I know voting by itself cannot bring about change. However the right person in the right position, who is supported by the people, would have a legitimacy that revolutions often lack. The establishment candidates won’t even debate, how can they be considered legitimate.
How am I suppose to choose between the three hopefuls I actually like though?
Jill Stein seems like she has the best chance to win, but I don’t know if she is revolutionary enough.
Cornel West seems like he might actually be able to kick off a revolution, but I don’t know if he could win.
Claudia de la Cruz seems amazing but is still very much a bit of an unknown.
Am I just suppose to roll the dice here? I think I could vote for any of these three with a clear conscience, but my favorite depends so much on the day.
No matter who you go with in the end, you can take comfort in the fact that it won’t make a difference.
This isn’t about making a difference in the system. It’s about deciding who could lead the revolution.
It is one of many tools that need to be used to make a difference.
The main purpose of voting has historically been estimating popular support for a communist party, not identifying the best leader of the revolution.
That may have been true in the past in the US, but this three way split isn’t helping us. There could be an opportunity here, alot people are just voting against the other guy.
You don’t need to run a candidate for president to gain popular support. And the candidate will never be the center of the revolution - that’s “Great Man Theory” talking.
Revolution happens through popular support of the workers. Building and growing a coalition of working class orgs is where we should be putting in our efforts.
