Because the parties aren’t the main problem. The entire system they’ve built is the problem.
We don’t need reform. We need revolution. The only real purpose of our involvement in the electoral system at this point is recruitment, and showing people that the system cannot be reformed. I agree we should continue to push third parties and try to create energetic campaigns behind them, with the primary goal being to force the parties to rig it and show their hand.
I think it depends what you mean by revolution, bc DOGE/Yarvin/Thiel and the Heritage Foundation believe what they’re doing is revolution, but really it’s just removing protections for people and creating new regulations that cement their power grab.
They also will scream non stop what they’re doing is to increase transparency, but it’s actually just distracting people by pointing the finger at others and hiding what they’re really doing in the shadows
It’s what the Heritage Foundation did in Russia in the early 90s. Removing protections bc you think they’re inefficient only allows the people they were protecting you from to swoop in and take control just like they were hoping for
I’m speaking of a socialist revolution. Not a fascist takeover.
So a Communist takeover. Not much difference in that and a fascist takeover.
“Revolutions” serve people.
Then how come the Russian revolution and the Iranian revolution and the Chinese revolution all killed millions of people much of whom were selected randomly? Why would an unaccountable government that doesn’t allow people to chose their own leaders be more likely rather than far less likely to “serve people”
Because the parties aren’t the main problem. The entire system they’ve built is the problem.
We don’t need reform. We need revolution. The only real purpose of our involvement in the electoral system at this point is recruitment, and showing people that the system cannot be reformed. I agree we should continue to push third parties and try to create energetic campaigns behind them, with the primary goal being to force the parties to rig it and show their hand.
I think it depends what you mean by revolution, bc DOGE/Yarvin/Thiel and the Heritage Foundation believe what they’re doing is revolution, but really it’s just removing protections for people and creating new regulations that cement their power grab.
They also will scream non stop what they’re doing is to increase transparency, but it’s actually just distracting people by pointing the finger at others and hiding what they’re really doing in the shadows
It’s what the Heritage Foundation did in Russia in the early 90s. Removing protections bc you think they’re inefficient only allows the people they were protecting you from to swoop in and take control just like they were hoping for
I’m speaking of a socialist revolution. Not a fascist takeover.
I don’t care what they want to call it. “Revolutions” serve people. Not demagogues.
So a Communist takeover. Not much difference in that and a fascist takeover.
Then how come the Russian revolution and the Iranian revolution and the Chinese revolution all killed millions of people much of whom were selected randomly? Why would an unaccountable government that doesn’t allow people to chose their own leaders be more likely rather than far less likely to “serve people”