False dichotomy. There are many things to do between "do nothing but vote for evil" and "revolution".

I don't want to write the whole thing again, so I'll just leave this here.

The problem in the U.S. is, unfortunately, that everybody is too comfy and they're just hoping somebody else does it. A person could go and end a prominent politician while shouting "THIS IS THE REVOLUTION! TO ARMS, FELLOW AMERICANS!," and everybody else would just watch the fallout on TV.

The thing about the French, or specifically Parisians, is that it’s hard to stay inside and mind your business when everything requires you to walk. Meanwhile every American isolates at home and then in their vehicle. There’s a physical structural advantage.

The sitting president in his second term was never the lesser of two evils.

Been seeing this sentiment lately, and it's silly. At least in the decades I've been around, people only vote the lesser evil about half the time. What we get is the "lesser" evil fixing and/or improving things, then the other party wins and undoes it all, rinse and repeat. You'd only actually have a point if it was consistently people voting the lesser which they're not. This is just propaganda to demotivate folks from voting and making them feel like it's hopeless so nothing changes for the folks that don't want it to.

Asking for a friend, how does one lead a revolution? I’ve always assumed it was more about the universe lining up, right place/right time sort of thing and someone/someone’s are just there at the time, not that anyone really ever set out to “lead the revolution” as a job

“Prepare for revolution!” exclaims your friend; “is that possible?

Yes. Not only is it possible but absolutely necessary.

“Do you refer to secret preparations, armed bands, and men to lead the fight?” you ask.

No, my friend, not that at all.

If the social revolution meant only street battles and barricades, then the preparations you have in mind would be the thing. But revolution does not signify that; at least the fighting phase of it is the smallest and least important part.

The truth is, in modern times revolution does not mean barricades any more. These belong to the past. The social revolution is a far different and more essential matter: it involves the reorganization of the entire life of society. You will agree that this is certainly not to be accomplished by mere fighting.

Of course, the obstacles in the path of the social reconstruction have to be removed. That is to say the means of that reconstruction must be secured by the masses. Those means are at present in the hands of government and capitalism, and these will resist every effort to deprive them of their power and possessions. That resistance will involve a fight. But remember that the fight is not the main thing, is not the object, not the revolution. It is only the preface, the preliminary to it.

It is very necessary that you get this straight. Most people have very confused notions about revolution. To them it means just fighting, smashing things, destroying. It is the same as if rolling up your sleeves for work should be considered as the work itself that you have to do. The fighting part of revolution is merely the rolling up of your sleeves. The real, actual task is ahead.

What is that task?

“The destruction of the existing conditions,” you reply.

True. But conditions are not destroyed by breaking and smashing things. You can’t destroy wage slavery by wrecking the machinery in mills and factories, can you? You won’t destroy government by setting fire to the White House.

To think of revolution in terms of violence and destruction is to misinterpret and falsify the whole idea of it. In practical application such a conception is bound to lead to disastrous results.

When a great thinker, like the famous Anarchist Bakunin, speaks of revolution as destruction, he has in mind the ideas of authority and obedience which are to be destroyed. It is for this reason that he said that destruction means construction, for to destroy a false belief is indeed most constructive work.

But the average man, and too often even the revolutionist, thoughtlessly talks of revolution as being exclusively destructive in the physical sense of the word. That is a wrong and dangerous view. The sooner we get rid of it the better.

Revolution, and particularly the social revolution, is not destruction but construction. This cannot be sufficiently emphasized, and unless we clearly realize it, revolution will remain only destructive and thereby always a failure. Naturally revolution is accompanied by violence, but you might as well say that building a new house in place of an old one is destructive because you have first to tear down the old one. Revolution is the culminating point of a certain evolutionary process: it begins with a violent upheaval. It is the rolling up of your sleeves preparatory to starting the actual work.

Indeed, consider what the social revolution is to do, what it is to accomplish, and you will perceive that it comes not to destroy but to build.

What, really, is there to destroy?

The wealth of the rich? Nay, that is something we want the whole of society to enjoy.

The land, the fields, the coal mines, the railroads, factories, mills, and shops? These we want not to destroy but to make useful to the entire people.

The telegraphs, telephones, the means of communication and distribution — do we want to destroy them? No, we want them to serve the needs of all.

What, then, is the social revolution to destroy? It is to take over things for the general benefit, not to destroy them. It is to reorganize conditions for the public welfare.

Not to destroy is the aim of the revolution, but to reconstruct and rebuild.

From Now and After by Alexander Berkman. Chapter 26: Preparation. Written in the 1920s.

Available to read or download in multiple formats, for free, here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism#toc28

Whole bunch of pussy ass accelerationists on this platform. I enjoy calling out their pussy ass behavior.

Vote or die.

And I suggest voting for a candidate that isn't guaranteed to lose if you want anything other than fascism to happen.

It's INTERNATIONAL. It's our world-wide economy, which is directed by investment companies and their holdings all around the world.

If you killed everybody in the White House tomorrow, absolutely nothing would change (other than an increase in security elsewhere). At most, you'd delay business by a few weeks.

It's not one country, it's not one person, it's not one company, it's not one family.

This isn't France with a couple million people and a simple paper bureaucracy, muskets, and cannons. Grow up

Every permutation of LateStageCapitalism I've ever seen acts like a gop honeypot to keep people from voting.

I need anti-voting leftists to understand that to the eyes of average civilians they're basically rapture people

French protesters have been putting even most other European protesters to shame, yet France is pretty far from being the most socialdemocratic European country.

Most protesters don't drive 14 hours for a protest. Cities usually have people around.

Choosing lesser evil is not cause of problem. Not choosing anything instead of lesser evil is a key problem. The time to activate is before it comes down to final choice. Not voting, means all of your concerns are irrelevant, because you are unlikely to vote next time, according to establishment algorithms.

Why would they? They don't even live in the US! They are just russian bots trying to stir discontent in order for you to not vote so the orange turd can continue breaking up the democracy.

Isn't this another way of saying that you are voting for the best available option? What's the alternative? Vote for the worse option so things get worse? Don't vote at all and tell other people to do the same so the worse option always wins? If you aren't voting and are also not out in the streets stoking revolution against the greater evil, you can go fuck yourself. Because people spreading this bullshit concept and voter apathy is the real reason we have the government of today.

Americans don't protest like that because they hate each other. It's not complicated. It's a cultural issue where excuses are abundant.