INB4 tHEyrE AUthORiTaRiAn
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
46 points (65.3% liked)
Memes
54515 readers
786 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Even if the Democrats would've cut it USAID, they would've been far less sudden about it. According to people who work in humanitarian aid, the suddenness of Trump's cuts to USAID got a lot of people killed in the developing world.
And the system of sanctions, imperialism propped up by USAID, etc. kill half a million people per year. The DNC would've cut the "aid" in a harmful way anyways, meaning the lightbulb isn't changing. The US Empire isn't crumbling due to personal choices by the parties, but because imperialism itself is crumbling.
"Some of you may die, but it's a price I am willing to pay for the collapse of the American empire" - Lord Farquaad (Shrek)
No? Both sides are propping up a system that kills 500,000 people per year. Both would cut USAID, because the reason it was cut was not moral but economic. You're arguing to perpetuate the system of imperialism that kills 500,000 people annually because you think the 10 foot ladder can reach the 20 foot lightbulb.
The practical solution is socialism, which requires revolution and grassroots organizing. Not propping up imperialism.
Cutting USAID killed hundreds of thousands of people. How many the Democrats would've killed is almost definitely less, although how much less is up for debate. Maybe the wouldn't have cut USAID, maybe they would've just reduced it, maybe they would've cut it completely but done so more gradually.
They certainly wouldn't have left the WHO. Staying in the WHO is just good business sense, aside from for the private hospitals but the impacts of a highly lethal global pandemic on stability and on the safety of the rich isn't worth it.
And people will have more space to organize when under a predictably evil government than a chaotic one. Unless you're relying on the death and destruction for a recruitment drive.
Why? Both would have cut USAID, both kill 500,000 per year via imperialism.
Again, why? The US Empire is quite clearly trying to leave international organizations and replace them with new orgs like the "Board of Peace" that are even more nakedly US-dominated. This isn't simply random whim, but a response to the decay in capitalism.
This part is pure bullshit. Both the DNC and GOP crush leftist organizing and fund the groups that do so, like the NSA, FBI, and CIA. Organization is not "easier" under the DNC, and you would know this if you actually did org work in real life as a leftist.
All in all, you're justifying maintaining a brutal system that kills half a million per year. You also admitted to not reading my comments, so why do you expect people to take your arguments seriously in return?
The Democrats would've, at a bare minimum, left USAID slower. They wouldn't have sent Musk in to immediately halt payments, they would've just removed the funding from the next congressional budget. Aid organisations would've had warning and people wouldn't have been suddenly cut off from their HIV medication.
Leaving the WHO is not something even the rich are really calling for. It's a conspiracy theorist thing that Trump is pushing on a personal level. Nobody in the imperial periphery is really following him either.
I'm not going to bother responding to the last part. Unless it's easier to organize under the GOP, it's irrelevant. Hell the communist revolution is besides my point entirely. All I've been trying to say is that more people die when a Republican president is elected, and even if that might usher in a communist revolution you'd still be gambling with lives by choosing that.
Why? Why do you say this? You keep getting trapped in this idea of the DNC being "more moral" in actions, despite their actions still propping up imperialism and protecting it.
Trump cannot unilaterally do whatever he wants. The bourgeoisie as a class is not in lock-step, there are some that want to stay in the WHO, but the idea that a country can truly be unilaterally led by someone with no class backing is Great Man Theory.
I would never advocate for pushing for the GOP, as that's accelerationism, but it is easier to organize under the GOP. Democrats get more millitant when they see the failures of the DNC to resist the GOP, as they are on the same side, the side of capital.
Yes, because you don't actually want to end imperialism. That's why you like the DNC.
500,000 people die per year because of a bipartisan system of imperialism. My point is not that people dying under the GOP ushers in a communist revolution, but that both parties are aligned in materially supporting imperialism.
You also admitted to not reading my comments, so why do you expect people to take your arguments seriously in return?
I literally just explained.
You did not. You said what you think they would do, but it seems to stem from your insistence on their moral superiority.
The Democrats famously adhere to American norms. Do you think they'd suddenly start bypassing congress and appoint a special government employee to go around causing chaos? They're entire identity is "we'd love to, but we can't because of congress".
The DNC uses those excuses to not push for radical positive change, not because they actually believe that.
And they'll suddenly throw away that excuse that they've relied on for decades, just to spite the world's developing countries by cutting USAID funding a few months sooner?
Not for spite, to protect profits. You're relying on moralism over what actually motivates the genocidal imperialist parties.
From 1 democratic president ago:
Says the acknowledged Hilterite