All your points boil down to “My positions are not popular enough to win elections”.
I repeat,
Not getting what you want because the voters that disagree with you outnumber the ones that agree is the fundamental principle of democracy.
If your candidates can’t get support from voters, your revolution will be a dictatorship of unpopular positions. You’re saying that your positions are in the minority, but they should be implemented anyway. Regardless of how correct you think those positions are, this approach is definitely undemocratic.
All your points boil down to “My positions are not popular enough to win elections”.
No, they do not.
Israel is supported by the US Empire unconditionally because it needs Israel as a land-based aircraft carrier to secure the Petro-Dollar as the global standard. The DNC and GOP will never cease support for Israel.
The US is not a democracy. The media, state apparatus, police, and society itself are created for and maintained by the wealthiest, ie the large Banks and Monopolies with all of the money. Popular policy doesn’t get elected.
If your candidates can’t get support from voters, your revolution will be a dictatorship of unpopular positions. You’re saying that your positions are in the minority, but they should be implemented anyway. Regardless of how correct you think those positions are, this approach is definitely undemocratic.
Read the book I linked, nowhere did I suggest a random coup. Revolution is inevitable, and it cannot happen without mass support in the first place.
Revolution is inevitable, and it cannot happen without mass support in the first place.
Of course, which is the central problem with your reasoning. What is this “mass support” which is both large enough to coordinate a revolution, but too small to elect representatives? What percentage of the population is willing to do what it takes to unseat the government, but not willing to fill out a piece of paper every couple years?
Please, read the book I linked. The Electoral System is designed to prevent change, and the duopoly exists to prevent movement to the left. Even when revolutionary pressure builds, even if a party like PSL got elected, the system itself is designed to prevent change from occuring.
You haven’t responded to any of my points, you dismissed them entirely. I know liberals are generally allergic to reading, but at least make an attempt at understanding what I’m saying if you aren’t going to read.
these candidates will not gain enough influence to make a difference at the federal level.
“My policies are not popular enough to win elections”
Neither the DNC nor the GOP will ever field progressive candidates.
Vote lesser evil until you have proven progressive candidates
Even if the party disappears, a new one will take its place that is just as fascist, because fascism is a response to crumbling Capitalism. This is such a well-studied phenomenon.
“My policies are not popular enough to win elections”
Nope, I got them.
You keep ignoring the very simple math: if you have enough support for revolution, you have enough support to elect progressives; if you don’t have enough support to elect progressives, you’re the clear minority and imposing your policies on the country is undemocratic. How in blazes do you expect to coordinate a revolution if you can’t coordinate a campaign?
“My policies are not popular enough to win elections”
No, again. Every time a third party candidate is proposed, the very fact that they are third party is used against them despite popular policy.
Vote lesser evil until you have proven progressive candidates
How are these progressive candidates getting to the federal election? Magic? No.
In order to make it to the federal level, you must satisfy donors and wealthy Capitalists, and support their economic interests.
“My policies are not popular enough to win elections”
Again, no. You’re pretending fascism is an idea that magically sprouts out of thin air, rather than a known phenomenon as a reaction to Capitalist failure. For you, ideas drive history, rather than Material Conditions.
You keep ignoring the very simple math: if you have enough support for revolution, you have enough support to elect progressives; if you don’t have enough support to elect progressives, you’re the clear minority and imposing your policies on the country is undemocratic. How in blazes do you expect to coordinate a revolution if you can’t coordinate a campaign?
It’s one thing to refuse to read books, it’s another thing entirely to refuse to read my comments, lmao. Even if you could elect progressives, they still can’t enact change. The structure of the US is designed to uphold Capitalism, and as long as it is, it will act against any change to the status quo. The “democratic” apparatus is filtered and controlled by wealthy Capitalists, you yourself are arguing against progressive candidates in this election, pretending you’ll ever change your tone.
You won’t. The DNC and GOP are going to continue moving to the right, and you’ll watch and support them, hoping for a magical candidate to somehow defy the entire electoral system as designed and bypass all checks and balances once elected to enact positive change.
Every time a third party candidate is proposed, the very fact that they are third party is used against them despite popular policy.
Proven, again, being the important distinction. Randos coming out of the woodwork every 4 years with swell official policies but no significant political administrative experience are not proven. Senators and governors are proven, they have a track record to look back on to see how effectively they actually implement their policies.
And to get progressive senators and governors, we need progressive mayors, county commissioners, city councilors, etc to seed those higher offices with proven political administrators. These third party candidates are shooting too high too fast, and spoiling the vote in the process.
In order to make it to the federal level, you must satisfy donors and wealthy Capitalists, and support their economic interests.
And how exactly do you plan to implement revolution? A coordinated, distributed grassroots network of leftists supporting a cause? Maybe try that. Build unions, vote for pro-union candidates at every opportunity, draft referendums to empower unions. You want to coordinate the proletariat? Do it.
You’re pretending fascism is an idea that magically sprouts out of thin air, rather than a known phenomenon as a reaction to Capitalist failure.
No, I’m not addressing the source of fascism at all, I’m purely concerned with its popularity. You need to change material conditions, which requires power, which requires support. If you have majority support, you have the votes. If you don’t, the revolution wouldn’t work anyway.
The way you combat lots of money is lots of people. If you have the apparatus to lead a successful revolution by the majority, you have the apparatus to elect progressives. If you don’t have it, you don’t have a revolution by the majority, you have a revolution of the minority.
Even if you could elect progressives, they still can’t enact change. The structure of the US is designed to uphold Capitalism, and as long as it is, it will act against any change to the status quo. The “democratic” apparatus is filtered and controlled by wealthy Capitalists, you yourself are arguing against progressive candidates in this election, pretending you’ll ever change your tone.
Again, the answer is to stop trying to skip the groundwork. Get as many progressives into as many offices as possible as soon as possible. When Congress starts shifting progressive, suddenly a progressive president isn’t so far fetched, and the general population is more likely to consider one. You can’t jump straight to President.
Engage your community, flood your local community boards with progressives. Get the ones who do well elected to city council. Prove that your policies work in your city, then your county, then your state. The presidency is the highest administrative office in the country. I don’t consider anyone without experience at the level of at least governor to be a serious candidate.
Vote lesser evil until you have proven progressive candidates
The ones that keep moving right when the right never moves left? Revolution is inevitable, suffering is increasing by degrees; we’re just kicking the can down the road with “lesser of two evils.” Unless we’re hoping human extinction happens before then, I guess.
If revolution does happen, which ideologues do you suppose will much it off, and which ideologues possess arms and know how to use them?
My suggestion is stop talking down and at those who don’t share real forward thinking policies. We start with what we agree on: this is a corrupt system. It doesn’t matter which side is “more corrupt,” corruption is corruption.
Time after time, I start asking questions when obviously flawed logic is introduced: if cutting taxes is so great, why are we struggling to pay mortgages? Why do teachers make less than record label artists? Why are roads and bridges in such shambles?
Why can we be engaged in over 100 wars, conflicts, skirmishes and “expeditions”, as well as funding global armed conflict, but you can’t afford health care with military insurance and Medicare? Why are we living on fake cheese crackers in packets and overpriced cheap ramen? Why do big food conglomerates and utilities conglomerates get such big subsidies and we’re paying more? Why can’t we get real humans online and on phones to get customer support? Why can’t I repair my own tractor/car/phone/laptop without voiding warranties or it being a criminal or civil offense? Why can’t I download software that’s not in Google Play or Apple store?
And when those answers are incorrect, we look it up together. It’s not generally like online, you can see the light come on, in the eyes.
There are exceptions. They have been far fewer than online.
Solid take. Change happens from the bottom up, a little at a time. It’s a bummer that nothing big usually happens in one lifetime. I guess it’s easier to see the steps when looking through the lens of history, and frustrating when you’re actually living it.
All your points boil down to “My positions are not popular enough to win elections”.
I repeat,
If your candidates can’t get support from voters, your revolution will be a dictatorship of unpopular positions. You’re saying that your positions are in the minority, but they should be implemented anyway. Regardless of how correct you think those positions are, this approach is definitely undemocratic.
No, they do not.
Israel is supported by the US Empire unconditionally because it needs Israel as a land-based aircraft carrier to secure the Petro-Dollar as the global standard. The DNC and GOP will never cease support for Israel.
The US is not a democracy. The media, state apparatus, police, and society itself are created for and maintained by the wealthiest, ie the large Banks and Monopolies with all of the money. Popular policy doesn’t get elected.
Read the book I linked, nowhere did I suggest a random coup. Revolution is inevitable, and it cannot happen without mass support in the first place.
Of course, which is the central problem with your reasoning. What is this “mass support” which is both large enough to coordinate a revolution, but too small to elect representatives? What percentage of the population is willing to do what it takes to unseat the government, but not willing to fill out a piece of paper every couple years?
Please, read the book I linked. The Electoral System is designed to prevent change, and the duopoly exists to prevent movement to the left. Even when revolutionary pressure builds, even if a party like PSL got elected, the system itself is designed to prevent change from occuring.
Hell, add The State and Revolution to your reading list to really cement it.
Homie, I’m not gonna read two books because you can’t explain your own political beliefs yourself.
You haven’t responded to any of my points, you dismissed them entirely. I know liberals are generally allergic to reading, but at least make an attempt at understanding what I’m saying if you aren’t going to read.
“My policies are not popular enough to win elections”
Vote lesser evil until you have proven progressive candidates
“My policies are not popular enough to win elections”
Nope, I got them.
You keep ignoring the very simple math: if you have enough support for revolution, you have enough support to elect progressives; if you don’t have enough support to elect progressives, you’re the clear minority and imposing your policies on the country is undemocratic. How in blazes do you expect to coordinate a revolution if you can’t coordinate a campaign?
No, again. Every time a third party candidate is proposed, the very fact that they are third party is used against them despite popular policy.
How are these progressive candidates getting to the federal election? Magic? No.
In order to make it to the federal level, you must satisfy donors and wealthy Capitalists, and support their economic interests.
Again, no. You’re pretending fascism is an idea that magically sprouts out of thin air, rather than a known phenomenon as a reaction to Capitalist failure. For you, ideas drive history, rather than Material Conditions.
It’s one thing to refuse to read books, it’s another thing entirely to refuse to read my comments, lmao. Even if you could elect progressives, they still can’t enact change. The structure of the US is designed to uphold Capitalism, and as long as it is, it will act against any change to the status quo. The “democratic” apparatus is filtered and controlled by wealthy Capitalists, you yourself are arguing against progressive candidates in this election, pretending you’ll ever change your tone.
You won’t. The DNC and GOP are going to continue moving to the right, and you’ll watch and support them, hoping for a magical candidate to somehow defy the entire electoral system as designed and bypass all checks and balances once elected to enact positive change.
Proven, again, being the important distinction. Randos coming out of the woodwork every 4 years with swell official policies but no significant political administrative experience are not proven. Senators and governors are proven, they have a track record to look back on to see how effectively they actually implement their policies.
And to get progressive senators and governors, we need progressive mayors, county commissioners, city councilors, etc to seed those higher offices with proven political administrators. These third party candidates are shooting too high too fast, and spoiling the vote in the process.
And how exactly do you plan to implement revolution? A coordinated, distributed grassroots network of leftists supporting a cause? Maybe try that. Build unions, vote for pro-union candidates at every opportunity, draft referendums to empower unions. You want to coordinate the proletariat? Do it.
No, I’m not addressing the source of fascism at all, I’m purely concerned with its popularity. You need to change material conditions, which requires power, which requires support. If you have majority support, you have the votes. If you don’t, the revolution wouldn’t work anyway.
The way you combat lots of money is lots of people. If you have the apparatus to lead a successful revolution by the majority, you have the apparatus to elect progressives. If you don’t have it, you don’t have a revolution by the majority, you have a revolution of the minority.
Again, the answer is to stop trying to skip the groundwork. Get as many progressives into as many offices as possible as soon as possible. When Congress starts shifting progressive, suddenly a progressive president isn’t so far fetched, and the general population is more likely to consider one. You can’t jump straight to President.
Engage your community, flood your local community boards with progressives. Get the ones who do well elected to city council. Prove that your policies work in your city, then your county, then your state. The presidency is the highest administrative office in the country. I don’t consider anyone without experience at the level of at least governor to be a serious candidate.
The ones that keep moving right when the right never moves left? Revolution is inevitable, suffering is increasing by degrees; we’re just kicking the can down the road with “lesser of two evils.” Unless we’re hoping human extinction happens before then, I guess.
If revolution does happen, which ideologues do you suppose will much it off, and which ideologues possess arms and know how to use them?
My suggestion is stop talking down and at those who don’t share real forward thinking policies. We start with what we agree on: this is a corrupt system. It doesn’t matter which side is “more corrupt,” corruption is corruption.
Time after time, I start asking questions when obviously flawed logic is introduced: if cutting taxes is so great, why are we struggling to pay mortgages? Why do teachers make less than record label artists? Why are roads and bridges in such shambles?
Why can we be engaged in over 100 wars, conflicts, skirmishes and “expeditions”, as well as funding global armed conflict, but you can’t afford health care with military insurance and Medicare? Why are we living on fake cheese crackers in packets and overpriced cheap ramen? Why do big food conglomerates and utilities conglomerates get such big subsidies and we’re paying more? Why can’t we get real humans online and on phones to get customer support? Why can’t I repair my own tractor/car/phone/laptop without voiding warranties or it being a criminal or civil offense? Why can’t I download software that’s not in Google Play or Apple store?
And when those answers are incorrect, we look it up together. It’s not generally like online, you can see the light come on, in the eyes.
There are exceptions. They have been far fewer than online.
Solid take. Change happens from the bottom up, a little at a time. It’s a bummer that nothing big usually happens in one lifetime. I guess it’s easier to see the steps when looking through the lens of history, and frustrating when you’re actually living it.