I think this is it.

The historians I know of actually seem to lean quite left of the average person; it’s the light hobbieists, who are often more interested in the aesthetics/surface stuff, who seem to fall victim to the alt-right stuff.

Voting for Biden/Dems isn’t much of a plan either, it’s just stalling. But you need to stall for something, you need something that you are buying time for.

In regard to third parties, my country has a different system, a parliamentary one (technically semi-presidential, but for the purposes of the topic, it’s parliamentary), but nevertheless, up until recently we had 2 major parties, and so far only one of the 2 ever won an election, and all my life I’ve often heard the argument of “useful vote” (“voting for someone else is a waste of your vote”) as a justification to vote for one of them, even from journalists and pundits. But the far right, for one reason or another, simply didn’t care about a “useful vote”, and just voted for who they wanted; that is why in our last elections, and for the first time since we’ve had elections, everyone was now talking about 3 choices for a useful vote.

I know it’s a different system, but the point of the story is that you are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Neither democrats nor republicans will ever want to change the system because it will hurt them. Voting blue instead of red is a stalling tactic to stop/delay the fascists, but it doesn’t actually solve anything.

I just wanted to say, this is a very good comment.

When people say it’s not “we” and it’s just a few people, or just companies, it always seems to me that they are - consciously or subconsciously - just making excuses for not having to actually do anything and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. They want the problem to be solved, while not having to do anything or change their lifestyle.

There are some very obvious and clear examples of this; here’s two of them:

• Studies have shown most people are in favour of carbon taxes. But with carbon taxes, companies would just shift the extra cost onto the consumers by increasing prices. One thing affected by carbon tax, would be the price of gas itself. And when prices (especially gas prices) increase, that usually results in a lot of anger and protests. So why would any democratically elected politician ever implement a carbon tax? If they did, they would be voted out, and the next one to come in would just undo it.

• Another obvious example, is meat. We know one of the major protagonists in CO2 emissions is animal farming. Red meat especially is responsible for a huge source of those emissions. And yet most people don’t even wanna think about eating less meat, and they will still crack jokes about vegans and look at them sideways. And as for regulations regarding meat, the example from before still applies.

As you seem to be implying, what really needs to happen is a whole cultural shift. Trying to shift blame onto to a few people and hope they get the guillotine, won’t change anything as long as people keep demanding all the same things because then someone else will come in to fulfil that demand. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that it’s the sum of all our actions that will determine the future, and our actions can influence other people’s actions; therefore, one way or another, we are all responsible.

Sorry for typing some much at you since you’re basically making the same point already, but I just felt like adding on.