INB4 tHEyrE AUthORiTaRiAn
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
55 points (70.4% liked)
Memes
54197 readers
1571 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody truly is saying both sides are the exact same down to the atom, but instead that both are beyond bad enough to force us to try to organize outside of them, and far more similar than different. Further, communists aren't communists simply out of ideals, but out of pragmatism. Voting for democrats is certainly easier, but doesn't actually fix anything, meaning it isn't a practical solution.
It's not a solution, but as you said it's easier. We can and should do both. Even if voting for the Democrats saves one life from climate change or ICE, it's worth doing.
What about the cost of the signal sent to the Democrats that their current positions are enough to earn your votes?
I would respond: if not voting for the Democrats (and voting for a party to their left) saves one life from climate change, imperialism, COVID, or ICE because it pressures them to take stronger positions on those issues, it's also worth doing.
The Democrats make it pretty clear that they do not care about our votes, or about beating Republicans. We have to organize outside of the Democratic party infrastructure, while reluctantly voting for the lesser of two evils.
Wasn't your whole point that the Democrats would block or at least slow down the Rep? You do realize that this sentence voids the argument right?
The measures taken by the DNC have not meaningfully countered climate change, and the DNC funds ICE as well. It's allowed to be easier because it won't change anything materially, that's what I mean by saying both are so bad that neither are acceptable.
If you need to change a lightbulb, and said lightbulb is 20 feet above you, neither a 9 foot nor 10 foot ladder will allow you to get there. The end result is the same, even if both ladders are different and one gets you closer. The hard but practical solution is to find a ladder that can actually reach the bulb!
Malcolm X said the same thing after his return from Mecca:
And of course this fuck-fuck lib defending Hitler doesn't know both MLK and Malcolm X were assassinated during Democrat administrations. Or how Fred Hampton, Huey Newton, and the Black Panthers were being undermined by the FBI during the same time period. Hampton was assassinated under a Republican, but only a year after LBJ left office. The plot to have him killed started long before his actual death.
"Easier to organize under liberals over conservatives" my ass.
100%, of course there's a perfectly fitting Malcolm X quote. Fantastic addition, practical examples of the empire murdering organizers in democrat admins really drives the point home. When you stand to change the system, and play outside its rules, both ruling parties will kill you.
Even if the DNC haven't meaningfully countered climate change, they haven't done nothing either. They also likely wouldn't have abolished USAID which, while it existed for propaganda purposes, did save lives.
That's true they haven't done nothing, they've opened up a whole bunch of public land for oil drilling
USAID was used for the purposes of solidifying compradors, and was abolished because it was getting more expensive for reduced gains as imperialism decays. It's extremely likely that the DNC would have reduced USAID, like the GOP has (and it isn't abolished, just transformed).
Both the DNC and GOP are servants of capital. The DNC is not a group of "nicer" capitalists. Therefore, we need to overthrow the imperialist system and establish socialism.
Even if the Democrats would've cut it USAID, they would've been far less sudden about it. According to people who work in humanitarian aid, the suddenness of Trump's cuts to USAID got a lot of people killed in the developing world.
"No but you see, they might have done it too, and in the same way, but at least they would have done it slower! That's totally better right?"
Just take the L already. You can't even argue your own point without making a total fool out of yourself.
And the system of sanctions, imperialism propped up by USAID, etc. kill half a million people per year. The DNC would've cut the "aid" in a harmful way anyways, meaning the lightbulb isn't changing. The US Empire isn't crumbling due to personal choices by the parties, but because imperialism itself is crumbling.
"Some of you may die, but it's a price I am willing to pay for the collapse of the American empire" - Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
Says the acknowledged Hilterite
No? Both sides are propping up a system that kills 500,000 people per year. Both would cut USAID, because the reason it was cut was not moral but economic. You're arguing to perpetuate the system of imperialism that kills 500,000 people annually because you think the 10 foot ladder can reach the 20 foot lightbulb.
The practical solution is socialism, which requires revolution and grassroots organizing. Not propping up imperialism.
Cutting USAID killed hundreds of thousands of people. How many the Democrats would've killed is almost definitely less, although how much less is up for debate. Maybe the wouldn't have cut USAID, maybe they would've just reduced it, maybe they would've cut it completely but done so more gradually.
They certainly wouldn't have left the WHO. Staying in the WHO is just good business sense, aside from for the private hospitals but the impacts of a highly lethal global pandemic on stability and on the safety of the rich isn't worth it.
And people will have more space to organize when under a predictably evil government than a chaotic one. Unless you're relying on the death and destruction for a recruitment drive.
You don't even know what you're saying yourself you damned clown 🤡 This is the party who spent their last presidential term funding and arming a genocide btw, on what ground are you arguing that this very same party would have given a shit about killing less peoples this way?
Again, you are arguing for voting for a party that is guilty of funding and arming a genocide. And these are the argument you are bringing up to make your case. Is staying in the WHO worth supporting a genocide? Heck fucking no!! In the name what ridiculous alternate moral philosophy are you arguing that it remotely makes up for even a fraction of it?
I'd also like to point out that you being reduced to praising the Democrats for what they maybe wouldn't have done in the hypothetical scenario where they would have won isn't a very good look for your side of the argument, just saying.
Again, genocide. Is potentially having a slightly easier time organizing worth supporting genocide? No, It's not!
Also, the Democrats have increased the budget of the US' militarized police forces as much, if not more, than the Republicans. Does a party that give as much or more money to a brutal force of repression who already have military grade weapons than the other sound easier to organize under to you? Have you peoples already forgotten Biden's brutal crackdown on strikes and protests during his presidency?
Why? Both would have cut USAID, both kill 500,000 per year via imperialism.
Again, why? The US Empire is quite clearly trying to leave international organizations and replace them with new orgs like the "Board of Peace" that are even more nakedly US-dominated. This isn't simply random whim, but a response to the decay in capitalism.
This part is pure bullshit. Both the DNC and GOP crush leftist organizing and fund the groups that do so, like the NSA, FBI, and CIA. Organization is not "easier" under the DNC, and you would know this if you actually did org work in real life as a leftist.
All in all, you're justifying maintaining a brutal system that kills half a million per year. You also admitted to not reading my comments, so why do you expect people to take your arguments seriously in return?
The Democrats would've, at a bare minimum, left USAID slower. They wouldn't have sent Musk in to immediately halt payments, they would've just removed the funding from the next congressional budget. Aid organisations would've had warning and people wouldn't have been suddenly cut off from their HIV medication.
Leaving the WHO is not something even the rich are really calling for. It's a conspiracy theorist thing that Trump is pushing on a personal level. Nobody in the imperial periphery is really following him either.
I'm not going to bother responding to the last part. Unless it's easier to organize under the GOP, it's irrelevant. Hell the communist revolution is besides my point entirely. All I've been trying to say is that more people die when a Republican president is elected, and even if that might usher in a communist revolution you'd still be gambling with lives by choosing that.
From 1 democratic president ago:
You are reduced to splitting hair about hypotheticals. You might want to try moving on to other arguments. Assuming you have any left.
Oh, dodging inconvenient arguments now are we? Your "point" was that it's supposedly easier to organize under the Democrats so the fact that it isn't is absolutely relevant.
This is just sad at this point. You reached a level of throwing-everything-at-the-wall-in-the-hope-something-will-stick that probably does more harm than good to your position in the minds of peoples reading this thread.
Why? Why do you say this? You keep getting trapped in this idea of the DNC being "more moral" in actions, despite their actions still propping up imperialism and protecting it.
Trump cannot unilaterally do whatever he wants. The bourgeoisie as a class is not in lock-step, there are some that want to stay in the WHO, but the idea that a country can truly be unilaterally led by someone with no class backing is Great Man Theory.
I would never advocate for pushing for the GOP, as that's accelerationism, but it is easier to organize under the GOP. Democrats get more millitant when they see the failures of the DNC to resist the GOP, as they are on the same side, the side of capital.
Yes, because you don't actually want to end imperialism. That's why you like the DNC.
500,000 people die per year because of a bipartisan system of imperialism. My point is not that people dying under the GOP ushers in a communist revolution, but that both parties are aligned in materially supporting imperialism.
You also admitted to not reading my comments, so why do you expect people to take your arguments seriously in return?
I literally just explained.
You did not. You said what you think they would do, but it seems to stem from your insistence on their moral superiority.
The Democrats famously adhere to American norms. Do you think they'd suddenly start bypassing congress and appoint a special government employee to go around causing chaos? They're entire identity is "we'd love to, but we can't because of congress".
The DNC uses those excuses to not push for radical positive change, not because they actually believe that.
And they'll suddenly throw away that excuse that they've relied on for decades, just to spite the world's developing countries by cutting USAID funding a few months sooner?
Not for spite, to protect profits. You're relying on moralism over what actually motivates the genocidal imperialist parties.