you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 9 months ago (75 children)

Unfortunately the reality is, that even though there is a lot of implied criminal activity on display with the Epstein files...there still isn't a lot of hard evidence. Without that, you aren't likely to get a conviction in court.

Someone mentioning a crime in an email, doesn't count as proof that a crime occurred. It just points you in the direction you should investigate further. If you still can't find any actual evidence to back up that allegation, then you still have no case.

  • source
  • hideshow 75 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (72 children)

    the high bar of proof is not an accident since it keeps lets the oligarchs go free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 72 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (58 children)

    They blew a woman's head off for the crime of talking back.

    But tell me more about our rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 58 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (48 children)

    According to the regime there was no crime committed. They are permitted to shoot and kill anyone they want and there are no legal means of redress, they have total immunity. In what world does that sound like a "right" to you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (46 children)

    If there is no legal recourse for people brutalized by ICE, then it is de jure legal for them to do anything they want.

    Remember what you said: "It also prevents people like Donald Trump from simply arresting his political opponents, based on nothing more than an accusation of guilt." It demonstrably doesn't prevent him from arresting, or killing, his political opponents.

    He can, in fact, arrest his political opponents. He's doing it right now. There's no legal mechanism to stop him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago* (42 children)

    You specifically used the word "prevent" but, if you have been paying attention, we aren't seeing prevention. What we see are our rights being violated by the regime and then the Courts ordering them to stop. That's not prevention.

    Also, I won't hold my breath. I don't think Renée Good's murderer will face accountability under this regime.

    Maybe if we are allowed to have elections and different people take power we'll see prosecutions, but that just demonstrates the point we're trying to make to you. Whoever is in charge decides what the law is and what rights you have, and while Trump is in charge he decides that his Gestapo has a right to murder anyone they want. If he loses power, that might change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (38 children)

    But you're moving the goal posts.

    You said the high burden of proof needed to prove criminal guilt is what prevents Trump from arresting his political opponents, but it literally doesn't do that. What it does, after they're arrested, is give them a potential pathway to regaining their freedom. Kilmar Abrego Garcia comes to mind, his life was hell for most of last year fighting against his deportation to El Salvador. He's walking free, for now, while he awaits even more bullshit trials. His ordeal hasn't even ended yet.

    Will Kristy Noem or Stephen Miller or Greg Bovino spend a day in jail for what they've done? Where's the justice?

    We don't seem to have rights, we have a system of privileges that can be revoked if the wrong people get elected.

    But you're right, the system isn't broken. It's working exactly as it was intended.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (36 children)

    You're continuing to blame the working classes for not having power within a system designed to keep us from it. We need socialism, not to try to fix capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (34 children)

    Socialism is a mode of production, characterized by public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. It isn't something to be "found," or something already present in capitalist society, it's something to be realized by overthrowing the capitalist state and replacing it with a socialist one. Even if every single working-class individual agreed that socialism is necessary, you still need to organize, and you still need to overthrow capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (32 children)

    We aren't at all saying the same thing. You're saying that the system is fine, but workers need to simply realize their chains and it will all be good. I'm saying that that's deliberate, and that even if everyone wanted socialism it wouldn't happen without revolution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (30 children)

    We cannot use the tools of capitalism for our advantage. Capitalist "democracy" is democracy for the capitalist class. The class that controls the means of production controls the state, and controls democracy. That is why the capitalist state needs to be smashed, and replaced with a socialist one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (28 children)

    Nope, democracy depends on the class character of the state, which is not outside of the context of the economy but deeply embedded within it. Capitalists select the parties we can vote for, their representatives, and use the state to overturn any meaningful change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (26 children)

    I'm listening to what you're saying, I just disagree with it. I'm not overthinking it, either. "Democracy" within the confines of a system where capitalists control the economy cannot be used to overturn their rule. You cannot ask them politely to give up their power, and they hold the state as well, even if the working classes were to win electorally, as Allende did in Chile and was coup'd shortly after for it. Revolution is necessary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (24 children)

    Correct, capitalist democracy is not democracy at all. Within capitalism, the ruling class either wins, or has the tools to walk back a loss, such as couping Allende in Chile after he won democratically. Both Trump and Kamala Harris are examples of genocidal imperialists, both are representatives of the ruling class, every president has been a representative of the ruling class in US history.

    If enough of us voted for PSL, the state would work against that unless we overthrow the state and replace it with a socialist one. This is reality, and as long as you remain trapped within the narrow mindset of bourgeois faux-democracy as your only option, then you will never get the change we need.

    You keep seeing the state as outside of society, outside of class struggle, outside of how we produce and distribute. If we understand the state as a part of society and not outside and above it, then we have to recognize the class character of the state.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (22 children)

    Nothing I said is contradictory, nor projection. If you want to establish socialism, you cannot just vote for it, you have to overthrow the state and replace it with a socialist one. Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. have already done so in the past. Engage with what I'm saying, I repeat myself because you keep making the same mistakes and dodging the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (20 children)

    The simple answer is that capitalist "democracy" is "democracy" controlled by capitalists. Capitalists control production and distribution, pick what parties can run, run the mass media and bribe officials. Socialist democracy exists in the context of worker control. You view democracy as existing outside of this context, usable by anyone for any aim, which is why you're running into the same mistake. Revolution means overthrowing the system with force, see what the bolsheviks did in Russia for an example.

    I have no idea where your condescension comes from, if you can't acknowledge the role capital plays in the state then you'll forever be confused.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    A wrought iron sledge hammer and a plastic toy hammer are both hammers yet they are qualitatively different. Liberal democracy and Socialist democracy are both a democracy yet are qualitatively different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    You’re treating democracy as class-neutral. That’s wrong. There is no abstract “democracy” floating above society, every democracy expresses class power. Liberal democracy is the dictatorship of capital: private ownership, capital controls media and institutions, and workers can vote forever without ever voting away exploitation. Socialist democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat: bourgeois property is abolished, exploiters are politically suppressed, and the working class holds state power. Same word, different class rule. Not “the same hammer used differently,” but qualitatively different systems.

    And your “what if someone exploits it again?” question just proves the point. Yes, class struggle continues under socialism. When new bourgeois elements emerge, you suppress them. That’s exactly what proletarian dictatorship exists for. Socialism isn’t a one-time constitutional tweak; it’s an ongoing process of fighting capitalist restoration.

    You should really read Chairman Mao and Lenin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production. That means capital rules no matter who you vote for. Workers cannot vote away private ownership of the means of production. That’s why Marxists call it the dictatorship of capital.

    Saying “just put someone else in charge” ignores how power actually works. The bourgeoisie doesn’t politely surrender its property because a ballot box asked nicely. Socialist democracy only becomes possible after that class power is broken, after bourgeois ownership is abolished and exploiters are politically suppressed. That’s not “using the same tool differently.” That’s a different state, serving a different class.

    And no, democracy doesn’t magically “free” you by itself. Liberation comes from class struggle. When new bourgeois elements emerge under socialism, they are suppressed, because socialism is an ongoing process of preventing capitalist restoration, not a one-time electoral event. You’re treating democracy as primary and class power as secondary. The opposite is true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production.

    I'm not the ones saying that...you are, with everything you just said in that comment. You are portraying "the state" as some separate entity that operates independently from the people within it. But, that isn't true. Those people make up "the state". It doesn't exist without them. So, yes...if you put different people in those positions, you absolutely can "change the state".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Of course the state is made up of people, but those people operate inside a pre-existing system of property, law, coercion, and institutions. That system doesn’t change just because you swap officeholders. Under capitalism, the courts defend private property, the police protect capital, the media belongs to capital, and the economy is owned by capital. Anyone entering that structure is forced to govern within those limits. That’s why workers can vote forever and still remain exploited.

    You keep saying “just put different people in charge,” but history shows what happens when elected governments seriously threaten capitalist ownership: capital flees, investment stops, media turns hostile, courts obstruct, and imperialist pressure mounts until the project is neutralized or overthrown. That’s not theory, that’s how bourgeois power has observably functioned from its inception . Liberal democracy allows rotation of managers, not transfer of class power.

    You’re also reversing cause and effect. Democracy doesn’t shape class relations, class relations shape democracy. As long as private ownership of production exists, the state exists to defend it. That’s why bourgeois democracy always resolves crises in favor of capital. It’s structurally designed to.

    Real change only begins when exploitative property relations are abolished and the old coercive apparatus is broken and rebuilt to serve the working masses. That’s when democracy stops being a shell and becomes material, because the people control production, not just ballots.

    I beg you to please read Lenin, and Chairman Mao you don't understand what you're talking about and they have far more extensive writing on this than I can fit into a debate with you on a message board.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    So...is this "Capital" in the room with us, right now? Is it wearing a name tag that says, "Hello. My name is Capital"?

    Is Capital really running the whole system? Or is it the people we choose to put in charge of that system?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    No capital isn’t a ghost with a name tag, it’s a material social relation: ownership of production, control of investment, wage labor, and the institutions built to defend them. That’s why elected officials who threaten profits immediately face capital flight, media attacks, legal sabotage, and economic strangulation, among other attacks, regardless of their intentions. You keep reducing structural power to personalities because liberalism can’t think past individuals.

    Again I beg read Lenin and Chairman Mao, looks into what was done to Aellende Sankara and Lumumba. Until you understand that class power determines the state (not vibes and ballots) you’re just repeating liberal talking points and it's not worth continuing this.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Nobody is saying democracy itself is bad, but that democracy in the context of capitalism isn't really democratic. Socialist democracy works, and does so far better than democracy in capitalist systems at achieving results for the working classes. We expect democracy to work differently in socialism because this is observably true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    What changes is that society, rather than being run by capitalists and for capitalists, becomes run by the working classes, and the state acts in their interests. This is reflected in policy. You have a metaphysical way of thinking that sees systems as being capable of understanding devoid of the context they exist in, as static, and in a vacuum, ie an impossible fantasy.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not talking about how individual capitalists or socialists use democracy, but how democracy as a system functions in capitalism vs. socialism. My point isn't that democracy is bad, but that democracy can only exist in the context of the class struggle, and in economic systems dominated by capitalism, the democratic institutions will inevitably be hollow and unusable for the purposes of establishing socialism.

    I absolutely understand the basic concept, my point is that socialists in the, say, US, or Canada, cannot use existing structures of "democracy" to bring about socialism. No cognitive dissonance on my part, just pure metaphysical thinking on yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not talking about how individual capitalists or socialists use democracy, but how democracy as a system functions in capitalism vs. socialism.

    You may as well be saying, "It's not who uses the hammer that makes it bad, but how they use it, that does." My brother in Christ...the person using it decides how it's used. FFS. You are talking in circles again without realizing you're arguing against your point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    do you ever wonder if someone is running interference on you?

    i ask because i'm likewise having to phrase and then rephrase repeatedly with someone else right now and that's preventing me from engaging with anyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Not really, sometimes I just think people can be stubborn, or simple miscommunication happens. Text isn't as clear as speaking in person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    They may get off. But I highly doubt Kristy Noem and Stephen Miller will. Or even Greg Bovino. The people responsible for the policies that led to those murders will be held accountable.

    fry not sure meme template, no text

    Not sure if you're doing a bit, but i'll bite: Can you recall any historical examples of US public officials being held accountable for their obviously-criminal policy decisions? Eg, remind me who from the Bush administration went to prison due to the fact that they (as Obama put it) "tortured some folks"? And who from the Obama administration went to prison for any of their war crimes (eg)? What makes you think it will be different for people like Noem and Miller? 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Rights are imaginary, it's always just been a question of power

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Seriously, every time I hear someone say "that's illegal, they can't do that" i want to bang my head against a wall. Watch them, they just did! So many people are stuck in this naive mindset of "what does the rulebook say" while governments correctly understand that in reality, the only question that matters is "who's gonna stop me".

    I'm sorry for what they've done, my condolences and I hope things get better for you soon

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It also prevents people like Donald Trump from simply arresting his political opponents, based on nothing more than an accusation of guilt.

    tell that to the people who were/are in ice custody (especially the american citizens); trump & epstein have proven (again) that the oligarchy can simply operate outside the scope of the law whenever it suits them any such rights can be easily disregarded.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    there's plenty of examples where it is true.

    the most recent one is the epstein illuminati broke many laws and only the sacrificial lambs will suffer any repercussions, if at all.

    a decades old one is that none of the police who bombed the black panthers were held accountable.

    both were illegal and both had the light of public scrutiny of it and none of the people committing those acts experienced repercussions.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (7 children)

    "Rights" are made up. Weve already established its rules for us, but not for them. "Rights" are phrased as a privilege, and if you pester the ruling class you get them taken away, but you never had them in the first place. Idk if you noticed, but voting hasnt put a decent president in office in over ten years. This is just civility culture lightly disguised. If justice needs done, theres only one way that it is going to get done, and thats not by endless appeals to the ruling class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    The ruling class has power because they are the dominant class, controlling the principle aspects of the economy and the state. A more engaged working class within the confines of a capitalist system will not actually make the difference you think it will. It isn't a question of moral apathy, but a real, material process and system with real imbalances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    The opposite is actually true. The working class is actually the real driving force behind the economy and the state. We represent the majority. That gives us the real power.

    The working classes are what actually creates new value, yes, but we do not control the economy nor the state. The state, in capitalism, exists to protect capitalists, and cement their ownership. We do not control the economy, we merely fuel it, until we can establish socialism by overthrowing the capitalist state and replacing it with a socialist one.

    This is also not true. As the majority, the working class has far more leverage than you think. We can stop production any time. Pull the whole thing down, or start it back up again. The only reason we don’t exercise that power is because we are not engaged.

    Strikes are helpful, as is organizing. This isn't acting within the confines of the system, though, but struggling against it. The reason we don't isn't because we are apathetic, but because we aren't organized.

    You are correct…it isn’t about “moral apathy”…it’s about political apathy. The “real, material process and system of imbalances” only exists because the working class chooses not to exercise its power.

    Incorrect. It isn't the working classes failing to choose, and again, you're under the mistaken assumption that the working classes can direct capitalism. You are making a moral judgement of the working classes, but instead we need to actively organize.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)