ReadFanon

It helps because it signals to the DNC that they will not simply automatically win by default with their shittiest, most rightwing nominees because the other option is slightly worse on a couple of fronts.

It shows that people do not see them as a viable alternative to the GOP unless they actually become an alternative to the GOP.

There’s a reason why Trump won last time and it’s this attitude of entitlement that you’ve embodied which is at the core of this.

If you’re so set upon preventing another Trump presidency then recent history is a lesson for you, or at least it should have been, and attempting to browbeat people into voting for detestable DNC nominees is a failed strategy when you should be pushing the DNC for compromise with people further to the left of you rather than demanding that people further to the left of you capitulate simply because you feel that they ought to because you have a false sense of moral righteousness.

You want my vote for the democratic nominee? Then uphold the values of bourgeois electoralism and earn it.

Not voting for Biden means that Biden is one vote further away from being president.

Now it’s your turn.

Not voting for the furthest right party is the same thing as voting for the furthest right party 🤓🤓

From a pragmatic point, what good does voting for Biden do?

Does ranked voting in other countries undermine their two-party system though?

I’m sorry but the math on this doesn’t check out.

You’re saying that we must join coalitions whose intent is to change the system or we must vote for the Democratic nominee, otherwise we are supporting the GOP?

If not voting for the Democratic nominee is support for the GOP then how isn’t joining a coalition to undermine DNC power support for the GOP?

I don’t understand this logic.

Just move to a different instance which isn’t so banhappy. There’s plenty of instances which aren’t so heavy-handed with what they ban.

The DNC will be slavering at the opportunity this presents them.

“It votes for Blue behind the screen or else it gets the Trump again!”

The worker’s councils were recreating the basis of capitalism and interfering with regional and national interests in favour of their own petit-bourgeois aspirations. They wanted to become a labour aristocracy and they threatened the economic foundations of proletarian democracy with their narrow, self-interested trade union consciousness. Yugoslavia’s model is a perfect example of what would have happened if this was allowed to proliferate and to threaten the revolution.

If the Mensheviks didn’t want to get outlawed then maybe they shouldn’t have aligned themselves with the interests of the aristocracy and the Kadets over the proletariat 🤷‍♂️

Imagine being salty that the October Revolution overthrew the bourgeois Provisional Government. The soviets had established themselves as the legitimate organ of proletarian power and they seized political power because the Mensheviks and the Constitutional Democrats did not represent them.

Lol, I’ll bite. How do you think that Lenin strangled the revolution in the cradle?

Do you mean libertarians, or “libertarians” as per Murray Rothbard’s quote:

“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over…”

Nah, I didn’t do that. I just pointed out that they are either a supporter of capitalism (or reactionary politics) or they support revolutionary/evolutionary socialism, all of which are inherently authoritarian in their own ways.

The material conditions that give rise to authoritarianism is a different question altogether. I was specific in my choice of words for a reason.

“We have liberated Europe from fascism, but they will never forgive us for it.”

— Marshal Zhukov

Let’s not pretend that your politics aren’t inherently authoritarian as well.

Either you support capitalism (or worse), which is grossly authoritarian as it inflicts massive violence not only via warfare but through mass starvation and deprivation, or you support socialism, in which case you have two options:

1. The violent overthrow of the current system (spoiler alert: that’s a very authoritarian thing to do!)

2. The gradual reform of the current system, meaning maintaining the status quo for an exceptionally long time as we ever so slowly creep our way to a more just economic system while countless people starve, go homeless, die without healthcare, end up in yet-another war and so on (which is a very authoritarian proposition, just throwing away the lives of the poor in your own country—not to mention those in the developing world—just so you can have a neat and tidy reformist approach that doesn’t rock the boat.)

I’m thoroughly enjoying watching Twitter xit itself