this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
114 points (78.8% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

3189 readers
747 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

Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Grebes@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I don’t think the current facists in charge are doing it incrementally. You don’t acknowledge any changes or improvements over the last 200 years due to incremental progressivism?

Slavery took a civil war but women’s rights, gay rights, minimum wage, social safety nets (granted not at the level they should be), etc. I’d argue there has been lots of progress. If anything, the last 10 years have shown that getting discouraged by imperfect progress and not voting (even for the lesser evil, who do sometimes surprise us) can lead to very quick backslides. We’ve literally lost rights and baked in harder obstacles to progress by not choosing the lesser evil when that is the only realistic choice. I’m discounting revolution there because again it doesn’t always end how it starts

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don’t think the current facists in charge are doing it incrementally.

Yeah. Funny how incrementalism isn't the only way to accomplish things. But it's a great way to not accomplish them.

Slavery took a civil war but women’s rights, gay rights, minimum wage, social safety nets (granted not at the level they should be), etc. I’d argue there has been lots of progress.

There has been progress. And incrementalists love to take credit for it because they have none of their own. Women's rights took a constitutional amendment, you can't creep up on those incrementally. Roe v. Wade was a court case. Also not incremental. Minimum wage was instituted as part of the New Deal. FDR was not an incrementalist. Same with social safety nets. Those were part of the New Deal and Great Society plans, which again, were not incrementalist. But the Clinton-era welfare "reform" that surrendered to the racist "welfare queens" rhetoric of the Reagan era was incrementalist.

If anything, the last 10 years have shown that getting discouraged by imperfect progress and not voting (even for the lesser evil, who do sometimes surprise us) can lead to very quick backslides.

Then the party shouldn't have stymied progress and called it "incrementalism".

We’ve literally lost rights and baked in harder obstacles to progress by not choosing the lesser evil when that is the only realistic choice.

We lost those rights because the party thought second worst was good enough to win.

[–] Grebes@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’m not sure what your definition of incrementalism is. A law passing or court ruling on a single issue is not but a reform of a law is?

My point was not defending some ill-defined “incrementalism” but to just say that all issues won’t get addressed at once. Look at the ACA, watered down and not enough but it did get millions of people insurance. It took so much political capital to get it in that form and it still became a beating stick for the Right for decades. It’s a ad campaign against billionaires that’s needed for anything expanding the government.

People don’t want to vote for anyone who can’t move a mountain in less than 4 years, or in this case someone who can’t move a hundred mountains.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I’m not sure what your definition of incrementalism is.

It's what centrists call doing nothing while everything slides to the right. They pretend it's a virtue.

Look at the ACA, watered down and not enough but it did get millions of people insurance.

It was 15 years ago. How much longer are we gonna coast on a less generous version of a Heritage Foundation policy that manages to keep getting worse every year?

People don’t want to vote for anyone who can’t move a mountain in less than 4 years

I don't know about others, but I got pretty fucking jaded about democrats' claims that everything they do has to happen on a geologic time scale when they snapped to attention to give Netanyahu what he wanted immediately, and without the holy Parliamentarian's approval.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Our current conditions were a result of small incremental changes.