We can’t condemn the Nazis because if we condemn the Nazis people will think we’re Nazis. When people see that we won’t condemn the Nazis, that’s how they’ll know we aren’t Nazis.

Non sequitor. Not what I said and not a Republican.

Campaigns are about winning swing states, those are just the rules of the game. Kamala lost that game worse than any Democrat in nearly 40 years. Maybe the rules we have aren’t fair, and if they were different, she would’ve lost by a smaller margin. But then, both campaigns would’ve been run completely differently, the same candidates might not have even been the nominees, etc.

By the actual rules of the actual game, Kamala lost extremely badly.

This was literally the worst electoral map for the Democrats since 1988 when Republicans won Illinois and California.

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.

It’s very frustrating and the thread I linked made me feel like I was losing my mind. I try to seek out perspectives I disagree with but a lot of times I just end up concluding, “Damn, these people are even worse than I thought.”

What gets me is how wildly people in the thread blew it out of proportion. You had someone quoting “first they came for” as if lifting sanctions on a leader we installed is comparable to the Holocaust.

It’s like everyone needs everyone to agree that every time Trump sneezes, it’s the literal worst thing that has ever happened, and if you push back on anything ever you’re the enemy. These same people fantasize that they can win elections by appealing to moderates.

But the thing that really grinds my gears is how they all default to hostile intervention in foreign countries despite knowing absolutely nothing about their situation. The “null” position should be leaving everyone alone, but instead, it’s whatever the government or media tell them. Or in this case, whatever a random tweet from a crypto grifter tells them. And they will try to bring down the hammer of social condemnation and use things like this as a way to equate communists to fascists and kick us out of spaces, even when they aren’t actually at all invested in the issue.

Buncha clowns.

My apologies. I tried to control-F and apparently that doesn’t work on usernames.

In any case, my take is essentially just, “Hands off Syria.” I didn’t think we should arm him, I don’t think we should sanction him, etc. I don’t really think that’s a shit take, but it’s certainly drawn some criticism over the years.

Cool, so then, why did 1500 people just upvote a picture of a tweet calling him a terrorist, and criticizing the lifting of sanctions against him? Why did only like 40 people downvote it? That’s what I’m calling out.

Where were you when in that thread, by the way? Why are you criticizing my take and not that one? Don’t tell me you only saw the thread sitting at 7 upvotes and missed the one with 1500. My bad.

Imo classical economists were generally more clear-sighted and honest than modern ones. Of course they had their biases and perspective based on their class (and their audience), but at that point economics was so poorly understood that theorists were legitimately trying to figure stuff out, moreso than trying to produce propaganda. Of course, the industrial proletariat and threat of socialism wasn’t really present yet either, so the class conflict was more about new money bourgeois vs old money aristocrats and landlords.

Marx and Smith are a lot more similar than most people think, because Marx was writing in the context of various economic assumptions that come from Smith, such as the labor theory of value, which is usually attributed to Marx but actually comes from Smith.

The thing about Smith though is that his writing style was very dry and repetitive so nobody actually reads him, at best, they might read abridged versions which cut out any inconvenient parts like that. So he just kinda became known as the capitalism guy and is thrown in the same category as Ayn Rand.

Bulls on Parade (Hell Yeah Cover)

Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes (Hell yeah!)

Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal (Hell yeah!)

I walk the corner to the rubble that used to be a library (Hell yeah!)

Line up to the mind cemetery now (Hell yeah!)

What they don’t know keeps the contracts alive and movin’ (Hell yeah!)

We don’t gotta burn the books we just remove 'em (Hell yeah!)

While arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells (Hell yeah!)

Rally 'round the family, pockets full of shells (Hell yeah!)

There’s a long history of anarchists who oppose voting

https://libcom.org/article/why-anarchists-dont-vote-elisee-reclus

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/aotearoa-workers-solidarity-movement-why-we-don-t-vote

https://apps.lib.umich.edu/online-exhibits/exhibits/show/debatedemocracy/anarchism---anti-voting

I live in Illinois. If somehow the heavens and earth move such that Illinois turned red, then there would be absolutely zero chance it would be the tipping point in the presidential election. The vast majority of people in the US live in safe states.

And for the record, I do vote in down-ballot races, the ones that actually matter, but none of you care because it’s all about genuflecting before the leader of the blue tribe. Which, frankly, just gives me more reason to refuse to.

“Democracy” doesn’t need our help to be sabotaged, it’s falling apart on it’s own. Every time someone says that the voters have to change en masse to meet the policies of politicians rather than politicians having to respond to what their constituents want, they are the ones taking the axe to democracy. Why the hell would anyone care about upholding or defending a system that we have no say in? Somehow, insisting on popular demands and trying to turn the will of the people into policies that protect the rights of the vulnerable gets translated into “trying to sabotage democracy” equating Anarchists and Marxists alike with fascists.

“In fact, we don’t want them to make cars for us. We want to make our own cars. We don’t need their lumber. We don’t need their energy. We don’t need anything from Canada. And I say the only way this thing really works is for Canada to become a state.”

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Trying to remove any and all trade barriers in order to prevent trade.

Well, if it didn’t, then perhaps there’s no way to get them to do what we want and in that case it is imperative that they be replaced as soon as possible, a goal that is also furthered by voting third party.

The thing to fight for is ranked choice voting, or some other method without a spoiler effect. Until you have that

No. The thing is for candidates to endorse ranked choice voting and implement it, and until they do that, they are going to have to deal with the spoiler effect.

This shit is so stupid. “You have to fall in line unconditionally forever, until, out of the kindness of their hearts and against their own interests, the party decides to let you out of that situation.” That’s just saying we have to fall in line unconditionally forever. They’re never going to just give us systemic change, it’s designed this way on purpose and is working exactly the way they want it to.

The only way to actually apply pressure towards getting necessary policies is through setting conditions on your vote based on those policies. This ideology of “lesser-evilism” is completely illogical and incoherent, and the whole reason we’re here is because it’s such an egregious failure. There is no incentive for politicians to implement RCV if they know they’ll have your vote either way. It’s the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

I’ve considered it, but I might have to go back to school to get the qualifications. I’m also trans and nervous about what that future might look like.

And yeah, there’s also the issue of just training people to work for defense companies. At least you could maybe warn them? Tbh, if did go back to school for teaching, I feel like I’d want to teach history instead, it’s much more of a “study of everything” than physics is (and is more relevant to politics). Like tbh I kinda lost interest in physics after graduating, for me, it was tied to a lot of things that I’ve left behind.

I have a BS in physics that I never used, I chose it because I had no idea what I was doing and discovered afterward that most jobs involving physics are less “figuring out how stars work, for the joy of discovery” and more, “figuring out new and exciting ways to kill brown people, for profit,” which I did not sign up for. So, I’ve wound up doing grunt work at warehouses instead. “Learn to wash your own vegetables and you won’t have to pay court to kings,” as the story goes.

A lot of people go into STEM because they just want to solve problems and the issue with that is that if you just solve any problem that’s put in front of you without regard for who’s problem it is and whether solving it will actually make the world a better place, then you belong in the same category as the guy who developed the Blitzkrieg doctrine, who claimed afterwards that he didn’t really care about “politics” and was just doing his job as best as he could. Just because you’re capable of solving a problem and someone’s asking you to doesn’t mean that you actually should.

I know I’d be a lot cooler, especially around here, if I just put on the Che Guevara shirt and say revolution is the only answer.

Not what I said. Revolution is not the only mechanism for change that exists outside of voting, there are other forms of mass action such as strikes and protests.

Because every example of that sort of thing just leads to more fascism under a different name

That’s completely ahistorical. Even if you write off all the biggest and most famous examples, like the Russian, American, Chinese, and French revolutions (which you shouldn’t), the world is a big place and you wouldn’t be making that kind of sweeping generalization if you’d actually looked into it.

The reason people say this shit (aside from propaganda to discourage doing revolutions) is to signal that they themselves aren’t interested in participating in a revolution. But the actual history is a lot more complicated than is allowed by this sort of sweeping proclamation about every country in every time that has ever existed.

It’s funny because this position of “revolution is always bad” is literally to the right of neocons. Neoconservatives are always fantasizing about the people of rival countries (Iran, Cuba, China, etc) rising up to overthrow their governments. They’re allowed to be pro-revolution because they’re sufficiently wedded to the establishment that they don’t feel the need to disavow every revolutionary action ever to avoid suspicion, which allows these conservatives to be to take a position to the left of the average self-proclaimed anti-communist leftist who is desperate to make sure everyone knows they’re not one of those kinds of leftists.

But as for making it a red line for supporting democrats, sure. I mean honestly, credit to you for proposing something that might actually work. I think if there’s a big enough movement to do that, every Democrat would get behind it.

Yes, and the same is true for setting red lines on other issues, such as Palestine. If enough people actually stood by it, the Democrats would be forced to change their position, or they would end up being replaced by another party.

That being said, I am fully aware of the flaws in my ideology - and there are many - but I enjoy libertarianism because it allows me to tell people like you to “GET OFF MY LAWN!” and not feel morally wrong for it.

Lmao I’ve never seen someone so explicitly accept that they picked their ideology out at the supermarket.

See, ideas generally fall into two categories, which I call “manmade” and “natural.” “Manmade” ideas are ideas that are specifically crafted to have mass market appeal, to fulfill some psychological urge of some demographic, whereas “natural” ideas are just reflections of the world as it actually exists. Libertarianism is a perfect manmade ideology, it allows you to tell “the man” to fuck off, to “GET OFF MY LAWN!” Who cares if the ideology is actually correct or capable of producing a functioning system? All that matters is that it makes you feel good. It’s no different from people who believe in quack medicine or crystal healing or whatever, it’s “I want to believe.”

People just want to go down to the supermarket and look through all different brands of ideologies until they find the one that really suits their own personal style, and then they bring it home and put it up on the mantle and polish it every day and keep it there, they would never dream of actually using it because they might get dirt on it, and anyway it would probably break since it’s not designed for that, it’s just there to look pretty. A proper ideology should be used so often it’s kept in the toolshed, where it’s rough and worn and not pretty to look at, but it’s designed to actually get the job done, and that ideology should be just as suitable whether you’re a nuerodivergent trans software developer or a Guatemalan dirt farmer. Because the truth is the truth no matter who you are or what your style is.

If you recognize that you only like libertarianism because it makes you feel good to believe in it, then you need to reject it immediately. You don’t just go through live believing whatever makes you feel good regardless of reason or evidence… do you?