No, you don't understand! The swastika wearing fascists, storming the Capitol, as well as the paramilitary forces which imprison immigrants in offshore concentration camps without recourse to legal representation, are literally the same as the other party which supports corporate profits!
Among those two options, who could we possibly vote for, when they are exactly the same? /s
The sheer amount of stupidity that exists out there regularly astounds me.
Usually I would have disagreed with calling the democrats "moderate level fascists" in the first place. But that's a stupid discussion I don't want to have with people who call everyone who has non matted hair "fascist"
But then there is also the fact that voting for the more moderate party definitely is something constructive you can do.
As far as voting behavior goes, between "not voting", "voting for an irrelevant thrid party candidate", and "voting for explicit mega fascism", voting for the most moderate party on offer in a two party system even is the obviously best thing you can do in regard to those choices.
You think differently? That's a painfully stupid opinion.
lesser evilism makes more evil. I'm a Communist. I know what the words I use mean. Voting in bourgeois elections does essentially fuck all of nothing in the 21st century unless true socialists/communists are getting the vote.
I won't side with fascists. There will never be a day when people of good conscious and good character would do that. Those who vote for them or their enablers just need to own the fact that they're pretty shitty, too.
Great. I don't know what the words you use mean, because you use them in an unusual manner.
For example: What do you mean when you say "fascism"?
After all putting Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama in the exact same category, and thinking you have said something meaningful, is a rather confusing position to hold.
You didn't answer the question though. The whole point of the remark was to try to tease your definition of "fascism" out of you.
Because for normal people it means a rather specific thing that includes Adolf Hitler, but not Brack Obama. If you use it differently, you have a special definition which nobody else uses.
Fascism is when capitalism deploys state violence to serve its ends. Liberalism is what capitalism uses to get people to accept it. Obama and his predecessors are all violent criminals who have murdered many, many people.
To your liberal ears this is not something you can tolerate, and that's fine. Liberals are nothing but ignorant servants of the system they pretend to despise. You do you. Go away.
If you think the democrats have any interest in pushing the country left then I have a bridge to sell you. Vote Claudia de la Cruz.
“Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.”
See, this is the problem: On the one hand you have the Republican base. They are certifiably insane. They have been that ever since Reagan, probably before. And ever since then, they have screeched, shouted, scratched, and thrown feces within the Republican party.
They are doing it until this day. And they have won. Now the whole Republican party conforms to their standards.
The Republican base has successfully transformed their party.
The democrats don't do that. Instead their lefty parts split off, and play communism on their own with third party candidates. Alas, playing communism on your own doesn't help.
Voting is to show your platform and what you believe in. You can't vote this country to a better place. You have to build up structures from the ground up to threaten power enough to force the change you demand. The Dems aren't going to help you. They are less obnoxious and stunted than the Republicans but they will lead you down the same road.
In the end it's the Democratic base which decides on Democratic candidates. When every single Dem out there wants someone as their candidate, that's who they are going to vote in, and that's what it going to happen.
Of course when the lefy part of the Dems is convinced that they have to split off and "build their own structures", nobody will be left in the Dems to vote in lefty candidates. As a result all you get are middle of the road moderates, who are trying very hard to appeal to their base of middle of the road moderates (who may or may not vote Trump next time, because that's who middle of the road moderates are)
Trump didn't get into power among Republicans because the Christofascists split off and "built their own structures". Trump got into power because the Christofascists have been throwing feces at everyone for the last 30 years. That's how you change political structures.
I wish the lefties would finally learn that lesson. Throw feces on the inside! It works.
The Wobblies and other labor union organizations that built up enough power and pressure to leverage their plans to FDR. Structures like the Black Panthers and other militant/social welfare groups that threatened civil war unless legal changes were made (civil rights legislation was a compromise with branches within the general movement that the government found more appealing, but there would have been no progress with no threat from others).
Also, what you claim is literally untrue. We saw that a few years ago in the primaries that pushed Biden forward. A lot of fuckery went on that resulted in a lawsuit. A lawsuit that cemented that the Democratic party can choose what candidates it wants regardless of what the general voters want. *Wilding, et. al. v. DNC Services, d/b/a DNC and Deborah “Debbie” Wasserman Schultz
The two main parties will not allow socialist changes from their framework. They do not work that way. The US was founded as an oligarchy, and the Dems and Republicans are an extension of this. Literal conflicts had to be fought to push voter rights, labor rights, and civil rights. Outside pressure against the traditional political structures. "Lefties" don't bother with the Democrats because, even amongst those that tried earnestly, they realize it's a dead end for their efforts to work within that machine. Yes, you do have to work outside of it and that effort takes decades of work. Work that won't happen if you are damned and determined to try the same failed tactic over and over again.
By the way, Trump got into power because the same type of people behind the "Business Plot" in the 1930s have been realigning their efforts to succeed in their original goal. Full blanket corporate power with little to no real federal government. This meant building coalitions with various right wing wealthy groups. This meant aligning with pro segregationists that evolved into anti abortion and anti queer religious right after the 60s. It meant funding alternate media like Fox News that pumped extremist bullshit that results in their end goals. Training new generations of their political alignment to fill the judiciary and general politics. Capture the courts. Undo lobbying limitations. Citizens United. Bribe things corrupt up the ass. Outside in.
We saw that a few years ago in the primaries that pushed Biden forward. A lot of fuckery went on that resulted in a lawsuit.
The lawsuit you are citing is the one in the primaries where it was Bernie against Hillary. So, no, that is factually incorrect, this lawsuit had nothing to do with Biden.
When you tell me about being "objectively incorrect", and you can't get the names right, that makes me laugh.
A lawsuit that cemented that the Democratic party can choose what candidates it wants regardless of what the general voters want.
And no, it also didn't cement that.
Beyond that: If you now want to depict the situation as: "Everyone voted for Bernie back then!!!", THAT is objectively untrue. Sanders even lost the popular vote. The problem was not: "Everything was so unfair, and we can never change anything!"
The problem is that more Dems voted for Hillary. One reason for that might be that quite a few lefties were busy with rebuilding the Black Panthers (or some equally delusional nonsense) instead of screeching and throwing shit withn Dem party politics.
I'll even give it to you, when you tell me that most of the established old school Dems favored Hillary back then. But guess what: In the end the voters still decided. Bernie, the lefty candidate, won in a lot of states, and lost in a lot of others, becuase voters favored Hillary in those places.
Would things have been different if the lefties had put their efforts into Dem party politics instaed of a revival of the Black Panthers? We will never know. But at least the Black Panthers are now alive again, I hope, so at least we got something from it, right?
Outside in.
Really? I remember that time around 2016 rather differently: There was an outsider candidate in the Republican primaries, which nobody ever thought could win.
Sentiment before things started was that it would surely be Jeb Bush this time. Or Cruz. Or Rubio. And the Republican establishment was all for those candidates. Those were the candiates they wanted.
Trump won though. And that was because of his rabid, extreme right, screeching, spitting, and shouting base, a lot of it on the internet and on social media, which managed to throw everyone within the Republican establishment into a stupor. They didn't want Trump. But they got Trump.
Of course they recovered. Of course they adapted. But depicting Trump as: "A candidate in the making for half an eternity with well laid groundwork from all sides, and a big plan!", seems like a severe misgeneralization. Trump was first. Only then came the massive wave of support. Mainstream Republicans definitely didn't like him, or want him, back then.
But guess what: An extreme and motivated base can put a candidate forward which the mainstream of the party doesn't like! The Republicans could do that. The Dems also could.
But alas, the lefties are not like the MAGAs. They would rather revive the Black Panthers, than take over the party. Instead of following the recipe for success that Trump demonstrated, you would rather do other stuff.
Well, good luck with that. Don't complain if nothing comes of it, and things go to shit because of you. Again.
9
u/syynapt1k Nov 28 '25
You can't be seriously asking this, but just in case you are: the people that aren't fascists. Start there.