No, and this is where the metaphor falls apart, because a revolution needs to be a mass movement. Not a coup. To put so much focus on voting is a privledge reserved for those not actively crushed by the system, at home or abroad.
Thing is, if you decline those things, those people will still be crushed and starving, and you’ll just have an empty stomach yourself and a slightly more shit government.
And if people say that the only way to get to the moon is building a giant sandcastle, and refuse to help building the rocket, then that makes it that much harder to put food on everyone’s table, not just those not yet crushed.
Who in this debate is arguing for voting instead of leftist action?
I mean to say I really don’t get why filling out that ballot once or twice every four years precludes leftist action altogether. It’s really not one or the other.
Nobody is making that argument either. The point is that liberals see the system as fundamentally reformable, and this is incorrect. This is a real group of people that believes lesser evil voting will somehow result in an eventually good system, that capitalism just needs to be reformed from within.
But that faulty logic doesn’t mean it’s wrong to endorse voting…
Just because your opponent makes a fallacious argument doesn’t mean their actions are self evidently wrong… Voting could have still been used to prevent a lot of shit even it’s not going to “result in an eventually good system”. The system liberals want to reform ACTUALLY EXISTS.
It’d be like refusing to get a job because capitalism is evil and workers are delusional and think they’re a few years from being millionaires and getting a job won’t “help the socialist revolution”. Yes it’s silly to think that working will make you a millionaire … but materially is still makes no sense to refuse to be employed under capitalism right now just for the principle, regardless of ideology.
I assume you still have a day job when you’re not planning for the revolution, right? How are you paying for your placards?
I am explicitly arguing against reformism, and for revolution, which requires that people actually organize. If people assume that they just need to vote every once in a while and that that’s all that’s necessary, then revolution becomes much more difficult.
That’s not an argument for not voting, though. It’s an argument for voting not being the be all end all. That’s where you’re losing me.
Probably most of the liberals you’re talking about struggle to engage with much else because they have work in the morning or they’ve entirely lost faith that the rocket is even coming… and it may well not be.
Like I say, the US system has been “beyond reform” for a good few decades now but the revolution is no closer than it was 30 years ago. If anything, it only seems even further off…
No, and this is where the metaphor falls apart, because a revolution needs to be a mass movement. Not a coup. To put so much focus on voting is a privledge reserved for those not actively crushed by the system, at home or abroad.
You’re right, it is a privilege…
So is having food on the table.
Thing is, if you decline those things, those people will still be crushed and starving, and you’ll just have an empty stomach yourself and a slightly more shit government.
And if people say that the only way to get to the moon is building a giant sandcastle, and refuse to help building the rocket, then that makes it that much harder to put food on everyone’s table, not just those not yet crushed.
Who in this debate is arguing for voting instead of leftist action?
I mean to say I really don’t get why filling out that ballot once or twice every four years precludes leftist action altogether. It’s really not one or the other.
Nobody is making that argument either. The point is that liberals see the system as fundamentally reformable, and this is incorrect. This is a real group of people that believes lesser evil voting will somehow result in an eventually good system, that capitalism just needs to be reformed from within.
But that faulty logic doesn’t mean it’s wrong to endorse voting…
Just because your opponent makes a fallacious argument doesn’t mean their actions are self evidently wrong… Voting could have still been used to prevent a lot of shit even it’s not going to “result in an eventually good system”. The system liberals want to reform ACTUALLY EXISTS.
It’d be like refusing to get a job because capitalism is evil and workers are delusional and think they’re a few years from being millionaires and getting a job won’t “help the socialist revolution”. Yes it’s silly to think that working will make you a millionaire … but materially is still makes no sense to refuse to be employed under capitalism right now just for the principle, regardless of ideology.
I assume you still have a day job when you’re not planning for the revolution, right? How are you paying for your placards?
I am explicitly arguing against reformism, and for revolution, which requires that people actually organize. If people assume that they just need to vote every once in a while and that that’s all that’s necessary, then revolution becomes much more difficult.
That’s not an argument for not voting, though. It’s an argument for voting not being the be all end all. That’s where you’re losing me.
Probably most of the liberals you’re talking about struggle to engage with much else because they have work in the morning or they’ve entirely lost faith that the rocket is even coming… and it may well not be.
Like I say, the US system has been “beyond reform” for a good few decades now but the revolution is no closer than it was 30 years ago. If anything, it only seems even further off…