I’m not speaking for the person you’re replying to, nor do I necessarily approve of the actions of what I’m about to share, but I certainly know someone who doesn’t vote but does go to rallies and very often writes/calls their representative and senators. (Though I do think they voted this election cycle for Harris, which was extremely rare for them.)
I’m not questioning the value of non-electoral political action. That is just as - if not more - important. Get involved. Use your voice. Donate. Rally. Please.
I am only challenging this naive idea that “not voting” = “protesting”. You cannot protest by staying home. You cannot protest by sitting out. Not voting isn’t action, it’s inaction and no revolution will ever, ever start with inaction.
The Montgomery bus boycott didn’t start with sitting out. It started with Rosa Parks sitting in.
Not to mention the easily understood fact that an economic boycott - one which causes direct material consequences - has absolutely no relation to some sort of “political boycott”, which causes zero consequences against anyone in power.
Hell democracy is measured by political votes, a nation with low voter turn out are considered non democratic.
Yes? Congratulations, you are therefore contributing to our continued democratic decline.
This same argument can be used with electoral protest. It would be disingenuous to say none voting in protest materialised from nothing.
Yes? Congratulations, you are therefore contributing to our continued democratic decline.
I don’t see your point. If people aren’t voting then that is a symptom and not a cause. I think also a nuanced lens helps with this. People not voting isn’t binary. some knowingly protest, some are seeing the slow encroachment of inequality and just couldn’t care less which leader will continue to fuck them over.
Not voting is absolutely both a symptom and a cause. How do you think we got here, if not by voting for the people who won the elections for the past century, and by not voting for the people who lost the elections?
This is not a good counterexample. A boycott has immediate financial consequences for the boycotted company/industry. No such pressure is generated by sitting out an election.
In fact, a central strategy of the right wing in the United States is to reduce overall voter turnout, which is achieved either by restricting access to voting or by discouraging voter participation. By sitting out the vote you did exactly what the right wing wanted you to do.
This is a great point. I am a paying member of the SP. I attend major demos across the southwest. Currently building housing unions in my city.
Voting in neo-librisism I won’t do.
You’re not engaging with the challenge to your original statement.
You don’t protest by sitting out. So what are you doing?
I’m not speaking for the person you’re replying to, nor do I necessarily approve of the actions of what I’m about to share, but I certainly know someone who doesn’t vote but does go to rallies and very often writes/calls their representative and senators. (Though I do think they voted this election cycle for Harris, which was extremely rare for them.)
I’m not questioning the value of non-electoral political action. That is just as - if not more - important. Get involved. Use your voice. Donate. Rally. Please.
I am only challenging this naive idea that “not voting” = “protesting”. You cannot protest by staying home. You cannot protest by sitting out. Not voting isn’t action, it’s inaction and no revolution will ever, ever start with inaction.
Very fair point.
Sitting out has definitely been a form of protest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott
Hell democracy is measured by political votes, a nation with low voter turn out are considered non democratic.
The Montgomery bus boycott didn’t start with sitting out. It started with Rosa Parks sitting in.
Not to mention the easily understood fact that an economic boycott - one which causes direct material consequences - has absolutely no relation to some sort of “political boycott”, which causes zero consequences against anyone in power.
Yes? Congratulations, you are therefore contributing to our continued democratic decline.
This same argument can be used with electoral protest. It would be disingenuous to say none voting in protest materialised from nothing.
I don’t see your point. If people aren’t voting then that is a symptom and not a cause. I think also a nuanced lens helps with this. People not voting isn’t binary. some knowingly protest, some are seeing the slow encroachment of inequality and just couldn’t care less which leader will continue to fuck them over.
Not voting is absolutely both a symptom and a cause. How do you think we got here, if not by voting for the people who won the elections for the past century, and by not voting for the people who lost the elections?
The reason the Republicans won is that billionaires are funding campaign, popularism is on the rise, class consciousness is low.
This is not a good counterexample. A boycott has immediate financial consequences for the boycotted company/industry. No such pressure is generated by sitting out an election.
In fact, a central strategy of the right wing in the United States is to reduce overall voter turnout, which is achieved either by restricting access to voting or by discouraging voter participation. By sitting out the vote you did exactly what the right wing wanted you to do.
Yeah, we get it, you won’t vote against fascism and genocide. You’re too pure for that.
Let the suffering of minorities sanctify your cause.
Scratch a liberal a fascist bleeds.
“Letting people be genocided is bad” is apparently a liberal take now, and liberalism is, of course, fascism.
How curious.