176
bluemaga, bluemaga never changes.
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2026
176 points (69.8% liked)
Memes
57063 readers
805 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
I suggest reading theory to better understand, I suggested organizing with communists and preparing for a revolution in another reply to you.
Marxism-Leninism has changed the world for the better before. Like in USSR where life expectancy sharply rose from age 30~ to 70 in such a short time. Where famines were no longer had and everyone became better educated. China is another, where every year there's significant improvements, poverty being practically eliminated and are even reverting desertification.
You lot are NOT improving the world, are you fucking dense? Climate change is rabidly getting worse and Democrats and Republicans alike are still bound to capital, and capital profits from destroying the climate.
Reading theory and organizing are things you do in order to understand what goals to accomplish and to be more effective at accomplishing those goals. They create and support your plan, they are not the plan in and of itself. So the actual course of action you are suggesting here, as far as I can see, is to revolt.
That's still a pretty vague course of action tbh, and very difficult unless you have the serious support of the population. It's not impossible, but if the population agreed with you enough to revolt, they could also just not vote genocidal pedos into the white house and fix The System(TM) without the potential pitfalls of a revolt.
Edit: Forgot to respond to the last part. I meant making the choice that makes the world less bad. It's exhausting to specify "less bad" vs "good" every time, by this point my position should be clear.
Well yes, that's the point.
That's also the point, to organize and educate others, that includes agitprop.
Missing the point, Joe Biden was all the same, and the rabid acceleration of genocide started under him. Kamala Harris promised the same thing.
Unlike the actual present pitfalls of voting for genocide? There are countries that revolutionized and have developed very fast as a result with far better conditions, and they fought for it.
Are you suggesting that a motivated populace could successfully revolt but could not successfully vote in a third party?
How is it in any way worse to vote for the better option than to not vote? (Voting third party is acceptable).
if you get all that motivation and energy and then divert it into electoralism, you have successfully diverted away from revolution and back into the system that the bourgeois built.
Because voting under such a system does not do anything, at most, it's treats that can be taken away at any time.
How is it any different to remove a system and implement a new one than to overhaul an existing system? The result is identical and the methodology is not meaningfully different. I would say it would be a mistake to think revolution cannot take the form of an overhaul.
Voting also takes no effort. Do you believe so strongly that none of the differences within the unites states matter that you would sacrifice all of it in the hope that you could successfully organize a revolution? Why? Why not do both? At least vote third party.
You can NOT overhaul a system that is from the ground up, designed to serve the ruling class. An overhaul is just reformism, meant to maintain capitalism as a legitimate system.
I am not an Amerikan. Your country inflicts serious damage and misery everywhere it touches and its vassal states are there to extend its reach. Millions have died from your country, as imperialism is bipartisan. Even genocide is bipartisan. It has never fought in any battle for justified reasons, it has always been a genocidal settler country that managed to complete its genocide of the natives.
And revolution is just extreme reformism. Where is the line?
I figured that might be the case. So yes, for you it doesn't matter as much who gets elected because our foreign policy is similar (not identical-- Democrats still do better on this) regardless of leading party. And you are not as aware of the differences in interior policy. It is easy to accuse me of not caring about people's lives by not revolting-- but isn't it then true that you wouldn't care about our lives when you recommend against voting?
Voting improves our lives a lot and does actually improve foreign relations (eg. Trump had a direct hand in the Iran War, strikes on south american ships, tariffs causing rising prices for consumers in every country involved in us trade, etc.). It is counterproductive and harmful to recommend against voting, even if you believe that it could not lead to total reform that improves the way in which the system works, which it can.
No it isnt. Do the word-definition thing again. One seeks to replace a system the other seeks to "fix" the existing system.
Jesus fucking christ, read theory. All your very clever thoughts have already been talked through and deflated over a century ago. This is why people tell you to read, because all of this has already been answered.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/
Ok: "In political science, a revolution (Latin: revolutio, 'a turn around') is a rapid, fundamental transformation of a society's class, state, ethnic, or religious structures." - Wikipedia. The page actually spends quite a lot of time expanding on that definition, including several notes that it is often considered necessary to have an extrasystemic component, that is, that a reform from entirely within the system would not count as a revolution. My point was more that revolution is a type of reform, rather than that reform is a type of revolution. You can fix a system by replacing it. You can also fix it in place. There is no fundamental obstacle that appears in the latter case.
Interesting link. Will read.
As both the wiki and you just stated, it isn't. Youre welcome to make words mean whatever you want them to mean to you, but it will make conversation harder in a broader context and nigh impossible in an academic one. Instead of arguing with me about this, read Rosa Luxembourg.