478
Harm Reduction Rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
There are no ethical choices under first-past-the-post voting. We must instead make a decision that reduces the most harm.
I am talking about social democracy. I will explain what I mean.
I am not reinventing a term. I am including the idea, that workers should own the corporations they work for, in social democracy. I am not the only or first person to do this. This does not stop what I am advocating for being social democracy. Over focusing on definitions is not an effective strategy for arguments.
As I said in my argument, they had to fight for those rights. But people who had the right to vote still had to vote. We need direct action and civil disobedience, but if people don't vote then all that goes to waste.
With direct action, civil disobedience, and voting. I am arguing for social democracy. A set of ideas and policies that includes socialism and democracy.
Theory is the backbone of practical application. We need theory, but we have to be willing to point out when something is wrong with the theory.
My point is that we need to vote in record numbers to correct for the overrepresentation of Republicans. So we need to address concerns people have with voting. A major concern I see on the internet are ethical concerns. That's why it's important to tell people there are no ethical choices under FPTP voting. The goal must be to reduce harm by voting for the candidate that does the least harm.
I finally see what you're talking about! You are confusing Social Democracy with Democratic Socialism! Social Democracy is what I said, Capitalism with robust safety nets, and is practiced in Nordic Countries. Democratic Socialism is Socialism with Liberal Democracy, found in Bolivia and in Chile under Allende. That clears up a lot of what was wrong with what you were saying, haha.
Actually, voting mattered very little when it came to the Civil Rights Movement, Black American voting rights, and Women's Suffrage. The US is not a direct democracy, there weren't ballot questions. The government was legitimately worried about revolutionary uprising.
I am not telling you not to vote. I am telling you to reassess your priorities. Voting is the least effective way to get what you want. It helps, sure, so people absolutely should do it, but it doesn't even come close to actual striking, civil disobediance, and mass protesting when it comes to effecting change.
Since you clarify wanting Socialism and Democracy, I need to clarify some things. Social in Social Democracy refers to Social Programs, like housing initiatives, and Democracy refers to Liberal Democracy, not direct democracy, Socialist Democracy, or otherwise. All Socialism must be democratic, otherwise it isn't Socialism. The question becomes what type of Democracy. Democratic Socialism isn't the only type of Socialist Democracy, rather, it's a term for using Liberal Democracy with a Socialist economy.
As for theory, you have not pointed anything wrong with Marxism, just your lack of knowledge of it. This isn't gatekeeping! You are free to learn it so that you can discuss why you agree or disagree with Marxism, but pointing at nonexistant holes you imaged Marxism has gets nobody anywhere.
As for voting, that's a fine point to make, but it appears the backbone of that point is based on misrepresentation of other's viewpoints, and as such will convince nobody. Most people already agree with you, and those that do not will not accept flimsy and broken logic.
I responded to this in one of the other comment chains. I am a social democrat. I want to achieve change through a political revolution.
Voting was essential. Representatives who agreed with the ideas of the Civil Rights Movements, Black American voting rights, and Women's Suffrage voted for them in Congress. Black American voting rights and Women's Suffrage also had to passed at the state level as part of the ratification process. People who agreed with these ideas had to get them over the finish line. This is an essential part of progressive change. The government isn't some collective hive mind that only responds to fear. Democracy is in fact a market place of ideas. People need to be convinced that the ideas are good and then vote for representatives that will pursue those ideas as policies.
Voting is an essential part of social change. If people do the actual striking, civil disobedience, and mass protesting, but then don't vote it will have been for not. The Republicans want to rule people not lead and are controlled by fascists. They will not respond to anything. So they need to voted out of office. They are attempting a fascist takeover of the US. If they succeed, there will be no democracy at that point. They will use the power of the state to kill everyone that openly disagrees with them. To avoid this outcome we must win elections in addition to adopting socialism and fixing our democracy. Since Republicans are overrepresented by our democracy we must vote in record numbers to achieve the elections outcomes that we want. So getting as many people to turn out to vote is the priority for this election year. And every election year going forward until our democracy moves past FPTP and fully embraces majority rule.
This is a tangent but honestly we should have mandatory voting and a person can mark no vote if they don't want to choose someone. Like we have compulsory jury duty, because the system wouldn't have enough jurors otherwise. How we could be ok with not everyone voting when the decisions will impact everyone is becoming more and more silly to me.
Social programs are part of socialism. Democracy refers to democracy. In the US we have a federal presidential constitutional republic. This is the kind of democracy I want in America, but it needs to fixed to not overrepresent particular groups of people. Representative democracy doesn't mean minority rule, it just uses representatives to scale to the population. I am not necessarily advocating for direct democracy exclusively in our economic systems. I think the workers would decide for themselves what form of internal democratic system they use based on the number of workers at the company. What the workers choose should be some form of democracy that ensures majority rule. Although I assume large companies would use a representation model and small companies would choose a direct model. Liberal democracy are democracies with a capitalist economic system. Social democracies are democracies with a socialist economic system. There I think I clarified what I mean which is relevant since its what I am arguing. The terms and definitions and categories you are trying to box my argument into are not what am I arguing and are not relevant.
I have in the other comment thread. I have pointed out a flaw with Marxism. You have not provided any argument to refute my central point just ad hominem attacks designed to make me seem less knowledgeable than you. Which of us is more knowledgeable about Marxist theory in general is not relevant to the discussion about this or any particular point of Marxist theory. But it is gatekeeping. Here is the point again. It is about perhaps the most well known claim from Karl Marx. We are discussing whether material conditions induce a socialist revolution.
I recommend addressing your arguments at my arguments instead of at me. Again the material conditions under neoliberalism are there, but the socialist revolution is not. In fact we are in the verge of a populist christo-fascist takeover.
This is a better description of your arguments than what I am going to be able to come up with. So congratulations on that. Again ad hominem attacks, misrepresenting my arguments, and splitting hairs over definitions are not an effective strategy for arguments. I am not misrepresenting anyone's view points. I have seen, many people give ethical concerns as their reason for not voting, on the internet. You don't need to take it from me though, there are plenty of examples on lemmy. Thus I took an idea that addresses those concerns and put it in a meme. We need to spread pro-democracy and socialist ideas to people. The fascists are spreading their ideas to everyone. We are in an information race against fascists to reach the most people before the election.
Being a Social Democrat means you want Capitalism with Social Safety Nets. Wanting change via reform is called Reformism, not Social Democracy. You can be a Reformist Democratic Socialist.
Secondly, you really need to revisit history. American democracy is not a marketplace of ideas, but lobbyists and money. The parties in power are those that can fundraise the best, and they do so via capitulating to the wealthiest. The only trend against this comes from outside pressure.
Again, your stance on electoralism is unfounded and immaterial. Yes, voting is good, no, you will not get the change you want past FPTP by voting for it.
You again are completely butchering what Socialism and Social Democracy mean. Social Programs are government programs, they are a part of almost all systems. They are not synonymous with Socialism. Social Democracies are Capitalist states with large safety nets, otherwise they would be Socialist Democracies.
You did not point out a flaw with Marxism, you pointed out a flaw in your understanding of Marxism.
For the last time, the material conditions are NOT THERE in the US for a Socialist Revolution, as long as the US retains it's status as an Imperialist state that props up higher standards of living off the backs of the third world. That is why republicans exist, Proletarians in the US are largely reactionary because they benefit from the status quo. The US is a dying empire, and soon there will be the material conditions for a Socialist Revolution, but fascism is also the violent outcome of Capitalism in decline. You have not once addressed any of this.
I have not done any Ad Hominem attacks, I have not misrepresented your arguments. I have attempted to fix your misconceptions of Marxism, Social Democracy, and Socialism in general, none of which constitutes misrepresentation or ad hominem.
I can be whatever I want thanks. In this case a social democrat. I want a market economy with social safety nets.
It is both and that is why we need to vote in record numbers. This is supporting my argument that we need to increase voter turnout.
History and election results support my argument. Also the word is democracy. I have not interest using electoralism as it is exclusively used by people who either want to get rid of or do not value democracy. Voting is great. We need to vote for candidates who will advance a progressive agenda, including election reform. We will of course need to participate in the FPTP voting system to accomplish this. That is the system we have currently, so it is what we must use to eventually get rid of it and then replace it with a better voting system.
This again is your argument using strict definitions and categorization to bypass having an actual discussion. Most systems are socialist in some way because they have social programs. Using such a narrow definition of socialism is self-defeating. People need to realize they are already benefiting from many socialist policies. This realization will help them internalize and adopt additional socialist ideas. Social democracies can have capitalist economies, but their market economies do not have to be capitalist. They can have mixed economies as the ones that exist currently do. There is no reason why a socialist democracy's market economy could not shed the remainder of capitalism from the mixed economy.
Ad hominen. I refuted you argument again.
The wealth disparity in the United States is there. I'm just going to quote Bernie here. So the material conditions are there. I would say that it is common knowledge in fact. It is felt by many people who are left behind after each bust in the cycle.
The wealth the US steals through imperialism is extracted via capitalism by the owner class. Even the worker class' tax dollars go to the military industrial complex that profit off of American military adventurism. It is a big part of why neocons existed, but they have fallen by the wayside. It's the fascists who are control of the Republican party now. Capitalism is not in decline, simply reaching its late stages. We've seen what we will become with the current Russian Federation. The winners of capitalism become the oligarchs that are subservient to the dictator. If the fascists succeed in their takeover the United States will become a christo-fascist dictatorship. This dictatorship will not form an empire, but a sphere of influence. The sphere of influence will expand, consume, and kill out-groups until there are no more out-groups left and the nation state fully self-cannibalizes or it is defeated militarily. There is no socialist revolution that occurs in any part of this process. Fascism is methodical method of self-destruction.
If we want a socialist revolution then we need to make it happen. And we might as well make it happen as a political revolution now when all we need to do is things like direction action, civil disobedience, sharing ideas, and voting.
You have done both of these things multiple times.
This is directed at me. I am not in anyway shape or form relevant. My argument is not derived from a misconception, but an observation of the modern reality we live in that contradicts Marx's theory.