272
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
272 points (91.0% liked)
Memes
57478 readers
244 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the heart of the issue seems to be the legitimacy that voting gives to a system -- participate if you chose do, just do so w the awareness of the fact your participation was more beneficial to the status quo than it was to you.
and, yes, you do need to do more than just vote; but if you lack an understanding of why your increased participate is now necessary you'll be treading water at best -- like the democrats.
there have been people who've been in this situation before and wrote down what they did with the benefit hindsight included -- if you look at their stuff you'll find out what you need to do beyond voting.
The system is "self-legitimazing" regardless of how many people choose not to vote. Consider the current president didn't even get the majority of votes.
Instead of buying into the liberal myth that voting creates legitimacy, look at voting as choosing which boss you are going to fight.
The owner has set up this system where he says you get to choose the boss. Even if you do, at best you get to choose who interprets the owners orders. Spending all your time fighting for one boss or the other or against specifically the boss is the wrong thing to do. The correct thing to do is to fight to get rid of the owner and this system, to create a new system that is truly democratic, that will listen to the workers.
That is certainly not what I am advocating for when I say go vote for who you want to fight against.
Voting does not prevent you from building dual power.
And that has material consequences. To ignore that is to limit who you are able to work with.
Except in Amerika you're not voting for who you're fighting against you're simply voting for which mask the actual people in power put forth (the good pr nice mask (democrats), the tough and mean mask (republican)). The real boss is not the American president, or Congress, etc but the capitalists behind them who you very specifically get no vote on and to who your vote by design has no tangible material effect on.
That may be true for you, but it is not true for others. Any revolution predicated on ignoring the material reality of the masses is doomed to fail.
Being not Amerikan it is true for me in a way but not in the way you're implying. You genuinely believe your vote at the Amerikan ballot box has tangible material effects on capitalists interests? That's a pretty extreme stance that even most liberals would retreat from if pressed.
This is a nonsequitor that doesn't address anything I said.
It's only a non-sequitor if you replace what I said about the interests of the masses with the interests of the capitalist class.
I get that it is difficult to both participate in the system while also dismantling it - that is by design. It is also designed to alienate those who participate from those who do not. That is one of the ways the system defends itself.
No it remains a nonsequitor as pointing out voting in America is a charade over choosing which mask capital wears as opposed to having any material effect on who is in power (the boss which needs fighting) has nothing to do with being detached from the needs of the masses.
So long as you ignore the lived experiences of Americans they will never behave as you think they might. If it were as you said, detached from the needs of the masses, then the grip held by the electoral system would be a simple matter to defeat.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm accurately characterising a system that not once in its entire existence has challenged the interests of capital. Your response to this has been nonsequitors and leftist vocabulary used as buzzwords you don't seem to entirely grasp.
My response is rooted in a structuralist critique of the system that incentivizes participation. You have said nothing of the incentives other than to assert there is none. What do you hope to accomplish by disparaging me instead of the argument?
See and once again completely not engaging with the point at hand.
To try get back to the actual matter at hand. You put forth the assertion that voting allows Amerikans to choose who they are fighting. This is blatantly untrue as the democrats and republicans are not the top of the ladder but simply the mask or the orators of those truly at the tops will (the capitalists). In response to this being pointed out you've gone on many tangents to use as much leftspeak as you can muster to entirely miss the point and add nothing of value (likely because you cannot as what I pointed out is blatantly obvious to all those with eyes). I am not disparaging you I simply refuse to be pulled down these inane side tangents.
You can say they aren't really the "boss" but fact remains that voting shapes how the conflict plays out. Voting is choosing the quality of the boss fight.
But thank you for this. In the future I will say "boss fight" instead of "boss" to be more clear.
It really isn't. Did the Dems close Guantanamo? No. Did they defund the Police or ICE? No infact they oversaw record funding. Did they codify roe v wade? No. Did they do anything to slow or stop the foreign child crushing machine? No.
Pr is the only real difference and unfortunately pr is immaterial.
The party responds to those fighting in accordance to their PR. A dem will opt for more covert methods while the repubs will send the police to outright murder people in the streets and celebrate it. All the issues you listed are true, and that is why fighting is not optional.
Again an assertion that doesn't like up with reality. ICE (the modern Gestapo as many people know them) were no less funded or utilised under dems for example same with the police. They also oversaw and funded genocide. You are falling for the optics and believe just because they say the good things they must not be doing as many of the bad things and it's just not accurate.
Again, I never said the dems don't utilize the same forces. The critique is in how and to what degree. Surely there are plenty of libs for you to debate that you don't need to invent a strawman lib.
See now you're backtracking. So they don't use more covert methods? They use the exact same methods and institutions just "less" (in your mind). But again this is an assertion without merit when you look at how funding for ICE and the militarisation of the police hit record levels under both administrations. So again we're back to you taking pr and a better controlled news cycle to be a tangible material difference that it simply isn't.
Where is the contradiction in saying the same institution can be directed to use or favor different methods?
The fact that they plainly aren't? The police were still the police under Dems the same violent gangs brutalising whoever they liked and facing minimal (in reality effectively 0) repercussions. And ice was still ice Dems were more then happy to gloat about record deportations under their administrations, you think ice was suddenly politely asking people if they would like to leave under Dems, obviously not they were the same violent kidnappers putting kids in cages.
This is all not even mentioning the three letter agencies and their bipartisan escapades. (Abu gharib was not an abomination but the system working as intended)
I will just say my lived experience is they do in fact favor different methods. From my own daycare provider having a deportation clause to being on ICE watch to my brother in law being deported, the difference is stark.
Yeah the difference is that after the years of buildup it's affecting you now so it's totally different. It's not you just didn't care until it started affecting your life.
Lol, now we all know you've never been to a protest.
Every time I've ever been tear gassed for protesting, it was a Democrat who gave the orders.
Then go protest more, I assure you they both use tear gas.
That whooshing sound you heard was the entire point going directly over your head.
Right back at yeah pal. Tear gas tastes better than a bullet
Goddamn you're dumb
Truly a titillating response
You have to display some reading comprehension and intelligence to get replies that are entertaining or enlightening. When all you do is shill for the status quo and deliberately misunderstand very simple concepts so you can set up cheap comebacks, you have to expect just low effort derision, because that's all you're showing yourself to be worth.
GIGO, if you want more from me then earn it
Lol. You BlueMaga fascists are completely shameless
So you're saying if we vote for party1, all party2 members will magically disappear and we don't have to fight them anymore?
Am I to take your question in good faith? Because I really don't understand how you made this leap from what I said.
You said "Vote for who you want to fight against", which may make sense in a videogame, but not irl, so I pointed out the contradiction.
I see. I should have said "vote for where you want to fight; in a concentration camp or in the streets". I meant it reflects the quality of the fight, not that the fight goes away.
You can't vote for where you want to fight.
"Nuh uh". Good point!
"Vote for who you want to fight against!"
Say the people who have exactly zero interest in fighting against the Democrats. So are you going to be voting for the Republicans? Or are you giving us advice you would never take yourself
Nah, I'm voting for the working family party or peace and freedom when that is an option. Where i live the national always goes dem so there is no chance of spoiling the vote.