this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
2 points (53.6% liked)

askchapo

23325 readers
111 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We know voting in bourgeois USian democracy is only affected by people in swing states (and even that is "which ghoul do you want to administer the dictatorship of capital") but hear me out.

A comrade recently posted about ironically or unironically (I didn't read enough into the thread) voting for AfD in Germany and it reminded me of a WaPo article that read:

"Several U.S. military leaders have advised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the U.S. homeland, according to people familiar with a recent assessment prepared for the Pentagon chief."

So it got me thinking, by continuing to overextend the military, as empires do, are we actually seeing "two, three, many Vietnams"? Is the way to exhaust the empire's military into submission to vote for Trump? On one hand we have the King of Hubris (hubris being the guarantor of empire decline) and on the other hand things might have played out this way while wearing a Democrat mask, too, as we know the real driving force is capital accumulation and Epstein island retreats. The down side is the harm that comes to marginalized and oppressed people, which again also happens under Dems when it's their turn to protect capital accumulation and Epstein island retreats. I know in Germany it's different because there are several parties but in the US we're a one party state, but with typical American extravagance, we have two of them (shout out to Julius Nyerere). So would voting for Republicans be a net positive for the world and the demise of capitalism? Should we just abstain from voting? Vote blue for harm reduction?

A big piece of evidence for this theory comes from my personal experience- how many people I know afk that are now (recently) radicalized. People I wouldn't expect in a million years to actually be down with changing the system are now fervent revolutionaries. Comrade Trump is the greatest left wing organizer since Lenin. That's right I said it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] juice_@hexbear.net 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I think you're imagining socialism as something separate from the working class, and imperialism as something essentially USAmerican. The interests of the capitalists and the workers are total opposites. Contradictions abound, and capitalism creates its own grave diggers, but Trump reps the interests of the capitalists, just like the democrats, and inflicts horrible attacks on the working class all over the world.

You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary so I dont know why you feel the need to point out that Trump is better for socialism than the democrats, it seems like you're over thinking, trying to have a take. There is clearly a lot of confusion in this post and I dont think you're helping clear up any of it. Like, you throw that Lenin chapter in my face, compare me to Vaush, when Lenin is explicit about strategy and tactics:

it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”. To ignore this experience, while at the same time claiming affiliation to the Communist International, which must work out its tactics internationally (not as narrow or exclusively national tactics, but as international tactics), means committing a gross error and actually abandoning internationalism in deed, while recognising it in word. (emphasis mine)

You aren't suggesting a tactic or a strat, based on your own defense. So what exactly is the point? You're making a highly controversial claim with no evidence and then get upset when someone takes you at your word. It seems like you're a little too in your head and need to get out and do some actual organizing work.

But I appreciate the lengthier response.