this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
1219 points (100.0% liked)

Lefty Memes

5254 readers
7 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low-quality!

Rules

Version without spoilers

0. Only post socialist memes


That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)


0.5 [Provisional Rule] Use alt text or image descriptions to allow greater accessibility


We require alternative text (from now referred to as "alt text") to be added to all posts/comments containing media, such as images, animated GIFs, videos, audio files, and custom emojis.
EDIT: For files you share in the comments, a simple summary should be enough if they’re too complex.

We are committed to social equity and to reducing barriers of entry, including (digital) communication and culture. It takes each of us only a few moments to make a whole world of content (more) accessible to a bunch of folks.

When alt text is absent, a reminder will be issued. If you don't add the missing alt text within 48 hours, the post will be removed. No hard feelings.


1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here


Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.


2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such


That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.


3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.


That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).


4. No Bigotry.


The only dangerous minority is the rich.


5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)


6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.


Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.



  1. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 58 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You are not in Europe my friend. Why do Americans not even understand their own voting system.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

The Green Party is a thing in America.

Republican and Democrat are the two biggest parties by a large margin, but a few other smaller parties exist. Plus, some people run as an Independent. They're not affiliated with any party at all.

Edit: I never meant to imply the other parties had any chance at winning an election in a meaningful way, which is what these replies seem to think I was saying. (They don't have a chance, honestly.) But other parties do exist, including a party in which you can "vote green". That is all I'm saying.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In a first past the post system of districts with single representative candidates, it almost always resolves to two viable parties. That's the way it's been for basically all of American history.

The parties can change, but the shape of the system remains constant: a vote is only effective when cast for the largest opponent of your least desired candidate. It's unintuitive and discouraging.

The parliamentary systems used in much of Europe, for all their flaws, do allow for more robust and diverse representation.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Greens in America aren't in a position to govern. Even if Stein got enough electoral votes through the work of 30-60 literal miracles, she'd be totally unable to govern effectively. You need a deep bench and more of a base in the other branches of government to form a party that can effect changes and run this country

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

There's more to federal elections than winning. It's always hilarious when people that don't understand how fucked our system is try to teach others.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Teaching civics is part of the "a republic, if you can keep it" that Franklin was talking about

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Despite there being more to federal election third party remains suppressed and will always be suppressed by first past the post.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

100%. But ballot access, federal funding, and being able to actually run spoilers locally are pretty important.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Only if you don't consider the third party's we have now act as an extention to the pejorative parties.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I love how you exactly proved their point without realising. Please go look up the spoiler effect with first-past-the-post voting.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Then we can use third party candidates to determine who the power actually goes to. At the end of the day. America is so bipolar split tlboth parties are now completely at the mercy of anyone who can garner 10% support. RFK Jr at this point can literally be the decider or who becomes president and who doesn't. Maybe we can use that as a tool of power to force the 2 parties to open the voting system up or have their power cockblocked from them every election cycle.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No, this is not how it works. Please look up the spoiler effect.

I can't vote because I don't live there, but am in the imperial core of countries, so it would be very nice to not have fascists in charge, considering we literally have prosecuted whistleblowers reporting on warcrimes at the behest of the US government. We're your little bitches whether we like it or not.

Y'all really do need to be hyper-focused on pushing for sweeping electoral reform, for sure.

In the meantime though, voting for a 3rd party under your system is basically a vote for the person you don't want.

Vote Biden if you would dislike having Trump more. If you don't want to do that, then yeah, you're basically admitting you're cool with the outcome of Trump presidency.

Please don't waste your vote, your vassals beg you.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I don't want Biden OR trump. that's why I'm voting for a so-called third party

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Look up the spoiler effect. Please! This vassal is begging you.

The question under your system (please inform yourself about first-past-the-post) isn't who do you want to win, it's who you do you want NOT to win.

If you vote for your third-party candidate, it's equivalent to not having voted at all, if they have no chance of winning.

You're going to get Biden or Trump with how people vote (spoiler effect, look it up), one of those is going to win, make your peace with that.

So, which would you rather?

I am happy to spell out in greater detail why voting for a third party candidate is a waste of time under your system, happy to chat if there's still any confusion about it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Look up the spoiler effect.

i have. it's not a natural phenomenon, it's a story that the media tells.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My friends, these are troll accounts. 8h old, only commented on this post.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

calling me a troll doesn't change whether what I say is true

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Please, do go on to explain how the spoiler effect is a myth. I'll wait. I'd like to see your logic on that one. (Inb4 you don't)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

first, i think it will be helpful to recall what a myth is: it's a story we tell to explain the world around us. the spoiler effect is one of those stories: it explains, for some people, why clinton won in 1992. but analysis of the facts of that election find that, in fact, perot hurt clinton's margin of victory.

this myth is persistent, and reinforced by multiple media sources and even academics, but there is no way to actually produce a test of the theory of its existence or its mechanisms. so while you might like to tell this story, even if only to yourself, to justify voting for people who do bad things, to pretend that this myth is objective fact, that it is a natural law, is either misguided or dishonest, depending on whether you actually believe the myth.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you vote for your third-party candidate, it’s equivalent to not having voted at all, if they have no chance of winning.

this is election misinformation. my vote is still counted for the candidate, even if they don't win, just as trump votes were counted in 2020.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you lived somewhere with a decent preferential voting system, you'd be right.

You don't though, and it's not misinformation to say that under a first part the post system, voting for a third candidate that is not going to win is a waste of the influence you have. CGPGrey explains it well

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

your YouTube video is based on duverger 's "law" which is not a natural law at all but a useless tautology

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

🤦‍♂️ It's a "law" in the mathematical/scientific sense. It is a model that explains something.

You're just spouting smart sounding words without actually proving anything.

Please, please, do explain how the spoiler effect is wrong.

Tell me how when you have first past the post and a two party system, voting for a third candidate who won't win isn't just making it more likely the candidate you'd like less to win.

Please, would love to hear you well reasoned and sound argument.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (12 children)

it's not a law. it's an empty tautology.

it argues that a certain type of election system tends to lead to a two-party system. however, from a critical perspective, this theory might be untestable. why? because someone could argue that any outcome can be explained by the theory. for instance, if there are more than two parties, it could be said that the system still favors two but this is just a temporary exception. this kind of reasoning makes it very difficult to disprove the theory, turning it more into a statement that's true by definition than an actual hypothesis based on evidence. similar arguments have been made about economic theories that rely on assuming everything else stays the same. to be more than just a statement, this theory would need a way to be tested with evidence and potentially proven wrong. that way, it could be a useful theory for understanding political systems instead of just an unfalsifiable claim.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

The question under your system (please inform yourself about first-past-the-post) isn’t who do you want to win, it’s who you do you want NOT to win.

wrong. the question is "who do i want to vote for" and i want to vote for the person i want to win. incidentally, i don't want to vote for someone i don't want to win.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So, which would you rather?

i refuse to choose between them

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (14 children)

Then Ms 8h account with their full name (deeeeefinitelty not a shill, deeeefinitelt a genuine user. Yeah people on Lemmy toooootally use their full name as if it were facebook), I'll just have to conclude you're trying to sway leftists not to vote for Biden, so the world ends up with trump.

I hope you're unsuccessful.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

your insinuations and suppositions don't change the truth of what I've said

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

As an outsider it's really annoying when someone just doesn't understand the reality they find themselves in.

A third party isn't in the cards, it never is, but it especially isn't right now. The only way to get a third party elected is to change your voting system, but that's a process that takes years, decades even. It's really not as easy as wasting a vote with a third party, it takes a lot more effort. And the only way to start or continue that process right now is to vote Biden because if Trump wins you might not even get another election to vote in.

And Trump has a good chance of winning because the republicans aren't having such discussions. They know what to do, and come election day they'll all march in and do their job, like they do every time. Remember that he only won last time because people like you felt icky about voting for Clinton.

If you allow me a moment of catharsis, I'll just add that if you Americans once again subject the world to more Trump insanity, I really hope you get to feel the worst of it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

he only won last time because people like you felt icky about voting for Clinton.

he won because people voted for him. I voted against him, and I'm going to again. and I'm voting against biden just like the last time. you're characterization is patronizing and dismissive of real concerns.

really hope you get to feel the worst of it.

why the fuck would you wish that on anyone?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

There is no viable third party without voting reform.

If you really want smaller parties to have any chance, go help the people within the democratic party who are trying to make that happen.