this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
168 points (94.7% liked)
Flippanarchy
2493 readers
1539 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's exactly why the tankies are a problem. They're so anti-lib that they wind up helping the Nazis.
I'm not a Democrat myself, but I vote for them because I think Nazis are the bigger problem. This has led to multiple bans from certain instances. Those instances are the ones spending their efforts in the wrong direction, for now.
Libs straight up create the conditions that enable fascism. No leftist wants to partner up the with light-right.
And this community has rules against disparaging anti-electorialism.
Which is what makes them preferable, in a two-party state, to the fulfilled fascists. Baby tigers grow into adult tigers, but if I have the chance to choose which one I'm locked in a cage with, it's gonna be the baby.
Stupid rules, if you ask me. It is always preferable to try to nudge things in your favor, if even slightly. I'm an anti-electoralist in the sense that it's obviously insufficient to enact actual change, and no one should be encouraged to rely solely on electoral reform; that would be equally stupid. But it is an available tool. Even if it only makes things slightly easier for all the other, more effective means of enacting change, that's still a valuable tool.
I'll quote Lenin
He's advocating running a communist electoral party as a means to spread the communist message and gitate amongst the masses, not voting for Graham totenkopf Planter or Copmala Harris. Literally the opposite of the point your trying to make about "lesser evil voting".
He's advocating running what you can to reach the yokels. Sometimes that's someone who once was so ignorant they accidentally got a totenkopf tattoo. Platner and Harris are further left than most of the masses are willing to go as it is. We're fighting an uphill battle, and there are like a handful of proper options across the entire nation. Your work with what you've got, and we've got work ahead of us. That work isn't going to get any easier if we keep trying to fight the greater evil.
Again not at all what he's advocating. Did you even read the book? I'm not particularly interested in arguing the point at large but if you're going to make the point you should at minimum use quotes that actually agree with you. Leninâs point in that passage is not âsupport whatever vaguely left bourgeois candidate is available because the masses are backwardâ. It is that communists should not abstain from bourgeois parliaments while workers still have illusions in them. The âyouâ in the passage is communists, organised independently, entering reactionary institutions under their own programme in order to reach workers, expose bourgeois democracy, and build communist influence. That is completely different from backing liberals/progressives/Democrats as the best available option. âWork within reactionary institutionsâ does not mean âsupport the candidates produced by those institutions.â It means communists use those arenas as platforms for communist agitation rather than standing outside them.
I did read it, and I think you're interpreting the point far, far too narrowly.
But that's besides the point entirely. The point is, Lenin disparaged anti-elecrorialism. Having rules against disparaging anti-elecrorialism is stupid.
I disagree especially when taken into account with how much time he spent writing polemics about how terrible and idiotic all the Kautskyites, social chauvinists, etc were.
I would agree if the rules were against the Leninist view of electoralism as a platform for agitation etc but I believe the rules are more targeted towards your view of vote blue no matter who and the view of electoralism as a means to bring meaningful change. It is however an anarchist community that I'm not 100% acquainted with so I could be wrong but that's the vibe I get from it and other communities with similar rules.
I never said electoralism was a means to bring meaningful change. My argument is that it's one tool that can be used to slightly influence the landscape to mitigate the worst of the damage. Obviously real change comes from dual power and organization, voting blue just gives us a slightly easier battle, and slightly slows the descent into fascism.
I never said you did and If I did it was an accident I meant to say your views of vote blue no matter who (as you advocate voting for, as far as I'm aware, unrepentant enforcer for the empire Graham Totenkopf Planter over running a PSL or otherwise communist/leftist candidate) and other people's views of voting being a means of real change as 2 separate views on electoralism that would be banned under my understanding of the rules.
I'm all for running the furthest left candidate with the chance to win. It's just not a good strategy when that causes the furthest right candidate to actually win. In safe blue districts, absolutely do that. In purple districts, blue is better than red, and an actual leftist is just going to spoil the vote.
Modern Americans are even less class-conscious and prepared than the Germans Lenin was referring to. We must soberly recognize that fact, and suit our strategies to this particularly stunted working class.
As far as I can tell, that currently means promoting leftists in the tiny enclaves where they stand a chance, nudging the Dems left in the primaries where they don't, and voting for the lesser evil when that's the best the consciousness of the proletariat allows.
Mamdani was the most leftist candidate we could get in a deep blue district. In less blue districts, we will certainly have to settle for Platners. It's not a question of whether Platner is good enough, the question is whether Platner is better than Collins right now. While we lack the ability to elect good candidates, elections do little more than allow us to block the worst candidate.
When there are real options besides blue and red, blue no matter who will have outlived its usefulness. We aren't there yet.
Youâre still hung up on winning, but winning bourgeois elections is not the goal, or even on the same playing field as the goal, for communist electoral work. Again the goal is agitation: using the election to expose bourgeois democracy, spread an independent communist programme, and pull people left from their actual lived conditions.
This new quote still does not vindicate lesser-evilism the way you seem to think it does; Lenin is saying communists must soberly assess where the masses are and tailor their platform accordingly, keeping it intelligible, concrete, and tied to peopleâs direct experiences of rent, wages, war, policing etc. He is again absolutely not saying communists should be advocating voting for the less awful administrator of empire. Meeting people where they are means starting from their present consciousness in order to raise it, not endorsing the blue fascist because the red fascist is worse.
That's not accurate. It's not about "winning", it's about mitigating losses so that the real methods of change can be more successful.
And again, that quote was directed towards Germans, who already had popular leftist parties. The principle is thus:
In Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, that tailored platform was one thing. In modern America, it is a very different thing. Meeting the working class where they are means meeting them to the right of progressive liberalism. When that fact changes, so will the appropriate platform.
It's not a matter of "endorsement", it's strategic mitigation. Where the masses are, in terms of class consciousness, is center-right at best. Raising that consciousness is going to necessarily pass through liberalism, progressivism, democratic socialism, etc. It's very difficult to drastically shift the perspective of hundreds of millions of people. That will take time, decades if not generations. Blue "fascists" are slower than red fascists, which means less damage in that period of consciousness-raising. Again, baby tigers vs adult tigers.
It's not about endorsement, it's about choosing the easier enemy to defeat.
Honestly again I'm not interested in debating the point at large even if I disagree completely you should feel free to continue to believe what you do I just think you should use quotes that back up what you're saying as opposed to ones that are entirely about communist parties running their own candidates as a means of agitation and absolutely 100% not about voting for the kautskyites or reactionaries that might be nicer managers.