this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
395 points (94.8% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3211 readers
761 users here now
A place for 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.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have concluded that the Established Democrats would rather that Trump or somebody like him is POTUS than to concede to the Left on anything, even on a morally highly charged subject like the mass murdering of tens of thousand of children (in Gaza) which at least for some people would make the Democrat candidate so repugnant that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for her even "to stop Trump"
Had Kamala genuinelly conceded to the Left on some things and not latched on to none other than the Cheney familly (honestly, I don't thing the Israeli subject was by itself enough to cause that loss), she could very well have won, but that faction of the Democrats would rather loose than stop cozing with the hard-right, so they lost to none other than Trump.
If what the Democrat tribalists were parroting back them about how Trump was so horrible and the Democrats needed to win to stop his policies was indeed how the Established Democrats felt, they would NEVER had risked a Trump victory by adopting a Reject The Left strategy at all levels.
All this to say that these people will never undo what Trump did to the broader society (though the parts that make them less electable - i.e. that affect their own personal upsides - I'm sure they'll undo) because they're totally fine with it, as shown by how in the last election they would rather risk a second Trump presidency to keep on going Right politically than to pivot Left in the slightest of ways.
Without a Revolution inside the Democrat Party, the US will keep on going in the same direction as these Democrats will do nothing but talkie-talkie on reversing Trump's policies and then in a few years another Trump character (or, worse, a genuinelly intelligent one) get in power again.
I remember having this same conversation 20 years ago, except instead of Harris and Trump it was Kerry and Bush, and instead of Gaza it was Iraq. We didn't get somebody smarter than Bush, though, we got Trump.
Here's the thing. You don't need to be a smart president to do a lot of damage. You can have smart people in your cabinet. You also don't have to be very smart to break a ton of shit.
I'll give you that.
The "smarter" part is just something I threw in but which I did not really pondered on all that much.
In all fairness "nastiness" is the only thing which seem to have moved (upwards) consistently.