GarbageShootAlt2

I appreciate the kind words and am glad to see an open socialist on .world

Well, two things:

One, that is a very alarmist view of Trump. He liked slinging around executive orders, but he had neither the ambition nor the audacity to be a Hitler. It simply isn't realistic to think he'll execute his second term by toppling the Republic, he doesn't have visions like that, even if many people have visions like that for him (including Mike Lindel, somewhat hilariously, with his apparent attempt to get Trump to do a false flag and establish emergency powers).

Second, look at history. Inevitably, some people who release leopards do get their faces eaten, but becoming an executor of a fascist regime isn't a loss of power, it's a change in title at worst and, if anything, something of an increase in power. Imagining Trump becomes a fascist autocrat, that doesn't actually mean that his whim is enough to unilaterally move things however he likes, and that is true of every leader in history. The reason for this is that his power, his authority, doesn't come from himself, it comes from the class (or classes, historically) that support him, so he needs to make sure to keep them on his side or they will absolutely just kill and replace him. The petty Congressmen that support him know this, and are fine with working in a paradigm where they benefit from his support and are left with a broad range of things that he views as acceptable (since Trump won't try to micromanage the whole country) in which to exert their personal agendas as they see fit.

But again, Fuhrer Trump is a fantasy. Maybe Tom Cotton poses such a threat, but Trump does not.

Does this all make sense?

The German history it gives is a massive distortion of the reality of liberals giving Hitler power. I can copy one of the explanations for you if it is required.

If you think Castro is worse than Harris, you've been successfully duped by your masters.

No way it's something connected to America, one of the most direct inspirations for the Nazis. No, the reason there's this Nazi apologia must be the sissy pee.

I don't think that the state being Zionist means that it actually represents the views of American Jews. The state has a 0% tolerance for anti-zionism, but a significant portion of the Jewish population is anti-zionist ("not in our name" and all that).

Yes, but you're going to need to find a way to think beyond that, because both parties understand that it's in their interests to oppose rcv, so "vote democrat until we get rcv" effectively means "vote democrat forever".

Fundamentally, there is a limit to the extent that a capitalist democracy will tolerate actual democratic power, because eclipsing the power of capitalists obviously means threatening their position. They will not sit idly by and allow their power to be voted away.

The Nazis had also tried to overthrow the government once by that point, so making a coalition that included the Nazis is no less backing "an enemy of the Weimar Republic". The difference is, of course, that one is an enemy to capitalism and the other is an enemy of communism. It's no wonder that liberals would choose the latter.

There's a difference between history being people and history being Great Men tm. They are including people in material reality and saying that material reality is what creates the basis for the procession of history, not the appearance of great individuals who stand outside it and move it unilaterally.

I don't understand why people are even arguing against this. It's widely understood even in popular liberal academia that Great Man Theory is primitive, idealist, childish, and absurd and that you need to look at material circumstances, class interests, popular movements, and so on to understand why things happen.

The moment it makes waves on even a local level, one or both major parties would begin to invest resources in crushing it wherever it appeared.

The Social Democrats won 121 seats in November 1932, the communists won 100 seats. The Social Democrats were socialists and the communists were communists. The nazis had 196 seats in the 1932 election. So if the socialists and communists had combined they would have had 221 seats which is more than 196. And those were leftist parties who were bickering.

The problem here isn't "leftist parties bickering", it is self-evidently "the SPD aligning themselves with liberalism and fascism". It's not like the KPD refused to form a majority with other parties.

As an aside, "socialist" and "communist" are generally interchangeable terms and the SPD were neither by conventional definitions, but were instead (being very charitable to them) what we would call DemSocs.

It was the other user who mentioned God first, maeve was just replying to it