1898

submitted 10 months ago by superduperenigma@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

981 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

And what did Marx think about voting for the lesser evil:

Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, London, March 1850

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 22 points 10 months ago

Trump and his cult will be a little more than "a few reactionaries in the representative body".

[-] MicrowaveCat@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

And Marx is talking about Parliamentary systems here, which may color the analysis.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Maybe an American opinion:

I will be no party to it and that will make little difference. You will take large part and bravely march to the polls, and that also will make no difference. Stop running Russia and giving Chinese advice when we cannot rule ourselves decently. Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have. Democracy is dead in the United States. Yet there is still nothing to replace real democracy. Drop the chains, then, that bind our brains. Drive the money-changers from the seats of the Cabinet and the halls of Congress. Call back some faint spirit of Jefferson and Lincoln,and when again we can hold a fair election on real issues, let’s vote, and not till then. Is this impossible? Then democracy in America is impossible.

-Why I Won't Vote: W.E.B. Du Bois

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

That's a very poignant piece, and it was my motivation back in 2000 when I refused to vote for Bush or Gore. It was also before I knew anything else about Du Bois and the context in which he wrote that piece, and it certainly wasn't when a guy like Trump was running.

[+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -6 points 10 months ago

So, you’re the reason Gore lost? /s

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

I mean, in the greater sense yes. I was one of countless apathetic or cynical people who could have actually voted and possibly made a difference. People have been reposting and miscontextualizing this Du Bois bit since the 50's, trying to trick people who think their smart into feeling good about not voting. They do this because they know it works.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

What is out of context?

Du Bois couldn’t be any clearer: our votes don’t really matter in a system that isn’t committed to changing the conditions facing marginalized groups.

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago

He was a 90 something year old black man when he wrote this piece in 1956. Compared to the things he lived through earlier in his life, the stakes in 56 were a little less urgent. Likewise the stakes he lived through in 56 weren't as urgent as the stakes this year.

He also wrote it in the hopes that voter apathy would send a message. He was right... but not how he hoped. It sent a message that spreading voter apathy was a better tactic than changing policy. Again, there's a reason why this piece is trotted out every four years.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

He also wrote it in the hopes that voter apathy would send a message. He was right... but not how he hoped.

I’d be interested to read more about how he intended it differently, if you have it available.

Edit: I can’t find where he regretted it. You didn’t just make that up, did you?

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I didn't say he regretted anything, just that unscrupulous people seized on the perceived theme of apathy and have tried to weaponize it ever since.

Edit: from this op-ed

W.E.B Du Bois (1868-1963) was an African American civil rights activist, sociologist and philosopher. He developed a theory of how one should vote tactically. Crucially, Du Bois did not equate voting tactically with voting for the lesser of two evils. In his essay I won't vote (1956), Du Bois outlines his general strategy for how to cast your vote. You should:

Research who best represents your interests. Go with the candidate, not necessarily with the party (in Du Bois' case, he looked at the extent to which a candidate was willing to help the cause of African Americans)

If none of the main candidates represents your interests, you should vote "for a third party even when its chances [are] hopeless."

"If the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, [you should be] voting for the lesser of two evils."

If there is no third choice, and you are deeply dissatisfied with the candidates on offer, it is acceptable not to vote. This was controversial, especially given Du Bois' earlier insistence on tactical voting. Yet, Du Bois believed this could send a strong signal "It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of their own accord…this might make the American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of protest."

So Du Bois' understanding of tactical voting is much richer than merely voting for the lesser of two evils (although he did think it was sometimes necessary, see (3)). You don't always vote to change the outcome. You may also wish to vote — especially in a safe seat — to give a signal. Refraining from voting also sends a signal, but needs to be done only in extreme cases where you have not a single acceptable candidate and all candidates are equally bad.

[+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So you made it up. Stop trying to sanitize the man’s words for your own needs. He said what he said. You just don’t like what he said. I’ll trust what he said:

In 1956, I shall not go to the polls. I have not registered. I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. On the Presidential ballot in a few states (seventeen in 1952), a “Socialist” Party will appear. Few will hear its appeal because it will have almost no opportunity to take part in the campaign and explain its platform. If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist” and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person. They may be in the pay of the United States Government. A.D.A.’s and “Liberals” are not third parties; they seek to act as tails to kites. But since the kites are self-propelled and radar-controlled, tails are quite superfluous and rather silly.

Why I Won't Vote: W.E.B. Du Bois

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

I'm not trying to sanitize anything, I'm saying that people like you who seemingly never read the whole essay love quoting it out of context and acting like it absolves them for being too edgy to vote.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

Please. It’s manipulation and unseemly. Find your own civil rights icon that supports your point and stop whitewashing history.

[-] lingh0e@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

Providing context is manipulation and whitewashing? Sure sure.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

Absolutely, when no context is needed. Dubois wrote an article to express his intent. He doesn’t need any interpretation.

[-] GilgameshCatBeard@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

ROFL. That dude is a fucking idiot.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

Because…? Go on.

[-] GilgameshCatBeard@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Seriously man…. Just stop. On a site known for having a ton of far left tankies, you’ve still managed to be incredibly unpopular.

Just walk away. It’s getting embarrassing.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

I’m literally on the toilet.

[-] GilgameshCatBeard@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

My god you’re embarrassing.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

11 year olds have no shame.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -1 points 10 months ago

lovely

bravo

just perfect

would that we could hear it in his own voice

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Parliamentary is still FPTP for members of parliament.

[-] Enkrod@feddit.de 15 points 10 months ago

Marx and Engels had proportional representation to work with instead of first past the post. This is exactly why the US needs proportional representation, at least for congress, to break the de-facto two party system.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

That doesn’t prevent the workers from forming their own party and promoting their own candidates. Circumstances in every country will always be different.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Most people are trying to bring in social programs, not communism. The Democrats can do social programs, and they can do them better when we move the Overton window left by continually voting in Democrats

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

The Democrats can do social programs,

But won't.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Obamacare. Try voting and moving the Overton window and they can do more.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I do vote. The window keeps moving to the right. To the point where a handout to the insurance industry is considered a social program.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Just think about how much worse it could be.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

Oh, I'll just have to wait. The overton window isn't going to move to the left. It's already so far to the right that the "left" party supports genocide.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Do you honestly think it hasn't moved right because Trump won? Now think what will happen if he wins again.

Ps you're what the meme is about. Except the meme is wrong, didn't save anything because Trump would escalate it.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

And there it is, like clockwork.

The assumption that anyone who doesn't love genocide must be a Trump supporter.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And there it is, the strawman.

Cheers.

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

How did that strategy work out for them?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Pretty good

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

I consider China "state capitalism" (I don't think the workers even own the means of production). Certainly not the kind of authoritarian "Marxism" I'd want anyway.

I skimmed through the article, and it makes a lot of mentions of Germany and France, so I'm guessing it didn't work out to well in those countries.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I don’t think anyone really wants authoritarian Marxism, but they established a legacy that is still studied today. It would be interesting to know what they thought of the movement today.

this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024

1898 points (90.1% liked)

Political Memes

5569 readers

2870 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

rjc@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

WrenFeathers@lemmy.world