You must log in or register to comment.
How is the colour of the skin a political view? Racists are pretty confused people it seems.
I’ve honestly come to the conclusion that white communists, at least the ones online, believe most nonwhite people are radicalized.
It’s a very Americancentric view.
The voting is part of it yes?
Dululo Americans shitting with rage seeing stuff like this, they will do anything but acknowledge that Donald will just say it’s rigged or rig it himself and get the courts to side with him, they’ll do nothing once it happens and continuing to cry and point fingers like the do here.
I know this is true because when ONE German state (not the country as a whole) picked a far right candidate, Soooo many of you losers here were Soooo quick to point the finger say your no better even though it was a far lower scale issue and far easier to containe but they were so happy to go haha, you should over throw your gov, like a Bunch of school children when it was only one province with low relevance.
Your pathetic.
I’m seeing a weird amount of anti-voting posts 2 months before an extremely consequential midterm that’s very likely to shift the balance in Congress unless an incredible amount of voter suppression occurs (and oh look, lots of sketchy voter suppression is going on, plus it would be very inexpensive to spin up some social media campaigns to try to discourage voting)
[After an election] “Voting won’t fix things.”
“…”
[7 months later] “Voting won’t fix things.”
“…”
[7 months later] “Voting won’t fix things.”
“…”
[7 months later] “Voting won’t fix things.”
“Ever notice how you only ever see people saying this right before an election?”
I have seen like 30 anti voting posts in the past week, which is about 5x more frequent than I’ve ever seen it on lemmy
It’s textbook confirmation bias. We have whole communities around here filled with anarchists and Marxists, all throughout the year.
Yup! just keep spreading anti-voting propaganda! THAT’LL DEFINITELY HELP
Why vote for better leaders when you can just doomscroll and pretend you’re daddy’s special lil anarchist boy that understands everything so fucking perfectly!
jog on, prick
We have never gotten rights or rights back from voting for them. A lot of people died for our rights and I’m not talking about soldiers. Miners, farm workers, industrial workers, healthcare, etc. It required many deaths for change to be made and it was force. Remember Stone Wall was a riot!
Most rights we got were from voting it is untrue to say we got them through violence. I don’t think it is right to tell people to go die for change when non-violent options lead to solutions.
Disability Act, Women’s right to vote, removal of the poor tax on voting, Indian Citizenship Act.
The Battle of Blair mountain for instance caused an immediate backlash that historians actually believe delayed worker’s rights. Stonewall happened decades before any policy change. Making your voice heard and educating people to join up in collective action is what makes change, violence either causes backlash or completely collapses a government. The French Revolution for instance ended in military dictatorship. Violence will happen but it is absolutely not true to say it causes change, it often doesn’t.
And then there are the dozens of elections that resulted in positive policy change that required no violence, dozens of non-violent movements that did cause sweeping changes directly.
If voting didn’t matter, they would not put so much effort and money into denying people’s vote.
Historically and politically illiterate, dead wrong, embarassing
You got a source for that bud?
Too many to count, every single non-fiction history of every single revolution that has ever happened
Are you lost? None of these things have anything to do with the ineffectiveness of voting or the success of violent revolution.
You can’t be serious
You can’t read
https://adata.org/learn-about-ada/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_States
The Battle of Blair mountain caused a steep drop in labor unions, nearly bankrupted the UMWA and these conversations didn’t continue until like almost a decade later.
The French Revolution brought a reign of terror which birthed into an ineffective and corrupt government that then fell to Napleon, who you can talk about in length but he banned worker unions and prioritized employers over employees. History likes to treat him as if he was some kind of regular man’s hero but he wasn’t, he absolutely always sided with power and money.
What are you talking about?
None of the links you posted do anything to support your moronic claims. Try again dumbass.
Hitler was voted into power.
So he would never have been elected with enough counter votes.
That’s patently not true, he was actually appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg (a centrist who won because of “strategic voting” by the left) before actually winning any elections.
Hindenburg was hard-right, not a centrist by a long stretch.
Ok, fair enough. My point was that he was elected by left & center voting strategically to prevent hitler from rising to power. And yet he betrayed them and made hitler chancellor anyway.
Germany was (and is) a parliamentary system. Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party, and the Nazis were elected to a plurality of the seats in the Reichstag.
The standard practice at the time was that the leader of the plurality party got to be Chancellor. To not have done so would have been weird and undemocratic.
To add to the other comment, it was also “weird and undemocratic” to grant the title of Chancellor to a dude who literally tried an undemocratic coup already and whose ideology was almost explicitly about dismantling democracy.
We can’t afford reverence to unspoken practices or customs or “good-faith” when dealing with fascists. Fascists are not dealing in good faith, they will use the system of laws and customs you created to get into power, cement themselves there by destroying parts of the system which oppose them, and finally get to enriching themselves as much as possible while sowing death and destruction and bigotry everywhere.
There were strategic mistakes made by the communists which indirectly helped hitler to power (the same kind was ironically made by dems in 2010s). But it was Hindenburg who turned hitler from a wannabe dictator into an actual dictator in charge of a country.
Hindenburg, the 230 duly elected Nazis (with there 13 million voters), and the Nazi party apparatus that made Hitler leader.
If you pull off a political miracle, you might be able to keep a 37℅ plurality (with significant electoral momentum) out of power for a cycle; maybe 2. But a democracy cannot keep such a popular movement out of power indefinitely.
The time to keep the Nazis out of power was the 1932 election. Any move after that is just a Hail Mary gambit
It was still a choice made by hindenburg, even within the confines of the “democratic” system. He had the power to not buckle to nazism. He could, by law and by custom, create a coalition government with Centre, SPD and KPD (who together had more support than NSDAP) and yet he didn’t, because he was part of the capitalist class and thought nazism would work out better for his class than socialism. It were not the voters who chose hitler, it was a bourgeois “lesser-evil” candidate.
The standard practice at the time was that the leader of the plurality party got to be Chancellor. To not have done so would have been weird and undemocratic.
That’s not remotely true and not how any parliamentary system works lmao.
Say two parties get 30% of the vote and a third gets 40%. The two parties don’t like the third one so they form a coalition with each other instead. That coalition is who 60% of the vote went to. They pick a chancellor who is amenable to both parties in the coalition. How on earth is that “undemocratic?”
The “standard practice” of the party with a plurality getting the position of chancellor was simply because the party with a plurality had always been part of the governing coalition.
Do both. Vote and rebel. Hit all fronts.
See I support this, it’s the people who think voting by itself will suddenly fix everything that I think are delusional.
Exactly! Why so many people seem to think you can’t do both is bizarre to me. Makes you wonder if they’re actually arguing in good faith or not.
I sometimes wonder if the majority on Lemmy are here solely for arguments.
Well many here are just rejected redditer so…
(me included btw))
I’ve found that a lot of reddit users recently migrated to Lemmy and brought their bad faith with them. As well just generally acting like dipshits.
There’s legitimate money and special interests to sway the election. Whether that’s with bots or paying for troll farms to post propaganda
This is the most sane answer here - fighting one war while letting them win the other isn’t wise. Doing both and securing all the fronts is how we win.
And we certainly dont win by calling each other dipshits - unless your mission is to dismantle the left.
Anarchist spreading shit to enable fascism and feel justified while everyone suffers.
Fuck off.
I bet you never got arrested at a protest. Have you had the secret service or FBI visit you yet? If the answer is no than you’re supporting the fascist government instead of fighting it!
Is this sarcasm
I see we are ramping up the anti voting memes up ahead of the American election, comrades.
Democrats not turning out in 2024 IS what got trump and the GOP into majority power in all branches of government. Now they wanna make sure you don’t come out so the dictatorship can finish its installation.
'Tis the season, after all. The leaves’re changing, time to prime the plebs.
Its worked for over 100 years though. It just doesn’t work in all circumstances.
You cant generally vote fascists out once they’ve sufficiently subverted or removed democratic processes, but they can be voted in especially if they’re the ones motivated to actually do so, their efforts to subvert those processes take a variable amount of time to complete that sometimes means they’re not totally done by the next election cycle, and even in the case of rigged/subverted elections, its not like they’ll suddenly become more fascist if people vote against them but won’t if people don’t do that.
It’s also not like voting, when possible, takes away a person’s ability to also try anything else. So, unless you have good reason to believe that a given election is actively dangerous, like that they’re only holding it to learn who would vote against them given the option or something like that, it makes sense to participate if the option exists.
Worst case, the election is meaningless and one wastes a small amount of time in trying it. Best case, you overestimated how much the process had already been subverted and the election system proves to be still functional. In neither case does casting a vote against someone that seems to be a fascist or similar make them more likely to succeed than if you’d simply stayed home.
If people voting against them did benefit fascists, they wouldn’t spend so much effort on undermining elections and voter intimidation, it would be counterproductive.
Yeah, it sucked when they had to invade to get Orban out of office…
Thank you
Orban was not a fascist what are you talking about
As far as I know, he was voted in. So get the fuck out with this bullshit of yours
Not really, no. He was appointed.
Wiki paints me a different picture: NSDAP did get actual support. Along with using a long list of very non-democratic ways to get more power, though
He got support but there was no national vote for Hitler.
True that
That doesn’t rebut OP’s posit
It does. Long before the need of having to get facists out arises there is an option to not get them in
Edit: which is actually what democratic process should be about. Keep your society well-functioning constantly. Or you’ll have a hell of a time bringing it back to normal out of insanity
Idi nahui pizdek
