this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2026
304 points (67.8% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3850 readers
637 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
As opposed to choosing the greater evil for a change?
The actual issue is money in politics. It's the reason no politician wants voter reform. It's why Bernie never had a chance, not just as a presidential candidate. You need preferential voting, no more electoral college and no more Senate - pro rata representation only.
Slavery only ended after abolitionists stopped voting for the lesser evil. 50 years of voting for the lesser evil got them nowhere.
I don't know USA history very well at all, but was there really an election with a dramatically low voter turn out, which eventually triggered the civil war?
I just don't understand why the sentiment seems to be that if you advocate/participate in more change than just voting, then you should not vote, and if you vote, then you cannot participate in change more than that. Like surely these things can happen in parallel? Try to enact real change, but also vote for the lesser evil until those changes actually take hold?
The US has more than two parties, you dont have to vote for genociders
Ahh, I think I've been misunderstanding this side then. I thought it was along the lines of "don't vote since both sides are bad, instead protest and riot, etc", but it's rather "vote for someone else"
Not voting would also be better than voting for genociders
You can do a revolution and still vote for the lesser evil in the meantime. Not voting supports the others.
If the message is "revolutionize!" say that, don't imply to stop participating in democracy.
No, the message is "don't expect things to get better when you vote for genociders" you imbecile.
lol.
The collapse of a party and/via creation of a new one happened like 3 times in American history. How is banking on that more likely to help in the next 40 years than voting for the lesser of two evils?
How has the last forty years of voting for the lesser evil worked out for you?
How has changing parties 3 times in a quarter millennia stopped them from getting where they are now?
Wow, its almost like electorialism is a fundamentally broken tool that does not allow you to change the system!
How is what you are arguing not an argument against voting?
Then revolt AND vote at the same time.
There really is no reason to only do one of them.
"Oh you pointed out that voting for democrats is worse than nothing? Well better immediately organize a violent revolution, otherwise your argument is moot!"
You are aware there's other things a person can do than vote or immediately lead a proletarian uprising, right? You understand how disingenuous a proposition it is you are making, right?
Following your line of argument there is no reason to vote.