And yet it was the voting that worked, not the street action. Strikes, rallies, and everything else like them primarily produce change by convincing people to vote. And for that reason, they are important! Doing those is great, but doing those and not voting and then expecting change is nonsensical.
No that’s not why strikes work. Strukess work because workers force their employers to give them better rights. Democrats are better on labor compared to Republicans but people don’t only strike around election time.
The street action in Minnesota didn’t force ice out because some dude won an election. They forced ice out due to organized street action.
Explain how I’m wrong then. The causal chain was action --> voting --> results; action is important as one of the causes of voting, but if they only did direct action and did not vote, they would not have seen results. Is this incorrect?
The action led to the government having to accede to demands. That the government is elected is not the reason it felt the need to accede to the demands. Without voting the results would still happen. Without action there would be no results.
And yet it was the voting that worked, not the street action. Strikes, rallies, and everything else like them primarily produce change by convincing people to vote. And for that reason, they are important! Doing those is great, but doing those and not voting and then expecting change is nonsensical.
That’s insane.
No that’s not why strikes work. Strukess work because workers force their employers to give them better rights. Democrats are better on labor compared to Republicans but people don’t only strike around election time.
The street action in Minnesota didn’t force ice out because some dude won an election. They forced ice out due to organized street action.
You are like a child looking at a dinner table, declaring the food is there because you put on the tablecloth
Explain how I’m wrong then. The causal chain was action --> voting --> results; action is important as one of the causes of voting, but if they only did direct action and did not vote, they would not have seen results. Is this incorrect?
The action led to the government having to accede to demands. That the government is elected is not the reason it felt the need to accede to the demands. Without voting the results would still happen. Without action there would be no results.