Genuine question, why is campaigning for the Democratic Party a better use of ones time than learning Marx(or any political philosophy text for that matter). To me this claim sounds absurd, because in no other activity is it seem as reasonable to put action over theory, instead of as inseparable, but I would be curious to hear your justification for your claim.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social 9 hours ago
Unpopular opinion.
Studying Marx is a waste of time.
Focus on real world politics and what can be done right now.
An hour spent reading a book is an hour that could have been spent putting up posters for a candidate.
You aren’t going to get a revolution any time soon, but the next election is coming up fast.
Mayoman68@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
DagwoodIII@piefed.social 8 hours ago
You do understand how elections work, right? The voting booth only cares about how many votes get cast.
Maybe instead of reading theory, you should study how politics works in the real world.
Look up Jerry Falwell.
He was a televangelist with an extensive mailing list. His plan was simple. Local GOP clubs decide who is going to take job. Things like county clerks and sheriffs. Falwell would flood every meeting with his people. If there were twenty folks at the last meeting, Falwell’s Moral Majority would show up with fifty. It didn’t take long for the grassroots campaign to sway the higher ups in the GOP.
Look at Leftists who have actually won elections in the US. Neither AOC or Mamdani spent a lot of time talking about Marx, they talked about saving consumers money and making their lives better.
And if you need a good example of action over theory look at the transportation network. How many bus drivers or train operators can repair their machines? Not many. Or food service. Think a lot of cooks understand the chemistry of baking? An ambulance technician doesn’t need to know advanced cardiology to do CPR.
Finally, if you plan on playing the ‘Democrats are bad’ card, think on this.
Back in the day, Frederick Douglas supported Abe Lincoln over a candidate who was 100% opposed to slavery. Lincoln was fine with the south keeping their slaves id it meant keeping the Union.
Douglas did a cold-blooded assessment and decided that it was better to help Lincoln win and be able to get close to him later, than it would be to lose and not have a chance to make a difference.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
The last bit is a big deal a lot of our fellow lemms seem to miss. We really do let perfect be the enemy of good. Long term it means we don’t build movements that can expand.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social 7 hours ago
I honestly think most of them would rather ‘win’ an internet debate than get a real world win in an election.
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 minutes ago
Are you a democratic socialist who votes Democrat? Just asking,