It’s only a non-sequitor if you replace what I said about the interests of the masses with the interests of the capitalist class.
I get that it is difficult to both participate in the system while also dismantling it - that is by design. It is also designed to alienate those who participate from those who do not. That is one of the ways the system defends itself.
No it remains a nonsequitor as pointing out voting in America is a charade over choosing which mask capital wears as opposed to having any material effect on who is in power (the boss which needs fighting) has nothing to do with being detached from the needs of the masses.
So long as you ignore the lived experiences of Americans they will never behave as you think they might. If it were as you said, detached from the needs of the masses, then the grip held by the electoral system would be a simple matter to defeat.
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m accurately characterising a system that not once in its entire existence has challenged the interests of capital. Your response to this has been nonsequitors and leftist vocabulary used as buzzwords you don’t seem to entirely grasp.
My response is rooted in a structuralist critique of the system that incentivizes participation. You have said nothing of the incentives other than to assert there is none. What do you hope to accomplish by disparaging me instead of the argument?
See and once again completely not engaging with the point at hand.
To try get back to the actual matter at hand. You put forth the assertion that voting allows Amerikans to choose who they are fighting. This is blatantly untrue as the democrats and republicans are not the top of the ladder but simply the mask or the orators of those truly at the tops will (the capitalists). In response to this being pointed out you’ve gone on many tangents to use as much leftspeak as you can muster to entirely miss the point and add nothing of value (likely because you cannot as what I pointed out is blatantly obvious to all those with eyes). I am not disparaging you I simply refuse to be pulled down these inane side tangents.
You can say they aren’t really the “boss” but fact remains that voting shapes how the conflict plays out. Voting is choosing the quality of the boss fight.
But thank you for this. In the future I will say “boss fight” instead of “boss” to be more clear.
It really isn’t. Did the Dems close Guantanamo? No. Did they defund the Police or ICE? No infact they oversaw record funding. Did they codify roe v wade? No. Did they do anything to slow or stop the foreign child crushing machine? No.
Pr is the only real difference and unfortunately pr is immaterial.
The party responds to those fighting in accordance to their PR. A dem will opt for more covert methods while the repubs will send the police to outright murder people in the streets and celebrate it. All the issues you listed are true, and that is why fighting is not optional.
It’s only a non-sequitor if you replace what I said about the interests of the masses with the interests of the capitalist class.
I get that it is difficult to both participate in the system while also dismantling it - that is by design. It is also designed to alienate those who participate from those who do not. That is one of the ways the system defends itself.
No it remains a nonsequitor as pointing out voting in America is a charade over choosing which mask capital wears as opposed to having any material effect on who is in power (the boss which needs fighting) has nothing to do with being detached from the needs of the masses.
So long as you ignore the lived experiences of Americans they will never behave as you think they might. If it were as you said, detached from the needs of the masses, then the grip held by the electoral system would be a simple matter to defeat.
I’m not ignoring anything. I’m accurately characterising a system that not once in its entire existence has challenged the interests of capital. Your response to this has been nonsequitors and leftist vocabulary used as buzzwords you don’t seem to entirely grasp.
My response is rooted in a structuralist critique of the system that incentivizes participation. You have said nothing of the incentives other than to assert there is none. What do you hope to accomplish by disparaging me instead of the argument?
See and once again completely not engaging with the point at hand.
To try get back to the actual matter at hand. You put forth the assertion that voting allows Amerikans to choose who they are fighting. This is blatantly untrue as the democrats and republicans are not the top of the ladder but simply the mask or the orators of those truly at the tops will (the capitalists). In response to this being pointed out you’ve gone on many tangents to use as much leftspeak as you can muster to entirely miss the point and add nothing of value (likely because you cannot as what I pointed out is blatantly obvious to all those with eyes). I am not disparaging you I simply refuse to be pulled down these inane side tangents.
You can say they aren’t really the “boss” but fact remains that voting shapes how the conflict plays out. Voting is choosing the quality of the boss fight.
But thank you for this. In the future I will say “boss fight” instead of “boss” to be more clear.
It really isn’t. Did the Dems close Guantanamo? No. Did they defund the Police or ICE? No infact they oversaw record funding. Did they codify roe v wade? No. Did they do anything to slow or stop the foreign child crushing machine? No.
Pr is the only real difference and unfortunately pr is immaterial.
The party responds to those fighting in accordance to their PR. A dem will opt for more covert methods while the repubs will send the police to outright murder people in the streets and celebrate it. All the issues you listed are true, and that is why fighting is not optional.