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.
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.
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.
Look up harm reduction.
Dems are not harm reduction in any way
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”?
Congratulations, you are the reason we have what we have now.
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.
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
The Biden administration did more for antitrust law than anyone in a generation. But by all means, ignore that because bOtH sIdEs
Truth.
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. :)
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.
Lenin was better but still an authoritarian.
They have all the brutality and none of the savviness of Stalin.
Stalin was a small dick
So authoritarianism. Did we ban the wrong tankies perhaps?
I’m over here waiting to see whether the apocalypse is more Matrix, Terminator, or idiocracy. I’m leaning idiocracy, but I’m not giving up on the others.
We’re legit too dumb to even build the Terminator or Matrix apocalypses IMO. They both rely on creating genuine artificial life.
Devastatingly, we might even be too dumb to get to an Idiocracy future. It’s set in ~2500 and the earth is still pretty well habitable.
I think short term it’s more Handsmaid’s Tale in the US, and globally heading for perhaps Elysium.
Good times, good times.
I want off this ride. I feel like a deer being chased by an endurance hunter and I’m about to collapse.
My money is on Idiocracy + 1984.
Whatever it is, expect there to be a healthy mix of “The Stepford Wives” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” thrown in there as well.
Cyberpunk is a possibility as well
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.
How exactly are these kindergarten word games going to stop fascism? I’m asking seriously.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The Party Formerly Known as Republican
ITT anti-leftism.
yall not solving fascism with neoliberalism, a capitalist ideology. just saying.
.ml domain checks out
“You’re from instance i dont like” isn’t a particularly strong counterargument
.worlddomain checks out
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’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?
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.
On a similar note, I’m going to start calling republicans red coats.
Why?
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
Too many people here just blindly hating on Bernie and nitpicking how “Stalinism is technically incorrect”. Where’s the Trump hate? Bring some of that shit out. I’ll start.
Fuck Trump, MAGA, and their entire cult of personality.
protip: most of the bernie haters are forum sliders. Mods are even less likely here to do anything about it than on reddit.
Lemmy should be a place Bernie’s policies are celebrated, but due to shills, bots, bad actors and just trolls, every post about him will be brigaded and turned into a shitshow
Lemmy is complicit in our march towards fascism and their lack of action is telling of their motivations
Because turbo libbing is not the solution to defeating Trump. It is similar to saying Israel has the right to defend itself before each statement. Bernie is actively antagonizing commies by repeating US imperialist propaganda and applying it to someone he does not like.
Stalinism isn’t actual leftist politics. It’s sycophantic moronery, just as Bernie used it.
Let’s hope he keeps doing it. Unless commies are out there fighting ICE with fire they can go get fucked.
Until? Communists are always among the first line to fight an oppressive government, if for no other reason than that they’re always among the first targets
Funny you say that, because every communist I’ve spent significant time with, but one in particular, sits behind a keyboard proselytizing other people.
Sample size of one, source extremely questionable
Thanks for proving my point.
So when Stalin collaborated with Nazis to kill and chase away my relatives from what is now Ukraine that was imperialist propaganda? Why did so many of my ancestors flee Russia at that time?
Your ancestors probably fled because they were nazi collaborators, just like the ukrainians marching with nazi emblems right now
My ancestors were Jewish you psycho
Cool story, but the vast majority of jewish people fleeing Ukraine during Stalin’s time were fleeing from Nazis not Soviets, so either your relatives were lying about being Jewish or lying about why they ran, maybe kulaks? Or you’re lying about your relatives, or maybe you’re just too stupid to remember the details and are filling in the blanks with random propaganda you heard, definitely bullshit of one flavor or another though
Sorry friend, also lost most of my family to communists who then gave the houses and business to officers family. Thankfully the son burned them alive along with the house. Death to ocupants.
Cool story
You mean the peace treaty he signed with Hitler to stall for time and build weapons after France and Britain refused to join forces with him to fight Hitler.
Have you considered asking yourself why France and Britain refused?
It is quite astounding to blame Stalin, the guy who basically fought Hitler all by himself, for the Holocaust.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin
Stalin’s actions killed 7-20 million people, intellectuals, minorities, and poor people. At least a million of which were deliberate deaths. People who defend that for political expedience are unquestionably misinformed or evil, take your pick. My family was fleeing for their lives.
I am all for some form of socialism, defending evil people is not how you get it.
Damn, that’s a suspiciously wide range.
Does it include Nazi soldiers killed by the red army in world war two? (Spoilers: yes)
This person is mad about dead Nazis
My ancestors were Jewish, they were chased out under threat of death. Absolutely repugnant to claim I’m mad about dead Nazis in that context.
Seems like it’s more repugnant for you to be condemning the USSR for killing Nazis
If that is true then trump is based and ice is deporting illegal criminals and rapists.
Youre a literal palette swapped nazi and deserve the same fate as nazis.
Really telling on yourself that you consider undocumented immigrants morally equivalent to literal Nazi soldiers killed in combat by the people they were invading
Trusting anything the US has to say about it’s enemies is always a mistake, and given how well documented our history of fabricating justifications for our foreign policy is it’s an extremely stupid one
Wikipedia isn’t a source
My Jewish grandparents on multiple sides were told to flee or die by Stalin’s drooling simps. My primary source is many of my great grandparents and the thousands of others that fled Russia at the barrel of a gun. Talk to any reputable Russian historian in the last 50 years and some figure in the many millions is going to come up. We have endless first hand accounts and mountains of historical evidence. To deny this history is like being a Holocaust denier. What exactly is your goal here?
Cool story, unfortunately for you some shit that allegedly happened to your grandparents proves absolutely nothing, and the historians considered reputable on the topic by western powers have been caught making shit up more than once. Trusting what the US has to say about its enemies is always a bad decision, you might be stupid enough to do it but I’m not.
And lol@ your holocaust denial comparison, we’ve got a shitload of hard evidence for it and fuck all to support your story
Wikipedia is a better source than most of what you can find on the internet these days. Its articles provide ample sources that you can check if you like. I’d say Wikipedia is one of the best things the current internet has. But if you don’t like it perhaps you would prefer conservapedia.
Wikipedia is a bastion of imperialist propaganda. Until recently it claimed that Israel fought a defensive war in 1967 and did a “preemptive attack”. Anyone who actually studied its history knows how blatantly wrong those lies are.
Wikipedia is great for science but awful for anything politics related. Especially if it opposes the Western hegemony. The literal CIA propaganda outlet Radio Free Asia is somehow a “credible source” which they frequently cite whenever they need lies about anything opposing the empire.
Incredibly wrong, I had the pleasure of correcting someone else earlier today who posted an excerpt of a wikipedia article regarding financial aid to Palestine as a source, the sole cited source of which was a Times of Israel article which contained no substantiating evidence whatsoever. The only things wikipedia can be trusted to reliably get right are basic scientific articles, anything remotely politically or culturally controversial will be skewed to fit one agenda or another. If the sources for the wiki article are any good then post them directly instead of referring to them secondhand through wikipedia, otherwise you’re just knowingly outsourcing a lie. And lol @ suggesting that any criticism of wikipedia must be from a conservative, swing and a miss kiddo.
If you feel antagonised when someone criticise Stalin then that’s a you problem though.
Staline’s Image Cult isn’t “imperialist propaganda”
Americans using their global opponents which they demonize in all their media as insults is an all too classic trope.
I am sure we are all extremely well informed on Stalin because of our unbiased media.
We’re not all from the US, but yes all the western block got anti-Ussr colored info. Still there is little you can find that can make a critical mind see Stalin as anything but a dictator. There are things you can admire in Marx, Trotsky and even Lenin, but if you cannot see how Stalin hijacked the revolution to make his own autocratic empire that while somewhat communism flavored, was structurally not that different of a fascist state, then you are willfully blind. The leader worship, the paranoia, the constant surveillance, those have no place in a communist society.
It is those aspects precisely that make Sanders equate the republicans to stalinists. I think the comparison is apt.
Stalin did massively advance Russian science and industrialization. But he did so at a massive human toll. Also his role in fighting Hitler is so minimized that people think he colluded with Hitler when the USSR basically defeated Hitler by themselves at Stalingrad and America swooped in afterwards.
The USSR did the greater part in defeating nazi Germany, seriously nobody who knows a thing about the fall of the 3rd Reich could deny that. They did so at a huge cost in soldiers and material. This is something that the world should thank the people of the USSR for, their sacrifice was terrible. However it was not Stalin defeating the nazi’s single handedly. His troops and officers did, nor did Stalin do this out of the goodness of his heart or through personal heroics. It was a fight for survival.
The Nazis lost at Stalingrad. Only after their defeat and being pushed back, America swooped in and took over Europe before Russia could.
Then they saved the Nazi scientists and officers and gave them top positions in NATO.
So did hitler. Only people praising hitler are same ones praising stalin.
Hitler did play a big role in killing Hitler. That much is true.
No, he really didn’t
Yes, the US has red scare propaganda.
Historians exist outside of the US, though. We have decades and decades of non-US, non communist-scare historical research to know what the USSR and Stalin did. If you don’t want to recognise the errors of the past, you will repeat them. If the most you can do is aim for Stalin’s USSR but 2025 version, then you’re as much an enemy of the people than capitalists are.
non communist-scare
Oh? What are you referring to?
red scares have been a global phenomena, not one isolated to the US. Pointless red baiting in response to what Trump being a fascist is about what I’ve come to expect from Bernie, the guy who can’t call it a genocide.
Declassified CIA documents from the time even say that Stalin was not so much of an autocrat as commonly mythologized.
Quite frankly, I think that the voters who would be put off by Bernie stating that MAGA and support for Stalin share similarities are both worthless and minuscule.
You have to make bridge statements in order to reach a broader audience
The GOP has become a Stalinist Party
They haven’t killed remotely enough fascists to earn this distinction.
They have deported enough people.
Stalin is famous for the Iron Railroads Out of the USSR?
Probably should have gone with forced displacement for this dig I think
I meant forced displacement to Siberia. I said deported because no one was asking to get deported and no one wanted to be displaced to Siberia and that most often happened because you were educated and pose a threat to the regime and the US is on that track they have deported people who didn’t support their “allies”, which in their minds is also a major threat to them (which it isn’t).
It happened cause commie dumbfuck pieces of shit needed to fill a quota set by stalin. Stop huffing russian propaganda.
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
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.
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.
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.
Yup, more of the same rote insults. With some incoherent “no, u!” thrown in.
Go make some friends in real life, if you can.
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
