If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
Does drag think that Russia under the Tsar was more democratic than the US today?
In any case, my position on voting third party is not because of what Lenin wrote, I merely wanted to clarify that Lenin's stance was not consistent with how drag characterized Leninism. I'm voting third party based on my own assessment of the situation, and I was a third party voter before ever encountering Lenin.
By enthusiastically supporting neoliberal genocidaires in bourgeois elections.
Leninism does not ignore the flaws of bourgeois electoralism. Lenin wrote a whole book called "Left Communism: an Infantile Disorder" which is precisely about people refusing to participate in the existing political system.
Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?
It is with the utmost contempt—and the utmost levity—that the German “Left” Communists reply to this question in the negative. Their arguments? In the passage quoted above we read:
“. . . All reversion to parliamentary forms of struggle, which have become historically and politically obsolete, must be emphatically rejected. . . .”
This is said with ridiculous pretentiousness, and is patently wrong. “Reversion” to parliamentarianism, forsooth! Perhaps there is already a Soviet republic in Germany? It does not look like it! How, then, can one speak of “reversion”? Is this not an empty phrase?
Parliamentarianism has become “historically obsolete”. That is true in the propaganda sense. However, everybody knows that this is still a far cry from overcoming it in practice. Capitalism could have been declared—and with full justice—to be “historically obsolete” many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the basis of capitalism. Parliamentarianism is “historically obsolete” from the standpoint of world history, i.e., the era of bourgeois parliamentarianism is over, and the era of the proletarian dictatorship has begun. That is incontestable. But world history is counted in decades. Ten or twenty years earlier or later makes no difference when measured with the yardstick of world history; from the standpoint of world history it is a trifle that cannot be considered even approximately. But for that very reason, it is a glaring theoretical error to apply the yardstick of world history to practical politics.
However, what he argued for was not entryism into liberal parties, but rather using the elections to build a Marxist party that could control it's message and use the opportunity to organize and build power outside of the electoral structure.
Is Anarchism when one supports the US government?
I already know what genocide looks like. Are you denying that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians right now?
As I said in another comment, my vote has no influence over the outcome anyway because I don't live in a swing state, so your argument is moot. Unless you're trying to tell me that Illinois will be the pivotal state that decides the election.
I have no expectations whatsoever that a third party is going to win this election, obviously. But the idea that it's impossible for a third party to win is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Given the absolute necessity of unseating the genocidal bourgeois parties, and the fact that nothing is lost by doing it, I can see no reason whatsoever why I wouldn't vote for a third party over the Democrats.
Relative to what, Maoists? Ultraleftists? Leftcoms?
Its not what it cost ya, its what it says about you
Ooh, there it is. Love it when y'all tell the truth.
In reality, at least for people living outside of swing states, the reason you care how we vote has nothing to do with affecting the outcome, it's because of what it expresses. It's an expression of disloyalty to your little sports team. Ofc, if we're regarding it from the perspective of it as expression, than we ought to express support for good things and opposition to bad things, which can be done more effectively by supporting a party that actually represents our interests - which is why libs generally stand by the pretense that votes in safe states are relevant to the outcome, because otherwise you don't really have a leg to stand on.
My vote is wasted regardless because I don't live in a swing state. There's a better chance that my vote will help get a third party on the map next time than than that it will affect the outcome. Unless you forsee an outcome where Illinois goes red and that's the pivotal state. That fantasy is far more disconnected from reality than anything I believe or aim to achieve.
You can question my citizenship all you want. I regard the US government with hostility and distrust, and I didn't chose to be born here. I'd rather aim to be a citizen of the world. I watched both parties gleefully participate in the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan while most people didn't give a shit because it was out of sight and out of mind, and it was "ok" because the Democrats were slaughtering people "the right way." I remember when they promised to protect whistleblowers and end mass surveillance and then continued it and they hunted Snowden to the ends of the earth for revealing their crimes. I realized back then that the ideology of lesser evilism was complete bullshit and would keep us trapped with the same policies forever.
Scratched liberal moment.
There are third party candidates who support ending the Palestinian genocide by stopping arms shipments, but neither major candidate does.
I have no knowledge regarding a genocide in Crimea or how it could be best addressed, and I believe questioning or examining evidence for any claim of genocide is against .world rules, so I suppose I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt, but said claim doesn't really factor into my calculations.
I don't consider either question all that relevant.
I wanted him to step down primarily because of his support for genocide. Biden was obviously unfit and unacceptable for a ton of reasons, just because his successor doesn't share one of those problems doesn't make her automatically acceptable. Its arguable that it would better if the president is mentally unfit, if they're pursuing an agenda that is fundamentally wrong.
Nothing you've said has in any way justified your absurd stance that opposing intervention isn't isolationist. Not one single thing! And you just keep doubling down on it over and over while vaguely gesturing about how you've somehow explained it in some previous comment you refuse to point to, or now how you totally have a valid line of logic, but you won't tell me what it is and expect me to just psychically read your mind to find that out.
Look, obviously, you backed yourself into a corner with this. At first, maybe you made an honest mistake making such an obviously indefensible claim. But if that's what happened, then why double down so much?
What's going on here is exactly what I described at the start. Because I took an out-group position, you act like you can just say whatever nonsense you like without defending any of it at all. And you know that anyone from your in-group will agree with your side of things because they also won't care about logic or reason and are operating on the same kind of tribal loyalty. And that's why you're going around making absurd claims like this in the first place, because you know you can get away with it because the only people who will call you out on it are people in the out-group, who you can write off. And in the same way that you can adopt absurd positions, you can also just casually lie about people as well. When you see someone say, "I saw a tankie say [blah blah blah]" you're not going to stop and ask, "Is there any evidence that they ever said that?" you'll just instantly accept it, or say that it "sounds reasonable" even with zero basis, because you recognize the person saying it being part of your tribe and me being outside of it. It's just jerking each other off.
And that's why it's impossible to have any sort of logical discussion on .world or for discussions here to involve any sort of critical thought. Because you can make ridiculous claims like, "Opposing intervention isn't isolationist" and none of your tribemates will ever call you out on it.
You know it's true, just like you know it's true that opposing interventions is isolationist. Obviously you'll never concede either point to me, because regardless of facts or reason, I'm in the outgroup. But maybe you can admit it to yourself.
And that's all I have to say to you. Bye.
I see we're back to the "no it isn't" level of discourse straight from the argument clinic. Not that you ever left.
Yes, you'd have to be either incredibly dumb or a troll to say that opposing intervention isn't isolationist, we've been over this.
Sorry, what part of the definition of isolationism you provided said anything about idealism? I don't see any reference to idealism in the definition you provided or anything that could be construed as a reference to idealism. So even if your claims that my position was idealist and ignorant of reality were correct, you have still not explained in any way how it isn't isolationist.
Other that that part, literally all you have is "no it isn't," straight from the argument clinic.
As for the rest, as I said, I refuse to engage with you on any point until you either justify your absurd claim or admit it was wrong, and I already explained why.
Right, that's the original subject, then you said, in relation to that subject, that my stance wasn't isolationist, and then you completely refused to defend that point while repeatedly lying and claiming that you had already defended it, you just won't show where, for some reason. And now you're trying to pretend that none of that even happened and return to the original subject to weasel your way out of admitting that you were wrong, because that's the only thing you can do at this point.
You could have just allowed that my stance was isolationist and still disagreed with it. But instead you chose to dispute applying a completely neutral term to me, on no basis and for no real reason either. Literally just the guy in the argument clinic disagreeing with everything the other person says just to be contrarian and never supporting your points.
So long as you refuse to admit that you were wrong on that point and that you lied when you claimed you had explained your reasoning, you are blatantly arguing in bad faith. There's no point in discussing anything else because even if I conclusively proved my position, you could just say, "Nuh uh" like you did there. If you're unwilling to concede even the smallest point like that when you don't have anything resembling a leg to stand on, then why on earth would I move on to anything else with you?
Stop trying to change the subject to evade the question. How did you get from a definition that says "Isolationism is when you oppose intervention in foreign countries" to, "Opposing intervention in Ukraine is only isolationist if you are Ukrainian?" What exactly is your reasoning that brought you from point A to point B, and, furthermore, where are the "five times" that you laid out this reasoning? Give me every single one of the five or admit that you're wrong. I'm not going to continue the conversation and just allow you to weasel your way out of that, I will not engage on any other point until you answer that.
Lol I'm not going to continue this conversation as if you didn't spend the last 15 comments evading a simple question and lying by saying you already answered it.
Trying to talk with you is literally like Monty Python's argument clinic sketch.
"Is this the right room for an argument?"
"I already told you five times."
"No you haven't! Where?"
"Yes I did. I did it before."
"No, you didn't. When, where?"
"Yes I did. I said it before."
Absolute clown.
I conclusively proved that everything I said is true 300 times. I will refuse to point to a specific comment or quote a single line where I did it once, but it definitely, 100% happened. So, that outweighs your 5 times easily. And before you try to say you explained it 301 times, I proved you wrong infinity+1 times.
Or we could not just say bullshit and actually back up our claims, with the expectation that if you claim to have done something, you can point to a specific line on a specific comment where you have done so. I'd prefer to do that, but if you wanna go with bullshit, then fine, I just don't know why either of us is still here then.
At this point, even if you could point to anywhere where you supposedly explained your reasoning, I would demand an explanation for why you've wasted so much time evading the question. This has been a completely unreasonable and unacceptable response to an extremely basic question. All you had to do was answer once and we wouldn't be doing whatever this is.
Once again, trying to have a serious, substantive discussion with a .worlder proves impossible because y'all compulsively lie and do not give a rat's ass about evidence, and when someone catches you doing it you just call them "crybaby" for calling it out.
You were slinging insults at me from the very beginning when you called me an accelerationist, stupid, etc. You still cannot point to even a single word in a single comment where you explained anything. What a ridiculous conversation, why would you prefer to argue so much over whether you've explained your position when, if you had, you could simply point to where you explained it? Because you didn't explain it, so this is all you've got. Who are you even trying to fool at this point?
I don't think drag read what I cited, so I will link it again. Literally the title says, "Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?" which he answers in the affirmative.
Does drag have any basis for what drag just claimed, that the parties Lenin discussed were not parties that participated in electoral processes? Or did drag just make it up, in direct contradiction to what Lenin actually said, which I already cited to drag?