213
Sunday School Lesson
(hexbear.net)
Love this. I just wonder what the original said.
"Protesting."
That's better than what I thought, "Voting"
remembering the time where Marsha P. Johnson went to ~~the streets of~~ the polling place of New York City and threw ~~bricks~~ ballots at ~~police officers~~ ballot boxes
Marsha P 
Johnson :3
Lol history doesn't advance because of 1 simple trick. Violent civil unrest, peaceful protests, electorialism, revolutionary action... They've all played their part and claiming that one is solely responsible inspires infighting amongst a crowd that should be united under a common cause.
I want to call on my comrades to read critically and not just dunk reflexively. This is a meme so of course it’s simplified, but the Rooskie makes a good point that a key part is missing here.
Violent unrest is not by itself revolutionary violence. Without an organised vanguard, with an ideologically coherent political agenda, and enjoying the support of a class conscious activated base, violence is mere adventurism.
And while many here will react at the inclusion of electoralism in the list above, I urge you to be precise in your thinking and analysis. We rightly make fun of liberal electoralism around here, it is not the only kind possible. The imperialist powers have (and still do) relentlessly propagated the lie that communism is antithetical to democratic rule and decisions are taken by autocratic diktat. That has never been the case and we should not concede that bigger point so we can score a point dunking on a stranger.
Lmao
Edit: On reflection I have to agree with comrade @nohaybanda@hexbear.net. That said, this is really not the place to take a stand on behalf of electoralism, and honestly I question whether the current US version of same is worth even as much as the pile of shit my dog crapped out this morning.
Violent protests - gay rights, desegregation, decolonization
Electoralism - tax cuts
claiming that one is solely responsible inspires infighting amongst a crowd that should be united under a common cause.
If electoralism wants to be part of the gang then maybe it should do something useful. It’s not “divisive” to point out that it’s trying to take credit for things it didn’t contribute to.
MLK pointed it out. The “moderate” is more dangerous than an open white supremacist because at least the white supremacist is being honest with you. It’s good to divide from those who don’t contribute and who inevitably stab you in the back.
For real, tell me electoralisms greatest achievement. I don’t need a list, give me one thing.
Liberal electoralism is not the only kind there is. I would argue that the Chinese conception of Representational democracy is a form of electoral politics. The devil’s in the details.
Considering @Rooskie91@discuss.online explicitly listed revolutionary action as a valid strategy, I think they deserve a good faith attempt to engage.
My question was made in good faith.
What’s the greatest achievement of electoralism?
I’ve linked an example above. Are you already familiar with the concept but disagree with my thesis that this is a form of electoral politics? If I proposed that Soviet council power was a form of electoral politics (as opposed to direct democracy or autocratic rule), would you disagree or expand on that?
Or are you doubling down on you in initial knee jerk reaction and refusing to engage critically and seriously? The first step of a good faith attempt to engage with ideas is to ask for clarification.
Rio is asking for a specific accomplishment; you're pointing out systems of government. As such, it looks like the two of you are talking past one another at the moment.
Cuba’s pivot on LGBTQ rights is a direct result of electoral politics? Or do we take the CIA line that all communist societies are autocratic systems where a single man makes all decisions?
Look, I wasn't making the argument; you'll see elsewhere in this thread that I agree with you. I was just trying to get your conversation back on track. That...doesn't seem to have worked very well, unfortunately.
Yeah my apologies. I’ll take a step back and cool off.
What you are talking about is called "democracy." Electoralism is a method of power transfer from the few to the many.
Yes I am talking about democracy. A subset of democratic governance is representative democracy, in which political functionaries and leaders are elected by way of popular* elections and given some* power to govern. Electoralism then is the practice of engaging with electoral politics using a variety of tactics - agitation, propaganda, canvassing, organised voting, voter suppression - in order to empower delegates who will in turn attempt to advance a political agenda. The "transfer of power from the few to the many" is one such agenda that may be pursued electorally. It is wrong to equate the goal with the political practice, they are different.
Now, within socialist tradition there exists a strain of politics, which centers electoralism as the primary mode of political struggle towards the empowerment of the working class, to the exclusion or suppression of more active forms of struggle. That is called reformism. I challenge every one of you arguing with me here to show me where I have advocated for reformism.
- I know these vary a lot, don't @ me
I asked a direct question: what is an achievement in terms of civil rights or social progress.
What’s more that was obviously in the context of western liberal democracy anyway.
You point to a system in China that hasn’t really achieved any system change either and then go on to say some rant about me having a knee jerk reaction.
All that after saying I’m arguing in bad faith.
Go fuck yourself or give me an example of system change, preferably one in the context of western liberal democracy since that’s clearly the relevant context but if you can’t do that I’ll also take an example from China because I’m not a bad faith douche bag and I’ll let you move the goal posts if that helps you.
Eat my entire ass. I very explicitly rejected the idea that liberal electoralism is the only possible kind and gave a reason why we should not default to capitalist societies as the sole or default carriers of the democratic tradition.
While we’re on the subject. good faith approach: hey what do you mean by electoralism here?
Bad faith: your aggro bullshit
EDIT: I’m being aggro as well. My apologies, I’ll take a step back and cool off
While you take time to cool off try and think of ONE EXAMPLE
All you’re doing is pontificating. I’m asking for an example. A concrete example. You’re not giving me one, you’re just sounding off, accusing me of shit, and being an ass.
He did offer the example of Cuba's pivot on LGBTQ rights in response to me, which I think is a reasonable one.
You're 100% right and anyone that tries to dunk on you needs to read history
Internet leftists spend too much time with in-group/out-group dynamics and learning from memes. The real world is complex, what constitutes a good or bad strategy is wholely contextual.
And broadly speaking, violence outside of organized strategy or a party is usually adventurism and counterproductive.
Not an anarchist but this is a good read on this subject https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state
this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
213 points (100.0% liked)
memes
22497 readers
642 users here now
dank memes
Rules:
-
All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.
-
No unedited webcomics.
-
Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net, it's a great comm.
-
Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.
-
Follow the code of conduct.
-
Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.
-
Recent reposts might be removed.
-
No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS