804
leftist infighting
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
why would people ever vote for Biden/Harris when they established the legal basis for Palestinians getting deported and mask bans being enacted? they could vote for the proud fascists instead of the fascism-lite.
I also hate the rhetoric pushed by blue MAGA that equates not voting with letting Trump win. I can't recall a single time in history where voting has defeated fascism. Also the fact that the people most impacted by Trump can't vote or don't have accommodations in place to be able to vote.
Couple examples of elections preventing facism:
Theoretically, anytime a facist runs and loses an election and doesn’t subsequently stage a coup into power, voting prevents facism.
why did the system let them run in the first place? this leads back to my original point, electoralism and liberalism are inherently dangerous and normalize fascism by allowing people to vote them into power just like they did for Hitler.
it makes as much sense as "the marketplace of ideas". we don't debate or "vote out" fascists, we use force
Who decides what ideas are and aren't okay? Who decides which ideas are bad enough to use force against? What's to stop those in charge of making those decisions from being compromised, or plants, or changing their minds, or having morals counter to the morals of their society, seeing as the voting clearly cannot be trusted. All it takes is fascism and conservatism to quietly seep into government and now we've created the perfect framework for them to shift the targets to those they oppose.
This week, trans people have been declared anti-party. Next week it's disabled people. Tune in the week after for nationalism.
This is like building a big gun to protect ourselves from fascists but not putting any checks to make sure it's wielded in the best interests of the people.
what makes you think someone against electoralism believes in having a state?
That's a fair point, but the question still stands. In a stateless society, who decides when violence is appropriate and which ideas deserve violence? What differentiates such individuals from the state, seeing as they are acting in lieu of one, enforcing certain ideals and rules via violence? My questions still stand.
ah yes the classic "any form of violence is a state". go to sleep old man Engels
Who. Decides.