You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements).
We're still in the pretty heavy wake of McCarthyism, we're not at "run our own candidates on the general ballot" yet, we're at "vote lesser evil on the general ballot while we run our own candidates locally and try to win primaries".
Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.
Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body. If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Address of the Central Comittee to the Communist League, 1850
Yeah and I think 1) that was 175 years ago 2) that while a brilliant thinker on the subject of structures and inevitabilities, Marx was pretty naïve when it came to implementation.
Lenin's push for participation in elections was due to the Duma which kept getting dissolved by the Czar for becoming increasingly anti monarchy. Between 1906 and 1917 several had been dissolved due to growing constitutional monarchy among the peasants.
Without historical context it sounds like lenin advocated participating in all bourgeoisie elections.
If recent history is any indicator of how much Democrats are willing to fight for what's right, I have better things to do with my fucking time than vote. I'm done with them.
If slightly less but still very much recent history is any indicator, that attitude is exactly what got us into this shit in the first place. One group isn't doing what's right, so let's just hand victory to the group that pledges to do as much evil as they think they can get away with. Too many people with better things to do with their fucking time than keep a felon pedophile rapist wannabe-Mussolini conman out of office, I guess. Glad you got all the better things done though, with your fucking time.
If the last 24 hours is any indicator, the democratic party is cowardly, weak, spineless, and ineffectual and I refuse to waste another nanosecond on them.
If neither side is capable of, in your own words, "doing what's right", why waste time on either of them?
Because, as I already (rather pointedly, I thought) said, one party isn't not doing "what's right," (Which are your words, actually. I was quoting you.) it is actively and aggressively doing what's very, very wrong. If those two are equivalent to you, then by all means don't vote, as you might just be doing the rest of us a favor.
I think the main point is that the Democrats are all those things, and yet still more effective than you at pushing the country left, so people support them because it's better than supporting Republicans
Right, because the Republicans control the presidency, the house, the Senate, and inexplicably the supreme court, obviously it's those darn stinking Democrats who did all this. Don't get me wrong, I am livid at their inaction, but to throw your hands up and say "whelp, better just hand the Republicans the key to the castle" is at best defeatist and at worst actively destroying this country.
That's the best thing that can happen for the rest of the world, constantly bullied and terrorised by the bipartisan regime.
But americans didn't give a fuck about that. Now they cry bcs they got a taste of their own medicine.
Well guess what, we don't give a fuck about you either, on the contrary.
Let Trump do his worst and you can all rot in hell where you belong.
The sooner the better.
yes you've got me.
Being against the cancer of the earth, that has invaded, carpet bombed, droned, bullied, regime changed or sanctioned half the world and helped terrorists or genocide regimes is being a bad person.
In 2020 they pushed a candidate with obvious mental decline and hid it for the next 4 years. Allowed him to study in the running until primaries were over so they could install another person that wasn't trusted
That's why they've been fighting socialist and communist ideology for over 100 years. It would give us real power in politics and they would lose the privileges afforded to them by the status quo.
Watching the Mamdani election play out was wild. Seeing the biggest challenge being 2 people from the same side argue and talk crap for months was disgusting. Siding with Trump on top of it all because of how scared they were. They were so desperate they had no choice but to not even pretend anymore, like when Biden magically started winning against Bernie in 2020. The next 10 years will be even weirder as more people catch on.
"Both sides are the same but the dems are worse" - said by nobody who is paying attention. There is a reason 'both sides' is exclusively weaponized towards one party and not the other.
Still doesn't make both parties the same. People saying they're the same are trying to convince you not to vote, which consistently benefits one party and absolutely does not move our government to the left.
What have the Democrats done in the last 10 years to stop the GOP? Every ossue America faces comes from infettered capitalism eating away at society like a cancer, but they still egg it on. The party exists to collect corporate donations and make people feel like they can change their lives if they just vote a little harder.
It's a little to the right vs so far right you get whiplash. They're still not the same. Do you think any of this would've happened under Biden eventually? Of course not.
Biden did a lot of good work. He also let Trump have this second term.
It's like you people always forget how much the high road costs everyone.
Great that people got some benefits... for a couple of years. Now they will suffer fascism for who knows how long.
"You should vote blue" except Mamdani.
Why can't you see that dems don't want the majority? They don't care about the poors? DNC has betrayed progressives at every turn, but they are the lesser evil!!1!
Fuck no, they just make you complacent, lash out at leftists, and stop any critical observations.
Every election they could make amazing campaigns about how awesome life could be if the country turned left. Instead they just point at GOP and scream 'they will murder transfolk and immigrants', which is true. But that is not the path to victory.
'Dems never had all three brances of government' - then they aren't doing their jobs. Simple as that.
What I find mindblowing is how people are so quick to blame Democratic voters for something that the Republican party has been orchestrating for so long, and blame them for the limited choices that they have at the ballot box, as if they were personally responsible for the choices they were presented with, instead of pointing at the leadership within the DNC that has been compromised.
“You should vote blue” except Mamdani.
Do you see any other Mamdanis anywhere besides AOC and her posse? Do you remember what happened with Bernie and the DNC despite people's overall enthusiasm for him?
Why can’t you see that dems don’t want the majority?
Why can't I not see it? A lot of them are DINOs, and it's clear as day. And yet, the people like Ms. Crockett who have been pushing back nonstop on the Senate floor this entire time would never let this happen if it were up to her. You fail to realize your own point: that the Democratic party is heterogeneous with conflicting interests and not by choice of the constituents.
Yeah, I remember Bernie very well. Specially the presidential campaign. I remember the backstabbing at every turn. It was so sad and painful to watch. Only to give Trump his first turn.
That was exactly the DNC's doing. They do it again and again.
the Democratic party is heterogeneous with conflicting interests
Yes, it's almost as if it was never meant to accomplish anything. It's almost as if it was hijacked by corpo shills just waiting to stand against any real progress, while appearing helpless when it's needed.
On the political scale, Democrats currently sit on what was considered far right 30 years ago. They keep in lockstep with Republicans as they shift further to the right, filling the void Republicans have just left behind
It's really sad to see how many people fall into the trap of party identity instead of thinking for themselves.
It's incredibly obvious that the Democrat leadership and establishment has long since stopped caring about their constituents and prioritized corporate interest.
It's so frustrating that people have become so wrapped up with party identity that they can't just not see the cancer, they actively defend it.
"Blue no matter who" and the general response to this meme is so fucking stupid because it keeps the corrupt establishment in power and sidelines the actual progressives.
Edit: I bet you people are mad that Cuomo lost because you all obviously love your establishment shills so much.
"Both sides bad" is a thought terminating cliche designed to deter people from honestly comparing the two parties and seeing the gulf between them. I'm not defending the dems. I'm not defending the two party system. I'm not defending any of it.
There is an active authoritarian takeover of our country, which is right now taking away people's rights. Harassing them for what they say, and shipping them out of the country without even the token gesture of checking their legal status. They have already tried to prevent a peaceful transfer of power, and confidently talk about ending term limits.
For some reason supposed leftists have no interest in this, and would rather do the far right's work for them. Do you think these things would be happening no matter who was in power? Push the party left in primaries and local elections, fight for ranked choice to make third parties viable, call out the dems when they do something bad. Don't pretend the two sides are the same, and don't imply that voting is a waste or counter-productive.
RE your edit: Why are you so antagonistic to people saying it's important to vote against the far right? Mamdani was the clearly better option, and I hope his proposals are proven effective. This is the kind of local election win that can nudge the party to the left. Just don't disown him the moment he is seen working with dem leadership.
Do you think these things would be happening no matter who was in power?
Yes they would be, but in different ways. Democrats always set the stage for Republicans to commit crimes against the working class. Trump put kids in cages built by Democrats. Trump militarized ICE and deportations after Democrats increased their funding to their highest levels with the largest increase of detention center construction. Liberals were outraged when they found Trump was denying due process to those he deported while ignoring Obama did the same thing with upwards of 75% of those he deported denied using a law signed into law by Bill Clinton.
And the Democrat ratchet effect prevents anything started by Republicans from ever slipping back.
Push the party left in primaries and local elections
This is another failed strategy that's never worked, after electing them they have no obligation to fulfill their promises, all they need to do is create another manufactured crisis before the elections that require everyone to come together and defeat their imaginary foe, 'the most important election of our lifetime.'
Calling out Dems when they do bad holds no weight when they know you will come back afterwards and reward their bad behavior with reelection.
no, it's not. The content of that post is explaining why they criticize Democrats more than they criticize Republicans. it's not saying "both sides bad"
How does it do that? The winner will be red or blue. Your options are whatever fascist the red side puts up, or whatever the blue side puts up. If you vote in primaries, maybe the blue option will be good. But even if it's a corporate shill, that's still a better outcome than the fascist.
If withholding your vote, or voting for a third party with no chance of winning, was going to make the DNC change their approach, it would've worked in 2016. We got Biden in 2020, obviously that strategy isn't working.
If you want progressives off the sideline, they need support in the primaries. Ignoring electoral strategy is so fucking stupid.
the fact that so many people (and presumably you) think "voting for the lesser evil" is the end all be all of political engagement is perhaps one of the bourgeoisie’s greatest victories
How can you blame the entire party for the actions of a few? Most Democrats, establishment and otherwise, seem really upset by what those senators have done
You don't think it's suspicious that the only ones that voted with conservatives were the ones that won't face retribution at the ballot box next year? That there's most likely several people that voted "no" that just wanted to save face?
That's a problem with Schumer and Ossoff. Blaming this on all Democrats bereft of any evidence is the stupidest shit ever. It's like you people fucking WANT fascism
You don't think it's suspicious that the only ones that voted with conservatives were the ones that won't face retribution at the ballot box next year?
Who among those who voted to pass this bill will be up for reelection and who won't?
None of them are up for reelection until 2028 at the earliest. Two of them are retiring at the end of their current term. One of them is the minority whip. You know, party leadership.
Is specifically selected members of Congress that were not seeking the election so they can distance themselves from the entire vote, they can say, look what they did. We wanted nothing to do with it.
Some years ago I concluded that in my own value framework, Hypocrisy was one of the greatest sins, just short of things like purposefully harming others for fun.
So yeah, an honest greedy fucker who doesn't hide they don't give a rat's arse about who they harm and how badly in the pursuit of their personal upside maximization is actually a better person (more precisely, a less bad person) than an hypocrite greedy fuck who won't give a rat's arse about who they harm and how badly in the pursuit of their personal upside maximization but try and pass themselves as caring and nice.
You see, they're both doing nasty things to others for personal gain, but the latter is poisoning the well of trust and by hiding their true nature manages to do far more harm than the former before people catch on to it and stop it.
Further, as far as I know there is no positive reason to use hypocrisy: it's only ever used to hide evil intent.
I suspect that alll in all hypocrites do a lot more harm to others than people who are just openly selfish.
That said, in the US Republicans too are hypocrites - notice how they promised all sorts of good things to people like farmers and then did the opposite.
Hypocrisy seems to be a general problem of big party politics.
I was going to say your party promises not to do genocide but doesn't achieve that goal so that 70% is more important than the 30%. But they don't even do that.
So what you're saying is that you already have every "rational and decent person" voting against Republicans every election and that's not enough to win.
Reform is a tool deployed by the oligarchy to stay in power. It stops progress and results in incremental fascism disguised as a lesser evil. Reform gives the illusion that voters have a part in deciding political outcomes despite several studies showing voters have zero influence in politicians and their policies.
Cool cool, so why does voting vs not voting matter? What actionable alternatives would you suggest and why do those preclude checking a box on a piece of paper?
I'd argue that even an illusory vote has value as a public barometer. If 80% of a voter base is consistently voting against the incumbent party it tells you way more about their discontent than 80% not showing up.
You're correct about that. In a chapter titled, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?, Lenin argues that there are a number of reasons why communists ought to participate in elections even if they aren't an effective means of implementing change.
As you mentioned, elections can be useful for a public barometer, they can also be useful for promoting ideas, they can be used to test potential leaders for opportunism, etc.
The caveat is that those goals are only really useful in the context of an actual communist party. It doesn't really do us any good to know that people are dissatisfied with the current ruling party if they just support a different bourgeois party. It undermines the ideas we're trying to promote if we just sheepdog people back into the fold of incrementalism and lesser-evilism and having faith in the system. And it does us little good to test "leaders" who are already avowed anti-communists.
All of which is to say, there are reasons to participate in US elections, but not through the democrats, rather through a third party that actually stands for what we're trying to promote, like PSL.
Really, the main reason that Lenin argues for participation in electoralism is for the sake of reaching people where they're at in order to encourage them to pursue other, more useful approaches, such as strikes.
I appreciate the response, thanks for the perspective. From my view, I rarely see this line of reasoning in the wild. The "participation" in elections begins and ends with "Both parties bad. Vote for [the nebulous idea of] a third party". In my opinion, if you can't give a concrete name and put in enough effort to get it on the ballot then you're not actually participating.
As a example: I heard complete silence from this portion of the left during the NYC mayoral race/Mamdani's campaign. No mention of (let alone stumping for) a more progressive alternative. Now with his win, there's no discussion about parlaying that turnout into other elections. Only attacks on his international politics (not sure why that matters for a mayor) or projected future failure.
Nothing about that approach indicates any good faith engagement with progressive politics in the electoral space. In that sense it's completely indistinguishable from the right's suppression and defeatism.
From my view, I rarely see this line of reasoning in the wild
As a example: I heard complete silence from this portion of the left during the NYC mayoral race/Mamdani’s campaign. No mention of (let alone stumping for) a more progressive alternative.
I've seen quite a bit of discussion about this, personally. Here is a thread on Hexbear from a week ago with people arguing back and forth over this point. And if you search "Zohran" you'll find plenty of comments celebrating his win.
Only attacks on his international politics (not sure why that matters for a mayor)
It doesn't really matter that much as a mayor, but it does matter somewhat if he's treated as a leader, representing ideas beyond his official capacity. And that sort of thing is why Marxist participate in electoralism in the first place.
Reform is a tool deployed by the oligarchy to stay in power.
Its a political relief valve to limit the scope of corruption and the degree to which the public experiences pain. If you're in the corona of folks who enjoy relief via reform, it is often enough to quell your desire to overthrow the system. If you're not, it costs you support - often along ethnic or regional lines - in a way that divides your neighbors against you.
Reform gives the illusion that voters have a part in deciding political outcomes
Voters are deciding political outcomes. Large waves of angry voters do change policies by forcing the government leadership into a reform cycle. This is often preferable to violent confrontations between an increasingly unpopular state leadership and growing crowds of dissidents.
Reform isn't an illusion. It has material consequences for a subset of the angry populace. Soothing this populace and winning them back to the establishment's side is why reforms work as a mitigation of revolution.
The illusion is in the belief that reforms aren't necessary. Government leadership pumped up on its own hubris will often exceed the limits of the institutional system and undermine their function. Because reform requires appeasing people outside your immediate interest groups, they can often be characterized as an act of weakness rather than a strategic concession. And leadership that relies on the impression of strength (and the overt displays of brutality) can abandon reform as a vehicle for tempering hostility to policy changes, leading to revolutionary movements.
studies showing voters have zero influence in politicians and their policies
Studies have shown a large gap between public opinion and public policy. What these studies regularly neglect is the popular rejection of ostensibly favorable public policy, often in the wake of a short term media campaign or sudden economic shift, which temporarily change their historically stated positions.
Consent can and does get manufactured. And this consent is reflected in subsequent election results.
That's a little close to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
The comment I was responding to mentioned something that Marxist-Leninists do, not what the source material calls for. The self identified ML randos online are the ones most of us have exposure to, also being a rando online myself.
I suppose it might be similar to saying Christians are not very Christ-like.
The lesser evil argument again. We can research democracy and try to explain to the self proclaimed democratic world leader how it works (btw usa is rated extremely low on the democracy index)
What y'all are yearning for has a name
Democracy
Don't let them pretend you have that when you don't
"Which of these two ways do you want to be fucked," is NOT democracy. Democracy is when power is accessible and attainable to any citizen with good ideas who makes the effort.
In a democracy, no individual has any significant political power. Political power is only accessible collectively. Having good ideas and making effort may not lead to the collective wanting to follow your lead.
People blame Russians because the propaganda from rich Americans is so ever present it's hard to notice. We're like fish trying to see the water.
They spent $24 billion dollars over the past election. And that doesn't even count all of corporate media. Ever notice how pretty much everything everyone on TV says benefits the status quo?
Sure, Russians are running whatever ops they're running, but whatever they can do is a drop in the bucket next to multiple 24 hour news channels.
You see, the DNC, leaders of the DNC, know that your only sensible options are voting for them or sawing your own legs off, and they know that the reasonable people know this and the loud people are not smart.
This means that any time they lose, they can use that opportunity to shift more towards the right, as they are for the most part old, rich, conservative people.
The only thing they actually fear, is people being consistent long term in both voting for them, and voting to replace them slowly with more progressive elements, but we’re back at the loud people being dumb and encouraging voter apathy amongst themselves and others because it feels cathartic to complain when this is exactly what the DNC wants. They want voter apathy so they can continue to shift to the right. If they kept winning, and progressives kept winning, they’d have no choice but to shift to the left.
It feels so obvious, but on this site, it seems you are seen to be crazy if you suggest anything other than some fantasy solution involving guillotines and a lot of “no, you go first”, or more self foot gunning.
This sounds like the type of idealism that leads to the situation we have now, unless you're referring to primaries, or state/local politics (Note: they editted their comment significantly to include more detail after I posted this).
No confidence votes don't quite solve the problem, and honestly, Canada, with our first past the post system, is headed towards the same eventual doom of America.
Instead we should look more towards proportional representation systems.
Anything that isn't that inevitably leads to 2 shitty parties people have to vote for the least bad amongst.
Now to be clear, no confidence is better in that its automatically applied if a budget can't be passed etc, and it stops complete deadlock, but we still have huuuuuuuuuuuuge gaping flaws.
"The only thing they actually fear is people consistently voting for them" sorry, what? Sure, voting to replace them with more progressive elements, but they aren't afraid of people voting for them, and to not only assert that, but then to say that it "feels so obvious" and provide no further explanation is beyond absurd.
“The only thing they actually fear is people consistently voting for them” sorry, what?
How can you be all "raw raw controlled opposition" yet not understand that it would entail not wanting to change the status quo?
If they keep winning, they can't just keep moving to the right. When you combine that with replacing them with more progressive elements, this results in changing the status quo; something they don't want.
It should be obvious because of the "raw raw controlled opposition" takes everyone here has.
If they keep winning, they can’t just keep moving to the right
Yes, they very obviously can. Because when they move to the right, they keep winning. Why would that prevent them from moving to the right? That doesn't make a lick of sense.
Finally, at least some glimpse into this strange line of thinking. But you've got everything backwards.
When they're strong, with no real threat, they have no reason to give us anything at all. They've proven that they can win comfortably on a centrist platform so there's no reason to change that, either progressives will fall in line behind the "lesser evil," or there aren't enough to matter. They can even shut out progressive candidates from the party whenever they choose.
When they're weak, they have no choice but to compromise on what they want to expand the coalition. They have tried, repeatedly, to expand the coalition right, and it hasn't worked. They will therefore be forced to the negotiating table with us, or they will end up fading to irrelevance and being replaced.
You don't have to compromise when you're in a strong position. That's what being in a strong position means.
Regardless, electing a centrist only ensures that the threat of the right will keep growing. Because we are in a state of decline, and merely maintaining that ensures that voters will be dissatisfied and will likely vote against whoever they blame, which will generally be the incumbent. The last few elections have gone D-R-D-R and personally I expect that pattern to continue, as long as both sides are dogshit and don't fix anything. The status quo is what created the threat of the far-right so you'll never break that threat by maintaining it.
But you’ve got everything backwards.
No, it's quite the opposite and when people like populate lemmy plentiful Ly think they're pulling one over on the Dems so they will finally do what they want, they don't realize they're sawing their own legs off while the rich folks heading the DNC laugh at them.
Consider why they saw Mamdani as a loss internally/clearly fought against him winning.
When they’re strong, with no real threat, they have no reason to give us anything at all.
When they're losing, they can't give you anything.
When they're winning, especially if they win sufficiently, they can't just sit on their hands, and then you can apply pressure via a takeover of more progressive candidates.
The threat of losing is aok to them because it means the whole system just rachets back one step so they can promise you in the future that things will just go back to almost how they were before the ratchet.
This is literally something people here constantly complain about.
either progressives will fall in line behind the “lesser evil,” or there aren’t enough to matter.
What logic is there to this? Why would the progressives suddenly just hang they're hats especially if they're being voted in through primaries, state or local politics? It's clearly a selling point within the DNC so that doesn't math out.
When they’re weak, they have no choice but to compromise on what they want to expand the coalition. They have tried, repeatedly, to expand the coalition right, and it hasn’t worked.
You're sooooo close to getting the point in this excerpt.
There are very obvious reasons that they do not want to expand to the left, and it's what we've been talking about.
They will therefore be forced to the negotiating table with us, or they will end up fading to irrelevance and being replaced.
Forced by what forces? Once again, they're fine with losing because you will be backed into a wall or people who aren't idealists will be backed into a wall and they can again resume the ratchet mechanism.
You are negotiating at the wrong place. You have no such leverage as is imagined here.
The only way to move them left is by getting more progressives in Congress, as candidates, in state and local politics.
Anything else just 0lays into their plans to wait for republicans to fuck things up and then act like hero's returning to slow "progress" and the status quo.
You're thinking about this from a naive "we must hit them because they do bad" when it's just not that simple and in fact they clearly are ok with you thinking that.
Regardless, electing a centrist only ensures that the threat of the right will keep growing.
This idea comes from the perspective that you can put up a progressive. You cannot unless you win in the primaries and they still won't be your solution as even a progressive federal candidate still would need to pass laws through the house and senate and their various coworkers who don't want things to move much.
They absolutely would have big impacts on the direction of various agencies for sure, so no small feat, but you aren't getting any sort of sweeping change that would sway anyone stupid enough to think "well things are still bad so I'm not going to vote" etc.
The point is, no matter how you swing it, letting the democrats lose, hurts progressive goals.
Its not a position of power to lose progress just so that to the average voter, restoring some of the progress lost is the reason they are enticed the next time. Just not how it works.
Hence, no, you want to break the cycle of bouncing back and forth aimlessly as much as you can because this is what allows for the stall you hate and somehow think will simulateously pressure them to stop the behaviour that causes it.
You have to think outside of "I'm mad and I must punish the people I am mad at" and instead think about their goals and incentives.
They truly care less about many of the things you think apply leverage to them than you think they do, and I'd argue that they in fact depend on people acting like that for the reasons mentioned.
When they’re winning, especially if they win sufficiently, they can’t just sit on their hands
Yes they can! And do! Because they already won, without even promising to do things! You keep asserting random shit like "they can't" "they have to" but there's no basis for it.
What logic is there to this? Why would the progressives suddenly just hang they’re hats especially if they’re being voted in through primaries, state or local politics? It’s clearly a selling point within the DNC so that doesn’t math out.
What are talking about? They don't need selling points to win over progressives if progressives are already reliably voting for them when they run on a centrist platform. I'm not talking about "progressives suddenly hanging their hats," and I have no idea where you got that from.
Forced by what forces? Once again, they’re fine with losing because you will be backed into a wall or people who aren’t idealists will be backed into a wall and they can again resume the ratchet mechanism.
No, they aren't fine with losing. Well, maybe they are, but if you're "fine with losing" for long enough, eventually you'll stop being a credible political force and be replaced by another entity that actually wants to win.
This whole thesis is just an extremely convoluted way to reconcile the fact that the Dems suck with justifying voting dem anyway. It's more motivated reasoning than actual truth.
What they're actually "fine with" is you continuing to give them the support they ask you for, despite it being part of your five dimensional chess strategy to own them. They don't really give a shit about the difference between a loyal true believer centrist and a progressive as long as they both find reasons to vote for them consistently. It's just silly to think that supporting and voting for a politician is anything but the exact thing they want from you, it's basically a conspiracy theory. It's just being a centrist with a bajillion extra steps in your reasoning to pretend otherwise.
No, it has nothing to do with "being mad," or "naievity" or "they did bad so we have to punish them." They will give in to our demands, or they will lose. And if they would rather keep losing, then we will simply replace them. It's really a very straightforward tactic, it's just a matter of understanding a very basic level of how to negotiate and also having the spine to follow through.
Frankly I think that your perspective is delusional and I'm not really interested in discussing it further.
Totally agree with you. I always view it as a big ship. It takes a long time to turn. If you keep voting left then it will keep moving left. But people say “both sides are the same” and then the right wins and the ship stops turning.
Plus since majority of the country is voting right, doesn’t it follow that a lot of politicians will start moving right? Why be far left if being a little left loses?
Funny republicans saying I'm helping Democrats when I write in a name or vote for a third party.Democrats say I am helping the Republicans. Truth is George Washington was right. Political Parties have corrupted our nation. I'm surprised that we've lasted this long.
Hey hey hey! The crossed the aisle to create a historic bipartisan agreement to reopen it!
Checks notes: ah yes, see? Brilliant negotiations! The gop got everything, and the dems got assurance that they will have a vote on the aca benefits! I mean, the vote will just be no, but come on, what skill! Truly, no one could have squeeze more from the deal!
the repubs got more than their initial ask: delta 8 THC is outlawed and now states cannot use alternative funding to pay out SNAP benefits in the future when this inevitably happens again.
The dems are truly masters of the art of the deal. All it took was a little bit of immiseration and they got some votes and an excuse to let the republicans set up their plan to cut welfare. They didn’t even have to miss thanksgiving.
the DNC saw it as a sacrificial lamb, just because the recent elecitons had all DEM wins, they are hoping to ride out that honeymoon til the 26th. besides the 8 that supported the end of the shutdown, there were 13 other dems that are up for re-election next year.
Because they shutdown the government because people were clamoring for some semblance of resistance, and there was an election coming up. They capitulated as soon as they could after the polls closed.
They didn't shut down government to save the ACA, they shut down government to win a couple of elections. Thousands of federal employees went over a month without pay so they could win a couple of elections. They denied SNAP benefits to 42,000 people so they could win a couple of elections. And now that those elections are over, they have voted to reopen government with absolutely none of their demands being met.
And Bernie Sanders can go fuck himself. He is nothing but a sheep dog to the fascist oligarchy
Take a look at their post history and it will make more sense. My guess is they'd rather see America give up and fail already because surely their idealized government will then rise from the ashes.
Just Democrats and Republicans. Mostly Democrats Because Republicans don't pretend to care. Democrats will call themselves an ally while embracing you as they shove a knife in your back. Anyone paying half attention would realize that Democrats cannot be trusted.
Seeing that you are in a communist space what do you think we would like? Communists dont support liberals or thier red fascist counterparts. And liberals would rather defend fascism than support the working class
Even between Nazis there are levels. You wouldn't put Hitler and some german citizen that voted for him at the same level, both suck but are not the same.
Democrats have definitely shown to not be as bad as Republicans. The system is broken but you can choose to say "It's all the same, so I won't do shit" or you can choose to acknowledge that even within this shitty system, there are better and worse options.
They might not be on the same level but I still wouldn't vote for someone who supported Hitler. This lesser-evilism is literally how Hitler came to power in the first place, the social democrats supported Hindenburg for president as a lesser evil to stop Hitler and then Hindenburg just appointed Hitler as chancellor anyway.
I'm not saying to vote for the next Democrat puppet. I'm saying that pretending that democrats are the same or worse than republicans is a ridiculous claim. I'm all for something sane that breaks us out of this shit.
Yes comrades, vote Republican. If the pain and suffering continues for long enough, America will realize capitalism doesn't work, and the year of the Linux desktop American communism will finally arrive!
So Trump doesn't pretend to represent people? Literally his whole election ran on saying he was going to represent every particular voting block, even of those he's now deporting.
Seems like the guy is stuck in "grass is always greener" type of mindset, except if instead of focusing on it being greener focusing on it not being as green instead. Thing is, because of shitty bipartisan systems, you will always have this. You will have the party that games the systems and appeals to whatever easy low effort populisms there are, and there is the party that has to encompass the rest of a literal world of different viewpoints and ideologies and try to find the compromise which will never be perfect for anyone in particular. It's why they always have to throw out labels to see what sticks, since no label really represents Democrats. Not all Democrats are "woke", "gays", or "antifa".
Blame the game, not the player. Who is more likely to reform the game in a positive way, and who is more likely to reform the game in a negative way? Get rid of your shitty two (or really one party, depending on how much you've been indoctrinated/informed, since the other one is Satan incarnate) party system.
You know what they say, If it looks like a duck and smells like a duck and creates an anonymous police force to round up immigrants and send them to camps like a duck...
I remember when nazis didn't like getting called nazis and pretended no one who said it knew what it meant. Now nazis are a lot more open about it and they're doing the same with fascism.
238 Comments
aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com · 83 pts · 267d
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 35 pts · 267d
aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com · -6 pts · 267d
Mongostein@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 265d
This was made in like 1994
starman2112@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 267d
They mainly just want you to vote more than once every 4 years
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 266d
please provide evidence
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 267d
This guy wants you to keep doing the same useless thing, already obvious and ridiculed 150 years ago
AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 266d
Just commenting here so it's high up enough to see: this guy is an admitted accelerationist. Position invalidated. Thanks.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 266d
LOL whatever clown, I'm sure everyone needs to hear about your bombshell discovery
anticolonialist@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 267d
Any vote in the oligarchy is a vote thrown away.
jimmy90@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 267d
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 267d
Those supporting the oligarchy are the haters of democracy
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 267d
LOL american doesn't know better and thinks that is democracy.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 266d
You should read more theory
anticolonialist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 266d
Lenin is talking about participating in voting for our own candidates and government, NOT for supporting the bourgeoisie.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 266d
We're still in the pretty heavy wake of McCarthyism, we're not at "run our own candidates on the general ballot" yet, we're at "vote lesser evil on the general ballot while we run our own candidates locally and try to win primaries".
anticolonialist@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 266d
Karl Marx on liberal 'lesser evil'
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 266d
Yeah and I think 1) that was 175 years ago 2) that while a brilliant thinker on the subject of structures and inevitabilities, Marx was pretty naïve when it came to implementation.
anticolonialist@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 266d
Lenin's push for participation in elections was due to the Duma which kept getting dissolved by the Czar for becoming increasingly anti monarchy. Between 1906 and 1917 several had been dissolved due to growing constitutional monarchy among the peasants.
Without historical context it sounds like lenin advocated participating in all bourgeoisie elections.
catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 266d
How dare you be reasonable and actually try and solve problems instead of just complaining and demonizing anyone who's not left enough!
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 228d
Any "no vote" is a vote for "any oligarch will do".
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 267d
This guy wants you to throw your vote away.
aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com · -3 pts · 267d
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 267d
That's evidence you are a mindless tool for the people causing our problems
Soulg@ani.social · -1 pts · 267d
And this comment is evidence you don't understand anything about anything
MisterOwl@lemmy.world · -16 pts · 267d
If recent history is any indicator of how much Democrats are willing to fight for what's right, I have better things to do with my fucking time than vote. I'm done with them.
dalekcaan@feddit.nl · 20 pts · 267d
If slightly less but still very much recent history is any indicator, that attitude is exactly what got us into this shit in the first place. One group isn't doing what's right, so let's just hand victory to the group that pledges to do as much evil as they think they can get away with. Too many people with better things to do with their fucking time than keep a felon pedophile rapist wannabe-Mussolini conman out of office, I guess. Glad you got all the better things done though, with your fucking time.
MisterOwl@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 267d
If the last 24 hours is any indicator, the democratic party is cowardly, weak, spineless, and ineffectual and I refuse to waste another nanosecond on them.
If neither side is capable of, in your own words, "doing what's right", why waste time on either of them?
dalekcaan@feddit.nl · 18 pts · 267d
Because, as I already (rather pointedly, I thought) said, one party isn't not doing "what's right," (Which are your words, actually. I was quoting you.) it is actively and aggressively doing what's very, very wrong. If those two are equivalent to you, then by all means don't vote, as you might just be doing the rest of us a favor.
selfAwareCoder@programming.dev · 4 pts · 265d
I think the main point is that the Democrats are all those things, and yet still more effective than you at pushing the country left, so people support them because it's better than supporting Republicans
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · -14 pts · 267d
Democrats got us into the mess we are in
dalekcaan@feddit.nl · 19 pts · 267d
Right, because the Republicans control the presidency, the house, the Senate, and inexplicably the supreme court, obviously it's those darn stinking Democrats who did all this. Don't get me wrong, I am livid at their inaction, but to throw your hands up and say "whelp, better just hand the Republicans the key to the castle" is at best defeatist and at worst actively destroying this country.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 267d
I hope you're ready to hear that same refrain constantly and increasing over the next 12 months.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 267d
That's the best thing that can happen for the rest of the world, constantly bullied and terrorised by the bipartisan regime.
But americans didn't give a fuck about that. Now they cry bcs they got a taste of their own medicine.
Well guess what, we don't give a fuck about you either, on the contrary.
Let Trump do his worst and you can all rot in hell where you belong.
The sooner the better.
AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 267d
Ah, so you're going mask off as just being a bad person? Nice.
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 266d
yes you've got me.
Being against the cancer of the earth, that has invaded, carpet bombed, droned, bullied, regime changed or sanctioned half the world and helped terrorists or genocide regimes is being a bad person.
aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com · 5 pts · 267d
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 267d
In 2020 they pushed a candidate with obvious mental decline and hid it for the next 4 years. Allowed him to study in the running until primaries were over so they could install another person that wasn't trusted
Soulg@ani.social · 3 pts · 267d
That's a lot of words for giving the nazis a pass for being nazis
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 267d
Democrat ratchet effect gives Nazis a pass to be Nazis
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 20 pts · 267d
At least vote in the primaries
the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 267d
You're absolutely right. We wouldn't be in this mess if everyone who complains about the Dems had voted in the primaries.
ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works · 56 pts · 267d
The ruling class of America sees the mayoral elections of Mamdani and Wilson as more dangerous and threatening than Trump and MAGA.
EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml · 29 pts · 266d
That's why they've been fighting socialist and communist ideology for over 100 years. It would give us real power in politics and they would lose the privileges afforded to them by the status quo.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz · 23 pts · 266d
Tiger666@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 266d
He wasn't only here ticket.
HeyJoe@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 266d
Watching the Mamdani election play out was wild. Seeing the biggest challenge being 2 people from the same side argue and talk crap for months was disgusting. Siding with Trump on top of it all because of how scared they were. They were so desperate they had no choice but to not even pretend anymore, like when Biden magically started winning against Bernie in 2020. The next 10 years will be even weirder as more people catch on.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 52 pts · 267d
Same energy as the Fox News classic "you complain about police violence but you never complain about gang violence".
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 267d
It's the same picture.
gwheel@lemmy.zip · 40 pts · 267d
"Both sides are the same but the dems are worse" - said by nobody who is paying attention. There is a reason 'both sides' is exclusively weaponized towards one party and not the other.
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 267d
Republicans don't pretend to care. We know exactly what to expect from them
gwheel@lemmy.zip · 38 pts · 267d
Still doesn't make both parties the same. People saying they're the same are trying to convince you not to vote, which consistently benefits one party and absolutely does not move our government to the left.
BakerBagel@midwest.social · 22 pts · 267d
What have the Democrats done in the last 10 years to stop the GOP? Every ossue America faces comes from infettered capitalism eating away at society like a cancer, but they still egg it on. The party exists to collect corporate donations and make people feel like they can change their lives if they just vote a little harder.
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 267d
Voting for either right wing party doesn't move to the left either
Lemminary@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 267d
It's a little to the right vs so far right you get whiplash. They're still not the same. Do you think any of this would've happened under Biden eventually? Of course not.
msage@programming.dev · 6 pts · 267d
It already fucking did.
Biden did a lot of good work. He also let Trump have this second term.
It's like you people always forget how much the high road costs everyone.
Great that people got some benefits... for a couple of years. Now they will suffer fascism for who knows how long.
"You should vote blue" except Mamdani.
Why can't you see that dems don't want the majority? They don't care about the poors? DNC has betrayed progressives at every turn, but they are the lesser evil!!1!
Fuck no, they just make you complacent, lash out at leftists, and stop any critical observations.
Every election they could make amazing campaigns about how awesome life could be if the country turned left. Instead they just point at GOP and scream 'they will murder transfolk and immigrants', which is true. But that is not the path to victory.
'Dems never had all three brances of government' - then they aren't doing their jobs. Simple as that.
Lemminary@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 267d
What I find mindblowing is how people are so quick to blame Democratic voters for something that the Republican party has been orchestrating for so long, and blame them for the limited choices that they have at the ballot box, as if they were personally responsible for the choices they were presented with, instead of pointing at the leadership within the DNC that has been compromised.
Do you see any other Mamdanis anywhere besides AOC and her posse? Do you remember what happened with Bernie and the DNC despite people's overall enthusiasm for him?
Why can't I not see it? A lot of them are DINOs, and it's clear as day. And yet, the people like Ms. Crockett who have been pushing back nonstop on the Senate floor this entire time would never let this happen if it were up to her. You fail to realize your own point: that the Democratic party is heterogeneous with conflicting interests and not by choice of the constituents.
Turn that divisive shit down.
msage@programming.dev · 8 pts · 266d
Yeah, I remember Bernie very well. Specially the presidential campaign. I remember the backstabbing at every turn. It was so sad and painful to watch. Only to give Trump his first turn.
That was exactly the DNC's doing. They do it again and again.
Yes, it's almost as if it was never meant to accomplish anything. It's almost as if it was hijacked by corpo shills just waiting to stand against any real progress, while appearing helpless when it's needed.
Fuck the DNC.
Soulg@ani.social · 3 pts · 267d
When there are only two parties, the one to the left of the other becomes the left wing party. It's not rocket science
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 266d
The problem arises when both parties keep moving to the right.
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 267d
On the political scale, Democrats currently sit on what was considered far right 30 years ago. They keep in lockstep with Republicans as they shift further to the right, filling the void Republicans have just left behind
selfAwareCoder@programming.dev · -2 pts · 265d
They're further left than not voting
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 267d
lol
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 266d
this meme doesn't say they are worse
turdcollector69@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 266d
It's really sad to see how many people fall into the trap of party identity instead of thinking for themselves.
It's incredibly obvious that the Democrat leadership and establishment has long since stopped caring about their constituents and prioritized corporate interest.
It's so frustrating that people have become so wrapped up with party identity that they can't just not see the cancer, they actively defend it.
"Blue no matter who" and the general response to this meme is so fucking stupid because it keeps the corrupt establishment in power and sidelines the actual progressives.
Edit: I bet you people are mad that Cuomo lost because you all obviously love your establishment shills so much.
gwheel@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 266d
"Both sides bad" is a thought terminating cliche designed to deter people from honestly comparing the two parties and seeing the gulf between them. I'm not defending the dems. I'm not defending the two party system. I'm not defending any of it.
There is an active authoritarian takeover of our country, which is right now taking away people's rights. Harassing them for what they say, and shipping them out of the country without even the token gesture of checking their legal status. They have already tried to prevent a peaceful transfer of power, and confidently talk about ending term limits.
For some reason supposed leftists have no interest in this, and would rather do the far right's work for them. Do you think these things would be happening no matter who was in power? Push the party left in primaries and local elections, fight for ranked choice to make third parties viable, call out the dems when they do something bad. Don't pretend the two sides are the same, and don't imply that voting is a waste or counter-productive.
RE your edit: Why are you so antagonistic to people saying it's important to vote against the far right? Mamdani was the clearly better option, and I hope his proposals are proven effective. This is the kind of local election win that can nudge the party to the left. Just don't disown him the moment he is seen working with dem leadership.
anticolonialist@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 265d
Yes they would be, but in different ways. Democrats always set the stage for Republicans to commit crimes against the working class. Trump put kids in cages built by Democrats. Trump militarized ICE and deportations after Democrats increased their funding to their highest levels with the largest increase of detention center construction. Liberals were outraged when they found Trump was denying due process to those he deported while ignoring Obama did the same thing with upwards of 75% of those he deported denied using a law signed into law by Bill Clinton.
And the Democrat ratchet effect prevents anything started by Republicans from ever slipping back.
This is another failed strategy that's never worked, after electing them they have no obligation to fulfill their promises, all they need to do is create another manufactured crisis before the elections that require everyone to come together and defeat their imaginary foe, 'the most important election of our lifetime.'
Calling out Dems when they do bad holds no weight when they know you will come back afterwards and reward their bad behavior with reelection.
gwheel@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 265d
Would you agree with this statement? "Both sides are irredeemably bad, people should not vote or participate in American politics"
anticolonialist@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 265d
They are not equally bad, the side that poses as an ally and a protector of is the marginalized while actively causing them harm is by far worse.
gwheel@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 265d
So you agree with the statement? Or are you saying the dems are meaningfully worse so people should participate in opposition to them?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 266d
no one said this. you are fighting a strawman
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 266d
That is literally the content of the original post that spawned this entire conversation.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 266d
no, it's not. The content of that post is explaining why they criticize Democrats more than they criticize Republicans. it's not saying "both sides bad"
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 266d
"both sides bad"
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 266d
How does it do that? The winner will be red or blue. Your options are whatever fascist the red side puts up, or whatever the blue side puts up. If you vote in primaries, maybe the blue option will be good. But even if it's a corporate shill, that's still a better outcome than the fascist.
If withholding your vote, or voting for a third party with no chance of winning, was going to make the DNC change their approach, it would've worked in 2016. We got Biden in 2020, obviously that strategy isn't working.
If you want progressives off the sideline, they need support in the primaries. Ignoring electoral strategy is so fucking stupid.
gwheel@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 266d
Yes it does. "They are both terrible in every way, but the dems are also dishonest gaslighters."
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 266d
you are deciding that is worse. the meme does not make that value judgement.
null@piefed.nullspace.lol · -3 pts · 265d
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 265d
that's not what I said
null@piefed.nullspace.lol · -2 pts · 265d
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 265d
it's not precisely what I said, or you wouldn't have needed to edit it
eddanja@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 267d
One of them are wolves in sheep clothing. The other are just wolves, period.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 267d
You know to shoot the wolves.
lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 267d
carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 30 pts · 267d
billionaires fund democrats too lmao
the fact that so many people (and presumably you) think "voting for the lesser evil" is the end all be all of political engagement is perhaps one of the bourgeoisie’s greatest victories
turdcollector69@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 266d
Yeah it's fucking wild that people are defending neoliberals so hard as if neoliberals didn't just dick the whole shutdown.
EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 267d
Democrats cannot be trusted. They will betray everyone as we have just seen with the government closure vote
protist@mander.xyz · 18 pts · 267d
How can you blame the entire party for the actions of a few? Most Democrats, establishment and otherwise, seem really upset by what those senators have done
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip · 28 pts · 267d
You don't think it's suspicious that the only ones that voted with conservatives were the ones that won't face retribution at the ballot box next year? That there's most likely several people that voted "no" that just wanted to save face?
Soulg@ani.social · 5 pts · 267d
That's a problem with Schumer and Ossoff. Blaming this on all Democrats bereft of any evidence is the stupidest shit ever. It's like you people fucking WANT fascism
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 266d
I want both parties and all politicians dead and buried in unmarked graves. Fuck the lot of them for the shit they bipartisianly support.
protist@mander.xyz · -2 pts · 267d
Who among those who voted to pass this bill will be up for reelection and who won't?
Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 267d
As far as the Democrats go, every single one that voted "yes" is not up for re-election. They will face no consequences for this.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 266d
None of them are up for reelection until 2028 at the earliest. Two of them are retiring at the end of their current term. One of them is the minority whip. You know, party leadership.
MisterOwl@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 267d
You used exactly the right word: "seem"
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 267d
They'll send a sternly worded letter to other members of Congress
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 267d
Is specifically selected members of Congress that were not seeking the election so they can distance themselves from the entire vote, they can say, look what they did. We wanted nothing to do with it.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 266d
Because it's always just enough.
You seem way more upset at anyone who suggests that politicians aren't being honest in the face of massive pushback.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -3 pts · 267d
I don't support the GOP, but the statement could be adjusted for them as well.
Only Sith deal in absolutes.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 267d
They're arguing against absolutes, like that sithy quote itself.
lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 267d
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 267d
GhostPain@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 267d
The DNC and Dem leadership are the guard dogs of Fascism. The rest don't matter.
MisterOwl@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 267d
"Lap dogs" might be more accurate.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 266d
Honest my ass. They lie almost as much as their orange hogfather
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 18 pts · 267d
Some years ago I concluded that in my own value framework, Hypocrisy was one of the greatest sins, just short of things like purposefully harming others for fun.
So yeah, an honest greedy fucker who doesn't hide they don't give a rat's arse about who they harm and how badly in the pursuit of their personal upside maximization is actually a better person (more precisely, a less bad person) than an hypocrite greedy fuck who won't give a rat's arse about who they harm and how badly in the pursuit of their personal upside maximization but try and pass themselves as caring and nice.
You see, they're both doing nasty things to others for personal gain, but the latter is poisoning the well of trust and by hiding their true nature manages to do far more harm than the former before people catch on to it and stop it.
Further, as far as I know there is no positive reason to use hypocrisy: it's only ever used to hide evil intent.
I suspect that alll in all hypocrites do a lot more harm to others than people who are just openly selfish.
That said, in the US Republicans too are hypocrites - notice how they promised all sorts of good things to people like farmers and then did the opposite.
Hypocrisy seems to be a general problem of big party politics.
stinky@redlemmy.com · 16 pts · 267d
Why do I criticize your party more than Democrats?
Because Democratic candidates promise 100% and achieve maybe 30%.
Your party achieves 0% of its goals. You're not even on the ballot. Your criticism is exactly as valuable as it sounds.
anticolonialist@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 267d
Your party has lost two elections to a carnival barker. I don't think Democrats are in a position to say whose criticism is valuable.
aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com · 5 pts · 267d
stinky@redlemmy.com · -2 pts · 267d
I'm not a Democrat :) try again.
dreamkeeper@literature.cafe · 2 pts · 266d
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 267d
aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com · -1 pts · 267d
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 266d
"Genocide? lol ok!" - every centrist.
Oppopity@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 267d
I was going to say your party promises not to do genocide but doesn't achieve that goal so that 70% is more important than the 30%. But they don't even do that.
stinky@redlemmy.com · -1 pts · 267d
I'm not registered as a Democrat, and it's typical that you'd assume something before you have proof of it being true. Best of luck to you.
Oppopity@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 266d
You would not be criticising other parties and defending the democrats if you weren't a democrat lmao.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 266d
Oh come on. It's not like there aren't other parties interested in democrats being as far to the right as possible.
robocall@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 266d
I don't vote for Republicans. Never have, never will. I do engage with Democrats, and tell them my needs and expectations.
EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 265d
Which they promptly ignore
robocall@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 265d
Yeah, I try to vote for the progressive during primaries too.
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 267d
umbrella@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 267d
stickly@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 267d
[re-commenting with no instance shaming]
Every Marxist-Leninist user
buttnugget@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 266d
No rational or decent person ever refused to vote against Republicans in swing states.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 266d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
The issue isn't one of rationality or decency. The issue is of exhausting a constituency with barriers and terrorizing them with criminal liability while controlling the privatized mechanism for counting votes
At some point, its two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. "No harm in voting" totally misses the problem at hand.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 265d
So what you're saying is that you already have every "rational and decent person" voting against Republicans every election and that's not enough to win.
buttnugget@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
That’s the joke, yeah. I can explain the reality if you want though.
anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 266d
Nothing lost by protest voting then
EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 266d
Reform is a tool deployed by the oligarchy to stay in power. It stops progress and results in incremental fascism disguised as a lesser evil. Reform gives the illusion that voters have a part in deciding political outcomes despite several studies showing voters have zero influence in politicians and their policies.
stickly@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 266d
Cool cool, so why does voting vs not voting matter? What actionable alternatives would you suggest and why do those preclude checking a box on a piece of paper?
I'd argue that even an illusory vote has value as a public barometer. If 80% of a voter base is consistently voting against the incumbent party it tells you way more about their discontent than 80% not showing up.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 266d
You're correct about that. In a chapter titled, Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?, Lenin argues that there are a number of reasons why communists ought to participate in elections even if they aren't an effective means of implementing change.
As you mentioned, elections can be useful for a public barometer, they can also be useful for promoting ideas, they can be used to test potential leaders for opportunism, etc.
The caveat is that those goals are only really useful in the context of an actual communist party. It doesn't really do us any good to know that people are dissatisfied with the current ruling party if they just support a different bourgeois party. It undermines the ideas we're trying to promote if we just sheepdog people back into the fold of incrementalism and lesser-evilism and having faith in the system. And it does us little good to test "leaders" who are already avowed anti-communists.
All of which is to say, there are reasons to participate in US elections, but not through the democrats, rather through a third party that actually stands for what we're trying to promote, like PSL.
Really, the main reason that Lenin argues for participation in electoralism is for the sake of reaching people where they're at in order to encourage them to pursue other, more useful approaches, such as strikes.
stickly@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 266d
I appreciate the response, thanks for the perspective. From my view, I rarely see this line of reasoning in the wild. The "participation" in elections begins and ends with "Both parties bad. Vote for [the nebulous idea of] a third party". In my opinion, if you can't give a concrete name and put in enough effort to get it on the ballot then you're not actually participating.
As a example: I heard complete silence from this portion of the left during the NYC mayoral race/Mamdani's campaign. No mention of (let alone stumping for) a more progressive alternative. Now with his win, there's no discussion about parlaying that turnout into other elections. Only attacks on his international politics (not sure why that matters for a mayor) or projected future failure.
Nothing about that approach indicates any good faith engagement with progressive politics in the electoral space. In that sense it's completely indistinguishable from the right's suppression and defeatism.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 266d
I've seen quite a bit of discussion about this, personally. Here is a thread on Hexbear from a week ago with people arguing back and forth over this point. And if you search "Zohran" you'll find plenty of comments celebrating his win.
It doesn't really matter that much as a mayor, but it does matter somewhat if he's treated as a leader, representing ideas beyond his official capacity. And that sort of thing is why Marxist participate in electoralism in the first place.
It's a complicated issue.
Tiger666@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 266d
Another Rosa Luxemburg fan I see. She spoke the gospel.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 266d
Its a political relief valve to limit the scope of corruption and the degree to which the public experiences pain. If you're in the corona of folks who enjoy relief via reform, it is often enough to quell your desire to overthrow the system. If you're not, it costs you support - often along ethnic or regional lines - in a way that divides your neighbors against you.
Voters are deciding political outcomes. Large waves of angry voters do change policies by forcing the government leadership into a reform cycle. This is often preferable to violent confrontations between an increasingly unpopular state leadership and growing crowds of dissidents.
Reform isn't an illusion. It has material consequences for a subset of the angry populace. Soothing this populace and winning them back to the establishment's side is why reforms work as a mitigation of revolution.
The illusion is in the belief that reforms aren't necessary. Government leadership pumped up on its own hubris will often exceed the limits of the institutional system and undermine their function. Because reform requires appeasing people outside your immediate interest groups, they can often be characterized as an act of weakness rather than a strategic concession. And leadership that relies on the impression of strength (and the overt displays of brutality) can abandon reform as a vehicle for tempering hostility to policy changes, leading to revolutionary movements.
Studies have shown a large gap between public opinion and public policy. What these studies regularly neglect is the popular rejection of ostensibly favorable public policy, often in the wake of a short term media campaign or sudden economic shift, which temporarily change their historically stated positions.
Consent can and does get manufactured. And this consent is reflected in subsequent election results.
ademir@lemmy.eco.br · -1 pts · 266d
You are confusing MLs with anarchists. MLs always think of the strategic importance of elections and choosing the lesser of evils.
solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 266d
That is absolutely not descriptive of the general comments and sentiment upvoted in the ML instance.
ademir@lemmy.eco.br · 2 pts · 265d
You should base what MLs is about by the writings of Marx and Lenin, and not by some randoms online.
solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 265d
That's a little close to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
The comment I was responding to mentioned something that Marxist-Leninists do, not what the source material calls for. The self identified ML randos online are the ones most of us have exposure to, also being a rando online myself.
I suppose it might be similar to saying Christians are not very Christ-like.
stickly@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 267d
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 10 pts · 266d
The lesser evil argument again. We can research democracy and try to explain to the self proclaimed democratic world leader how it works (btw usa is rated extremely low on the democracy index)
What y'all are yearning for has a name
Democracy
Don't let them pretend you have that when you don't
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 266d
"Which of these two ways do you want to be fucked," is NOT democracy. Democracy is when power is accessible and attainable to any citizen with good ideas who makes the effort.
Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 265d
Helldivers is not as far from reality as one would think: managed democracy
zeca@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 265d
In a democracy, no individual has any significant political power. Political power is only accessible collectively. Having good ideas and making effort may not lead to the collective wanting to follow your lead.
KeenFlame@feddit.nu · 1 pts · 256d
It's hard to categorize and score democracy, but in what ever way you do it, the hyper capitalist autocracy they have now is horrifying
But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 266d
Man, Russian propaganda really did a number on your country
EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 265d
US politics is a result of US propaganda
rumba@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 265d
Still not entirely sure that propaganda didn't originate from Russia. He and Putin are besties.
Dragonstaff@leminal.space · 8 pts · 265d
People blame Russians because the propaganda from rich Americans is so ever present it's hard to notice. We're like fish trying to see the water.
They spent $24 billion dollars over the past election. And that doesn't even count all of corporate media. Ever notice how pretty much everything everyone on TV says benefits the status quo?
Sure, Russians are running whatever ops they're running, but whatever they can do is a drop in the bucket next to multiple 24 hour news channels.
ademir@lemmy.eco.br · 4 pts · 265d
You are so blinded by western propaganda that everything that defy it is propaganda.
jerkface@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 266d
At least in Canada we have an ineffective third party that capitalists don't even bother to capture.
AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 266d
Damn, he's kinda got a point
AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 266d
It's demoralizing that we have to wait out the old white men in order to have progressive thought.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 266d
You see, the DNC, leaders of the DNC, know that your only sensible options are voting for them or sawing your own legs off, and they know that the reasonable people know this and the loud people are not smart.
This means that any time they lose, they can use that opportunity to shift more towards the right, as they are for the most part old, rich, conservative people.
The only thing they actually fear, is people being consistent long term in both voting for them, and voting to replace them slowly with more progressive elements, but we’re back at the loud people being dumb and encouraging voter apathy amongst themselves and others because it feels cathartic to complain when this is exactly what the DNC wants. They want voter apathy so they can continue to shift to the right. If they kept winning, and progressives kept winning, they’d have no choice but to shift to the left.
It feels so obvious, but on this site, it seems you are seen to be crazy if you suggest anything other than some fantasy solution involving guillotines and a lot of “no, you go first”, or more self foot gunning.
PeacefulForest@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 265d
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 265d
This sounds like the type of idealism that leads to the situation we have now, unless you're referring to primaries, or state/local politics (Note: they editted their comment significantly to include more detail after I posted this).
PeacefulForest@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 265d
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
No confidence votes don't quite solve the problem, and honestly, Canada, with our first past the post system, is headed towards the same eventual doom of America.
Instead we should look more towards proportional representation systems.
Anything that isn't that inevitably leads to 2 shitty parties people have to vote for the least bad amongst.
Now to be clear, no confidence is better in that its automatically applied if a budget can't be passed etc, and it stops complete deadlock, but we still have huuuuuuuuuuuuge gaping flaws.
PeacefulForest@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 265d
"The only thing they actually fear is people consistently voting for them" sorry, what? Sure, voting to replace them with more progressive elements, but they aren't afraid of people voting for them, and to not only assert that, but then to say that it "feels so obvious" and provide no further explanation is beyond absurd.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 264d
How can you be all "raw raw controlled opposition" yet not understand that it would entail not wanting to change the status quo?
If they keep winning, they can't just keep moving to the right. When you combine that with replacing them with more progressive elements, this results in changing the status quo; something they don't want.
It should be obvious because of the "raw raw controlled opposition" takes everyone here has.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 264d
Yes, they very obviously can. Because when they move to the right, they keep winning. Why would that prevent them from moving to the right? That doesn't make a lick of sense.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 264d
You havent thought about it very hard then.
Who are they against when they lose? an increasingly big threat, so they can offer even less.
Who are they up against when they win? /Themselves and the more progressive elements that come to replace them.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 264d
Finally, at least some glimpse into this strange line of thinking. But you've got everything backwards.
When they're strong, with no real threat, they have no reason to give us anything at all. They've proven that they can win comfortably on a centrist platform so there's no reason to change that, either progressives will fall in line behind the "lesser evil," or there aren't enough to matter. They can even shut out progressive candidates from the party whenever they choose.
When they're weak, they have no choice but to compromise on what they want to expand the coalition. They have tried, repeatedly, to expand the coalition right, and it hasn't worked. They will therefore be forced to the negotiating table with us, or they will end up fading to irrelevance and being replaced.
You don't have to compromise when you're in a strong position. That's what being in a strong position means.
Regardless, electing a centrist only ensures that the threat of the right will keep growing. Because we are in a state of decline, and merely maintaining that ensures that voters will be dissatisfied and will likely vote against whoever they blame, which will generally be the incumbent. The last few elections have gone D-R-D-R and personally I expect that pattern to continue, as long as both sides are dogshit and don't fix anything. The status quo is what created the threat of the far-right so you'll never break that threat by maintaining it.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 264d
Consider why they saw Mamdani as a loss internally/clearly fought against him winning.
When they're losing, they can't give you anything.
When they're winning, especially if they win sufficiently, they can't just sit on their hands, and then you can apply pressure via a takeover of more progressive candidates.
The threat of losing is aok to them because it means the whole system just rachets back one step so they can promise you in the future that things will just go back to almost how they were before the ratchet.
This is literally something people here constantly complain about.
What logic is there to this? Why would the progressives suddenly just hang they're hats especially if they're being voted in through primaries, state or local politics? It's clearly a selling point within the DNC so that doesn't math out.
You're sooooo close to getting the point in this excerpt.
There are very obvious reasons that they do not want to expand to the left, and it's what we've been talking about.
Forced by what forces? Once again, they're fine with losing because you will be backed into a wall or people who aren't idealists will be backed into a wall and they can again resume the ratchet mechanism.
You are negotiating at the wrong place. You have no such leverage as is imagined here.
The only way to move them left is by getting more progressives in Congress, as candidates, in state and local politics.
Anything else just 0lays into their plans to wait for republicans to fuck things up and then act like hero's returning to slow "progress" and the status quo.
You're thinking about this from a naive "we must hit them because they do bad" when it's just not that simple and in fact they clearly are ok with you thinking that.
This idea comes from the perspective that you can put up a progressive. You cannot unless you win in the primaries and they still won't be your solution as even a progressive federal candidate still would need to pass laws through the house and senate and their various coworkers who don't want things to move much.
They absolutely would have big impacts on the direction of various agencies for sure, so no small feat, but you aren't getting any sort of sweeping change that would sway anyone stupid enough to think "well things are still bad so I'm not going to vote" etc.
The point is, no matter how you swing it, letting the democrats lose, hurts progressive goals.
Its not a position of power to lose progress just so that to the average voter, restoring some of the progress lost is the reason they are enticed the next time. Just not how it works.
Hence, no, you want to break the cycle of bouncing back and forth aimlessly as much as you can because this is what allows for the stall you hate and somehow think will simulateously pressure them to stop the behaviour that causes it.
You have to think outside of "I'm mad and I must punish the people I am mad at" and instead think about their goals and incentives.
They truly care less about many of the things you think apply leverage to them than you think they do, and I'd argue that they in fact depend on people acting like that for the reasons mentioned.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 264d
Yes they can! And do! Because they already won, without even promising to do things! You keep asserting random shit like "they can't" "they have to" but there's no basis for it.
What are talking about? They don't need selling points to win over progressives if progressives are already reliably voting for them when they run on a centrist platform. I'm not talking about "progressives suddenly hanging their hats," and I have no idea where you got that from.
No, they aren't fine with losing. Well, maybe they are, but if you're "fine with losing" for long enough, eventually you'll stop being a credible political force and be replaced by another entity that actually wants to win.
This whole thesis is just an extremely convoluted way to reconcile the fact that the Dems suck with justifying voting dem anyway. It's more motivated reasoning than actual truth.
What they're actually "fine with" is you continuing to give them the support they ask you for, despite it being part of your five dimensional chess strategy to own them. They don't really give a shit about the difference between a loyal true believer centrist and a progressive as long as they both find reasons to vote for them consistently. It's just silly to think that supporting and voting for a politician is anything but the exact thing they want from you, it's basically a conspiracy theory. It's just being a centrist with a bajillion extra steps in your reasoning to pretend otherwise.
No, it has nothing to do with "being mad," or "naievity" or "they did bad so we have to punish them." They will give in to our demands, or they will lose. And if they would rather keep losing, then we will simply replace them. It's really a very straightforward tactic, it's just a matter of understanding a very basic level of how to negotiate and also having the spine to follow through.
Frankly I think that your perspective is delusional and I'm not really interested in discussing it further.
TBi@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 265d
Totally agree with you. I always view it as a big ship. It takes a long time to turn. If you keep voting left then it will keep moving left. But people say “both sides are the same” and then the right wins and the ship stops turning.
Plus since majority of the country is voting right, doesn’t it follow that a lot of politicians will start moving right? Why be far left if being a little left loses?
LOLseas@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 265d
TBi@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
Thinking more of a big container ship. Given your comment on aircraft carriers I’d love to see that in action! Military ships are built different!
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 7 pts · 267d
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 267d
I mean, yes and…
EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml · -6 pts · 267d
Nope, Dems are fascists too
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 266d
downvotes from people who don't know what fascism is
aviationeast@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 267d
Two sides of the same coin.
Funny republicans saying I'm helping Democrats when I write in a name or vote for a third party.Democrats say I am helping the Republicans. Truth is George Washington was right. Political Parties have corrupted our nation. I'm surprised that we've lasted this long.
MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 267d
8 Senators don't vote the way you want and now EVERY Democrat is a fascist.
Embarrassing childish fucking nonsense.
GaMEChld@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 267d
And they just happened to be people retiring, convenient, no way this is with the blessing of Schumer and the DNC...
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 11 pts · 266d
Dick Durbin is the minority whip.
If you don't realize this represents the Dem establishment at its core and those 8 were carefully selected you are genuinely hopeless
Soulg@ani.social · 14 pts · 267d
Schumer and Ossoff we're also orchestrating it, so they're equally to blame.
Getting mad at all the others who are just as furious about the caving is idiotic though yeah
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 266d
8 senators vote the way you want and now you're calling anyone who doesn't love it a child. Standard centrist.
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 266d
Amazing how they blame us for telling the truth and then lie to us and say we're the morons.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 266d
I have a bridge to sell you.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 266d
you read a different meme than I did
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 266d
Liberals will read any meme that calls them out and then hate progressives more.
Scratch a liberal...
null@piefed.nullspace.lol · -2 pts · 265d
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 265d
"Liberal"
Lmao
null@piefed.nullspace.lol · -2 pts · 265d
null@piefed.nullspace.lol · -2 pts · 265d
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 264d
I never called myself progressive. And is that the dead dude or me?
null@piefed.nullspace.lol · -2 pts · 264d
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 264d
Show it then. Show it.
null@piefed.nullspace.lol · -2 pts · 264d
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 266d
So they'll be called out by their Democrats in Congress, right?
And recalled soon too, right?
Or will they stay in office as they fuck over us by giving into Republicans? Putting my money on that one, personally.
dreamkeeper@literature.cafe · -1 pts · 266d
Says the guy crying and stamping his feet because someone has a different (and more accurate) opinion
orioler25@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 266d
I really don't know how thin a disguise has to be before you question the fooled.
galacticwaffle@lemmings.world · 2 pts · 267d
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 267d
If Dems are so bad then why did they shutdown the government to save ACA.
https://youtu.be/Mnhnix2wU0c
CorneliusTalmadge@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 267d
Oops someone didn’t hear the senate passed the budget with the ACA cuts.
LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 27 pts · 267d
Hey hey hey! The crossed the aisle to create a historic bipartisan agreement to reopen it!
Checks notes: ah yes, see? Brilliant negotiations! The gop got everything, and the dems got assurance that they will have a vote on the aca benefits! I mean, the vote will just be no, but come on, what skill! Truly, no one could have squeeze more from the deal!
underisk@lemmy.ml · 16 pts · 267d
the repubs got more than their initial ask: delta 8 THC is outlawed and now states cannot use alternative funding to pay out SNAP benefits in the future when this inevitably happens again.
LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 267d
I wait… what???
underisk@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 266d
The dems are truly masters of the art of the deal. All it took was a little bit of immiseration and they got some votes and an excuse to let the republicans set up their plan to cut welfare. They didn’t even have to miss thanksgiving.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 266d
The DNC and gop were getting nervous as the ATC was calling out sick and worst, resigning.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 266d
the DNC saw it as a sacrificial lamb, just because the recent elecitons had all DEM wins, they are hoping to ride out that honeymoon til the 26th. besides the 8 that supported the end of the shutdown, there were 13 other dems that are up for re-election next year.
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 266d
That news disagrees with their dogma, so it's fake news.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 266d
Because they shutdown the government because people were clamoring for some semblance of resistance, and there was an election coming up. They capitulated as soon as they could after the polls closed.
EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml · -13 pts · 267d
They didn't shut down government to save the ACA, they shut down government to win a couple of elections. Thousands of federal employees went over a month without pay so they could win a couple of elections. They denied SNAP benefits to 42,000 people so they could win a couple of elections. And now that those elections are over, they have voted to reopen government with absolutely none of their demands being met.
And Bernie Sanders can go fuck himself. He is nothing but a sheep dog to the fascist oligarchy
protist@mander.xyz · 4 pts · 267d
What is it you do like? You seem to hate everything
gwheel@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 267d
Take a look at their post history and it will make more sense. My guess is they'd rather see America give up and fail already because surely their idealized government will then rise from the ashes.
GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 267d
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 267d
American voters have already given up
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 267d
Just Democrats and Republicans. Mostly Democrats Because Republicans don't pretend to care. Democrats will call themselves an ally while embracing you as they shove a knife in your back. Anyone paying half attention would realize that Democrats cannot be trusted.
protist@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 267d
You're not the person I asked unless you forgot to switch alts, but you also didn't answer the question. What is it you (and the other guy) do like?
K1nsey6@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 267d
Seeing that you are in a communist space what do you think we would like? Communists dont support liberals or thier red fascist counterparts. And liberals would rather defend fascism than support the working class
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 266d
Tankies are fascists in red clothing.
ademir@lemmy.eco.br · 1 pts · 265d
Are these tankies here in the room with us?
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 265d
Yes, OP is one of them.
SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one · -1 pts · 267d
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 267d
true, nothing worse than hypocrites.
MTK@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 267d
What a stupid take.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 267d
If a bar has Nazis, it’s a Nazi bar. If the Dems are collaborating with Nazis, as this latest move certainly makes it seem, then they are also Nazis.
MTK@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 267d
Even between Nazis there are levels. You wouldn't put Hitler and some german citizen that voted for him at the same level, both suck but are not the same.
Democrats have definitely shown to not be as bad as Republicans. The system is broken but you can choose to say "It's all the same, so I won't do shit" or you can choose to acknowledge that even within this shitty system, there are better and worse options.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 266d
They might not be on the same level but I still wouldn't vote for someone who supported Hitler. This lesser-evilism is literally how Hitler came to power in the first place, the social democrats supported Hindenburg for president as a lesser evil to stop Hitler and then Hindenburg just appointed Hitler as chancellor anyway.
MTK@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 266d
I'm not saying to vote for the next Democrat puppet. I'm saying that pretending that democrats are the same or worse than republicans is a ridiculous claim. I'm all for something sane that breaks us out of this shit.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 266d
democrats are long past the "some german citizen that voted for him" stage. They are very firmly in "vidkun quisling" territory.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 267d
Yes, I would put a citizen who voted for Hitler on the same level as him. A Nazi is a Nazi.
MTK@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 267d
Okay, stupid take in my opinion ¯_(ツ)_/¯
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 267d
And it sounds to me like you’re defending Nazis.
entwine@programming.dev · -3 pts · 266d
Yes comrades, vote Republican. If the pain and suffering continues for long enough, America will realize capitalism doesn't work, and the year of
the Linux desktopAmerican communism will finally arrive!EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 266d
False dichotomy
null@piefed.nullspace.lol · -3 pts · 265d
What dichotomy?
SupraMario@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 267d
jdr@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 267d
I can't get a visa
SupraMario@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 267d
TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca · -5 pts · 266d
So Trump doesn't pretend to represent people? Literally his whole election ran on saying he was going to represent every particular voting block, even of those he's now deporting.
Seems like the guy is stuck in "grass is always greener" type of mindset, except if instead of focusing on it being greener focusing on it not being as green instead. Thing is, because of shitty bipartisan systems, you will always have this. You will have the party that games the systems and appeals to whatever easy low effort populisms there are, and there is the party that has to encompass the rest of a literal world of different viewpoints and ideologies and try to find the compromise which will never be perfect for anyone in particular. It's why they always have to throw out labels to see what sticks, since no label really represents Democrats. Not all Democrats are "woke", "gays", or "antifa".
Blame the game, not the player. Who is more likely to reform the game in a positive way, and who is more likely to reform the game in a negative way? Get rid of your shitty two (or really one party, depending on how much you've been indoctrinated/informed, since the other one is Satan incarnate) party system.
FatTony@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 265d
rumba@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 265d
You know what they say, If it looks like a duck and smells like a duck and creates an anonymous police force to round up immigrants and send them to camps like a duck...
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 265d
You don't have to out yourself like this
rbesfe@lemmy.ca · -16 pts · 266d
"Fascist" is the terminally online leftist version of "woke"
DrDickHandler@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 266d
Except it's accurate and a real word.
PeacefulForest@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 265d
Uruanna@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 265d
I remember when nazis didn't like getting called nazis and pretended no one who said it knew what it meant. Now nazis are a lot more open about it and they're doing the same with fascism.
PeacefulForest@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 265d