this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
242 points (84.2% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3199 readers
115 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
Ok. You're just a "technically true" guy. God, it's fucking exhausting. You're just telling me you're incapable of discussing/understanding what my original comment, and your linked article, were even talking about.
I made the mistake of reading the article you linked and responded to it as if you actually understood it or held that position. You don't even understand the subject enough to even argue from the position of what you linked to in the first place.
I responded to the meme and pointed out the inaccuracy.
That inaccuracy does not mean I think women had equal access to banking, nor does the article. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue a point neither my comment nor the article I linked is trying to make.
No, you're literally just being a bad faith reductionist mate. At least I hope so. I really hope you're not arguing such an inconsequential point this far into a thread.
And that article is a purposely written essay meant to reduce a complex system of patriarchy and intersectionality into simply a list of laws and generalizations. That's my criticism of you AND that article. But you're not even responding to that criticism. You just keep repeating your bad faith reduction over and over without addressing anything from my initial comment.
I'm allowed to criticize you and the article beyond some artificial restrictions you want to add through your bad faith reductionism.
Sure, it's the internet. You can do what you want.
It just seems bizzare to keep trying to argue against a point no one was making...
It'd be like if I wouldn't stop responding to people in this thread going "yeah, but what about the Gulags? And could women who weren't members of the Party be Cosmonauts? Why won't you respond beyond your artificial limitations!?!"
It's just kinda weird.
You're incapable of responding to criticism mate. You literally just keep picking a single thing to respond to that isn't even being contested. What was my last comment about? Seriously. Your response doesn't even address what I was critizing you for. You might as well be responding to my criticism with "nuh uh" like you're a child.