this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2026
599 points (88.2% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3842 readers
97 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, anti-communism, 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: Basic Course
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
The far right criticises the Dems as much as the left.
You 100% have to make it clear where the critique comes from.
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it's true or false. If you don't put truth first, you don't get to have a say in anything anyway.
MAGA criticizes the Dems for being too far left. I criticize the Dems for being too far right.
We are not the same.
Based
The source does matter. I won't support a MAGAt just because they bash the Dems.
If Putin said the sky is blue, would you suddenly insist its black?
Motivation and context matters because if you don't pay attention to them you risk ending up an accessory to some asshole's motte-and-bailey fallacy in progress.
You are now stating that the argument is not good, but in fact a fallacy. You are thus yourself, ironically, doing the fallacy you are talking about others doing. You have moved from the position of "dont engage with good arguments or criticism of they come from a republican" and are now pretending your position is "don't engage with bad arguments from republicans."
Doesn't matter, you get accused of being undercover MAGA anyway. Been there, done that.
Yeah any critique of Democrats get you called either a Russian shill, a bot or an undercover republican. Point out that Obama did fuck all about the Supreme Court or Clinton wrote the crime bill and that apparently means you love Trump.
And taking into account that Obama and a lot of other dems just chilled up with Trump and a lot of reps in the Island™, it's to know that most dems aren't good either. They both just want more power and all of your money.
Edit for the ones that downvoted me (just bc why not?): anarchy goes brrr, long life to anarchism.
Would depend on the content of the critique Id think, like, if your criticism of the dems is that theyre far too conservative, thats not the sort of thing that someone that considers conservatism a good thing would say. If you give some vague attack on their moral character or intelligence or such, that lines up more with how the right would also criticism them, and therefore invites more confusion.
Hence why I said that your criticism should make it obvious where you stand.
I'm not saying that you need to put "fuck the GOP too" next to every criticism. But if all you say is "fuck the Dems for ruining the country", it's not obvious where you stand.
"Fuck the Dems for being too conservative" on the other hand makes it obvious.
Both sides criticize them for being elitist and corrupt.
How do you distinguish between left and right, when the right have been brainwashed into thinking their side is the one "draining the swamp"?
That's a valid point. However it's usually made clear by the next sentence out of their mouth. Like there's an election around me that's the same thing. The Republicans keep making ads about how corrupt and elitist the Democratic candidate is and they are 100% correct. However I ain't voting for a republican if I'm worried about corruption. That's their policy.
We criticize them for vastly different things though… The right says they’re communists and we say they’re not communist enough (or at all, really).
Problem is that not all critique is equal. Someone can just barf in "dems suck" into an online argument, and that won't tell which side of the aisle they're on...
in a discussion about why democrats suck, talking about, republicans are not relevant at all. if someone makes a valid argument it does not matter if they are a republican.
“the dnc only back establishment candidates and will actively hurt progressive candidates even to ensure a republican victory” has nothing to do with republicans, and you can assume that i would make the same complaint of the republicans
Thats not a critique though, thats an opinion.
The primary difference is that Republicunts completely discount any thing that is left wing as impossible to achieve, often by using circular logic that boils down to a faulty appeal to authority (religion), with a light sprinkling of racism and white superiority rhetoric mixed in.
Leftists actually use verifiable data points and publically available economic figures mixed with objective reasoning to levy their critiques.
Reading comprehension includes understanding the implied context of the words, not just being able to pronounce them properly.
You really don't. Its pretty clear by what the critique is, whether or not it comes from a leftist or a right wing nut. Its only difficult to tell the difference if you lack basic comprehension.
It's easy to tell as the right's criticism is they eat babies, they're demon spawn, welfare queens, nothing true just emotionally applied rhetoric. Where as the left would say they're barely better than Republicans in regards to wars and keeping them going in perpetuity, they could pass universal healthcare instead of what the ACA was but through either naivety or incompetence reached out to Republicans to help make a plan "both parties would be happy with" for the Republicans not to vote for it at all.
Eh, universal healthcare got side shuffled by the insurance company consultants and thus got us the ACA, a compromised deal if ever there was one. We really need universal healthcare, but the Herbalife grifters wouldn’t then have as much ways to peddle their MLM.
Yes, this screenshot is just another “If you don’t understand my unqualified opinion you’re just too stupid to figure it out” hot take by someone thinking they’re the smartest person in the room.
No, criticizing the dems doesn’t automatically mean criticism of anyone to the right of them.
it’s not relevant