this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
120 points (73.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3896 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I didn’t say the greens are as bad as the dems, I said they’re not the best available option any more than dems are.

Im not gonna rake you over the coals too much for it, but maybe the language around ballot access and chances isn’t the best way to pull people to your particular electoral construction given it’s the same set of ideas that supporters of the democrats are using against both of us.

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They use that argument because it's valid and holds weight. The only other option besides bringing in a third party with ballot access is violent revolution and that was a lot cooler of an idea before drones existed.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If it’s so valid then why aren’t you voting democrat?

My problem with the idea that we all ought to vote for some party whose policies and politics are far from our own in order to win isn’t that it denies the blossoming of everyone’s special flower ideas, but that it collapses all the effects of a third party into winning and losing.

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Getting a third party to win is the first step into breaking the US political duopoly and fixing the broken electoral system. The first changes a third party will make is regulations that allow third party wins in the future. It's about making progress towards the left. Democrats do not represent progress, but an upholding of the same tired political duopoly that gives capitalists power. The green party, regardless of whatever ideals you still hate about them, are very intent on changing the electoral system and ending the duopoly.

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

So that’s a real specific problem I have with the greens: they have no theory of power.

Green politics of all stripes are predicated on, at best, recognizing that there is a system in place and that if it were different, things could be different. I tend to take issue with the specific causes and effects involved in the things greens want to change up, but even if I didn’t, the party has no idea of where the political power it purports to desire to wield comes from.

Democrats and republicans have clear understandings of that. The different weird communist parties have understanding of where they think political power comes from.

Green conceptions of power are inscrutable.

What you just wrote is a great example of that. Where does the power to enact any of the changes you claim greens want to make on the electoral system flow from? From being elected into positions in government by the same system that keeps people from exercising their political will?

Part of why even looney lefties like myself dismiss the greens is because at the most serious level they’re still just trafficking in “well, if i was in charge” rhetoric.

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, yeah. The only way to reform the system is from within the system. Here in lies the ultimate issue with the left: all I ever hear is criticisms and no solutions. We have two options, reform or revolution. Revolution is nearly impossible. So if it's reform, people need to be elected into the system to make the changes. There is no reform without elections. Even if we were to organize something big like a general strike, it would only make the bourgeoisie afraid. Real changes are legislative and that means elections. Unless you've got a better idea, in which case, please share with the class.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

I’m not against taking part in elections.

When I brought up theory of power it wasn’t to handwave away the strategic value of participating in elections, but to specifically critique the lack thereof on the part of the greens.

Winning an election isn’t enough. Simply participating in an election as a voter, party member or organizer or official is also not enough.

Under a theory of worker power like what we see from looney lefties of yore and today, election participation in all these roles is useful because it builds worker power and unity.