cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/15032962

Alt text: a screenshot of a microblog post with the text “you walking down an alleyway with a gram of weed in your pocket, who would you rather catch you?” Below are two pictures side by side. One of Kamala Harris and the other of Batman.

    • @qooqie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      181 month ago

      Fair, but this feels like it’s really grasping for anything to try and paint Kamala in a bad light and that screams bot farm.

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]
        link
        English
        11
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        it’s really grasping for anything

        Absolutely not! It’s like the lowest hanging fruit of a bountiful tree of evil she’s a part of. Anarchists also have a long history of advocacy for the abolition of police, so again this kind of rhetoric coming from actual humans should not come as a surprise.

      • southsamurai
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 month ago

        In most communities, I’d agree. But in an anarchist community, especially this C/, the only thing I’d be surprised at is that the meme is stale. This place is usually pretty fresh on the meme train.

        Tbh, most of the blahaj political C/s, you can essentially not worry much about farming. There’s really not going to be any posts of the usual propaganda subjects that would be out of the norm for the various communities. I’m mostly a lurker on blahaj, but it’s pretty damn lefty friendly overall.

        No bullshit, just lurk for a while and it’ll be easy enough to see.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)
      link
      English
      141 month ago

      Anarchism has a long history of [advocating for abstentionism]

      Yup. And a long history of being ineffectual in making changes on a societal level because of it. Statistically, it’s equivalent to supporting the worst outcomes and building roadblocks to achieving the sustainable systems necessary to support humanity while dismantling unjust hierarchies. Anti-electoralism is so fallacious with the data for context that it nearly seems like a right-wing ploy to suppress leftist voices.

      In fact, this meme is really on-point for this perennial problem and regular Denying the Correlative (“vote third party”). The realistic version would be “which person would you rather meet in an alley when you have drugs on you: a former prosecutor, a nazi, or an imaginary character bourgeois character with Superman Syndrome that isn’t a real choice but counts in favor of the Nazi.”

      Too many fellow anarchists are happy in their ivory towers, pretending that inaction isn’t a choice, and choosing ideological purity over using every tool in the box to keep the patient from dying while treating the sickness. There’s more than enough of us to overwhelm the Right.

      • @Ranger@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I don’t tell people to vote or not, people can make that decision themselves, I’m not their master(I keep that in the bedroom). I was a politico/activist, I did a hell of a lot more then vote every couple of years. I became an anarchist because of all of the subtile out in the open corruption that I saw. If voting could produce substantial reform it would have been made illegal. There is never an appropriate time for holding anyone accountable, during the primaries everyone says we can’t support a reform candidate because they’ll loss in the general, we have to support the nominee because other side bad, & we can’t have change next election because other side bad. If you never hold anyone accountable for their actions why would they ever change? I’m not saying tactical voting is useless but blind support for a political establishment is dangerous. People are so afraid of other side that they bend over backwards to not view their politicians critically & the two parties in general are a lot closer on policy then people like to think. The fact I get so much angry push back for even minor critisism is evidence that people have let themselves be cooped. The more corrupt & brutal police departments are in Democratic strongholds. We just had the largest most sustained anti police protest in history & all of the reforms have been largely cooped or underminded & rolled back & now we have a former prosecutor who defended corrupt police & other corrupt prosecutors who has been ordained the new candidate with no real candidate electoral process. An across the board Democratic landslide would have it’s own pitfalls. The Democrats efforts on gun control will disproportionately effect marginalized people because gun control always has. The Stop & Frisck program is a good example of the harm gun control policies have. Only two percent of the stops found guns, POC & trans women where grossly over represented & NY cops were allowed to arrest women in possession of condoms for prostetution. Harris as a prosecutor prosecuted non violent gun possession cases harshly, a subset of those cases would have been marginalized people who had a gun only for self defense. I honesty think mutual aid activism is far more productive then spending time trying to get people to vote.

    • @agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 month ago

      This is kinda stupid though. Neither of those sources give a particularly compelling practical justification for abstentionism.

      Sure, neither party represents the end-goal. But we exist within a system which centrally incorporates a mechanism for change. Voting for whichever administration is marginally better, harm reduction, is a vital tool in the toolbox. Sitting idly by while the right systematically entrenches authoritarianism yields objectively worse results for anarchists.

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]
        link
        English
        11 month ago

        Neither of those sources give a particularly compelling practical justification for abstentionism.

        I don’t agree with you. Ward’s piece talks about how compromising on voting helped cost the CNT-FAI the Spanish Revolution.

        Sitting idly by while the right systematically entrenches authoritarianism yields objectively worse results for anarchists.

        Not voting ≠ sitting idly by. Quoting a different section of the same Anarchist FAQ:

        We do this by organising what Bakunin called “antipolitical social power of the working classes.” [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 263] This activity which bases itself on the two broad strategies of encouraging direct action and building alternatives where we live and work.

        But more importantly, I really wanted to demonstrate in my previous comment that we’re not fucking bots, which I’m so tired of seeing, and that we’re real fucking people and our perspectives are just as valid as yours. I don’t give a fuck whether or not you agree with me on going to the ballot box because I’m not interested in debating whether or not you or anyone else go to the ballot box. You do whatever makes you comfortable.

        But I’m not going to do it myself because I’ve been there and done that. I’m not going to debate it because the possible good that can come out of it, almost zero, is not enough to justify the vigorous debate it attracts, sucking bandwidth away from actually important stuff. And I’m not going to lose any extra sleep over my nonparticipation in the election if Trump or Harris wins because ultimately, elections serve to ratify decisions already made by capital. And I refuse to be guilted over choosing not to participate in the ratification of our own oppression.

        • @agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Ward’s piece talks about how compromising on voting helped cost the CNT-FAI the Spanish Revolution.

          “Helped”. Maybe it played the pivotal role, maybe not. It’s hard to draw concrete analysis about what could have happened, even with cherry-picked examples.

          Not voting ≠ sitting idly by.

          It is in regards to utilization of this specific lever of praxis. Voting, and encouraging others to vote, is in no way incompatible with whatever other engagement activities you partake in. In fact it is a powerful tool to enable and empower all other actions. The only rational choice is to strategically vote to select the landscape more amenable to the organization and implementation of direct localized alternatives.

          When an autocrat runs, you vote against the autocrat because they do more damage to the people and the cause than the alternative. This is obvious. The only reason you wouldn’t want marginally better is if you’re hoping for things to get worse, like an accelerationist. Accelerationists are sociopaths.

          • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]
            link
            English
            11 month ago

            The links I have cited have addressed the rest of your response in sufficient depth IMO. What I really find irritating is this suggestion:

            The only reason you wouldn’t want marginally better is if you’re hoping for things to get worse, like an accelerationist.

            I fractally reject this statement:

            • I absolutely do hope for things to get marginally better (as a weak case of “much better”). I am not in the business of causing chaos for its own sake (“Anarchy is order”).
            • I am not an accelerationist, and neither are any anarchists worth their salt. I reject that epithet, and the suggestion that I want things to get worse.
            • I reject the notion that voting is a “lever of praxis” at all, except in rare cases of local elections (but even then, the person I vote for is more likely to be “made useful” to the State than to radically stand for their voters).
            • I reject the notion that voting for the “least worst” figurehead has any impact on the decisions already made by those in power.
            • I reject the idea that one can only hope for things to monotonically get better or worse. Usually, decisions have tradeoffs. IMO, the “marginal benefit” of voting against an autocrat (1) does not actually exist and (2) debating its existence clogs up radical spaces and time (like I am doing right now! but my time isn’t very valuable to me lol) to debunk, taking this time and space from doing actually important stuff.
            • @agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 month ago

              I reject the notion that voting for the “least worst” figurehead has any impact on the decisions already made by those in power.

              This is abject paranoia, and observably false. Yes of course a lot of policy is captured by capital, but not all. There is a wide range of actual variance between candidates. If there wasn’t any difference and they were all on the same team, they wouldn’t spend so much money trying to get you to pick them.

              IMO, the “marginal benefit” of voting against an autocrat (1) does not actually exist and (2) debating its existence clogs up radical spaces and time

              I reject this opinion on both counts. It’s an extremely privileged worldview.

              taking this time and space from doing actually important stuff.

              Like what, exactly?