#that's not what electoralism means etc. etc. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eightyonekilograms · 1 month

Text

Obviously, JD Vance's proposal to give parents additional votes stirred up a furor from progressives saying it's anti-feminist, reactionary, trying to keep women in the kitcen, etc.

And I agree with them. Frankly I wouldn't shed a single tear if Trump "who will rid me of this meddlesome running mate"-d a second VP in a row and I never had to hear from Vance or his 2010!NRx ideas ever again. But I have a more prosaic objection also: if implemented, I don't think this plan would actually work?

Like, as I understand it, there are two proposed justifications for how this might be a good idea, but I don't think either of them stand up to scrutiny.

The first (and less plausible) one is, people who selfishly want more votes will have more children in order to get more political leverage for [whatever they want]. Even though they're doing it for selfish reasons, children are a public good, and so on net this is good for society.

I think this theory can be dispensed with pretty easily. It sounds just like one of those $1000 payments for having another child that budges the birth rate not at all because it's way too small a reward for the expense involved. Even speaking as someone intensely annoyed by trendy anti-electoralist cynicism, I know the EV of an additional vote is microscopic compared to the expense of having children. It won't move anyone except at the very bleeding edge of the margin.

But that's the easy case. The much more interesting theory of the Vance Plan is that of fixing broken incentives. The story goes like this: one feature of democracy, for better or worse, is that it rewards those who show up. If you have no vote (or don't use your vote), you are invisible to democracy, so your wants will be systematically underrepresented. This is why wealthy first-world countries are increasingly gerontocratic in both legislative makeup and resulting policy: old people reliably vote, young people don't, so even with no conspiracy involved, democracy gravitates to favoring the wants of the old. Vance says, hey, children cannot vote, so just as you'd predict, their interests (as a class!) get ignored, so we end up with a legislative landscape that doesn't favor children and makes it harder to raise them.

It makes perfect sense on paper! But I think in the real world it falls apart.

What are the actual bits of legislation and policy which discourage people from having more children? I mean, people can and do argue furiously over this question, but IMO three of the most significant ones are:

NIMBY localist housing policy locking young potential parents out of the housing market

More localist tax and education policy making competition for "good schools" a Red Queen Race which drives up house prices still further, requiring two working parents

Safetyist legislation which, while well-intentioned, is making everything from cars to child care more expensive than it necessarily needs to be

In order to believe that giving parents additional votes will cause a more child-friendly society to emerge via electoral pressure, you have to believe that parents are more likely than non-parents to oppose 1, 2 and 3. And that just... doesn't seem true? At best there's no difference, and to be blunt, I think as a class parents tend to be worse than non-parents on all three. #NotAllParents, of course, there are plenty of people with kids who still want good abundance policy, but averaged over everybody I think it's hard to deny that parenthood tends to push people toward defensive, loss-averting "protect the children" mentalities which, on a global scale, fuck everyone else over. That talking point you constantly see among the Very Online Right that parents are more likely than non-parents to think Beyond Themselves and want to build a stable world for the long term, just seems obviously false to me. Or at least if it is true, it's true in a way which is mostly irrelevant, since these "long-view parents" don't know how to turn those wants into policy which actually achieves them.

Frankly, I think it's easy to envision a world where the Vance Plan makes all policy around child-rearing worse instead of better, and depresses the birth rate even further.

135 notes · View notes

rottenpumpkin13 · 3 months

Note

Shinra is having a Victorian style ball (that will be filmed and reported about) in order to raise the city’s morale. Big name celebrities are invited, athletes, etc., and at the center of it all are the Turks and SOLDIER, who are obligated to make sure everyone has a good time- including dancing when asked.

(Rufus, President Shinra, and the other directors are also there to make sure everyone’s doing what they’re supposed to. Rufus had the “pleasure” of being put in charge of the whole thing.)

What happens?

The Victorian Ball From Hell

• Everyone dutifully adheres to the strict dress code—era-appropriate ball gowns, suits tailored to the occasion, and behavior befitting the Victorian-themed ball in the main event area of the Shinra building. Each guest is dressed accordingly... except for Sephiroth, who's wearing simple working class attire and has dirt on his face. Angeal quickly notices him as he enters the ballroom with Genesis, who despite donning a waistcoat and jacket, also sports a skirt with a crinoline.

Angeal: What planet did you two escape from??

Sephiroth: It would be wrong to partake in this gross display of wealth that serves only to mask the inherent inequalities and injustices of that era.

Angeal: And you, Genesis, couldn't make up your mind?

Genesis: Of course I could. They said we had to show up in clothes that match the Victorian era. They didn't say the clothes had to fit the gender norms of the time as well.

Angeal: Why is it that any time they host themed parties, neither of you can dress normally?

*Director Lazard walks up to them, donning an elegant suit*

Angeal: Look at Lazard. Why can't you be more like him? He's dressed in theme, he followed the rules.

*Tseng appears out of nowhere, looks at Lazard, blows a whistle, and 12 Turks tackle him to the ground before handcuffing and hauling him away*

Angeal: What was that??

Sephiroth: In the Victorian era, women did not have the right to vote, sue, and own property. It marked the early stages of the feminist political movement, advocating for equality in education, work, and electoral rights.

Tseng, ignoring him: In an effort to ensure that all of our guests follow the dress code, we have decided to arrest and remove any guests who do not adhere to it.

Genesis: But Lazard was in theme, was he not?

Tseng: He was, but he and I are wearing the same suit. I couldn't possibly be seen in competition with the Vice President's brother.

Angeal:

Genesis:

Sephiroth: The industrial revolution saw a surge in poverty and the exploitation of children.

Tseng: Enjoy your night.

*Tseng walks away*

Angeal: That was odd.

Genesis: Tell me about it.

• A SOLDIER taps Genesis on the shoulder, hands him some gil and extends an empty champagne flute. Genesis wordlessly reaches into the layers of his skirt and pulls out a champagne bottle before pouring it into the SOLDIERs glass. The SOLDIER walks away. Genesis stuffs the bottle back into his skirt.

Angeal:

Sephiroth: Cholera, tuberculosis and scarlet fever preyed on the poor and vulnerable during a time where medicine had a limited understanding of the correlation between infectious diseases and hygiene.

Genesis: What?

Angeal: What do you mean 'what'? You just pulled a bottle of champagne from your ass.

Genesis: Oh. Well, the Vice President decided that the ball remain alcohol-free to ensure our guests uphold an air of refinement suitable for the public's perception.

Sephiroth: Men, women and especially children were forced into labor and subjected to dehumanizing working conditions. Why? They were scammed, forced to work to pay their debts. They were thrown in poverty and then incarcerated.

Angeal, ignoring him: So you're risking getting tackled-arrested by the Turks all for the sake of profit??

Genesis: Yes? I've spread the word, I've pre-mixed drinks and brought my collection of fine liqueurs. People know where to come to for their fixes. Aren't I brilliant? I'll be five thousand gil richer by the end of the night.

• Zack taps Genesis on the shoulder and hands him the gil. Genesis reaches into his skirt, pulls out a bottle of hairspray, then shakes it before spraying Zack's spikes.

Sephiroth: Every home in the victorian era had a cesspool instead of a toilet.

Angeal: I don't know you people. *He walks away*

• As the night goes on, more people are tackled and arrested by the turks for not following the dress code, and Genesis' business is booming. Angeal is trying to keep his distance from everyone but this doesn't work for long.

*Reno walks up to him*

Angeal: Hey.

Reno: I need a favor. I got a message for Rude, but I can't physically walk up to him or call him.

Angeal: Why not?

Reno: We got into some trouble. As our punishment, we can't talk to each other for a week. Think you can deliver the message to him?

Angeal: Sure.

Reno: Cool, but don't go up to him. They're probably watching me right now, so it'll be obvious that I'm using you as a message man. Tell someone the message, then have them deliver the message to Rude.

Angeal: Okay, what's the message?

Reno: Meet me at the rooftop at three.

Angeal: Got it.

Reno: Thanks, man, You're the best.

• Meanwhile, Zack is enjoying the buffet. He really likes the finger sandwiches and can't get enough of them. Unfortunately Sephiroth is dead set on spreading the message.

Sephiroth: Items such as bread was adulterated with toxic materials such as sawdust and chalk in the victorian era.

*Zack stops chewing*

Sephiroth: Adulterated bread was likely fed to children, where the divide between social classes meant that while the wealthy enjoyed finger sandwiches, many children starved and succumbed to illness due to poverty and lack of access to proper nutrition.

*Zack starts crying and walks away*

Angeal: Sephiroth, I need you to do me a favor. Go up to Rude and tell him to meet Reno at the rooftop at three.

Sephiroth: Why?

Angeal: Because he and Rude have been banned from talking, and they're keeping an eye on them to make sure no one helps them communicate.

Sephiroth: I see. But seeing at the Turks have just seen you talk to Reno, and are now seeing you speak to me, going directly up to him is unwise. May I instead spread the word?

Angeal: Sure? Go ahead. Hey, have you seen Genesis? I kinda miss him.

• Sephiroth gestures toward a nearby table where Genesis is seated, with a line of people queued up in front of him to purchase drinks and other items. Dark Star approaches him, next in line.

Genesis: Unfortunately, I cannot serve you, as alcoholic beverages are entirely toxic to dogs.

*Dark Star barks*

Genesis: Ah, forgive me.

*Genesis extracts a giant chocobo bone from his skirt*

Angeal: Never mind.

• Sephiroth sets off to do Angeal's favor. He finds Zack on the dance floor and gestures for him to come over.

Zack: Hey, man, what's up?

Sephiroth: "Rude, complete Reno and the charm is free" Spread the word.

Zack: Huh?

Sephiroth: Jack the Ripper haunted the streets of Whitechapel, murdering—

*Zack panics and rushes off*

• Zack finds Kunsel.

Kunsel: Hey, man!

Zack: "Food completes Reno and smiling is free"

Kunsel: Huh?

Zack: Spread the word!

Kunsel: Okay.

• Kunsel finds Cissnei.

Cissnei: Hey!

Kunsel: Nude then incomplete, Reno is free.

Cissnei: Huh?

Kunsel: Spread the word!

Cissnei: ....uh...sure?

• Cissnei finds Rufus.

Cissnei: Gen is discreet, but he has a fee.

Rufus: Excuse me?

Cissnei: I was told to spread the word. I don't know what that's supposed to mean, though.

• Rufus finds Tseng.

Rufus: I'm concerned. Cissnei told me that Genesis is being discreet, and that he has some kind of fee.

Tseng: What could that possibly mean?

• Cloud walks by with some other troopers that are serving as security for the ball.

Rufus: Strife, a word.

Cloud: Yes, sir?

Rufus: Do you know the meaning of the phrase: Gen is discreet, but he has a fee?

Cloud: WHO TOLD YOU THE CODE WORDS?

Rufus: What??

Cloud: That's the code we use to let each other know about the hidden alcohol in Genesis' skirt that he's selling!

Tseng: I KNEW IT.

• Tseng blows a whistle, and then 12 Turks tackle Genesis out of his chair and onto the ground. The sheer amount of stuff that crashes and scatters to the ground is unbelievable—glass bottles, chewing gum, copies of Loveless, lighters, hair ties and bobby pins, toothbrushes, neck pillows, condoms, apples, cigarettes, materia that looks like it was stolen from the materia room on the SOLDIER floor, items autographed by Sephiroth, flower bouquets, cans of Banora White juice, extra ties and evening gloves, umbrellas, a Tupperware container filled with brownies that Tseng will pretend he doesn't see because he ran out of aspirin, bandaids, a sewing kit, a fire extinguisher, and Sephiroth's sword that has a price tag that reads "To be negotiated" on it.

• Angeal and Sephiroth watch as Genesis is arrested.

Angeal: Oh my god...I can't believe this.

Sephiroth: I know. He told me he had run out of neck pillows.

Angeal:

Sephiroth: I was scammed, which the working class often was in Victorian London, when con artists thrived—

Angeal: ENOUGH.

#storytime #ff7 #ffvii #final fantasy 7 #sephiroth #final fantasy vii #genesis rhapsodos #angeal hewley #zack fair #crisis core #ffvii crisis core #cloud strife #tseng #lazard deusericus #kunsel ff7 #rufus shinra

144 notes · View notes

tanadrin · 6 months

Note

RE "revolutionary leftists are revolutionary because they know they can't win electorally."

It astounds me a little that there are leftists who think that a communist revolution is more likely to work than, like, fifty years of community-building and electoral politics. Sewer socialism, union activism, and other boring activities have brought much more success in the U.S. than agitation for a revolution.

What I mean is, setting aside the moral concerns (violence is bad, even when it's necessary, and if there are practical alternatives then we should pursue them), I am not a revolutionary leftist because I think we would lose a revolution. For one thing, there is a considerable right-wing element in the country that is much better prepared for this kind of thing, and I think that the majority of the institutions in the U.S. would pick fascism over communism if they had to choose, but also, prolonged violent action is ripe for breeding authoritarianism.

Goatse is concerned that "the party" might "abandon or neglect its primary ends," but what is leftism if it is not, at bottom, an attempt to improve the living conditions of all people, et cetera et cetera? To the extent that social democratic parties successfully pursue this end to some degree, they're better than than an ostensible communist party that talks the talk but commits human rights abuses. And, more than the fact that U.S. leftism has some pretty fierce opposition that would probably fare better if The Revolution happened tomorrow, I think that, even in winning, we would lose, because what came out the other end would look a lot more like Stalinism.

I think one thing the hardcore revolutionaries in OECD countries don't realize is that the reason they can't marshal support for their revolutions is that the socialists won most of the issues that were salient in the early 20th century--workers got more rights, better pay, unions were legalized, etc., etc. But it didn't take restructuring the whole political economy to do it, which is immensely frustrating if you believe that any society without your ideal political economy is inherently immoral and impure, so in order to justify an explicitly communist platform you have to rhetorically isolate it from the filthy libs and feckless demsocs who it turns out have been pretty effective within the arena of electoral politics in which supposedly nothing can ever get done, and treat them as of a piece with the out-and-out fascists and royalist autocrats of the 1920s and 30s.

Which, you know. Is not persuasive to most people! Most people understand intuitively the vast gulf between the SPD and the Nazis; they see that, milquetoast and compromising though they may be, the center-left can deliver substantive policy improvements without the upheaval of a civil war or political purges, and this is attractive to people who are not of a millenarian or left-authoritarian personality.

Which isn't to say that communists don't often make important points! It sucks having to fight a constant rearguard action against the interests of capital rolling back the social improvements of the 20th century, and it sucks that liberal governments in Europe and North America have historically been quite happy to bankroll and logistically support fascists and tyrants in the third world against communist movements (which invariably only exist as communist movements because these same fascists and tyrants have crushed more compromising movements and only the most militant organizations have managed to survive).

But I agree with you: communists also talk a big game about how liberalism is the real fascism (what's that line from Disco Elysium I see quoted everywhere about how everybody is secretly a fascist except the other communists, who are liberals?), while also being awful at democracy. Suppressing dissent because your small clique of political elites is the only legitimate expression of the people's will (which you know, because you have declared it to be so) really is some rank bullshit. A system with competitive elections is still, well, a system with competitive elections, even if those elections are structurally biased in certain ways; all the bloviating that attempts to justify communist authoritarianism cannot really obscure the fact that authoritarian systems are cruel and brittle, regardless of the ideology being served.

#world's worst leftist #i'm not a huge fan of capitalism #but i am a huge fan of democracy #liberalism rules actually #and its highest expression is probably democratic socialism

173 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 2 months

Note

Having seen what's currently happening in Venezuela, I feel so terrible for everyone to tried to vote Maduro out, and I worry about the US election. Will Trump and the GOP be able to do the same thing??

I agree that what's happening in Venezuela is bad and scary, but it's also not unexpected (unfortunately), and it doesn't correlate to the US election. It is very much a cautionary tale for us, but in the case of what could happen, not what has happened yet (and which we could and MUST still avoid). Here's why I think that.

First, Maduro is the heir of 25+ years of dictatorship (first the Chavez regime and then his), and that political machine has had a full generation to fix/control everything in Venezuela just as they want it. They've collapsed the economy, driven mass emigration/purges/brain drains, installed corrupt systems and destroyed civil society, staffed the government with cronies who will only ever do what Maduro personally says -- etc. In other words, exactly what Trump and the Republicans aspire to do here in America, but with 25 years' head start, so all those fixes are well entrenched. Outside observers were also warning well ahead of the Venezuelan vote that even an overwhelming majority for the opposition candidate might not be enough, because Maduro and co. can just fix the result however they want with imaginary fantasy numbers. (See Putin's "win" in the Russian presidential "election.") Because dictators all draw from the same playbook regardless of their professed ideological temperament, they always use the same tools.

Next, voting in Venezuela is all-electronic, which is obviously the easiest kind of voting to jigger, and which means that whatever the people actually select has little to no relevance to what gets published, recorded, or proclaimed. Now, despite the Republicans' constant screaming about ELECTION FRAUD, the 2020 elections in America were widely hailed as the safest, most accurate, and fraud-free in the nation's history. (For that matter, multiple investigations afterward have re-confirmed this, and the tiny handful of cases of election fraud that were found were committed by, you guessed it, Republicans.) This did not happen because of the Orange Fuhrer and co., who were busy trying to commit election fraud on their own behalves, but because America, however flawed, is still a participatory liberal democracy and citizens have the right to engage and to do so in a meaningful fashion. We had the entire investigation about how Russia meddled with the election in 2016, and changes were made. Cybersecurity experts were brought in; redundancies and failsafes were introduced; etc., and even the Russian campaign focused on psychological influence rather than actually, physically changing already-cast votes, because that is very, very hard to do in America. We are not an all e-voting nation; there are paper trails, hard-copy ballots, hand recounts, poll observers, election lawyers, and multiple other safeguards that exist. The Republicans have been attacking them as hard as they can, but they're still there.

Thirdly, the Evil Orange tried to fix the elections when he was the sitting president (don't forget the infamous "find me 11,780 votes" phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State that got him slapped with felony charges), but he couldn't do it even then. He also tried a coup as the sitting president, with full discretion as to whether, for example, the National Guard should be deployed to the Capitol on January 6, and that didn't succeed. As such, when he's a disgraced jobless felon who is not the commander-in-chief of the American military and holds no official or political role, he's definitely not getting it done now. There were reforms made to the Electoral Count Act to prevent another January 6, Biden and not Trump would be the president at any other attempted attack on the counting of electoral votes, and I can guarantee Biden would not sit around for three hours watching Fox News and cheering the rioters on if such a thing happened again. Trump has been threatening violence again because that's the only move in his playbook, and he wants to intimidate people into voting for him out of fear that he'll attack them if they don't give him what he wants, like any other psychopathic bully. But that does not mean he actually has the tools to successfully carry it off, and honestly, motherfucker? Try it one more fucking time. I double fucking dog dare you. Biden has 6 months left in his term and total immunity, according to your own SCOTUS. So.

Basically, Venezuela has already been a banana republic for 20+ years, the dictator has had a full generation to destroy it/remake it/turn it into his personal fiefdom, he allows elections only because he already knows they won't change anything or actually remove him from power, and that is precisely what Trump wants to do in the US -- but, and this is crucial, has not done yet. Which is why it is so, so important to Orange-Proof America and get rid of him once and for fucking all on November 5th. We can do it. So yes.

#aquitainequeen #ask #politics for ts #the giant orange monster

125 notes · View notes

drdemonprince · 4 months

Note

all the recent talk about not voting has me a bit worried, for lack of a better word.

on one hand, yes so much yes, stop throwing all your time and energy in the insatiable maw of electoral politics, 5/5, no notes.

but on the other hand, where does that time and energy go then? despite lots of talk about mutual aid it doesn't seem to progress much beyond the abstract (at least in the various leftist groups/communities/etc. in my neck of the woods). it's held up as an ideal and great big important thing, but when there's shit that needs doing, it's *crickets*.

maybe it's because so much mutual aid is care work and thus, and i very much disagree with even though i care not for the label, not real activism i guess? like, a while ago a disabled comrade had ran into housing issues because of their illness, so we rustled up some folks to help clean and unfuck their home. which, yet again, were the same (also disabled) people that always show for those things.

coming of four years and counting of pandemic, that's been a consistent pattern. at a time where mutual aid was so needed, such a vacuum left by a state that didn't and/or wanted to do shit, it still fell on the shoulders of disabled people to do all the actual work while the rest just talked about abstract shit. or, to name another thing, diy hrt initiative where it's just a bunch of poor ass trans people scrounging up money to pay for supplies for trans people who have fuck all access, while the rest debates in the abstract about a more better system or whether it's even something they need to concern themselves about.

and like, yes, not pissing away your energy pleading with assholes who don't give a fuck about you is good, but it should only be the start. it sometimes feels like the big plan is: 1) not vote, 2) ???, 3) glorious anarchism/communism/mutual-aidism. i'm not arguing that they need to have it all worked out, but with so much shit that needs doing in the here and now i get a little worried. because that's going to take real work, not talk, and they're not putting in any of it.

I mean, most people won't do (what gets viewed as) "real activism" either. They don't go to protests, smash windows, call jails to check on the status of incarcerated people, cut supply lines, or anything else. And they don't vote either.

We live in a highly individualistic, atomized society filled with people who have been conditioned into an abiding self-interested apathy, and everyone is overworked and broke as shit and juggling a bunch of disabilities while not having any experience with building genuine community and lacking most of the infrastructural and social tools to do so. The number of people who are avowed leftists is vanishingly small, and among them the people who actually walk the talk or have the education and community ties to even be able to is even smaller. Not disagreeing with your read of the situations you're dealing with here, just putting them within the broader context of many very similar problems that I see touch every single aspect of organizing today. even like the most tepid liberal get out the vote kind of organizing is plagued by this, and of course that is by design.

What gives me hope in the present moment is just how many people are completely fucking done with the prevailing system, and how many are refusing to play along with its rules. A lot of the people who aren't voting are not leftists. At least not yet. Just like many of the people who are quiet quitting and half-assing it at work or just vibing on unemployment for as long as they can are not communists. But they do know that the system is bunk and is failing them, and they are refusing to be compliant within it any longer. I believe that a lot of people's better natures do get inspired during a moment of collapse. I also think there is a profound rot at the heart of settler-colonial states that fills them with people who do not recognize themselves as having any responsibility to others. That's all the more reason for such an empire to fall.

I think you're right to worry for the future, though I don't think the reason to be worried is as simple as people not people caring about disabled folks, or any other group. I always wonder who the mythical abled people are who are abnegating their duty in such an understanding of the world. I sure haven't met any of them. I only meet people who are also disabled and don't realize it.

101 notes · View notes

rongzhi · 2 months

Note

genuine question, what other option is there other than to vote harris? because third party votes aren’t going to be able to overtake both democrat and republicans out of nowhere and the only other person to vote for is trump, who wants to completely dismantle democracy

I feel like I’ve seen this question get asked all over the place and there is no good answer to satisfy the person asking, because when you say “What other option is there” and then immediately discount the idea of third party voting, then you’ve already made it clear that all your faith is in the popular vote to prevent Trump from attaining office again, which is all that matters to you, presumably.

And before the accusations fly from anyone else, obviously no, I don’t want Trump in office any more than the next guy, however I do not think he will dismantle democracy even if he was because he would be incapable. The idea of project 2025 and Trump as some ultimate ender of democracy is ridiculous if you beat down the hysteria for long enough to think about: first, project 2025 is nothing new, just everything the likes of the Heritage Foundation and conservative lawmakers have already been pushing for years (ie turning the U.S into a Christian theocracy more or less), written out in a way to get liberals dizzy with fear. It is alarming but no more alarming than the slow slide in this direction that I personally think we have already been taking for several decades. And it is insane. People can see that it is insane and extremist and as much as people who are terminally online like to wring their hands about it, I think that the average voter that we don’t hear from is going to be put off by it. It is offputting to liberals/Democrats obviously, it is offputting to centrists, and it is offputting to many moderate conservatives/(mainstream) Republicans. It is fringe and unpopular enough that even Trump himself doesn’t want to be directly tied to the whole thing. Like, I feel like people are not grasping just how fringe true MAGA and extremist Christian Nationalists are in the broad scheme of things. I think the cable news is getting a lot of mileage out of the current election cycle in their usual gleeful way, but for all the 24 hour coverage and charts and panels and panic, I don’t think Trump is going to win. Of course, feel free to come back in a couple months and wag a finger at me if that turns out not to be true.

Either way, by asking “what other option is there?”, I feel you overestimate the power of your individual vote. You are not voting for the president anyway. You are voting for electoral delegates, and to put it broadly, those guys don’t have to listen to you. Or have we all just forgotten about that too?

And I’m not saying “don’t vote”, either. I just think you should be voting for something and not against something else, and I don’t subscribe to the way of thinking that a third party vote is somehow less of a vote (see previous paragraph for the irony). I think voting has its uses, especially in local elections where council members, etc, have the power to more directly effect your life. As to the matter of Harris, look, as I said, if you’re already planning to vote Democrat, I’m not going to persuade you to not do so—I can understand people feeling the need to do so, especially if they live in a swing state, and that’s their prerogative. Of course, I think that should also be done recognising what that means in terms of what foreign policy decisions you are voting for when voting for Harris. And that being the case, I think Harris voters have no ground to turn around votescold (not saying you are doing that, anon, but simply speaking to the broader trend I’ve seen online over the past months), especially toward any single-issue voters voting third party or abstaining over the very serious single issue of supporting genocide. Me personally, I voted uncommitted in the primaries and will likely vote for Jill Stein or Claudia de la Cruz, depending on who gets ballot access in my state, as Cornel West didn't get ballot access.

So, those are my approximate thoughts on the matter and sorry for any typos or unclear thoughts. Probably forgot to say some things, but I don’t think I’m saying anything new, either, and I will not be answering any additional asks about voting or the U.S elections, including the ones that have come in after this one, as it’s not really my wheelhouse. There's been enough discourse on the matter that I feel like at this point, you should know what you're going to do one way or the other.

EDIT: bolded a few areas that some of you could afford to reread!

#text #answered ask #u.s elections #long post

95 notes · View notes

triviallytrue · 6 months

Note

For me the disillusionment with voting is less "Trump and Biden are equally bad" and more "If Biden is the absolute best candidate the Dems can come up with and 'But he's better than the other guy!' is the absolute most convincing rhetoric the Dems can muster, then we are experiencing a complete failure state of the USA's two-party system and I'd rather burn the whole thing down and take my chances with whatever we can dredge from the ashes"

This seems like a relatively common sentiment but I don't really understand what anyone is talking about when they say they'd rather "burn the whole thing down" - I mean, what exactly do you think is going to happen if Biden loses?

We've had long periods where the Democrats have been out of power (1980-1992 for ex) and the result isn't some kind of broad collapse or creative destruction, it's just the system proceeding as usual, except everything gets more conservative for a while. It doesn't look like dramatic collapse, it looks like a slow slide where everything gets shittier.

If Trump is different from Reagan etc, it's mostly that he is less restrained and more concentrated in his shittiness.

So clearly we aren't talking about electoral effects - are we talking about protest? Direct action? Revolution? Well, in 2020 the US had the most broad-based, vigorous domestic unrest in decades, and what did it accomplish? Some more body cameras, some police budgets shrunk by 5%, I think one state put qualified immunity on the chopping block? All worthwhile goals, but the idea of direct action being an effective driver of political change in this country seems like a fantasy.

To be clear here, I'm not asking you to like any of this. You're correct to hate Biden and the Democrats. From the impression I get of your politics from this ask, they aren't your allies.

All I ask is that we be clear-sighted and honest about the situation the US is in. Which paths can this country take, in the coming decade? Which path is it likely to take? Given the realm of possibility, what do you want?

I am not on here to be a Biden shill - if you answer these questions and find that you don't want to support Biden or the Democrats, fair enough. I do want people to ask the right questions, though.

#politics #discourse

82 notes · View notes

hms-no-fun · 1 month

Note

in your view of things right now, with the political climate so hot coming into the election, and companies doing worse than ever in terms of amassing greed and power and fucking us all over... what do you think has to change to find a way out?

oh boy, what a question. i've got a BA in film studies. i pay my bills by making youtube videos and writing homestuck fanfiction. i am not an authority, i only kind of vaguely know what i'm talking about in any given conversation. but i do think about this question a lot, and i've been wanting an excuse to arrange some of my thoughts on the matter. so, you know, don't take my words here as gospel, or as a coherent platform, or whatever. i'm just a goat with some opinions who hasn't read enough theory but means well.

alright. as a communist my answer is always gonna be "proletarian revolution," but that's an endgoal we're currently nowhere near achieving. the path to getting there is impossible to truly know, because of course revolutions are historically contingent on an organized vanguard being prepared to take control in a moment of national crisis. we don't have a leftist vanguard in this country, haven't done since the FBI and state governments went to war with the Black Panthers. my ideal vision of an effective communist party is one unlike any that currently exists on a large scale in the USA, built by organizing communities to coordinate neighborhood needs, as part of city/county organizations coordinating local needs, as part of state organizations that etc. right now political parties are exclusively focused on electoralism. i want a party that can organize eviction blockades, free community daycare, reading groups, high-capacity cafeterias, and all manner of mutual aid. i want a party that can operate with solidarity, as the Panthers did by supporting the 28 day 504 sit-in that resulted in the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. an effective vanguard party interfaces directly with the working class and builds its policy platforms based on their needs with no apology, rather than the acceptable liberal half-measures we've grown so accustomed to.

but it's a loooooooong road to get even that far. and you might say such an organization would be offputting, but like. the Panthers won over a lot of moderates over time because they weren't just out on the streets posturing. they took care of people. we only have free school lunch programs at all because of them. this is the thing that drives me nuts about so many leftists today-- you don't win over a moderate or conservative by debating the merit of their ideas. you help improve the material conditions of their day to day life, thanklessly, as you'd do with everyone in that community, because you cannot adopt means testing by another name without selling off an essential part of yourself. slowly, over time, some of those people will be won over. it'll never be everyone, but it doesn't have to be everyone. it doesn't even have to be a majority. you can get a hell of a lot done with even just 30% of people, especially if those people are even mildly-disciplined members of a well-organized party apparatus.

so, okay, that's my sense of the broad strokes. i want a proletarian revolution by way of a militant vanguard party. not saying this is the ONLY way forward, just the one i think would be most likely to succeed under the right circumstances. but again, we're a million miles away from having a communist vanguard in this country. quite frankly, such a thing feels an impossible pipe dream at this exact historic moment. so the question for me then becomes, how do we create the conditions that would allow for such an organization to emerge, claim power, hold it long enough to build a substantial base, then act on it towards a revolutionary goal?

first you've gotta ask why it's so hard to imagine this fanciful 20th century ass operation today. obvious answers: it's fucking impossible for a third party to gain a foothold in the system as it stands, so let's fix that. ranked choice voting would be a good place to start. i'm no electoralist, but if we're presuming that the revolution isn't happening tomorrow then some element of its foundation must be in making our democracy an actual democracy that can reflect people's needs. repeal citizens united. put HUGE limits on campaign donations and make it harder to conceal donations through super PACs. redistricting is another essential piece of the puzzle-- there is precisely one map of every major usamerican city and it's the map of redlined districts where people of color were not allowed to buy property. look at wealth distribution in communities and it'll map 1 to 1 to historic redlining, guaranteed. we gotta fix gerrymandering, loosen restrictions on poll access (such as the ad hoc poll tax that is government ID requirements), and if we're really feeling frisky push for a mandatory federal voting holiday so that no one has to work on election day (which elections count for "election day" is a whole other quagmire of course). less obvious answers: the cops and the FBI are still imprisoning and murdering black, poc, native, and queer activists in broad daylight. the national prison population is an IMMENSE locus of potential revolutionary energy. some goals on that front: abolish prisons, massively defund the cops, and curtail the surveillance state. restore the convicted felon's right to vote, and otherwise remove the many bureaucratic roadblocks that artificially create the cycle of recidivism. put money into nationwide job training programs (NO PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS) not just for ex convicts but for everyone, for reasons we'll get to momentarily.

i focus on electoral reform at the start here because i think it's an illustrative example of just how sprawling the task before us is. my goal isn't to overwhelm you or make you feel doomed because "holy shit that's already a lot of stuff that feels totally impossible and you haven't even mentioned healthcare yet," but to hammer home that the class war is being fought on a million fronts. you will go completely numb if you expect any one person or organization to address all of these issues simultaneously and as soon as possible. in an ideal world, there are many many affinity groups working towards these ends all over the place, either as part of or in solidarity with our imagined vanguard. i'm trying to look at ways to materially improve the lives of people in our political economy as it currently exists, rather than just saying "we need revolution" and leaving it there.

alright then, so what about capitalism? another major factor in the systematic disenfranchisement of the working class is the role corporate employers play in maintaining the class war. nobody has time to participate in local political actions because everyone has to work crushing hours, and when they do have days to themselves they still have to personally drive to wherever things are happening and find parking, instead of grocery shopping, taking care of kids, just fucking relaxing, whatever. obvious answers: medicare for all. right now, healthcare access is tied to employment status unless you are COMICALLY poor (i just got kicked off of medicaid a couple months ago because i now make marginally more than the cutoff, which now means i'm paying $200+ more a month on healthcare and am now way more worried about money than when i was on welfare. what a great and functional system!). if you're afraid of losing your health insurance for any reason, then you are disincentivized from expressing any opinions you might have about the conduct of your employer by, say, quitting. just passing universal healthcare alone would cause some major turmoil in the US economy. invest in mass public transit with rigorous local neighborhood access, and now a hell of a lot more people are empowered to participate in civic duty. less obvious answers: get rid of at-will employment! make it much much harder for employers to fire people, and regulate the ability of corporations to do mass layoffs. this would go a long way towards throwing some wrenches into the methods corps use to invent economic prosperity through the creative application of spreadsheets. on top of that, let's nuke the absolute fuck out of means-testing for programs like food stamps, medicaid, social housing, or literally any other form of "charity" that made Reagan shit his pants.

speaking of means testing, let's talk about bullshit jobs. there are a TON of pointless, degrading, wasteful jobs in this country. corps playing middlemen to middlemen. endless state and business bureaucracy using hundreds of systems that rarely if ever communicate with one another, putting a huge administrative burden on working people while the rich beneficiaries of this exploitation get to launder their guilt through the public-facing punching bags of customer service representatives. too many people work at the office factory. there are a lot of industries that need to be massively curtailed if not outright destroyed, a fact that intersects with the threat of climate change when you include coal and oil jobs. it's not enough to get rid of these positions, you also have to have a plan for those displaced workers-- hence the job training program i mentioned before. if we actually want to see a transition into a more egalitarian society that doesn't run exclusively on fossil fuels, then there needs to be a pipeline that gives purpose to the people whose lives will inevitably be radically altered by the kinds of changes we're talking about. there's an important thing, actually-- we all need to be prepared for this line of questioning and have a good answer in the back pocket. there is no shift from pure capitalism to even lite democratic socialism that won't hurt some cohort of people that doesn't deserve it. unless you want them to fall in with the fascists, you're gonna want to have a plan for how to integrate them into the world you're trying to build.

here's a wildcard for you. a lot of folks are on that "break up the monopolies" grind these days, and i appreciate the sentiment. i also think we would be vastly better served in the long run by simply nationalizing the monopolies. obviously there are plenty of worthwhile concerns to be had about any usamerican government gaining that kind of control over anything at this precise moment, but we cannot let that impede the horizons of our imaginary. i don't want market reform, i want the abolition of markets. the internet should be a public utility and ISPs should be government institutions. tech needs UNENDING regulation as we are all aware. social media should be public and interoperable. there needs to be a rolling back of internet surveillance. i've been toying with the idea of a Federal Department of Digital Moderation as an intervention on the current fascist radicalization pipeline that is social media, but that raises so many other concerns that i don't have an answer for. mostly i just think that the profit motive needs to be excised from as many sectors of public life as possible, and nationalization is a pretty good way to get there.

affordable housing! lower rents means fewer hours at work to make ends meet means more time to spend with family & community means more chances for more people to participate in civic action. abolish student debt and make college free! and make it illegal for colleges to invest in shit like fucking israel! a more accessible system of higher education means a more educated proletariat. this wouldn't by any stretch automatically lead to a more leftist proletariat, but conservatives have worked very hard to curtail access to higher education and that alone is more than enough reason to push for it. i've really buried the lede here, honestly. to my mind, medicare for all, mass public transit, free education, and national rent control are THE milestones we ought to be aiming for in terms of domestic policy. it is simply impossible to estimate how seismically and immediately these four policies (if applied equitably and without means-testing) could transform civic life in the USA. any systemic social ill you can name has some connection to one of these four ideas. i personally hold prison abolition & police defunding as equally essential, but these are unfortunately a MUCH harder sell for a lot of folks and will require some solidaristic frog-boiling from the likeable progressives/socialists of the world to naturalize the idea. but then, on that front i'm speaking very much outside my lane, and would defer to the wisdom of actual abolition activists in a scenario where we were talking concrete policy.

then there's foreign policy. this post has gone on a long time and i'm not the person to talk about this at length, but: the united states military needs to be defunded, and its outposts across the world removed. to curtail global climate change, the american imperial project must end. our meddling in foreign affairs is directly responsible for the domination of capital, and so long as this and other western states exist as they do, no communist outpost is safe. then there comes the question of reparations. all those billionaires didn't invent their money, they stole it. in quite a lot of cases they stole it from US citizens, but they've stolen far more from the rest of the world. tax the rich at 99% and distribute billions no-strings-attached to african and pacific island nations? other countries deserve a right to self determination without the threat of foreign interference. our nation's wealth doesn't just need to be taxed and redistributed to working class usamericans (particularly black communities), it ought to be redistributed internationally to all the countries we've fucked with over the last century and a half. but that's a pretty late stage pipe dream.

i guess the last thing that i've been thinking a lot about is more esoteric, and certainly difficult to implement. i believe we need to seriously interrogate "progress" as a concept. right now our society is defined by technological advancements as encouraged by a capitalist economy. if you fuck around with old analog tech at all, you've probably said to yourself more than once "they really don't make em like this anymore." i think about that fucking Hot Ones interview with matt damon about how streaming has stabbed the established profit model in the heart, where he says something like "we had a pretty good thing going before they showed up." i think about small museums closing down in the pandemic because they couldn't turn a profit, small local shops closing down for the same reason. constant newness paired with engineered obsolescence. disruption of the equilibrium in order to steal profit. it's easy to argue that socialized healthcare is good because it's actually more cost efficient than private healthcare. but those are the terms set by capitalists. i believe that healthcare and profit-seeking should be mutually exclusive. i believe that some things are a public good, however small --museums, quirky shops, parks, art spaces, open lots, movies, music, theater, whatever-- and that these things should be protected from the market at all costs. the alternative is corporate consolidation of everything, as every piece of local color cannot compete with economies of scale and asphyxiates to death. i refuse to accept the idea that "progress" means throwing away anyone who specialized in the thing being progressed beyond. i refuse to accept the idea that "progress" is linear and exists beyond the purview of morals, values, and ideology, nor indeed that it is inevitable and in any event an unalloyed good.

i believe that it doesn't matter if making higher-quality clothes at greater cost in unionized factories is "less efficient" than fast fashion. all "efficiency" means is spread everything as thin as possible, just enough just on time regardless of context. it's a mask for robber baron bullshit. it's an attempt by the bourgeoisie to naturalize the laws of economics as if they were on the same level as the laws of gravity, and we just can't accept that anymore. there's that meme, "i want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and i’m not kidding." i think we ought to apply that sentiment far more broadly. if we truly believe in the dignity of a self-determined life, then we must agree that some things are above profit, above efficiency, and are worth doing right. i haven't quite nailed down yet how exactly to verbalize this idea in a way that can be easily & quickly understood. but i feel it intensely, and only moreso as time goes on. as we push for these seemingly-impossible policy changes, it's of equal importance that we not lose ourselves to the limitations of the system as it exists under capitalism. to transform the world we must transform ourselves. to save the world we must save ourselves. if we hold a value to be true, then it must be constant and uncompromising. we must agree that our lives are better off when certain things exist even if they aren't efficient or fail to turn a profit, and thus decimate whatever part of us has been raised to believe that efficiency and profit ought ever to enter the equation. of course, in any revolution costs quickly become a huge going concern. there will always be painful compromises in policy along the path, always disappointments and mistakes. no revolution can be perfect. but through all these material challenges, the world that must be needs a place at the table with us. impractical, impossible, unfeasible... necessary.

you will probably not live to see that world, anon, and neither will i. we are all in the long game now, and it can never stop with one good policy, one good politician, one needed win. it's everything or it's nothing. socialism or barbarism. it is this belief which guides me, that no one ought to suffer the indignities i've suffered in my years working for shit wages, struggling to find housing, watching family die from economic abandonment. that there is simply no reason for society to be the way that it is, and that "the world isn't fair" is no excuse when we are the engineers of that "world" in every way that matters.

anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the subject. i hope i haven't made a complete fool of myself here.

#sarah posts #askbox #us politics #communist polemic #communism #revolution

35 notes · View notes

lesbiskammerat · 5 months

Note

weird question, but as that I know you don't like Stalin and you tend to be objective in your posts, I wanted to ask what's your opinion on him "killing the socialist movement world wide" or just "Stalinism" killing or setting back the movement

It's an oversimplification of history at best, and usually involves seeing the communist movement before him through rose-tinted glasses. There's a million criticisms to be made of Stalin and his administration more broadly, from understandable mistakes that we can easily spot with hindsight, to downright atrocious and terrible policy, and we should by no means shy away from them. But for many of them it's reductive, at least in terms of understanding the full scope of them and how to avoid similar things in the future, to lay them simply at the feet of Stalin himself or some smaller circle of bureaucrats like Beria. Not because we need to be nice to them or absolve them but because it often goes much deeper than them, implicating figures you might love like Lenin.

Trotskyists are infamously fond of this narrative (although their better analyses of course go deeper than Stalin simply corrupting the revolution with his evil and greed), but it rears its head with the lowest common denominator of basically every tendency under the sun. Fans of Mao might say Deng took the capitalist road and ignore Mao's own role, fans of Stalin will say it was Khrushchev but pretend not to see the connections to Stalin's own policy, and on it goes.

Besides this it also often just ends up turning into counterfactual history which is rarely useful. What if Stalin hadn't enabled conservative views and policy on women? What if the Comintern hadn't pursued electoralism for the sake of peace in western Europe? I don't know, a million things would have been different. So many individuals, groups, parties, countries, etc. would have reacted to those changes. It's not about what Stalin or the party should have done differently, or what the international movement should have done in response, it's about what we should do right now. Sometimes counterfactual history can help us get started thinking about those things, but that's about the limits of its usefulness politically.

54 notes · View notes

botaniqueer · 2 months

Text

Even though I always vote blue as a concession (and also because I'm easily guilted while also absolutely despising the democrats), I'm understanding of folks voting third party and I'm chill with people voting for whoever as long as it's not Trump or RFK, but a criticism I do have of third party voters is that a lot of them still have the problem the main two parties have where they come across as thinking we can vote our way out of this without some of of meta-strategy after the voting is done, and they also get attached to their candidates.

Absolutely all presidents are bad for the same reason all cops are, in that the occupation itself is structurally harmful, and the attributes of the job override whatever personal attributes the person occupying it has– the most personally nice cop in the world still is obligated to remove a homeless person from a bench while protecting capital, otherwise they lose that cop position. This applies to Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, etc. An except to this is if the incumbent fully intends to dismantle the position, but it's exceedingly hard to gain the position with this goal, and keeping the job longer enough to successfully execute it without the job changing or compromising the person first.

As mentioned in other posts, the absolute minimum job of the US president is to maintain the suppression of a collection of 500+ ethnic groups, and prevent them from having true agency or full access to the land. If this isn't maintained, the United States literally can't keep existing in a meaningful way and ends up evaporating. This will become Jill Stein or Cornell West's job if they are elected, same as when Bush or Biden have the job.

Actually using electoralism as a strategy requires good organizing for after the candidate is elected, and specifically not getting attached to them and thinking of them purely as a means to an end. Liberation and the position of the presidency are inherently at odds, so there will be times you will need to fight against your own candidate. The Democrats are notorious for getting attached despite using the "you're not marrying them!" refrain, shushing people for saying anything vaguely critical.

The metaphor I think of is dungeon crawling roguelike games, or any other game where you choose branching paths in that you're choosing the challenges you think you're best equipped to deal with, but you do still have to deal with them. You can't do what the democrats do and lay down arms immediately after choosing the more favorable path, just being it's better than Trump, and I expect the same from third party voters as well as to not be like the DNC. In the unlikely case in which a third party candidate gets elected, there still has to be a struggle, otherwise the United States and other settler nations will continue to persist and hurt others, even if things are better for most settlers, and there will always be the likelihood of things ending up back where we are now if we don't follow through.

#alex says words #us politics #Technically there is probably a valid strategy where Trump is elected but I don't recommend it #That would be an immensely tight needle to thread #and I can't imagine anyone has the organizing ability to prevent the collateral damage that might entail #The GOP won't be happy about their candidacy being used against them and the US and will probably retaliate and hurt a bunch of people #Collateral damage is another thing that the US does that we shouldn't do

32 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 3 months

Text

Anarchists and Parliamentarianism: Elections and Social Change

There are some who now consider themselves anarchists who tell us, ‘Yes, anarchy is our goal, but we are nowhere near achieving it and have to think about winning desperately needed reforms. That means campaigning for politicians, even running for office ourselves, so that laws can be passed in the interest of the working class.’

There are several problems with this. First, it is important to clarify that anarchism not only entails a belief in the ideal of anarchy – of a society without domination, the State, capitalism, etc. – but a method and theory of social change, based on a specific analysis of existing social relations, processes, and institutions.

Any communist, even the most enthusiastic champion of state power (held in the hands of ‘communists’, of course), can claim the abolition of capitalism and the State as their ‘ultimate goal’. They may even truly believe that their authoritarian tactics are the only ones capable of achieving it. Marx himself conceded that the ideal of anarchy was consistent with his vision of communism, though he advocated electoral politics and some form of ‘transitional revolutionary state’ as the means for doing so. It is important to reiterate, therefore, that what really distinguishes anarchism is not simply the goal, but rather our insistence on a necessary unity between means and ends; of the need to act outside of and against the State, rather than through it.

Equally mistaken is the idea that such a view is only relevant when revolution seems imminent, and that, in the meantime, we should directly involve ourselves in the politics of electoral campaigns, parliaments, and legislation, as these are “the only way to achieve reforms”.

Anarchists reject this understanding of how social change – even reformist social change – occurs. Changes in governments and their policies are driven by the shifting needs of the State and capital, within parameters established by the existing balance of class forces. Reforms are not the product of good or bad ideas, politicians, or legislation, but are, instead, the result of the State serving the best interests of capitalism as a system. Where there is sustained pressure from below, directed against bosses and governments, the ruling class must adjust to the threat posed to profitability and stability. Where naked force is not enough to eliminate the danger of organised working class activity, the threat is pacified through concessions and recuperation.

Electoral and parliamentary victories (including referendums and constituent assemblies) are often touted as flawed, but necessary, culminations of social movement energy into ‘real power’. They should instead be understood as efforts to channel extra-parliamentary activity – the only real power we have – into manageable, legal, and, ultimately, non-threatening forms.

Anyone who seriously examines the historical record will find that it has always been direct struggle, and never legal politics, which has allowed us to achieve reform. As such, anarchists maintain that reform and revolution are the result of the same kind of activity. They cannot be separated, as though one were the natural domain of parliamentary politics, and the other self-organised direct action.

Strikes, sabotage, blockades, civil (and uncivil) disobedience, riots, insurrection: these are not only the tools of revolution, but the sole weapons available to us to change things within capitalism itself. They are also a bridge between the two objectives, reform and revolution, as it is in building our capacity to pressure the bosses and governments that we also develop our forces, our ideas, and our confidence to do away with all forms of oppression and exploitation, which we intend to replace with a free, socialist society.

Electoral campaigns, the day-to-day work of parliamentary bureaucracy, and the exercise of state power are all specific forms of activity which, due to their very nature, distract and pacify workers, diverting us from self-organisation and class struggle. They enmesh us in authoritarian models of organisation and task those who do manage to reach government with maintaining the interests of an exploitative property-owning class, whose interests (given their control over the economic life of society) the State must inevitably serve, and which any government (if it is to continue existing as a government, with the power to govern society as a privileged elite) must always reproduce.

Anarchists believe these tactics necessarily alter the behaviour of those who take part in them, whatever their personal beliefs or intentions. This is not a question of corruption, or betrayal, but rather systemic imperatives and institutional logics which can not be overcome by even the most radical of politicians.

Which brings us back to that principle at the very heart of anarchism: the necessary unity between means and ends. As I have said, this requires that we refuse participation in electoral politics, or the formation of any ‘new’ State, whatever its ‘revolutionary’ pretensions. However, it also means that we must organise, make decisions, and act in ways which both reflect the ideal we are working to establish and directly alter the balance of class forces, without deference to institutions or leaders of any kind. Our organisations must be freely constructed from the rank-and-file upward and our strategic orientation must be toward direct action against the bosses and government.

As a final comment, it is worth noting that this institutional analysis of the State extends to the local or municipal level, and that anarchism can’t be reconciled with such experiments in ‘direct’ or ‘town hall democracy’. Murray Bookchin’s eventual break with anarchism in the late 1990s seems to have been forgotten by ‘anarchists’ who now seek inspiration from his theory of municipalism.[20] His followers mistakenly echo the municipalist belief that the structural imperatives of the capitalist state disappear the closer a governing body is to the population. Unfortunately for the municipalists, the organisational forms of parliamentary politics, the ways in which they alter us as people, and their function within capitalist society, all remain the same at the level of a city council. A localist state-socialism is still state-socialism.

[1] For a critique of what is often mistaken for ‘mutual aid’, see the article ‘Socialism is not charity: why we’re against “mutual aid”’ published by the collective Black Flag Sydney in their magazine Mutiny (available at: blackflagsydney.com). For another examination of how mutual aid relates to Kropotkin’s revolutionary anarchism, see: Gus Breslauer’s ‘Mutual Aid: A Factor of Liberalism’ in Regeneration regenerationmag.org

[2] This quote contains additions made to the 1913 original in a 1914 edition published by Freedom. I am quoting from the definitive 2018 edition edited by Iain McKay, and published by AK Press, but have used the extended text (included by McKay in a footnote) to reflect the longer 1914 version. Available here: usa.anarchistlibraries.net

[3] Malatesta, E. 1884. Between Peasants: A Dialogue on Anarchy. Available at: theanarchistlibrary.org. Malatesta puts forward the same position in his series of dialogues titled At the Cafe (1922). In ‘Dialogue 8’ he writes the following exchange: “AMBROGIO: And if the others [the minority] want to make trouble? GIORGIO: Then… we will defend ourselves.” See: theanarchistlibrary.org.

[4] See Mark Bray’s ‘Horizontalism: Anarchism, Power and the State’, published as a chapter in the 2018 collection Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. Bray’s chapter is available at: blackrosefed.org.

[5] Graeber was also one of the most prominent advocates of the Rojava Revolution, the specifics of which are too complex to examine in detail here. It must be said, however, that his uncritical lauding of a revolution which (all the available evidence indicates) has formed a state, and purposefully maintained class divisions, indicates the same kind of drift in his political thinking. This drift appears to be rooted in a framework which sees a libertarian legitimacy in all outcomes which can (at least plausibly) be said to have been born out of ‘direct’ or ‘assembly-based’ democracy. For a valuable resource on the Rojava Revolution, which describes the movement’s opposition to expropriation and gradual transfer of power from a rudimentary council system (the ‘People’s Council of West Kurdistan’, or MGRK) to a parliamentary one (the ‘Democratic Autonomous Administrations’, or DAAs), see the 2016 book Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women’s Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan. Available at: theanarchistlibrary.org. This is an important book given it is the most positive account of the revolution in print (the picture painted should be taken with a grain of salt), features an introduction from Graber himself, and yet concedes these crucial points regarding Rojava’s parliamentary system and the leaderships opposition to the socialisation of property.

[6] For an analysis of Spain, see ‘What went wrong for the municipalists in Spain?’ by Peter Gelderloos in Roar magazine: roarmag.org. For a critique of the Corbyn project, including Momentum, see ‘Labour defeat – Thoughts on democratic socialism’ by the Angry Workers of the World collective, based on a chapter from their excellent book Class Power on Zero Hours (2020): www.angryworkers.org.

[7] Fabbri, L. 1921. Dittatura e Rivoluzione. Fabbri’s book has yet to be published in English. The chapter referenced here (‘The Anarchist Concept of the Revolution’) has, however, been translated by João Black, with assistance from myself. It can be read here: theanarchistlibrary.org.

[8] For an introduction to the ideas of dual organisationalism, platformism, and especifismo, see Tommy Lawson’s pamphlet ‘Foundational Concepts of the Specific Anarchist Organisation’, published by Red and Black Notes: www.redblacknotes.com. I also highly recommend Felipe Corrêa’s essays ‘Organizational Issues Within Anarchism’ (2010, Espaço Livre), available here: theanarchistlibrary.org, and ‘Bakunin, Malatesta and the Platform Debate: The question of anarchist political organization’ (2015, Institute for Anarchist Theory and History), co-written with Rafael Viana da Silva, and available here: theanarchistlibrary.org.

[9] This was often sold by governments and union leaders as a sacrifice necessary to resolve the economic crises of the period. It also supposedly offered the movement “a seat at the table”, or a “share in power”. In reality, the crisis was one of profitability, which could only end with the crushing of the labour movement, or a social revolution. By sacrificing the ability to take direct action for an illusory idea of power within the State, the labour movement accepted its own disorganisation and a major defeat. For an excellent study of this process as it occurred within Australia, through the form of ‘The Accord’, see Elizabeth Humphrys’ 2018 book How Labour Built Neoliberalism.

[10] “We have seen that the specific minority must take charge of the initial attack, surprising power and determining a situation of confusion which could put the forces of repression into difficulty and make the exploited masses reflect upon whether to intervene or not.” – Bonanno, A. M. 1982. ‘Why Insurrection?’. Insurrection. Available at: theanarchistlibrary.org

[11] For a comradely critique of the CHAZ (or ‘CHOP’) project, see the analysis written by Black Rose Anarchist Federation members Glimmers of Hope, Failures of the Left: blackrosefed.org. Perhaps even more interesting is the critical account from the CrimethInc collective, The Cop-Free Zone: Reflections from Experiments in Autonomy around the US: crimethinc.com. Indeed, CrimethInc appears to be a collective in a period of transition. Once the favourite of dumpster-divers and purveyors of ‘riot porn’, they have increasingly become a reasonably reliable source for breaking news of working class uprisings around the world. They have even begun to engage more seriously with classical mass-anarchist history and theory, as in their great 2019 essay Against the Logic of the Guillotine: crimethinc.com.

[12] Idris Robinson’s essay ‘How It Might Should Be Done’ (originally a talk; later published by Ill Will Editions) is justly scathing on this phenomenon: There’s a lot of talk about how to end racism, especially within corporate and academic circles. We saw how to end racism in the streets the first weeks after George Floyd was murdered. “It was only after the uprising began to slow down and exhaust itself that the gravediggers and vampires of the revolution began to reinstate racial lines and impose a new order on the uprising. The most subtle version of this comes from the activists themselves. Our worst enemies are always closest to us. You’ve all been in these marches, these ridiculous marches, where it’s, “white people to the front, black people to the center”—this is just another way of reimposing these lines in a more sophisticated way. What we should be aiming for is what we saw in the first days, when these very boundaries began to dissolve.” Robinson’s essay can be read here: illwill.com. Another essay by Shemon Salam, ‘The Rise of Black Counter-Insurgency’ (also published by Ill Will) touches on similar issues and is likewise recommended: illwill.com.

[13] One can’t help but recall the uncritical enthusiasm demonstrated by many insurrectionary anarchists during the 2014 Euromaidan uprising in Ukraine. Not only was there little interest in the political character of the struggle, but even in the influential presence of far-right elements. People were in the streets, in violent conflict with the brutality of the State… Molotovs were being thrown! ‘What else is there to a revolution?’ This is how an ‘anarchist’ thinks when they are not concerned with class struggle and the need to transform the structures of production and distribution.

[14] Salam, S. Breonna Taylor and the Limits of Riots’. Spirit of May 28. Available at: www.sm28.org. Salam’s argument recalls similar points made by Malatesta. See, for instance, his articles ‘The Products of Soil and Industry: An Anarchist Concern’ (El Productor, 1891, available at: theanarchistlibrary.org) and ‘On ‘Anarchist Revisionism’’ (Pensiero e Volontà, 1924, available at: theanarchistlibrary.org).

[15] Leoni, T. 2019. Sur les Gilets Jaunes. Translation is from Gilles Dauvé’s equally important piece for troploin, ‘Yellow, Red, Tricolour, or: Class & People’. For Dauvé’s essay see: www.troploin.fr. Leoni’s work is available in French here: ddt21.noblogs.org

[16] All quotes from Bonanno, A. M. 1977. Armed Joy. Available here: theanarchistlibrary.org.

[17] This is true whether we are concerned with unions or (Bonanno cannot avoid this!) ‘federations of production nuclei’.

[18] All quotes from Bonanno A. M. 1975. ‘A Critique of Syndicalist Methods’. Anarchismo. Available at: archive.elephanteditions.net.

[19] Or ‘synthesis organisation’ as Bonanno confusingly calls it. Typically, synthesis organisation refers to an approach in which anarchists of all types work together, without a specific shared analysis, programme, or strategic approach.

[20] For a good critique of Bookchin’s break with anarchism, see Iain McKay’s review of The Next Revolution (2015): robertgraham.wordpress.com.

25 notes · View notes

deadpresidents · 3 months

Text

My inbox is filled with a ton of messages asking some form of this question, so here's what I would do it I was appointed the Pope of the Democratic Party and had the absolute power to shape what happens next.

First of all, I'd wait a few days until the news cycle is less of a hurricane. But once things calmed down a bit, I'd get a number of the past and present leaders of the party together to go visit President Biden and discuss the way forward. The best-case scenario would need the President to be on board with stepping aside, and I think that would require some serious conversations between Biden and his family and the party elders/leaders. The heavy-hitters would need to go see the President. I'd send President Obama and President Clinton and the other surviving past Democratic Presidential nominees: Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry. (Obviously, President Carter is still alive but he's 99 years old and in hospice care, so he wouldn't be involved.) They'd be joined by other Democratic heavyweights like Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Bernie Sanders, Jim Clyburn, etc.

It will be a difficult conversation because Joe Biden has spent his life wanting to be President of the United States, and he finally reached the pinnacle and nobody wants to give up that position if they don't have to. But I'd make sure they appeal to his sense of duty and patriotism -- the same things that led him to challenge Trump in 2020 when it seemed like Biden was finished with electoral politics in the wake of his son Beau's death. President Biden knows how dangerous Trump is and what this election truly means, and the Democratic leaders would need to hammer home the idea that while he was the person best able to defeat Trump in 2020, things have changed in the past four years and he's not that guy anymore.

In order for it to work, Biden would need to release his delegates and allow the Democratic National Convention to be an open convention. There are going to be many people and many reasonable arguments that Biden should endorse Kamala Harris since she is his Vice President. But the nominee would be chosen by the delegates to the Democratic Convention, so Biden couldn't just crown Harris as his heir. If he feels that she's the best choice to be the nominee and he feels a sense of loyalty to her, then I think Biden has to go further than stepping aside as the candidate. I think he would have to resign as President and allow Kamala Harris to assume the Presidency and go into the open convention as the incumbent President. That would give her a significant advantage and probably swing the nomination her way. But that's an even bigger thing to ask of President Biden, so I can't imagine being able to talk him into that. Even if he steps aside as the candidate, I think he's going to want to finish his term and he deserves that. I'm a longtime fan of Kamala Harris -- I campaigned with her for Barack Obama while she was still the DA in San Francisco. But I'm not sure she's the best candidate, either. Still, she will be in the mix and one of the favorites in an open convention.

I think an open convention would be really fascinating for people to see in 2024 since it hasn't really happened in 70+ years. It might be good for the Democratic Party and allow fresh candidates to come to the surface. I don't think there's any doubt Vice President Harris would be a candidate and it seems likely that California Governor Gavin Newsom and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer would be major possibilities. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Maryland Governor Wes Moore are rising stars, but I don't think they have the name recognition to be the nominee this year. I really like Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and think he has all of the tools necessary to be a good President, but I'm not sure where he would stand nationally. I don't think Michelle Obama is a possibility. I know she's the dream candidate for a lot of people, but I don't think she likes politics and I don't think she has any interest in running. I think a real dark horse would be Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear. The only Democratic Presidential candidate to win Kentucky since 1980 was Bill Clinton. Beshear has won three statewide races in that very red state, and he won the most recent election in Kentucky by running as a pro-choice candidate defending a women's right to choose. I've seen Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia mentioned, but I feel like his Senate seat is so important that he's needed there more than as President.

There are also two wild card candidates with such strong national name recognition that they would totally shake up the race. However, they'd also be controversial in many ways, but particularly because Biden would be stepping aside because of his age and these two candidates are roughly the same age as Trump. It would eliminate the argument of a fresh Democratic candidate taking Biden's place, but no one would question their experience or star power. The first one is a pretty obvious one: Hillary Clinton. I think she'd energize women voters even more than she did in 2016 because it would be a chance to get back at what happened that year. Plus, she did win the popular vote against Trump. I mean, it's a simple fact that more people voted for her in 2016 than the person that she lost to the election to. The other person also won the election that they "lost": Al Gore. I don't know if he'd do it, but you couldn't find a better advocate for fighting climate change as President than Al Gore. He's also been out of politics long enough that he might seem fresh, even if he's only two years younger than Trump. And it would be a great story -- redemption for the election that he lost at the Supreme Court rather than the ballot box.

I don't know who I would choose if I could pick the nominee, but I think an open convention would be healthy for democracy and for the Democrats. Either way, I think Biden would deserve the opportunity to save face by having him speak to the nation and explain that he is stepping aside as the nominee as an act of political courage and duty to a country facing an existential threat named Donald Trump. Let him talk about how proud he is of the things his Administration has accomplished and that he was able to stop Donald Trump once and by doing this, he is making sure America stops Donald Trump one last time. And guess what? Then he can do what I'm sure it is breaking his heart to not be able to do right now -- he can pardon his only surviving son because he'll be a lame-duck and won't have to worry about the political blowback.

#2024 Election #Joe Biden #President Biden #Democratic National Convention #Presidential Election #Politics #Political History #Presidency #Presidential Politics #Democratic Presidential Nomination #Presidential Candidates #2024 Democratic National Convention #Democrats #Democratic Party

28 notes · View notes