this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
498 points (85.2% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3992 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

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

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Blaming progressives for not aligning with centrists instead of blaming centrists for siding with Nazis to lock out progressives is a weird take.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

That's historical revisionism. They would have easily created a coalition government to oppose Hitler, but without the support of the communist party, the conservative block ultimately held onto control, and Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg.

You're disingenuously conflating the conservatives that ceded power to the Nazi party (that had only taken about 30% of the vote) with the center left that reached out to the communists in an attempt to stop them. A decision by the head of the communist party that directly led to the murder of millions of people, including himself.

We are talking about a parliamentary system. The communists could have formed a coalition government that had a majority, but they refused. Without their support, no party won a majority or were able to form a majority coalition government, and the Nazis were able to take control from the conservatives in power (or more accurately, they gave it to them freely).

I'm not a historian, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

No, at no point did the Centre try to form a coalition with the KPD, but were turned down. In the Weimar system, it is the Chancellor that is in charge of forming coalitions, so even if the KPD, SPD, and Centre had enough seats to form a majority (which they didn't), they couldn't just form a coalition. This is why Franz Von Papen was appointed by Hindenburg, since he was expected to be able to convince the Centre party and Nazis to form a coalition with the conservatives and monarchists. And why when that failed and there was a failure to form a ruling coalition that Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor to create a Nazi lead coalition.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

Huh. Thanks for the correction. Sounds like Hindenburg sold Germany out big time.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That comment was not referring to literal nazis. They were talking about the American right wing.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Ok. Then I was explaining why it's not a "weird take." Because, you know... History.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It may not have been a weird take in the early 20th century. It's a weird take now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's literally an equivalent scenario.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ah, of course. America's communist party should be trying to form a coalition government in Parliament this year. Literally equivalent.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Essentially, yes. Bernie Sanders caucuses with the DNC.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

He does this because - it may surprise you to hear, but it's true - America does not have a parliamentary system of government. Here, everybody left-of-nazi is forced to pretend like they are all members of the same party. If America's system de facto allowed for more than two parties, then the progressive party could actually choose whether or not to form a coalition with the centrists, conditional on policy concessions. Since we do not, the centrists offer is "we get what we want or else you get nazis." Then make the progressives out to be the bad guys if they call the bluff, which isn't a bluff, because the centrists today genuinely would prefer 4 years of nazis over conceding anything to progressives.

So, exactly like the top level comment described. Weird take.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm just gonna not go down this particular propaganda bullshit rabbit hole again.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You're absolutely right: dismissing anything you don't want to hear as "propaganda bullshit" is a much easier way of having a discussion than participating.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Never mind, this just isn't worth my time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Bernie isn't a socialist, social Democrat, it Democratic socialist, nor is any member of the squad.