No, it’s more of a Mussolinist party. Stalin wasn’t that bad.
I mean, I certainly support Bernie. He will do a lot of good, but I’m tired of people worried about Stalin when Trump is worse.
deleted by creator
This rhetoric adds nothing of subtance to the political understanding of either contemporary Trumpism or the history of Stalinism. Sanders only serves to obscure the meaning of this critically important understanding. Fascism and Stalinism are not the same.
To be clear, Stalinism took hold in the Soviet Union as a result of its historic backwardness and international isolation. The failure of the revolution to take root in Europe (largely a result of the historic betrayal of Social Democracy in the Second International) created conditions for the consolidation of a nationalist clique and a bureaucratic degeneration of the workers state that formed from the victory of the October Revolution. That is Stalinism. This political form was responsible for mass murder of the old cadres of the revolution who opposed it, systematic betrayal of the workers movement internationally, collaboration with imperialism allowing for the restabilization of capitalism during its repeated periods of crisis, and ultimately the destruction of Soviet Union union and the restoration of capitalism in 1991. A detailed and correct historical understanding of this history is critically important for the working class as it enters into a new period of revolutionary struggle.
Sanders use of the term as a political slur wrongly directed at Trump confuses the issue, and ultimately gives capitalism a pass for its own crisis. Trump is not simply an evil individual responsible for wrecking America. He is the product of the terminal crisis of capitalism at the center of world imperialism. He represents a financial oligarchy whose wealth and influence has grown increasingly disconnected from social development and the process of production. The historic content of Trumpism has a stronger relationship to the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler than the national labor bureaucraticism of Stalin.
This is no small error by Sanders. This is a deliberate falsification that is calculated to confuse political consciousness and hinder the development of revolutionary conclusions. It should be clear to anyone who takes more than a second to think about it that the comparison to Stalinism is shallow. The historic content of Trumpism is its own.
the vote ratio on this chatgpt bullshit tells you all you need to know about how cooked lemmy already is in just 2 years…
I use my own brain for writing, thank you very much. There are clear mistakes in my OP, despite my best efforts, that all but prove the human origin or my writing.
Consider for a moment that people who use chatgpt to make content have already been adding prompt material to add in occasional human ‘mistakes’ for months now?
Ah, makes sense, I guess, since “flawless” writing is a known hallmark. I assure you that I do my own writing.
What about my writing suggests that it is AI generated? And to what end?
I made this mistake giving away my right wing forum slider detection tactics back in 2015-16, resulting in all the usual suspects changing their patterns within days and weeks.
So I’m not giving away anything other than there is a detectable pattern, and with time people can even usually identify Which AI generated it too. They have a certain tenor that’s recognizable over time.
And your post reeks of it
For what end? The usual, muddying forum discussion, wasting people’s times, souring sentiment.
It’s really shocking how quickly it’s spread here, I at least assumed we’d get a few years.
You must be the only real person on the internet!
Get a grip lmao.
The failure of the revolution to take root in Europe (largely a result of the historic betrayal of Social Democracy in the Second International) created conditions for the consolidation of a nationalist clique and a bureaucratic degeneration of the workers state that formed from the victory of the October Revolution.
What path should the USSR have taken instead? (genuine question)
The survival of the Soviet Union as a socialist state depended on the expansion of the revolution internationally. Stalin’s policy of building socialism in one country led to all manner of bureaucratic overreach with authoritarian methods and betrayal of the international working class. The correct policy would have been to spread the revolution throughout the world on the basis of Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution, as advanced by the Left Opposition.
The failures of the revolutions in Germany through 1923 were terrible tragedies, prepared largely by the betrayals of the Second International and the inexperiance of the new communist KPD of the Third International. This is not something you can really blame Stalin for, but it created the conditions for what followed.
The betrayal of the Chinese revolution of 1925–27 was the first great International betrayal of Stalinism. Stalin ordered an alliance with the bourgeouis Kuomantang that ended with the massacre of thousands of Chinese comminists at the hands of the nationalista. After that, he ordered a series of putsches that predictably ended in further defeats. Trotsky was expelled from the Communist party for his criticism of the line that led to this disaster.
The ultraleft line of the Comintern in its third period led to disaster and betrayal in Germany in the 1930s. Stalin divided the forces working class by refusing to allow a united front of the communists with German Social Democracy. The SPD still had significant influence in the working class, with over a million working class members who were trained in the revolutionary theories of Marxism. The KPD under the influence of Stalin denounced these workers as “social fascist” essentially no different than the Nazis, thus paving the way for Hitler to come to power (only to turn around later to make his infamous pact with Hitler). These events led Trotsky to conclude the Third International was dead for purposes of revolution, and to call for the founding on the Fourth International.
Fourth International called for political revolution in the USSR to restore democracy and defend the gains of the October Revolution and to expand the proletarian revolution internationally. Trotsky and large numbers of the cadre of the FI were murdered by Stalinist agents, who opposed this perspective. In the postwar period the role of the Stalinists was to use their influence to prop up bourgeois governments throughout the third world, and to effect its foreign policy objectives with respect to the imperialist countries. Stalin fell out of favor after Krushevs secret speech following his death, but the basic political methods remained the same.
The correct policy would have been to spread the revolution throughout the world on the basis of Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution, as advanced by the Left Opposition.
The failures of the revolutions in Germany through 1923 were terrible tragedies, prepared largely by the betrayals of the Second International and the inexperiance of the new communist KPD of the Third International. This is not something you can really blame Stalin for, but it created the conditions for what followed.
The ultraleft line of the Comintern in its third period led to disaster and betrayal in Germany in the 1930s. Stalin divided the forces working class by refusing to allow a united front of the communists with German Social Democracy.
What? These criticisms are all contradictory.
On the one hand, Stalin should’ve done more to spread the revolution to other countries, like Germany. On the other hand, he should’ve convinced the KPD to work together with the SDP instead of taking a more revolutionary approach. Were the SDP not the very people who were in the Second International and betrayed the revolution?
It seems kind of silly to blame the KPD-SDP split on Stalin considering that the social democrats both killed much of the KPD leadership (such as Rosa Luxembourg), and also continued using equivalent language about how the KPD were just as bad as the fascists. The SDP made the decision to align with the bourgeois parties and help them enact austerity policies during an economic crisis, and ultimately to back Hindenburg over Thälmann, who then appointed Hitler. The KPD felt that, in addition to the SDP being utterly uncooperative and uninterested in reconciliation, their association with crushing economic policy made them more of a liability than an asset - in hindsight, this was probably a miscalculation, but the blame is not entirely on them.
Now, if your position was that the USSR should have taken a realpolitik perspective and backed the anticommunist SDP to stop Hitler, despite their attitude to the KPD, that would be a coherent criticism - except that you also criticize the USSR for making a very similar decision in China. The USSR policy viewed the CCP as too weak to win a revolution, and instead aimed to achieve a united front, regardless of ideological disagreements.
Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this estimation was an error, but I’m asking for a single coherent path. Either be willing to compromise and work together with anti-communists like the KMT and the SDP, or take a hard line and support revolution - even in the face looming threats from the Nazis in one case and the Japanese on the other. Or, I suppose, take it on a case-by-case basis, in which case your criticism would be less ideological and more personal, regarding Stalin’s ability to assess foreign situations - and that’s a bit of stretch because I don’t think most of the leftists in Germany and China foresaw what would happen in their respective countries either.
Aside from these contradictions, I don’t really agree with the Trotskyist demand for an aggressive foreign policy. Of course, Marx predicted a global revolution but Marx was not a prophet, and socialist movements in other countries were not sufficiently developed to follow suit (as evidenced by the failure of the Second International). Trying to create an insurgency within another country is an act of aggression, at least potentially of war, and it seems like you’re demanding that the USSR should’ve gone to war with every country on earth simultaneously to compensate for the failure of those countries’ own socialist movements. That would’ve obviously been suicidal.
The USSR’s (post-Stalin) policy of “peaceful coexistence” was based on the correct understanding that such aggression would (perhaps correctly) be seen as a nationalistic act of aggression. Indeed, to the extent that the USSR expanded militarily, for example under Stalin or in Afghanistan, I think it deserves criticism. It seems a lot more reasonable to consolidate their position and serve as a proof of concept for socialists worldwide to follow on their own initiative than to try to impose those conflicts from the outside.
It is wrong to lump the KMT and the SPD together. The KMT was a bourgeois nationalist party. The SPD, despite its well documented problems, was a workers party with enormous political significance. Absolutely not tbe same, hence the difference in policy toward the two.
I don’t agree with that assessment. The KMT at the time was led by Sun Yat-Sen, who was much more left-leaning than his successor Chiang Kai-Shek. The KMT was originally a revolutionary party that deposed the monarchy, and it had left-wing elements within the party (as well as cooperating with the CCP) before Chiang purged them. Also worth noting that as a pre-industrial, colonized society, the class distinctions were not precisely the same as in Western countries, as demonstrated by the fact that it was by mobilizing the peasants rather than the much smaller industrial proletariat that the Chinese revolution was eventually successful. As argued by Franz Fanon, class collaboration with the bourgeoisie in poor countries is potentially viable because the primary conflict in those cases is with foreign colonizers.
If you ask me to choose between the early KMT under Sun that overthrew a monarchy and cooperated with communists, and the SDP who betrayed and murdered communists, denounced them as being as bad as fascists, and enacted austerity policies that contributed to the Nazis’ rise, I’m picking the early KMT every time.
Alright. Goes to show the Stalinist hostility to the revolutionary working class and their affinity for bourgeois nationalism is as strong as ever.
It’s not “hostility to the working class,” it’s just objective facts. The CCP originally tried to follow the more orthodox approach of focusing on the industrial proletariat, with the exception of a particular member who had personal experience with the rural peasants and believed they had greater potential for radicalization. The CCP ignored him, and were promptly defeated, leading to the Long March. Among the survivors was that man I mentioned earlier, who was now able to implement his strategy of focusing on the peasants, and as a result of that strategy, even though the communists had been thoroughly defeated, hiding in the most remote regions of China, most of the party dead, the revolution caught on and spread like wildfire.
And in Germany, the so-called “working class” party of the SDP actively fought against the potential of setting up a socialist government, set the freicorps against communists, and insisted on setting up a system where they would give the bourgeoisie power and then work with them to worsen the conditions of the working class. You yourself acknowledged their betrayal of the working class, it’s just when they take off their “Second International” hat and put on their “SDP” hat they’re absolved of everything, apparently.
Goes to show that the Trotskyist tendency towards blind contrarianism is as strong as ever. If Trotsky and Stalin had switched roles, you’d all be Stalinists, it doesn’t even matter what their ideological differences were, you just want to support the guy who lost so that you can imagine he would’ve done everything perfectly and you don’t have to engage with difficult practical decisions. Classic “support every revolution, except the ones that succeed.”
I have to wonder how much of it is driven by chauvinism towards developing countries too, as you seem actively hostile to considering their material conditions.
Fascism and Stalinism are not the same.
People who unironically support Stalinism in the modern day are red fascists. Whether they are technically the exact same thing or not isn’t a meaningful discussion considering the commentary that Sanders is offering here. He is specifically operating within the context of modern American politics. Something average academic/armchair/larpy leftists are often completely fucking incapable of. His main use of analogizing Stalinism with Trumpism is the Cult of Personality not that they are literally the exact same thing. It is exhausting that this needs to be explained.
Sanders use of the term as a political slur wrongly directed at Trump confuses the issue, and ultimately gives capitalism a pass for its own crisis.
How does it give a pass to capitalism? Sanders himself would agree that capitalism contributed to Trumpism.
This is a deliberate falsification that is calculated to confuse political consciousness and hinder the development of revolutionary conclusions.
This is a level of paranoia suggesting actual brain damage, seek medical attention.
People who unironically support Stalinism in the modern day are red fascists.
Now, they are not. And the only reason you say they are is because liberals understanding of politics is entirely through the Marvel comic lense of there are “Good guys” and “Bad Guys” and the bad guys are foreign coded
Says the terminally online tankie troll.
Go touch grass and meet some friends irl. Oh wait…
Liberals really have nothing except endlessly spewing the same dozen insults at anyone who disagrees with them.
Tankies really have nothing except endlessly cheerlead a dead ideology.
Wait, so you don’t have any friends irl.
Yup, more of the same rote insults. With some incoherent “no, u!” thrown in.
Go make some friends in real life, if you can.
Lol @ “dead ideology” from the folks who lost to Trump twice
I mean, there is nothing you could say when the ideology you cheerlead imploded on its own. Even China turned to capitalism after seeing USSR collapsed.
Yes they are.
One can hate capitalism and also hate Stalinists. The “good vs bad guy” ideology is just projection on your part.
I could nitpick and state I’m not a liberal as well but whatever tankies call every other non-tankie leftist a liberal so who fucking cares.
Yes they are.
No, they are not.
deliberately divorcing emotion from the decision process and just looking at the facts as best I am able to understand.
OK. Non-sequitor.
The “good vs bad guy” ideology is just projection on your part.
Nope; learn what projection means.
I could nitpick and state I’m not a liberal as well but whatever tankies call every other non-tankie leftist a liberal so who fucking cares.
The irony here is that liberals call everybody to the left of them “tankies”. Take note; this is what projection actually looks like.
OK. Non-sequitor.
IDK where you got that I did not write “deliberately divorcing emotion from the decision process and just looking at the facts as best I am able to understand.” … are you mixing up different replies?
The irony here is that liberals call everybody to the left of them “tankies”. Take note; this is what projection actually looks like.
There is no irony, the words “Tankie” and “Liberal” are not equivalent. Tankie is always a pejorative in response to specific stated politics. Liberal is an ideological identity that sometimes is used as a pejorative by some leftists because its an accusation that they actually secretly support capitalism. Its that you fundamentally don’t engage with the actual stated beliefs and decide that we actually believe something else entirely. Sort of like how actual liberals get called communists by fascists, nazis, and other far right conservatives.
If you wanted to say, call me a “Anarkiddy” or something that would at least be a little closer to the same thing as me calling you a Tankie. I’m not really strictly an anarchist anymore either, but still I’m infinitely closer to that than liberal.
The reason this matters is that specifically if I actually was a liberal, I wouldn’t be annoyed by Tankies and Campists using the word “liberal” as a pejorative against non-tankie/campist leftists. I’d just embrace the label.
I don’t embrace the label. I’m not a liberal. I just also don’t take the accusation from Tankies that I’m a liberal seriously anymore. I’m mostly just annoyed by the extremely boring and tiresome intellectual dishonesty.
are you mixing up different replies?
I had the wrong text in my clip board; I meant to quote:
One can hate capitalism and also hate Stalinists.
Which is indeed a complete non-sequitor.
There is no irony, the words “Tankie” and “Liberal” are not equivalent. Tankie is always a pejorative in response to specific stated politics. Liberal is an ideological identity that sometimes is used as a pejorative by some leftists because its an accusation that they actually secretly support capitalism.
“They’re not the same because ‘tankie’ is a real ideology and ‘liberal’ is just a pejorative” is the most obviously brain-dead and stupid argument imaginable. You can’t seriously expect me to entertain in.
Its that you fundamentally don’t engage with the actual stated beliefs and decide that we actually believe something else entirely.
Hey, asshole. You called me a tankie for the sole reason that I said that Fascism and Stalinism are distinct ideologies and not interchangeable terms. Not for defending Stalinism, not even for saying it’s not as bad as Fascism, just for saying it’s a different ideology. So you can take your " Its that you fundamentally don’t engage with the actual stated beliefs and decide that we actually believe something else entirely" hypocritical bullshit, take a look in the mirror and stop projecting your own bad behavior on me.
And this is why are say your framing of the world is ultimately just Marvel ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’, because you see me say Stalinism and Fascism are different and just assume that I’m defending stalinism; because to you, they’re both just pejorative synonyms for “being a Bad Guy”, so saying Stalinism isn’t fascism is saying it isn’t “being a Bad Guy”.
If you wanted to say, call me a “Anarkiddy” or something that would at least be a little closer to the same thing as me calling you a Tankie.
In that it’s completely fucking baseless and inaccurate?
I’m not really strictly an anarchist anymore either, but still I’m infinitely closer to that than liberal.
Ok, so you’re a liberal.
I don’t embrace the label.
Don’t care, labels are descriptive, not a personal affectation.
I just also don’t take the accusation from Tankies that I’m a liberal seriously anymore.
You really need to work on the projection, hypocrite.
I’m mostly just annoyed by the extremely boring and tiresome intellectual dishonesty.
Then you should stop engaging in it, liberal.
You called me a tankie for the sole reason that I said that Fascism and Stalinism are distinct ideologies and not interchangeable terms.
Maybe you aren’t a tankie, but if there was a verifiable test for the disease, I’d bet money you have it on that basis + the .ml yeah.
Not for defending Stalinism, not even for saying it’s not as bad as Fascism, just for saying it’s a different ideology.
because you see me say Stalinism and Fascism are different and just assume that I’m defending stalinism
Don’t play dumb. You are engaging in defensive apologia.
Don’t care, labels are descriptive, not a personal affectation.
No shit? I don’t embrace the label was listed as specific evidence that I wasn’t a liberal because liberals don’t care if they are called a liberal. I’d claim bad reading comprehension but that would imply you are capable of growth, its clear you have an ideological myopia and don’t want to engage in good faith.
This is a level of paranoia suggesting actual brain damage, seek medical attention.
I think you underestimate the class consciousness of the ruling class. Bernie has been faithfully playing his assigned role to keep increasingly radicalized sections of the working class and youth within the orbit of the Democratic Party. I do not think it is a stretch to assign consciously anti-revolutionary motives to his statements, especially this stupidly anti-communist statement.
Despite my therapist not agreeing with me on politics, she thinks I am mentally fine.
How does it give a pass to capitalism? Sanders himself would agree that capitalism contributed to Trumpism.
Stalinism was a degeneration of the workers state in the Soviet Union. Fascism is an extreme counterrevolutionary form of capitalism. Assigning one (Stalinism) to the other (Trump/MAGA) is a category error. Ahisotorical and unscientific (and likelh a conscious distortion given Sanders political history and experience).
People who unironically support Stalinism in the modern day are red fascists.
The Stalinist perspective is counterrevolutionary, but it is not fascist. Ironically, most actual Stalinists will have disavowed Stalin by now following his death and Krushev’s secret speech. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism, international Stalinists are largely reduced to trade union organizing and activist pressure groups. In the third world they routinely enter into coalitions with bourgeois nationalist governments. Edgy teenagers on the internet are not serious Stalinists.
He is specifically operating within the context of modern American politics. Something average academic/armchair/larpy leftists are often completely fucking incapable of. His main use of analogizing Stalinism with Trumpism is the Cult of Personality not that they are literally the exact same thing.
In the contact of American politics, the role of anticommunism cannot be overstated. Sanders plays into this tradition because he supports it. He could have criticized Trump’s cult of personality by referencing the fascist Mussolini (or just made it a direct statement about Trump). He chose to use the word “Stalinism” despite it being clearly inappropriate because it serves his political function.
Bernie has been faithfully playing his assigned role to keep increasingly radicalized sections of the working class and youth within the orbit of the Democratic Party.
No. This is a delusional take.
Despite my therapist not agreeing with me on politics, she thinks I am mentally fine.
She’s wrong if you genuinely think the Sanders is a pro-capitalist plant. Either that or you don’t actually believe this and you are arguing in bad faith because you actually simply dislike Sander’s openly stated politics.
Or you have not actually paid any consistent attention to Sanders at all or read up on his history before he became politically relevant.
Stalinism was a degeneration of the workers state in the Soviet Union. Fascism is an extreme counterrevolutionary form of capitalism. Assigning one (Stalinism) to the other (Trump/MAGA) is a category error. Ahisotorical and unscientific
Even if you are technically correct, none of this matters in the current political context. You are being nitpicky at best, but more likely just engaging in irrelevant intellectual masturbation/showboating. Further, this doesn’t actually explain why Sanders gives a pass to capitalism, you are just repeating the same point. Being anti-Stalinism and being open about that doesn’t make you apologetic to capitalism unless you take a very “You are with us or against us” campist perspective.
(and likelh a conscious distortion given Sanders political history and experience).
Instead of ignoring now, you are misrepresenting the context of his statement. The left in the US is currently on the backfoot. (Even with a specific notable newsworthy exception in NYC) Sanders knows that liberals and conservatives alike in the US associate Stalin vaguely with very bad things and is using that cultural association. Now, do I think this is politically effective? IDK. I suspect the problem with Sanders is generally that he is not mean enough to his opposition, and this is indeed tactical but not for reasons you are laying out. Given his history the idea that hes secretly a pro-capitalism plant is actually completely flabbergastingly stupid. Like I can’t take you seriously for saying that and I only continue this conversation due to curiosity.
Ironically, most actual Stalinists will have disavowed Stalin by now following his death and Krushev’s secret speech. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism, international Stalinists are largely reduced to trade union organizing and activist pressure groups. In the third world they routinely enter into coalitions with bourgeois nationalist governments. Edgy teenagers on the internet are not serious Stalinists.
OK, then it sounds like they’re red fascists to me. They are fascists who just want to not be associated with fascism.
Sanders plays into this tradition because he supports it (anti-communism).
No he doesn’t. He might not support authoritarianism but he’s not an anti-communist. A lazy example: he has defended Castro before.
He could have criticized Trump’s cult of personality by referencing the fascist Mussolini (or just made it a direct statement about Trump).
He’s compared him to Mussolini already. In 2020, “We have a president now who is a pathological liar. We have a president who is trying to undermine democracy. We have a president who admires authoritarian figures. I mean, it’s not an exaggeration to compare him to Mussolini.” Hes going to compare him to any historical figure views as authoritarian, because Sanders is anti-authoritarian.
One is fascism, the other is red fascism. Different ideologies but same cheeks from the same arse as one might put it.
Different ideologies but same cheeks from the same arse as one might put it.
They might, if they were a teenager who got all of their political understanding from Marvel movies
No atrocities here, comrade.
Thanks for that lazy non-sequitor
I reject this analysis as unscientific and ahistoric. The similarities are entirely superficial. Its not a matter of different ideology, but different historic content of the regimes themselves.
You may reject, but the empirical basis is there. Different cheeks from the same authoritarian arse.
That’s the opposite of an emperical basis: that’s a purely vibes based statement
Vote Blue no matter who, like that?
No, and why would anyone that’s literate think it’s the same as cult of personality?
Both require no thinking yet believing you’re correct no matter the evidence to the contrary.
The slogan was used in direct opposition against Trump and the republican party
It’s reductionist to complain about the phrase in general because you’ve taken the slogan out of the context it was in. In an ideal scenario the US would have actual candidates that don’t want to dismantle democracy, then the slogan would make no sense. Like in Vermont, where Bernie Sanders offered an independent choice that actually believes in leftist democratic values.
Unfortunately, when the choice is between fascism from Republicans or the status quo with Democrats, you best believe the US should vote blue no matter who, because the other option is infinitely worse.
In an ideal scenario the US would have actual candidates that don’t want to dismantle democracy
In an ideal scenario there would be no federal government and all states would be split apart.
Look up harm reduction.
Dems are not harm reduction in any way
Congratulations, you are the reason we have what we have now.
Lol no, billionaires and the complicity of both major US parties in the process of regulatory capture are why we have what we have now, although the political illiteracy and complacency of people like you is a significant factor in how that process was allowed to progress as far as it has
Truth.
The Biden administration did more for antitrust law than anyone in a generation. But by all means, ignore that because bOtH sIdEs
I agree that people should at least check the box, but leftists who are fed up are not the entire reason for “what we have now”. A lack of mutual aid alongside politics is also the problem. There is also the whole problem of Suburbia and its culture: one of these problems is a fear of crime and “stranger danger” (this is only a problem when making sure you aren’t talking to a federal agent). There are people still watching the same cable television that the internet supposedly replaced wholesale, and most of it’s Fox News. These people completely outnumber the people who withhold their vote.
I honestly just hate the United States. I cannot find any other country on Earth that represents such a grave threat to freedom, aside from Israel which is of course a client state. I’d get rid of the “world police” no matter what “terrorists” run rampant because they will never be as terroristic as the U.S. anyway. I will vote for harm reduction, but I really, really want the American Union to break up.
I’m with you, but I will disagree about the suburbs. Born and bred in the ‘burbs, I live there now. We are not the majority, but there are plenty of progressive people not living in fear of the things you describe. That being said, I’m more and more fed up with this country everyday. Suburbs in another country continues to look more appealing.
So if Harris won she would’ve deported all those people to El Salvador without due process?
Probably not, she would have exhibited slightly more tact and decorum in defense of the status quo, and you would have been fine with it because you stand for absolutely nothing
So how is “defense of the status quo instead of mass deporting” not “harm reduction”?
They keep talking about “own the libs” but Trump has been the most liberal president we’ve had.
Its just that he’s not liberal in the sense of leftist values.
Sanders is controlled opposition, he rolled over and let the DNC fuck us all and if given the chance he’ll do it again
What could Bernie do to the DNC? They’re in charge, he has to play by their rules. He could’ve ran third party but then he’d end up splitting the dem vote. It was a lose-lose.
He could have spoken out publicly against their crooked bullshit, “splitting the vote” assumes that anyone would have voted for fucking Hillary over him which is laughable, and her stupid ass lost anyway so clearly there was no point, but there’s no point explaining the idea of principled resistance to you, liberals have no fucking principles
Oh, go get fucked. You don’t deserve people like Bernie.
You’re right, I don’t
I’ll rephrase it in a way you can comprehend; “You dont deserve someone as good as Bernie.” Hope that helps.
I comprehended your meaning just fine the first time and you know it, it was a fairly straightforward implication based on my original comment and your response to it, that I deserve better than an ineffectual loser. I was able to effectively convey my meaning in fewer words using your own comment as a contextual foundation for an inversion of your intent, I was able to do that because I’m smarter than you.
I fucking love that he chose to call them stalinists. In addition to it being true, it send a fuck you to the alt-right and the alt-left (who love to talk up stalin as of late)
Aw I thought he called the sanatists but I think either would work
sanatists
Ah yes. Sanat, Satan’s lesser known brother.
Who would win, Sanat or Craig?
Shame they’re not santanists
Great guitarist
We worship that tone amirite?
Modern Satanists are actually extremely progressive. The Satanic Temple makes a point of using legislation intended to promote Christianity to promote their own religious organization.
It pisses off the reactionary religious zealots and shows them to be hypocrites, and there’s nothing legislators can do about it without blatantly giving preferential treatment to the “correct” religion.
To be fair, the Satanic Temple isn’t exactly satanic per se. It’s more of a parody religion to point out the unfair law exceptions churches get. They are more anti-church (or maybe even anti-religion) than actually satanic.
I’d be very surprised if a significant portion of members of the Satanic Temple actually seriously believe in the existence of satan.
It’s about the same as e.g. the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I’m talking about their version of satanists not the real people
Who in the alt left is talking about Stalin lol maybe some whackos online
From someone who has gone to more than a few political protests and rallies in Boston:
Every fucking time Socialist Alternative shows up, it’s fine until some edgelord dipshit unfurls the fucking huge Soviet flag with Stalin and Mao silk screened on it. It’s like they’re trying to alienate reasonable people as well as historically-informed people. I consider myself a staunch socialist. I also outright detest Stalin and Mao because they were fucking authoritarian despots who wrapped their regimes in “communism” banners.
Sure, some of the systems at lower levels were socialistic, but at the end of the day, it was all in service to the cult of personality in charge of the whole gig. And yes, that’s what the US has devolved into (and arguably had done so quite a while ago, just not so overtly), but that doesn’t excuse Stalin or Mao, nor does it justify being an apologist for them.
Oh man, a thousand times this, fucking tankies are a pain and a ball and chain on the leg of progress.
Why is it always Mao or Stalin? Can’t they at least go with folks who shed the blood of fascists like Tito or Castro? They werent particularly good either but at least they were doing the best with their dealt decks. Mind you I fucking loathe elevating folks to positions of respect unless they were my ancestors or damned well earned it via death and glory.
Every fucking time Socialist Alternative shows up, it’s fine until some edgelord dipshit unfurls the fucking huge Soviet flag with Stalin and Mao silk screened on it.
I’m not super familiar with Socialist Alternative, but aren’t they a Trotskyist org? What are they doing waving Stalin flags?
The only person I’ve encountered waving Stalin flag at a protest said they were a Maoist when I asked
From that perspective, any thoughts on Ho Chi Minh?
Of all the leaders good, bad, and, ugly over the last century, he doesn’t seem to be brought up as much by propaganda machines.
I also outright detest Stalin and Mao because they were fucking authoritarian despots
You could easily say the same of Washington or Eisenhower or Churchill or DeGualle.
Hell, Lincoln got got by a guy who was literally shouting “Sic Semper Tyrantus”.
The thing that sets Stalin and Mao apart from the Francos and Mussolinis and Tojos and Chang Kai-Sheks and Churchills was their break from the old line aristocracy. The thing westerners hate more than anything was their overthrow of the local monarchies.
That’s why you have folks weeping big crocodile tears over Anastasia and Puyi, while they whistle past the graveyard of the countless Chinese and Russian victims of Romanov/Qing Dynasty misrule.
deleted by creator
Anything’s possible when you make shit up kiddo
Mostly the tankies on .ml
I’m just kinda here, idk wth the rest of the instance is up to
in my experience, every tankie I came across is from .ml, not saying every .ml user is a tankie, but every tankie is a .ml user.
Who, you know, MIGHT be real people but probably aren’t for the most part…
I just assume any .ml account is a propaganda bot. Because even if they are real people… they are propaganda bots.
Lemmy is far too small to bot.
lemmy.ml is just friendly to those people, so it attracts them.lemmy.ml was built by those people, sometimes it feels for the express purpose of spreading their bullshit.
Yeah, how dare they build a space where they could express their views!
Fuck off, tankie
Yeah, that’s plausible.
Lemmy.ml only has ~2100 monthly active users. I would guess that likely at least half of them are randos who just joined what they thought was the default instance.
That leaves about 1000 or so (likely even less) active tankies. That’s not a lot of people. I’m pretty sure you could find more than that amount of tankies in pretty much every single metropolis worldwide.
If its only a thousand people, can we just ignore them then.
Currently, Lemmy only has 46 000 monthly active accounts in total, so 1 000 is quite a significant share of that. Especially considering that these 1000 are very vocal.
Remember, this is not Reddit or Facebook with billions of active users. Lemmy in its entirety is smaller than some phpbb forums used to be.
I mean, ~3500 of these monthly active accounts are from lemmynsfw.com alone, and these are most likely double accounts for people who have accounts on a non-nsfw instance. And in general it’s quite likely the the amount of monthly active accounts is much larger than the number of actual monthly active users, considering that a significant portion of users will have more than one lemmy account and that there are some moderation bots and stuff like that around.
dude what the fuck
If you’re not a tankie, you shouldn’t be offended by, “tankies on .ml”
That instance actively and demonstrably moderates counter-opinions to tankie rhetoric, to the point where the instance is just a field of landmines for those that don’t tow the line. They are a terrible, gross farse of “leftists” and deserve all the shit they catch and more.
.worlder describes .world
Irrelevant to the comment. My comment is clearly and explicitly about .ml. That’s why I said .ml Thank you for further demonstrating the level of user .ml gives the rest of us.
I was objecting to this part
I just assume any .ml account is a propaganda bot. Because even if they are real people… they are propaganda bots.
Of course there are tankies on ML, though i gotta admit I rarely see them with my filters.
Plenty of hate-filled accounts on world that I block too
deleted by creator
They’re robots, Morty, I don’t respect them
maybe some whackos online
Checks out.
Stalin took the Russian state from an agricultural backwater to a Space Age superpower in a matter of twenty years.
If he’d started out a Virginia plantation owner instead of a Georgian bank robber, capitalists would have loved him. He’d be bigger than Churchill.
American liberals love (the whitewashed version of) FDR because they see the quasi-socialism of the mid-20th century as the morally correct path. Eastern Europeans - who came through two world wars and repeated genocides on every front - have a lot more of an appetite for Iron Fisted Dictator[Communist] after enduring generations of Iron Fisted Dictator[Monarchist]
But the way in which he did it was very costly. Stalin is comparable to Musk in that sense. In love with technology and factories, but too focussed on advancement no matter the human cost. Everything was about efficiency.
Stalin is comparable to Musk in that sense.
Christ. Musk is, if anything, more comparable to Henry Ford.
Billionaire car magnet with whole municipal governments in his pocket who wrecked public transit and spread antisemitism all over Europe? That’s not the editor and chief at Pravda.
If you were to put Stalin anywhere in contemporary US politics, I’d say he’s comparable to Shyam Sankar - the Palantir CTO who was recently granted the rank of Lt. Colonel in the US military. Or, perhaps, just straight up comparing him to Peter Thiel minus all the buggery.
In love with technology and factories, but too focussed on advancement no matter the human cost. Everything was about efficiency.
Silicon Valley has swarms of these guys. Most of them aren’t constantly pissing themselves from too much Ketamine.
If he hadn’t been, would the USSR survived? That focus on technology, factories, and efficiency, no matter the cost, seems like the right approach when there’s Nazis at your doorstep, conquering all of Europe and conducting mass exterminations.
Nothing says “preparing for war against the Nazis and capitalists” like murdering your entire officer corps of true believers that won the Revolution that you didn’t actually fight in
Anything’s possible when you make shit up kiddo
Die mad about reality.
deleted by creator
When did the USSR conduct “mass exterminations?”
The largest and most sadistic mass murders were by the Nazis, obviously. Are you trying to downplay the Holocaust?
deleted by creator
Anything’s possible when you make shit up kiddo
I look at the date this video was posted (5 days before the 2024 US presidential election), and (probably) lie to myself that the red hats are no coincidence. It gives me a smidge of amusement in these dark times. :)
So authoritarianism. Did we ban the wrong tankies perhaps?
On a similar note, I’m going to start calling republicans red coats.
Whoa man, Canadians don’t want anything to do with that tangerine tyrant.
And I doubt Brits or Germans would either.
It’s not a reference to current politics… Unless you want to explain how the British and German Empires have nothing on Trumpism
Why?
the only difference is that stalin hijacked the government and turned it to right wing authoritarianism from a based ruler while trump hijacked it from a mid one.
deleted by creator
Lenin was better but still an authoritarian.
They have all the brutality and none of the savviness of Stalin.
ITT anti-leftism.
yall not solving fascism with neoliberalism, a capitalist ideology. just saying.
It has never worked in the past. Germany, Italy and Japan are famous communist nations, that’s the only way to defeat fascism and Co.
what do germany italy and japan has to do with communism?
apart from a piece of germany being siege-socialist for a short while.
I legitimately don’t understand your point? What?
Communism hasn’t prevented fascism from rising, that’s why communism bad?
The Nazis would likely have never rose to power in Germany had the social democrats not betrayed the revolution to preserve capitalism, btw.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. The American empire sat back and let the USSR and the Chinese communists take the vast majority of casualties to defeat those rival empires then made them into imperial vassals?
.ml domain checks out
“You’re from instance i dont like” isn’t a particularly strong counterargument
.worlddomain checks out
I’d argue it’s a satanist party as well. They’re doing all the shit that was prophesized that the devil would make dumb people do, worshipping false idols, worshipping money, getting the mark of the beast, that sort of shit
This is coming from an staunch atheist who just notices the irony
Satanists are cooler than these assholes.
I was confused on what was Satanic until I realized you were talking about the Christian version on Satanic and not the Church of Satan.
I was super surprised by the irony after I saw all those golden idols of trump. If I was a Christian I would be highly offended at these people trying to align with me. Those are $100 bills with trumps face on it, that they covered the goat idol. 2 separate events. 1 was a CPAC and 1 was at Mara Lago. 🙄
I cannot imagine being enough of a sycophant to wear a hat that says “Trump was right about everything”. Nobody’s right about everything, and Trump is less right about things than most people because he’s incredibly stupid.
So much of the last 30 years of Republicanism (maybe 60 years, if you’re a Nixonian) boils down to Owning The Libs.
The guy with the “Trump was right…” hat will happily bitch about all the things Trump is doing wrong. He just won’t do it in earshot of anyone he thinks is to his Left.
Trump is less right about things than most people
Trump is turning the rhetoric of the Reagan Era into reality. He’s taking the orthodoxy of the party seriously, rather than using it as bait to gull the rubes into another round of tax cuts and privatizations.
It’s this commitment to orthodoxy that his base loves. Also what makes him look stupid.
I agree that the party orthodoxy is stupid and contradictory. But he’s also profoundly stupid which is why he’s such a perfect fit as its mascot.
Eh. Intelligence is clearly not how you get ahead in elected politics. Even when Biden wasn’t teetering on the edge of senility, he was still dumb as bricks. Didn’t stop him from being a senior Senator, then a VP, then a President. Meanwhile, the Smarties like Romney and Cruz and Buttigieg and Bloomberg routinely face-plant in the face of even the most mild popular opposition.
Intelligence is sometimes a handicap in politics. You’re right, and that is especially the case in American politics. As far as Trump goes, I would say his intelligence was never a hindrance he had to manage in any way because he is, was, and always will be abundantly stupid.
Intelligence is sometimes a handicap in politics.
Idk if I’d call it a handicap. I’d say it is tangential to the goal of building a large base of supporters, particularly when the “intelligent” move you see before you is to fatten your own wallet or adhere to some big money economic orthodoxy in order to climb the corporate ladder.
Like, the classic examples of this were Hillary v Obama in 2008 and Hillary v Donald in 2016. Hillary Clinton was clearly smarter - and in many ways more politically savvy - than Trump. She was arguably more experienced and politically educated than Obama. And they were both miles ahead of the rest of the GOP field. Hillary had run circles around her Republican rivals for decades, cultivated networks of plutocrats that would have otherwise been Republican stalwarts, built large organizations throughout the Atlantic Coast and the Southwest to power her ambitions during the Bush Era, and added substantially to her family fortune from historical right-wing sources while at the head of the liberal leadership team in an era when Democrats as a party were on the decline.
But she got the rug pulled on her in the '08 primary, simply because she refused to admit she was wrong on her Iraq War vote six years earlier. And she got beaten again, by a whisper thin margin, because her business friendly calculus in backing NAFTA for thirty years finally caught up with her.
As far as Trump goes, I would say his intelligence was never a hindrance he had to manage in any way because he is, was, and always will be abundantly stupid.
I would argue that Trump was significantly smarter than the median GOP primary candidate in '16 and '24. A lot of folks love to pillar him as stupid, but he clearly has an ability to read a room and reflect those feelings back to a crowd in a way DeSantis and Huckabee and Jeb! did not. He wasn’t afraid to say the Iraq War was a mistake. He regularly bragged about his role in government corruption when it was clear voters assumed everyone was corrupt and considered this a point of transparency. He was more openly racist, when the base demanded more racism, and (often quixotically) more openly LGBTQ+ friendly when the base stopped giving a fuck about villainizing gay relationships. Call it Emotional Intelligence, if nothing else. The man might not even be literate, but he’s clearly clever as a fox and twice as predatory.
But I also think he’s a product of the historical moment. His popularity is largely a consequence of decades of political orthodoxy on Rich People Being Better Than You, hammered into the heads of his base voters. He was given a big megaphone to say “I’m a rich white guy with a hot wife, vote for me” in an era when being a rich white guy with a hot wife was a great way to build a popular base of voters.
He lucked into office in 2016 in the same way Obama lucked into office in 2008. In a prior moment, it wouldn’t have worked. In this moment, he was the man that fit what Americans were being sold as Presidential.
I would argue that Trump was significantly smarter than the median GOP primary candidate in '16 and '24. A lot of folks love to pillar him as stupid, but he clearly has an ability to read a room and reflect those feelings back to a crowd in a way DeSantis and Huckabee and Jeb! did not.
He was a frequent guest on the Howard Stern show. He continually forced himself into the lime light every single chance he got. Even the stupidest of fools is bound to develop a skill or two along the way, and over time he did develop media skills and the ability to read a crowd. But he’s still as stupid as a bag of soup.
But I also think he’s a product of the historical moment. His popularity is largely a consequence of decades of political orthodoxy on Rich People Being Better Than You, hammered into the heads of his base voters.
I largely agree with you, but I think his stupidity is a selling point as well. It’s what endears him to “the base”. He thinks like they do: poorly, infrequently…stupidly.
Even the stupidest of fools is bound to develop a skill or two along the way
“He’s the worst chess grandmaster of the lot. Never stops playing, keeps ranking up, just coasting along on the sheer number of games he’s played badly and learned from. Hands down, dumb as shit, I would only lose to him 99.95% of the time.”
Again, I think the term “stupid” is just a pejorative at this point. If he was a democrat who kept winning upset elections and outfoxing supposedly superior opponents, what kind of liberal would talk about him this way?
I think his stupidity is a selling point as well
He’s not fixated on looking like a braniac, which means he’s not getting caught in the Tucker Carlson trap of “You don’t even know how many people are in Iran! How can you support bombing them?” Trump isn’t claiming he’s got the encyclopedia memorized. Much like Bush Jr and Reagan, he’s focused on what plays well with the audience, not what sounds “smart” to the debate judges.
Is that stupid? Not when it accomplishes your intended goals.
Incidentally, one of the “dumbest” things Trump did in the wake of his '24 win was that ridiculous cryptocurrency that let him take bribes openly from foreign governments. It quickly restored him from “billionaire on paper” to “real fucking billionaire”. Not because it was so insidiously clever or legalistic, but because the Biden DOJ never prosecuted him when he was out of office. What’s more, the courts that Democrats refused to stack when they had a majority, have given him a free pass on criminal misconduct.
You can give a lot of credit for that to Mitch McConnell, as he spent his whole Senate career carefully staking appointed positions and encouraging career hires with Federalist Society flacks. But Trump’s the guy who is going to capitalize on all McConnell’s hard work and Clinton/Obama/Biden’s passivity. So who really looks like the dumb-dumb here?
He has what I’ve taken to calling “carnival barker energy”. Certainly not intelligence, and not quite charisma, but a particular kind of stage presence that for some inexplicable reason attracts vibes based morons like flies on shit. He’s basically Cocomelon for manchildren and racists.
The Democrats should OFFICIALLY declare the Republican Party dead, and only refer to the MAGA Party from now on. Do an actual press conference, and make an official announcement - the Republican Party no longer exists, and has been replaced by the MAGA Party. That will make the traditional Republicans absolutely crazy, and the Dems should keep it up.
Never use the word Republican ever again, refer only to the MAGA, or MAGA Nazi Party. On talk shows, interviews, sound bites, fundraising texts, etc., use the term MAGA Party exclusively. When asked about it, simply say casually and matter-of-factly “The Republican Party is dead, they are the MAGA Party from now on,” and leave it at that. Make the MAGAs cry.
So, in short, behave exactly like the Obama era Republicans that the Democrats have basically become
Nah, the Obama Era Republicans put up a fight. The Democrats now aren’t even fighting for the most part.
They’re putting up a fight against the left.
That’s true
use the term MAGA Party exclusively
MAGA - Morons And Genuine Assholes.
I like calling them MAGAts because it just sounds right to me.
The Republicans tried doing a similar thing to the Democratic Party by calling it the “Democrat Party”, but members of the Democratic Party basically just ignored this and treated those who used it as stupid, or offered “helpful corrections” to the user’s “inadvertent mistake”. Eventually, it lost currency because it failed in its goal of upsetting people.
I beg to differ. I have seen Democrats like Schumer and Schiff get very angry when a Republican has called them the Democrat Party, and start lecturing about respect, etc., as the Republican sat back with a smug smirk, knowing they got their opponent to wander off the path, instead of discussing the subject that the Republican would like to avoid. Dems take that bait all the time.
Calling them the MAGA Party, and flat out declaring the Republican Party dead, and then treating it as if it is actually dead, would flip the tables on them.
How exactly are these kindergarten word games going to stop fascism? I’m asking seriously.
It won’t help. It’s purely cathartic. It’s meaningless political tribalism. It will keep the commons quibbling and scratching while fascism only strengthens from the misguided and unprincipled rage.
Ok have you been to any protests this year? Do you plan on being at one on the 4th?
I have been to a couple but I’m unfamiliar with the protest you’re referencing. I have mixed feelings about the protests I’ve witnessed, but it was nice to see people banding together regardless.
It’s nationwide, I’m sure there’s something going on local to you
I keep reading posts like yours, disparaging protests, disparaging written dissension, disparaging a progressive agenda, etc. People like you somehow think the voters are going to flock to the Democrats just by doing the same weak strategies that they’ve been losing with for decades. It’s time to go after the MAGA Nazi with every available strategy, including words.
You presuppose a lot of my position and lump me in with a lot of other comments you’ve read. And in a way you’ve supported the original point I was trying to make.
I applaud all efforts to slow, halt, or reverse fascism. But the “kindergarten word games” mentioned by the above commenter doesn’t really help - and I would argue that it actually hurts since fascism thrives on divisiveness, isolation, and hate. If the takeaway from fascism is to fight it by sowing the same seeds that allowed it to grow in the first place then I fear we won’t have the outcomes we hope for. And the specific words proposed by the original comment don’t illustrate any essential problems to people they’re trying to sway; it does nothing to educate people and see the problem with sober eyes. It’s sole design is catharsis and insult.
Before the apparent fascism we know today, both parties (knowingly or unknowingly) laid the groundwork for it in service to capital. Fascism IS Capitalism when times get tough. Capital does not benefit from people seeing each other as equals or wanting to understand each other. The divisiveness is by design.
The Democratic Party as you or I know it is adrift at best; dead at worst. It would require substantive, substantial change in the party for them to “win” in any meaningful, lasting way. But they won’t change in any real way - only branding or rhetoric - because that’s all they’ve ever known and that’s all that is allowed.
In essence: they are Republicans but with a different veneer. The everyman knows this intuitively. People of all stripes complain of the political, social, and economic system in common ways. The hollow promises of current administration are evidence of this - a lot of people voted how they did based on these hollow promises. However, simultaneously people allow themselves to be bewildered by the “outrage of the week” from whatever media ecosystem they consume. These outrages distract from the common trend lines between the two parties. These trends are evident when you focus attention on the factual reality of both parties actions and ignore their rhetoric and daily outrages.
And just so we’re clear: not all outrages are equal in this respect. Some are worth our time and attention. But you need to ask yourself why the media cycle flips so rapidly and readily. It’s by design to bewilder - and it’s not just coming from one party or another. It’s coming from a class of people to a different class of people.
So I’ll leave myself open for the usual comments of “both sides huh?” Because if anyone wants to genuinely have a discussion about that we can. But I’m not here to talk to people who approach in bad faith.
Politics is ALL marketing/ advertising, and the most important thing a product can do is establish a strong, powerful brand. These aren’t “kindergarten word games,” this is a marketing strategy intended to damage their brand.
At their core, MAGAs are cowardly and angry, and easy to manipulate. Needle, harass, hassle, tease, humiliate, embarrass, etc. them at EVERY opportunity, and they will grow angrier, and more frightened when they see their intimidation tactics aren’t working. It shows shallow voters that the MAGAs are pathetic, they aren’t strong, and they aren’t to be feared. It shows that they are blustering losers, not to be respected or obeyed. Combine that with a solid brand building strategy for a popular Democratic agenda, and voters will abandon the pathetic MAGAs, and flock to the Democrats.
Handled correctly, words are powerful tools, and the Pen is mightier than the Sword.
The Party Formerly Known as Republican
They can be identified with a symbol as well, maybe like a cross with bent ends.
