(no subject)

[feotakahari]

I don’t trust people who talk about “electoralism” as if it’s a thing that has reasonable alternatives. I mean, if you don’t want to convince a majority of people, what other thing do you plan to do with and/or to a majority of people? I can’t imagine what circumstances would produce a change that doesn’t involve either mass murder or something that could potentially be decried as “electoralism,” and since I’m against mass murder . . .

Comments

[random_thought_depository]

A charitable explanation is they think the system is rigged against the left in anti-majoritarian ways and trying to win by convincing regular people is like trying to play soccer in a game which is actually Calvinball with the right-wing/neoliberals being Calvin (in Calvinball only Calvin knows the rules and he changes them as the game progresses). The political class/deep state will cling with a death grip to even unpopular neoliberal policies while stubbornly and pointedly playing "I can't hear you!" with the popularity of popular leftist proposals. If you want to really get anywhere you have to move beyond petitionary politics. At the moderate end this might mean stuff like labor organizing to directly pressure bosses, using general strikes as a lever to pressure government, mutual aid as a framework for setting up alternate economic arrangement that render people less dependent on government and corporations so it doesn't matter as much what government policy is, etc., toward the militant end it shades through various degrees of paramilitarism to dreaming of a communist revolution.