You must log in or # to comment.
I’m seeing a weird amount of anti-voting posts 2 months before an extremely consequential midterm that’s very likely to shift the balance in Congress unless an incredible amount of voter suppression occurs (and oh look, lots of sketchy voter suppression is going on, plus it would be very inexpensive to spin up some social media campaigns to try to discourage voting)
[After an election] “Voting won’t fix things.”
“…”
[7 months later] “Voting won’t fix things.”
“…”
[7 months later] “Voting won’t fix things.”
“…”
[7 months later] “Voting won’t fix things.”
“Ever notice how you only ever see people saying this right before an election?”
I have seen like 30 anti voting posts in the past week, which is about 5x more frequent than I’ve ever seen it on lemmy
It’s textbook confirmation bias. We have whole communities around here filled with anarchists and Marxists, all throughout the year.
I see we are ramping up the anti voting memes up ahead of the American election, comrades.
Democrats not turning out in 2024 IS what got trump and the GOP into majority power in all branches of government. Now they wanna make sure you don’t come out so the dictatorship can finish its installation.
Correct. But I am pointing out the increase in “voting doesn’t work” rhetoric, which only helps right wing extremists.
There is no left wing extremist party but not voting doesn’t make that happen.
The right wing extremists have been compromising for decades by picking the furthest right candidate available but for whatever reason voices purported to be on the left keep demanding purity tests, which to me is antithetical to leftism but that’s a whole different topic.
'Tis the season, after all. The leaves’re changing, time to prime the plebs.
Yup! just keep spreading anti-voting propaganda! THAT’LL DEFINITELY HELP
Why vote for better leaders when you can just doomscroll and pretend you’re daddy’s special lil anarchist boy that understands everything so fucking perfectly!
jog on, prick
Do both. Vote and rebel. Hit all fronts.
Exactly! Why so many people seem to think you can’t do both is bizarre to me. Makes you wonder if they’re actually arguing in good faith or not.
I sometimes wonder if the majority on Lemmy are here solely for arguments.
I’ve found that a lot of reddit users recently migrated to Lemmy and brought their bad faith with them. As well just generally acting like dipshits.
There’s legitimate money and special interests to sway the election. Whether that’s with bots or paying for troll farms to post propaganda
Well many here are just rejected redditer so…
(me included btw))
This is the most sane answer here - fighting one war while letting them win the other isn’t wise. Doing both and securing all the fronts is how we win.
And we certainly dont win by calling each other dipshits - unless your mission is to dismantle the left.
See I support this, it’s the people who think voting by itself will suddenly fix everything that I think are delusional.
You cant generally vote fascists out once they’ve sufficiently subverted or removed democratic processes, but they can be voted in especially if they’re the ones motivated to actually do so, their efforts to subvert those processes take a variable amount of time to complete that sometimes means they’re not totally done by the next election cycle, and even in the case of rigged/subverted elections, its not like they’ll suddenly become more fascist if people vote against them but won’t if people don’t do that.
It’s also not like voting, when possible, takes away a person’s ability to also try anything else. So, unless you have good reason to believe that a given election is actively dangerous, like that they’re only holding it to learn who would vote against them given the option or something like that, it makes sense to participate if the option exists.
Worst case, the election is meaningless and one wastes a small amount of time in trying it. Best case, you overestimated how much the process had already been subverted and the election system proves to be still functional. In neither case does casting a vote against someone that seems to be a fascist or similar make them more likely to succeed than if you’d simply stayed home.
If people voting against them did benefit fascists, they wouldn’t spend so much effort on undermining elections and voter intimidation, it would be counterproductive.
Yeah, it sucked when they had to invade to get Orban out of office…
Thank you
Orban was not a fascist what are you talking about
Anarchist spreading shit to enable fascism and feel justified while everyone suffers.
Fuck off.
I bet you never got arrested at a protest. Have you had the secret service or FBI visit you yet? If the answer is no than you’re supporting the fascist government instead of fighting it!
Is this sarcasm
How is the colour of the skin a political view? Racists are pretty confused people it seems.
I’ve honestly come to the conclusion that white communists, at least the ones online, believe most nonwhite people are radicalized.
It’s a very Americancentric view.
[image of billions of dead bodies of innocent people with dipshit 22 year olds cheering that they’ve solved everything]
This is how tankies think socialism works.
This is how decades of underfunded education looks. This is not by accident.
As opposed to fascism which doesn’t kill anyone and is only supported by big brain academics
“it’s only fascism when other people want to annihilate their political rivals. When I do it, it’s the lord’s work”
“Everyone should have equal rights” and “all poor and black people deserve to be shot” are the same thing!
Also nice fucking strawman. It’s pretty obvious here that my critique is against tankies who unironically think a misguided/lacking leftist is the same thing as a Nazi despite the fact that tankies themselves condone mass murder and display a pathetic lack of actual principles, all while pretending that only they have morals and everyone who isn’t a tankie is pure evil incarnate.
“See, I want to line up people and execute them for their own good! LIbErAlS want to die!”
??? I said nothing about lining up people nor liberals, even less it being for “their own good”. Nice exercise of finding a way to feel attacked, but why?
I’m not an authoritarian tankie that wants to never hear a dissenting opinion. If someone pretends like their race or nation is superior to others they deserve to be punched s’all I’m saying
I’m not an authoritarian tankie that wants to never hear a dissenting opinion
Then you would’ve had no reason to respond to any of this
Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg
After the NSDAP got a third of the seats in parliament in 1932.
True, but my point was that Hitler was not elected by any democratic process
Wasn’t it standard practice to appoint someone from the winning party?
Perhaps it was. However, Hitler wasn’t a member of the opposition party in 1932/3
I’m gonna be real I don’t know enough about german history to participate in this debate, gg
Much better than pretending that you know what you’re talking about and acting like an asshole
Fr fr
Isn’t that more evidence that you can’t stop fascism by voting?
This Lemmy ad paid for republicans to support centrists so fewer people vote committee
The voting is part of it yes?
yeah I don’t get the hate. I never interpret these as “voting doesn’t matter, don’t do it”. but I guess that’s not common, in which case, fair
vote, but execute [action ]as well
Hitler was voted into power.
So he would never have been elected with enough counter votes.
That’s patently not true, he was actually appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg (a centrist who won because of “strategic voting” by the left) before actually winning any elections.
Hindenburg was hard-right, not a centrist by a long stretch.
Ok, fair enough. My point was that he was elected by left & center voting strategically to prevent hitler from rising to power. And yet he betrayed them and made hitler chancellor anyway.
Germany was (and is) a parliamentary system. Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party, and the Nazis were elected to a plurality of the seats in the Reichstag.
The standard practice at the time was that the leader of the plurality party got to be Chancellor. To not have done so would have been weird and undemocratic.
To add to the other comment, it was also “weird and undemocratic” to grant the title of Chancellor to a dude who literally tried an undemocratic coup already and whose ideology was almost explicitly about dismantling democracy.
We can’t afford reverence to unspoken practices or customs or “good-faith” when dealing with fascists. Fascists are not dealing in good faith, they will use the system of laws and customs you created to get into power, cement themselves there by destroying parts of the system which oppose them, and finally get to enriching themselves as much as possible while sowing death and destruction and bigotry everywhere.
There were strategic mistakes made by the communists which indirectly helped hitler to power (the same kind was ironically made by dems in 2010s). But it was Hindenburg who turned hitler from a wannabe dictator into an actual dictator in charge of a country.
Hindenburg, the 230 duly elected Nazis (with there 13 million voters), and the Nazi party apparatus that made Hitler leader.
If you pull off a political miracle, you might be able to keep a 37℅ plurality (with significant electoral momentum) out of power for a cycle; maybe 2. But a democracy cannot keep such a popular movement out of power indefinitely.
The time to keep the Nazis out of power was the 1932 election. Any move after that is just a Hail Mary gambit
It was still a choice made by hindenburg, even within the confines of the “democratic” system. He had the power to not buckle to nazism. He could, by law and by custom, create a coalition government with Centre, SPD and KPD (who together had more support than NSDAP) and yet he didn’t, because he was part of the capitalist class and thought nazism would work out better for his class than socialism. It were not the voters who chose hitler, it was a bourgeois “lesser-evil” candidate.
The standard practice at the time was that the leader of the plurality party got to be Chancellor. To not have done so would have been weird and undemocratic.
That’s not remotely true and not how any parliamentary system works lmao.
Say two parties get 30% of the vote and a third gets 40%. The two parties don’t like the third one so they form a coalition with each other instead. That coalition is who 60% of the vote went to. They pick a chancellor who is amenable to both parties in the coalition. How on earth is that “undemocratic?”
The “standard practice” of the party with a plurality getting the position of chancellor was simply because the party with a plurality had always been part of the governing coalition.
As far as I know, he was voted in. So get the fuck out with this bullshit of yours
Not really, no. He was appointed.
Wiki paints me a different picture: NSDAP did get actual support. Along with using a long list of very non-democratic ways to get more power, though
He got support but there was no national vote for Hitler.
True that
That doesn’t rebut OP’s posit
It does. Long before the need of having to get facists out arises there is an option to not get them in
Edit: which is actually what democratic process should be about. Keep your society well-functioning constantly. Or you’ll have a hell of a time bringing it back to normal out of insanity
You’re finished Adolph…
