I don’t think that’s actually true.

I think you have to be desperate, and the one thing there is no shortage of is people who are desperately trying to cling on to some semblance of a good life while the economy and everything around them is falling apart.

No one’s livelihood is safe anymore, and successive neo-liberal governments in North America and Europe have been making it worse, while using the very people whose lives they have upended and often destroyed as scape goats for their own selfish ends.

If you are elected into a position where you can enact change, those who elected you have expectations of you based on the policy you supported during the election.

If, then, you turn around and do something completely different your actions no longer reflect the will of those who elected you, and you are not behaving in a representative manner and thus in an undemocratic way.

So ignoring anything specific to the American system, class interests, etc., it is a losing battle to try and be anything different from the status quo and getting elected by aligning yourself with the status quo.

A communist who gets elected by siding with a fascist is no longer a communist. A liberal cannot be a liberal if they denounce capitalism and side with socialists. They are fundamentally different ideas of who the political economy is designed for, completely contradictory ideas about hierarchy, property rights, human rights, and even what constitutes truth (liberal ideas are often utopian, like the “rational economic man”, and socialist/communist ideas are often based in the reality of the current and past material conditions, like believing people need homes and food, and a wealthy society should be able to provide these for itself, so people get homes and food. In contrast a liberal society would let the “market” provide these things in whatever way is profitable.

I’m not siding with you, but I’d like to take your idea and make it… Useful.

Anytime someone engages in civil disobedience (like a protest) it is crucial that the correct people are targeted.

For example: if you want to stop your school from investing in Israel you target the administration (President, VP, investment managers etc.) and specifically those who make the decisions. This could be protesting at fundraisers so that it deeply affects the image of the school and those in charge, and serves as a threat of reduced funding.

You wouldn’t, for example, go into the classroom during a lecture and yell about Israel, making the lives of the students and professors worse. Why? Because the source of power and social change is the students, staff, and faculty, at the school. And annoying them creates more enemies rather than allies.

Always do a “power analysis” to know who to talk to and bring on your side, and who you need to disrupt in order to make the change. Otherwise we ignore class solidarity (yes, soak up the pun) and are doomed to fail

You are few to choose

The grown men are free to choose to make little girls cry, and little girls are free to choose to cry. What don’t you understand tankie?!?!

I see. Well truly best of luck with that. I only hope that you learn from experience.

Sure, but that’s public opinion of the political parties. If, say, trans rights are being attacked. You push to get non-terfs into office and you get a few, but not enough to ensure transfolk are safe. What then? I mean, even with enough representatives in office it could take years to make real changes in people’s lives.

So, do you wait until next election? Accepting in the mean time that hundreds if not thousands of people will become homeless, become socially ioslated, and die by suicide?

No. I don’t think many would say that is the right course of action. So then what? A mass movement is the only way to force the government’s hand. Peaceful at first sure, but with a clear plan to win, with intentional planned escalations, targeting those in power by threatening their popularity, and financial interests. But why then should you wait until the election? Show those in power what they have to lose through a mass movement before any election occurs.

That’s how you make change.

Public opinion is worthless, if the “public” isn’t involved in the fight. Can you give an example of nonviolent resistance working?

Can you point to an example in history where this worked? Because all the examples of successful big changes (womens right to vote for example) have included mass uprisings, and violence directed at those in power, and often their financial interests.