"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that ‘some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest’ of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called ‘social fascists.’
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."
Slow motion is better than no motion.
It’s pointless to argue over who is a ‘real’ Socialist. I can come up with arguments about anyone you care to name to prove they weren’t ‘real’ Socialists. What are the policies that actually improve people’s lives?
FDR was okay, then his safety nets were stripped away. They were only ever temporary concessions because Capitalists were always the ones in control, and they still are. In this manner, it was eventually no motion.
Almost as if the point of socialism is to strip away the the means of production from the capitalists in order to install a dictatorship of the proletariat, and not simply apply social safety-net band-aids so that capitalism can continue to function.
American liberals are so exhausting in their selective application of definitions.
100%, I’m trying to get them to come to that conclusion on “their own.”
Would make things a lot easier, lol
Almost as if it’s important to get out and vote in every election.
Ronald Reagan sabotaged Jimmy Carter’s Iran policy and squeaked in with the help of spoiler John Anderson.
You yourself said it; there were good policies in place, the Right hated them, and used a lot of dirty tricks to get rid of the good policies.
Having good government is like controlling diabetes; you have to be vigilant all the time.
Jesus christ, that’s just not what socialism is.
There’s a reason why social-democrats are castigated in communist circles. Social-democratic policy is always inevitably eroded because social safety nets don’t solve the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. It isn’t a matter of ‘getting out the vote’
I’ve spent decades listening to Communists tell me that the revolution was just around the corner.
And i’ve spent decades listening to liberals tell me that capitalism just needs to be reformed.
So we agree. The Communist revolution isn’t coming anytime soon so we should work with what we’ve got.
Errrrr, do we though? lmao
Well, either you think the revolution is close at hand, or you think it isn’t and people should suffer as much as possible.
No, I fundamentally disagree with your entire view of historical development, ie the why behind everything.
History is a progression of material conditions, not people and ideas, not Great Individuals making Big Moves. Social Democracy came at a time when the Soviet Union was rising, and Capitalists within America feared similar uprisings in America, compounded by the Great Depression. Concessions were allowed in that context, temporarily.
Neoliberalism came later, after WWII, during the height of the Cold War. It was a way to further seek profits in the Global South.
Fascism is rising now because Capitalism is undoubtedly in decline, and is decaying further.
Material Conditions drive the ideas that drive the masses that drive what’s salient, not random Great People doing everything.
History isn’t people? History is nothing but people.
Also, nothing you wrote disproves what I said.
We had the New Deal in place, and Reagan came along and stripped away things like banking regulations.
We could have a 90% tax rate tomorrow if people voted for it.
History is the process of Material Reality moving through time. The events of history are guided by the past, they aren’t random, chaotic events. In your analysis, Social Democracy came because FDR came, in my analysis, Social Democracy came because America was recovering from the Great Depression and the Ruling Class was terrified of a US Revolution, coming hot off the heels of the October Revolution.
Why was Reagan elected in the first place? Why did he have the ideas he had, and why did people vote for them?
Where’s the ballot measure for that?
Now you’re just playing word games.
What you call a ‘Process of Material Reality’ could as easily be called G*d or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You can’t disprove what I wrote about voting, so you’re trying to change the discussion.
Assuming God exists, God is outside material reality, as is the fsm. People are a part of material reality, and also not the entity of it, despite our grandiose illusions. As US citizens, ourselves have very little say so, regardless of who is in office. Until we decide we do. Voting isn’t the deciding factor, is what I’m understanding.
What tf does God have to do with anything, are you mental? Your entire comment is ridiculous.
What you’re “understanding” is make believe.
What on Earth could you have possibly meant? When could we have voted for a 90% tax rate?
Secondly, are you actually denying that history is a physical process? Like, if I throw a ball at someone, they will then be hit by that ball shortly after, right? Then they are hurt, and may retaliate, right? History is a series of reactions, not random special heroes and heroines being born.
I have never tried to change the discussion, you’re resorting to weird debatelord logic and aren’t worth engaging with anymore. Have a good one.
Eisenhower’s presidency did see some tax rates above 90%, but that figure only applied to the individual income taxes of top earners. For married people filing jointly in 1953, for example, any income above $200,000 was taxed at 90%, above $300,000 at 91%, and above $400,000 at 92%.
For someone who claims to know a lot about history, you sure are short on facts.
And if history is a ‘physical process’ post some pictures of it working. Not pictures of people doing things, because that would prove my point. A discrete physical embodiment of history, please.