Voting can definitely bring change. Look at Zohran Mamdani in NYC. The reason he’s mayor, instead of someone else, is because enough people voted for him.
But if you’re not satisfied with voting alone then you can get more involved with politics. Join a party, or start a party. Join a trade union, or start one, if you want. Things like that.
Voting can definitely bring change. Look at Zohran Mamdani in NYC.
Zohran is a nice change of pace, but we’re way to early in his administration to know whether he’ll bring concrete social change to the city. New York has had decent mayors before. And they’ve left their footprints. But they’ve also had plenty of corrupt shitheads and racist asshats who climb into Gracie Mansion right on the heels of their betters.
But if you’re not satisfied with voting alone then you can get more involved with politics.
The fundamental problem with electoralism - and this is a critique that easily goes back to the first Obama campaign - is that election day often disperses the force that the campaign had originally assembled. What’s notable about Zohran (and a lot of the DSA affiliates) is that they come into office and maintain or expand the organizations that put them there.
Compare that to say, the Beto Campaign in Texas or the Fetterman Campaign in Pennsylvania or Polis in Colorado. Win or Lose, they disintegrate within a few weeks of the votes being counted. Often, they produce legacy candidates that act in direct opposition to the people who put them there. And that sows distrust in the movements that produced them.
So I might argue that you get involved in an organization you like first. And then you make decisions within that organization collectively. And sometimes that means supporting a candidate. Sometimes that means recognizing there’s nobody worth voting for in a given race and agreeing - collectively - that you’re not going to support anyone. But the root of the organization is in the organization, not in the voting.
Just going out and slapping buttons and saying “Okay what’s next?” is a sucker’s gambit.
Sometimes that means recognizing there’s nobody worth voting for in a given race and agreeing - collectively - that you’re not going to support anyone.
I guess I personally don’t really agree with that approach. People are free to take that approach of course. But it reminds me of people refusing to vote for Kamala Harris because her Israel policy wasn’t quite perfect, when all this did was help Trump, who quite clearly was always going to take a much more pro-Israel position.
Just going out and slapping buttons and saying “Okay what’s next?” is a sucker’s gambit.
One vote doesn’t make a big difference I guess. But like you said, you can join organisations, and those organisations can have much bigger political impacts. Maybe voting is necessary but not sufficient if you want to bring about political change.
But it reminds me of people refusing to vote for Kamala Harris because her Israel policy wasn’t quite perfect
She was actively facilitating a genocide. What’s more, nobody got to vote for Kamala Harris in the primary. Biden ran virtually uncontested, then fumbled a debate performance and got shuffled off stage left. Harris was so unpopular in the 2020 primary that she polled 5th place in her home state. People refused to vote for Kamala Harris because she wasn’t doing a good job of running for office. The Pro-Israel shit was merely the tip of the iceberg.
And, as a corollary to the Harris mess, consider the current Gavin Newsom campaign.
If this guy runs for President, what sane liberal supports him? He’s working hand-in-glove with Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis to fuck over doctors in his own state. If the DNC is going to air-drop him into the Democratic Nomination in 2028, we’re going to get four more years of Trump pretty much guaranteed.
You aren’t going to beat Fascism by lining up for Fascism-Lite.
I don’t know what Harris’s voting record was on aid to Israel. But from what I saw of her and Trump, I definitely thought that Harris was more reasonable. Even if her position on Israel had flaws, surely she would have been more willing than Trump to sympathise with Palestinians. She might have changed her position on Palestine over time. Politicians often change their positions.
Maybe it’s a bit like here in the UK: our Labour government recognised the state of Palestine, and recently has announced sanctions for Israeli settlers in the West Bank. It might not be perfect, but if the UK had a Reform government (the UK’s equivalent of MAGA) then they would probably be actively supporting far-right Israeli leaders, and their intentions of dominating all of Palestine.
Voting can definitely bring change. Look at Zohran Mamdani in NYC. The reason he’s mayor, instead of someone else, is because enough people voted for him.
But if you’re not satisfied with voting alone then you can get more involved with politics. Join a party, or start a party. Join a trade union, or start one, if you want. Things like that.
Zohran is Zionist NYPD’s slave now.
Zohran is a nice change of pace, but we’re way to early in his administration to know whether he’ll bring concrete social change to the city. New York has had decent mayors before. And they’ve left their footprints. But they’ve also had plenty of corrupt shitheads and racist asshats who climb into Gracie Mansion right on the heels of their betters.
The fundamental problem with electoralism - and this is a critique that easily goes back to the first Obama campaign - is that election day often disperses the force that the campaign had originally assembled. What’s notable about Zohran (and a lot of the DSA affiliates) is that they come into office and maintain or expand the organizations that put them there.
Compare that to say, the Beto Campaign in Texas or the Fetterman Campaign in Pennsylvania or Polis in Colorado. Win or Lose, they disintegrate within a few weeks of the votes being counted. Often, they produce legacy candidates that act in direct opposition to the people who put them there. And that sows distrust in the movements that produced them.
So I might argue that you get involved in an organization you like first. And then you make decisions within that organization collectively. And sometimes that means supporting a candidate. Sometimes that means recognizing there’s nobody worth voting for in a given race and agreeing - collectively - that you’re not going to support anyone. But the root of the organization is in the organization, not in the voting.
Just going out and slapping buttons and saying “Okay what’s next?” is a sucker’s gambit.
I guess I personally don’t really agree with that approach. People are free to take that approach of course. But it reminds me of people refusing to vote for Kamala Harris because her Israel policy wasn’t quite perfect, when all this did was help Trump, who quite clearly was always going to take a much more pro-Israel position.
One vote doesn’t make a big difference I guess. But like you said, you can join organisations, and those organisations can have much bigger political impacts. Maybe voting is necessary but not sufficient if you want to bring about political change.
She was actively facilitating a genocide. What’s more, nobody got to vote for Kamala Harris in the primary. Biden ran virtually uncontested, then fumbled a debate performance and got shuffled off stage left. Harris was so unpopular in the 2020 primary that she polled 5th place in her home state. People refused to vote for Kamala Harris because she wasn’t doing a good job of running for office. The Pro-Israel shit was merely the tip of the iceberg.
And, as a corollary to the Harris mess, consider the current Gavin Newsom campaign.
Governor Gavin Newsom used his veto pen over the weekend to ax legislation aimed at protecting providers of gender-affirming care from being extradited to face charges for doing so by another state.
If this guy runs for President, what sane liberal supports him? He’s working hand-in-glove with Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis to fuck over doctors in his own state. If the DNC is going to air-drop him into the Democratic Nomination in 2028, we’re going to get four more years of Trump pretty much guaranteed.
You aren’t going to beat Fascism by lining up for Fascism-Lite.
I don’t know what Harris’s voting record was on aid to Israel. But from what I saw of her and Trump, I definitely thought that Harris was more reasonable. Even if her position on Israel had flaws, surely she would have been more willing than Trump to sympathise with Palestinians. She might have changed her position on Palestine over time. Politicians often change their positions.
Maybe it’s a bit like here in the UK: our Labour government recognised the state of Palestine, and recently has announced sanctions for Israeli settlers in the West Bank. It might not be perfect, but if the UK had a Reform government (the UK’s equivalent of MAGA) then they would probably be actively supporting far-right Israeli leaders, and their intentions of dominating all of Palestine.
LMBO! The fake leftist that went full zionist capitalist 2 seconds after he was sworn in is not the flex you think it is