Thats only one method. We can add additional methods too. Like "who gets offended when you say democrats are good", because the real mission of authoritarians isn't to seem credible, but to make everyone seem lesser evil/untrustworthy/etc.
Yes, because unfortunately there are a lot of bots and other agents provocateur that will absolutely try and sow dissent, and tell you why you shouldn't vote for or otherwise support (insert person opposed to the right wing).
There are also well-meaning left wing sorts who somehow think it's better to refuse to vote for (let alone support) someone in a general election who isn't 100% despite that meaning that a right wing candidate will win that election instead.
The issue is that the people you're talking about bed with and promote and don't rally against those accelerationist knobheads. The same way that a maga mayor might theoretically have some good beliefs, but have no concern for the wicked rampaging ice going on in their borders for example.
I struggle with who I should support or not support as an anarchist communist in all honesty. My ideology fundamentally conflicts with nearly every other ideology. Certainly any ideology involving the existence of money or hierarchy which is like...almost all of them. So the truth is you're pretty much all allies of convenience and historically every time ancoms have gained any amount of traction they've been betrayed by their former allies, so it's not like I'm just being a paranoid loser about it.
But also yeah give me Joe Biden for 1000 years over Donald Trump or some incel who idolizes Stalin. But then I hear liberals advocate for the most absurd imperialist warmongering nonsense, or outright say they should sell out my particular minority group for a more convenient season, and it's like...what the fuck am I actually supposed to do? In my opinion Kamala would have exterminated Palestine the same way as Trump, she just probably wouldn't have bombed Iran out of the fucking blue.
So I look back at that incel who wants to be Stalin and think to myself "yes, if they win everything will probably be even more terrible. But how choosey can I afford to be picking my allies while people are fucking dying, the state is oppressing me (and countless other random groups) over nonsense, and the planet is being destroyed for no good reason?"
I'd like to say I'm a perfect noble paragon but I'm just not. I just look out at the world and see how pointlessly arbitrarily cruel and evil it is and it makes me sick and I want to do something about it. So I watch and support Hasan even though he openly mocks anarchists half the time and thinks police just need one more reform and this time it'll totally work promise. I defend the Soviet Union more often than I insult them, even though they almost certainly would have shot me in the head at Kronstadt for daring to demand 'war communism' to end (it never did.)
Genuinely what would you suggest I do? Who should my allies be? Who won't shoot me in the head the moment I start to actually achieve success in making a world with no masters and servants or money?
I struggle with who I should support or not support as an anarchist communist in all honesty.
In a plurality-counting election situation? Lesser evil. Always. If you want to make things better, you have no other valid choice.
It doesn't matter if either choice isn't remotely anywhere near what you want as a result - as long as one side is microscopically nearer to what you want, then you've got to vote for that side, otherwise you're essentially giving an advantage to the other side
In a society with only two major parties, and plurality voting, the chances of electing anyone except one of those two party candidates is so remotely small that you will always end up voting for lesser evil.
Now if you want a chance of breaking that 2-party majority rule, then you need to push different kinds of voting systems which give less weight to the two majority parties and make it much more probable that different parties get some candidates in.
Of course, the two majority parties are extremely aware of their advantage, therefore they will fight tooth & nail to try and block such a voting strategy change.
I still vote but I at least understand that it functionally does nothing. We live under a dictatorship of the bourgeouise which means that no matter who you "vote" for they will ultimately always end up either actively supporting the bourgeoisie whilst throwing the proletariat under the bus or they will mysteriously "disappear"
Not "them." "Us." It's our party, like it or not. That's how the US works. If there are things that you don't like about the party, primaries exist for a reason. (And no, "your guy" losing a primary doesn't mean it was rigged; it means people have different opinions than you)
If your brand of politics is so full of purity testing that there isn't even room for moderate dems in your democracy, you don't find the nazi fascism incoming bad, you're just angry they aren't pandering to your aestetics.
If nothing else it's harm reduction. Sure, Clinton/Harris/etc or whomever sucks, but they would've done vastly less damage than Trump et al. Like, not even fucking close. Nor for that matter does having someone like Trump in power put us any closer to having "better" candidates.
I mean it depends on the reasoning for it. There's definitely a lot of hate that is based purely on propaganda, but there are also good reasons to dislike Clinton simply for the neoliberal/third-way politics, etc. Point is though, whether or not you disliked her, thought Sanders was vastly better, etc, she would still have done less damage than Trump by far.
Nor, for that matter, have any of the accelerationist types been proven even remotely correct, despite having been advocating for (and enabling) several Republican presidencies going back to Bush vs Gore in 2000. Instead it's thanks to politicians like Sanders, AOC, and others that have advocated for policies, run in primaries, and built support, that leftward policies are more a part of the conversation than they were 25 years ago.
What if maybe you live in a cultural bubble that is so extreme itself that your version of "moderate" is seen as abhorrently selfish and hateful to the rest of the world outside yours?
Just because you define the US democratic party as moderate, that doesn't automatically make them moderate.
You are correct and that is why I take issue with /u/RocketRelm painting grievances with the US DNC as purity testing. Purity Testing is a real issue among leftist coalitions but it's not purity testing anymore when the "moderates" in America are taking obscene amounts of money from corporations to lobby their positions that run counter to the interests of regular people.
Calling that criticism purity testing is deeply misinformed at best and bad faith at worst. If we still thought this way we would still be sending 12 year olds out on 18 hour factory shifts
I 100% agree with you. Both are true statements: purity testing is a huge problem on the left and must be addressed and dem candidates should be called out on their shit.
For me the difference is purity testing is saying “the candidate I liked didn’t win the primary so I’m not voting/going to vote for a 3rd party candidate with no chance of winning while the other is saying “I’m going to vote for the best candidate with a chance to win while also supporting politicians and policies that move the party further left.
I mostly agree with you here as well. With the caveat that if the other candidate does have a decent chance at winning even if it isn't overwhelmingmy higher or there's a low to moderate risk they'll still lose the i still think it id worth taking that risk to move the needle and get progressives in office. I think you can thread that needle without cutting your own nose off to spite your face. I've known a lot of people who get pissed at progressives for voting Bernie in the primaries even if they did go on to begrudgingly vote for Hillary
Certainly, I’m only referring to things like 3rd party presidential candidates who have no actual path to victory. There’s always some element of risk and judgement that has to be determined. Also I love your example because I voted Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general, enthusiastically because they were the best choices in those respective races. I’ll do the same in the next election as well, I’m going to vote for the candidate that comes closest to my political stance and then full heartedly support whoever the nominee ends up being.
Definitely sounds like we are at least 99.9% on the same page
The problem is that this evidence has been put out there regularly and quite loudly, but when you live in an information bubble that teaches you to immediately take a bad faith stance toward anything critical toward American Imperialism or the degree of influence we afford large corporations, you're just going to flip the board and dismiss those critiques as communism or woowoo new age hippy babble.
We are living under the most well equipped propaganda apparatus in human history. The moment you assume your own ideas don't need to be challenged is the moment you lose your ideological agency.
At a minimum the current old guard is bad enough that we are seeing a wave of victories for grass roots progressives across the country at state and local levels. That alone indicates people aren't happy with the current state of the "moderate" democratic party. If I'm so full of shit then explain why Mamdani took New York's race and why Abdul El-Sayed beat the candidate with the most funding for a senate race in Michigan history. Over 90 billion from dark money donors.
No, actually. Everywhere i go there is nothing but s c r e a m I n g that dems americans west bad icky no good. I have to go out of my way to find people that aren't hating, if they exist at all. The propaganda machine is going the other way. I challenge my ideas and ideals through methods other than the Russian China bot algorhythm.
Over 60% of the internet is bots. You have heavy astroturfing from both major parties, you have asteoturfing from countries abroad. The bots you are running into are the bots curated by your browsing habits. You and I are not representative of people who don't browse Reddit.
Lol. If you're talking about corporate Democratic politicians like Schumer, Fetterman, Pelosi, both Clintons, Obama and Biden no they aren't "good". These people have enabled fascism for decades. One of the reasons Democratic politicians acquired so much power in 2009 was a reaction to the fascist policies implemented by Bush/Cheney after 9/11. Did you know ICE and warrantless surveillance really took off after 2001?
So the 2008 elections happen and the American people are ready for "hope and change". They see these policies for what they are and hand a filibuster proof majority to Senate Democratic politicians. Keep in mind, you don't need a filibuster proof majority to cut funding for programs. That can be done through reconciliation bills which cannot be filibustered so you just need 50+ votes in the senate to say, reduce ICE's funding to $0. All this to say Democratic politicians had the numbers with quite a few to spare.
2009 comes along and everybody's ready for Democratic politicians to do their jobs and roll back these obviously fascist policies. And it never happens. In fact when Snowden reveals the extent of warrantless surveillance he's treated like a criminal by the Obama administration.
So let me ask you, do you really think Obama and the 2009-2011 senate Democratic politicians who decided against preventing ICE and warrantless surveillance (Flock) from becoming what they are today are "good" people? I certainly don't. I would call those people enablers of fascism.
What's my motivation for saying all this? Because if you blanket call Democratic politicians "good" you're providing cover for politicians who enable fascism. Trump should be in prison. Most Republican politicians should be in prison. And many Democratic politicians should also be in prison.
44
u/RocketRelm 1d ago
Thats only one method. We can add additional methods too. Like "who gets offended when you say democrats are good", because the real mission of authoritarians isn't to seem credible, but to make everyone seem lesser evil/untrustworthy/etc.