this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
259 points (91.4% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

3139 readers
603 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)

Wiki

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
anticolonialist@lemmy.world
K1nsey6@lemmy.world
259
"I'm speaking" (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 day ago by K1nsey6@lemmy.world to c/latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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".

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 22 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 1 points 38 minutes ago

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.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 10 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

So since the Supreme Court is corrupted, our national legislature should just give up and not even try?

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.)

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The filibuster is one of their rotating villains. They dont try to change the system because they benefit to much from it.

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago

Without it they would have passed a anti voter bill that would guarantee they never lose this year.

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf -3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 9 points 22 hours ago

Democrats.don't represent left wing voters. Democrat s ensure left wing voters have no representation

[–] Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

When was the last time any leftist had power in the Dem party?

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 1 points 3 hours ago

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

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago

Frankly, Biden should have used the "official acts" ruling to stop SCOTUS from being 6-3, one way or another.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -1 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Thats cute that you havent noticed democrats always have a rotating villain to foil everyones plans

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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".

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net -3 points 22 hours ago

Indeed. They're contolled opposition

[–] YoureHotCupCake@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I would also point out that Obama and the dems back then could have given us Universal Healthcare but instead gave us the ACA and passed it off as a huge victory.

It was indeed a huge victory for insurance companies who were allowed to continue profiting off us and get paid by the US government to do so. These days each year they have record breaking profits, while more Americans go homeless because of medical debt.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 23 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I would also point out that Obama and the dems back then could have given us Universal Healthcare but instead gave us the ACA and passed it off as a huge victory.

Tell me you remember literally nothing about the passage of the ACA without telling me you remember literally nothing about the passage of the ACA.

If you think "Obama and the Dems back then" could've passed universal healthcare, can you pass the icepick so I can understand better? Technically, numerically, if "the Dems" assumed a hivemind, they could've passed universal healthcare. They had a sizable majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Obama in the executive. Nobody's denying that.

But "the Dems" were never a monolith, and the ACA was already barely passed and wasn't even popular among the general public. Even if we (wrongly) assume the "does not address real problems" camp of the public opposition were entirely leftists who thought it didn't go far enough, "we could've had universal healthcare" is a ridiculous fever dream that only exists by taking a couple raw numbers wildly out of context.

The ACA was a victory because public support was just barely there, reflected in Democrats scraping together enough of a caucus to get it through. The fact this was so controversial is a joke, but it nevertheless represented a notable victory for Obama et al. because the country they were governing is so backwards.

[–] ChokingHazard@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago

Lieberman was the sole holdout preventing the inclusion of a public option. I vividly remember how the whip was unwilling to actually whip that vote out. Use Ted Kennedy’s file cabinet, etc.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Biden never had all that, McConnell bribed two to vote with him, never had the numbers.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

They always have a rotating villain to prevent process for the working class. If it's for the donor class it gets passed without debate.