this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2026
304 points (67.8% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3850 readers
602 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
So people who don't vote actually dont endorse a candidate. This is a bit of an advanced piece of politics, but the way voting in the US works is you vote for a candidate and if you dont vote for someone, then they dont get your vote.
Your logic rests on an assumption that the democrats are owed your vote, which they aren't. Had Harris won, then you wouldnt be saying the people who didnt vote passively endorsed her, but they would have done that just as much.
Those who don't vote are in fact doing the opposite of endorsing anyone, they are signalling apathy with the system.
Because the only political action one can take is vote, alright ๐ซฉ
You dont contribute to "lessening" evil by voting for a genocider.
You talk about sitting out of reality, yet you exist in some fantasy land where democrats haven't made everything much much worse
The only one that matters in the current reality. Yes
Not really, no. Your ahistoric approach to politics where you only think of the specific immediate moment is how we got here, and that thinking is how we stay here.
There are plenty of viable alternatives with a decent organisational structure already. One way to help them grow is to vote for them, and that is better use of a vote than wasting it on fascist genociders.
How did that third party vote work last time. Or the time before that. Or the time before that....etc etc etc.
Your fantasy vision is not reality. It is your fantasy. And your inability to see the difference is incredibly dangerous
This thread is so old there is no longer an audience and you yourself are clearly beyond reason, so I will not waste my time writing more responses to you in this thread.
Worked quite a bit better than voting for genociders, considering how you have to pretend to give a shit, AIPAC has become radioactive, everyone keeps bringing me not voting for a genocider up as the reason the genocider lost - thus actually making a demand of the candidates.
Tell me, how has it worked voting for someone marginally less aesthetically shit than the other guy? Have conditions improved or are you now at a spot where not even genocide is a red line for your candidate?