Neo-proudhonian mutualist with a dash of agorist praxis via non-violent counter-economic ®evolution.
Changing the system by voting is not possible. The best we can do is pick the one closest aligned with our values, that will allow us to effectively organise (vs Trump turning the military on protestors/leftists), buy the Palestinians some time (vs literal cheering for ethnic clensing).
Faulting the people against the genocide for the scenario being our reality, and not the people who wouldn’t break with the idea that the genocide was something to support? You’re not an anarchist, you’re a bootlicker.
They’re statists and authoritarians—I don’t expect them to listen to reason, and I can’t change that. My criticism is directed at those who actively pushed for a worsening of the genocide by enabling that screwball to take power, rather than supporting actual anti-genocide leftists who understand that, flawed as it is, liberalism is still preferable to outright fascism. You should know better. Instead, you keep shifting between shill gambit, baseless accusations and bad-faith comparisons.
Chomsky also acknowledged pragmatic short-term engagement with existing structures (e.g., voting for the lesser evil) while aiming for long-term abolition of oppressive institutions, FYI.
In the 2016 and 2020 U.S. elections, he argued that it was morally imperative to vote for the Democratic candidate because the alternative would be worse for marginalized communities, climate policy, and global stability.
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting
Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.
Why do they get a say