Anonymous #2 7w

Okay, for example, I am white, middle-upper class, and live in a blue state where abortion is legal. Any policies that get passed will most likely not directly affect my life. But the same policies that don’t affect me, might drastically affect someone else’s life. I think it is usually people like me who are pushing for a revolution because they aren’t considering how much of a negative effect that might have

8

Anonymous OP 7w

You can reduce harm with electoral politics without giving up on the revolution entirely. In fact, this is a very viable approach (that is, to use elections as a means to class consciousness). The fact of the matter is that you cannot fight capitalism without fighting all forms of inequality; similarly, you cannot fight inequality without progressing towards the end of capitalism

1

Anonymous #3 7w

Oh I totally agree, I guess I was mostly thinking of people who are encouraging people to stop voting entirely because the system is rigged & they think our only hope is revolution

5

Anonymous OP 7w

They have a very weird conception. “Rigged” implies that it offers to address the necessary issues at all, whereas electoral politics necessarily does not change the content of society. We can’t address root issues through elections, but we can prevent things from being worse than they already are until a solution is arrived at

5

Anonymous #3 7w

Yess exactly, that is such a good way of putting it

5

Anonymous OP 7w

Im so tired of people just skipping out on elections like 🫩 vote blue and then go read and practice your shooting, i am begging

3

Anonymous #3 7w

Why would I vote for blue Hitler instead of someone who actually opposes genocide? Blue Hitler got us to where we are today

0

Anonymous OP 7w

So I'm a PoC in a red state in very red city and I also see revolution as the only way out of this. I think it is super ironic that you are recognizing your own privilege while simultaneously calling to support the status quo…

0

Anonymous #3 7w

Who is electoral politics reducing harm for? Over the last 15 years, what harm has been reduced by voting that hasn't been eventually undone by the "other" party?

-1

Anonymous #2 7w

They’re both bad choices but they have real effects on people. Elect blue and eat a gallon of diarrhea, elect red and eat two gallons of diarrhea. Just buy time while helping America become class conscious, that way we dont have to eat as much diarrhea before we stop eating it altogether

8

Anonymous #2 7w

None! It is temporary and we are running out of time. Nowhere am I saying it’s the whole solution. In fact, I am saying just the opposite. So long as electoral politics is treated as means rather than ends, it is to our advantage to buy as much time as possible to organize and strengthen ourselves

4

Anonymous #2 7w

i mean Harris winning would have reduced harm for the people who got sent to the prison in El Salvador (most of whom had no criminal records and were not from El Salvador) or for people who have had their visas/protective status taken away. Letting trump win wouldn’t have prevented the genocide in Gaza. Not that i don’t get where ur coming from, I did not want to vote for anyone who supported the genocide either. But i did to try to prevent the outcomes people have faced under the Trump admin

1

Anonymous #2 7w

After reading all my comments, do u still disagree with me?

2

Anonymous OP 7w

No, that happened after. Harm reduction refers to existing harm at the time. "Not letting things get worse" is not harm reduction. What harm would she have reduced?

0

Anonymous #2 7w

Idk dude I just don’t want Trump to do what he’s been doing to people. Harris didn’t want to get rid of DACA or remove people’s protection status or ban abortion

1