How far capitalists and the state are willing to go is as far as they think they can get away with.

I don't agree with this, but going along with it for the sake of the argument: By letting the greater evil get into power, you are showing them that they can get away with way more than if it were the lesser.

So let's say you didn't vote for the lesser evil and the greater evil has narrowly won. The greater evil takes away your right to vote and puts you into a prison camp. What have you gained, a sense of moral superiority? Was that worth it?

The only thing that makes an evil “lesser” is that there is less energy going towards supporting it. By putting it into power you make it the greater evil.

this just seems categorically untrue, unless you think that there are no meaningful differences in outcomes even between "lesser evils" and "greater evils" (in which case i would argue your distinction does not exist here and therefore is not useful for the purposes of this argument). the idea that energy and power alone/even primarily determine "evil" in this context also seems deeply reductive--just because Nick Fuentes, for example, is not at serious risk of running the country does not mean his ideas are a lesser evil to the regular liberalism currently in power and only become a greater evil once he is.

"Lesser evil" shit is something everyone has to unlearn if they are ever going to help anyone.

I don't agree with the assertions you put forward here, but this one in particular I feel strongly about.

I feel this implies there are other better options available. And this is not always the case.

Harm reduction is something I believe in. Picture a person who is currently addicted to drugs. Their options in life have led them to a crossroads. They need to take something, otherwise risk having painful and potentially deadly withdrawal symptoms. However they know if they keep using, death is likely at the other end as well at some point in the future. In front of them they have 2 choices. A person offering needles. They know this person has been known to provide unclean needles, and using one could have dire consequences. The other choice is using a safe injection site that has been set up. One that can ensure they get as safe and clean of an injection as they can get right now.

While you never explicitly mention the presidential election that is looming, I would like to bring it to that as I feel that is the most relevant application to "lesser of two evils" that we are facing at the moment.

I agree that capitalism is a drug that will eventually get us all killed. The desire to squeeze everything out of something with no regard to how it ends up is where capitalism will get us to. However in this situation, I feel Harris/Walz is the safe injection site. I know I won't immediately get a disease / be labeled a child predator and be given the death penalty. Trump / Vance is the other option. They are the dirty diseased needle that will accelerate death and pain greatly. You may say you can just not pick either, but I disagree with this. Withdrawal will kill us. With the election we don't get the benefit of not choosing either. One of the choices will be made whether we like it or not.

The part you may disagree with the most and where I make my own assertions: I feel the general presidential election is not the place for the withdrawal option. This election is always such a focus, for obvious reasons tbf. But there is so much more than that. Withholding support at this level will not help things. It is so much bigger than us. Why not focus on local level things that can actually make an impact. Get socialists elected to local positions. A thing you can have a tangible effect on.

Focusing on the things you can change is what will get us out of this drug addiction that will one day kill us. Withdrawal and the dirty needle will kill us right now. But the safe injection site will give us the time we need to keep living and try and get out of the situation we're in.

I don't usually write long messages like this so I apologize if it comes off incoherent. I have ideas in my head but have trouble expressing them occasionally

"Lesser evil" is an idiom and as such should not be taken literally. It essentially means that between immoral options, the least immoral one should be chosen.

In a democracy, a voter will often have to choose between candidates while none of the candidates espouse the exact same positions as the voter. The voter is essentially faced with a multiple criteria decision. I’m against the idea of not voting on account of there not being a candidate filling all the criteria. Voting remains a fundamental way of influencing our governments. You can get involved in other ways as well if you wish to do more.

The “lesser” fascist is still a fascist, and fascists spend much more of their time attacking us than attacking each other, and on top of that even if they do attack each other it’s through attacking us.

But the Democrats aren't fascists, lesser or otherwise. They're not 'the Republicans, but less so'; they're a different organisation with different histories and philosophies, different people and different priorities. The Democrats, for example, are not promising to overthrow the constitution, but overthrow it a bit less than the Republicans; they're not planning to overthrow it at all. Degrees of evil are not possible in this case, nor in many others. The Republicans are straight up wrong in a way that the Democrats just are not.

For these reasons, I don't buy the framing of lesser evil at all. If I did buy that framing, I would still wholeheartedly vote for the lesser evil, because it would still be better than more evil, by definition. Even your definition of 'the same amount of evil, but slower', would be better.

I don't go in for this framing - it employs language that diminishes substantive policy differences and discourages engagement and turnout from people that share similar moral compass bearings, which only empowers those who thrive in low turnout elections and high apathy in the periods between them. It would be far better, from my view, for folks of all progressive stripes to be encouraging everyone to vote for progress at every level of every ballot, and highlighting local candidates that will help to push the top of the ticket and national dialogue towards even more progressive ideals. Positioning all options as evil has big "the bus boycotts won't get results and should stop" energy

Lesser evil is still evil, and small acceptable levels of evil over the last 50 years has grown into an enormous evil. It has produced people like Biden and Trump as being viable options.

'lesser evil' relies on a constant hypothetical worse future so you dont focus on the horrible present. It keeps you fighting for a mythical future so you don't demand better now.