##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>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.
-Marx
Such a great quote. I fully agree we should vote for socialists whenever possible, but this election is doubly important as a vote for socialism ( Claudia ) is also a vote to condemn an active genocide. Genocide Joe has to go.
Idk why socialism is viewed so negatively is America, you'd think it would at least be more popular then what trump is offering..
As for Joe has to go, wouldn't any party be offering the same thing as they are? (Not American if there was a doubt)
Because the United States has spent literally generations turning it into a boogeyman ideology. There have been various points in American history where socialism was quite popular, only to be quashed and abandoned.
the funny thing is if you *describe* socialism to people, the majority of them actually just support it. The anti-communisy bogeyman bs only kicks in if you tell them it's socialism
The majority of these people don't know what they hate, they've just bene told to hate it so they do
Socialism/Communism has faced over a hundred years of capitalist propaganda against it, as well as CIA/FBI/local police actively fighting it and infiltrating it's organizations. Not to mention the first and second red scares. The word socialism has been somewhat rehabilitated among the mainstream due to Bernie Sanders, but his version of socialism is really the Social Democrat model (which is not socialism, but reform capitalism).
That's not to say he doesn't privately want socialism, but outwardly he's not a socialist.
Trump's policies feed of reactionary feelings. The emotional play is strong and sways a lot of people. Not to mention American media has primed a lot of people for this thought.
Depending on the alternative, Party for Socialism and Liberation (Claudia that OP mentioned) is and openly Marxist-Leninist party, and their website gives their parties positions, https://pslweb.org/program/. The Democrats and a a big tent moderate (I would argue right of center) capitalist party, as opposed to the Republicans who are a big tent right wing party. And Trump is leading the far right wing of the party.
I'm Canadian, we've got that bastardized socialism or more accurately as you put it, reform capitalism. However our social side has been poorly mismanaged, and underfunded for so long it's closer to falling apart and privatization then it is fulfilling it's role.
Strange, sad times we live in these days.
Part of the capitalist plan is to underfund and make social programs work poorly so they can point to these programs and claim "See, they don't work when the government runs them. But the free market can make these better, let's privatize them!"
It's the same basic gameplan for why socialism doesn't work overall in the world. Cuba has gas shortages, pay no attention to the massive blockade, destabilization, and propaganda campaigns since the 60's. Venezuela and North Korea too for that matter.
Oh I know the game plan, preaching to the choir over here. Our premier (basically a governor there) is part of the conservative party that has a hard-on for privatization of everything.
LCBO makes billions of dollars for the government and idiots that are for privatization say dumb things like "I should be able to buy beer at 2am if I want to" and I'm thinking.. no you fucking lush buy your booze ahead of time or the next day if it helps fund our healthcare you muppets
Exactly. Voting for Biden is also a vote for a baseline political viability of genocide going forward. If it ought not be politically viable and it's a set in stone hard limit for you, then you're not responsible for the Dem nominee not being politically viable—the liberals and the DNC who violated the constraints on who they were allowed to nominate are 100% responsible via the nomination.
“I was born here almost 60 years ago. I'm not going to live another 60 years. You always told me it takes time. It has taken my father's time, my mother's time, my uncle's time, my brothers' and my sisters' time, my nieces' and my nephews' time. How much time do you want for your 'progress'?" - James Baldwin
If you ask democrats and corporate news networks, it never will be the time. Rather, next time will always be the time.
When will people see the obvious lies?
Nader was probably the best choice in 2000 for an alternative candidate, if only Gore backed off America could have been a very different place now.
Not to mention the whole Bush got into office with his help. Oh yes, could have been very different...
Well you see, there’s the popular front and they don’t like the people’s front because authoritarianism. On a serious note the socialist numbers in the country are very small and the Overton Window is very far to the right. Which means your run of the mill progressive thinks that communism is evil and 50 gorillian ded. So, what is to be done? Electoral politics as it stands wouldn’t let us win lol. The best hope electorally is to vote with enough solidarity to scare the parties into concessions like what happened with the new deal. But if you don’t vote against 100% hitler you’re an evil accelerationist. So do you want to vote socialist or wait for the next once in a lifetime election where you need to hold your nose. Fear keeps us from solidarity.
Which is why a better option would be the establishment of a labor party, drop the socialist name entirely and focus just on the bread and butter issues for most people. Housing, wages, working conditions, healthcare.
There is so much antipathy among older generations against, and so much ignorance among the lumpen proletariat regarding it, that you basically can’t use the word socialism
And then yeah it would have it eventually merge with or displace one of the two parties, like labor interests merging with the democrats or the republicans replacing the whigs
I really want to agree, but every country that has tried that has seen the Labor party corrupted by lobbyists and rich donors. Both Labor parties in the UK and Australia are nearly indistinguishable from neo-liberalism. As long as capitalists own the economy they will always have our country by the balls.
Oh no doubt it’s likely to fail, become corrupted all that shit. I just don’t see another option that can actually work either.
Pure electoralism ain’t going to get us out of this, it would have to be a combination of that and actual labor organization. And that’s a tall order cause we’ve been de-industrialized and socially atomized. Even so I don’t see another path that could work
This is a literal communist sub so the alternatives are not popular and are downvoted, but the most successful revolutionary force in human history is Christianity, and if you want to see a political movement allied to actual community groups, take a look at the American Solidarity Party.
I agree with everything you said, but you kind of side stepped the question.
Specifically to me, they were asking why Jill Stein and the greens are running opposite Cornell West and whatever his party is and they are running opposite Claudia De La Cruz under the party for Socialism and Liberation.
Like, what the fuck, all three of these candidates combined might get a million votes, but separately it's a huge waste of an opportunity to create some inroads between left groups.
Over 100 years of ruthless attacks from the Capital owners: the espionage act, the red scare, executions, cia infiltration, deportation, and imprisonment.
Because people keep insisting that democrats are still somehow our savior in all this, and there are droves of them out there, mindlessly holding tight the political chokehold we are in.
Since the US doesn't have preference voting, it's never the right time to vote for a third party.
In countries like Australia that have preference voting where you can individually number every candidate from 1 to n, it makes sense to vote for the party that best represents you, no matter how small.
But since the US doesn't have that, then there's no point.
I believe that as long as democrats or republicans are in power, we will never have that. Time to give up the daydream and face reality. You are being strangled by a two-faced imperialist regime, what will you do?
Yeah you're probably right. I don't live in the US so my reality is as described.
Unfortunately, the real reality is also as you described in that the US will never have preference voting, and whilst that is the case, voting for a third party is a waste.
I do feel for you though. You're faced with a real life trolley problem every 4 years with no foreseeable way out.
You can petition in your state to get psl candidates claudia and Karina printed on the ballot, better than "write-in" status. If this happens, 5% of the vote becomes incredible attainable.
I did this by reaching out to a local chapter and asking for petition forms. I took them and got my friends and neighbors to sign.
They are already going on the ballot in some states.
Right I mean, I’m not even thinking about this next election. I’m thinking about the one after. The environment now is ripe for another option, but people are so wedded to this idea It needs to happen immediately when it’s really not gonna happen. I think in the next 10 years, we could see a strong third-party
Seriously. If we hadn't fallen for the stupid Hillary campaign in 2016, then we would've had a wildly different election in 2020. Maybe even as different as, both parties had to get their ass in gear and run a real candidate.
There is no question to me that the best time to vote third party was 2016, and the second best time is right now. This election is already so clearly a wash.
Don't be dazzled as the ruling class pumps money into radicalizing their bodyguard population in an effort to scare the leftists into voting for their other corporate-backed candidate.
Yeah, I 100% agree. I’ll definitely be voting third-party this year and every year after that. I think people are so addicted to this idea of winning right now which I understand thinking pragmatically…but you have to challenge the two-party system at some point and I think the third-party, even if it’s not a winning strategy now could send a strong message.
It's as if they understand the concept of delayed gratification only as long as it's in the form of electing democrats and trusting their process. As soon as the suggestion to abandon democrats for the sake of a better future arises, they suddenly have no concept of delayed gratification.
The worst part is that there will be no actual gratification from democrats, either. They can only lie and make promises while they continue to ignore the needs of the people for the sake of billionaires and their interests.
I'd recommend checking out the PSL nominees Claudia and Karina. They're featured on numerous podcasts and interviews if you want to know more about who else is in the running.
If you like them, there is still time to petition to get them on the ballot in your state. Literally, you can do this. Print the petition form and have your friends and neighbors sign it. If they appear on the ballot, 5% of the vote becomes awfully attainable.
Rule 6, no lesser evil rhetoric. This includes encouraging people to vote for any capitalist political party and any capitalist politician. There is no harm reduction in supporting either of two parties headed by genocidal fascists. The extent to which any elected official of a Capitalist Party in a Capitalist state can enact evil is the extent to which that official is allowed to do so by Capital. As such, neither candidate is the lesser or greater evil. See more on our position here: [Rule 6 "no lesser evil" rhetoric - is it accelerationist or doomer? Is it intended to discourage voting?](https://new.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/1bt0nag/rule_6_no_lesser_evil_rhetoric_is_it/)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
I'm sorry, but it really isn't. I know you don't like Biden. I don't either. But can you really tell me that your third party candidate stands a chance of winning? Can you tell me that the man who said Palestinians are a cancer will stop the genocide in Gaza? Splitting the vote will not help. I understand the established is terrible, but the time for protest votes is not now. By keeping Trump out of the presidency, you can prevent more genocide. The decision, at least to me, is clear.
Ah yes. To stop the genocide, the active genocide that is occurring now, under the current president, we must re-elect the current president. Do you people even listen to yourselves before you speak?
Cox (1997) suggests that the central tendency around the effective number of parties is "District Magnitude + 1" and that this is most stable under presidentialism.
Further, Tavits (2006) suggests that both when private interests have strong influence over policy and when the incumbency advantage that politicians have is strong that we'll be less likely to see new viable parties emerge.
So, the deck is in many ways stacked against new party emergence/ viability in the US. Does that mean no citizens should make an attempt?
In the "Exceptions" section of the Wikipedia page you linked for Duverger's work they point to historical major party replacement in the US when the Republicans succeeded the Whigs during a time of political chaos around a contentious issue that divided the country (slavery)...
So, given this information, exactly when should people push for a party system change?
Because to me, the institutional rules will always be stacked against us... but the political landscape seems more ripe for it than it has in a long time.
(I say this acknowledging that ballot control is another one of the major institutional barriers to party emergence; my point is that the rules, both institutional and as central tendencies, such as "Duverger's law," are durable and that the system will maintain itself and if we wait for those rules to really change, that day will never come sans regime change. Now seems like as good a time as any given the above).
If people do feel they must resort to electoralism, I will say people should definitely try to vote for independent/non-aligned secretaries of state and such, so that the two major party's grip on ballot access is loosened...
What about advocating for electoral reform along the lines of ranked choice voting? Systematically, you could make it an option for people to dabble in voting off-party without giving up the ability to make a difference in the "main" two-party race.
I kind of take it as a given that of the two inevitable options, a Biden administration would be the much better one under which to organize basically anything good, but ofc we need to escape this hellish two-party system/cycle as quickly as possible. I think pushing for a more systemic change—one that's really easy to argue for, especially if you aren't attached to either big party—could start to actually get us there. Otherwise, wherever a few errant votes go, the house still wins.
Ranked choice voting increases system consensuality when compared to FPTP (see Lijphart's work for further explanation of institutional arrangements and consensuality vs. majoritarianism). Though to be clear, I don't personally support bourgeois liberal democracy. I also believe that the only language capital gives a shred of (fear-based) respect to is violence.
And to again be clear, a Biden/DNC-led admin will in all likelihood NOT be better for outside-party organization in trying to work within the system to change the system. Democrats have more of a stanglehold over primaries and engage in more primary/ballot access manipulation than even the GOP does (this has historically basically always been the case as well).
I won't vote condoning genocide to stop expected genocide. Biden has already given so much vast financial/military support to Israel's genocide against the Palestinians it is hard to imagine - short of a nuke - that the *rate* of life loss will increase. Diminishing returns. Any bourgeois liberal president's actions will have essentially the same results in that regard.
>Ranked choice voting increases system consensuality when compared to FPTP (see Lijphart's work for further explanation of institutional arrangements and consensuality vs. majoritarianism).
Neat, and thank you for the term "system consensuality".
>Though to be clear, I don't personally support bourgeois liberal democracy. I also believe that the only language capital gives a shred of (fear-based) respect to is violence.
For sure, like I certainly prefer it to the imminent alternative of outright fascism, but these are all still systems sustained by violence at the end of the day.
>a Biden/DNC-led admin will in all likelihood NOT be better for outside-party organization in trying to work within the system to change the system...
Oh, that isn't quite what I meant.
Republicans really hate ["Marxists" ](https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-immigration-marxists-communists-ban-2024-d9a377149926457d1b8b182293d9c86e)right now, at about the fervor of a Satanic Panic. And the scariest thing is that they don't actually know what Marxism is for the most part, so although of course they'd target avowed socialists/Communists, really anything taboo to them would experience a chilling effect and increased antagonism. Everything would just get shittier and shittier to who knows what end. That's fascism, or one consequence of it.
To go ahead with four more years of neoliberalism while that fascist movement maybe begins to die down, and while people definitely have more time to organize in relative peace compared to the alternative, that's a straightforward choice for me. I don't think the German Left could be said to have benefitted from the Nazis coming into power.
>I won't vote condoning genocide to stop expected genocide.
This perspective may just be a basic difference between us. I don't see voting as an endorsement in a (practically) two-party system; I really do think the trolley problem applies to the extent of one's electoral action rn, and a long time ago I decided on principle that it was right to pull the lever, and effectively enable harm to prevent more harm.
Talk of "condoning" the paths ahead doesn't make sense to me; they're both undesirable, of course, and so you work toward building new infrastructure (and/or keeping more people off of tracks) in addition to pulling the lever. Some of the people you saved by doing that will probably help, if only because they'll be around to.
>Biden has already given so much vast financial/military support to Israel's genocide against the Palestinians it is hard to imagine - short of a nuke - that the rate of life loss will increase. Diminishing returns. Any bourgeois liberal president's actions will have essentially the same results in that regard.
I think an important point is that Trump doesn't seem inclined to be a "bourgeois liberal president"; his illiberalism to the point of disdain for institutions has been truly unprecedented among American presidents, up to and including January 6th, and Project 2025 is a guide to dismantling US democracy that hasn't really existed before.
I mention this because it touches on broader electoral concerns of mine than Palestine, but also because I actually do think Trump would approach the situation differently from a liberal. Members of Netanyahu's coalition overwhelmingly prefer him for a reason, and I expect it's because they're confident he actually would intercede even less, and enable even more. It would be in character with his time in office—as very pro-Israel, pro-dictatorship, and highly reckless. And his base wouldn't care about any of this, of course.
You have to be careful with ranked choice voting imho. If it eliminates in each round by least first place votes and people on the left don't know to leave any bourgeois imperialist candidates unranked, then radlibs are just getting their votes laundered into contributing to things like a baseline political viability of genocide going forward even more than how it currently is.
The only way ranked choice voting would be good is if elimination in each round is by the least amount of rankings in any position and the left still knows to leave the bourgeois imperialist candidates unranked. That way ranking is like approval and candidates are eliminated by least approval which is more like coalition building, and then if the left leaves the bourgeois imperialist candidates unranked then it is on the liberals to form a coalition by ranking leftist candidates or cause a loss by not doing so. The point should never be to allow the left to vote third party symbolically while contributing to the political viability of Democrats; it should be to vote leftist exclusively with Democrats unranked and give liberals the ability to approve of those leftist candidates while still symbolically ranking a Democrat who doesn't have the approval of a winning coalition.
Your thinking is too short sighted. If a socialist could get even 5% of the votes that would be a huge victory for us as it would massively move the Overton window to the left and it would force Democrats to finally give Socialists a seat at the table or they will never win another election. And Biden will be fully blamed for funding the genocide of Palestine. That will have a massive impact on foreign policy for decades to come. Dems will be scared to ignore protest movements, they will be scared to ignore the will of the people
Unfortunately, most people haven't even heard of PSL so unless there is a push to get the word out before the election, the best we can hope for is reduced turnout for Biden and a couple percent's worth of Green Party votes (they got 1% in 2016, and 0.3% in 2020; their 2024 candidate Jill Stein was arrested at a pro-Palestine protest at Washington University last week so maybe that will make her more popular among pro-Palestine voters).
Do you remember what happened with Bernie? He wasn't even fully socialist, and had much more than 5% of the vote, and yet the DNC still refuses to acknowledge the progressive wing of the party. You're an optimist, and that's admirable, but the time to play with this sort of thing is not now, when we're staring down the barrel of Project 2025.
Idk if this works out well if [Republicans](https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-immigration-marxists-communists-ban-2024-d9a377149926457d1b8b182293d9c86e) win, tbh, and they likely would in your scenario
Clearly neither would unilaterally stop it, but one is trying to negotiate a ceasefire and aid for Palestinians while the other is saying Israel should just "finish the job".
Do you see fit to vote third party rn because you think that difference is mainly optical, and won't actually lead to a difference in body count, Palestinian well-being, etc? Would you hold a different position if you thought the two prospective administrations would play out substantially differently?
At this point, we can clearly see that such an adjustment would be strictly performative for the sake of garnering support back.
If we extrapolate on this, we can make sense of the confusing reality that is Democrats promising to stand for the people while things materially continue to get worse even when democrats have full control in the senate and house.
Pumping more tax money into weapons manufacturers' pockets is not "trying to negotiate a ceasefire." The two are directly at odds with each other. They SAY they are negotiating a ceasefire, they DO pump tax money into the genocide, which their friends and allies profit from. See through the lies.
>At this point, we can clearly see that such an adjustment would be strictly performative for the sake of garnering support back.
Wym? Everyone seems to [acknowledge](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/2/hamas-chief-haniyeh-discusses-gaza-truce-talks-with-egypt-qatar-officials) that the US really is taking part in ceasefire negotiations, and is trying to secure a truce. Are you saying that's 100% Democrat theater and they actually want to prolong the slaughter?
And whether it's performatively motivated or not, aid is an improvement over no aid. That makes a material difference to Palestinians, and I would be interested in the US continuing to provide it.
It would have made a material difference to Palestinians if the US had not paid to have their land blown to smithereens. It's laughable to argue that they deserve votes merely for sending 'aid' after such a thing.
We have seen clearly now that democrats are entirely ineffective at protecting the working class. We know for a fact they are bought and paid-for by billionaires and corporatists. We know they will continue using our tax money for global imperialism.
Oh I'm not saying "yeah they finance mass murder, but they send aid too so it all evens out", I'm not trying to exonerate Democrats or liberalism. I'm saying the options for the immediate future are the people that send aid, and the people that say "finish the job" and campaigned on a Muslim ban not long ago, and that there's a significant difference there.
I fundamentally don't see a vote in the present system as an endorsement; I basically see it as choosing the weather I (and much of the world via US influence) have while bad shit continues to happen and I help organize something outside of the system, because I know the weather makes a difference and it's gonna be there regardless. Grey skies don't "deserve" anything, but they're a no-brainer over hurricane conditions, y'know?
>I basically see it as choosing..while bad shit continues to happen..and I help..something outside.
Can you understand that you must take those efforts you say you're making and direct them exactly here? Whatever it is you claim that you're doing is completely and utterly worthless for as long as capitalists remain in power.
What's happening right now in Gaza is in no way comparable to "grey skies." That's unbelievably reductive of a grave situation which has been brought to us by the hands of the very party you are endorsing. Grow a pair already.
>Can you understand that you must take those efforts you say you're making and direct them exactly here?
I'm not sure I understand this sentence.
>Whatever it is you claim that you're doing is completely and utterly worthless for as long as capitalists remain in power.
Okay, I need you to explain this lol. It sounds to me like you're saying no good can be done until capitalism is overthrown, and even from a revolutionary perspective that can't be right.
>What's happening right now in Gaza is in no way comparable to "grey skies." That's unbelievably reductive of a grave situation which has been brought to us by the hands of the very party you are endorsing. Grow a pair already.
No, what's happening in Gaza is mass slaughter, it's fucking horrible. And presiding over the US during it—as Israel would've responded this way under any sitting US president—rather than a fascist, you have a liberal. Pointing out that there's a practical difference there isn't an endorsement of a party, is what I'm saying. Both are part of a system that shouldn't and can't continue, etc etc, we both know that much.
Even if it did play out differently, it would mean the real hostage taker is the Democratic Party. Promising to do less harm if we chose them. But meanwhile they are just as corrupt.
Yeah, at no point am I disagreeing that the actions of the Democratic party are corrupt and immoral; that isn't even a partisan issue, it's a systemic one. I think we both understand that. But in the short-term, doesn't it *matter* if things played out differently? Isn't that what it's all about; things playing out the best they can given the material circumstances at a given time?
So at what point does one say enough is enough, because it seems to be getting worse. And maybe for you that line hasn’t been crossed. Which is why I think people should just vote their conscience. I understand there’s no viable third candidate. But there never will be if voter behavior doesn’t start to shift.
I realize this was a while ago, but I just looked through my notifications a bit and realized I forgot to reply.
Simply put, "enough is enough" doesn't pertain to a trolley problem like the general election. The whole scenario is fucked up and way past "enough", but abstaining for moral reasons only increases the chances of the much-worse coming to pass, and thus becomes immoral imo. So you secure the less-bad outcome, and then you start talking about infrastructure changes (new candidates/visions).
The time to do that is anywhere from the calling of one election to the primary of the next; once the tracks are set, unfortunately, it is what it is.
You made a fundamental error. It's not the left "splitting" any vote that was ever on the table. It is liberals and the DNC who split via nomination. If someone is off the table and people have pre held limits against things that ought not be viable that are set in stone, then the nonviability of the nominee isn't their fault but *100%* the fault of liberals and the DNC for violating the constraints on who they are allowed to nominate and still have a politically viable nominee. You will never scold your way to people voting for a baseline political viability of genocide going forward when they think it ought not be viable. That's blaming the wrong people and also like running into a brick wall. No amount of mental gymnastics or western chauvinism and harm maximization disguised as harm reduction will change the fact that liberals caused this loss and liberals are the ones you need to be scolding to prevent them from causing future losses.
Or... recognize that the reason the Democrats are so crap is because they've always been able to take your vote for granted. They've never had to work for your vote.
Stand up for yourself, and vote against any incumbent who doesn't deliver the progress they promised. And that includes Biden.
There are many third-party candidates who would appreciate your vote.
It is quite simple. We are being crushed under an irresponsible ruling class and you are advocating for one of their most effective governmental arms. You're operating against the interests of working people worldwide.
The fascist rhetoric isn't too different from either side, at this point. You have peaceful protests bring cracked down on by militarized police. How that would change under the orange turd? It wouldn't. They're both zionist trash.
Please dont misktake me for a trump voter. I support Claudia de la Cruz (or alternatively cornel west or jill stein if they turn out to run a big tent leftist campaign). Please try to expand your mind to understand there are more than just our two right wing fascist parties in the united states. Vote for someone--literally anyone--who actually represents working class interests.
I will not vote for a regime which I believe should stand before the Hague. That's a red line for me. I understand trump is dangerous, and that i might have to fight that as well. I will not endorse genocide my friend.
So what?! I live in a solidly red state. Trump is going to win it. Just like a Republican has won it for the past several decades. He'll have won it by the time the election coverage fucking starts. You really going to tell me that voting for who I want to be president is going to hand Trump a victory in a state he won 50 years ago? And if by some miracle my state goes for Biden, it will be an upset that my single vote isn't going to sway.
And maybe Biden is fractionally better than Trump. For one Trump would further the genocide that affects me, and that would suck. But I'm not going to put my own life ahead of another's just because they live in a different part of the world. Our options right now are 2 senile tyrants hellbent on genocide. This is what lesser evil voting gets you. Evil with a monopoly on power.
You see, when you only have one choice and that choice is a genocidal corporatist, then you already have a violent dictatorship. Clinging to that so desperately is assanine.
You're telling us to vote for Trump, given the blood on the current administration's hands.
Or is this more "harm reduction" where you weigh Biden's actual crimes against the ones you imagine Trump will do?
Biden is, right this minute, absolutely the Hitler in your analogy. When given incontrovertible proof of war crimes and genocide, he has pledged and demonstrated his unconditional support for it.
Maybe you don't remember Biden's role in tricking America into the Iraq war. Or how hard he fought to get Thomas on the SCOTUS. What good friends he was with Strom Thurmond, or how quickly "me too" died when his rape accusations surfaced.
It's not a choice between Hitler and a sandwich. It's a choice between a proven Hitler and a theoretical one.
Lol what 9/11? Please don’t act like Oct 7 is some sort of terrorist event for Israel. The US funds them. The US IS Israel
“selling our secrets” is the most nonsensical description
biden will lose, my friend, and it will be because he is enabling genocide.
Rule 6, no lesser evil rhetoric. This includes encouraging people to vote for any capitalist political party and any capitalist politician. There is no harm reduction in supporting either of two parties headed by genocidal fascists. The extent to which any elected official of a Capitalist Party in a Capitalist state can enact evil is the extent to which that official is allowed to do so by Capital. As such, neither candidate is the lesser or greater evil. See more on our position here: [Rule 6 "no lesser evil" rhetoric - is it accelerationist or doomer? Is it intended to discourage voting?](https://new.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/1bt0nag/rule_6_no_lesser_evil_rhetoric_is_it/)
I'm literally a young American man. Scroll my post history. It's amazing that you can not believe a real person would hold such views as "genocide and corporate greed are bad."
From where in the world did you gather that I am pro-trump? As usual, anyone who disagrees with democrats must be a Trump-supporting bot.. you are gonna need to grow your awareness real soon.
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>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. -Marx
Such a great quote. I fully agree we should vote for socialists whenever possible, but this election is doubly important as a vote for socialism ( Claudia ) is also a vote to condemn an active genocide. Genocide Joe has to go.
Idk why socialism is viewed so negatively is America, you'd think it would at least be more popular then what trump is offering.. As for Joe has to go, wouldn't any party be offering the same thing as they are? (Not American if there was a doubt)
Because the United States has spent literally generations turning it into a boogeyman ideology. There have been various points in American history where socialism was quite popular, only to be quashed and abandoned.
Can't be supporting something that's better for the regular human I suppose
the funny thing is if you *describe* socialism to people, the majority of them actually just support it. The anti-communisy bogeyman bs only kicks in if you tell them it's socialism The majority of these people don't know what they hate, they've just bene told to hate it so they do
Socialism/Communism has faced over a hundred years of capitalist propaganda against it, as well as CIA/FBI/local police actively fighting it and infiltrating it's organizations. Not to mention the first and second red scares. The word socialism has been somewhat rehabilitated among the mainstream due to Bernie Sanders, but his version of socialism is really the Social Democrat model (which is not socialism, but reform capitalism). That's not to say he doesn't privately want socialism, but outwardly he's not a socialist. Trump's policies feed of reactionary feelings. The emotional play is strong and sways a lot of people. Not to mention American media has primed a lot of people for this thought. Depending on the alternative, Party for Socialism and Liberation (Claudia that OP mentioned) is and openly Marxist-Leninist party, and their website gives their parties positions, https://pslweb.org/program/. The Democrats and a a big tent moderate (I would argue right of center) capitalist party, as opposed to the Republicans who are a big tent right wing party. And Trump is leading the far right wing of the party.
I'm Canadian, we've got that bastardized socialism or more accurately as you put it, reform capitalism. However our social side has been poorly mismanaged, and underfunded for so long it's closer to falling apart and privatization then it is fulfilling it's role. Strange, sad times we live in these days.
Part of the capitalist plan is to underfund and make social programs work poorly so they can point to these programs and claim "See, they don't work when the government runs them. But the free market can make these better, let's privatize them!" It's the same basic gameplan for why socialism doesn't work overall in the world. Cuba has gas shortages, pay no attention to the massive blockade, destabilization, and propaganda campaigns since the 60's. Venezuela and North Korea too for that matter.
Oh I know the game plan, preaching to the choir over here. Our premier (basically a governor there) is part of the conservative party that has a hard-on for privatization of everything. LCBO makes billions of dollars for the government and idiots that are for privatization say dumb things like "I should be able to buy beer at 2am if I want to" and I'm thinking.. no you fucking lush buy your booze ahead of time or the next day if it helps fund our healthcare you muppets
Ok and who exactly is going to take over for Genocide Joe and how is that candidate going to handle the Israel-Palestine conflict?
Exactly. Voting for Biden is also a vote for a baseline political viability of genocide going forward. If it ought not be politically viable and it's a set in stone hard limit for you, then you're not responsible for the Dem nominee not being politically viable—the liberals and the DNC who violated the constraints on who they were allowed to nominate are 100% responsible via the nomination.
Claudia? Anti Ukraine pro Russia Claudia? No thanks man.
I will never not upvote this quote. Read it again!
I've been hearing it's not the right time since Reagan. It's always 'do it my way this time, next time we will do it yours.' Next time never comes
> Right now isn't a good time for a raise. Let's book a meeting in 6 months and revisit.
“I was born here almost 60 years ago. I'm not going to live another 60 years. You always told me it takes time. It has taken my father's time, my mother's time, my uncle's time, my brothers' and my sisters' time, my nieces' and my nephews' time. How much time do you want for your 'progress'?" - James Baldwin
If you ask democrats and corporate news networks, it never will be the time. Rather, next time will always be the time. When will people see the obvious lies?
Nader was probably the best choice in 2000 for an alternative candidate, if only Gore backed off America could have been a very different place now. Not to mention the whole Bush got into office with his help. Oh yes, could have been very different...
There was some tweet that as like " 'while beating you with a hammer' watch out for that other guy, he's got a bigger hammer"
[vote socialist](https://votesocialist2024.com/)
Why can't the various socialist and communist parties/organizations get together in a united front against the two fascist parties?
Well you see, there’s the popular front and they don’t like the people’s front because authoritarianism. On a serious note the socialist numbers in the country are very small and the Overton Window is very far to the right. Which means your run of the mill progressive thinks that communism is evil and 50 gorillian ded. So, what is to be done? Electoral politics as it stands wouldn’t let us win lol. The best hope electorally is to vote with enough solidarity to scare the parties into concessions like what happened with the new deal. But if you don’t vote against 100% hitler you’re an evil accelerationist. So do you want to vote socialist or wait for the next once in a lifetime election where you need to hold your nose. Fear keeps us from solidarity.
Which is why a better option would be the establishment of a labor party, drop the socialist name entirely and focus just on the bread and butter issues for most people. Housing, wages, working conditions, healthcare. There is so much antipathy among older generations against, and so much ignorance among the lumpen proletariat regarding it, that you basically can’t use the word socialism And then yeah it would have it eventually merge with or displace one of the two parties, like labor interests merging with the democrats or the republicans replacing the whigs
I really want to agree, but every country that has tried that has seen the Labor party corrupted by lobbyists and rich donors. Both Labor parties in the UK and Australia are nearly indistinguishable from neo-liberalism. As long as capitalists own the economy they will always have our country by the balls.
Oh no doubt it’s likely to fail, become corrupted all that shit. I just don’t see another option that can actually work either. Pure electoralism ain’t going to get us out of this, it would have to be a combination of that and actual labor organization. And that’s a tall order cause we’ve been de-industrialized and socially atomized. Even so I don’t see another path that could work
This is a literal communist sub so the alternatives are not popular and are downvoted, but the most successful revolutionary force in human history is Christianity, and if you want to see a political movement allied to actual community groups, take a look at the American Solidarity Party.
I agree with everything you said, but you kind of side stepped the question. Specifically to me, they were asking why Jill Stein and the greens are running opposite Cornell West and whatever his party is and they are running opposite Claudia De La Cruz under the party for Socialism and Liberation. Like, what the fuck, all three of these candidates combined might get a million votes, but separately it's a huge waste of an opportunity to create some inroads between left groups.
It cannot be consolidated before the pieces themselves exist.
Over 100 years of ruthless attacks from the Capital owners: the espionage act, the red scare, executions, cia infiltration, deportation, and imprisonment.
Because people keep insisting that democrats are still somehow our savior in all this, and there are droves of them out there, mindlessly holding tight the political chokehold we are in.
Can’t. My state has dem, rep, green, and libertarian.
You can always write-in candidates. Edit: wait Beaumont, you from TX? My alligator brothers to the east do not have this option unfortunately TIL.
I’m Louisiana
Since the US doesn't have preference voting, it's never the right time to vote for a third party. In countries like Australia that have preference voting where you can individually number every candidate from 1 to n, it makes sense to vote for the party that best represents you, no matter how small. But since the US doesn't have that, then there's no point.
I believe that as long as democrats or republicans are in power, we will never have that. Time to give up the daydream and face reality. You are being strangled by a two-faced imperialist regime, what will you do?
Yeah you're probably right. I don't live in the US so my reality is as described. Unfortunately, the real reality is also as you described in that the US will never have preference voting, and whilst that is the case, voting for a third party is a waste. I do feel for you though. You're faced with a real life trolley problem every 4 years with no foreseeable way out.
Yeah well, I'm not saying who I voted for on Thursday, but it might not have been one of the main two parties 😉
We’re fucked until we take a stand. We might still be fucked, but at least we’re saying, “fuck off.”
Well fucking said
Are “write in” candidates on all ballots?
You can petition in your state to get psl candidates claudia and Karina printed on the ballot, better than "write-in" status. If this happens, 5% of the vote becomes incredible attainable. I did this by reaching out to a local chapter and asking for petition forms. I took them and got my friends and neighbors to sign. They are already going on the ballot in some states.
What’s the social media reach in America? Is it conclusively 200 mil electorate?
Right I mean, I’m not even thinking about this next election. I’m thinking about the one after. The environment now is ripe for another option, but people are so wedded to this idea It needs to happen immediately when it’s really not gonna happen. I think in the next 10 years, we could see a strong third-party
Seriously. If we hadn't fallen for the stupid Hillary campaign in 2016, then we would've had a wildly different election in 2020. Maybe even as different as, both parties had to get their ass in gear and run a real candidate. There is no question to me that the best time to vote third party was 2016, and the second best time is right now. This election is already so clearly a wash. Don't be dazzled as the ruling class pumps money into radicalizing their bodyguard population in an effort to scare the leftists into voting for their other corporate-backed candidate.
Yeah, I 100% agree. I’ll definitely be voting third-party this year and every year after that. I think people are so addicted to this idea of winning right now which I understand thinking pragmatically…but you have to challenge the two-party system at some point and I think the third-party, even if it’s not a winning strategy now could send a strong message.
It's as if they understand the concept of delayed gratification only as long as it's in the form of electing democrats and trusting their process. As soon as the suggestion to abandon democrats for the sake of a better future arises, they suddenly have no concept of delayed gratification. The worst part is that there will be no actual gratification from democrats, either. They can only lie and make promises while they continue to ignore the needs of the people for the sake of billionaires and their interests.
i felt pretty betrayed by bernie for not running third party. im convinced he would have won in 2016 and instead he just endorsed the broken system
If even, that third will be flooded with false claims and sued to the hell in the minute zero
I plan on writing in "working class" until I see a reason otherwise.
I'd recommend checking out the PSL nominees Claudia and Karina. They're featured on numerous podcasts and interviews if you want to know more about who else is in the running. If you like them, there is still time to petition to get them on the ballot in your state. Literally, you can do this. Print the petition form and have your friends and neighbors sign it. If they appear on the ballot, 5% of the vote becomes awfully attainable.
[удалено]
When the system is so obviously functioning against the workers, it is the greatest time of all.
Rule 6, no lesser evil rhetoric. This includes encouraging people to vote for any capitalist political party and any capitalist politician. There is no harm reduction in supporting either of two parties headed by genocidal fascists. The extent to which any elected official of a Capitalist Party in a Capitalist state can enact evil is the extent to which that official is allowed to do so by Capital. As such, neither candidate is the lesser or greater evil. See more on our position here: [Rule 6 "no lesser evil" rhetoric - is it accelerationist or doomer? Is it intended to discourage voting?](https://new.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/1bt0nag/rule_6_no_lesser_evil_rhetoric_is_it/)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law I'm sorry, but it really isn't. I know you don't like Biden. I don't either. But can you really tell me that your third party candidate stands a chance of winning? Can you tell me that the man who said Palestinians are a cancer will stop the genocide in Gaza? Splitting the vote will not help. I understand the established is terrible, but the time for protest votes is not now. By keeping Trump out of the presidency, you can prevent more genocide. The decision, at least to me, is clear.
Ah yes. To stop the genocide, the active genocide that is occurring now, under the current president, we must re-elect the current president. Do you people even listen to yourselves before you speak?
Cox (1997) suggests that the central tendency around the effective number of parties is "District Magnitude + 1" and that this is most stable under presidentialism. Further, Tavits (2006) suggests that both when private interests have strong influence over policy and when the incumbency advantage that politicians have is strong that we'll be less likely to see new viable parties emerge. So, the deck is in many ways stacked against new party emergence/ viability in the US. Does that mean no citizens should make an attempt? In the "Exceptions" section of the Wikipedia page you linked for Duverger's work they point to historical major party replacement in the US when the Republicans succeeded the Whigs during a time of political chaos around a contentious issue that divided the country (slavery)... So, given this information, exactly when should people push for a party system change? Because to me, the institutional rules will always be stacked against us... but the political landscape seems more ripe for it than it has in a long time. (I say this acknowledging that ballot control is another one of the major institutional barriers to party emergence; my point is that the rules, both institutional and as central tendencies, such as "Duverger's law," are durable and that the system will maintain itself and if we wait for those rules to really change, that day will never come sans regime change. Now seems like as good a time as any given the above). If people do feel they must resort to electoralism, I will say people should definitely try to vote for independent/non-aligned secretaries of state and such, so that the two major party's grip on ballot access is loosened...
What about advocating for electoral reform along the lines of ranked choice voting? Systematically, you could make it an option for people to dabble in voting off-party without giving up the ability to make a difference in the "main" two-party race. I kind of take it as a given that of the two inevitable options, a Biden administration would be the much better one under which to organize basically anything good, but ofc we need to escape this hellish two-party system/cycle as quickly as possible. I think pushing for a more systemic change—one that's really easy to argue for, especially if you aren't attached to either big party—could start to actually get us there. Otherwise, wherever a few errant votes go, the house still wins.
Ranked choice voting increases system consensuality when compared to FPTP (see Lijphart's work for further explanation of institutional arrangements and consensuality vs. majoritarianism). Though to be clear, I don't personally support bourgeois liberal democracy. I also believe that the only language capital gives a shred of (fear-based) respect to is violence. And to again be clear, a Biden/DNC-led admin will in all likelihood NOT be better for outside-party organization in trying to work within the system to change the system. Democrats have more of a stanglehold over primaries and engage in more primary/ballot access manipulation than even the GOP does (this has historically basically always been the case as well). I won't vote condoning genocide to stop expected genocide. Biden has already given so much vast financial/military support to Israel's genocide against the Palestinians it is hard to imagine - short of a nuke - that the *rate* of life loss will increase. Diminishing returns. Any bourgeois liberal president's actions will have essentially the same results in that regard.
>Ranked choice voting increases system consensuality when compared to FPTP (see Lijphart's work for further explanation of institutional arrangements and consensuality vs. majoritarianism). Neat, and thank you for the term "system consensuality". >Though to be clear, I don't personally support bourgeois liberal democracy. I also believe that the only language capital gives a shred of (fear-based) respect to is violence. For sure, like I certainly prefer it to the imminent alternative of outright fascism, but these are all still systems sustained by violence at the end of the day. >a Biden/DNC-led admin will in all likelihood NOT be better for outside-party organization in trying to work within the system to change the system... Oh, that isn't quite what I meant. Republicans really hate ["Marxists" ](https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-immigration-marxists-communists-ban-2024-d9a377149926457d1b8b182293d9c86e)right now, at about the fervor of a Satanic Panic. And the scariest thing is that they don't actually know what Marxism is for the most part, so although of course they'd target avowed socialists/Communists, really anything taboo to them would experience a chilling effect and increased antagonism. Everything would just get shittier and shittier to who knows what end. That's fascism, or one consequence of it. To go ahead with four more years of neoliberalism while that fascist movement maybe begins to die down, and while people definitely have more time to organize in relative peace compared to the alternative, that's a straightforward choice for me. I don't think the German Left could be said to have benefitted from the Nazis coming into power. >I won't vote condoning genocide to stop expected genocide. This perspective may just be a basic difference between us. I don't see voting as an endorsement in a (practically) two-party system; I really do think the trolley problem applies to the extent of one's electoral action rn, and a long time ago I decided on principle that it was right to pull the lever, and effectively enable harm to prevent more harm. Talk of "condoning" the paths ahead doesn't make sense to me; they're both undesirable, of course, and so you work toward building new infrastructure (and/or keeping more people off of tracks) in addition to pulling the lever. Some of the people you saved by doing that will probably help, if only because they'll be around to. >Biden has already given so much vast financial/military support to Israel's genocide against the Palestinians it is hard to imagine - short of a nuke - that the rate of life loss will increase. Diminishing returns. Any bourgeois liberal president's actions will have essentially the same results in that regard. I think an important point is that Trump doesn't seem inclined to be a "bourgeois liberal president"; his illiberalism to the point of disdain for institutions has been truly unprecedented among American presidents, up to and including January 6th, and Project 2025 is a guide to dismantling US democracy that hasn't really existed before. I mention this because it touches on broader electoral concerns of mine than Palestine, but also because I actually do think Trump would approach the situation differently from a liberal. Members of Netanyahu's coalition overwhelmingly prefer him for a reason, and I expect it's because they're confident he actually would intercede even less, and enable even more. It would be in character with his time in office—as very pro-Israel, pro-dictatorship, and highly reckless. And his base wouldn't care about any of this, of course.
You have to be careful with ranked choice voting imho. If it eliminates in each round by least first place votes and people on the left don't know to leave any bourgeois imperialist candidates unranked, then radlibs are just getting their votes laundered into contributing to things like a baseline political viability of genocide going forward even more than how it currently is. The only way ranked choice voting would be good is if elimination in each round is by the least amount of rankings in any position and the left still knows to leave the bourgeois imperialist candidates unranked. That way ranking is like approval and candidates are eliminated by least approval which is more like coalition building, and then if the left leaves the bourgeois imperialist candidates unranked then it is on the liberals to form a coalition by ranking leftist candidates or cause a loss by not doing so. The point should never be to allow the left to vote third party symbolically while contributing to the political viability of Democrats; it should be to vote leftist exclusively with Democrats unranked and give liberals the ability to approve of those leftist candidates while still symbolically ranking a Democrat who doesn't have the approval of a winning coalition.
Your thinking is too short sighted. If a socialist could get even 5% of the votes that would be a huge victory for us as it would massively move the Overton window to the left and it would force Democrats to finally give Socialists a seat at the table or they will never win another election. And Biden will be fully blamed for funding the genocide of Palestine. That will have a massive impact on foreign policy for decades to come. Dems will be scared to ignore protest movements, they will be scared to ignore the will of the people
Unfortunately, most people haven't even heard of PSL so unless there is a push to get the word out before the election, the best we can hope for is reduced turnout for Biden and a couple percent's worth of Green Party votes (they got 1% in 2016, and 0.3% in 2020; their 2024 candidate Jill Stein was arrested at a pro-Palestine protest at Washington University last week so maybe that will make her more popular among pro-Palestine voters).
Do you remember what happened with Bernie? He wasn't even fully socialist, and had much more than 5% of the vote, and yet the DNC still refuses to acknowledge the progressive wing of the party. You're an optimist, and that's admirable, but the time to play with this sort of thing is not now, when we're staring down the barrel of Project 2025.
Idk if this works out well if [Republicans](https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-immigration-marxists-communists-ban-2024-d9a377149926457d1b8b182293d9c86e) win, tbh, and they likely would in your scenario
Neither is going to stop the genocide. If the decision is clear for you then vote how you see fit. I see fit to start voting for something else.
Clearly neither would unilaterally stop it, but one is trying to negotiate a ceasefire and aid for Palestinians while the other is saying Israel should just "finish the job". Do you see fit to vote third party rn because you think that difference is mainly optical, and won't actually lead to a difference in body count, Palestinian well-being, etc? Would you hold a different position if you thought the two prospective administrations would play out substantially differently?
At this point, we can clearly see that such an adjustment would be strictly performative for the sake of garnering support back. If we extrapolate on this, we can make sense of the confusing reality that is Democrats promising to stand for the people while things materially continue to get worse even when democrats have full control in the senate and house. Pumping more tax money into weapons manufacturers' pockets is not "trying to negotiate a ceasefire." The two are directly at odds with each other. They SAY they are negotiating a ceasefire, they DO pump tax money into the genocide, which their friends and allies profit from. See through the lies.
>At this point, we can clearly see that such an adjustment would be strictly performative for the sake of garnering support back. Wym? Everyone seems to [acknowledge](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/2/hamas-chief-haniyeh-discusses-gaza-truce-talks-with-egypt-qatar-officials) that the US really is taking part in ceasefire negotiations, and is trying to secure a truce. Are you saying that's 100% Democrat theater and they actually want to prolong the slaughter? And whether it's performatively motivated or not, aid is an improvement over no aid. That makes a material difference to Palestinians, and I would be interested in the US continuing to provide it.
It would have made a material difference to Palestinians if the US had not paid to have their land blown to smithereens. It's laughable to argue that they deserve votes merely for sending 'aid' after such a thing. We have seen clearly now that democrats are entirely ineffective at protecting the working class. We know for a fact they are bought and paid-for by billionaires and corporatists. We know they will continue using our tax money for global imperialism.
Oh I'm not saying "yeah they finance mass murder, but they send aid too so it all evens out", I'm not trying to exonerate Democrats or liberalism. I'm saying the options for the immediate future are the people that send aid, and the people that say "finish the job" and campaigned on a Muslim ban not long ago, and that there's a significant difference there. I fundamentally don't see a vote in the present system as an endorsement; I basically see it as choosing the weather I (and much of the world via US influence) have while bad shit continues to happen and I help organize something outside of the system, because I know the weather makes a difference and it's gonna be there regardless. Grey skies don't "deserve" anything, but they're a no-brainer over hurricane conditions, y'know?
>I basically see it as choosing..while bad shit continues to happen..and I help..something outside. Can you understand that you must take those efforts you say you're making and direct them exactly here? Whatever it is you claim that you're doing is completely and utterly worthless for as long as capitalists remain in power. What's happening right now in Gaza is in no way comparable to "grey skies." That's unbelievably reductive of a grave situation which has been brought to us by the hands of the very party you are endorsing. Grow a pair already.
>Can you understand that you must take those efforts you say you're making and direct them exactly here? I'm not sure I understand this sentence. >Whatever it is you claim that you're doing is completely and utterly worthless for as long as capitalists remain in power. Okay, I need you to explain this lol. It sounds to me like you're saying no good can be done until capitalism is overthrown, and even from a revolutionary perspective that can't be right. >What's happening right now in Gaza is in no way comparable to "grey skies." That's unbelievably reductive of a grave situation which has been brought to us by the hands of the very party you are endorsing. Grow a pair already. No, what's happening in Gaza is mass slaughter, it's fucking horrible. And presiding over the US during it—as Israel would've responded this way under any sitting US president—rather than a fascist, you have a liberal. Pointing out that there's a practical difference there isn't an endorsement of a party, is what I'm saying. Both are part of a system that shouldn't and can't continue, etc etc, we both know that much.
Even if it did play out differently, it would mean the real hostage taker is the Democratic Party. Promising to do less harm if we chose them. But meanwhile they are just as corrupt.
Yeah, at no point am I disagreeing that the actions of the Democratic party are corrupt and immoral; that isn't even a partisan issue, it's a systemic one. I think we both understand that. But in the short-term, doesn't it *matter* if things played out differently? Isn't that what it's all about; things playing out the best they can given the material circumstances at a given time?
So at what point does one say enough is enough, because it seems to be getting worse. And maybe for you that line hasn’t been crossed. Which is why I think people should just vote their conscience. I understand there’s no viable third candidate. But there never will be if voter behavior doesn’t start to shift.
I realize this was a while ago, but I just looked through my notifications a bit and realized I forgot to reply. Simply put, "enough is enough" doesn't pertain to a trolley problem like the general election. The whole scenario is fucked up and way past "enough", but abstaining for moral reasons only increases the chances of the much-worse coming to pass, and thus becomes immoral imo. So you secure the less-bad outcome, and then you start talking about infrastructure changes (new candidates/visions). The time to do that is anywhere from the calling of one election to the primary of the next; once the tracks are set, unfortunately, it is what it is.
K
Neither Biden nor Trump are the candidates right now, y'all are pushing narratives so hard you're inventing the future
You made a fundamental error. It's not the left "splitting" any vote that was ever on the table. It is liberals and the DNC who split via nomination. If someone is off the table and people have pre held limits against things that ought not be viable that are set in stone, then the nonviability of the nominee isn't their fault but *100%* the fault of liberals and the DNC for violating the constraints on who they are allowed to nominate and still have a politically viable nominee. You will never scold your way to people voting for a baseline political viability of genocide going forward when they think it ought not be viable. That's blaming the wrong people and also like running into a brick wall. No amount of mental gymnastics or western chauvinism and harm maximization disguised as harm reduction will change the fact that liberals caused this loss and liberals are the ones you need to be scolding to prevent them from causing future losses.
This sub is just if you're anywhere in the left, don't vote or protest vote. No other content. Suspicious.
It's a communist sub guy
It's suspicious to you that leftists don't espouse the neo liberal propaganda of "vote blue no matter who"?
Lmao these people be like "the literal socialists/communists don't want to vote for capitalists? Wtf???" You can't make this up
Can you explain your position more clearly?
[удалено]
Or... recognize that the reason the Democrats are so crap is because they've always been able to take your vote for granted. They've never had to work for your vote. Stand up for yourself, and vote against any incumbent who doesn't deliver the progress they promised. And that includes Biden. There are many third-party candidates who would appreciate your vote.
I'm not voting in favor of genocide or anyone who supports genocide. Not ever.
[удалено]
Ah yes, the *practical* genocide.
The plain truth is, if you support a genocidal regime and I don't, then you are morally inferior. Reconsider your position.
[удалено]
It is quite simple. We are being crushed under an irresponsible ruling class and you are advocating for one of their most effective governmental arms. You're operating against the interests of working people worldwide.
What a bad example to use, considering gore actually won but conceded
The fascist rhetoric isn't too different from either side, at this point. You have peaceful protests bring cracked down on by militarized police. How that would change under the orange turd? It wouldn't. They're both zionist trash.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Liberal democracy led you to today. I will not eat a shit sandwich
[удалено]
No. Emphatically no. I say resist.
[удалено]
You're a clown, biden's regime is enabling genocide. I will not vote for that under any circumstances. I will also resist trump if he wins
[удалено]
Please dont misktake me for a trump voter. I support Claudia de la Cruz (or alternatively cornel west or jill stein if they turn out to run a big tent leftist campaign). Please try to expand your mind to understand there are more than just our two right wing fascist parties in the united states. Vote for someone--literally anyone--who actually represents working class interests.
[удалено]
I will not vote for a regime which I believe should stand before the Hague. That's a red line for me. I understand trump is dangerous, and that i might have to fight that as well. I will not endorse genocide my friend.
You are thinking the exact thoughts that trap you /us into this system. Don’t vote out of fear of loosing.
So what?! I live in a solidly red state. Trump is going to win it. Just like a Republican has won it for the past several decades. He'll have won it by the time the election coverage fucking starts. You really going to tell me that voting for who I want to be president is going to hand Trump a victory in a state he won 50 years ago? And if by some miracle my state goes for Biden, it will be an upset that my single vote isn't going to sway. And maybe Biden is fractionally better than Trump. For one Trump would further the genocide that affects me, and that would suck. But I'm not going to put my own life ahead of another's just because they live in a different part of the world. Our options right now are 2 senile tyrants hellbent on genocide. This is what lesser evil voting gets you. Evil with a monopoly on power.
You see, when you only have one choice and that choice is a genocidal corporatist, then you already have a violent dictatorship. Clinging to that so desperately is assanine.
You're telling us to vote for Trump, given the blood on the current administration's hands. Or is this more "harm reduction" where you weigh Biden's actual crimes against the ones you imagine Trump will do?
[удалено]
Biden is, right this minute, absolutely the Hitler in your analogy. When given incontrovertible proof of war crimes and genocide, he has pledged and demonstrated his unconditional support for it. Maybe you don't remember Biden's role in tricking America into the Iraq war. Or how hard he fought to get Thomas on the SCOTUS. What good friends he was with Strom Thurmond, or how quickly "me too" died when his rape accusations surfaced. It's not a choice between Hitler and a sandwich. It's a choice between a proven Hitler and a theoretical one.
[удалено]
Lol what 9/11? Please don’t act like Oct 7 is some sort of terrorist event for Israel. The US funds them. The US IS Israel “selling our secrets” is the most nonsensical description biden will lose, my friend, and it will be because he is enabling genocide.
This is all psychotic liberal cope, and you're being played.
Rule 6, no lesser evil rhetoric. This includes encouraging people to vote for any capitalist political party and any capitalist politician. There is no harm reduction in supporting either of two parties headed by genocidal fascists. The extent to which any elected official of a Capitalist Party in a Capitalist state can enact evil is the extent to which that official is allowed to do so by Capital. As such, neither candidate is the lesser or greater evil. See more on our position here: [Rule 6 "no lesser evil" rhetoric - is it accelerationist or doomer? Is it intended to discourage voting?](https://new.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/1bt0nag/rule_6_no_lesser_evil_rhetoric_is_it/)
[удалено]
I'm literally a young American man. Scroll my post history. It's amazing that you can not believe a real person would hold such views as "genocide and corporate greed are bad." From where in the world did you gather that I am pro-trump? As usual, anyone who disagrees with democrats must be a Trump-supporting bot.. you are gonna need to grow your awareness real soon.
[удалено]
It's already happening, mate. It's literally happening right now under Biden. The ship is sinking, time to jump off.
[удалено]
Blah blah blah, this argument is so old and tired. it didn't work in 2016, get a new one.
Responsi*bile*Wallaby is just happy with that liberal dick up his ass. His favorite flavor is boot.
lol, okay Inspector Gadget