- cross-posted to:
- agitprop
- cross-posted to:
- agitprop
You must log in or # to comment.
Oh totally, this is why Melenchon is the prime minister of France now!
France is an excellent example actually; voting third party led to a fourth party win; if America can successfully empower both a third and fourth party then we end up with more choices down the line, so yeah, vote third party.
You bet! The party that won didn't get the power but don't let this affect your actions.
Absolutely, more parties offers more choices and removes the duopoly we currently have.
It's a bit horrifying, but I've met people who would unironically think this is a great idea.
People really do be out here thinking that one of the two evil parties we have are just gonna establish ranked choice voting and make everything nice. One day.
Idk. You need like half the voters voting for you to become President and there can only be one President.
I'm not saying don't vote for a third party but it's not going to do much unless you have atleast half the country behind you.
Winning the presidency is not the only goal for third parties. They contest for a lot of other reasons. Some are grifters. Some use it as a platofrm to increase their party's reach. I think voting third party is good for signalling a lack of faith in the tired two party duopoly. Voting between the two big parties is essentially meaningless anyway. If the bourgeoisie don't like what the people elect they can let the electoral college off the leash or just do lawfare like they did with Bush/Gore in a case that is not meant to be used as a precedent for other cases for some reason.
Honestly making the existing two parties panic and make changes to get votes back is still a good idea, and if you get the ball rolling in earnest then I still believe we can see the rise of a third party.
In the US, getting 5% of the national vote qualifies you for federal funding. It's a high barrier to entry, but surpassing it would allow a party to further spread its message.
Idk. You need like half the voters voting for you to become President and there can only be one President.
And that's not even accounting for a bourgeois "democracy", in which no challenge to the ruling class interests would ever be tolerated. Loooong history on that to look at. Ask Allende about moderate social revolution through elections. Ask France about strategic electoralism. 80% of the US could vote for Claudia and she would still never take office, one way or the other.
Revolutions against the bourgeois class are won from the end of a gun and by no other means, otherwise we're submitting to a state monopoly on violence designed to be used legally against us.
This!
Also, when I need to discuss "change through burgeois electoralism" with libs I love sharing this interview:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240930111014/https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/1934/10/h-g-wells-it-seems-me-i-am-more-left-you-mr-stalin
It's so perfect; it's a reputable Western newspaper so you can share it in almost any setting, just preface it for plausible deniability with something like: "It's a hilarious read, one of the greatest modern liberal intellectuals debates a genocidal maniac throthing at the mouth!"
Libs love the idea and usually swallow the bait expecting funzies, they looooove them a stuck-up Brit "talking truth to power" and handing out "hitchslaps".
And then Stalin absolutely demolishes Wells and it really fucks with their world. Wells says FDR's New Deal will bring about socialism in the USA and Stalin's like nah cause the economy is in the hands of capitalists so at most you will get some concessions which capitalists will keep fighting to revert. Stalin's arguments are so clear and concise, and his predictions are so plainly correct, while Wells is just being confidently wrong and terribly smug about it.
I had some success with it too, including one well-meaning lib literally telling me the next day, "Stalin was right" which are the three words I would not expect a lib utter under any circumstances.
one well-meaning lib literally telling me the next day, “Stalin was right”
Show
They meant that specific interview of course, not Stalin in general, and they're as left as libs come. Still couldn't believe my ears.
Thanks for the link. I've only read one of Wells' books and had never considered whatever his political views were. Even good science fiction tends to intertwine with very disappointing politics. Wells takes so many giant Ls here, not least of which is to fingerwag at Soviet success for its revolutionary necessities, which I'm sure would have been apparent had he been there to experience those conditions. He seems to imply he would have simply debatebro'd the Tzar into accepting some reforms. I get the impression Wells was convinced Keynesianism was some new higher and evolved form of socialism, which has to be the biggest L of them all.
I know, so many Ls! 😂
Wells keeps pointing at random butterflies and going "Is this Socialism?" (like, FDR is building offices and creating govt agencies in the US, isn't that the same thing you're doing in the USSR?) and Stalin keeps patiently explaining...
When Wells confuses technological progress with Socialism he sounds like a proto-techbro lol. He genuinely thinks all you need to do is convince technical intelligencia to become socialists and then intelligentsia will "organise" the rest of society, as simple as pressing a button.
My highlight is probably when he critisizes JP Morgan for only caring about profits and then goes on to praise Rockefeller and Ford as the kind of capitalists who would help bring about socialism... Of course both were instrumental in creating Nazism instead, Rockefeller by supporting eugenics "research" in the 30s Germany and Ford by supporting NSDAP directly and with such fervor that Hitler wanted to make Ford the leader of the fascist movement in the US.
Wells keeps pointing at random butterflies and going “Is this Socialism?”
Fuckin Keynesians, man. I hate how rehabilitated that shit has become when talking to libs.
To that last bit, I found that remarkable too. Stalin seemed to have a such greater bead on what is happening in the US than the "plugged in" armchair intellectual who came all that way to sing the praises of misunderstood capitalism, and to specifically name some pretty grotesque people as champions. He points to the expansion of a capitalist state bureaucracy under FDR that produced the USMIC which functions as the largest anti-communist force on earth. Hmmmm.... maybe socialism is not just about people having jobs? It really would have been the cherry on top if Wells had brought up how Germany just started organizing under a new "socialist" party...
In the US third parties are more or less legally prevented from winning due to all sorts of legal codification of the parties in state election laws. For an election to take place in Ohio (as an example) without Dems or Reps existing would necessitate rewritten election policy. ”Anti-corruption measures” necessitate a registered democrat and a registered republican are together with the ballots at all times. So it’s not this simple by any stretch of the imagination. Dems and reps have legal power other organizations do not. They use this (beyond the simple inertia they maintain) to ensure they hold power. I cant speak on parliamentary systems so if it was intended to apply to that, fair enough. Voting third party in the US (at best) indicates to the closest ideologically aligned major party which way they need to move their policy to capture the fringes.
EDIT: another comment I read mentioned that a third party reaching a certain percentage would open funding and while I’m not positive on how that all works makes sense to me. So while I’m probably being a bit overly dismissive of third party voting I think my point still stands for the most part.
PS this reality evidences the necessity of revolution not continuing to ‘vote blue no matter who’
The Western European diaspora assumed that their election were rigged even as they championed themselves as leader of democracy? They could claim that election with more than two candidate parties are impossible, but that contradicts their criticisms towards China's two candidates election in Hong Kong that replace the British authoritarian system with no election.
