It’s educate, AGITATE, organize
edit: putting this at the top so people understand the basis for this:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
This starts with an opponent who agrees with you in principle–that’s Democrats. This has no advice for you if a Republican is in office. Yes, criticize Dems, ignore Republicans, and vote for the party you have hope of moving, even against their will, or over the bodies of their leaders.
“Cool, what form does your agitation come in?”
“Encouraging apathy, and demonization of the only non-fascist candidate with a chance to win without suggestion of realistic alternatives”
Discourage apathy by putting your fingers in your ears and shout about how impossible making any positive change is instead!
“Changing 50 years of foreign policy on an issue most American voters don’t regard as important (however horrific that is) isn’t going to happen because the left-wing is threatening to let a fascist take power; that’s literally the opposite of the scenario that should be happening for improvement”
most American voters don’t regard as important (however horrific that is)
This is quite literally the thing we’re trying to change.
Reasonably speaking - how do you propose to do that? How do you propose to switch the primary issues of concern for the American electorate from domestic security (including the safety of LGBT folks, immigrants, and democracy itself) and economics (at a time when many are pressed hard by the current economic situation) to foreign policy?
Treating this as an honest question - by raising the issue so that it can’t easily be ignored.
Just gonna put this here, because MLK says it better than I can:
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
Yes and you’ve decided that rather than try and change their minds you’ll just write off Palestine and sit around waiting for another five months. Or sorry not even that, you’ve decided that you’re going to scream at the people who are going to try and call them Trump supporters.
Putting your fingers in your ears to drown out the sound of the Overton window screeching to the right is a much better alternative.
Did you get an opportunity to suggest realistic alternatives? Or did the Democratic party steamroll your local primary and rob you of your voice?
I did. I suggested Bernie. Not enough people agreed with me, apparently.
and now you have to work with the representative you ended up with, just like the rest of us.
Unlike you, however, I’m working to keep the fascist from being my next representative. Seems that having a fascist at the head of our government doesn’t bother you all that much. You might want to do some soul-searching as to why that is.
Just because someone does not want to vote for Biden does not mean they want Trump to win. That is a reductive argument and its the root of the issue with the system in the US. Picking the lesser evil is not a viable method for electing people to positions of power. What if the dems also nominated someone openly fascist, not just genocidal?
Would we pick the least fascist, fascist? The Democratic party needs reform, and unlike the Republican party they might actually listen because they at least say they will. Its either that or were already in a fascism and were being gas lit by the democratic party to think we have a voice.
Just because someone does not want to vote for Biden does not mean they want Trump to win.
Might not be what they want, but it’s more likely what they’ll get.
Just because they don’t want to vote for Biden doesn’t mean they’re not voting for him anyway.
It bothers me, but it also bothers me that my own representative is supporting fascism himself.
It clearly doesn’t bother you enough to stop you from working to see the fascist elected so the representative supporting longstanding-but-dogshite-foreign-policy can ‘learn his lesson’.
I don’t think he ought to lose because of this issue, I think he’ll lose because of this issue all on his own.
You’re free to disagree with the method of agitation but it comforts me (barely) that you would at least still support him if he were to change his position on this. It’s my bet most people on the fence would, too.
Thats lucky, we were not given any choices in my state, we had no discussion, no primary debates, and no discussion as to the viability of running with Biden.
I love Bernie, but his real shot was 2016 and the Dems blocked his path so they would not have to have a real vote which would have embarrassed Hillary.
Most “agitators” on here can’t even vote.
If I were encouraging apathy, I’d be trying to get people to ignore an important issue by arguing ‘change simply isn’t realistic so it’s better to just shut your eyes to it’
Sorry, but what are you encouraging then? Like, what’s the ask?
OP’s only ask is “feel bad enough about Biden and the Democrats to stay home in November.” That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
I just noticed the username, and I’ve argued with this guy before. You’re spot on, he does not have a sincere argument.
See my response to themeatbridge.
The goal is to stop democrats from continuing to support a genocide (min) and a genocidal project (max)
The route is through moderates, who would really like to not talk about this issue, because while it is something they agree with, pointing to something bad that they are contributing to threatens to weaken their voting base. Any political agitation necessarily implicitly makes that threat, and it’s intentional, because otherwise the moderate would have no reason to push for it.
So what you’re saying is that you’re a single-issue voter.
Single issue voters exist and Biden must take them into account.
Single-issue voters aren’t capable of rational political conversation, or thought processing. They will be attracted to whichever charlatan offers to scratch their particular itch.
If you can’t grasp nuance, you really aren’t qualified to have political opinions.
Single-issue voters aren’t capable of rational political conversation, or thought processing. They will be attracted to whichever charlatan offers to scratch their particular itch.
And despite that, they continue to exist and continue to be a factor with which Biden must contend.
If you can’t grasp nuance, you really aren’t qualified to have political opinions.
And yet, single issue voters are voters. No matter how much you want to disenfranchise them for disagreeing with you.
Note that nowhere during this conversation have I said that I am a single-issue voter. I’m voting for Biden despite his support for genocide. If you don’t understand the difference between acknowledging the existence of single issue voters and actually being one, don’t talk to others about nuance.
So your aim is only to cast aspersions on Democrats, got it.
Surely you’re aware of the two-party system of politics in the United States, one where if Democrats lose, Republicans win, and those Republicans will do the genocide you claim to hate so much even harder, not to mention royally fucking things up for huge swaths of people domestically, handing Ukraine over to Russia (which extends to directly threatening the rest of Europe/NATO), and walking away from Taiwan, for starters.
You don’t want to “end genocide,” you want to get Republicans elected.
So your aim is only to cast aspersions on Democrats, got it.
Because they are the ones who claim to agree, but apparently lack sufficient motivation to stop obstructing progress.
but apparently lack sufficient motivation to stop obstructing progress.
“Yeah, a fascist victory will motivate those fuckers! Take that, moderates! Maybe next election you’ll-”
Hey now let’s not forget, abandoning Ukraine and Taiwan means that Russia and China get to do some genocide as well.
Ok, but that’s an aspiration, not an action plan. What are you asking people to do? Who should they vote for? Where should they make political donations? Imagine you have convinced someone you’re right. What’s their next step?
What are you asking people to do?
-
stop pushing this issue to the side and make it a priority
-
join in pushing your representatives to change their policy
The second point requires you do the bare minimum of raising the issue. The more you raise the issue the less your representative can ignore it.
Who should they vote for?
People should vote for the least bad option according to their own priorities. But if all you’re doing is voting than you haven’t done anything to address the issue being raised, and you are still a part of the problem. If, in response to this issue being raised, is simply ‘but the other guy is worse’, you’ve done nothing but obstructed progress and you’ll be called out on it by the few of us who are doing the work of agitation.
Where should they make political donations?
In my opinion: to any organization that supports the end to the genocide. I recommend any of these progressives currently under threat by the AIPAC
Imagine you have convinced someone you’re right. What’s their next step?
Use whatever platform they have available to spread the message that democrats must end their support to Israel’s war crimes. Make it clear that they risk losing their re-election if they continue dodging the issue.
Make it clear that they risk losing their re-election if they continue dodging the issue.
“If I don’t get the policy change I want, fascism is an acceptable alternative” - People Who Are DEFINITELY Not Fascists™
It would be better if everyone who agreed with the policy change being pushed would also raise the issue, so that representatives would have a better idea of how many within their base actually supported it.
-
What’s more ridiculous is when the so called “moderates” only criticize progressives and never conservatives.
Like, one side wants full on fascism, the other wants healthcare instead of genocide…
If you’re “in the middle” of those two groups, and you spend more time fighting for genocide and against healthcare than you do fighting the fascists…
That says a lot about your personal values.
It makes sense for both ends to work thru the middle. Which is of course why republicans skip the middle and attack the far left with moderates.
It’s a 2-1 fight, has been since before they united to stop FDR from getting us universal healthcare 80 some years ago.
I think a lot of it is that we’re in a group of people who are almost entirely left of the dems. Republican ideas are (rightfully) downvoted into oblivion and never seen. That leaves the only arguments being seen as within the left.
It’s made worse by those on the left actually thinking and not just towing the party line, which leads to more fractures and disagreement. It’s not a bad thing that people disagree with “progressives”, it’s a sign that the left in general isn’t a pseudo-religious hivemind.
What do you want a group of leftists to talk about? Homophobia bad? Trans rights good? Billionaires bad? Public healthcare good?
