224
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
224 points (90.3% liked)
Memes
57148 readers
525 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
That may be true for you, but it is not true for others. Any revolution predicated on ignoring the material reality of the masses is doomed to fail.
Being not Amerikan it is true for me in a way but not in the way you're implying. You genuinely believe your vote at the Amerikan ballot box has tangible material effects on capitalists interests? That's a pretty extreme stance that even most liberals would retreat from if pressed.
This is a nonsequitor that doesn't address anything I said.
It's only a non-sequitor if you replace what I said about the interests of the masses with the interests of the capitalist class.
I get that it is difficult to both participate in the system while also dismantling it - that is by design. It is also designed to alienate those who participate from those who do not. That is one of the ways the system defends itself.
No it remains a nonsequitor as pointing out voting in America is a charade over choosing which mask capital wears as opposed to having any material effect on who is in power (the boss which needs fighting) has nothing to do with being detached from the needs of the masses.
So long as you ignore the lived experiences of Americans they will never behave as you think they might. If it were as you said, detached from the needs of the masses, then the grip held by the electoral system would be a simple matter to defeat.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm accurately characterising a system that not once in its entire existence has challenged the interests of capital. Your response to this has been nonsequitors and leftist vocabulary used as buzzwords you don't seem to entirely grasp.
My response is rooted in a structuralist critique of the system that incentivizes participation. You have said nothing of the incentives other than to assert there is none. What do you hope to accomplish by disparaging me instead of the argument?
See and once again completely not engaging with the point at hand.
To try get back to the actual matter at hand. You put forth the assertion that voting allows Amerikans to choose who they are fighting. This is blatantly untrue as the democrats and republicans are not the top of the ladder but simply the mask or the orators of those truly at the tops will (the capitalists). In response to this being pointed out you've gone on many tangents to use as much leftspeak as you can muster to entirely miss the point and add nothing of value (likely because you cannot as what I pointed out is blatantly obvious to all those with eyes). I am not disparaging you I simply refuse to be pulled down these inane side tangents.
You can say they aren't really the "boss" but fact remains that voting shapes how the conflict plays out. Voting is choosing the quality of the boss fight.
But thank you for this. In the future I will say "boss fight" instead of "boss" to be more clear.
It really isn't. Did the Dems close Guantanamo? No. Did they defund the Police or ICE? No infact they oversaw record funding. Did they codify roe v wade? No. Did they do anything to slow or stop the foreign child crushing machine? No.
Pr is the only real difference and unfortunately pr is immaterial.
The party responds to those fighting in accordance to their PR. A dem will opt for more covert methods while the repubs will send the police to outright murder people in the streets and celebrate it. All the issues you listed are true, and that is why fighting is not optional.
Lol, now we all know you've never been to a protest.
Every time I've ever been tear gassed for protesting, it was a Democrat who gave the orders.
Then go protest more, I assure you they both use tear gas.
That whooshing sound you heard was the entire point going directly over your head.
Right back at yeah pal. Tear gas tastes better than a bullet
Goddamn you're dumb
Again an assertion that doesn't like up with reality. ICE (the modern Gestapo as many people know them) were no less funded or utilised under dems for example same with the police. They also oversaw and funded genocide. You are falling for the optics and believe just because they say the good things they must not be doing as many of the bad things and it's just not accurate.
Again, I never said the dems don't utilize the same forces. The critique is in how and to what degree. Surely there are plenty of libs for you to debate that you don't need to invent a strawman lib.
See now you're backtracking. So they don't use more covert methods? They use the exact same methods and institutions just "less" (in your mind). But again this is an assertion without merit when you look at how funding for ICE and the militarisation of the police hit record levels under both administrations. So again we're back to you taking pr and a better controlled news cycle to be a tangible material difference that it simply isn't.
Where is the contradiction is saying the sams institution can be directed to use or favor different methods?
The fact that they plainly aren't? The police were still the police under Dems the same violent gangs brutalising whoever they liked and facing minimal (in reality effectively 0) repercussions. And ice was still ice Dems were more then happy to gloat about record deportations under their administrations, you think ice was suddenly politely asking people if they would like to leave under Dems, obviously not they were the same violent kidnappers putting kids in cages.
This is all not even mentioning the three letter agencies and their bipartisan escapades. (Abu gharib was not an abomination but the system working as intended)