For the record I mostly agree with you, but those other things necessarily require twisting the centrists’ arms, which means hitting them where it hurts (votes being one of the more obvious targets). To unpack the metaphor, putting all of one’s political capital into slower fascism naturally means that little to none of it will be going to no fascism; for example “implement this policy I want or I won’t vote for you” is a classic way to force politicians to do things but it’s impossible to pull off if your ultimate priority is preserving the slower fascism coalition. You can remember the Palestine protests for what that looks like in practice, but the short of it is that there are things you can’t do if you decide you’re never going to publicly oppose the centrists.
In the US specifically, I think the DSA is an excellent example of how to tackle this in practice. While at the national level the “fascism but slower” party is preferable for harm reduction, you can use primaries to forcibly change the character of that party into a democratic socialist party over time.
…ITs already goong off the cliff. Look at Sudan, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine, Iran, Mexico, Colombia, and The Congo and then tell me that the car isnt goimg off the cliff already loool!🤭😏
ALSO have you seen what effects climate change is ALREADY having on different places on the planet?
I don’t disagree. Climate change is bad, and fascism is bad. No argument here. However, a government that causes less harm is preferable to a government that causes more. This is why voting, alongside a suite of other tactics (protests, strikes, civil disobedience, etc) are necessary if you’re interested in saving lives.
If you’re not, and are willing to sacrifice people on the altar of some hypothetical post-collapse better world, then i vehemently disagree.
“Oh yes! We are such heroes because we voted in Fascist-That-Would-Needlessly-Sacrifice-Less-Global-South-Children over Fascist-That-Would-Needlessly-Sacrifce-More-Global-South-Children 😋👍🏻 (…rather than just taking them both out and making a government that works for us, works for thhe average person and doesnt needlessly bomb and sanction innocent children in otherr parts of the planet)”
Aha! So my choices are facists who will drive me off the cliff slowly or fascists who will drive me off the cliff quickly . !
NICE CHOICES GOIS!
‘jUst VoTE tHe FasciSm AwAy1!!¿¡21’
Voting doesn’t remove your ability to do other things as well. The car going off the cliff slower gives you more time to do those other things.
For the record I mostly agree with you, but those other things necessarily require twisting the centrists’ arms, which means hitting them where it hurts (votes being one of the more obvious targets). To unpack the metaphor, putting all of one’s political capital into slower fascism naturally means that little to none of it will be going to no fascism; for example “implement this policy I want or I won’t vote for you” is a classic way to force politicians to do things but it’s impossible to pull off if your ultimate priority is preserving the slower fascism coalition. You can remember the Palestine protests for what that looks like in practice, but the short of it is that there are things you can’t do if you decide you’re never going to publicly oppose the centrists.
In the US specifically, I think the DSA is an excellent example of how to tackle this in practice. While at the national level the “fascism but slower” party is preferable for harm reduction, you can use primaries to forcibly change the character of that party into a democratic socialist party over time.
…ITs already goong off the cliff. Look at Sudan, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine, Iran, Mexico, Colombia, and The Congo and then tell me that the car isnt goimg off the cliff already loool!🤭😏
ALSO have you seen what effects climate change is ALREADY having on different places on the planet?
I don’t disagree. Climate change is bad, and fascism is bad. No argument here. However, a government that causes less harm is preferable to a government that causes more. This is why voting, alongside a suite of other tactics (protests, strikes, civil disobedience, etc) are necessary if you’re interested in saving lives.
If you’re not, and are willing to sacrifice people on the altar of some hypothetical post-collapse better world, then i vehemently disagree.
…there are ALREADY people being sacrificed…wot?
…you didnt read my comment?
Sure, but voters can decide if they want more or less people sacrificed.
…
“Oh yes! We are such heroes because we voted in Fascist-That-Would-Needlessly-Sacrifice-Less-Global-South-Children over Fascist-That-Would-Needlessly-Sacrifce-More-Global-South-Children 😋👍🏻 (…rather than just taking them both out and making a government that works for us, works for thhe average person and doesnt needlessly bomb and sanction innocent children in otherr parts of the planet)”