It’s not a solution, but as you said it’s easier. We can and should do both. Even if voting for the Democrats saves one life from climate change or ICE, it’s worth doing.
What about the cost of the signal sent to the Democrats that their current positions are enough to earn your votes?
I would respond: if not voting for the Democrats (and voting for a party to their left) saves one life from climate change, imperialism, COVID, or ICE because it pressures them to take stronger positions on those issues, it’s also worth doing.
The Democrats make it pretty clear that they do not care about our votes, or about beating Republicans. We have to organize outside of the Democratic party infrastructure, while reluctantly voting for the lesser of two evils.
The measures taken by the DNC have not meaningfully countered climate change, and the DNC funds ICE as well. It’s allowed to be easier because it won’t change anything materially, that’s what I mean by saying both are so bad that neither are acceptable.
If you need to change a lightbulb, and said lightbulb is 20 feet above you, neither a 9 foot nor 10 foot ladder will allow you to get there. The end result is the same, even if both ladders are different and one gets you closer. The hard but practical solution is to find a ladder that can actually reach the bulb!
Even if the DNC haven’t meaningfully countered climate change, they haven’t done nothing either. They also likely wouldn’t have abolished USAID which, while it existed for propaganda purposes, did save lives.
USAID was used for the purposes of solidifying compradors, and was abolished because it was getting more expensive for reduced gains as imperialism decays. It’s extremely likely that the DNC would have reduced USAID, like the GOP has (and it isn’t abolished, just transformed).
Both the DNC and GOP are servants of capital. The DNC is not a group of “nicer” capitalists. Therefore, we need to overthrow the imperialist system and establish socialism.
Even if the Democrats would’ve cut it USAID, they would’ve been far less sudden about it. According to people who work in humanitarian aid, the suddenness of Trump’s cuts to USAID got a lot of people killed in the developing world.
And the system of sanctions, imperialism propped up by USAID, etc. kill half a million people per year. The DNC would’ve cut the “aid” in a harmful way anyways, meaning the lightbulb isn’t changing. The US Empire isn’t crumbling due to personal choices by the parties, but because imperialism itself is crumbling.
No? Both sides are propping up a system that kills 500,000 people per year. Both would cut USAID, because the reason it was cut was not moral but economic. You’re arguing to perpetuate the system of imperialism that kills 500,000 people annually because you think the 10 foot ladder can reach the 20 foot lightbulb.
The practical solution is socialism, which requires revolution and grassroots organizing. Not propping up imperialism.
Cutting USAID killed hundreds of thousands of people. How many the Democrats would’ve killed is almost definitely less, although how much less is up for debate. Maybe the wouldn’t have cut USAID, maybe they would’ve just reduced it, maybe they would’ve cut it completely but done so more gradually.
They certainly wouldn’t have left the WHO. Staying in the WHO is just good business sense, aside from for the private hospitals but the impacts of a highly lethal global pandemic on stability and on the safety of the rich isn’t worth it.
And people will have more space to organize when under a predictably evil government than a chaotic one. Unless you’re relying on the death and destruction for a recruitment drive.
It’s not a solution, but as you said it’s easier. We can and should do both. Even if voting for the Democrats saves one life from climate change or ICE, it’s worth doing.
What about the cost of the signal sent to the Democrats that their current positions are enough to earn your votes?
I would respond: if not voting for the Democrats (and voting for a party to their left) saves one life from climate change, imperialism, COVID, or ICE because it pressures them to take stronger positions on those issues, it’s also worth doing.
The Democrats make it pretty clear that they do not care about our votes, or about beating Republicans. We have to organize outside of the Democratic party infrastructure, while reluctantly voting for the lesser of two evils.
The measures taken by the DNC have not meaningfully countered climate change, and the DNC funds ICE as well. It’s allowed to be easier because it won’t change anything materially, that’s what I mean by saying both are so bad that neither are acceptable.
If you need to change a lightbulb, and said lightbulb is 20 feet above you, neither a 9 foot nor 10 foot ladder will allow you to get there. The end result is the same, even if both ladders are different and one gets you closer. The hard but practical solution is to find a ladder that can actually reach the bulb!
Even if the DNC haven’t meaningfully countered climate change, they haven’t done nothing either. They also likely wouldn’t have abolished USAID which, while it existed for propaganda purposes, did save lives.
USAID was used for the purposes of solidifying compradors, and was abolished because it was getting more expensive for reduced gains as imperialism decays. It’s extremely likely that the DNC would have reduced USAID, like the GOP has (and it isn’t abolished, just transformed).
Both the DNC and GOP are servants of capital. The DNC is not a group of “nicer” capitalists. Therefore, we need to overthrow the imperialist system and establish socialism.
Even if the Democrats would’ve cut it USAID, they would’ve been far less sudden about it. According to people who work in humanitarian aid, the suddenness of Trump’s cuts to USAID got a lot of people killed in the developing world.
And the system of sanctions, imperialism propped up by USAID, etc. kill half a million people per year. The DNC would’ve cut the “aid” in a harmful way anyways, meaning the lightbulb isn’t changing. The US Empire isn’t crumbling due to personal choices by the parties, but because imperialism itself is crumbling.
“Some of you may die, but it’s a price I am willing to pay for the collapse of the American empire” - Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
Says the acknowledged Hilterite
No? Both sides are propping up a system that kills 500,000 people per year. Both would cut USAID, because the reason it was cut was not moral but economic. You’re arguing to perpetuate the system of imperialism that kills 500,000 people annually because you think the 10 foot ladder can reach the 20 foot lightbulb.
The practical solution is socialism, which requires revolution and grassroots organizing. Not propping up imperialism.
Cutting USAID killed hundreds of thousands of people. How many the Democrats would’ve killed is almost definitely less, although how much less is up for debate. Maybe the wouldn’t have cut USAID, maybe they would’ve just reduced it, maybe they would’ve cut it completely but done so more gradually.
They certainly wouldn’t have left the WHO. Staying in the WHO is just good business sense, aside from for the private hospitals but the impacts of a highly lethal global pandemic on stability and on the safety of the rich isn’t worth it.
And people will have more space to organize when under a predictably evil government than a chaotic one. Unless you’re relying on the death and destruction for a recruitment drive.