And you just proved it - I think exploitation of wage labor is a problem and I think organizing into unions is a useful solution in certain situations. I think exploitative renting is a problem and I think organizing tenants is a solution in certain situations. I don’t think that either of those statements are true in all situations so I don’t think the solutions you propose are appropriate in all situations

The type of structural change that I believe is necessary requires a lot of people that are well organized. So the first step is getting a lot of people organized and to do that people have to agree with your ideas and agree with what the problems are. So a lot of what is necessary is educating, agitating, and organizing. Once a certain level of organization exists, different steps can start happening.

So in the situations where it is appropriate, are you working to help that organizing take place?

The question you never bothered to ask me which I think is relevant here is whether within your framework I would consider myself the proletariat or the Bourgeoisie- I’m pretty clearly part of the Bourgeoisie

How would you define “working to help that organizing take place”?

You aren't bourgeoisie, but yeah probably labor aristocracy. Nevertheless, just like Proletarians can be class traitors, so can bourgeoisie. You can betray your class, Herbie.

And honestly, you aren't really necessary applying the characterizations correctly.

So tell me again how this prevents you from voting for democrats?

i would love to see where you imagine I ever said this

Possibly - so how exactly am I betraying either my class or my principles by voting for people who want to preserve the right for labor to organize against those who want to outlaw it?

I have no idea what you are saying. I think you misunderstood my post.

[QUOTE=Birdman10687;54292401]By all means vote Democrat if you feel like it. I do sometimes if I vote at all[\QUOTE]

Since you said the last quote in response to what I posted above I think the implication is pretty clear

My phone quoting skills are terrible lol

That’s possible - so what did you mean by it

By he way - just so we don’t lose sight of this - my main question remains

If Democrats are materially better than Republicans on issues of institutional misogyny, and both parties have the same foreign policy, then how does one justify not voting for democrats in basically every election that happens without saying or implying that institutional misogyny in practice doesn’t matter? I still haven’t really gotten an answer on that

Also I’m all about betraying my class whether it be labor aristocracy or Bourgeoisie, I’m just not exactly sure how to do it except to vote and support those who choose to fight for their rights - I would be a very awkward and probably condescending leader for such a fight myself

I argue against my interests every time I argue and vote against my interests every time I vote

But I would phrase it more that I consider my interests to be broader than those that immediately affect me and my paycheck and my family, so I don’t really see it as arguing or voting against my interests

You don't have to be a leader. And you can organize your workplace to get things other than pay and benefits for yourself. What does your company do with its profits? Does your company do business with any companies that mistreat their workers? Is your company environmentally conscious? Does your company make its software open source? Etc.

Imo you are talking about the parties in a much more static fashion than they are and American politics like a much more solved game than it is. It is not as simple as "vote for Democrats and things will get better".

But ultimately what you are saying isn't logically wrong, it just totally misses the point. You are just obsessing over something that just really does not matter in the big picture. It's like tripping over a dollar to pick up a dime. I used this example before in the thread, but its like we are standing on train tracks and a train is bearing down on us. We also have a hang nail. You are screaming me "wtf Birdman, if you agree hang nails are bad, then can't we agree we should work on not having the hang nail?!?!?" and I respond "hey we are about to get hit by a train, forget the hang nail!" and you come back "but if we are going to get hit by a train, wouldn't you agree it would be better to get hit by a train without a hang nail than with one????"

Like, logically yes, having a hang nail is bad, but its such a stupid thing to obsess over. Let's focus on the train thing. If worrying about the hang nail does not stop you from what you need to do to avoid getting hit by the train, go for it, but do not pretend like its super important compared to the train.

As a serious question - does talking to my coworkers about these issues and encouraging them to not support company initiatives that I consider to be immoral count? Because while I don’t think they would be open to any sort of official organizing I do like to think that I do achieve some small victories on an individual level by helping to educate my coworkers on issues like environmentalism and fair treatment of workers and (not mentioned but important in our industry) net neutrality

Another thing I will say is the argument you and I are having is actually a common thread in some of the pseudo-leftist groups operating in the US right now, like the DSA. You have parts of it that are super focused on electoral politics as the way to get things done, and then you have other parts of it that want to go do stuff in the community to help people similar to what I have mentioned. I also posted a podcast a while back about a lot of things going on in the prison abolition movement (DSA has a few groups that do that). Lots of times there is conflict between these two groups where the electoral people keep insisting "hey we can do both, no reason we can't focus on electoral politics while also doing that other stuff" but time and time again, doesn't matter how much you say it, the people that get wrapped up in electoral politics seems to always only focus on that to the exclusion of all else. Words are really meaningless and its all hypothetically, in real life, the electoral people are electoral people for a reason.

I absolutely think that agitating and educating is great if that is what you are doing with your co-workers. I mean I think you should do what you think is safe--you and your coworkers can get in a lot of trouble by just even talking about organizing depending on where you work. All that being said, I do not think you can exercise meaningful influence unless you are organized. The employer-employee relationship is just too imbalanced if you are just individuals.

Would it be myopic if I found your analogy to be offensive to women and those who rely on government benefits to live?

Yes, because those people are not liberated and they never will be if we keep electing Democrats. People that live on government benefits are not liberated nor are women who have to worry every few years if the Supreme Court might snatch away their rights to their own body.

The goals of the Democrats vs the goals I seek are totally at odds. I don't want more women CEOs, I want no CEOs.

This doesn’t surprise me, and it also doesn’t surprise me that see the same problems with the opposite approach through the opposite lens. What I am more arguing is that what I am advocating (voting consistently and regularly) is significantly lower risk and lower effort than what you are advocating, so even if you do nothing in regards to electoral politics except voting regularly and consistently it does not cost you anything except about an hour every month or so, which really shouldn’t in any way impact the work you are trying to do