I have been told this my whole life, how our silly little actions didn’t mean anything because they were too small or fringe or whatever.

The difference is I can look back across the decades and see a lot of people who I have helped, and who have helped me in turn, things have been directly made better as a result (well, at least some of the time). Meanwhile, their “more realistic” approach centred on voting has seen periods of glacial progress and rapid retreat, leaving them further back than ever before in my lifetime.

That all hinges on them feeling too insecure in their institutional power (particularly military and police, where they have relative popularity) to manipulate the vote without consequence- likely by eroding it through continuing with the same kinds of action and harming yet more people in the meantime.

I am also pretty doubtful of the chances of whomever ends up in power next, upon being handed the machinery of state, actually makes the fundamental changes necessary to get away from the underlying causes that led us here, and honestly your wishlist doesn’t either (the results stem from the particular systems and power structures at work, if we don’t address them at their root then we haven’t done anything, and since this includes the very structures that state political power relies upon…), but those are really only secondary points.

I hope that I didn’t imply that you were advocating for that, I was trying to speak purely to the point being made without any assumptions beyond.

Voting can be a tool, but not really beyond cases like Hungary where it has been allowed to persist for long enough that the autocatabolic nature of fascism burns out the population at large (so pretty much allowing it to run its course, with some limits imposed by the EU in this case) and not having the ability to look for fuel beyond their borders.

Fine if the spread of the fires can be contained in such ways, not much use for more than ruling over the ashes otherwise.

Edit: To clarify, it requires these conditions (the former to be effective, the latter to actually matter) because otherwise the people who cannot be compelled to do anything beyond voting will just meekly sit by as the vote gets ignored anyway, so long as the fascists have enough of some form of power to maintain the momentum to do so.

I mean, I have seen this argument applied in contexts up to and including Tommy Robinson, so it is used to do exactly the thing that it is arguing against too. Too frequently, that feels like the whole point.