this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
507 points (85.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3858 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that 'some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest' of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called 'social fascists.'

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body. If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed

Karl Marx 1850

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I agree entirely, in regards to politics in 1850's Germany with its diverse multiparty political ecosystem.

As for current American politics, where we are deeply entrenched in a societal tug-of-war in an ostensible two-party system, where third parties can swing policy in a largely undemocratic direction by spoiling the vote in close elections, I disagree completely. Third parties serve no purpose in a two-party representative democracy.

If we can break the two party political duopoly, then I will never complain about another fringe party voter ever again. Until then, you better fucking vote for the lesser evil, because letting the greater evil win, as we learned in 2017-2020, is really fucking bad.

If anything, letting Democrats win the next few major elections could spell doom for the Republican party as a whole, and give us a chance to introduce some actual competition to the Democratic party.

I wish that I could snap my fingers and have it fixed today, but that's not how societies work. Accelerationism always requires violence, and violence isn't how you should uphold democracy, unless you are defending its pillars against a direct threat. A two-party duopoly is something we the people need to defeat.

That means we need to abolish the electoral college, introduce universal mail-in voting, defeat all right-wing disenfranchisement efforts, and introduce ranked-choice voting to all elections. These are radical changes that will take a lot of work to accomplish, and that will face a lot of opposition.

Under Democrat leadership, these things are possible. Under Republican leadership, we'll be lucky if we still have elections.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Your solution to defeating the duopoly is continuing giving them power and participating in it?

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Would you like your vote to matter after November?

Then yes, I'm pushing the duopoly this time around.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (19 children)

So if they can't vote for their views now, and we keep pushing the duopoly, when do we get democracy?

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

That’s the neat part… you don’t.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

It's not a way to defeat the duopoly, it's a way to survive under it.

Voting 3rd party is also not a way to defeat the duopoly.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Give me a reasonable alternative and I'll take it.

You don't name a candidate to vote for, just say we shouldn't participate.

Who do you think scares Donnie more, Harris or your non-participation?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If anything, letting Democrats win the next few major elections could spell doom for the Republican party as a whole, and give us a chance to introduce some actual competition to the Democratic party.

This will never happen. The replacement party will be fascist. The Republican Party's fascism doesn't exist because of "brainwashing" or "conmen," it exists because fascism rises from decaying Capitalism. If you don't get rid of the Capitalism, the conditions for fascism remain.

That means we need to abolish the electoral college, introduce universal mail-in voting, defeat all right-wing disenfranchisement efforts, and introduce ranked-choice voting to all elections. These are radical changes that will take a lot of work to accomplish, and that will face a lot of opposition.

Under Democrat leadership, these things are possible. Under Republican leadership, we'll be lucky if we still have elections.

The Democrats will never work against their donors. This will never happen.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Especially when their donors are the same donors to the GOP

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 1 month ago

That part. They know where we're going, the only difference as far as I can see is some prefer it slower, to keep from spooking the populace, and others are willing to slaughter any part of the populace that resist.

One day, the lambs will stop screaming.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (59 children)

Marx didn't live long enough to see just how ineffectual that line of thinking actually is.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago

I don't think "ineffectual" is the word you're looking for there.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Same capitalists trying the same failed tactics of voter suppression.

Every one of his perspectives of capitalism and it's bourgeoisie governments still rings true.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (57 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)