They’ve made some incredibly and impressively stupid strategic errors even leaving aside poor preparation and the stupidity of attacking iran. That’s what happens when you put bootlickers in charge.

There’s a lot brigading state subreddits to influence elections right now :/

It creates far more issues than it benefits. Hiding enables bad actors much more so than not hiding does, as it allows them to more easily disguise their history of bad faith arguing.

You say “socialist democracy” as distinct from bourgeois elections but socialism describes an economic ideology, not a system of voting. It’s not a meaningful differentiator to show how your system is different. That alone makes me get the feeling you’re kinda just tossing word salads here. But, I would like you to explain what you mean before I dismiss it as such— perhaps it has a meaning I’m unfamiliar with.

precondition you wait for, it is forged through struggle. The 90% figure is wrong for a start, even in the US communist sympathys are quickly growing

Rapidly growing, part of why I’m optimistic in a peaceful solution. But I would say that’s much more for socialism than communism.

Bourgeois democracy won’t let you vote through its own abolition.

The beautiful part of democracy, even flawed ones, is that it can’t stop you once you gather enough support, it will bend to your will

It’s an important reform no matter what, even if we have to resort to other methods to take out the class first.

It’s quite possible it’s too late for the usa, but I still do want other democracies to push for it. Only 4 odd countries have it worldwide.

Worth saying, while grassroots is less common, it is not gone. Kat in il-9 is somewhat a good example of this though she failed community engagement and came from out of town so she’s unlikely to win. Though it is arguable how grassroots she is. Of course the top priority is revoking citizens united.

It’s one of the simplest ways of helping push countries to the left, because it allows you to have people vote for the leftist politicians without worrying about boosting a right wing politician or party, as first past the post forces, and also not forcing people to vote for parties, which lock out leftist candidates from being able to gain traction as easily such as in proportional voting systems.

Ranked choice and proportional voting are 2 very different concepts. You are falsely pretending they’re similar when they’re wildly different concepts. Only Ireland presently uses it from the eu, because they as well have an establishment, and ranked choice voting is anti establishment at its core.

Why are you trying to pretend they’re the same concept?

How do you expect to have a revolution if 90% of people don’t agree with your viewpoint? And I say that as a socialist. Pushing forward the agenda over the course of decades is more likely to be successful than a single revolution, in my opinion.

You do realize that ranked choice voting is one of the simplest and least violent ways to push forward progressive candidates right? Because it makes people comfortable with voting options that with first past the post would be throw away votes

Holy meaningless statement

You don’t know what a theocracy is.

Of course they aren’t. But usa is not a theocracy. It’s not run by a head of church nor anything close

The usa is a fascist state. Not a the3orcacy

Is theocracies being trash racism?

Ignore the genocide that y’all love to lie about. Ignore the oppression of their own citizens. Ignore the fascist take over of hong kong. Ignore that only their approved candidates can hold office. Ignore the disappearing of citizens. Both are godawful Nations.

Being able to fight for rights without spilling blood was a hard fought privilege. Blood spilling is not the only way to succeed. Though I will not deny it works, safer options should not be fully scorned.

It pains me how many people pretend it’s a far future problem. They don’t understand that heat waves will create mass death much sooner than some centuries in the future timeline.

You do understand why that is, right? It’s because it’s not meant to be a government, so pacts that won’t be enforceable without certain countries are capable of being denied by said countries for the most part. Because it’s diplomacy, not a government . Nothing stops the “yes” voting countries from making pacts with each other to go with the resolutions as well. Not doing that when usa votes no should show you something about their actual thoughts

I mean literally no, Communism is about far more than just cheaper groceries. Communism is about overthrowing capitalism;of course capital is afraid of it, even though they deserve it

Abstaining and even voting yes on the matter simply because they know for certain that the usa will vote no, allowing them to save face. Plenty of non western countries practice that as well

There’s probably some overlap where people capable of accepting themselves as transgender instead of denying it are more ready to deny tradition in general