this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19098 readers
3066 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that 'some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest' of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called 'social fascists.'

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Marx didn't live long enough to see just how ineffectual that line of thinking actually is.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago

I don't think "ineffectual" is the word you're looking for there.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Is the US Socialist? Has Socialism been brought about by establishment parties anywhere in history?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nope, which is part of the problem.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yep, which is why Socialists answered the Reform or Revolution question in Marx's time quite definitively. The answer is Revolution.

[–] dubious@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

careful what you say to jordanlund. he's a mod and despite his supposed love for socialism (and chaotic good t-shirt), he likes to ban accounts that promote violent revolution.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

If my relatively tame comments defending the basics of Marxism get me banned, then they will be doing me a favor.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 0 points 2 months ago

Admins and mods in the West are walking a fine legal line, and servers can be seized. Not saying I agree with it, but that I do recognize it.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

FDR was a Social Democrat, not a Socialist.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Slow motion is better than no motion.

It's pointless to argue over who is a 'real' Socialist. I can come up with arguments about anyone you care to name to prove they weren't 'real' Socialists. What are the policies that actually improve people's lives?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

FDR was okay, then his safety nets were stripped away. They were only ever temporary concessions because Capitalists were always the ones in control, and they still are. In this manner, it was eventually no motion.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

then his safety nets were stripped away.

Almost as if it's important to get out and vote in every election.

Ronald Reagan sabotaged Jimmy Carter's Iran policy and squeaked in with the help of spoiler John Anderson.

You yourself said it; there were good policies in place, the Right hated them, and used a lot of dirty tricks to get rid of the good policies.

Having good government is like controlling diabetes; you have to be vigilant all the time.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Jesus christ, that's just not what socialism is.

There's a reason why social-democrats are castigated in communist circles. Social-democratic policy is always inevitably eroded because social safety nets don't solve the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. It isn't a matter of 'getting out the vote'

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've spent decades listening to Communists tell me that the revolution was just around the corner.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And i've spent decades listening to liberals tell me that capitalism just needs to be reformed.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So we agree. The Communist revolution isn't coming anytime soon so we should work with what we've got.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Well, either you think the revolution is close at hand, or you think it isn't and people should suffer as much as possible.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Either you think reform will liberate the working class from capitalist oppression, or you think it can't and people should just shut up about it already.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The US got an eight hour day, child labor laws, environmental laws, and things like Social Security and the ADA without a revolution, so yes, I do think reform is possible.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lol, well sounds like everything is going swell then no need for revolution!

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Funny thing is that I was taught by some old school Communists; folks who fought in Spain and came home to face the blacklists. Back in 1968 they were telling people to vote for Humphrey because they knew how bad Nixon would be.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How could I have possibly questioned your communist educational backround lol

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Funny. You say you're all for a blood soaked revolution, but you aren't in Palestine or Ukraine or Yemen or any other place where real bullets are flying.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 2 months ago

"You say you oppose capitalism, and yet you exist in it? Interesting...."

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Almost as if the point of socialism is to strip away the the means of production from the capitalists in order to install a dictatorship of the proletariat, and not simply apply social safety-net band-aids so that capitalism can continue to function.

American liberals are so exhausting in their selective application of definitions.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

100%, I'm trying to get them to come to that conclusion on "their own."

American liberals are so exhausting in their selective application of definitions.

Would make things a lot easier, lol

[–] GlobalCompatriot@lemm.ee -3 points 2 months ago

If it wasn't for his Secretary of Labor, Francis Perkins, who was socialist, none of the things that he passed would have ever come to fruition. He gets way too much for credit for the ideology of a female socialist

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Same capitalists trying the same failed tactics of voter suppression.

Every one of his perspectives of capitalism and it's bourgeoisie governments still rings true.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Rings true, isn't true in actual practice.

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Sounds a lot like the Trumpers decide if something is true to me.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago

Rings true in practice