this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
144 points (79.0% liked)

Memes

56047 readers
368 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] huey_m@reddthat.com 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

100% not a psy-op or collusion. They really just both bought deeply into the shift to neoliberalism in the 80's, and it has so defined politics for the last 4 decades that few politicians have wrapped their heads around the fact that the continual rejection of both parties by the people is really a rejection of that neoloberalism that we're clearly in the death throes of. Trump succeeded not because every person who voted for him was a racist (I mean, that's definitely a big cadre among his supporters, but it isn't what got him in), he succeeded because people are so desperate to end the neoliberal norm that's crushing everyone that they'll vote for a guy that literally soft-pedals fascism over another neoliberal.

But I really do think the majority of them are true believers. They've been born and raised in that politically environment. It's all they know and they really can't imagine anything else, even if it's really only been a few generations ago that things looked very different.

[–] ILikeToMeow@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The "Founding Fathers" (rich slavers) had set up the "Democracy" (of the rich) with "Checks and Balances" to prevent the "Tyranny of the Majority" (Actual Democracy) precisely so the Capitalist Class (them) would remain in complete control. Considering this, it is very unlikely the modern Capitalist Class would somehow not be aware of the ways their own class has set things up to keep themselves on top and the rest of us underfoot. It is much more likely they know exactly what they are doing up on the stage, that all the real decision making is done behind closed doors, that the Billionaires and Trillionaires get the final say, and that the electoral clown show in the big party tent exists to fool the populace, only different from the start in that they got better at it. I remember when Biden straight up looked like he was having an orgasm in response to Trump "winning the election" as if it's what he wanted to happen, like say, because it would mean they can get everything they want WITHOUT having to hide the shit they do, and so Trump also functions as a scapegoat, if they get everything the want to just "cast all the blame on Trump" Trump goes off to live in blood soaked luxury, having done his job, then the Democrats swoop in to "save the day". Such a tactic can only work however if people fall for the clown show and don't realize that it is the entire Capitalist system itself that is the problem and the only way forward is to overthrow it and replace it with a Socialist system.

[–] huey_m@reddthat.com -4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't entirely agree.

While I don't agree with the way Congress is arranged with a clearly establishment-favoring Senate, we shouldn't take this to mean there's no such thing as a tyranny of majority as we've literally seen it play out historically many times. Look at Jim Crowe laws passed by majority white populations that harshly kept black Americans down for years up into living memory. Or anti-gay laws... tyrannies of majority 100% happen and it's a big reason why we have specific Constitutional rights that try to prevent it. Groups using democracy as a cudgel to smack down other groups certainly happens though. I would agree that the Senate is more about preserving current power structures than actually trying to prevent that though.

I also just don't agree at all that Biden wanted Trump to win... I think this is a hammer looking for a nail and seeing one, honestly. We just aren't going to agree on that point and aren't going to see each other's point of view, and we're not going to be able to prove hidden intentions, so I'm not sure this point is worth harping on. What I would say is that as Democrats and Republicans are both neolibs, Democrats would sooner see a Republican elected over someone they deem to be an actual threat from the left.

[–] ILikeToMeow@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

This post is an excellent example of why reading Marxist Leninist Theory should not be treated as optional, there is so much wrong with the post I'm not even sure where to start, and I don't really have the energy for it either, so unfortunately we'll just have to leave it at that. (BTW Cowbee has an excellent guide to help you get started Basic and Advanced)

[–] huey_m@reddthat.com 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I'm very well aware of it and have studied it in an academic setting. It isn't all correct. It has insightful points that should be incorporated into a more well-rounded worldview rather than slavishly adhered to. But I came here to avoid reddit passive aggressive toxicity, so we'll just leave this conversation at that.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I’m very well aware of it and have studied it in an academic setting

I don't wish to be dismissive I simply find it exceedingly hard to believe that in Amerika land of McCarthyism home of the red scare it is possible to achieve anything even close to a proper study of Marxism-Leninism in an academic setting.

[–] huey_m@reddthat.com 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Then you should probably reconsider if maybe your assumptions about my background were probably a bit too hasty and reconsider how you approach people going forward? I never said I studied it in America, and I do not live in America.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

Not really the wild assumption you're attempting to make it out to be.

we have specific Constitutional rights

You're clearly Amerikan the vast majority of which have never left Amerika. My doubt in the proper study of Marxism-Leninism in academic settings also extends to every US client state (all of Europe including the UK, Japan etc.).

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

A distinction without a difference. There is no need for collusion when you're moving in the same social circles, meeting the same people, having your campaign funded by the same social class with the same needs and objectives.

And yes, Trump was a mold breaker there, but only as a facade, the reality is not that Trump is "rejecting" neoliberalism, it is that neoliberalism is breaking apart, by its own incoherence, in the US as everywhere else.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 1 day ago

To deny the difference is to deny what makes the spectacle compelling

[–] huey_m@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Second part first, agree totally. I don't mean to suggest Trump truly represents some sea change against neoloberalism... but his rhetoric was very much a rejection of a lot of it. He's absolutely a liar in terms of actually representing change from the status quo... he's a pure kleptocrat, plain and simple. But the point is that facade is what resonated with people because even those without the knowledge base or words to form why they're over neoliberalism, are very much over neoliberalism. Regular people, not, not just political nerds.

First part, hard disagree because it informs strategy on how to move past it. If you believe both sides are colluding to keep the masses down and there's no real electoral path to improvement... well, we're at the stage of violent revolution and there's no point faffing about further. Neither of us are out there with rifles yet, so I'd argue neither of us really, truly thinks that's the case yet. Because that actually does happen in places like Gaza, and for good reason - they literally have no other recourse. We've got the table tilted against us, but ultimately we can and do upset the institutional power still. Trump, while he didn't represent real change, was absolutely totally rejected by institutional power in his initial run and managed to win by establishing a faux-populist cult of personality... that literally could not have worked if electoralism was truly totally dead.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

well, we’re at the stage of violent revolution and there’s no point faffing about further

I do believe we are at the stage where this is the only means of change. We're not doing it because most people are still delusional (or generously, "hopeful") that we are not, or don't even think about changing things at all by desperation / capitulation / ignorance.

[–] huey_m@reddthat.com -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Then why aren't you out there doing it?

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Why do you assume they aren't? Because they can type comments?

[–] huey_m@reddthat.com -3 points 15 hours ago

Because nobody is.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] huey_m@reddthat.com -2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I just think it pretty clearly isn't the only way to fight established power when we saw a person that was hated by most establishment powers at the time of his first election and who spent half the money campaigning ended up beating them. Sure, he was obviously not interested in real change, but the fact is they didn't want him in and he got in anyway. Americans are done with neoliberalism and are desperately looking for alternatives. Even worse ones...