553
Have some civility.
(lemmy.ml)
(not OC)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
553 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
50363 readers
1033 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Liberals: but what if we compromised, how about only some genocide? What if Israel only tortured half as many babies? What if Israel only illegally annexed half of the West Bank instead of their current plan to annex the entire thing? What if people were able to afford 50% of rent and 50% of all bills? What if we only cut Medicare and Medicaid by 50%?
What if Netanyahu put pronouns in bio?
Don't be silly, liberals aren't offering to spare half the Palestinians, there offering "killing all of them, but with a troubled expression on our face."
I voted third party for Claudia de la Cruz. There were options on the ballots that were against genocide.
Democrats sued to keep her off the ballots in ~~system~~ states it would have mattered. They knew the stakes and guessed voters would crawl back after the current administration.
I personally voted Kamala (yes I know and it was a deeply painful decision). Looking back im not quite sure why, she never really had a chance and she certainly wasnt a good candidate. I suppose its because I genuinely don't care about electoral politics. Workers liberation can only come from revolution.
My comment was removed by the mods.. probably because I let my rage show. Though the mod log shows rule 2 instead of rule 1 :P
Here's a longer and nicer version:
I'm a (US) liberal, and I don't approve of any of the views described by kittenzrulz123. Lumping half the country into a single bucket is not going to give you a good overview of the myriad ideals we might have individually.
You have a choice. You can look at the political landscape at the moment of the election and choose one of four options:
At this time, our election system really only works for two parties. Any third-party vote is useless, if not counterproductive. If you can't understand how that math works, let me know and I'll break it down for you. I'd love to change that, but the process is by using our ability during primaries to put forward more liberal candidates that support election reforms, not by putting our heads in the sand and voting 3rd party hoping that we will make people notice... hint: they will not.
If you don't like your choices when you go to the voting booth in November, the solution is to get involved in late November and make things better next time. Join a local democratic organization and become part of the solution. Complaining online about how your choices suck is something we can fix if we all jump in. If you're not doing that, then you are abdicating your responsibility and allowing others to make the choice of who represents us instead. If you choose not to be part of the selection process, the very least you can do is vote for the 'lesser evil' and not make things worse.
Side note: the Primary election is the end of that selection process, not the start. Putting your values on the primary ballot is where you should spend your energy if you're mad at the status quo.
I will admit that I'm angry that we didn't get a Democratic primary and that Harris was ordained as Biden's successor without any popular input. The DNC is to blame for that fuck-up. It's irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine, the US economy, US healthcare, foreign relations, and dozens of other topics than trump is.
Would Claudia de la Cruz have been better? Sure. Her platform looks awesome. Did she have even a chance of winning? no.
Nope, this is just your wishful thinking, and also why the 'lesser evil' pitch isn't compelling, because the people making it are unwilling to be honest about the evil that they're supporting.
I'm no longer at my computer where typing is easy. I thank all of you for responding in good faith, and I'll be reading the various links. Thanks for engaging with me.
I'm confused, when you talk about voting "Democrat," do you mean, for the Democratic-Republicans? I was thinking of voting Federalist, personally.
Since our system makes it impossible to change from the two currently existing parties, it follows that the two parties we have now must be the ones we started with.
But regardless, this is typical shortsighted liberal (i.e. capitalist) analysis that only looks at the immediate outcome and only at electoral politics. If a significant portion of the electorate can make a credible threat to sit out if their demands are not met, then they can leverage that threat to get what they want. The right is much more willing to do this because they put their values above reason, and it works - many Republican candidates understand that if they look soft on things like abortion or guns, a sizable portion of their base will defect, even if it means voting for a crank and throwing the election. Democratic voters are much more committed to being "reasonable" and so refuse to set any red lines anywhere, and the results are clear: the right successfully shifts the Republicans to be more extreme, the Democrats follow, and the left falls in line and accepts it. We are desperately overdue to start learning from their successful tactics and from our own failures, setting down red lines, and thinking beyond the current cycle. And we can debate where exactly red lines should be set, but if genocide doesn't deserve one, nothing does.
Moreover, the facts of physical reality, the material conditions, and the myriad of crises we're facing demand radical changes beyond what we are told are possible in the existing system. But those things are physical, natural, immutable facts, while our political system is, on a fundamental level, manmade. We do not have to abide by its rules and what it tells us is and isn't possible - but we do have to do that regarding the laws of nature, which tell us about things like climate change. Monarchy had no mechanism built into the system to transform into liberal democracy, and yet, here we are. That's because there are fundamental mechanisms for change that exist within every political system, whether the system wants them to or not, and I don't just mean revolutions, but demonstrations, strikes, etc. And so, the party I voted for, PSL, participates in electoral politics for the express purpose of building organization beyond electoral politics. Helping a candidate who I see as fundamentally unacceptable win an election is less important that helping to promote that sort of organizing.
In this post: making a case against electoralism without realizing they're making a case against electoralism...
Liberals occasionally come to the correct conclusion that the game is rigged. But then they still inevitably spend hours telling us how important it is to play it, and vote for their genocidal parties anyway.
It's like banging your head against a brick wall inevitably causes you to see the truth, but at that point your brain is so addled that you are hallucinating the truth, despite your best tries at avoidance.
I feel we're playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let's define words: I'm assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That's my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for 'hurt the other people more.'
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I'm offline for the day, but I'd be happy to continue this conversation.
Heres how I define Liberal:
People who follow the Liberal ideology, this mostly involves "free market" capitalism as defined by classical liberal thinkers. Today its a violent imperialist ideology that supports the US status quo. Both parties in the US are Liberal as are the Libertarians, simply different flavors of liberal.
Now as for me, im a Anarcho-Syndicalist. If you want to learn more about my beliefs read these: One Big Union and Think it Over
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/crash_course_socialism.html#democracy
Bookmarked
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps -- and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
I'll admit I'm not familiar with the term. 'Electorialism' seems to be, according to Wikipedia, a 'half-way step' between Authoritarianism and Democracy.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US. We are more likely to be headed in the opposite way from Electorialism; where we are transitioning from what is a democratic process to one where oligarchs have consolidated enough power and influence that they can just say, 'fuck it, we win.' In that case, yes, I do want to make a case against Electorialism.
In Electorialism, the dominant party, presumably the authoritarian one, conducts elections that allow their opponents a stage and promises to be free and fair while still controlling the levers of power. What we have seen in the last 8 years is a party, republicans, that are throwing every possible strategy at the wall in the effort to undermine and discredit elections with the end result that if they win, the election will be seen as fair and, if they lose, the election will be seen as unfair.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can't jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Help me out. What's our next step?
Mine is to help elect people to local, state and federal offices that want to make life for everyone better.
Just wanna drill into this; the United States has been an authoritarian state for as long as I've been alive. Deporting people without due process is not new. Supporting genocides is not new. The police state we live in is not new. The rule of law has been a joke for so long zoomers have internalized it. There is a reason why most of the governments we have overthrown have been democracies, and there is a reason the US has mostly replaced those democracies with dictatorships. We are the evil empire, and we have been for decades at this point.
Electoralism in this context means the idea that elections are the solutions to the political issues of our time, that the primary focus of energy from the left should be in winning elections so the elected officials can do as they were selected to do and solve societal ills.
Many Marxists and other leftists ideologies disagree and feel that the four options you've given show that electoralism is a trap for the political energy to change.
I understand your frustration as the entire thread is strawmanning liberal positions.
Essentially, capitalism coopts movements. Liberalism is an ideology which exists and has values, but since this is the primary vehicle for left leaning politics on a national level, companies spend a lot of lobbying effort stuffing liberalism with stuff that helps them.
Conservative have has gone through similar changes, stuffing a fiscal conservative viewpoint with bullshit culture war stuff as the primary vehicle for right wing politics.
When people critique electoralism, they see liberals as unable to organize because the movement has been cooped by big money and liberals refuse to admit they aren't in control of their own party.
When you campaign for liberal values, critics see you as providing ethical cover for the promises to lobbyists that had already been made behind your back which secured their campaign donations enabling them to run in the first place.
Things like funding Israel.
You can discuss being anti Israel, you can rally behind someone like John Fetterman or Krysten Sinema who promises to be a progressive, but the thing about electoralism is you can just lie and turn heel.
This is where I agree with you.
There are steps inside electoralism and steps outside.
If you're saying "just vote Democrat and wait 4 years for things to get better" I agree that's naive and there's action we can take outside of electoralism.
If they're "stay home and don't vote" I agree with you that's nauve and we can take action inside of electoralism too. It's just gonna be inherently pretty ineffectual.
Currently, when candidates we elect take big money and vote against our interests we can't do anything for 4 years about it. But because we have our "I voted" sticker it acts as a balm to the consciousness and deluded is into believing our fellow countrymen actually agree with the direction it takes.
Again, this is where I fully agree with you.
Protesting Kamala from my university campus seems like a better alternative to protesting Trump from El Salvador, even if the genocide is happening in both cases.
I haven't heard a compelling argument staying home and not voting is better.
I'm now mobile, so my formatting will suffer.
Capitalism = bad. I'm fully behind that, and see it as the root of the problem. What I don't see is a path forward that doesn't involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
I think this is where we disagree, but I might still be missing something.
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I want a progression where we work towards owning that power. We had it partially when unions were still strong, but it was undermined. In my mind, the solution is education, but I have no power to enact that directly. My ability to influence is limited to my local org and voting.
A green party, socialist party, etc, will never win an election in our current environment. Votes there are literally useless, if not spoiling a candidate that has at least some if your views. The system is rigged, sure, but you can't flip this table and walk away.
Can we separate this discussion into talking about politics and elections and eliminate Israel/Palestine? I'm a-religious, pro Palestine, pro humanitarian, but having that angle seems to quickly degenerate every conversation into 'both sides are genocide' and avoid the'how do we move forward' question. I think these can be separated, but maybe that is also a place we disagree.
But do you actually see a path forward that does involve incremental progress?
I've watched politics incrementally change from Clinton's Third Way to Bush's War on Terror to McCain/Palin and the Tea Party to Trump.
I've watched Fox news incrementally change, I've watched print media incrementally be bought up.
I'm hearing about abortion getting banned, hate crimes going up, school shootings, people being abducted and sent to death camps in El Salvador.
When does this incremental change move us forward instead of backwards?
I'm not the assorted folks responding. What I personally want is a reform. I like the idea of democracy. I do not think we have it.
I think the system we currently have is rigged and not capable of producing the incremental change you ask of it.
Where I agree with everyone else, is that if we have to resort to revolution just to get the slightest pedestrian changes to the electoral system to let incremental change takeover (repeal citizens united, disband both parties, disallow "parties" to subvert primaries, remove big money, etc)... why set it back up more or less the same?
When those other leftists accept revolution as inevitable they can dream bigger beyond the current system.
The more liberalism is cooped by capitalists to resist the reforms liberalism itself demands, the less liberalism as a coherent movement can thrive.
This leaves actual liberals like you and me disenfranchised and without a party. A further leftist might describe that as defeatist.
If you have been following politics from the Clinton era, then you wound have seen the progress and incremental change first hand especially regarding social rights.
Gay marriage didn't exist. They were denied their existence in the military, and on TV.
We went from that to adding new letters to the ltgb alliance every few years. To pronouns and kinks like furries being accepted.
A black president was unimaginable. There were still people alive that experienced segregation.
Most of what you are listing are reactions to the progress. The bigots pushed back, and they won partly because they convinced us to be more cynical and divisive. To ignore and forget the progress that was made and spin as negatively as possible all the change we see.
Incremental change is moving forward 3 steps after falling back 2, not giving up because we couldn't be at step 5 by now.
Social rights are great, but you're ignoring cost of living and material conditions to paint there being more progress than there has been.
Financially, the average worker has seen the cost of food, housing and transportation increase massively with inflation but wages haven't kept up.
The 2008 banking crisis and COVID 19 have only pushed this even further.
You've captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly. Liberal ideology calls for the capitalist class to hold all the material power, inevitably leading them to do away with liberal reforms because the ideological liberals don't have the power to stop them.
Thank you!
It wasn't a compliment
When my goal is to describe the flaws of liberalism succinctly and you say "You've captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly." I have a hard time taking that as an insult, ngl.
Sorry, I didn't realize you had abandoned liberalism between that comment and the previous one. You probably should have said something.
Hey, it’s the self admitted troll who has dedicated themself to stalking every single comment I make because they got big mad I said genocide denial is bad.
If this were posted on reddit, I feel like you would've got more upvotes. I always wondered what type of people were here before the reddit protests. They do say Russia sows discord on both the left and the right, but I don't think this is their doing. There is no listening going on and people are unempathically hyperfocused on just their topic of choosing. I'm checking out some subreddits...