I'm definitely not voting RFK Jr's antivax ass. I mean he's a Kennedy. Still an elite in power.
Anyways, 3rd party candidates historically never have a chance. Ultimately if it were really my choice, the only parties we'd have are idk street parties. Because there'd be no government at all, or temporary governments when the need arises, or something more creative than the dumbass shit we have now.
Dude, if this was your way to try to educate and get people to organize, you've gotta do way better. I'm sorry. You can't essentially accuse folks of supporting genocide and then turn around and try to convert them to Communism lol
You gotta meet them where they are and introduce it softly to them. They're not going to understand your anger toward the state for all it's injustices, because they haven't seen them yet. You're fuckin scaring em off
Besides, I'm not gonna join a political party that is ultimately going to be just another top down hierarchical structure. I'd prefer the decision making in my commune to be bottom-up.
Maybe they're not from the US and don't realize that we actually don't have much of a choice? Or maybe they're pro-Trump. Idk.
No offense dude, but I think you are pretty ignorant about American leftists. I mean, you're completely right that we're having to dismiss an atrocity and vote for a genocidist and that the system is fundamentally broken. But that's common knowledge in the US lol, even across the aisle. Politicians are bought and sold, ask any semi-informed citizen in the US, right or left. It's just that most people are too busy working to fucking LIVE to think there is anything we can about it, or they've been brainwashed to think that's how it should be (top down something or other...)
Shit is fucked here. Nobody's trying to hide it, like I didn't just "say the quiet part out loud." Obviously America is fucked, obviously the Democratic party is fucked. But I'm still gonna vote for Harris because America can still get worse and the Republican party isn't just fucked, its absolutely fuckaroo'd.
Tell me what you want me to do. Should I not vote? Who is defending Kamala or the Democratic party here? Just because I'm relatively happy that Kamala gives the US a better chance at avoiding another Trump presidency, that doesn't mean I'm happy with Kamala being the nominee. Or happy with her being genocidist. How does that make me an apologist for genocide when I have a binary choice in front of me between two people who are going to continue sending weapons to an apartheid state committing genocide? I mean fuck, the US is the worlds largest terror organization -- are you going to accuse me of supporting them because they take money out of my paycheck? There isn't really anything I can do about it besides try to vote in the direction that leans away from that.
Again, what do you want me to do? Obviously if I could choose someone who would impart a weapons embargo and trade sanctions against Israel, I would. But the choices I have in front of me are a person who, while publicly calling for a ceasefire, sends weapons to an apartheid state that is currently genociding the Palestinian people, and another who will not only certainly still send weapons to that state, but also strengthen ties with it, and urge them to "finish the job." Do you want me to stay home, and give the latter option a better chance of winning?
edit: Like idk who's out here praising Kamala Harris and the rest of the Democratic party for their soft-as-shit stance on Israel, but I still gonna vote for her, because Trump and Republicans wouldn't only be worse for the Palestinian people, they'd be worse for the US
We have a choice between one person publicly calling for a ceasefire and another who says Israel needs to finish the job.
I'm not sure what you want us to do here.
All politicians seek to gain power and uphold the unjust, undemocratic, hierarchical power structures that constrain individual freedom -- power structures that are ultimately backed by the monopolization of violence through the police.
It's just that one party also wants to use those structures to surveil women's bodies, ban books, delegitimize science, push religion, and extract capital from natural resources and workers without restriction.
That's insane.
Like, no 401k or Roth IRA? Dang. I'm fuckin hard.
If you aren't comfortable doing that then you aren't comfortable "working on" your car.
You've written a whole lotta junk to essentially end on, "if you can't jack up your car and remove the wheel, you shouldn't be changing your headlight in the first place."
Which is quite a dumb take.
We might be, and I'm definitely not an expert or that immediately knowledgeable (hence, why I just listened to two long-ass books in two weeks), but even your banking example doesn't really satisfy me. I get what you're saying -- not that banking or capitalism were a spontaneous solution or decision or conscious at all, but moreso that they solved a certain problem many human societies had, and therefore it was further adopted, and further, and further, an almost natural propensity to spread. In some sense, there must be some underlying force that's pushing capitalism and banking along, because otherwise we wouldn't have their dominance, today.
But that is still the core idea the authors push back against in those two books. I'd probably argue that banking didn't spread because it solved the problem (hoarding money), but that it emerged out of early hierarchical societies whose states, themselves, hoarded primitive "money" (grain) and lent it out to farmers at interest, and that the underlying force we're looking for that caused it's eventual spread is the concept of debt or becoming whole, itself. But then I am also getting into the territory of banking as some natural sociological phenomenon that was destined to be furthered and furthered , which is, again, exactly what those two books seek to dispel, especially Debt.
I'd like to continue, but this would definitely work better as an in-person conversation where we could push back and forth against ideas, but I do have to work :/
Listen dude. Im in pretty much full agreement with both of your comments in this thread. But if you're trying to get people converted, especially moderate liberals, don't start off combatively telling them they're supporting a genocide or that they're wasting their time voting. Its just gonna entrench them even more because it's so outside their realm of political understanding.
I mean, I'm anarchosyndicalist. I'm aware of how fucked up the voting system is and how little power I have as an individual, and it pisses me off to be scolded at like that. Ive read People's History, and the manifesto, and Kropotkin (not to mention, a fair amount of chomsky and a lot of David Graeber). Imagine how moderate liberals feel when you slam them with a wall of text? They are not fucking initiated yet.
Like I said to the OP, you gotta meet people where they are. You're right that the left is disorganized, and that most Democrats aren't really leftist but socially progressive capitalists, but if you're gonna convert them you need to ease them into it, not immediately shock them with walls of text and accusations of supporting a genocide. Because they'll just recoil into their somewhat cozy capitalist shell.