this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
964 points (97.9% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

2284 readers
6 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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

As millions of Americans are about to go hungry due to the US government refusing to fund SNAP, just remember that only two countries voted against making food a basic human right. The US and the terrorist colony of Israel

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 52 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I just want to point out that Nov of 2021 was under Biden's watch.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 32 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Both sides, I guess. One side wasn't that great, and the other is setting everything on fire. Seems about equal. 😜

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 18 points 5 days ago (3 children)

More like: "if the one side wasn't consistently shitty (even if not as shitty as the other side), they might find more success in winning elections."

It's like they push the fucking envelope on how much bullshit we'll put up with and still vote for them. And unfortunately for all of us, they lost that bet in 2024.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

This is what I feel a lot of people miss. Yes, the Democratic party is far worse than we deserve. But they still manage to get away with being the second worst option and taking money from whichever evil billionaire wants to build an orphan crushing machine, because Republicans are able to give such stupid talking points and openly hire rapists and racists, and their base is brain-dead enough to give them that leeway.

That second bit is what I still fail to understand. They cater to anger even when that anger is facing the complete wrong direction.

It's a very corporate mindset. Any bullshit they could have gotten away with but didn't is viewed as loss while pushing it too far is just the cost of doing business.

It really is corpo ghouls vs death cult ghouls.

[–] PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

Oh shit, don’t you know you’re not allowed to say that on libby.world???

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago

It was Linda Thomas-Greenfield, appointed by Biden

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

wasn't that great

You people will never not be funny. Great to whom? People in Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria?

Just say you fuckwits only care about yourselves and try some introspection next time to think how it got to a point you have to choose between the lesser "evil".

You wanted less evil for yourselves, not anyone else.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 9 points 5 days ago

Starting off with "you people" always sets the bar for a good discussion. Maybe part of my sarcasm was referring to those situations as well as domestic problems, or how either or both sides could have done a lot better for decades. I wonder if you think all this is recent? I've been seeing this shit for decades, trying to change it... I guess it's my fault that it hasn't. This sure sounds like projection.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago

It depends who you mean by "you people".

If you mean "Liberals (in the American style)" you're probably right.

If you mean "Americans", you're wrong, not because many or most Americans think like that, but because many do not at all think like that.

PS: And I use "American-style" because I don't just mean those in America, rather any who believe in a certain kind of self-proclaimed "Liberal" politics which is the same as "Liberals" in America (basically Neoliberalism, with or without the Identity Politics decorative elements). People who believe in that kind of politics are definitelly not just in America.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And typical Democrat fashion they used a black woman to do their dirty work, to cast their vote against it being a basic human right.

[–] mech@feddit.org 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Does she not have agency to make her own choices?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 18 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Her choices were "follow instructions" or "find a new job".

[–] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago

Not necessarily!

She might just be ideologically aligned with her bosses and wants people to starve.

[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

How many branches of the US government were under Republican control though?

[–] officermike@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

Irrelevant. Who appoints the US ambassador to the UN?

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

how many branches of the US government were under Democrat control for how long and at what points but we still got no living wages, universal healthcare, police reform, clean environment, etcetera

Democrats have held a majority in Congress at various times, with notable periods including the long stretch from 1955 to 1995 in the House and from 1933 to 1953, the control of both chambers after the 2006 elections, and a brief, two-week majority in the Senate in 2001. The party's largest majority was in the 75th Congress (1937–1938).

House of Representatives

1955–1995: Democrats held a majority in the House for 40 years.

1937–1938: The 75th Congress saw the largest Democratic majority in the House.

2006: Democrats gained a majority in the House following the midterm elections.

2018: Democrats won a majority in the House again in the November 2018 midterm elections.

Senate

1893–1895: The 53rd Congress had a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate.

2001: Democrats held a majority for a short period from January 3 to January 20, 2001, due to the deciding vote of Vice President Al Gore.

2006: Democrats regained control of the Senate after the midterm elections.

2008: Democrats increased their majority in the Senate, and after the 2008 election, they briefly held a filibuster-proof majority (60–40).

Other significant periods

1933–1953: This period is known as the New Deal Democratic Era and saw the party dominate federal government.

1964: Following the election, Democrats had their largest plurality in history, leading to a Democratic majority in Congress and the 89th Congress.

2009: Democrats achieved a "trifecta" (control of the House, Senate, and presidency) after the 2008 election.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party#%3A%7E%3Atext=Aided+by+the+growing+opposition%2CTed+Kennedy+following+his+death.

https://www.senate.gov/senators/majority-minority-leaders.htm#%3A%7E%3Atext=From+January+3+to+January%2C%2C+effective+June+6%2C+2001.

https://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/10politics2.htm#%3A%7E%3Atext=In+thirty-two+of+the%2Cbreak+from+1955+to+1995.

democrats suck too quit trying to be an uncle tom defending

both parties suck and should be fucking obvious they are not going to shit for us no matter how many times vote straight ticket democrat or republican

forty fucking years was that not enough or did republicans fuck that up too somehow or the other voters democrats are always blaming or was the third parties again

make it make sense

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Easy. Democrats are sponsored by billionaires. So are Republicans, but they can be openly supportive of billionaires, while Democrats have to show they're here "for the people". If Democrats would get serious about anti-billionaire social policies, they would lose funding and media coverage overnight.

Just look at how they desperately try to tank Mamdani, despite the fact he is fully aligned with Democratic party lines and is immensely popular. Dems know that his "for the people" reputation, even if it's one mayor of one city, will make billionaires upset, and desperately try to reverse course. Also, other, way less popular candidates got more campaign funds, with much higher average donations - guess who got involved.

Uncle Tom?

I'm lucky enough not to be a yank

I live in a civilised country