Online left-wing infighting seems to me to be about applying labels to people because they argue or have argued one thing on a particular topic, and then use it to discredit an unrelated argument topic or paint their overall character. I know there are pot-stirring trolls and compulsive contrarians, but I do witness users I personally judge to have genuine convictions do this amongst each other.

Within US politics, CA Gov. Newsom is an illustrative example (plenty of examples exist too for other countries and around Lemmy/Fedi). I don’t particularly like him, he has done things I think are good, some things I think are funny, something things I think are bad and some things I think are downright horrible. Yet I have encountered some users online who will say they can’t ever applaud a move of his if one specific other policy or set of other unrelated policies crossed a line for them. I’m not asking people to change their mind on what they think of a person because of an isolated good thing they do, but to at least acknowledge it as a good thing or add nuance describing what about it you like or don’t. I can accept saying “I don’t think this is a good thing in this circumstance”, “this person will not follow through with this thing I think is good thing because ___”, or “they are doing a good thing for wrong and selfish reasons” too. But to outright deny any support for an action because of a wildly extrapolated character judgement of the person doing it, when that user would support it otherwise, vexes me greatly.

I know this is not every or most interactions on Lemmy, but these are just some thoughts I have to get out of my head. You don’t have to agree with me. I’m using ‘left-wing’ because the definition of ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’ is wide-ranging depending on who you talk to. And on the side of the spectrum I’m calling left to left-centre, we seem to let the fewer things we disagree with get in the way of the many more things we would agree with each other. That’s all, thanks for reading.

  • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    1·
    3 days ago

    Honestly, this argument has been going on for 100s of years…

    The argument for voting against left-wing or socialist candidates on the grounds that they can’t win and are therefore helping the right wing into power has, of course, been a time-worn argument in the United States against bucking the two-party system. Engels, in an 1893 letter to an American colleague, pointed out that in the United States, the formation of a workers’ party is hindered by the “Constitution…which makes it appear as though every vote were lost that is cast for a candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties.”

    What’s changed? I’m with Rosa on this topic:

    People who pronounce themselves in favor of the method of legislative reform in place of and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modification of the old society.

    As Luxemburg points out, the debate is not about whether socialists are for reforms or whether socialists should turn their backs on the electoral system. As socialists we fight for all reforms that improve the conditions of life for workers under capitalism and give workers the confidence to fight for more. But any real fight for reforms requires struggle to achieve them. Reformists tell workers to sit passively and rely on elected officials. By doing so, they weaken and demobilize the class struggle that makes real reform possible and prepares workers consciously, organizationally and politically to overturn capitalism.

    And to answer you directly…

    Why do you ban content from your server that says it’s a good idea to vote, then?

    Because of all of the above. I do sometimes remove comments promoting electoralism in leftist communities if I think it’s getting disruptive. From a leftist perspective electoralism is really nothing more than hope-mongering peddled by the State to keep the masses in check without threatening the system as a whole, and which only results in status quo outcomes. Or to put it another way, it works as a sop for the masses so they feel like they are control somehow, despite only ever being able to vote for one neoliberal party or another more openly racist neoliberal party. All this effort to try to get people to vote for a party that doesn’t align with their values and clearly couldn’t give a damn about them is a complete waste of time. If folks instead spent that energy protesting in the streets, disrupting ICE operations, protecting immigrants, and organizing for candidates who aren’t part of the status quo (like the Bernies and Mamdanis of the world), then leftist votes would naturally follow.

    • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.auEnglish
      11·
      3 days ago

      The argument for voting against left-wing or socialist candidates on the grouns that they can’t win and are therefore helping the right wing into power has, of course, been a time-worn argument in the United States against bucking the two-party system. Engels, in an 1893 letter to an American colleague, pointed out that in the United States, the formation of a workers’ party is hindered by the “Constitution…which makes it appear as though every vote were lost that is cast for a candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties.”

      What’s changed?

      Glad you asked. Most countries of the world have abandoned the kind of “51% take all” approach that the US uses, with its inevitable collapse into two and only two parties, each one a hair’s breadth from the center on one side or the other as a mathematical certainty. Voting was a nice idea but the US framework for it is shit. And that’s even before you factor in the fact that “the center” is defined in wildly distorted half-Nazi terms by our corrupted media to an indifferent and uneducated populace.

      I do think that advocating for reforming or overthrowing that system is a better use of time than urging people not to vote in it (or to vote for a more palatable candidate than the two-major-party dogshit on offer, which is functionally the same thing). That was my question – why not more time spent on that? I think that is badly needed. I genuinely don’t get why people who claim to be anarchists or similar spend so much time talking about the election specifically within the two-party system and talking about Democrats specifically.

      From a leftist perspective electoralism is really nothing more than hope-mongering peddled by the State to keep the masses in check without threatening the system as a whole, and which only results in status quo outcomes.

      I mean… yeah. That’s what they do. Communists in power use the idea of socialism as a falseness to justify their mandate. Fascists in power use the idea of virtue and strength of character as a falseness to justify their mandate. Democrats (small d, democrats) in power use the idea of voting and the voice of the people as a falseness to justify their mandate. It doesn’t mean that socialism, strength of character, or voting become these horrible things that we have to avoid because corrupt politicians used them as a way to justify their tyranny. That is just what people do once they get in power: They lie to make it sound reasonable the way they cheated their way in. Is this your first day visiting Political Science Adventureland?

      If you are saying that you don’t support the current US voting system with all its corruption and naked fascism / oligarchy, then sure, I 100% agree. We should fix it, although I am going to sort of disagree with you there that just not participating in the system will suddenly make it crumble instead of just making things worse. If you are saying that you don’t support voting as a concept (which, given “electoralism,” it sounds like you don’t), not worth subjecting to any kind of improvement to make it represent the will of the people, then… IDK, I guess you are in good company on Lemmy sort of speaking. I had the revelation recently that a lot of these Lemmy communists really do want just seizing power at the barrel of a gun, they really don’t like non-authoritarian or non-tribally-based systems and that is the root of a lot of their politics.

      Not saying that’s you. I am slightly curious about which camp you fall into (reform voting camp or abolish voting camp)… let me ask this: How will refusing to vote produce any reduction in the power of the US government and institution of a better life for people in the US government-wise or tyranny-wise or oligarchy-wise? What do you see as the progression by which not voting at all could lead to better things in the future?

      • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        I think we probably agree on the general principles. But i feel like you are missing the point a bit. I’m not advocating for not voting, per se. I’m just pointing out that voting is not a real solution to the problems we face. Because reforms to the two party system are basically impossible to achieve by working from within the system, by design. The quotes I provided clearly articulate that idea. By all means vote, but let’s not pretend it will achieve any sort of meaningful change in the economic status quo. I mean, sure if voting for the Dems stops the deportations and shuts down ICE completely then that’s worth a go in the meantime. But even then, conditions for US workers are unlikely to change materially. Wealth inequality will be just as bad as before and the Dems will do nothing serious to address it. We all surely recognise that.

        The problem I have with electoralists is that there is an implicit and sometimes explicit suggestion that one can simply vote fascism and oligarchy away. I’m more of the view it will take a revolution or mass protest movement of some kind (like a general strike) to achieve any serious reforms to the economic and political status quo.

        • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.auEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          I’m just pointing out that voting is not a real solution to the problems we face.

          Correct

          Because reforms to the two party system are basically impossible to achieve by working from within the system, by design.

          Correct

          By all means vote, but let’s not pretend it will achieve any sort of meaningful change in the economic status quo.

          Correct

          I’m more of the view it will take a revolution or mass protest movement of some kind (like a general strike) to achieve any serious reforms to the economic and political status quo.

          Correct

          The problem I have with electoralists is that there is an implicit and sometimes explicit suggestion that one can simply vote fascism and oligarchy away.

          I have literally never heard anyone say this. Not once. There seems like there is this strawman that somehow people who are saying you should vote are also saying that you should not do any other thing, but in my experience the correlation is the exact opposite: The people who are strongly minded about voting tend to do other work in and out of the system to try to make things better.

          But even then, conditions for US workers are unlikely to change materially. Wealth inequality will be just as bad as before and the Dems will do nothing serious to address it. We all surely recognise that.

          I more or less agree with this. It’s a pretty big fucking problem. How does refusing to vote help solve it?

          For what it’s worth, Biden did the first reduction in income inequality and the biggest increase in people’s take-home pay in decades after making a huge corporate tax increase to pay for it. Almost no one knows that that even happened. I get what you mean, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the kind of change that would be required… but in my experience, the people who are anti-voting just as a general rule also often tend to be negative even about people like Bernie Sanders who are trying to fight to fix all of this on a more fundamental level, and generally unaware of when things change or what is happening in the places where big rules that could affect the oligarchy get made or unmade.

          If you can’t be bothered to support people who are fighting for you, by putting in an hour of action once every couple of years, how would you expect any progress to happen? Organizing outside government is needed also yes, but it’s going to be so much harder than supporting people inside government (the tiny handful of them) who are actually fighting to make things right.

          Like if you organize a general strike to enforce better working conditions, but then congress is 2/3rds Republicans because no one on the left was voting, doesn’t that make it harder for the general strike to accomplish anything? I don’t get this value proposition where voting is not a good use of time simply because it is not enough on its own (let alone affirmatively a bad thing that people should be banned for advocating for).

          I mean, sure if voting for the Dems stops the deportations and shuts down ICE completely then that’s worth a go in the meantime.

          I know multiple people personally who were not deported because of Obama-era reforms. ICE would probably not exist if Al Gore had won his election. And, of course, “anti-electoralism” to whatever extent it impacted the last election has had a massive impact on people’s safety and food safety and all the rest in the present day. Just because they were already hanging by a thread under the current system which urgently needs to change doesn’t mean it suddenly makes sense to let Trump in and cut the thread and let them just fall.

          • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            If you can’t be bothered to support people who are fighting for you, by putting in an hour of action once every couple of years, how would you expect any progress to happen?

            That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. An hour of action every two years is nowhere near sufficient. Sure, do it, but don’t expect that to be sufficient.

            ICE would probably not exist if Al Gore had won his election.

            I really wish Gore had won that election.

            And, of course, “anti-electoralism” to whatever extent it impacted the last election has had a massive impact on people’s safety and food safety and all the rest in the present day.

            I really don’t think “anti-electoralism” had anything to do with US voter turnout in the last election. I think it had everything to do with the Dems repeatedly letting down their own constituencies, many of who are substantially further left than the establishment of the party is. At least that’s my impression from Lemmy (biased sample no doubt). It’s a fundamental rule of any campaign that if you offer nothing inspiring to vote for, then many people won’t leave their homes to vote. It feels wrong to me to blame the voters in that case - the blame falls squarely on the DNC and party leadership imo. They effectively sabotaged their own campaign because they didn’t want to budge on unpopular policy decisions, and it alienated them from their base. At least that’s the way I look at it.