|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Stalin “communists” were basically as evil as the Nazi’s. It is not like one of them were good guys.
|
On June 27 2026 00:28 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2026 23:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 22:28 Vivax wrote:On June 26 2026 18:40 Godwrath wrote:On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election:
The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to).
The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to).
Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes. He already doubled down about nazis being commies or something of that sort. Since you pass that Rubicon everything is possible. They‘re not that different, practically. They were even collaborating initially, as long as they had their own spaces. It‘s not wrong. But this isn‘t 1930. The problem set is different. Part of it is advancing monopolization in a system that doesn‘t play by its own rules. Gotta sit out Americas manmade horrors for a few years. Umm, the USSR and Nazi Germany collaborated (until, famously, they didn't), but the biggest internal enemy the Nazis had inside Germany was the Communist Party. Clearly equivocating the Nazis and the communists is ascribing far too much to the "horseshoe" theory of politics. A temporary alliance with some foreign communists doesn't really matter in that, and anyway the argument was much much shallower even than that. It was that because the S in NSADP stands for socialist, that means the Nazis must be socialists, which is why Razyda also believes that North Korea is a democratic republic. Just to clarify that it’s small consolation that “it doesn’t matter” and “biggest internal enemy,” when they have blood on their hands in selling out Germany to the Nazis. It’s also a little tricky saying foreign communists when Germanys communists operated under Stalin’s Comintern.
+ Show Spoiler + They killed each other in the streets. I'd like to check on that, do you have a source?
Edit: As being 25 years into the topic, I was under the impression it was the Centrists/Royalists (who hated the Communists too) that did in the Weimar Republic and democracy in Germany by voting for the Notstandsgesetz and Hitler as Reichskanzler, because they thought he wouldn't be that bad, only a populist and could be controlled.
The elected KPD politicians were mostly on the run, incarcerated or worse by then. Not one of them turned up to the vote. Because they were smart enough to know, it could have been a death sentence.
|
The KPD didn't directly help the Nazis, but they could have formed a united front with other left parties to keep the Nazis out of power, which Leon Trotsky advocated. It was actually because of Stalin that Ernst Thälmann who was an anti-social democrat hardliner became head of the KPD.
Since we have the postfacto historical knowledge to know the Nazis were infinitely worse than the Social Democrats ever were it seems extremely stupid, but it was also extremely stupid at the time. Stalin was a bad person.
|
On June 27 2026 00:56 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2026 00:28 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2026 23:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 22:28 Vivax wrote:On June 26 2026 18:40 Godwrath wrote:On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election:
The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to).
The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to).
Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes. He already doubled down about nazis being commies or something of that sort. Since you pass that Rubicon everything is possible. They‘re not that different, practically. They were even collaborating initially, as long as they had their own spaces. It‘s not wrong. But this isn‘t 1930. The problem set is different. Part of it is advancing monopolization in a system that doesn‘t play by its own rules. Gotta sit out Americas manmade horrors for a few years. Umm, the USSR and Nazi Germany collaborated (until, famously, they didn't), but the biggest internal enemy the Nazis had inside Germany was the Communist Party. Clearly equivocating the Nazis and the communists is ascribing far too much to the "horseshoe" theory of politics. A temporary alliance with some foreign communists doesn't really matter in that, and anyway the argument was much much shallower even than that. It was that because the S in NSADP stands for socialist, that means the Nazis must be socialists, which is why Razyda also believes that North Korea is a democratic republic. Just to clarify that it’s small consolation that “it doesn’t matter” and “biggest internal enemy,” when they have blood on their hands in selling out Germany to the Nazis. It’s also a little tricky saying foreign communists when Germanys communists operated under Stalin’s Comintern. + Show Spoiler + They killed each other in the streets. I'd like to check on that, do you have a source? Edit: As being 25 years into the topic, I was under the impression it was the Centrists/Royalists (who hated the Communists too) that did in the Weimar Republic and democracy in Germany by voting for the Notstandsgesetz and Hitler as Reichskanzler, because they thought he wouldn't be that bad, only a populist and could be controlled. The elected KPD politicians were mostly on the run, incarcerated or worse by then. Not one of them turned up to the vote. Because they were smart enough to know, it could have been a death sentence. I first learned about it from American Communist writings, speaking out about how the communists callously “sold out” their natural constituency (German working class) by treating the social democrats as equal to or worse than Nazis.
You have to remember to that this is Stalin’s Comintern. These are really evil dudes. They treated the SPD (social democrats) as the real enemy of communism and not the NSDAP (Nazi party). They called the social democrats social fascism/social fascists. You can debate if the German communists knew it was stupid but could do nothing to split from Stalin’s party line, or they were full partners.
The first source I would bring up to you is Leon Trotsky himself. The struggle against fascism in Germany. Criticism of KPD’s “nach Hitler, kommen wir”
|
Socialism in the US doesn't have a good history of following their cause either to be fair. The largest socialist movements in americas history that found sucsess was in wisconsin and minnesota (where the nowegian trade unionists went to) and the coastal leftists shit on them and delegitimized them. The milwaukee socialists were focused on the public good and getting a new sewer system so the poor wouldn't get plague. The Farmer and Laborer Party in Minnesota was a legitimate third party, couldn't be killed by the national parties, and yet got no support.
Leftists aren't known for their desire to actually get anything done. Right wingers are much more happy to sell out their ideals to get some of what they want to build to get more.
|
Canada11563 Posts
Not direct coordination with. And not just that they could have united with the other oppositions. Rather, their primary efforts were to try and tear down the mainline parties that could have opposed Hitler.
"As is well known, some grotesque misjudgements led to Thalman, the KPD leader, claiming in 1931 that 'Fascism does not begin when Hitler comes; it has long since begun', as late as autumn 1932 regarding Bruning as 'the most important figure among bourgeois politicians and the coming man', , and writing off the chances of 'the clever and calculating German bourgeoisie' letting Hitler into power since it was inconceivable that a Hitler government could get capitalism out of its cul-de sac. For the KPD, which since 1928 had been fully engaged in attack the 'social fascism' of the SPD, there was no substantial difference between the main non-communist candidates in 1932 presidential election: a vote for Hindenburg was a vote for Hitler."
Ian Kershaw The Hitler Myth page 33
Then again, many other parties were also aggroed onto the KPD rather than the Nazis given the foreign influence from the Stalinization of the party.
And then in the 1930 and 1932 Reichstags, the balance of power was such that when KPD and the Nazis could together deadlock the government from doing much. And while the SPD also caused deadlock in the first Bruning government of 1930, it seems to me that by 1932 they saw the threat to the republic and started voting with Bruning whereas the KPD happily continued to deadlock with the NSDAP.
Probably didn't help to have three parties that wanted the Republic to fail for their own reasons: DNVP, NSDAP, and KPD
|
On June 27 2026 03:18 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2026 00:56 r00ty wrote:On June 27 2026 00:28 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2026 23:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 22:28 Vivax wrote:On June 26 2026 18:40 Godwrath wrote:On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election:
The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to).
The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to).
Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes. He already doubled down about nazis being commies or something of that sort. Since you pass that Rubicon everything is possible. They‘re not that different, practically. They were even collaborating initially, as long as they had their own spaces. It‘s not wrong. But this isn‘t 1930. The problem set is different. Part of it is advancing monopolization in a system that doesn‘t play by its own rules. Gotta sit out Americas manmade horrors for a few years. Umm, the USSR and Nazi Germany collaborated (until, famously, they didn't), but the biggest internal enemy the Nazis had inside Germany was the Communist Party. Clearly equivocating the Nazis and the communists is ascribing far too much to the "horseshoe" theory of politics. A temporary alliance with some foreign communists doesn't really matter in that, and anyway the argument was much much shallower even than that. It was that because the S in NSADP stands for socialist, that means the Nazis must be socialists, which is why Razyda also believes that North Korea is a democratic republic. Just to clarify that it’s small consolation that “it doesn’t matter” and “biggest internal enemy,” when they have blood on their hands in selling out Germany to the Nazis. It’s also a little tricky saying foreign communists when Germanys communists operated under Stalin’s Comintern. + Show Spoiler + They killed each other in the streets. I'd like to check on that, do you have a source? Edit: As being 25 years into the topic, I was under the impression it was the Centrists/Royalists (who hated the Communists too) that did in the Weimar Republic and democracy in Germany by voting for the Notstandsgesetz and Hitler as Reichskanzler, because they thought he wouldn't be that bad, only a populist and could be controlled. The elected KPD politicians were mostly on the run, incarcerated or worse by then. Not one of them turned up to the vote. Because they were smart enough to know, it could have been a death sentence. I first learned about it from American Communist writings, speaking out about how the communists callously “sold out” their natural constituency (German working class) by treating the social democrats as equal to or worse than Nazis. You have to remember to that this is Stalin’s Comintern. These are really evil dudes. They treated the SPD (social democrats) as the real enemy of communism and not the NSDAP (Nazi party). They called the social democrats social fascism/social fascists. You can debate if the German communists knew it was stupid but could do nothing to split from Stalin’s party line, or they were full partners. The first source I would bring up to you is Leon Trotsky himself. The struggle against fascism in Germany. Criticism of KPD’s “nach Hitler, kommen wir”
That's not an alliance with the Nazis now, is it?
The mistrust between the KPD and SPD was deeply rooted after how the murder of Rosa Luxemburg was dealt with as the most impactful example.
Even if they voted as a block to avoid what was about to happen in the final election, they would have failed preventing it. Unless they had clairvoyance and found a generally agreeing political movement of all the left parties convincing 50%+ of the population, which was not possible. You guys point it as if Stalin was the puppet master here, i disagree with that.
The Weimar Republic was obviously more than flawed and was doomed to fail in the extreme political climate of the time.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm absolutely against communism in any shape or form btw.
|
|
|
On June 27 2026 04:45 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2026 03:18 dyhb wrote:On June 27 2026 00:56 r00ty wrote:On June 27 2026 00:28 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2026 23:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 22:28 Vivax wrote:On June 26 2026 18:40 Godwrath wrote:On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election:
The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to).
The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to).
Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes. He already doubled down about nazis being commies or something of that sort. Since you pass that Rubicon everything is possible. They‘re not that different, practically. They were even collaborating initially, as long as they had their own spaces. It‘s not wrong. But this isn‘t 1930. The problem set is different. Part of it is advancing monopolization in a system that doesn‘t play by its own rules. Gotta sit out Americas manmade horrors for a few years. Umm, the USSR and Nazi Germany collaborated (until, famously, they didn't), but the biggest internal enemy the Nazis had inside Germany was the Communist Party. Clearly equivocating the Nazis and the communists is ascribing far too much to the "horseshoe" theory of politics. A temporary alliance with some foreign communists doesn't really matter in that, and anyway the argument was much much shallower even than that. It was that because the S in NSADP stands for socialist, that means the Nazis must be socialists, which is why Razyda also believes that North Korea is a democratic republic. Just to clarify that it’s small consolation that “it doesn’t matter” and “biggest internal enemy,” when they have blood on their hands in selling out Germany to the Nazis. It’s also a little tricky saying foreign communists when Germanys communists operated under Stalin’s Comintern. + Show Spoiler + They killed each other in the streets. I'd like to check on that, do you have a source? Edit: As being 25 years into the topic, I was under the impression it was the Centrists/Royalists (who hated the Communists too) that did in the Weimar Republic and democracy in Germany by voting for the Notstandsgesetz and Hitler as Reichskanzler, because they thought he wouldn't be that bad, only a populist and could be controlled. The elected KPD politicians were mostly on the run, incarcerated or worse by then. Not one of them turned up to the vote. Because they were smart enough to know, it could have been a death sentence. I first learned about it from American Communist writings, speaking out about how the communists callously “sold out” their natural constituency (German working class) by treating the social democrats as equal to or worse than Nazis. You have to remember to that this is Stalin’s Comintern. These are really evil dudes. They treated the SPD (social democrats) as the real enemy of communism and not the NSDAP (Nazi party). They called the social democrats social fascism/social fascists. You can debate if the German communists knew it was stupid but could do nothing to split from Stalin’s party line, or they were full partners. The first source I would bring up to you is Leon Trotsky himself. The struggle against fascism in Germany. Criticism of KPD’s “nach Hitler, kommen wir” That's not an alliance with the Nazis now, is it? The mistrust between the KPD and SPD was deeply rooted after how the murder of Rosa Luxemburg was dealt with as the most impactful example. Even if they voted as a block to avoid what was about to happen in the final election, they would have failed preventing it. Unless they had clairvoyance and found a generally agreeing political movement of all the left parties convincing 50%+ of the population, which was not possible. You guys point it as if Stalin was the puppet master here, i disagree with that. The Weimar Republic was obviously more than flawed and was doomed to fail in the extreme political climate of the time. + Show Spoiler +I'm absolutely against communism in any shape or form btw. Thats why I didn’t say they had an alliance. Everything I said is on the historical record and, as far as I know, not seriously contested. Sorry if you took my post to mean they had anything like a formal alliance.
I think it doesn’t take a clairvoyant to see that Stalin was making a bad move here. Trotsky was literally talking about how bad of an error it was at the exact time it was being committed.
|
On June 27 2026 05:28 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2026 04:45 r00ty wrote:On June 27 2026 03:18 dyhb wrote:On June 27 2026 00:56 r00ty wrote:On June 27 2026 00:28 dyhb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 26 2026 23:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 22:28 Vivax wrote:On June 26 2026 18:40 Godwrath wrote:On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election:
The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to).
The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to).
Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes. He already doubled down about nazis being commies or something of that sort. Since you pass that Rubicon everything is possible. They‘re not that different, practically. They were even collaborating initially, as long as they had their own spaces. It‘s not wrong. But this isn‘t 1930. The problem set is different. Part of it is advancing monopolization in a system that doesn‘t play by its own rules. Gotta sit out Americas manmade horrors for a few years. Umm, the USSR and Nazi Germany collaborated (until, famously, they didn't), but the biggest internal enemy the Nazis had inside Germany was the Communist Party. Clearly equivocating the Nazis and the communists is ascribing far too much to the "horseshoe" theory of politics. A temporary alliance with some foreign communists doesn't really matter in that, and anyway the argument was much much shallower even than that. It was that because the S in NSADP stands for socialist, that means the Nazis must be socialists, which is why Razyda also believes that North Korea is a democratic republic. Just to clarify that it’s small consolation that “it doesn’t matter” and “biggest internal enemy,” when they have blood on their hands in selling out Germany to the Nazis. It’s also a little tricky saying foreign communists when Germanys communists operated under Stalin’s Comintern. + Show Spoiler + They killed each other in the streets. I'd like to check on that, do you have a source? Edit: As being 25 years into the topic, I was under the impression it was the Centrists/Royalists (who hated the Communists too) that did in the Weimar Republic and democracy in Germany by voting for the Notstandsgesetz and Hitler as Reichskanzler, because they thought he wouldn't be that bad, only a populist and could be controlled. The elected KPD politicians were mostly on the run, incarcerated or worse by then. Not one of them turned up to the vote. Because they were smart enough to know, it could have been a death sentence. I first learned about it from American Communist writings, speaking out about how the communists callously “sold out” their natural constituency (German working class) by treating the social democrats as equal to or worse than Nazis. You have to remember to that this is Stalin’s Comintern. These are really evil dudes. They treated the SPD (social democrats) as the real enemy of communism and not the NSDAP (Nazi party). They called the social democrats social fascism/social fascists. You can debate if the German communists knew it was stupid but could do nothing to split from Stalin’s party line, or they were full partners. The first source I would bring up to you is Leon Trotsky himself. The struggle against fascism in Germany. Criticism of KPD’s “nach Hitler, kommen wir” That's not an alliance with the Nazis now, is it? The mistrust between the KPD and SPD was deeply rooted after how the murder of Rosa Luxemburg was dealt with as the most impactful example. Even if they voted as a block to avoid what was about to happen in the final election, they would have failed preventing it. Unless they had clairvoyance and found a generally agreeing political movement of all the left parties convincing 50%+ of the population, which was not possible. You guys point it as if Stalin was the puppet master here, i disagree with that. The Weimar Republic was obviously more than flawed and was doomed to fail in the extreme political climate of the time. + Show Spoiler +I'm absolutely against communism in any shape or form btw. Thats why I didn’t say they had an alliance. Everything I said is on the historical record and, as far as I know, not seriously contested. Sorry if you took my post to mean they had anything like a formal alliance. I think it doesn’t take a clairvoyant to see that Stalin was making a bad move here. Trotsky was literally talking about how bad of an error it was at the exact time it was being committed.
What's the bad move? Encircling potential adversaries or executing them ?
Even after getting away from Stalin he got an ice pick to the head. Dude was really pedantic about having approval.
Either America lacks a center party or it is one party with small differences in nuance. Not having the neutron to orbit around kinda predicts a lot of differences, but maybe the military is that neutron.
Do they find a solution where the conflict in Ukraine stops or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
