lever-pulling is saving anyone while atleast 38 million lie dead at the feet of your “realism.” and at least leftists are actually building something instead of just managing the bleeding.
Still you, because your refusal to participate does nothing to reduce that figure.
Refusing to vote didn’t save those 38 million, it just condemned others. Voting helped install people who at least rendered some degree of aid, which again is better than the literally nothing that refusing to vote accomplishes. The 38 million is only relevant to your choice if you can make a choice that saves them. You made your choice, they were not saved. It’s a purely emotional attack with no actual bearing on the choice.
Around for 2 centuries with no actual material success. It’s time to stop pretending that this is a useful strategy. It’s time to stop pretending that it’s anything other than childish self-soothing.
This is closer to an effective strategy, but it’s in no way incompatible with voting lesser evil in the meantime. The only ones who think it is are self-centered deontologists who forever let perfect be the mortal enemy of better. Do you think leftist voters don’t also organize? Don’t also try to build dual power? Don’t also try to abolish genocidal conditions? They’re just wise enough to use all the tools at their disposal to the degree that they can be used. Refusing to use a tool because it doesn’t solve every problem is asinine.
When you’re standing at the lever, those are the only choices. That doesn’t mean you can’t take other actions, but those are your only actual choices in terms of lever pulling.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. That precisely describes refusing to vote because the system is rigged. You can’t fix every problem with voting, so abandon voting so you can feel morally superior.
No it isn’t. Again, “delegitimization” isn’t a real thing with any actual material effect, and you need to divest yourself of the illusion that it is. Withdrawing cooperation doesn’t dismantle the system, it just forfeits your ability to give input. The illegitimate system is going to keep chugging along without you.
I never claimed to. I only claim to have some small input to mitigate damage. Solving the problem requires other actions, but voting is one action to make the problem easier to solve, and less damaging in the meantime.
Except your non-lever-pulling is equally responsible for 38 million dead. I am a leftist, I am actually building something. I just haven’t internalized your helplessness to believe that managing the bleeding is incompatible with that. Managing the bleeding is what preserves something to save. You’re content letting the world go up in flames so you can have a revolution in the ashes. I’d like for there to be people left to save by the time the left gets its act together.
I sure hope you’re not referring to USAID here. It was a weapon, not a charity organization.
I, a leftist, really think you all need to put down those goo-goo-gaa-gaa ass marxism books. You just want to feel superior and you’re stupid babies. What you need to do is BUILD something. By voting! You need to MANAGE the bleeding by CAUSING the bleeding. You are content to watch the world burn. I vote for the people who burn it. We are not the same.
What?
it’s called satire
Of what? If you’re ideologically opposed to voting in bourgeois elections, read what one of those goo-goo-gaa-gaa Marxist books had to say on the subject
I have read it. And either you’re just cynically referencing an argument you haven’t read yourself, or you’re missing two key points of what Lenin’s saying there. First, he’s not talking about voting for ‘the lesser of two evils’ he’s talking about voting for an explicitly socialist party with revolutionary politics. And the point of doing that isn’t to do democratic socialism, it’s to demonstrate to the masses the conflict between liberal democracy and actual liberatory politics. The ruling class would never allow a peaceful surrender of their power so a truly socialist party would be stymied and sabotaged by all methods, dirty and illegal included.
What you’re arguing has nothing to do with what Lenin’s arguing in that link.
That’s awfully presumptuous. His argument is to cater your suite of strategies to the citizenry you’re surrounded by, and their class consciousness. Strategies ill-suited to the material conditions you find yourself in do not help your cause. Insofar as the proletariat is invested in the system, you must use that system.
Yes, obviously, endeavor to enlighten them. But the people are slow learners, and just because your leftist friends are ready to derail the tram does not reflect the class consciousness of your countrymen. Even the Germans in question had a higher level of class consciousness than modern Americans. Lenin’s argument logically extends.
This is word salad