this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
7 points (57.1% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7151 readers
1303 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On the ballot in 19 states totalling 220 electoral college votes.
Who wants to tell them you need 270 to win?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
Do you think they are running because they expect to win? Are you familiar at all with the Marxist view of Electoralism?
They aren't going to end capitalism if they don't win.
The best they can hope to do is take votes away from Harris ensuring a Trump win, which is 180° the opposite of their message.
So no, you aren't familiar with the Marxist stance on Electoralism. For reference, they are Marxists.
No, they do not need to win the election to end Capitalism. Participation in bourgeois elections is to delegitimize the system (such as pointing out Dem/Rep collusion to kick them off the balot in Georgia), and advertise their platform.
Marxists believe revolution is necessary and electoralism is a sham.
That sounds like a way to get a lot of people killed and end up worse than how you started.
Historically, Marxist revolutions have dramatically improved conditions.
Happy to hear more info here
You'd have to be a bit silly to think the Tsarist regime was better for Russia, the nationalist Kuomintang for China, the fascist slaver Batista for Cuba, etc.
I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution and clicked on the most recent successful entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War
That's not great.
Survivorship bias, after we murdered everyone that was having a bad time everyone was having a great time.
You'll notice that the government did far more of the killing than the Communist revolutionaries. And, like I said, metrics are improving since overthrowing the previous regime.
They do need to win an election to end capitalism, because they have no power unless they win.
They can literally do absolutely nothing to accomplish their goal unless they win, but then since they mathematically can't win either, all they can do is yell impotently into the void.
Which part of "revolution is necessary and electoralism is a sham" was difficult for you?
They aren't running for a revolution, if they were, they wouldn't be on the ballot for an election.
It's all performative nonsense.
I'll just copy and paste my earlier explanation, hope it makes sense for you this time: