Those people who lump Biden and Trump together point to two red lines, signing a bill that broke the railroad strike and the supply of arms to Israel during what has become a genocidal campaign. For them, because Biden did this, he is just as bad as Trump and does not deserve their vote. There may be other policy issues as well, but these two are the ones I’ve frequently heard here
For a lot of those who will still vote for Biden, these two red lines aren’t a difference between the two candidates and these voters want to reward the changes caused by the differences and make future policy changes that they want easier since a Biden administration is more likely to make changes over a Trump administration, even if that chance isn’t 100%.
There are other reasons on both sides, but this is probably the difference in viewpoints to the leftist people on the line about voting for Biden or no one/third party.
What I’m saying is that long term the viewpoints converge and are the same. A desire for more universal healthcare coverage, a desire for higher standards of living including higher minimum wage, lower cost of living, a desire for more broadly available public transit, a desire for a housing first approach to homelessness, prison reform, police reform, or abolition, probably a desire for more ethical domestic industry, and less third world exploitation, meaning ultimately less military spending. Then, a desire to keep all of this for any extended period of time, which probably results in a kind of anticapitalist sentiment. You could probably even get like, lots of conservatives to agree with a lot of this stuff. Certainly, I’ve seen that before, in any case.
Neither position on, vote for joe biden, or, don’t vote for joe biden, really has anything to do with those larger overarching desires, as I see it. Or, both positions can very viably be stances that one might take even with those desires, I suppose, is a better way to put it. Institutional reform on the one hand, and anti-authoritarian, anti-institutional action on the other. They both lend towards one another. Reformist governments aren’t stronger than fascist governments in regards to how they react to leftist action. If you have a larger capacity for union organization and solidarity under one regime than under the other, than for practical revolutionary purposes, you pick the former regime, right? You support those who would support the former regime, even if you might disagree as to the means by which you reach your sort of, endgames. Dual power. It’s easier to win when you’re not dividing yourselves up for silly reasons, it’s easier to have a successful revolution when you’re not also fighting a fascist government state. I think most of the historical narratives surrounding this sort of stuff kind of, pit the leftists against the libs, because the liberal, or even just the mainstream government, got destabilized, and leftists try to take power at the same time as fascists in that scenario, obviously, because that’s their historical soviet union october revolution moment maoism moment, and they then fail, usually because they’re not as vulnerable to outside political and economic influence, and then everyone blames each other when it’s all over, while the fascists get everything they want. I dunno, at least, that’s sort of the impression that I got from people telling me about the fall of germany to the nazis.
I’m not really disagreeing with what you’ve said in any way, I just find the focus on these differences to be really really dumb and stupid most of the time. More than that, even, I find these sorts of like, really cheap, low rent memes to be, not at all useful for convincing anyone to actually vote, and mostly they serve to just make people sort of bitter towards people who have ideologies ultimately pretty close to their own. I dunno though, maybe I’m sort of underestimating the differences between the two parties, or I’m understating the degree to which libs are willing to compromise on things like universal healthcare, in order to, say, increase police funding, or military spending, or domestic industrial economic concerns, things like that.
The long term desire may be the same, but the short term strategies are not.
I was also admittedly assuming good faith discussions on both sides. I think the idea of “don’t vote, just protest” is inherently the kind of platform that creates friction in society without long term change. While I believe most people I interact with on Lemmy believe this in good faith, I can see some arguing this in bad faith to sow discord.
Getting into my opinion, I don’t find the “don’t vote for Biden” strategy to be good because there isn’t decent long term strategy for change. There are some vague discussions on organizing and resistance, but the fascists have been organizing for over a decade and are armed. The best solution for a leftist government is going to be political, which feels boring to those who want to fight.
I dunno, I mean, I haven’t heard much in general of like, good faith advocacy for the position of not voting, but I can sort of see the logic behind the idea that, voting polls are used for reflections on the voting population, used as data for analysis by political parties. So I can sort of see the logic that, say, if you live in a state that’s pretty much guaranteed to go blue, or what have you, it might make sense to, either not vote, or vote for some alternative third party candidate. I think, you know, while, simultaneously a lot of bitching was done about bernie being a vote-stealer, I think there’s probably some case to be made that his candidacy, and his political advocacy, has done a good amount to bring, if not leftism and anticapitalism, at least, leftist positions, into the mainstream.
It’s maybe debatable as to whether establishment democrats have decided to adopt these positions in more than just lip service, but I think it’s still probably useful even if we’re just talking about the presentation of these non-mainstream opinions to the public. Maybe not, it’s hard to tell, but, if I were to like, try and play devil’s advocate, and try to construct a legitimate position along, not voting, or protest votes, I’d probably do so around that, right. Around the idea that, through FPTP voting, gerrymandering, and the electoral college, right, all these shitty, anti-democratic mechanisms that everyone can agree needs reform, there’s maybe some level of like, leeway that could be juiced for more organized protest votes that would serve some level of party reform. I’m not sure if that position really holds up to scrutiny, there’s a lot of IFs and assumptions there, but if I were to argue the position, that’s probably how I would. I think that’s a position that holds up to scrutiny more than, noooo, biden is bombing gaza, or, noooo, your vote for biden would otherwise have prevented trump, right, because it actually deals with the political reality at hand, rather than suffering under this delusion that we have a functional electoral system, or everyone’s votes are equally weighted, or that some states aren’t basically guaranteed to be won in one direction or the other.
I think my evidence of most of the arguers being in bad faith, I guess, or, only serving their own internal propagandist goals, right, is mostly just in how I have very rarely, and very rarely with any level of engagement, seen anyone sort of, elaborate, or even contest the validity of, arguments such as the previous one I’ve just proposed. It’s all surface level stuff, as far as the eye can see. At least, insofar as I’ve peeped. There’s no strategic concerns, it’s just garbage.
I look at the volume of what is being said and the relatively low number of people here as a sign that not everyone is making the argument in bad faith. Some are, with the intent of suppressing voting. However, I feel like some people truly believe this. I know because I’ve talked to people outside of Lemmy who believe this that I know aren’t paid Russian shills.
And yeah, a lot of it is just surface level stuff because they want to burn everything down in a revolution. If that is the case, it means participating in the current political system is worthless. The problem is that people of their political beliefs are likely not the ones who would be successful at overthrowing the government.
Both of those have major differences.
Those people who lump Biden and Trump together point to two red lines, signing a bill that broke the railroad strike and the supply of arms to Israel during what has become a genocidal campaign. For them, because Biden did this, he is just as bad as Trump and does not deserve their vote. There may be other policy issues as well, but these two are the ones I’ve frequently heard here
For a lot of those who will still vote for Biden, these two red lines aren’t a difference between the two candidates and these voters want to reward the changes caused by the differences and make future policy changes that they want easier since a Biden administration is more likely to make changes over a Trump administration, even if that chance isn’t 100%.
There are other reasons on both sides, but this is probably the difference in viewpoints to the leftist people on the line about voting for Biden or no one/third party.
What I’m saying is that long term the viewpoints converge and are the same. A desire for more universal healthcare coverage, a desire for higher standards of living including higher minimum wage, lower cost of living, a desire for more broadly available public transit, a desire for a housing first approach to homelessness, prison reform, police reform, or abolition, probably a desire for more ethical domestic industry, and less third world exploitation, meaning ultimately less military spending. Then, a desire to keep all of this for any extended period of time, which probably results in a kind of anticapitalist sentiment. You could probably even get like, lots of conservatives to agree with a lot of this stuff. Certainly, I’ve seen that before, in any case.
Neither position on, vote for joe biden, or, don’t vote for joe biden, really has anything to do with those larger overarching desires, as I see it. Or, both positions can very viably be stances that one might take even with those desires, I suppose, is a better way to put it. Institutional reform on the one hand, and anti-authoritarian, anti-institutional action on the other. They both lend towards one another. Reformist governments aren’t stronger than fascist governments in regards to how they react to leftist action. If you have a larger capacity for union organization and solidarity under one regime than under the other, than for practical revolutionary purposes, you pick the former regime, right? You support those who would support the former regime, even if you might disagree as to the means by which you reach your sort of, endgames. Dual power. It’s easier to win when you’re not dividing yourselves up for silly reasons, it’s easier to have a successful revolution when you’re not also fighting a fascist government state. I think most of the historical narratives surrounding this sort of stuff kind of, pit the leftists against the libs, because the liberal, or even just the mainstream government, got destabilized, and leftists try to take power at the same time as fascists in that scenario, obviously, because that’s their historical soviet union october revolution moment maoism moment, and they then fail, usually because they’re not as vulnerable to outside political and economic influence, and then everyone blames each other when it’s all over, while the fascists get everything they want. I dunno, at least, that’s sort of the impression that I got from people telling me about the fall of germany to the nazis.
I’m not really disagreeing with what you’ve said in any way, I just find the focus on these differences to be really really dumb and stupid most of the time. More than that, even, I find these sorts of like, really cheap, low rent memes to be, not at all useful for convincing anyone to actually vote, and mostly they serve to just make people sort of bitter towards people who have ideologies ultimately pretty close to their own. I dunno though, maybe I’m sort of underestimating the differences between the two parties, or I’m understating the degree to which libs are willing to compromise on things like universal healthcare, in order to, say, increase police funding, or military spending, or domestic industrial economic concerns, things like that.
The long term desire may be the same, but the short term strategies are not.
I was also admittedly assuming good faith discussions on both sides. I think the idea of “don’t vote, just protest” is inherently the kind of platform that creates friction in society without long term change. While I believe most people I interact with on Lemmy believe this in good faith, I can see some arguing this in bad faith to sow discord.
Getting into my opinion, I don’t find the “don’t vote for Biden” strategy to be good because there isn’t decent long term strategy for change. There are some vague discussions on organizing and resistance, but the fascists have been organizing for over a decade and are armed. The best solution for a leftist government is going to be political, which feels boring to those who want to fight.
I dunno, I mean, I haven’t heard much in general of like, good faith advocacy for the position of not voting, but I can sort of see the logic behind the idea that, voting polls are used for reflections on the voting population, used as data for analysis by political parties. So I can sort of see the logic that, say, if you live in a state that’s pretty much guaranteed to go blue, or what have you, it might make sense to, either not vote, or vote for some alternative third party candidate. I think, you know, while, simultaneously a lot of bitching was done about bernie being a vote-stealer, I think there’s probably some case to be made that his candidacy, and his political advocacy, has done a good amount to bring, if not leftism and anticapitalism, at least, leftist positions, into the mainstream.
It’s maybe debatable as to whether establishment democrats have decided to adopt these positions in more than just lip service, but I think it’s still probably useful even if we’re just talking about the presentation of these non-mainstream opinions to the public. Maybe not, it’s hard to tell, but, if I were to like, try and play devil’s advocate, and try to construct a legitimate position along, not voting, or protest votes, I’d probably do so around that, right. Around the idea that, through FPTP voting, gerrymandering, and the electoral college, right, all these shitty, anti-democratic mechanisms that everyone can agree needs reform, there’s maybe some level of like, leeway that could be juiced for more organized protest votes that would serve some level of party reform. I’m not sure if that position really holds up to scrutiny, there’s a lot of IFs and assumptions there, but if I were to argue the position, that’s probably how I would. I think that’s a position that holds up to scrutiny more than, noooo, biden is bombing gaza, or, noooo, your vote for biden would otherwise have prevented trump, right, because it actually deals with the political reality at hand, rather than suffering under this delusion that we have a functional electoral system, or everyone’s votes are equally weighted, or that some states aren’t basically guaranteed to be won in one direction or the other.
I think my evidence of most of the arguers being in bad faith, I guess, or, only serving their own internal propagandist goals, right, is mostly just in how I have very rarely, and very rarely with any level of engagement, seen anyone sort of, elaborate, or even contest the validity of, arguments such as the previous one I’ve just proposed. It’s all surface level stuff, as far as the eye can see. At least, insofar as I’ve peeped. There’s no strategic concerns, it’s just garbage.
I look at the volume of what is being said and the relatively low number of people here as a sign that not everyone is making the argument in bad faith. Some are, with the intent of suppressing voting. However, I feel like some people truly believe this. I know because I’ve talked to people outside of Lemmy who believe this that I know aren’t paid Russian shills.
And yeah, a lot of it is just surface level stuff because they want to burn everything down in a revolution. If that is the case, it means participating in the current political system is worthless. The problem is that people of their political beliefs are likely not the ones who would be successful at overthrowing the government.