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
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.
You’re 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 people’s 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.