In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.
-Hannah Arendt
Edit: replied to the wrong comment
I think everyone should pick the best person for the position. But if the only two realistic options are evil and lesser evil. Then I think it’s better if the lesser evil wins than the more evil one.
As seen in last US election, voting for the ideal candidate meant the worse candidate won.
Stop acting like only having two political parties is the only way we can do things. I invite you to step outside the box you are trapped thinking in.
I don’t think we should only have two parties. But with FPTP voting that’s what happens. You need to change to ranked voting system.
Also I think everyone should vote for who they want. Unless it means the worse candidate wins… in FPTP that’s what happens. You need to vote strategically.
You could easily argue that the guys constantly chosing the lesser evil brought that catastrophic discourse shift over us, that made the lesser evil of this election worse than the worse evil of former elections.
I am not from the US, so my insight there might be limited. But here in Germany I started to hate the lesser evil fraction so much. The lesser evil here is now openly representing far right ideologies, activley supporting genocide, made it borderline illegal to critizise genocid, killing refugees at the borders, deporting people into regions were they face immediate lethal threats, initiating harsh social cuts while demonizing the poor and are discussing cooperation with open fascists. They are constantly normalizing open fascism, everday a little more. If Germany slights into fascism again, it will be mostly the lesser evils fault.
Fuck the lesser evil. They became more dangerous than the fascist themselves in many respects.
It was also Hindenburg and von Papen back in the 1930s, the lesser evil, who was paving Hitler the way to power.
edit: Lol, I startet this meaning to write 2-3 sentences, seems the lesser evil caused a writing frenzy in me.
Brain dead take. This whole philosophy of yours falls apart in the real world- look at the last US elections. We’re speed running reversal of 100+ years of progress with this idiot, where we would have incremental change forward still happening if people like you had decided to get off their high horse and vote. Not saying you personally were voting, just your mindset was one that fucked us over.
We got to where we are because we’ve been choosing the lesser evil, for far longer than 20 years
If liberals hadn’t been so content with choosing evil, we’d have avoided the last 50 years of backsliding.
This whole theory has been 100% proven by the current shitshow here in Germany. Everything I wrote has already happened and fascists much worse than Trump are currently the first among polls in Germany as a result.
And disproven by the shitshow in the US.
Oh my, if you had stopped voting the lesser evil 20 years ago, you’d not have Trump now.
Factually wrong. We would have had Al Gore instead of Bush, if people voted for lesser evils. We wouldn’t have had Nixon or Regan if people voted for lesser evils. Don’t comment on our politics when you know nothing of them.
It’s amazing to me that you could read that quote, and your take, unironically, is exactly the sentiment that Arendt was warning about.
This is such a rigid and literal way of thinking. This mentality explicitly idealizes and romanticizes black and white thinking. Life has shades of gray, no matter how much you wish it was as simple as literal Good versus Evil
Life has shades of gray is usually said by those who are 100% evil
Shades of gray dont exist irl. There’s humans, and there’s the inhuman creatures who genocide humans
“Erm acturally thats tankie propaganda, dont you know our Good Guy Candidate™ isnt Fascist he’s actually Fascist Lite™ which is totally different. Yes he’s going to blindly support genocide, yes he’s going to support imperialism, and no he wont do a damn thing to help the workers, but you see these silly graphs we made up say the economy is going and therefore our guy is qualified. Now blindly support the candidate and the party or I’ll downvote you and call you a Tankie or a Russian bot.”
- Average .world user
Liberals often call Leftists excluding liberals from the Left “purity testing,” as though the difference is merely in quantitative degrees, rather than qualitative. If the difference between Leftists and libetals is indeed merely quantitative, wanting the same thing but in greater or lesser extents, then the Liberals would be correct, however opposition to Capitalism itself and support for Socialism fundamentally represents a qualitative shift.
For Leftists, Social Democracy, or Welfare Capitalism, isn’t actually a solution. The countries seen as “success stories” like the Nordics rely on Imperialism, they aren’t closed loop economies. Further, their conditions are deteriorating as wealth concentrates. Leftists therefore aren’t letting “perfect” be the enemy of “good,” it’s that Liberalism is built on a brutal system of international plunder, and is on a death spiral as liberal countries increasingly pivot more to the right. Climate Change is still an existential threat. Liberalism isn’t a solution.
That’s why there’s friction between progressive liberals and Leftists.
Liberals often call Leftists excluding liberals from the Left “purity testing,”
Far more often than not, what I see is a Liberal electoralist showing up at a Leftist direct action event and saying “Please vote for my favorite guy” and getting told to fuck off. This is inevitably because their favorite guy just endorsed the “$50B for More Gaza Genocides Act of 2025” and then pissed all over the PRO Act, the GND, and student debt relief as unaffordable boondoggles that would hurt working class people.
Then the liberal calls them antisemitic Russian bots who love the Chinese Communist Party more than their own mothers, storms off, and discretely makes a call to ICE to raid their activist clubhouse. A week later, they’re online complaining about how Leftists are too divisive and hate freedom.
For Leftists, Social Democracy, or Welfare Capitalism, isn’t actually a solution.
I think there are an enormous number of Leftists who - when presented with a solid mix of social democratic reforms and civil rights protections - are happy enough to get on a progressively liberal bandwagon. What I haven’t seen is progressive liberalism at the head of the Democratic Party. Far more often than not, its the same crop of corporate goons and inter-party bureaucratic careerist worms pushing “Business First” economic policy and white nationalist social policy, regardless of who is in the White House. The only real difference is whether you get a weepy Samantha Powers or an ice-chewing Steve Bannon providing the PR for the latest wedding party bombing run or surveillance state blank check.
Show me some actual fucking Social Democracy to get behind. Show me some Welfare Capitalism that isn’t means-tested and gatekept to the point of being functionally worthless to any American within spitting distance of the poverty line. Leftists can’t be lured into the waiting arms of a plutocrat friendly Mixed Economy if all anyone offers is a bigger DHS and $20k market-interest loans to three-year-old minority owned small businesses.
Liberalism is built on a brutal system of international plunder, and is on a death spiral as liberal countries increasingly pivot more to the right. Climate Change is still an existential threat. Liberalism isn’t a solution.
Even the most successful communist states weren’t above indulging in extraction industry and sloppy emissions standards. Hell, both the USSR and the CCP were notoriously shit on environmental standards all through the 70s and 80s. It took a big internal backlash within the Chinese proletariat to get mayors, governors, and eventually national leaders to recognize the threat of environmental degradation to long term social cohesion. And Russians never got a chance to learn environmentalism, because they were Shock Doctrine’d into a Saudi style petro state.
Still debatable whether Chinese bureaucrats have come around on overseas extraction, too. Certainly, the domestic labor practices vary heavily by industry. And Chinese labor expats are as abused as anyone from the Global South.
But it does appear that these big seemingly rigid and overly-bureaucratic communist systems are receptive to some demands for reform. The ship is large and slow. The progress is gradual. Whether or not we’ll see big socialist states fully divest from fossil fuels and extend labor rights beyond their more privileged labor sectors in time to save the planet is speculative at best. But they do seem to be moving in the right direction.
Liberals seem to be collapsing back into a 19th century state of labor and ecology. Even in defiance of economic and social pressures, there is this ideological impulse towards degraded working conditions and deteriorating ecology. As someone who grew up in a deeply neoliberal neighborhood, it seems to defy the bedrock theories of liberal politics. All these pressures arrayed against it, and the so-called technocratic pragmatists are on a total dogmatic bender, intent on making the worst decisions possible in outright defiance of reason, popular opinion, and profit motive.
How can any Leftist stand behind that?
True. Sorry, your ideology lost so hard that half of it was Trump’s 1st term policy. Concede to the left for once in your god damn lives or suffer liberals.
Concede to the left for once in your god damn lives or suffer liberals.
They’ll choose suffering. They love Trump, its why they didn’t arrest him. He doesn’t hurt the bottom line, just the poors, browns, and queers.
Fuck the lesser of two evils. I choose good.
“Purity politics and single issue voters are so toxic! All I said is we need to support an active genocide, fund more wars, keep kids in cages, ignore COVID, and do nothing about the cost of living going up with wages going down. Why does the left want to alienate people like me?!”
DEMS: You have to understand we need to eat the shit. If we dont eat the shit the other guy is going to smear it on your face and the faces of your children. So, you see, eating the shit is necessary so that we dont have to smear it over more people’s faces.
Me: how the fuck are the only choices shit? Why dont we just not eat the shit and not have everyone horrified of us?
They’ve somehow managed to convince a stunningly large number of gullible USians, that you need to eat shit to survive, or that its harm reduction or something…
Harm reduction is eating 15 pounds of shit, because the next guy will make you eat 16 pounds of shit. If you want a dental dam, you’re unrealistic.
Because someone has to eat the shit
*the poors must eat the shit.
Trickle Down used be called “Horse and Sparrow Economics.” As in the horses eat the grain, and sparrows peck their meals from the horseshit.
You don’t understand, their support of lesser fascism is necessary to avoid the greater fascism, so by opposing them you’re actually supporting the greater fascism
I’d accept a viable alternative. Wake me up when we have one.
whoops, world ended
Damn, if only if I had been more moral.
proactive
Show me how I’m not being proactive enough.
Are you currently involved in trying to replace First-past-the-post voting in your state?
You don’t get to tell people they don’t get to vote how they want and then do nothing to fix the voting system that is the source of the spoiler effect. We’ll, you could if you didn’t really care about democracy at all and just want your preference to win at all costs.
So is it party over country or is your state going to stop using First-past-the-post voting?
I’m a huge advocate for first past the post. I’d love to see it happen in my state.
Weren’t you being facetious?
If the world was ending, it wouldn’t be because we lacked morals but because we lacked action. I think we agree on what’s moral, we just disagree about how much of what action is needed.
Oh yeah, you’re right. I lost the thread. Don’t mind msorry. Im seriously sorry.
Yup. We need lesser of two in red districts and vote for our ideals in our safe districts to move the part as a whole.
there you go using mathematics and democracy
neither of these things work on .ml
they have their own fantasy science
You’re replying to a dbzer0 btw.
I’m just so impressed by them. Forgoing all forms of capitalism so they are not totally responsible for the outcomes of capitalist society. It’s a principled stance but living in stateless, technology absent, collectives outside the rule of the government is not an easy life.
i love the fact that their science says that the fact that their system has never worked proves that it will surely work next time
i think i prefer real science
I was talking about this with my wife. I’d live in a socialist or communist run government, at least the one they fantasize about, but I would never live long enough to see it enacted, as leftists envision.
So in my mind I have two choices that aren’t exactly mutually exclusive:
1.) Openly support communism without thought about what the final outcome of that may actually be because I won’t be alive to guide it (as if I’d have much say).
2.) Just keep working to make the world I live in better
Both are fine options and I can do both but they would have me chose the former and exclude the latter.
Openly support communism without thought about what the final outcome of that may actually be
Just keep working to make the world I live in better
They’re the same picture.
You sound so sure. I don’t share that level of delusion.
I’m not American but I probably would have voted Democrat if I was.
However, Democrats who are more mad at leftists voting third party than they’re mad at republicans or their own fucking party that simply could not be bothered to stop bombing children to gain the left-wing vote: Go fuck yourselves. You are the “lesser fascists”.
Anyone who didn’t vote against fascism is somewhat to blame.
I take it you voted 3rd party then
Why would I throw my vote away? I voted for someone with a chance of winning.
You said you voted against fascism, but you voted for lesser fascism. I’d probably do the same but I’m not gonna pretend like Democrats are the good guys.
I see you are a republican shill. I hope they’re paying you very well for that.
God you’re stupid if you somehow came to that conclusion after I said I prefer the Democrats twice
I’ve been voting against fascism since '96 and I keep being told to vote for the lesser of two fascisms instead.
Dividing the left wouldn’t matter if we used a more representative voting system. One that gave people the freedom to vote how they want and still have their vote count if their preference didn’t win. Voters should be able to transfer their vote how they wish and stay represented. To have their vote count no matter what.
Why don’t blue states switch away from First-past-the-post voting? Republicans aren’t in power, they could easily make this change. Don’t they believe in democracy? Or do prefer this undemocratic hostage situation that hands the republicans power repeatedly?
Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
Don’t they believe in democracy? Or do prefer this undemocratic hostage situation that hands the republicans power repeatedly?
It’s the second one. They all ultimately get paid by the same people, so that’s who’s interests they’re actually looking out for.
Alternative voting systems have in practice been proven useless, whether in South Korea, Japan, Australia, and many other capitalist dictatorship countries that use it. It might make bribery a bit more expensive, since there are more candidates to buy off, and more political advertising necessary, but it hasn’t fixed anything.
The root problem is capital standing above political power. And that can’t be undone using it’s own platform.
They’re useless because the capital powers that be actively try to misinform the public on preferential voting (As part of a larger attack on education to keep a complicit population)
If I had a dollar every time I heard someone tell me I’m throwing away my vote for preferencing a minor party that has no hope of winning I’d probably have enough money to bribe a politician into making some decent fucking policy
You’re right that it doesn’t solve much but the two party system in the US is particularly terrible. Fundamental change is a lot harder to achieve than changing voting systems and even with a socialist state we’d want one of these, so I think there’s no point opposing it even if it isn’t a panacea
Agreed. Let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good. Even if it ONLY makes bribery more expensive, is that not a good thing?
Electoral reform not only doesn’t address root causes, it doesn’t even treat the symptoms. It hasn’t prevented australia or japan from having far right governments, hasn’t returned land to indigenous peoples, hasn’t done anything against inequality, hasn’t empowered poorer peoples. All it does is make the political bribery slightly more expensive.
At a deeper level, representative elections always result in an oligarchy. The wealthy / economically dominant classes are the only ones who have enough money / prestige to finance their campaigns and win the popularity contest. It makes any political system based on elections nothing more than political theatre.
This is basic stuff even the ancient greeks knew, and communists learned through trial and error, yet liberals in the 21st century can’t wrap their heads around it.
All it does is make the political bribery slightly more expensive.
I disagree, i think it makes it possible for 3rd parties to succeed, maybe not in practice, but at least theoretically, which is a worthwhile change. But let’s grant that that’s all it does… that’s still a good thing and not worth opposing.
At a deeper level, representative elections always result in an oligarchy. The wealthy / economically dominant classes are the only ones who have enough money / prestige to finance their campaigns and win the popularity contest. It makes any political system based on elections nothing more than political theatre.
Yup, I agree with all this, but i don’t see it as a reason to oppose better election systems.
I disagree, i think it makes it possible for 3rd parties to succeed, maybe not in practice, but at least theoretically, which is a worthwhile change.
Let me give you example i know, Poland. It have on the face value much better electoral system than USA nad lo and behold, 17 political parties and 49 independents got elected to sejm! But each and every single one of them is neoliberal and EU and or/US bootlicker, there was nobody else to choose except open nazis. Dessalines is completely right.
That isn’t good evidence, we don’t have a large sample size and the culture can vary highly depending on the conditions at the start.
One country, even 10 countries, would not be a scientific study.
I think in the us it’d be possible to have a party that supports universal healthcare. Sure they’d still be libs but that would still massively help.
Nearly every country in Europe have similar electoral system, and everywhere neoliberalism is the dominant ideology for decades.
Better then more then half being fascists
They are all fascist, just not very scratched yet, but they all vote for supporting the neobanderites.
Lol, 39 comments on vegantheoryclub, 26 when viewed from hexbear, over a hundred on .ml, the .world crowd is upset.
I’m so glad their genocidal views don’t get cached on my precious server
Democrats are center right these days.
Center right? You’re giving them too much credit
Always have been.
I’d argue them being centre-left between 1929 to 1973, from the start of the great depression up until the petrodollar agreement and Bretton Woods II, out of fear communism winning during that time.
FDR was in that era and was pretty far left. Look at the tax rates he set in motion, the fuckers get mad when they get taxed over 90%. FDR gets elected four terms, has five assassination attempts and many more plots and starts the economy on the path to recovery after the Republicans decimated it with tatmriffs.
I don’t think this is correct. There was a marked post-Reagan shift to the right. Sure, they were never socialists, but decades ago they at least tried to do something for the working class.
let’s be real this is being nitpicky cuz even if you’re right most of us cats were babies or eggs in reagans time. I’m old as fuck and i didn’t even get to vote till bill Clinton
No, I don’t think it’s nitpicky, and I think it’s relevant to modern day political discourse. It demonstrates that progressive policies and positions are a viable political strategy for the democratic party. I think it’s important to stress this, because a lot of liberals today feel like courting the right is the only way to possibly win an election for the democrats. Stating “always have been” plays into this delusion, and it’s good to remind ourselves that it’s a complete and utter falsehood.
when you put it in those terms, i tend to agree.
im only saying that if ya take ops statement “always has been” to mean “for longer than you’ve been living” then it’s nitpicky to bring up what the party was — in response to a joke meme comment — before anyone here was even born.
but it’s not like we disagree or anything, nor did op explicitly say that. it was just my own readin.
have a good one
You too!
Us politics isn’t about economics anyway, especially when you’ve got Republicans raising taxes sky high and restricting free trade. It’s about social and cultural issues more than ever these days.
It’s about social and cultural issues more than ever these days.
Because those do not threaten the 1%s stranglehold on power.
More like very much into the right
“you’re hurting your cause!!” whines liberal who hates both you and your cause
I started asking questions whenever some right winger would start in with the whole “here’s what you’re doing wrong” routine. “And you think this will help the far left succeed?” or “So you believe that’s the best way to get people to vote for the leftist candidate?” Just messing around since they are obviously not providing legitimate feedback.
Anarchy is not left in the US unless they’ve all of a sudden come around on social programs.
As an Anarcho-Syndicalist we dont support government owned social programs because we prefer community based and worker ran solutions to issues like housing, food, and education. Furthermore most social ills that exist today are a direct or indirect effect of capitalism, the problems that cannot be solved by simply destroying capitalism can be solved with more syndicates.
I only intend to come across as ignorant (vice malicious) but what is a community/worker run organization of aid and coordination if not a government (at a small scale)?
Its not a government, it’s mutual aid. The goal isnt to increase numbers on a chart, its neighbors helping eachother.
This is why I love lemmy.
I get all angry on someone’s comment, and someone else has already made my point, and better. We’re even doing mutual aid in comments!
Sharing information is the greatest form of mutual aid :3
I generally agree with most of what you said, I’m not super familiar with anarcho-syndicalism But I am trying to have a genuine conversation
So reading this I’m like yes, yes, ok, love it
Then you say “furthermore most social ills that exist today…”
I immediately thought, ok but the practical ills that exist today? Is anarchno-syndicatism also against or at least neutral I suppose, world trade? I ask because I had a bilateral lung transplant, and when I consider the level of social support beyond just financial but also that too and access to medical services, this means supplies, well educated doctors, nurses and surgeons, facilities capable of a bilateral lung transplant, medications which are manufactured all over the world, the need is very high, it feels like this particular perspective would leave a person like me high and dry? At what point do we make the call that community support is enough and how do we define community? Those are all very critical questions for someone like me, and many other disabled people. I guess I wonder, although I agreed a lot with your comment is arachno-syndicatism abelist? Could this ideology ever result in successfully running a world class hospital?
I’ll adress all your questions and concerns:
- What is the Anarcho-Syndicalist view on world trade? While we support local communities we also explicitly dont believe in the concept of borders. Furthermore international syndicates are used under Anarcho-Syndicalism to facilitate trade and cooperation.
- Is Anarcho-Syndicalism ablest? Absolutely not, while we talk a lot about workers we belive eveyone has the right to life, freedom, housing, and bread. Even those who cannot work still recive support, those who require additional assistance would be given by mutal aid organizations and community effort.
- How does Anarcho-Syndicalism define community? A local collection of workers who look out for eachother through mutal aid
- Can Anarcho-Syndicalism build advanced medical infrastructure? Absolutely, if anything medical advancements would be greater. Medical students wouldn’t have to worry about being shackled to crippling debt, insurance companies wouldn’t be able to extort people, no profit incentive and no patents would insure the prices for medical technology remains low, and hospitals would generally speaking recive more funding.
come around on social programs.
Wat.
Anarchists are the ones who are consistently making social programs from scratch. Direct action is and has always been about feeding people as well as sabotaging bulldozers.
Yup, mutal aid and communal efforts are the cornerstones of real anarchism.
i think they’re conflating anarchists with “anarcho”-capitalists
“Anarcho”-Capitalists are as Anarchist as Capitalist-“Libertarians” are acturally Libertarian
Welfare capitalism is not the left; it’s the leftmost part of the right. The left is socialism. Anarchists are socialists. Liberals are not.
The American Libertarian sects tend to loosely regard themselves as anarchist, which is frustrating as all hell.
Anarcho-capitalism is opportunistic enough to co-opt anything.
capitalism itself does that pretty well
Anarcho-capitalism is such an oxymoron too, capitalism is inherently an unjust hierarchy
The only actual job of the DNC is to suck up all the space and oxygen that a real left needs to grow, and rubber stamp every oppressive police measure they think they have to in order to secure the profits of the rich at the expense of all other life on Earth. The best of them are self-deluding soft exterminationists at this point, and the bulk of the party has apparently dispensed with even that fig leaf and embraced a kind of haughty, blue fascist schadenfreude regarding the people it failed to browbeat into supporting genocide. It’s genuinely the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen in my life after the killing itself. The Democratic party is pathologically incapable of taking any responsibility for it’s action, has no desire to change anything, and is actively, dangerously hostile to all living beings, first and foremost human beings outside America. Nothing better will be allowed to grow unless it is thoroughly dismantled alongside the Republican party and most of the rest of the US government.
no notes
Not dividing the left, just consolidating the right
