If so I’m a 35 year old gen z lmao

“I wasn’t familiar with your game” moment lmao

Whether you like it or not they don’t see your vote as an endorsement of the marginal differences, they see it as an endrosement of everything they’re doing, including that genocide thats going on.

Why don’t you care about any of the people in America?

As a disabled person living off federal benefits, with a transgender girlfriend living in a red state, I’m literally got skin in the game personally, so don’t tell me that I don’t care about people living in America. The problem is there is an active genocide going on and the Biden adminstration, including Kamala, are supporting it.

If you think the parties are the same on foreign policy but the Democrats are better on all the thing I mentioned, doesn’t that still mean the Democrats are less terrible?

I dont think they are materially better on the things you mentioned on the federal level as I mentioned in another post. The best they’ve done is nice sounding words. Another thing you forgot to mention btw is immigration, on which Biden has somehow managed to be materailly worse than Trump lmao. So theres that too.

and I would very much like to have an option that wasn’t, but I don’t, do I? I have to chose between the options given, and as bad as they are they’re clearly the less bad option.

You have options that aren’t that and they all involve doing literally any political thing other than voting. I literally don’t care if you decide to vote for Kamala, especially if you live in a swing state. Just please, god, take your eye off electorialism because it won’t save us.

outlaw trans people

What, materially, other than nice sounding words, has Biden and federal-level Democrats in general done to counteract what is happening to trans people in red states right now? What indication is there that Democrats care to do anything for trans people on a federal level? On the state level, sure, there’s been some action to make blue states sanctuary states and such, but federally?

abortion, birth control,

Again, what have Biden and the federal level Democrats done about this? Did they codify Roe while they had the chance? Did they pack the courts so Roe couldn’t be overturned? Did they build abortion clinics on Federal land? Or did they just, yet again, say nice words?

end unions

Biden literally broke a strike lmao. Personally, by his own hands. One of the few proactive things he has done in his whole presidency is to actively break a strike.

end democracy

We already don’t live in a democracy. Youre choice is between outright facism and pretty damn close to fascism, and in most places in the country you dont even get to contribute to that choice.

and otherwise just be totally as bad as Republicans

On forgein policy and economics? Yeah pretty much. On social issues? Democrats will say nice words but, again at least federally, not materially do anything.

Roe v. Wade certainly would have still been overturned if the election in 2016 had gone the other way, too, right?

2016 is in the past and you learned the wrong lesson from it. 2016 taught us that running a shitty milquetoast war criminal neoliberal candidate that noone other than wine moms likes against fascism (and pied pipering him as the nominee because you think you can beat him in the process btw!!!) doesn’t work. And again, both Obama and Biden could have codified Roe and didn’t. And Biden could have packed the courts to prevent the overturn.

All in all, electorialism won’t save us. And the violent solutions you wanted to avoid in your first post are actually our only way out of this mess. But they need to be organized.

I think the thing that most impresses me about this post is how you just completely neglected to mention forgein policy in your list of things like at all. The Democrats and Republicans being the same regarding supporting the US Empire (besides one side or the other pretending to be anti-war while being in the opposition sometimes, but not following through on that once in power) is a huge factor here lol. Really shows your priorities and that you just do not give a single shit about the global south.

The Democrats literally gave a standing ovation to Netanyahoo a couple of days ago,

Err, I mean, I’m on your side in the overall here and think the lemme moron youre arguing with is an idiot. But roughly half of congressional Democrats were not even at the speech, so just saying lets keep our counterpoints in the realm of what actually happened. To be clear, pretty much all the skips announced reasons that were pretty weaksauce so I’m not particularly impressed by most of them. But still, the congressional Democrats did not, as a group, all give a standing ovation to Netanyahu. Thats just inaccurate to say.

Conservatism isnt “when you are rude”.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Do you think sex workers benefit from the system that tries to exploit them? Do you or dont you think that sex workers are complict in rape culture? Because accusing sex workers of being complicit in the system that exploits them is what makes it SWERF bullshit, not the mere criticism of sex work. Thats where the line is.

You can criticize sex work from this angle without implying that the sex workers themselves are complicit.

It sounds like the implication here is that sex workers are complicit in rape culture or something. Boilerplate swerf bullshit.

Sources on one particular point I recently gathered, which is the peace deals being offered by the Russian side: https://archive.ph/9BVwS https://archive.ph/LrOtO

“social democracy is the objectively the left-wing of fascism”

What I don’t get about this one is that we generally protest when liberals call Putin a fascist/Russia a fascist country (for example, there are other situations where we raise these protests) and say that “calling things that arent overt fascism fascism waters down the definition”. But then we say this? It just seems to muddy the waters. Either all liberal democracies are fascist or liberal democracy is a separate but still bad thing. I would lean the later.

Like maybe I’m missing something here, but my objection to “social democracy is objectively the left-wing of fascism” has always been that it waters down the definition of fascism. Not that I disagree that socdems will cape for facism when it suits them, or that they will use fascists against us when it suits them. Just that its still separate from fascism definitionally.

there would need to be institutions set up to perform executions on a mass scale and institutions perpetuate themselves

This is a good point I hadn’t even though of yet! I’ll add it to my quiver.

Non-negotiable.

Mooooooooom, autism dragon’s going to die on this hill again.

Whether or not capital punishment is acceptable is actually a pretty highly debated subject in leftist circles, even in ML ones, believe it or not. Ive spoken to many leftists (including MLs) who, like myself, think that retributive “justice” is a poisonous policy for a state to carry out, no matter how evil the individual being killed or otherwise punished. Others believe it should only be carried out in the most extreme situations, the iceberg tip of evil only. I’m pretty damn close to being an absolutist about rehabilitationism and restorative justice. My list of exceptions is very short and mostly based on pragmatism rather than “this person is evil enough that I would kill them”. And I do carry that out to Nazis, maybe not like, Himmler, but definitly rank and file Wermacht members who I see as absolutely capable of being rehabilitated. Killing them just because its easier is a waste of a life that could be saved.

I know, I know, “dont execute Nazis” seems like a bad hill to die on. And if after a revolution the state decides that executions of reactionaries is necessary then its not like I’d betray the revolution over it. I’d advocate against it (in a democratic centralism way) but I’d still stand strong in communism and support the revolutionary state. And I wouldn’t weep over a Nazi corpse. But my position on capital punishment, and retributive justice, remains what it is. My preference for how these things are handled remains what it is.

Obviously, there are situations where for practical reasons capital punishment is necessary pragmatically, like the Romanov killings, but I consider that a tragic situation and not something to be celebrated. And also obviously, the actual process of revolution will involve a lot of killing of those who take up arms to oppose revolution, and the leaders of the counter revolution and such. But again, I see that as a practical necessity not something to be celebrate. It should be something we HAVE to do, not something we WANT to do.

The bloodthirst in leftist circles has always been the one thing I’ve found difficult to vibe with. I’ll engage with it for either reasons of catharsis or genuinely believing killing a particular person would prevent worse things from happening, but I try to fight even the catharsis urge and don’t celebrate pragmatic killings. I don’t weap over them either, its a neutral necessity to me.

I know the responses I’ll get her already so

• “No excuses for the terror” - I really can’t say anything but "Yeah, I know he said that, but I don’t agree with the extent that leftists take that as an excuse to be rabidly bloodthirsty and pointlessly cruel. I also think that since the days Marx said this we have developed quiet a bit on the front of things like restorative justice. And finally, I think Marx was talking about the process of revolution here, not a post-revolution State.

• “What, so you think the Nuremberg trials were bad?” I have trouble with this one admittedly. I think there was some practical necessity to going through the process here, and that the Holocaust was so horrifying there was some practical need for some people to be punished for it. And I dont think anyone executed in Nuremberg could have been rehabilitated. But if I’m going to actually stick to my principles here, then I think everyone executed here should have suffered the same fate as Hess at worst instead.

Basically, I think in cases of someone who we know can’t be rehabilitated, we should just separate them from society somewhere minimally comfortable where they can’t hurt anybody. We shouldn’t even make them suffer, since again I think retributive justice is poisonous and infects the state and people doing it. The goal should be to keep society safe from them, but not try to “punish” them either.

• (in counter to the above point) “Its a waste of resources to keep them alive” - I think whatever minimal resources we use to keep such people alive are worth not poisoning ourselves with retributive justice, but I understand if you disagree. I don’t think the number of people for whom rehabilitation is truly impossible is large enough for us to say that keeping those people alive is a waste of valuable resources, because it wouldn’t be that many resources lol.

• “killing those 4 million nazis instead of releasing them after forced labour would have made the world a better place today” - Understandable argument, but my counterpoint is that rehabilitive justice wouldn’t be about putting someone in prison or forced labor for a “term” they “serve”. It would be about separating them from society until (and if) rehabilitation is achieved. And when a process of restorative justice is successfully carried out. This isn’t what the Soviets did, what the Soviets did with their 4 million Nazis is totally different from what I advocate for. And if a person never successfuly rehabilitates, then they should never reenter society. I would generally advocate that we keep trying with someone until either we succeed or they die, baring those extreme cases mentioned previously where we know there’s no point in trying, in which case we just put them somewhere where they can’t do any further harm.

I also think the vaaaaaast majority of our modern Nazi problem doesn’t exist because we freed former Nazis. Neonazis sprung up on their own and as far as I can tell were not guided by living former Nazis. A lot of the currently most Nazified areas are areas the German nazi party would have seen as Undermenchen anyway lol.

That said, I once again emphasize that I will not cry over Nazi corpses, and if the Soviet state had decided that executing all 4 million of these prisoners had been the way to go, I would defend it as something I personally wouldn’t have done, but understand the motive behind.

• “what about sociopaths who can fake rehabilitation and manipulate the restorative justice process” - First of all, this is a small percentage of people and not worth changing our entire policy over. Secondly, these people would simply be identified and treated differently as a result (that way would still not be execution). We definitly would have to be careful not to allow such people to abuse the restorative justice process to further abuse victims though, I agree with that. But a well crafted program would avoid those problems I think.

If this breaks the “no idealism” rule in the mods eyes, then well, I disagree because I know plenty of MLs who agree with all or most of my take here, but I’ll accept it if so.

And yes I know this is mostly a meme subreddit. But I’m autistic. Nothing is just a meme to me!

I swear someone could claim like “Russia is controlled by an army of demons” and if someone from Hexbear was like “actually that is not true you should stick to the realm of fact in your criticisms of Russia” posters you’d still get like “WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING RUSSIA? DONT YOU KNOW RUSSIA ISNT COMMUNIST”.

Still nothing bad about either Trump or Putin.

Its because we don’t have to convince y’all that Trump and Putin are bad because you already think that. We’d just be spitting into an echo chamber, preaching to the choir. There’s no point. To be clear we dunk on Trump all the time. We do not like him.

Why do you think that leftists have to say “but also btw Trump is also bad” every time we criticize Biden? That would make no sense.

The definition of right and wrong is always what is legal

Unless that law is a bad country’s law.

stop sucking off some dictators cock

Liberals and suddenly becoming homophobic when confronted with different views on geopolitics name a more iconic duo.