No problem, thx!
I def recommend reading about the US's many campaigns historically to accuse their enemies of doing the thing they themselves are guilty of. A few good ones off the top of my head are Paul Williams - Operation Gladio and William Blum - Killing Hope
Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting.
Minimum wage, the 5-day work week, and other workers gains took decades of violent struggle and organizing by socialists, communists, and anarchists in nearly every country.
My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists.
That's not how it works in any capitalist country. Political power is subservient to economic power, and is toothless without it.
You might have to use one of the archive.today mirrors. A lot of ISPs block them for some reason.
Homophobia / sexualized violence. Banned.
I apologize for being too combative... it just gets exhausting for us to debunk the same points over and over again, especially since the US has a near total monopoly on anglophone media sources.
We should oppose actual genocide, like the one Israel is carrying out on the Palestinian people with US help, not fake ones like the "white genocide" or "uyghur genocide" which are employed against perceived enemies of the white/western world.
Even locally, it would take some incredible magic for the capitalists who rule a given city or town's politics, to enact or enforce laws than go against their interests / profits, especially without a fight. Scale isn't relevant here, since local elites use the city/town police as goons to protect their property.
Unless you can give some examples, I don't believe it, and I certainly can't think of any time in my city's history where they've willingly allowed something against their interests.
The entire "authoritarian" vs "anti-authoritarian" distinction doesn't correspond to reality, and isn't real. There is no history of any human society, that doesn't make rules, norms, and customs for their group, and enforce them.
"Authoritarianism", just like "Totalitarianism", are only used to demonize workers and working-class movements who dared to construct systems existing outside of capitalist authority. Even the historical anarchist experiments found that they needed to enforce rules if they didn't want to deconstruct within days, and were also labelled as "authoritarian" by opponents to their left and right.
there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.
Read my comment below, because it gets into this. It can't make things better, because it historically has never done so, only protests with the threat of violence from below (and completely outside of bourgeios democracy) have.
Losurdo calls this period (From ww1 - ww2), the Second Thirty-Years War, because war and pogroms never really halted in eastern europe after ww1.
Some more context for anyone wandering over from an anti-communist / pro-capitalist space:
Socialists view democracy under capitalism to be impossible. Most current-day systems are better labeled as Bourgeois Democracy, or democracy for the rich only, which socialists contrast with proletarian democracy. Under capitalism, political parties, representatives, infrastructure, and the media are controlled by capitalists, who place restrictions on the choices given to workers, limit their representative options to vetted capitalist puppets, and limit the scope of public debate to pro-capitalist views.
Bourgeois democracies are in reality Capitalist Dictatorships, resulting in legislation favorable to the wealthy, regardless of the population's actual preferences. The Princeton Study, conducted in the US in 2014, found that the preferences of the average US citizen exert a near-zero influence on legislation, making the US system of elections and campaigning little more than political theater. Multi-party, Parliamentary / representative democracy has proven to be the safest shell for capitalist rule, regardless of voting methods or differing political structures, for countries as diverse as Australia, Japan, Sweden, the UK, the US, South Korea, or Brazil.
Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle more accurately defined Democracy as rule by the poor, and they considered states based on elections to be anti-democratic Aristocracies, since only the wealthy and ruling families have the resources to finance elections. They contrasted this with random selection / sortition, and citizen's assemblies, as being the defining features of democracy, both of which are non-existent in the countries listed above. Today, liberal / parliamentary "democracies" are dominated by wealthy candidates, and entrenched political families, with Capitalists standing above political power.
This system of sham elections acts as a distracting theatre piece, giving the illusion of democracy, whilst in reality it serves to platform capitalist views, make them appear more popular than they are, and manufacture consent for the system itself.
Some more resources:
Thank you for your service