I think protesting is stupid if you can vote

Post Reply New Topic

Are you suggesting that working people aren't exploited?
Are you suggesting that people who know they're being exploited won't feel any incentive towards resolving that problem?

I ask again - do you know WHY Marx concluded workers were exploited in ECONOMIC relationships? If you can't answer that key part, then you are literally talking out of your rear.

And again - it wasn't just about workers. What Marx said applies to the legal system. As in, a rich person could kill a poor person and more or less get away with it. That has been true in almost every society in human history, no?

Edit: Ok I got no answer, so I will give out the answer. I mean this - if you can't bring up this concept when talking about the differences between Marxism and Communism - or really anything regarding his writings - you know jack squat about the topic.

Marx's analysis had one fatal flaw which led him to prescribe Communism as the solution to what he described in his analysis of society. That fatal flaw was the Labor Theory of Value, which was popular in the early 1800s and it was a non Marxist that came up with it - David Ricardo. David Ricardo is probably the most important economist until Keynes. He came up with "comparative advantage." His ideas were overturned by none other than Paul Krugman over 150 years later. Right wingers thought he got a Nobel Prize because he opposed Bush 2 but were completely ignorant of the significance of his work.

Anyways, the labor theory of value is where communism goes wrong. Marx misunderstood the value the capitalist/entrepreneur added to the production process. It doesn't make his analysis of how society works completely wrong because there was more to it than merely economic relationships. You can believe he was generally correct and still not think communism is the answer.

Oh and by the way, if you look at the socialist party platform and what Marx described the ideal society would be like - guess what? That's most of the Western world. We got there differently - from democracy - and not communism.

There are two sensible goals in any protest:

1) to put pressure on the political class. I don't think this is anti-democratic necessarily. It doesn't seem outrageous to me that strongly-held views should be given greater weight than apathetic views.

Let's say three friends are trying to decide where to go for dinner. There are two restaurants nearby, Chinese and Italian.
Friend 1 says "I like both restaurants, but would softly prefer Italian."
Friend 2 says "I like both restaurants, but would softly prefer Italian."
Friend 3 says "I am coeliac, and the Italian restaurant does not have any gluten-free dishes. I will only eat if we go to the Chinese restaurant."

Where should they eat? A simple first-past-the-post vote would see them eat Italian, where one of them would go hungry. I think any actual friend group would choose Chinese.

If you care strongly enough about an issue to protest for it, then your view is arguably worth more than those who do not protest. Obviously there are all sorts of considerations - pragmatic, financial, ethical, size of minority and majority, the difficulties some people might have in protesting, and surely more - but the principle that strong views deserve more consideration than weak ones doesn't seem to me to be inherently anti-democratic.

2) the second goal of protest should be to draw attention of the apathetic and help change their minds. One person's vote is not worth much. The votes of many people who think the same way are what lead to governments being changed.

Well this thread is about what the average person can do to effect political change.

(Any discussion of the merits of Marxism ,or how it is neutral belong in the other thread.)

I believe it is to get involved in creating college courses, becoming a professor, writing newspaper articles, mentoring young people, making YouTube videos.

I don't think voting or protesting are particularly effective in changing complicated things.



The main point I'm making is that college courses about politics are left leaning and not conservative.
The young adults who graduate from college become journalists,they write scripts for children's tv shows,they become politicians,they vote...

So clearly the power resides in the classroom.

Society has gone left since the late eighties... which is when some of these courses were introduced in the UK.

Might the problem be that some conservative positions rely on ignorance?

That certainly is the appearance and would explain why schools are more likely to be critical of such positions and the ideology they're associated with.

It seems likely.

Sadly alot of protests today are populists themes that's about it. People lobbying for a change because they feel it needs to be done, not for any real world improvements.

Protests that matter still are things like workers being badly treated underpaid poor working conditions actual green peace issues that should be talked about but probably aren't much any more like man made plastic pollution killing our oceans and also other issues such as the growing problem of E-Waste and potentially objects in orbit creating significant man made asteroid hazards known as Space Junk a near future pollution issue that's barely registered. I think too many people have lost the ability to exercise the grey matter as they spend too much time getting wound up in groups that try to push these protests ahead and not getting involved in causes that actually make a difference. Some of the worst problems today few people seem to care about anymore and someday its going to bite us in the butt. Or maybe global IQ's will take a sharp upturn as services like Facebook disappear from the net.

One would assume they believe it needs to be done because it would be a real world improvement.

Being politically active, but...not bothering to vote...THAT is indeed stupid.

The reverse is not so much...voters dont have to also be protesters.

But a protestor who is too young to vote is fine (just dont let the politicians who see you and your picket sign KNOW that you're too young to vote).

How is it stupid to not vote for parties that don't represent one's values?

People who protest seem to get what they want in the end, even if it's a minority of people, they still somehow seem to make society change for them. (I would give an example in a matter of fact way but it'll only get reported and I'll end up regretting it again but I suppose that's evidence that it works).

Well if you such an EXTREEEEEEM wierdo that you cant even find a splinter party to vote for, like the Greens, or the Libertarians, or the Socialists, et al. Then you can at least find the closest thing, and vote for that party. Even that would send a message.

Like...if you're a one issue voter who is eager to promote cannibalism, and there is no Pro Cannibalism party then you find the closest thing. In my opinion in the case of an up-with-cannibalism voter that would be the Libertarian Party.

I think you're greatly exaggerating your idea of who might struggle to find an agreeable party.

I think you also highly overestimate how much of a message casting your vote actually sends.

Sometimes protesters represent a minority; other times they represent a previously silent or unheard majority.

Not all protests result in the desired change, but some do. Sometimes it takes many protests all over the place, or even all over the world, but if someone, somewhere, is paying attention, you can make change real: Tiananmen Square, the first Earth Day protest, marches and rallies against the Viet Nam war, and numerous events that demanded action against AIDS, to name just a few examples.

Even if change isn't forthcoming, understanding and awareness can make a crucial difference, too. Some people won't care about the issues raised or agree with the proposed actions...what else is new?

But policy and real life is far too complicated to simply say, "I'll cast my vote and leave the winners to do whatever they please...or nothing at all."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the statement made by the OP, but I think the conversation needs to include how protest can energize the protestor into more tangible actions, and exert influence on other voters (for good or bad). A protest brings together people of like mind who can share ideas and plans. It can be energizing and affirming. I have seen effective grass roots organizations spring up from protests, and I've seen passersby go home and research the issues highlighted by a protest. The tentacles reach far beyond the single event.

Peaceful protest has a strong and positive history in the USA. A very American thing to do. In addition to the more tangible effects I mentioned, above, it can be an emotional outlet for the person participating. People often feel better about the prospects of an issue after they've protested.

I've never gone to one; it isn't my thing; but I've seen lots of participation on my Facebook feed from friends who are very good at following up with more directly effective actions.

One year my daughter made a sign and protested in our hallway over an injustice she felt had occurred in our household. It was a very inspiring choice for a young child.

All that said, it has to be PEACEFUL. There is far less room for positive effects to emerge from angry, violent protests; those tend to be people intent of damage, not resolution.

To be clear: You're not saying we shouldn't vote, just that voting by itself is not enough. Correct?