this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
73 points (77.9% liked)
Asklemmy
46610 readers
640 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Without electoral reform, there's no functional reason to. The lesser evil of the current system is Democrats. If you want to enact change, push support for the progressive wing of the party and push for electoral reform.
Still doesn't really solve the problem of candidates being pre-approved for the bourgeoisie.
Don't let imperfection get in the way of progress. If you move slightly towards the left, you're opening doors for more left ideology.
I think I'd agree with you more if I believed "pushing for XYZ" was a valid strategy for implementing structures opening the door for progress in a system dominated by those who benefit from the status quo. Without that belief, I turn to other historically succesful methods of gaining change, like millitant labor organizing and revolution.