Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Nope, makes no difference. Australia and Japan both use alternative voting systems, and both still very conservative countries, australia carrying out its ongoing indigenous eviction under that system.
Bourgeois parliamentarism has proven to be the safest shell for capitalist rule.
We can recommend some books on what makes socialist democracy different from capitalist dictatorships.
FPtP isn’t the half of it. The US was formed of a bourgeois revolution to overthrow a still semi-feudal monarchy, and we’ve been a bourgeois-run state ever since, just as the bourgeois land-owning, slave-owning Founding Fathers intended. Our government was never meant to represent the working class; it almost never has and seldomer will, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (who aren’t disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote…
Voting only leads to fascists being in office. Also, it works according to you. May be you just want fascists that are nice to you like Hitler was to Blondie and mean to Palestinians like Hitler was to Jews.
Because of the way the Electoral College works, this can only be true if you’re voting in a swing state, otherwise your vote is completely irrelevant, instead of almost completely irrelevant.
I’m not one to make moralist arguments on how to vote. I’m not going to say that a vote for Harris is a vote for genocide. Voting in bourgeois elections in general, and for bourgeois parties in particular, have limited but real tactical utility*, one of which is short-term harm reduction. If you live in a swing state and want to tactically vote for Harris as harm reduction, I think there’s an argument for that. But it’s important to appreciate the severe limitations of bourgeois electoralism.
*Marxists have written at length about their limited tactical uses since before the October Revolution over a century ago.
Tactical use of parliamentarianism is really only practical when you have a vanguard party that’s somewhat widely supported by the proletariat. We don’t have anything like that in the US so the focus should be on propaganda, building class consciousness among the proletariat, and making that vanguard party a reality. The election has zero bearing on this whatsoever besides providing opportunities to help people realize that their beloved democracy is in fact a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Jill Stein is not a viable candidate, that leads to Trump being elected.
As you just proved, voting doesn’t work
First past the post voting doesn’t work
Nope, makes no difference. Australia and Japan both use alternative voting systems, and both still very conservative countries, australia carrying out its ongoing indigenous eviction under that system.
Bourgeois parliamentarism has proven to be the safest shell for capitalist rule.
We can recommend some books on what makes socialist democracy different from capitalist dictatorships.
FPtP isn’t the half of it. The US was formed of a bourgeois revolution to overthrow a still semi-feudal monarchy, and we’ve been a bourgeois-run state ever since, just as the bourgeois land-owning, slave-owning Founding Fathers intended. Our government was never meant to represent the working class; it almost never has and seldomer will, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (who aren’t disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote…
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Voting only leads to fascists being in office. Also, it works according to you. May be you just want fascists that are nice to you like Hitler was to Blondie and mean to Palestinians like Hitler was to Jews.
Vaush? Is that you?
Because of the way the Electoral College works, this can only be true if you’re voting in a swing state, otherwise your vote is completely irrelevant, instead of almost completely irrelevant.
I’m not one to make moralist arguments on how to vote. I’m not going to say that a vote for Harris is a vote for genocide. Voting in bourgeois elections in general, and for bourgeois parties in particular, have limited but real tactical utility*, one of which is short-term harm reduction. If you live in a swing state and want to tactically vote for Harris as harm reduction, I think there’s an argument for that. But it’s important to appreciate the severe limitations of bourgeois electoralism.
*Marxists have written at length about their limited tactical uses since before the October Revolution over a century ago.
Tactical use of parliamentarianism is really only practical when you have a vanguard party that’s somewhat widely supported by the proletariat. We don’t have anything like that in the US so the focus should be on propaganda, building class consciousness among the proletariat, and making that vanguard party a reality. The election has zero bearing on this whatsoever besides providing opportunities to help people realize that their beloved democracy is in fact a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.