there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.
Read my comment below, because it gets into this. It can’t make things better, because it historically has never done so, only protests with the threat of violence from below (and completely outside of bourgeios democracy) have.
Except that it has historicaly made things better, sure, not in massive scale votes, but in smaller votes? In local elections? I fully agree that protests are necessary, and they are alot of what causes positive change, but that doesn’t render voting completely useless. In the current systems that exist, capitalism does turn large votes into what is essentially a dick measuring contest. But in smaller scale, local votes there is less money being put into the system, so voting becomes more impactful.
Even locally, it would take some incredible magic for the capitalists who rule a given city or town’s politics, to enact or enforce laws than go against their interests / profits, especially without a fight. Scale isn’t relevant here, since local elites use the city/town police as goons to protect their property.
Unless you can give some examples, I don’t believe it, and I certainly can’t think of any time in my city’s history where they’ve willingly allowed something against their interests.
My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists. In smaller scale elections, people can actually have a real choice to vote for a socialist, or communist, or other similar left wing leader.
Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting. As far as I know, those aren’t typically financially very good for the rich who control the government. If I am incorrect about this, please correct me.
Also, I apologize, I am really not in the mood to do a bunch of research to find examples currently, if I remember about this in the future I will, but that is, unfortunately, far from a guarantee.
Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting.
Minimum wage, the 5-day work week, and other workers gains took decades of violent struggle and organizing by socialists, communists, and anarchists in nearly every country.
My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists.
That’s not how it works in any capitalist country. Political power is subservient to economic power, and is toothless without it.
People should vote to gauge strength, show solidarity with their movement and demonstrate how to those unaware that the system isn’t working and therefore requires replacing it with one that will.
While I agree with you, there is no harm in voting, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that it will make things better.
Read my comment below, because it gets into this. It can’t make things better, because it historically has never done so, only protests with the threat of violence from below (and completely outside of bourgeios democracy) have.
Except that it has historicaly made things better, sure, not in massive scale votes, but in smaller votes? In local elections? I fully agree that protests are necessary, and they are alot of what causes positive change, but that doesn’t render voting completely useless. In the current systems that exist, capitalism does turn large votes into what is essentially a dick measuring contest. But in smaller scale, local votes there is less money being put into the system, so voting becomes more impactful.
Even locally, it would take some incredible magic for the capitalists who rule a given city or town’s politics, to enact or enforce laws than go against their interests / profits, especially without a fight. Scale isn’t relevant here, since local elites use the city/town police as goons to protect their property.
Unless you can give some examples, I don’t believe it, and I certainly can’t think of any time in my city’s history where they’ve willingly allowed something against their interests.
My point is that the rulers of a city or town might not be capitalists. In smaller scale elections, people can actually have a real choice to vote for a socialist, or communist, or other similar left wing leader.
Off the top of my head (and without researching this further) simple things like minimum wage increases have happened, and while it took alot of fighting, that is accomplished by voting. As far as I know, those aren’t typically financially very good for the rich who control the government. If I am incorrect about this, please correct me.
Also, I apologize, I am really not in the mood to do a bunch of research to find examples currently, if I remember about this in the future I will, but that is, unfortunately, far from a guarantee.
Minimum wage, the 5-day work week, and other workers gains took decades of violent struggle and organizing by socialists, communists, and anarchists in nearly every country.
That’s not how it works in any capitalist country. Political power is subservient to economic power, and is toothless without it.
Like many things in life, it gets complicated based on where you are at, what you believe, and personality.
If it’s important to you, then vote.
If you feel like your vote counts, vote.
If it is a small town election and the ballots are counted by people in the town, then vote.
For everything else, it’s shades of gray
People should vote to gauge strength, show solidarity with their movement and demonstrate how to those unaware that the system isn’t working and therefore requires replacing it with one that will.