The first step to finding a solution is to recognize that the existing tools are woefully insufficient. Suppose we didn’t have elections at all, suppose all we had was a monarchy where the only recourse within the system was to petition the king, to ask him nicely to act on our behalf. Should we still rely on that? Should we drop other approaches because they might sour the king’s mood?
With a little imagination, you can find that there are inherent mechanisms for asserting power that are not provided by the system and which exist regardless of the system’s best efforts to take them away. All systems are manmade and can be changed and dismantled if enough people stop cooperating with it. This does not have to look like a traditional revolution, with pitched battles and whatnot. Strikes, protests, development of mutual aid networks and dual power structures, even targeted boycotts can be more effective than voting for a candidate hand-picked by the ruling class.
The electoral system keeps people disorganized and divided, it directs energy away from those tactics instead of towards them. The idea that non-disruptive tactics could possibly someday produce change makes people unwilling to engage in tactics that are more disruptive, because nobody really likes being disruptive, taking risks, creating tension, but that tension is necessary to effect change.
The effect that electoral politics has on defining people’s political identities cannot be overstated. The moment you cast your vote, no matter how reluctant it may be, there will be a part of you that wants to justify and defend your choice and before you know it you’re now defending things that you never would otherwise. Nearly all political discourse becomes colored by this question of who to vote for. Again, think about how you would read news stories differently if you had no mechanism within the system for expressing your voice. But that is essentially where we’re at because the mechanisms provided by the system are ineffective, but while we have this idea that they could be effective, people still define themselves along those lines.
Let me give you an example. I live in a solidly blue state, previously, I lived in a solidly red state for most of my life. At no point has my vote for president had any impact on the outcome whatsoever. This is true for the vast majority of Americans. And yet, when I talk about my refusal to vote Harris or Biden, people yell at me, a lot. Why? It has no material impact. It’s because it’s primarily a cultural signifier, a way of defining a political identity, and any material consequences are of secondary consideration. So long as people are allowing bourgeois parties to shape and define their political identities, that’s going to dissuade them from engaging in direct action.
That is what the hangup is. Crossing your arms and refusing to cooperate based on principle, and expecting others to do the same in the same way, is not the move right this second. We can still do all of the organizing and striking and educating while still doing our due diligence in making sure that the united right wing does not remain in power. It isn’t all or nothing. We have to be realistic in how much change we can make in 2 years - can we ACTUALLY make a 3rd party president, or can we work from the ground up, starting with local governments and communities and working our way up without shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes time to vote for president?
Throwing votes at a 3rd party in the current state of US elections is wasting a vote because you were privileged enough to do so. I presume that is why you get yelled at - your priority this election was yourself and your opinions rather than trying to protect the safety of your fellow citizens. Granted, this election was a bureaucratic mess, but choosing not to vote Biden/Harris in 2024 signaled to others where your loyalty was (or rather, wasn’t). We knew what was coming if Trump won, we warned about it, we begged everyone to vote to prevent this. It wouldn’t have been good, but it wouldn’t have been this.
Crossing your arms and refusing to cooperate based on principle, and expecting others to do the same in the same way, is not the move right this second.
And it will never be “the right move this second” in any second for the next 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years following your path. Delaying something in politics is the same as opposing it.
We can still do all of the organizing and striking and educating while still doing our due diligence in making sure that the united right wing does not remain in power. It isn’t all or nothing.
Can you though? You’re tying yourself to the democratic party, which means that anything it does to fuck people (which it does constantly) will reflect on you and discredit your movement. You’re tying yourself to a sinking ship. And if you take the position that the status quo is acceptable, then why organize to change things at all? Voting is a hell of a lot safer and easier than organizing a strike. If it worked, there’d be little reason to engage in all that.
can we ACTUALLY make a 3rd party president, or can we work from the ground up, starting with local governments and communities
Nobody cares about any race except the presidency. That’s unfortunate but that’s the truth.
Nobody is forming a political identity around who they vote for for dogcatcher. They form their identities around the presidential candidate they vote for. The most expedient way to change people’s political identities is to challenge their presidential choice. The whole reason that this talking point about third parties “working their way up” through downballot races only exists because people don’t care what happens in them, it’s basically a way to exclude us from any relevant discussion.
Throwing votes at a 3rd party in the current state of US elections is wasting a vote because you were privileged enough to do so.
This is such a nonsensical talking point. “Privileged enough to do so?” That doesn’t even make sense. It’s not as if anyone is directly rewarded or punished for their vote. How does privilege enter into it in any way?
If anything, I’d say that you’re the one coming at this from a privileged position. The Democrats were actively supporting genocide, but you could just ignore and look past that.
I presume that is why you get yelled at - your priority this election was yourself and your opinions rather than trying to protect the safety of your fellow citizens.
This is even more nonsensical. “My opinions” are my best assessment of the best way of improving society and the world, including the safety of my fellow citizens. You’re essentially accusing me of putting my sense of morality above what’s right - but my sense of morality is what tells me what’s right. Your vote is equally based on your opinions. Utterly incoherent talking point.
Granted, this election was a bureaucratic mess, but choosing not to vote Biden/Harris in 2024 signaled to others where your loyalty was (or rather, wasn’t).
Yes, that’s part of why I did it. I have zero loyalty to the genocidal, Blue MAGA imperialists, I consider myself a citizen of the world and obviously that means not supporting genocide and imperialism.
The first step to finding a solution is to recognize that the existing tools are woefully insufficient. Suppose we didn’t have elections at all, suppose all we had was a monarchy where the only recourse within the system was to petition the king, to ask him nicely to act on our behalf. Should we still rely on that? Should we drop other approaches because they might sour the king’s mood?
With a little imagination, you can find that there are inherent mechanisms for asserting power that are not provided by the system and which exist regardless of the system’s best efforts to take them away. All systems are manmade and can be changed and dismantled if enough people stop cooperating with it. This does not have to look like a traditional revolution, with pitched battles and whatnot. Strikes, protests, development of mutual aid networks and dual power structures, even targeted boycotts can be more effective than voting for a candidate hand-picked by the ruling class.
The electoral system keeps people disorganized and divided, it directs energy away from those tactics instead of towards them. The idea that non-disruptive tactics could possibly someday produce change makes people unwilling to engage in tactics that are more disruptive, because nobody really likes being disruptive, taking risks, creating tension, but that tension is necessary to effect change.
The effect that electoral politics has on defining people’s political identities cannot be overstated. The moment you cast your vote, no matter how reluctant it may be, there will be a part of you that wants to justify and defend your choice and before you know it you’re now defending things that you never would otherwise. Nearly all political discourse becomes colored by this question of who to vote for. Again, think about how you would read news stories differently if you had no mechanism within the system for expressing your voice. But that is essentially where we’re at because the mechanisms provided by the system are ineffective, but while we have this idea that they could be effective, people still define themselves along those lines.
Let me give you an example. I live in a solidly blue state, previously, I lived in a solidly red state for most of my life. At no point has my vote for president had any impact on the outcome whatsoever. This is true for the vast majority of Americans. And yet, when I talk about my refusal to vote Harris or Biden, people yell at me, a lot. Why? It has no material impact. It’s because it’s primarily a cultural signifier, a way of defining a political identity, and any material consequences are of secondary consideration. So long as people are allowing bourgeois parties to shape and define their political identities, that’s going to dissuade them from engaging in direct action.
“If enough people stop cooperating with it.”
That is what the hangup is. Crossing your arms and refusing to cooperate based on principle, and expecting others to do the same in the same way, is not the move right this second. We can still do all of the organizing and striking and educating while still doing our due diligence in making sure that the united right wing does not remain in power. It isn’t all or nothing. We have to be realistic in how much change we can make in 2 years - can we ACTUALLY make a 3rd party president, or can we work from the ground up, starting with local governments and communities and working our way up without shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes time to vote for president?
Throwing votes at a 3rd party in the current state of US elections is wasting a vote because you were privileged enough to do so. I presume that is why you get yelled at - your priority this election was yourself and your opinions rather than trying to protect the safety of your fellow citizens. Granted, this election was a bureaucratic mess, but choosing not to vote Biden/Harris in 2024 signaled to others where your loyalty was (or rather, wasn’t). We knew what was coming if Trump won, we warned about it, we begged everyone to vote to prevent this. It wouldn’t have been good, but it wouldn’t have been this.
And it will never be “the right move this second” in any second for the next 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years following your path. Delaying something in politics is the same as opposing it.
Can you though? You’re tying yourself to the democratic party, which means that anything it does to fuck people (which it does constantly) will reflect on you and discredit your movement. You’re tying yourself to a sinking ship. And if you take the position that the status quo is acceptable, then why organize to change things at all? Voting is a hell of a lot safer and easier than organizing a strike. If it worked, there’d be little reason to engage in all that.
Nobody cares about any race except the presidency. That’s unfortunate but that’s the truth.
Nobody is forming a political identity around who they vote for for dogcatcher. They form their identities around the presidential candidate they vote for. The most expedient way to change people’s political identities is to challenge their presidential choice. The whole reason that this talking point about third parties “working their way up” through downballot races only exists because people don’t care what happens in them, it’s basically a way to exclude us from any relevant discussion.
This is such a nonsensical talking point. “Privileged enough to do so?” That doesn’t even make sense. It’s not as if anyone is directly rewarded or punished for their vote. How does privilege enter into it in any way?
If anything, I’d say that you’re the one coming at this from a privileged position. The Democrats were actively supporting genocide, but you could just ignore and look past that.
This is even more nonsensical. “My opinions” are my best assessment of the best way of improving society and the world, including the safety of my fellow citizens. You’re essentially accusing me of putting my sense of morality above what’s right - but my sense of morality is what tells me what’s right. Your vote is equally based on your opinions. Utterly incoherent talking point.
Yes, that’s part of why I did it. I have zero loyalty to the genocidal, Blue MAGA imperialists, I consider myself a citizen of the world and obviously that means not supporting genocide and imperialism.