You're viewing a single thread.
This is backwards. The working class is giving their power voluntarily to the elite. There is no force needed to get it, just don't give it away.
What is missing that people keep voting the way they do? There is nobody to hold power if people prefer to give it away.
Ah yes - pissing away your vote on a third party in a 2 party first-past-the-post system will definitely fix it and not simply empower the greater evil.
It's only pissing away if you don't know that others vote alike. With surveys you know when a party is ready to take over.
What portion of the US population do you think have a remotely viable third party option?
None. My point is that the majority is not ready to manage power. If somebody takes it by force, it will rest in the hands of a new elite, which will most likely be corrupted soon after.
Something is missing for the masses to hold power. Instead of organizing a revolution time is better spent on discovering that something.
We already know what's missing. We keep setting up power structures based on systems that have proven not to work long term. Study The Six Nations. They lasted for 25,000 years. Their power structure was based on a council, not an individual.
I'd love to vote for a candidate who represents my views but have never once in my life been presented with anything even close.
How much time are you willing to invest to make such a candidate available?
I am an Anarchist. I don't think it matters, the Democratic process doesn't really include the possibility of the outcome of "we should stop doing all this nonsense".
Why not? You could even force Anarchy on 49% unwilling citizens even though that should be against the spirit of Anarchism.
There's a little problem about how it's illegal. Specifically,
. (See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385) So first i would have to get some non open anarchist into office who would change that law without letting on as to why. Then elect an anarchist candidate proper.
Only problem is, right now if i were to be voting for the candidates most likely to overturn that particular law right now they're all Republicans. That's, uh, not a party that represents me at all except for the odd chance the neurons in their brains fire in the right order and they do the thing to make candidates that represent my views allowed to profess their views openly.
There are actually about a hundred other hurdles to jump before we get to that point, but i think "a candidate who represents my views is a choice in an election" is pretty solidly in the "you don't want to go there" category.
by force or violence
I don't see that those paragraphs object to democratic change
Of course you cannot expect Republicans to fully represent you.
If you cannot convince 50% to vote for anarchy you won't have anarchy if you overthrow the state with violence. All the problems you see, they have to be resolved. It will not be easy and can as well be impossible.
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/2139382
A left unity debate.
What do you want the most?
You wanna be the candidate to risk prison time on this one?
I would ask a lawyer first but I wouldn't be worried about breaking the law.
However, you don't start with a candidate. You have to convince 50% or better 90% of the population first. Then, the election is a formality.
I rather doubt that a majority wants Anarchy, even if you could start with a perfect setup.
A lawyer is gonna tell you you're on your fucking own on this one, though will probably offer to represent you when you're inevitably dunked into legal troubles.
I'm a lot more optimistic about Anarchism's appeal. George Orwell called anarchist Catalonia the closest thing he had ever seen to paradise. There are a lot of examples of Anarchist societies being highly successful (until the authoritarians show up and imprison/kill everyone).