Idealism isn't great, don't ever say that.

I'm not sure what their opinion is, but:

Warfare against the private property owning class that rapes children and funds genocidal imperialist wars.

Also, even for those who only care about 1 issue (whether Gaza or Trans rights or something else), it’s important to have some sense of nuance on that issue and not frame it in completely black-and-white terms. Chances are that a given AIPAC Democrat candidate is less hostile to Palestinians than their Republican opponent, or that an anti-trans Democrat on the wrong side of trans sports and bathroom issues is running against a Republican that wants trans folk jailed or killed. The Democrats are far, far from perfect, but they are still better than the Republicans on every single issue.

Revolution of course. How that is accomplished is debatable and would be best if it was something like a massive general strike.

We are in a horrible place. DOGE compromised every aspect of our federal government's information security and data infrastructure. They invaded it, infected it with their AIs, and copied it onto servers. There is no getting that back.

State governments are still effective and people can still have a voice there. Wherever we go from here, it can't be the status quo. We are in Thomas Paine and pre-revolution times right now.

There are concentration camps right now, treason, and we are dismantling the ICC.

Incremental voting while shifting right has been as effective as believing in trickle down economics.

We need a party that shares the same basic principle as the New Deal Democrats. Neoliberals CANT be that because they abandoned the whole idea of pre distribution policies (shaping the labor market itself through minimum wages, union rights, public works, protective tariffs, and financial regulation. The neoliberal turn replaced that with "redistribution" — letting the market run its course and then compensating the losers via tax-and-transfer tools like the Earned Income Tax Credit)

That's the principle that can get us stuff incrementally

No one cares much about a firebombed walmart.

This seems true on the face of it, and it is definitely worth trying to get further left democrat candidates, but it seems to me that they have to believe that trying to capture said 5% won't cause them to lose more in the process, especially if they can never "earn my vote" for much of said 5% no matter what they do.

Kinda seems like leftists spend a LOT of time thinking

This part comes across very clearly... seems there's no time for anything that would follow though.

The imperial core will be the last to revolt properly. Its inhabitants are too comfortable and chauvinistic to want the actual change that global equality would need. As long as the new system doesn't radically change their view on exploitation the western left will at best achieve national socialism. The western hegemonial structures need to be crushed first if the capital R Revolution is to come. Western leftists at large have neither the power nor the intention to tear down these systems as that would mean that their own living standards would deteriorate in the short term.

No, because it's easier to destroy than to build.

Also Republicans have had complete control of government more than Democrats over the last few decades, so you'd expect Republican policy to be moved further.

https://www.shawlocal.com/the-herald-news/2026/07/10/fire-led-to-estimated-6-million-in-damages-to-joliet-area-walmart-prosecutors-say/

Well

First and foremost, we need to spread the implementation of ranked voting in more cities. Once enough cities have ranked voting and it's proven successful and popular, then more cities will adopt, then states, and once enough states have adopted ranked voting, we'll have a real chance for anyone to be elected despite what party they're aligned with. Two states use it for federal elections, and many other states have cities that use it for local elections. All states that have it banned need to have it bills constantly in circulation to get it unbanned until it finally is, then bills to constantly have it implemented.

There are a lot of issues that need fixing, but I think starting here will open the floodgates for fixing a lot of the other issues.

LMAO!!

A runaway trolley is on course to kill five people, but if you pull a lever it will be diverted to a track where it will kill only one person. Should you pull the lever? Does that make you a murderer?

You: There is no correct answer to this.

A politician who will commit multiple genocides is fighting an election against a politician who will commit one genocide. Should you vote for latter politician? Does that make you complicit in genocide?

You: This is obviously completely different from a trolley problem, and consequentialist and deontological ethics are not relevant in this situation.

To anti-quote Carlin, if voting didn't do anything, they wouldn't be trying so hard to stop us from doing it.

The big issue with electoralism is the tendency to reduce people down to believing in fairy tales about just needing the right rulers and everything will be fixed. Expecting a group of people, who keep threatening you with an increasingly right wing opposition rather than listening to their electorate, to actually serve your interests seems mindblowingly naive, especially given all the evidence to the contrary we have to hand by now.

It is possible to responsibly advocate for voting (obviously alongside taking more effective measures to put power back in people's hands directly where possible), but this is incredibly rarely seen. Instead the voting becomes the be all and end all, and things keep sliding further and further.

As a black person, if voting is useless, then why did Jim Crow era South come up with millions of ways to stop Black people from voting? Why do d still have systems set in place to make voting for minorities harder, like laws about former felons not being able to vote?

If you're a minority (race and gender, fuck even poor white men) your ancestors didn't fight and die for voting rights just for you to sit here and go "oh it doesn't really do anything"

Sick!!

there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they'd use in politics. and, to that end, deontologists never pull the lever.

voting for genocide is wrong

Cool, how much of that have you done? And can you at least comprehend that some people with lifes worth living DON'T want to lose their life as the very first option?

Cool, so what have you done? And most importantly, how would voting once every 4 years for the least horrible option have hindered you substantially in all these things you're surely doing?

Or have you done nothing? Exactly like every single big talking, privileged, selfish leftist online?

Cool, so you're doing that? Do think most leftists online talking about not voting are doing that? Most importantly, how exactly does voting once every 4 years for the least bad option materially hinder those efforts you're SURELY working on?

As opposed to what? Like, the entire point of the tweet in the picture is that you guys never actually DO stuff.
More importantly, can you explain exactly how you're materially hindered from preparing the revolution by voting for the least bad option once every 4 years?

It seems insane to me to believe you can overthrow a large ass government, but spending 4 hours once every 4 years puts it in jeopardy. That's 0.0114% of time, 0.017% of awake time and 0.053% of the median americans free time.

And a bunch of dead people. Something tells me the terminally online leftists won't actually be in the frontlines risking their lifes. Exactly like they aren't risking their lifes, but the minoritized peoples every time they get off on accelerationist fantasies.

But that's never how it fucking works out! You refuse to use the one tool that most people can use with very little effort, time, cost and risk. Then, you DON'T USE ANYTHING FUCKING ELSE!!!!!

I'm absolutely fine with firebombing walmarts or whatever else violence is needed. I'm not naive enough to believe voting alone will get us all the way. But I'm also not stupid enough to believe any of you fucks actually do shit. You fucking never do!

Because your complacency and appeasing only made us drift to the right. Do you see where we are at?

Here is a better option for this.

You tell me:
When have they Democrats ever restored a benefit/entitlement that was cut by Republicans? When have they repealed any troublesome laws? (Not counting the WWE senator flip flop game) They had the majority in 1996 and CHOSE not to do anything for us.

Even in CA, Newsome, the frontrunner for standard Dems, had all the votes for universal healthcare in his state and what did he CHOSE to not do it.

Last question, if I am so wrong, why on earth would this party struggle so hard to defeat a mentally ill, cyberpedophile that is openly committing treason?

FORTY YEARS OF YOUR WAY GOT US HERE

"how can voting once every four years...."
Look where it led? The business owners are in charge - 2 Groups of business owners. Workers are not represented anymore and we are more right wing than every country but Israel.

Privileged and selfish? For advocating and donating to left wing causes? Educating youth in civic duties and principles? I'm a nobody but can contribute locally, but your blind loyalty to a party that has given you nothing is weird.

It's the exact same argument as trickle down economics. Look back at the last half century, it ain't happening

there is no correct answer. it depends on which ethical system you prefer. and in fact, the same reasoning someone would use to make their choice in the trolley problem is, hopefully, the same method they’d use in politics.

Literally the point that I was making in my original comment.

voting for genocide is wrong

If you're a deontologist. Whereas a consequentialist would argue that allowing more genocide to occur when you could have voted for less genocide is wrong. And, as we've established, neither position is objectively the correct one. It depends on you as a person. And let's not even get into virtue ethics.

great. it seems like you understand that the trolley analogy doesn't have a single answer

and if you are attacking deontology, you are going to need to overcome all the justifications that deontologists (who make up a plurality of professional philosophers) would proffer.

so you can decide if the right thing for yourself to do is to vote for small genocide or to vote "against big genocide" (ifthe option offered is voting for small genocide) but you can't decide for others.

I'm not attacking deontology. Or consequentialism.

I'm a bit confused as to why we're arguing when you haven't actually said anything I disagree with since your first response, so I am going to guess that what has happened here is that because I formatted my original comment as "here is the argument for why voting is bad", "here is the counter-argument for why it isn't", it comes across as me thinking that the counter-argument is a refutation. That's not my position. I was not trying to state a position. I was merely trying to put forward my analysis of why there is debate by offering the arguments I commonly see both for and against, and I put the "against voting" arguments first because that most directly answers the question I was responding to.

I think we both agree that there is no correct answer to the trolley problem beyond what is correct to you personally, and I think we both agree that there is no correct answer as to whether you should vote beyond what is correct to you personally. That is why I think the trolley problem is relevant.

FWIW I think that my "I will not vote for Labour" stance demonstrates that I at least lean more toward the deontological position (in this case, at least), but in truth I couldn't honestly tell you that I've come to a firm moral decision. If the Tories and Reform have some fresh new lunatics in charge come the next election I may well be scared enough to change my mind.

The smart people are organizing in their local communities, not taking cellphones or other electronics to meetings. Meeting in basements or places with few to no windows. They're aiding each other financially, emotionally, and morally. They're arming up and practicing on the down low. If someone talks about their efforts online looking for more, it's probably a honey pot.

The counter-counter-argument is that such a shift will not occur while that harm is being delayed, which leads us on to…

1. Accelerationism.

I agree with what you said, up until this point. Non-electoral strategies are not harmed by voting because of accelerationist reasons, but because the messaging becomes muddled.

We have these two horrible, awful parties no one really likes, politics is increasingly driven by "negative partisanship," just a question of which party you hate more, and then everyone on the other side is assumed to be fully on board with the worst aspects of their side, when in reality almost everyone is following this same "lesser evil" logic, and it's really just a question of which party's faults they're more aware and conscious of. One of the biggest advantages to non-electoral strategies is that you have the opportunity to distance yourself from that and define what you actually stand for and don't stand for yourself. Someone who (correctly) sees someone like Joe Biden as a slimeball, could be more receptive to leftist ideas if they're decoupled from him.

Now, you take a protest, a union, whatever, and it takes an official stance endorsing a politician, now you're gonna be defined by that politicians words and actions, and unless it's someone you can really trust and stand by, you're right back to square one.

Point is, accelerationism is stupid and doesn't work, and I can't say that no one believes it, but I certainly don't (although people often assume that it's what I believe despite everything I say to the contrary). We can look at history and see very long periods of time when things were horrible for a lot of people and they weren't able to change things just by really really wanting them to, because they lacked power and organization. It can also just lead to the left straight up getting exterminated, as has happened many times in history, like Nazi Germany, or Iran under the Shah, or the mass killings in Indonesia under Suharto. Sometimes, the bad guys just win.

Imo, anyone who actually believes in accelerationism is a fool who doesn't read theory or study history, but it mostly just exists as an insult or accusation, rather than being something people actually believe.

Voting does nothing and thinking it does something prevents people from moving beyond just voting.

I have been part of an org a while ago that was opposing military and finance support of Israel. Nothing illegal, though.

Things will change when a critical mass of people reach the point where they have nothing left to lose.

Whole bunch of people I know are literally dying. I don't care about the comfort of the people who want uninterrupted brunch while that goes on.

That's what makes it useless

"Seize the means of production!"

... but the means of production are mostly just shops, superstores, malls, shopping centers, restaurants, gyms, car dealerships, movie theatres, film equipment, data centers, offices, warehouses, vans, semi trucks, trains, planes, and airports.

Now you're bending my brain. Was Carlin's stance something like, "They keep encouraging everyone to vote, but voting doesn't matter because everything's rigged!" ?

In France we know how to protest and some buildings got firebombed yesterday