but when it comes to the West we’d expect a lot more

I agree. Perhaps I didn’t write it out explicitly before, but I don’t mean we stop at electoralism; just that it is part of the means to an end.

If we want something more than capitalism then it is imperative that a different party be formed for organising needs.

And that should be the goal, but not every place is going to have the numbers to sustain a party. I can see maybe Mamdani splitting one off in NYC. I don’t see a similar type person doing so in Springfield, MO happening at the same time, but there will still be people there that would support the party.

Besides building our credibility with opposition for concession we will need it also builds credibility with followers. If you can’t get people to show up and scribble on a paper why would they show up to a protest or not show up to work where the consequences are real and personal? Electoralism is one way we engage with the broader public.

Like I empathize with the

I think electoralism creates a trap where people become comfortable with “least harmful option” and not taking initiative to build something more tangible

But I think this view is setting up to fail because it ask for the movement to just come built rather than developed. Elections don’t start with voting for your guy they end with that. There is a lot of leg work that happens before hand. In many ways this is like a marathon; you can’t just show up and expect to go far.

Not working on this because you won’t win is a self fulfilling prophesy as well.

Even if you reeeally dont want to vote for anyone at least spoil your ballot and be counted as a protest vote; because again it shows willingness and credibility for escalation. Tho I should point out that there are very important local and state elections as well.

If you’re advocating for a new party that engages in electoralism

Overall yes, but practical steps in the mean time might mean tactically voting in the current tents to minimize harm and further our goals where we can.

Still to more broadly answer the question; because there is power in voting. It is a manifest of power and influence of the movement. Take Uganda right now as a bit of an example. They currently have a dictatorship and are doing some elections. I think its more or less clear that the needed results are already ready, but that is not the point of bringing them up. There are groups that want reforms and voicing their support does bring bodily harm; police and soldiers have already been doing intimidation rounds as expected. If those groups can get their followers to vote it still shows the dictator the limits of their power, but more importantly it shows credibility of those movements.

We in the west don’t really face harm by participating in elections, voting or spoiling your ballot. We can say our ideas are actually popular and we are many. That might be true and it is inconsequential if we cannot actually organize. Voting is just one way we do organize and build credible threats when we say we will do something more disruptive like a strike or protest. Winning elections also mean that we are having the mind shift needed for our polices.

That trash island is overrated anyway /s

It’s complicated for the average user,

The irony that M$ does this to its users

they ship it without any administrative controls to turn it off.

I thought one of the saving grace of windows corporate was having finer control?

That’s funny

Speaking of, did everyone know there was a mini series, the good lord bird, about him?

I’ve been called all kinds of things for elaborating why I think we should engage in electoralism as lefties. Even if someone was baiting them it does not take much for them to bite. If I was more into being cynical I would say they are the ideal representation of the left by J Edgar Hoover or something. The lack or wanting to organize seems like something he would want to inspire on to them.

Just how set do you have to be before you start praising the Soviet Union as

I guess how deadset is a you know it when you see it the of thing.

And again. I don’t find alt history interesting and its to open ended. I don’t think it makes for good discussions. Maybe they grow up.

and that it’s really, deep down, the first step to a better understanding of the world.

Yeah, everyone starts somewhere. Everyone is at a different part of the same journey to understanding the world around them. Someone moving should be encourage to stay moving. The com is for those that stay put or move back.

Pointing out one with some level of curiosity doesn’t serve goals I feel. People start their spark in real science in science fiction. Just gotta get them past the fantasy.

I’m aware I said so here

hile I wouldn’t agree with the quotes there it reads, to me, as someone showing their bias; which everyone has, even if ours is not with the USSR.

So I ask again:

Not sure, something about them needing continue their learning more on the complexities of the matter. Particularly on why many don’t agree. I find that alt history types are often young and romantic about a topic, as such they should be encourage to change their views for the better and paths should be made for them.

At least when I interact with tankies or alt right types I do so more as a conversation with the audience and the lurkers (rather than the person I am replying to) who might be interacting with the topic for the first time.

I don’t know that user, but the tone does not strike me as quite dead set, so I wouldn’t say is a good foil for this comm to make our point that tankies are detrimental to overall leftist movements, but that is just how i read the replies.

Still I am aware of the lens they are seeing things and feel that show casing them closes off others leaving that view from leaving as well.

… sin permiso.

I think a big reason for wanacy was also unpatched computers in corporate. Still it sucks that MS cannot be a good steward and chooses to keep a hostile attitude to its users in many regards.

I got room in my schedule

Aliens could also show up. There is no point in alt history.

Saying that the collapse of a superpower is multifaceted and complex is not a particularly deep or introspective view.

Sure, and its also how one starts to develop deeper and more introspective views. We are all should be expanding our understanding of the world around us. We are all at different places in how we see and understand things. I see this comm more as a highlight of stubbornness. I have not bummped into that particular user before, so maybe I am reading to much (little?) into it. I wouldn’t want to close someone off to further examining their biases; which is a hard thing to even start doing.

and if they had only put another decade and a half of a throwback hardliner like Andropov in, the USSR would’ve been on their way to solve their problems

And that is entirely possible, tho I am not interested in discussing alt history for any topic.

An acknowledgement that collapse is multifaceted and complicated is pretty introspective. While I wouldn’t agree with the quotes there it reads, to me, as someone showing their bias; which everyone has, even if ours is not with the USSR.

At least I just can’t read the statement and feel that it is so absurd as to highlight.

Idk that was a fairly balanced an introspective answer. Not really sure it belongs here.

And some how, the small government libertarians are all gone…

Those are not the same thing?

#til