this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
293 points (92.2% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3139 readers
600 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)
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 forget: how exactly were the White House, +9 in the House, and the most marginal Senate majority imaginable (+0, with VP, plus DINOs like Kyrsten Sinema) supposed to "make voting rights a priority" enough to stop a 6–3 SCOTUS of far-right grifters from overturning the most landmark statute on voting rights in US history that's not written into the Constitution? Just write more, less well-established legislation that the SCOTUS can overturn on nonsensical grounds? Were they supposed to delete the filibuster that's barely holding the country together right now so they could pass the Freedom to Vote Act and have it also struck down?
Lay out the plan to me. Give me the deets on how that narrow trifecta were supposed to stop a gaggle of six batshit, fascist Republicans in the SCOTUS from flipping over the chessboard by "making voting rights a priority".
If nothing can be fixed even with that much power, then it seems to me that the system is fundamentally broken and has no capacity to repair itself.
If you internalize that and put your back against the wall, then you may find that the position of commander-in-chief of the most expensive military in the world, with control of an incredibly powerful intelligence apparatus, provides quite a bit more power than a half-dozen senior citizens in robes.
You want my plan? Wait for a good time, like, right after the decision about overturning Roe v Wade was leaked, and have the justices arrested for corruption (it's not as though they aren't horribly corrupt, after all). Then, all you have to do is wait for them to decide to hang themselves at the exact same time that multiple cameras on the cell fail and the guards are off taking a nap together, you know, one of those funny coincidences like what happened with Epstein.
You don't like that approach? You come up with plan. We're the ones who don't believe in the system. If there's no legal answer to your question, then doesn't that just prove that extralegal means are the only way?
Pack the court. In the past the mere threat of that has brought the justices to heel.
So since the Supreme Court is corrupted, our national legislature should just give up and not even try? This type of attitude leads directly to voter apathy and the election of fascists like Trump.
As for traitors like Sinema, I'm old enough to remember a time when legislative holdouts would be pressured by the national party. The president should call her out by name and run rallies in her district. Cut off her funding, strain her ties with her donors, make her a pariah in the party.
It is so sad how the Democrat party has calcified this "rotating villain" logic into its foundation. It's something that needs to be purged from the party if we want a party that's actually controlled by the voters and not by corporate interests.
That doesn't work, that was a straight cash grab she was never expecting to win reelection just grab as much corporate favor as she could.
They literally did try; I just presented you with evidence that they tried: the Freedom to Vote Act. It had enough cosponsors to pass the House and the Senate; it died due to the filibuster.
So go ahead and tell me what your plan would've been; I'm listening, because you forgot to express one. And if it involves removing the filibuster, 1) that legislation is in the exact same territory as the Voting Rights Act (legally for what the SCOTUS is allowed to do to it; in terms of judicial precedent, it's far worse-off, because holy shit, we're talking about the fucking VRA here), and 2) I dare you to imagine what a 53–47 Senate, a 217–212 House, and Trump could do without the filibuster. I will tell you it's unfathomably worse than what's already happening, and I will also tell you that "well it totally wouldn't have happened with better voting rights!!" is just 1) credulously assuming it wouldn't have already been struck down and 2) not a solid assumption even if not.
Is your plan to delete the filibuster before absolutely flooding the zone with voting rights legislation in hopes they can't strike it all down and fuck voting rights precedent even worse? Good thinking, Mr. Brannigan; SCOTUS-bots have a pre-programmed judicial review limit, after all. (They do not.)
The filibuster is one of their rotating villains. They dont try to change the system because they benefit to much from it.
Without it they would have passed a anti voter bill that would guarantee they never lose this year.
No the issue is Republicans/their voters have been consistent in their shitty behavior. It builds up and gets things done for them
Every two years Democrats go to the polls, maybe, and then throw up their hands when everything isn't fixed, demand new politicians and continue to argue amongst themselves as the left has always done because it's not about fixing things, it's about being the more correct liberal/socialist/whatever else you wanna be. And the cycle repeats.
When was the last time any leftist had power in the Dem party?
Uhh? What? Literally irrelevant to what I'm saying.
Republican voters consistently turn out and vote for the same stuff, consistently. This isn't the case for Democrats.
Why does it matter who is in power? Lmfao
It matters because the left wants representation, but the Dems have never allowed them to even have a scrap. Just look at how not a single one came out in support of Mamdani till the literal last second when they figured they could maybe get a few lefty brownie points cause they figured we wouldn't notice. Even a centrist like Sanders had the entire party work against him so the right winger Hillary could take the nomination.
Democrats.don't represent left wing voters. Democrat s ensure left wing voters have no representation
Frankly, Biden should have used the "official acts" ruling to stop SCOTUS from being 6-3, one way or another.
Thats cute that you havent noticed democrats always have a rotating villain to foil everyones plans
Speaking of those: did you have one you wanted to discuss? I assumed from the contents of your post that it's just "twy weewy, weewy hawd".
Liberals ask for plans as a thought terminating statement. They dont want plans, they want everyone to shut up and do as they are told
Sooo .. no plan then?
We've been laying out what is to be done for over 100 years, but liberals want an echo chamber that soothes their cognitive dissonance, they want confirmation bias to the things they already support.
Could you provide a good book or website that outlines the plan to migrate a modern capitalist country to whatever it is youre proposing? It would probably help if you also had some information about what you think the ideal alternative is.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/
Thanks!
The first step is refusing to support capitalist owned parties, which encompasses Democrats and Republicans
My immediate thought is that there probably needs to be more to this plan because that just seems like shoving your head in the sand but I going to assume there's more to it and will RTFM first. Thanks again for the info!
"Thought terminating"
You don't even have any thoughts to terminate. You're literally being asked to express them, and you're dodging the question because clearly you have no thoughts to speak of.
Indeed. They're contolled opposition