There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
476 points (99.6% liked)
196
16503 readers
2193 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We need to change the United States into a socialist country with unimpeded majority rule before it is too late. Our only chance to do that is by delaying the fascist takeover for another four years. The United States becoming a christo-fascist dictatorship would be disastrous for everyone not just the US. Authoritarian dictatorships would start carving up the world into spheres of influence. Millions of people would die from dictators enacting genocide and ethnic cleansing in their spheres of influence.
I don't think that voting for the same two parties is going to change that. Those two parties got us into this; they aren't going to get us out.
The Democrats are not going to get us out of this, but we need time to convince people that socialism is the answer to our economic problems. We are going to have to elect socialist politicians. We need our democracy, as flawed as it is, in order to do that.
You might be interested in reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels. Ideas take hold in a population based on their material conditions, not by "convincing them." This was tried numerous times in the past, all of them abject failures.
Yes, convincing people that Socialism is good is a good thing to do, but that isn't going to be what makes or breaks the movement.
In the US, people are attempting grass roots movements to enact progressive change. To do this we need as many people to vote as possible for the most progressive candidates available to correct for the overrepresentation of Republicans. To get more people to vote for progressives we have to convince them that progressive and socialist ideas have merit.
Convincing people is essential to the modern progressive movement. This is because living under neoliberalism inherently conditions people to reject systemic change to political and economic systems and thus by extension they are conditioned to reject socialism. If you've ever talked to people in person about socialism you've undoubtedly heard the phrase "socialism doesn't work" without any supporting evidence or maybe a reference to the Soviet Union collapsing.
This is what socialist theory gets wrong. A person's material conditions do not suddenly make them a socialist or any other ideologue. Ideas have to be internalized and adopted one at a time by a person. All a person's material conditions do is make a person look for answers to their problems. On their own, a person attempts to solve their problems with the tools they've been given by the system they live under. In the case of the US, that system is neoliberalism. They work three jobs, work overtime, work themselves sick even. I've heard people quoted as saying something along the lines of, "I did everything I was supposed to." As in they played by what they thought were the rules of capitalism and don't realize that the extraction of their wealth is the goal of the system.
Fascists understand this need to educate people. They rush to exploit desperate people who are losing everything under capitalism. They present them with their ideas, primarily that some out-group is the source of their problems. They blast the airwaves with propaganda to brainwash people by trapping them in information silos. They get out the vote to advance fascists causes. This is how the fascist movement, that has existed since the 30's in America, has been growing in America since Regan.
Neoliberalism makes people desperate enough that they will try anything, especially fascism when presented with it. It's easy for people to think other people dying is the answer to their problems. When in fact our future depends on us adopting better economic and political ideas. Also, neoliberalism tends to obsess over civility politics and a strict adherence to law and order. Thus even people who aren't fascists themselves don't balk at the totalitarian and/or authoritarian nature of the fascist regime they end up in. They either won't notice the difference or if they do assume it was a natural correction to what our society is 'supposed to be'. While living in a neoliberal society, people end up thinking that either the systems they live under can't be changed or even that they shouldn't be changed. Rather than convincing people to change the system, the fascists convince people to remove other people. Thus they bypass people's acquired resistance to societal change. No where in this, do people naturally internalize and adopt socialist ideas. People who believe in progressive and socialist ideas have to get these ideas in front of people's eyes so that they have a chance to mull them over.
We need to reach out to people by taking advantage of the Internet 2.0, social media, which is not something that was available in the 20th century. We need to convince people that fascism is a self-destructive ideology. That neoliberalism, in a vacuum, inevitably leads to fascism because of the societal and material conditions it imposes. People double down on what they know and make a more extreme and worse version of it, instead of radically changing it. And that socialism is the answer to people's economic problems.
-Electoralism is nice, but has historically been extremely ineffective. This is because the parties in power will be the ones that can best raise funds from the people with the most money.
-Yes, I have spoken with many people about Socialism, I am familiar.
-See, this is exactly why you need to read theory. No, Socialism does not say that people magically gain Socialist ideas based on their material conditions, but that they are susceptible to them. That's why the US has a vast amount of reactionaries, the US is an Imperialist state super-exploiting the third world for super-profits, creating a labor aristocracy.
Please, read theory. You are clearly well-intentioned, but you don't actually understand societal mechanics and thus have a Utopian mindset. You're again confidently incorrect.
Democracy is the best political system that we have and it has been the most effective system we've ever had. Populist grassroot movements have fundamentally challenged the notion that only political parties can raise money. Trump is going to end up raising a ton of money because of he made Truth Social public. His supporters are going to end up driving up the stock price like Wallstreetbets did with GameStop stock.
This is what I'm saying the flaw in the theory is. It's the reverse of what we would want. Neoliberalism makes people susceptible to fascism and resistant to socialism. That's why people have this knee jerk reaction to socialism and are sleep walking into fascism. We have to actively correct for this before the fascists complete their takeover.
Also, I like reading theory. But I want to apply what I learn to my life.
What form of Democracy? In what metric is it the most effective? The US isn't particularly democratic, but absolutely helps the ruling class.
Please explain why it is a "flaw" in Socialist theory, and not just something you dislike. Neoliberalism does not make people susceptible to fascism, crumbling Capitalism does that. People have a knee-jerk reaction to Socialism in the US because they are a part of the Labor Aristocracy, a status that would not change even if the US became a Social Democracy.
I understand that you like to read theory, I am just curious why you are intent on rejecting all of it in favor of your personal vibes. Have you read any Anarchist or Marxist theory, or just liberal theory?
The kinds that exist currently. Compared to all other forms of governments that exist currently. Yes US democracy is flawed. Yes, the owner class benefits immensely from our current liberal democracies.
You said it yourself, you have also experienced people saying "socialism doesn't work". There is a reason for that and it's not that people are more susceptible to socialist ideas. I don't like that reality either, but it is reality as we have observed it. It directly contradicts socialist theory. If socialist theory was correct people would respond with "tell me more" when they hear socialism.
People have a knee-jerk reaction to socialism because they know it involves systemic change and wealth redistribution. As part of living in neoliberalism, people are told they are living at the end of history. That change comes in incremental steps and our institutions are fundamentally good and just need good people in charge of them. If anyone is struggling, it's an issue of personal responsibility. And that wealth redistribution is theft. That they would be denied having wealth and the little wealth that they have would be taken from them. When in fact capitalism is inherently about wealth extraction. We would all be making more if owned the companies we worked for instead of them being privately owned or owned by share holders.
To Republican evangelicals who don't know better, Trump is that good man who is going to make a supposedly good system work for them. They think if he can just be allowed 'to do what has to be done' removing the people who make up the out-groups they've been told to hate, things will get better for them. This is of course a fascist lie. We have to work to correct this.
I've read the Communist Manifesto and Zimmerman. I have not read the Anarchist and Marxist theory that you are referring to. I think I've read some stuff on the anarchist library before though. I know enough about political science, history, and current events to have informed opinions on current political and economic issues. Gatekeeping is counterproductive. edit: typo
No, what form of Democracy, and by what metrics? Why do you say bourgeois dictatorships are better?
Again, no. You are entirely missing the point. People will not be swayed by learning Socialism is better, without material conditions matching said ideas.
Listen, I know you're trying your best, but only reading the Manifesto, a pamphlet to energize the workers, does not make you equipped to discissing if Marxism is outdated or not. I'm not even gatekeeping, you are making numerous false assumptions about Marxism that I have tried to point out.
Specifically, you are falling for the well-studied failures of Utopian Socialists like the Owenites, described in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
Again review the countries that exist. Google maps exists. Also call them what they are, liberal democracies, thank you. People fought hard for those democracies.
No, these martial conditions, under neoliberalism, despite matching the material conditions of a worker class oppressed by an owner class, make it harder to learn that Socialism is better. This is why it's hard to even engage people about Socialism. This is the specific part of Marxist theory we are disagreeing about by the way, not Marxist theory in general. Neoliberalism makes it much harder for us to engage people with socialist ideas. Where as people are primed for fascist ideas. This is the problem we face that exists in the modern day. It started with Thacher in 1979 in the UK and Regan in 1980 in the US so as interesting as the Owenites are, they are not relevant.
These statements contradict each other. It's not for you to decide what makes someone qualified to discuss anything. To be clear, I do not have to have read all the theory you have to discuss this topic.
There are many types of democracy. Representative, direct, parlimentary, and so forth. Even as liberal democracies, these were erected in revolutions led by the bourgeoisie alongside the Proletariat against the Aristocracy, and as such serve the Bourgeosie and suppress the Proletariat. You haven't indicated which of these you support, or why they are better.
As for your disagreements with Marxism, by your own admission you have only read the Manifesto, which is an inflammatory pamphlet for workers. Under what pretense could you hope to discuss something you haven't investigated? What is there for us to discuss if we have one person who understands Marxist theory, and someone who rejects it without having read it?
I absolutely agree with you in saying that you do not need to have read theory to have opinions. What I have been trying to say is that you need to read theory to have opinions on said theory. You are rejecting Marxism without knowledge of it, which makes discussion difficult and incomplete, especially because you have been against my clarifications on the topic.
No, I am making a point about one part of Marxist theory that is well known. For all your obfuscation and gatekeeping you have not refuted this point.
Marx said that material conditions like the ones we see in the modern day under neoliberalism would inspire the people to a socialist revolution. The material conditions have not done that. Neoliberalism did not exist when Marx wrote his theories. He could have only guessed the ways in which neoliberalism would condition people to reject the tools of their own liberation. Wealth redistribution is essential to correct the wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 99% of people. But most people would have you know that is, to paraphrase, 'an immoral infringement of property rights'. People think they would be losing wealth when of course they would be the ones gaining that wealth. There are people, usually conservatives, who think that their should be an economic hierarchy. And that a person's place on that hierarchy is justified by the circular reasoning that they are on that place in the hierarchy. This idea is incompatible with wealth redistribution and must be full internalized as an incorrect idea by as many people as possible. Then people need learn that wealth redistribution is an essential part of maintaining a functioning economy.
This is certainly a defensible position, yes. I'm just not so sure we're going to avoid the christo-fascist dictatorship with the Democrats. They forever capitulate to our christo-fascist party, and they themselves are authoritarian at heart. Just look at the White House and its support for genocide, border fascism, subjugation of protestors, defending of an inequitable hierarchical economic system that relies on forced labor, and those are just the first examples that come to mind
I think the Democrats are not a great political party. I'm registered independent. They are the only mainstream political party for pursuing progressive change that we have at the moment. We have to take our chances with the Democrats because it's the clearest path to a better future that we have.
We do need to adopt socialist policies as a country in addition to that though. If we stick with neoliberalism then we are going to keep having this problem. The fascist movement will inevitably grow as the wealth disparity gets worse in the US. People are going to be looking for solutions to their problems, but neoliberalism inherently denies them the tools to fix the systemic issues they face. Neoliberals cling to civility politics and value property over justice for people to name a few. Fascism will provide them with easy, but incorrect, solutions in the form of out-groups to hate. The answer to our problems is socialism, but we need time to convince people.
I know it's a long shot, because people are effectively conditioned from living in a neoliberal society to reject socialism without any evidence. But we have to try. The only way this gets better is convincing people that socialist ideas have merit while neoliberal and fascist ideas do not. People's lives depend on nations developing and maintaining inclusive political and economic institutions. We are going to need to have this ideological reckoning at some point, so we might as well have it sooner rather than later.
Trying and then failing presents the same consequences as not trying. So we might as well do it now.
This sounds like you want to implement social changes within the existing system. This is the lie of progressives and radlibs. It will never work. We need to dissolve the United States of America. There is nothing here worth salvaging, save the people.
No, I want to radically change the system. Doing that of course involves using the system. We need to move from liberal democracy to social democracy. And our democracy must be fixed to have majority rule. It can work, but nothing is guaranteed. This is no different than how a revolution can succeed, but has no guaranteed outcome. As long as we have a democracy we might as well use it.
Dissolving the US will result in the death of hundreds of millions of people. People have to eat. When societies collapse, their populations tank with them, because the people lose the state centralization they are dependent on to get basic necessities.
There is no saving the people without inclusive political and economic institutions. If we value people then we must fix the systems they depend on to live.
Social democracy is a farce. That's exactly what I mean. It's a fairy tale told by progressives and radlibs
Sounds like you desperately need to read some theory. This is some liberal shit
Edit: I see in your comment history you calling yourself a "progressive." You're lying now and saying leftist. I think you're completely untrustworthy.
It's a political ideology with a set of ideas and policies. Social democracies have existed in Nordic countries for decades. How they have done is debatable, but they do exist.
I recommend Why Nations Fail. It's been really good so far, but I'm still only half way through. So far, they seem to have missed that capitalism is inherently extractive and thus always at odds with an inclusive political institution like democracy. Private corporations are inherently incentivized by profit margins to undermine democracy. To remove regulations, oversight, taxes, etc. This is the contradiction of liberal democracy that social democracy solves. By adopting socialism, so the workers own the companies they work for, workers are included in both the nation's political and economic intuitions. Since only the worker class exists, there is no one being incentivized to undermine the people's institutions.
I hope neoliberals like Biden starts saying stuff like that, that would be awesome.
This book and the things you're describing here may be left of, say, typical neoliberalism in that it entertains some thoughts about the perpetual threat of revolution, but ultimately it is yet another propaganda piece published in a desperate attempt to maintain the chains of capitalist society. Of course, some leftist theories don't even seek change through revolution, opting instead for more of a community-style approach, which is why you see groups like the Zaptistas. 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.
Here are some personal suggestions, as a starting point:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/carlo-cafiero-karl-marx-s-capital
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
There are four I'd personally recommend.
There are non-monetized youtube channels with free audiobook versions of all of these books, if you prefer audio.
I appreciate the recommendations.
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.
"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
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
That's no anarchist
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?
No it's literally them espousing pro-state liberal propaganda while calling themselves anarchist
Thats not me gatekeeping, that's just them lying
Am I also a liar espousing state propaganda according to you? There is no possibility we could be ideologically aligned in anyway?
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
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.
That's fair. I'll probably end up voting for whatever ghoul (Biden) wins the primaries, but if I do I'm sure as hell not going to let them know that's what I'm doing. Democrats need to stop this good cop/bad cop act if they expect us to vote for them.
Biden makes Jeffrey Dahmer look like Mary Poppins by comparison
Social Democracy isn't Socialism, it's Capitalism with safety nets. Workers do not own the Means of Production in Nordic Countries.
I believe reading Leftist theory would do a lot for you.
It is is a form of socialism. The fact it has a market economy does not mean it is capitalism.
I didn't say they did. Like most countries they have a mixed economy. No one has yet abandoned capitalism entirely. The fact they haven't adopted every socialist position does not mean they aren't socialist. I am saying social democracies need to adopt that policy. Workers owning corporations as apposed to share holders is not incompatible with social democracy, but a logical inclusion.
You know this stuff isn't just theory right? It has practical applications in real life too.
Social Democracy is not Market Socialism. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expansive social safety nets, not Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. This is fundamental. Again, Social Democracy is not a transitional state towards Socialism nor Socialism itself, but welfare Capitalism.
Leftist theory does in fact have practical applications. Being confidently incorrect as you have been is impractical, hence the importance of theory.
This is a description of current working social democracies which have not fully adopted socialism and still have potential in that regard. Social democracy is a collection of ideas and policies. Workers owning companies as opposed to share holders is not incompatible with social democracy even if it's not something that's being done currently at scale. Again market economies are not inherently capitalist. Welfare is also a part of the picture, but it's not enough it's own. Welfare is covering for systemic issues that have to fundamentally fixed.
Yes, it does have practical applications. I have nothing to do with the veracity of the ideas I espouse. Theory can only take us so far. I'm not interested in being limited by our current iteration of social democracy or our current definitions of socialism or social democracy. If we go with the description of social democracy in your argument, then that will be insufficient to fix our current societal problems.
Believe me, I understand what Capitalism is and isn't, what Socialism is and isn't, and what Social Democracy is and isn't. Social Democracy isn't Socialism, and the Nordic Countries are not Socialist, nor are they moving towards Socialism.
Yes, Social Democracy is insufficient. We need both leftist theory and practice. You are attempting to reject what leftists have learned and built on to do what has already failed, a mistake no leftist should be making.
Social democracy is a form a socialism. Social democrats in Nordic Countries apparently are aligning themselves with groups on the right. I am saying we need to move to socialism.
I think we are talking past each other at this point. I'm very much saying we need workers to own corporations as part of social democracy.
Social Democracy is not a form of Worker Ownership but welfare Capitalism.
You are calling Market Socialism Social Democracy, despite Nordic Countries not being Market Socialist.
Again, this is a description of current social democracies. This is not what am I advocating for with social democracy.
No, I was just pointing out social democracies exist. They currently have mixed economies like most countries in the world.
You aren't advocating for Social Democracy then, but Market Socialism. Why call it something it isn't? That's like saying you want Communism with Capitalists, you're redefining established terms.
I would argue the majority of what I argue for is social democracy. The fact I'm arguing for workers owning their companies does not exclude the system I'm arguing for from being social democracy. I want a market economy, I just want the workers to own that market economy.
So you don't want Social Democracy, you want Market Socialism. Absolutely none of what you have said so far indicates Social Democracy over Market Socialism.
Again, a worker owned market, is Market Socialism, not Social Democracy.
We are discussing workers owning the companies they work for. I don't need to explain every other idea I hold because the one being discussed could fit in another box. My point is that workers owning the companies they work for fits into social democracy. Ideas do not respect your rigid categorizations. And this splitting hairs is effectively a moot point.
Also I want social democracy.
No, workers owning the companies they work for is not compatible with Social Democracy. Your point is akin to saying you want Communism with Capitalists, or a state with Anarchism.
Let me ask this: what do you believe Social Democracy is, and why are you against advocating for Market Socialism, which is exactly what you have been advocating for if we take you at your word?
If the libs could read, they'd be furious with you right now 😂
I do get a lot of liberal anger sent right to my inbox
Sure wish they'd direct some of that rage toward the people who are killing us and our planet, but I suppose I'm an easier target lol