It’s educate, AGITATE, organize
edit: putting this at the top so people understand the basis for this:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
“Cool, what form does your agitation come in?”
“Encouraging apathy, and demonization of the only non-fascist candidate with a chance to win without suggestion of realistic alternatives”
Did you get an opportunity to suggest realistic alternatives? Or did the Democratic party steamroll your local primary and rob you of your voice?
Thats lucky, we were not given any choices in my state, we had no discussion, no primary debates, and no discussion as to the viability of running with Biden.
I love Bernie, but his real shot was 2016 and the Dems blocked his path so they would not have to have a real vote which would have embarrassed Hillary.
and now you have to work with the representative you ended up with, just like the rest of us.
Discourage apathy by putting your fingers in your ears and shout about how impossible making any positive change is instead!
“Changing 50 years of foreign policy on an issue most American voters don’t regard as important (however horrific that is) isn’t going to happen because the left-wing is threatening to let a fascist take power; that’s literally the opposite of the scenario that should be happening for improvement”
most American voters don’t regard as important (however horrific that is)
This is quite literally the thing we’re trying to change.
Yes and you’ve decided that rather than try and change their minds you’ll just write off Palestine and sit around waiting for another five months. Or sorry not even that, you’ve decided that you’re going to scream at the people who are going to try and call them Trump supporters.
Putting your fingers in your ears to drown out the sound of the Overton window screeching to the right is a much better alternative.
If I were encouraging apathy, I’d be trying to get people to ignore an important issue by arguing ‘change simply isn’t realistic so it’s better to just shut your eyes to it’
OP’s only ask is “feel bad enough about Biden and the Democrats to stay home in November.” That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
The goal is to stop democrats from continuing to support a genocide (min) and a genocidal project (max)
The route is through moderates, who would really like to not talk about this issue, because while it is something they agree with, pointing to something bad that they are contributing to threatens to weaken their voting base. Any political agitation necessarily implicitly makes that threat, and it’s intentional, because otherwise the moderate would have no reason to push for it.
This starts with an opponent who agrees with you in principle–that’s Democrats. This has no advice for you if a Republican is in office. Yes, criticize Dems, ignore Republicans, and vote for the party you have hope of moving, even against their will, or over the bodies of their leaders.
What’s more ridiculous is when the so called “moderates” only criticize progressives and never conservatives.
Like, one side wants full on fascism, the other wants healthcare instead of genocide…
If you’re “in the middle” of those two groups, and you spend more time fighting for genocide and against healthcare than you do fighting the fascists…
That says a lot about your personal values.
It makes sense for both ends to work thru the middle. Which is of course why republicans skip the middle and attack the far left with moderates.
It’s a 2-1 fight, has been since before they united to stop FDR from getting us universal healthcare 80 some years ago.
It’s a 2-1 fight, has been since before they united to stop FDR from getting us universal healthcare 80 some years ago.
Oh, please. FDR would be derided as a right-wing capitalist pig in the pockets of Big Corporations by the same people agitating today.
I think a lot of it is that we’re in a group of people who are almost entirely left of the dems. Republican ideas are (rightfully) downvoted into oblivion and never seen. That leaves the only arguments being seen as within the left.
It’s made worse by those on the left actually thinking and not just towing the party line, which leads to more fractures and disagreement. It’s not a bad thing that people disagree with “progressives”, it’s a sign that the left in general isn’t a pseudo-religious hivemind.
What do you want a group of leftists to talk about? Homophobia bad? Trans rights good? Billionaires bad? Public healthcare good?
