The party responds to those fighting in accordance to their PR. A dem will opt for more covert methods while the repubs will send the police to outright murder people in the streets and celebrate it. All the issues you listed are true, and that is why fighting is not optional.
Robust? I remember when the Supreme Court elected Bush as president.
Organize for a National labor strike
Depends on who you ask. I would say trans rights are human rights, that it is not a culture war but a war for human dignity.
I see. I should have said “vote for where you want to fight; in a concentration camp or in the streets”. I meant it reflects the quality of the fight, not that the fight goes away.
You can say they aren’t really the “boss” but fact remains that voting shapes how the conflict plays out. Voting is choosing the quality of the boss fight.
But thank you for this. In the future I will say “boss fight” instead of “boss” to be more clear.
My response is rooted in a structuralist critique of the system that incentivizes participation. You have said nothing of the incentives other than to assert there is none. What do you hope to accomplish by disparaging me instead of the argument?
So long as you ignore the lived experiences of Americans they will never behave as you think they might. If it were as you said, detached from the needs of the masses, then the grip held by the electoral system would be a simple matter to defeat.
It’s only a non-sequitor if you replace what I said about the interests of the masses with the interests of the capitalist class.
I get that it is difficult to both participate in the system while also dismantling it - that is by design. It is also designed to alienate those who participate from those who do not. That is one of the ways the system defends itself.
Am I to take your question in good faith? Because I really don’t understand how you made this leap from what I said.
who your vote by design has no tangible material effect on
That may be true for you, but it is not true for others. Any revolution predicated on ignoring the material reality of the masses is doomed to fail.
Spending all your time fighting for one boss
That is certainly not what I am advocating for when I say go vote for who you want to fight against.
The correct thing to do is to fight to get rid of the owner and this system, to create a new system that is truly democratic, that will listen to the workers.
Voting does not prevent you from building dual power.
at best you get to choose who interprets the owners orders.
And that has material consequences. To ignore that is to limit who you are able to work with.
The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent
Given the measles outbreak, some Americans won’t have to live with that decision for long
Or their apathy towards IQ tests.
Good in what sense? Consider that people do better on an IQ test if you offer to pay them more based on their performance. One might conclude that Gen Z values the IQ test than prior generations, or it could be reflective of the environment having more food swamps.
The system is “self-legitimazing” regardless of how many people choose not to vote. Consider the current president didn’t even get the majority of votes.
Instead of buying into the liberal myth that voting creates legitimacy, look at voting as choosing which boss you are going to fight.
For real. It’s a fine example of reading while being illiterate.
Both things can be true: that IQ is not a good index to use in this context and that other measurements have shown cognitive decline.
Lack of evidence is not evidence for your pet theory.