this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
1049 points (97.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
5575 readers
2653 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
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
If electoralism will not establish Socialism, what is the point of recommending a candidate? The best candidate you can vote for is Claudia De La Crúz, but she can't get 270 votes to win, because she isn't on enough state's ballots. Stein will not establish Socialism, she's a Social Democrat, and Harris is firmly right-wing. Trump is Trump, obviously he isn't the answer either.
Your desire for a simple "vote for this person and everything will be alright" does not exist.
The thing is there is nothing actionable at all in that rhetoric. There's a lot of Marxist jargon and a lament that voting can never work, but the only guidance is "establish socialism" with no suggested actionable moves because we can't just wave a wand and make that the case. If you can't envision and recommend a democratic strategy to get there, you aren't going to get anywhere near your objectives.
The answer is to join revolutionary orgs like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) or Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO). Only through organization outside the electoral system does the Proletariat have any hope of steering the ship and seizing the reigns.
There is no electoral strategy to get to Socialism because it's nearly impossible, just like asking the board of directors to hand the reigns of the company to you.
You advocate for letting others chose the government while just sitting out and protesting and hoping the people formally being given power by the voting system you say not to meaningfully participate in would heed those protests?
Or are you saying that such groups shall go beyond their stated methods and go to violent revolution, in which scenario I'd ask for a single example of "socialism" achieved through such ends that didn't install a pretty terrible authitarian regime that merely took advantage of social unrest to seize power?
I am saying there is no electoral path to Socialism.
As for Socialism's historical record, I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds. Cuba, China, Russia, etc. all dramatically improved conditions for the people following revolution as compared to the fascist slaver Batista regime, the nationalist Kuomintang regime, and the brutal Tsarist regime.
You keep on proving my point.
De La Cruz is unknown to 99.999% of the voters.
AOC, a NY Congress member is known to almost all voters. Everyone has heard of the Squad.
I've watched Socialists/Communists talk about the revolution since I was in middle school, and it's always "just around the corner."
Like I said, why not try to get some people elected in the next cycle?
Because electoralism cannot establish Socialism. The Squad are not Socialists, they are Social Democrats. The only Socialist you can vote for is Claudia De La Crúz, and she cannot win because she cannot get 270 votes.
I am not "proving your point," it is physically impossible to do what you're suggesting.
Guess what? 99.9% of the people in the country would be happy with having FDR's New Deal back in place.
Again, you prove my point. You'd rather dream about an ideal Socialist state then work to make things better right now.
They aren't dreaming, they laid out very clearly what they believe and how they believe it can be achieved.
You just keep saying "I'm rubber, you're glue".
What's your actual point? That you think the person you are replying to is stupid? That would say more about you than them in my opinion.
that's the part I'm missing.
Like I said, I've been hearing people talk about this giant change for years, and never seen anything like an advance.
Meanwhile there are more billionaires every day, and they are getting more entrenched.
If there's an actual workable plan I've yet to see it.
Because we're still in a period of decay.
There's a reason why AES projects are mostly started in underdeveloped regions: once capitalism is established as the dominant system, it is impossible to escape it through democratic means. Capital has captured the democratic process, and it won't allow for its own destruction
If revolution doesn't happen, America will eventually fall to fascism or collapse under its own late-stage capitalism completely. Doesn't matter if you find it impractical, that's just what the analysis points to.
You can suggest your own analysis if you disagree with ours.
My analysis is that we should do things now instead of waiting.
Look at the marriage laws from 1950s to today. Interracial couples and same sex couples were banned from getting married. Heck, women couldn't have their own bank accounts in may places.
Change is possible.
You're tellign people who are suffering now that the only thing they can do is await a possible revolution.
Your analysis is just vibes, bud, it doesn't have any eye or consideration for any systems or material relations
If tomorrow we passed a law protecting trans and minority rights, the next election the reactionary forces will push back and make it harder - if not impossible - to run on protecting them again.
Why do you think it's so hard for Harris to run on Palestinian liberation, or immigration reform, or trans rights? Because she'd lose, because the American voter base is frothing at the mouth and becoming more reactionary every election cycle, and your 'analysis' doesn't even bother to see or acknowledge that trend, let alone address it.
And yet Bernie, promising FDR style reform, did not get elected, nor would that stop fascism, just delay it. I am telling you that the way forward requires revolution. This isn't because of an "ideal," but because mechanically it is the only way forward.