this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
364 points (96.2% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3351 readers
774 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
Thanks for the level headed and quantifiable reasoning. I agree the argument you're putting forth is the most compelling one and the one that most makes me question my own line of reasoning as well. Of course, like you say: it's always possible that something way down the line is going to turn out to make it all worth it, but because we can't see perfectly into the future and the world is really chaotic and hard to predict. I think that is basically the strongest argument out there for just picking the immediate best option.
On the other hand, I'm not exactly saying that we need to look all the way down the tree, maybe just like three or four steps ahead, instead of literally just one. Of course, the predictability goes down with each successive step. But I think we can at least think two election cycles ahead without losing too much precision. Especially in cases where the person running is really reprehensible to us, that helps even out the trade-off too, because in the same way that we have assured benefits from their victory, we have assured drawbacks. In that sense your argument cuts both ways a little. (But mostly against me, I won't deny) I think a lot of the disagreements on strategy here come down to people's personal values for these variables: the predictability, the confirmed costs/payoffs, the potential costs/payoffs. Which are pretty hard to be objective about.
I think the complexity of it that I just talked about would put things in your favor too, if not for the evidence (in my opinion) that the greedy strategy is exactly what has produced our poor historical results. So this is my biggest question for you because you said history isn't on my side. But to me, it seems like we have plenty of record of the same sort of "wait til the next election to be picky, this time we have to win, the stakes are too high!" rhetoric going back decades. And things are undeniably getting worse. So from my perspective, we have already been trying the greedy algorithm strategy for the last 40 years. For me that makes me feel like I have not only a theoretical explanation for why that would make things worse, but also historical evidence of it actually doing so. History seems super on my side to me.
I gel with your reasoning style so I'm interested to hear what you think I'm getting wrong about that perspective.
I think that is fair. I would argue that the multiple steps ahead would probably include things like primary voting and caucusing, and that is where we push for the greatest progressive advances. So, you are mainly right.
Basically, while I understand your approach, I mostly disagree that voting Democratic is the one step ahead... Well, no, that is probably correct, so long as the modifier is that the ONLY thing you do is vote blue. That would, to your credit, not necessarily push change. Like, if, for whatever reason, the Republicans suddenly were incredibly progressive, voting for them would be better than Democrats. It wouldn't happen, but purely hypothetically, voting Democratic in that instance would be bad. But, I think in order to get there, you have to primary or caucus out the worst choices. That is like two or three steps ahead. That choice can get better and better the more steps you do, like joining or starting a mutual aid organization, getting involved in your community, etc. That is like multiple steps. And each one is just their own sum to contribute.
What I will grant you is that we probably have been at a one- or two-step thinking for a long time now. And the hard part about accepting that is that it is difficult to get people out of that mindset. We are quite insular. We are quite individualistic. We are quite lonely. And telling people that it is their responsibility to change that is gonna get a lot of pushback. But, well, I think it is!
So, you are right, and your reasoning is right, but I think it concludes to something that might be wrong. I do push for voting Democratic because the alternative is worse, but I only push it until the alternative is better. And I go to the caucuses. I go to the primaries. I go to my local Democratic meet ups. I question my local representatives and senators, ask why they don't push progressive policies, and then if they fail to do better, I keep pushing for better, annoy the shit out of them, and then eventually, they get switched out or they get better. It looks like one-step, and sometimes (or often), it feels one-step.
So, right now, I criticize the shit out of Gaven Newsom. I criticize the shit out of bad Democrats. I push for better in primaries. And then... I vote the Democrat. Because the alternative is the Republican, and so far, they are worse.