this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
145 points (99.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8910 readers
94 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's more "moving the goalposts" than what I said. You're intentionally missing my point by focusing so narrowly on my wording. The example I had in mind, was the 6 members of Congress that they just tried to arrest and charge with some form of treason, over that video they released reminding service members that they have the right to refuse illegal orders.
In the case of Abrego Garcia, that is actually another example of the system working...not the other way around. The Trump administration is trying as hard as possible to circumvent the law by denying his Constitutional right to due process, but so far, he has been able to not only fight back, but also to win.
That's all that "rights" are. That's literally the reason why it's so important to put the right people in charge. If we let our guard down too often, or even just at the one wrong time...we risk losing everything. Our rights and freedoms are something that we have to fight to maintain every single time there's an election. And not just when it's the president. State and local elections are probably even more important.
If we let the wrong people take power, it isn't because the system failed us...it's because we failed to use the system the way it was intended.
Take this BlueMAGA nonsense back to Reddit. Neither party gives a shit about our rights and freedoms
You're continuing to blame the working classes for not having power within a system designed to keep us from it. We need socialism, not to try to fix capitalism.
And what do you think "Socialism" is? Is it something external, that the working class has to find? Or is it working class solidarity? Something we already have, but aren't using to its actual potential?
Working together is a choice. Who else is to blame for not making it, except us? All "the system" can do is try and convince us that we don't have that power. But, as soon as we decide to work together, that power is ours. That's what breaks "the system".
Socialism is a mode of production, characterized by public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. It isn't something to be "found," or something already present in capitalist society, it's something to be realized by overthrowing the capitalist state and replacing it with a socialist one. Even if every single working-class individual agreed that socialism is necessary, you still need to organize, and you still need to overthrow capitalism.
Lol! So, you're saying the same thing I am, but downvoting me because you don't understand what I'm saying. smh.
We aren't at all saying the same thing. You're saying that the system is fine, but workers need to simply realize their chains and it will all be good. I'm saying that that's deliberate, and that even if everyone wanted socialism it wouldn't happen without revolution.
Then I think our disagreement is how you define "the system". There are many "systems" that people use for a lot of different things. Systems are neutral. They are tools. The only thing that makes them "good" or "bad" is how they're used.
Capitalists have spent enormous amounts of money and a lot of time, turning those systems to their advantage. But, there's nothing "wrong" with us using those same systems for our advantage. They are tools. They are meant to be used.
In the case of democracy, they function based on majority rule...which means that particular system is perfectly suited for the working class to use to our own advantage. We have the majority. That automatically should give us control over democracy. But it only works for us, if we all work together. If we aren't unified, then we can't change anything.
"Revolution" is just what happens when we finally get our shit together, and unify our efforts.
We cannot use the tools of capitalism for our advantage. Capitalist "democracy" is democracy for the capitalist class. The class that controls the means of production controls the state, and controls democracy. That is why the capitalist state needs to be smashed, and replaced with a socialist one.
Democracy is democracy. You may as well be saying, "We can't use a Capitalist hammer. We need to smash all the Capitalist hammers, and make Socialist hammers, instead." It's absurd.
Nope, democracy depends on the class character of the state, which is not outside of the context of the economy but deeply embedded within it. Capitalists select the parties we can vote for, their representatives, and use the state to overturn any meaningful change.
You're overthinking this, to the point where you aren't listening to what I'm saying again. Systems are only "good" or "bad" because of how they are being used.
You are describing how they are being used, as a way of arguing against that point. How does that make sense to you?
I'm not even disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm just wondering how you don't understand what I'm saying. It's like you're saying the words, without actually thinking about what they mean.
I'm listening to what you're saying, I just disagree with it. I'm not overthinking it, either. "Democracy" within the confines of a system where capitalists control the economy cannot be used to overturn their rule. You cannot ask them politely to give up their power, and they hold the state as well, even if the working classes were to win electorally, as Allende did in Chile and was coup'd shortly after for it. Revolution is necessary.
Dude. What are you talking about? Do you not understand how democracies work?
If it's a democracy...then the majority decides. If it's what you're describing, then it isn't a democracy, at all.
If it isn't a democracy, then the ruling class would always win, right? That's what you're saying is true? Except that it's pretty obvious that the ruling class doesn't always win. Don't get me wrong...I do believe we are getting closer to not being a democracy all the time...especially now...but that's because not enough people showed up to vote last time, and now we have an actual fascist in power.
So, which is it? Either we can win if enough of us show up to vote against their candidates....or it doesn't matter, no matter how many of us show up. Only one answer actually applies to reality, so this shouldn't even be an argument.
Correct, capitalist democracy is not democracy at all. Within capitalism, the ruling class either wins, or has the tools to walk back a loss, such as couping Allende in Chile after he won democratically. Both Trump and Kamala Harris are examples of genocidal imperialists, both are representatives of the ruling class, every president has been a representative of the ruling class in US history.
If enough of us voted for PSL, the state would work against that unless we overthrow the state and replace it with a socialist one. This is reality, and as long as you remain trapped within the narrow mindset of bourgeois faux-democracy as your only option, then you will never get the change we need.
You keep seeing the state as outside of society, outside of class struggle, outside of how we produce and distribute. If we understand the state as a part of society and not outside and above it, then we have to recognize the class character of the state.
Lol! Like I said...you keep saying the words without actually knowing what they mean. All you're doing is repeating slogans verbatim, with no real comprehension. If this is what passes for Socialist thought in North America, it's no wonder you guys are so far behind the curve. You don't even understand the mechanisms that drive your own political reality.
Cae in point...
You don't even realize that you are projecting your own misunderstandings onto me. Good luck, friend.
Nothing I said is contradictory, nor projection. If you want to establish socialism, you cannot just vote for it, you have to overthrow the state and replace it with a socialist one. Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. have already done so in the past. Engage with what I'm saying, I repeat myself because you keep making the same mistakes and dodging the point.
I feel like this is how our conversation is going...
Me: "Look. See this hammer? I can hit a nail with it, which means I'm using it to build. Then, I can turn around and hit a person with it, which means I'm using it to cause harm. But, it's still the same hammer. Do you understand?"
And you've all like: "Nope. Those are two totally different hammers. We need to destroy one, and keep the other. That's the only way."
It's pretty bizarre talking to someone who can't even grasp basic reality. Enjoy your state of confusion. Let us all know when you've figured out what "revolution" means. That should be equally insightful.
The simple answer is that capitalist "democracy" is "democracy" controlled by capitalists. Capitalists control production and distribution, pick what parties can run, run the mass media and bribe officials. Socialist democracy exists in the context of worker control. You view democracy as existing outside of this context, usable by anyone for any aim, which is why you're running into the same mistake. Revolution means overthrowing the system with force, see what the bolsheviks did in Russia for an example.
I have no idea where your condescension comes from, if you can't acknowledge the role capital plays in the state then you'll forever be confused.
do you ever wonder if someone is running interference on you?
i ask because i'm likewise having to phrase and then rephrase repeatedly with someone else right now and that's preventing me from engaging with anyone else.
Not really, sometimes I just think people can be stubborn, or simple miscommunication happens. Text isn't as clear as speaking in person.
i guess the epstein files are making me extra paranoid. lol
Fair, lol
Wow. Do you not get that in the lines just before this stunning revelation, YOU described exactly how capitalists use democracy one way and socialists use democracy another way? Yet, for some reason, your conclusion is that there are still *two different democracies" being used.
You keep accusing me of thinking there is a separation between these concepts...but you are the one who keeps arguing that they are separate. I don't know how much more simply I can explain it...and yet you still don't seem to understand that basic concept. You can't even see that you're the one making the argument that you're arguing against.
It's seriously bizarre. I haven't seen this level of cognitive dissonance in quite a while.
A wrought iron sledge hammer and a plastic toy hammer are both hammers yet they are qualitatively different. Liberal democracy and Socialist democracy are both a democracy yet are qualitatively different.
Again, with the "two separate hammers" analogy. They are the same hammer. You just can just use it for more than one purpose. How you use it, determines whether it's "good" or "bad".
What happens after you've destroyed "capitalist democracy" and replaced it with "socialist democracy"...and then someone learns how to exploit the system again? Do you destroy it all over again, and make a new one? Again? And then again, again? And then again, again, again?
At some point, would you not realize that it's not democracy that's flawed? Or would you just keep destroying it over and over again, expecting different results?
You’re treating democracy as class-neutral. That’s wrong. There is no abstract “democracy” floating above society, every democracy expresses class power. Liberal democracy is the dictatorship of capital: private ownership, capital controls media and institutions, and workers can vote forever without ever voting away exploitation. Socialist democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat: bourgeois property is abolished, exploiters are politically suppressed, and the working class holds state power. Same word, different class rule. Not “the same hammer used differently,” but qualitatively different systems.
And your “what if someone exploits it again?” question just proves the point. Yes, class struggle continues under socialism. When new bourgeois elements emerge, you suppress them. That’s exactly what proletarian dictatorship exists for. Socialism isn’t a one-time constitutional tweak; it’s an ongoing process of fighting capitalist restoration.
You should really read Chairman Mao and Lenin.
Democracy is class neutral. It is a tool. Nothing more. It is a system that can be structured in any number of ways, for a huge variety of different purposes. It is not an "it" that you can destroy and replace with another one. Democracy is just democracy. The easiest way to change how it is used, is to put someone else in charge of using it. And guess what? Democracy, by its very nature, allows you to do that. That's literally what it's for.
But, as long as you keep anthropomorphizing it with your own moral biases, you will never understand how to use it. It will always be a tool that inevitably gets used against you.
You keep describing it like it's some kind of dragon in a cave, that needs to be defeated in order for you to be free. I'm trying to explain to you, that it is actually the very mechanism that can free you...as long as you understand how to use it for your own purposes.
You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production. That means capital rules no matter who you vote for. Workers cannot vote away private ownership of the means of production. That’s why Marxists call it the dictatorship of capital.
Saying “just put someone else in charge” ignores how power actually works. The bourgeoisie doesn’t politely surrender its property because a ballot box asked nicely. Socialist democracy only becomes possible after that class power is broken, after bourgeois ownership is abolished and exploiters are politically suppressed. That’s not “using the same tool differently.” That’s a different state, serving a different class.
And no, democracy doesn’t magically “free” you by itself. Liberation comes from class struggle. When new bourgeois elements emerge under socialism, they are suppressed, because socialism is an ongoing process of preventing capitalist restoration, not a one-time electoral event. You’re treating democracy as primary and class power as secondary. The opposite is true.
I'm not the ones saying that...you are, with everything you just said in that comment. You are portraying "the state" as some separate entity that operates independently from the people within it. But, that isn't true. Those people make up "the state". It doesn't exist without them. So, yes...if you put different people in those positions, you absolutely can "change the state".
Of course the state is made up of people, but those people operate inside a pre-existing system of property, law, coercion, and institutions. That system doesn’t change just because you swap officeholders. Under capitalism, the courts defend private property, the police protect capital, the media belongs to capital, and the economy is owned by capital. Anyone entering that structure is forced to govern within those limits. That’s why workers can vote forever and still remain exploited.
You keep saying “just put different people in charge,” but history shows what happens when elected governments seriously threaten capitalist ownership: capital flees, investment stops, media turns hostile, courts obstruct, and imperialist pressure mounts until the project is neutralized or overthrown. That’s not theory, that’s how bourgeois power has observably functioned from its inception . Liberal democracy allows rotation of managers, not transfer of class power.
You’re also reversing cause and effect. Democracy doesn’t shape class relations, class relations shape democracy. As long as private ownership of production exists, the state exists to defend it. That’s why bourgeois democracy always resolves crises in favor of capital. It’s structurally designed to.
Real change only begins when exploitative property relations are abolished and the old coercive apparatus is broken and rebuilt to serve the working masses. That’s when democracy stops being a shell and becomes material, because the people control production, not just ballots.
I beg you to please read Lenin, and Chairman Mao you don't understand what you're talking about and they have far more extensive writing on this than I can fit into a debate with you on a message board.
So...is this "Capital" in the room with us, right now? Is it wearing a name tag that says, "Hello. My name is Capital"?
Is Capital really running the whole system? Or is it the people we choose to put in charge of that system?
No capital isn’t a ghost with a name tag, it’s a material social relation: ownership of production, control of investment, wage labor, and the institutions built to defend them. That’s why elected officials who threaten profits immediately face capital flight, media attacks, legal sabotage, and economic strangulation, among other attacks, regardless of their intentions. You keep reducing structural power to personalities because liberalism can’t think past individuals.
Again I beg read Lenin and Chairman Mao, looks into what was done to Aellende Sankara and Lumumba. Until you understand that class power determines the state (not vibes and ballots) you’re just repeating liberal talking points and it's not worth continuing this.
Nobody is saying democracy itself is bad, but that democracy in the context of capitalism isn't really democratic. Socialist democracy works, and does so far better than democracy in capitalist systems at achieving results for the working classes. We expect democracy to work differently in socialism because this is observably true.
How is it "observably true" that it "works differently in socialism"? Do you not still elect people to represent you in government? Do you not still vote on issues that matter in your community? Are you not still expected to participate in the process, in order for it to function? Do you not still use it to replace leaders that don't represent your views?
Nothing about democracy itself, fundamentally changes, just because you call it "socialist democracy" instead of "capitalist democracy".
What changes is that society, rather than being run by capitalists and for capitalists, becomes run by the working classes, and the state acts in their interests. This is reflected in policy. You have a metaphysical way of thinking that sees systems as being capable of understanding devoid of the context they exist in, as static, and in a vacuum, ie an impossible fantasy.
I'm not talking about how individual capitalists or socialists use democracy, but how democracy as a system functions in capitalism vs. socialism. My point isn't that democracy is bad, but that democracy can only exist in the context of the class struggle, and in economic systems dominated by capitalism, the democratic institutions will inevitably be hollow and unusable for the purposes of establishing socialism.
I absolutely understand the basic concept, my point is that socialists in the, say, US, or Canada, cannot use existing structures of "democracy" to bring about socialism. No cognitive dissonance on my part, just pure metaphysical thinking on yours.
You may as well be saying, "It's not who uses the hammer that makes it bad, but how they use it, that does." My brother in Christ...the person using it decides how it's used. FFS. You are talking in circles again without realizing you're arguing against your point.
Do you believe that things like the media, culture, state, and industry have absolutely no impact whatsoever on how things are decided in a given system?
Lol
You had a genocidal fascist in power previously too