This makes me sad, I thought we mostly agreed that what FDR did is a good way forward.
All he did was save capitalism which inevitably led to what the US has today. There is no future for humanity with oligarchs like him and his family despite their supposed good intentions
He did a lot more than “save capitalism”. Social Security, the Citizens Conservation Corpse, and the full blown WW2-era command economy (complete with ration cards and production quotas and public housing for all the rapidly mobilized industrial workers) had far more in common with Stalinism than Coolidge’s laisse-faire market economy. Hell, FDR even had his share of gulags, when you consider how Japanese Internment Camps were created and administered.
There is no future for humanity with oligarchs like him and his family
There’s a sharp line between an oversized land baron clutching a fist full of stock certificates and a popular elected bureaucrat charged with administering the public labor force.
Oligarchy can’t just be “guy with rich parents” or it quickly descends into austerity fetishism. Oligarchy is fundamentally anti-populist. It requires a strong centralized police force to compel a broad, disorganized public into acting against their own material interests. FDR’s New Deal was a meaningful shift away from oligarchy precisely because he adopted policies from his left-leaning proletarian base in defiance of the Depression-Era economic elites. And he implemented them with the enthusiastic support of the body public. Nobody was getting held up at gunpoint to take a salary from the Parks’ Department or to pile into Keynesian school house construction programs or to patch up wounded soldiers at the VA.
FDR’s personal wealth gave him a platform upon which to propagandize left-liberal policies on a national stage. But his messages resonated because they had a popular basis not because he simply hammered people with Madison Avenue propaganda.
You seem to be arguing that FDR was a leftist because of the policies he implemented. But I think what you are missing is why he implemented those policies. I think the truth is he didn’t really have the public interest at heart. His agenda was to contain a growing threat to capitalism in the form of the Communist Party of the 1930s. His strategy to contain the CP was to neuter the party by bringing it into the Democratic party fold, alienating their most militant members, and slowly squashing their agenda. Of course he had to appeal to their interests to do so. But it was a temporary strategy, not a real shift in US policy. There are a few articles on the topic if you are genuinely interested. Here’s one. And here’s a quote from another.
The New Deal reforms Sanders evokes were not the product of a farsighted, enlightened reformer, but responses to tumultuous class struggles in the early and mid-1930s. These reforms sought to contain explosive social struggles and were never truly universal, excluding women and African-Americans, for example. After mass struggle ebbed, Roosevelt shifted back to his original goal of stabilizing US capitalism while moving toward establishing US global domination during World War II. Progressive reforms came to an abrupt halt in the late 1930s, allowing the rollback of many popular gains during the 1940s.
FDR was a leftist because of the policies he implemented.
Its hard to argue a politician is something other than his policies.
you are missing is why he implemented those policies
The why hardly matters. Only the consequences. You can definitely argue that FDR failed to cement the more progressive programs (fully employment through public agencies, public control of finance and agriculture, a long term peaceful coexistence with the Soviet states). And for that reason, he was a kind-of failure. But I would argue putting the weight of the world on one man’s shoulders is deeply unfair. FDR took US policy as far as he could. Then it was Truman and Eisenhower and their lackeys who fumbled the bag (or capitulated to corporate interests deliberately).
His strategy to contain the CP was to neuter the party by bringing it into the Democratic party fold, alienating their most militant members, and slowly squashing their agenda.
The Democratic Party, as a whole, has a vested interest in neutralizing rival movements and harvesting their members. That’s not a strategy FDR invented or pioneered. Neither was the DemSoc liberalism of FDR incompatible with a more Reform Oriented American Communist Movement. The strategy worked in large part because American Communists saw FDR’s outreach to Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China as a positive turn foreshadowing a real global movement.
I might argue that Stalin’s “Communism in One Country” and Mao’s failure to open China up until Nixon, thirty years later, that did more damage than FDR’s liberal-washing of Communist organizing efforts. I could easily argue that the Truman/Eisenhower Cold War was what ultimately did in the American Communists. Socialists couldn’t uproot Hoover from the FBI or unseat McCarthy from a strong union state like Wisconsin or keep guys like Nixon or Kennedy from worming their way into the upper echelons of the US government on a wave of mafia money.
At some point, you have to acknowledge the failures within the leftist organizing movements that happened in the US. Deng and Khrushchev and Ho Chi Mein and Kim Il Sung didn’t collapse in the face of these problems in their home states and they all had it much worse.
“I’m a leftist!” Helps get a rapist felon fascist get elected
How did leftists help lol
liberals were the ones campaigning with the Cheneys and committing war crimes and genocide. But of course, it’s the left’s fault that the Liberals shit the bed and wasted billions of dollars on a dogshit campaign
It is so funny when Americans think that the election was fair and they had a choice. You have a kayfabe version of democracy.
“Take the Blue Pill and the gradual slide into fascism stops accelerating for four years while the current hellscape becomes the status quo, take the Red Pill and buckle the fuck up as we hyperspeed into fascism”
It’s hilarious when people think it is anything other than a 2 party system.
It’s a one party system.
It is a kayfabe democracy. It has only oligarchical management, not democratic representation. No matter who wins the elections the policies are predetermined. Rooting for Kamala over Trump is no different than rooting for The Undertaker in Wrestlemania.
Sure sure, because under Kalama Harris this was how January was going to go too, yep.
It was, yeah. The US was going to implode and decline no matter which person was appointed by your oligarchy. You didn’t vote for any of the corporate board members who control your society and government in November. You also didn’t actually have a choice, in kayfabe democracy the results are predetermined, much like all the elections in authoritarian carceral states.
No, I strongly disagree that Harris would have all DEI removed, all black history everything paused for the military, etc. Harris was not going to push for more tax breaks for the ultra rich. The project 2025 agenda was not going to be pursued under Harris. You may not approve of the Harris agenda, but they are not remotely comparable except through an absolutist all or nothing lens. Claiming they are the same is absurd.
You are not understanding what I am saying. You do not live in a democracy. Harris had no chance of winning because your elections are fake. That is what I mean by results are predetermined, just like Wrestlemania. The US oligarchs fixed the elections during redistricting years before the election took place. During the ridiculous run up to the event nothing you did mattered. You live in a authoritarian oligarchy.
Oh no the imperialist murder machine isn’t being woke anymore?!!?!
under biden the US committed a genocide and started multiple wars
you don’t live in a democracy. get this through your head.
- Those who didn’t vote, or voted third party, due to the pointless war in the middle east that involved war crimes just like every war I can think of since the Geneva Convention became a thing, that President Biden funded, did so in safe states that VP Harris won.
- The makeup of the United States means that Republicans have an advantage in the Senate and therefore also the Electoral College.
- Republicans gerrymander, Democrats half-heartedly gerrymander, since that is against the ideology of liberalism. This gives Republicans an edge in the House of Representatives as well.
- The Republican advantage in the Senate is so great that the only way for Democrats to get a majority is to include neoliberal or conservative senators like Manchin, meaning progress is continuously stifled.
- The Republicans are allowed to get away with stretching the rules, while the Democrats have to follow the rules at all times. Part of this, again, is due to adhering to liberal ideology, and part of it is due to the ruling class favoring Republicans. There has been a conservative majority in the Supreme Court since the 1980s. Democrats are controlled opposition, in that no matter how hard they try, they will never be able to enact meaningful change.
- An actual left-wing candidate would not be liberal, as is the point of this post. Therefore, they would have no chance of winning the Democratic primary. That would force them to run as an independent or in a third party, and our system makes it almost impossible for a third party candidate to win, at least at the national level.
Yes, it is better to vote for a Democrat than a Republican, but it is much better to build grassroots support for leftism, which, shocker, is what leftists have been trying to do in the US for centuries. If anything, the leftists are doing the most to fight fascism, by trying to get rid of the US system of government that is biased towards the status quo, which by definition benefits the ruling class.
If someone said they were leftist then I would very much hope they were pro EU and pro Ukraine
It’s the far right that is against those
Nah dude. A good portion of leftists want Ukraine genocided.
Right, because being willing to accept an end to the war in any other way than Zelensky’s impossibly maximalist goals means wanting Ukrainians to be genocided. Also history began on Feb. 24, 2022.
Hey, I’m actually interested in your personal opinion. Are you pro Russian and if so why? Is there a long game being played out that fits your views with Russian expansion? Or rather the west’s decline.
I don’t think Russia currently has an interest in expansion. I already linked above to the reasons for Russia’s invasion, and they weren’t revanchism or Lebensraum, as Western governments & media claim.
It’s also often said that Russia is imperialist. I think that if Russia could be imperialist it would be, but since it presently can’t, it presently isn’t. Putin tried to join NATO once, to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected Russia, because the US wanted (and still wants) Russia Balkanized and re-plundered instead. Russia has figured out that it’s better off allying with Global South countries than attempting imperialist adventures upon them. And this war has accelerated that allyship.
Are you pro Russian and if so why?
I’ve answered this before: https://lemmy.ml/comment/9498456
Thanks. The nuance is appreciated. If Russia “reclaims” Ukraine through total victory do you think they would allow the Ukraine identity to subsist? Are there more countries Russia would like to revanche? I think Moldova would be an easy grab.
I think Russia knows full well that it can’t “reclaim” western Ukraine: few people there want to be part of Russia, and the Banderite fascists especially don’t. It would be a absolute nightmare to hold. There would be endless insurgencies and bloodshed, and it would be a huge drain on state resources. Russia wants what is says it has wanted since the 1990s: a neutral buffer state.
Keep in mind that when the invasion started, Eastern Ukraine had been in a civil war with Western Ukraine for almost a decade, and some in Eastern Ukraine had for years pleaded Russia to intervene. Eastern Ukraine is a very different situation from Western Ukraine. Russia had almost no issues when it “invaded” Crimea in 2014, because most of the people were glad to no longer be ruled by the Banderite coup government. They were right, too, because they didn’t suffer nine years of fascist paramilitary terrorism like their northern neighbors in Eastern Ukraine did.
Are there more countries Russia would like to revanche? I think Moldova would be an easy grab.
As I said, revanchism isn’t what this was ever about, despite what Western states publicly claim and Western media repeat. Russia would piss off its allies and its enemies if it invaded another country, and its enemies would probably ramp up their war machines against it significantly.
If Ukraine wants to breakup with Russia. The correct response is to not rape and murder them.
The stated goal of the US State Department is to drag out the conflict for as long as possible. Years ago, Boris Johnson threatened to cut Ukraine out of financial markets if Zelenskyy held peace talks with Russia.
There’s a group that wants as much suffering as possible out of this war. But it’s not the people who recognize that being the proxy in a struggle between the US and Russia is only going to hurt the people of Ukraine.
Russia could foil all those plans by simply ceasing the invasion and going home.
Why would they? That’s like saying the Capitalists in the US could willingly implement Socialism. This isn’t an actual solution, as long as it is in Russia’s interests to continue, they will. Russia gains nothing by packing up and going home, and they have the means and will to continue.
What do they gain by continuing the war?
It’s hardly in Russia’s interest for their sons to die, their equipment to explode, and their economy to crumble. It’s self destructive, which it has in common with capitalism, but worse than that it’s a genocide of the Ukrainian people.
Russia’s economy isn’t crumbling, and its industrial capacity is fairly high. What Russia wants, ultimately, is either an assurance of Ukranian neutrality with respect to NATO or full demillitarization of it. Russia went to war to combat NATO encirclement of its borders. If a peace deal isn’t met, Russia can just continue to slowly advance while the US carves out Ukraine for profit.
There’s definitely some BS the west is imposing on Ukraine to drag this conflict out. It feels like it’s to financially ruin Russia. I just don’t understand why Russia doesn’t cut it’s losses and just take what they already have. Ukraine is never going to be a part of NATO so I don’t understand the NATO expansion argument either.
Probably not left then
Just want to pretend they are because they aren’t as far right as someone they can point to
I’m trying to avoid certain words on .ml. there are different kinds of “leftists”
But in doing so you’re making your message less clear, because it’s saying that tankies are leftists. (Uh oh you made me say it!)
Citation needed
deleted by creator
Oh yeah that Ukraine is definitely the last bastion of communism
It’s about a super power trying to exploit a small country
Palestine isn’t leftist either but you will find people campaigning for the protection of their people
The right side is just liberalism. This is what happens when the left and liberal are melded together in everyday western society/language and the water is muddied. It’s intended. It confuses people, overwhelms them, and leads them to use the apparatus that the ruling class has placed in front of us to circumvent true working class interests and movements. It’s why liberals scoff at potential allies (leftists), instead of seeing the truth: a unified working class.
deleted by creator
True. Always good to unpack it. It’s therapeutic lol.
Nice instance name.
For real lol
Thanks! Never thought I’d own a domain with “yachts” in the name 😂
It’s always the people who say ‘I’m a hardcore leftist’ or ‘I’m as left as they come’
New bit idea: tell people you’re “as left as they cum,” and always cum facing your left.
I’m like Zoolander, I can’t cum left
i’m as left as they come but I think Israel should “clear out” Gaza and that Trump makes some good points about woke going too far
I’m confused what the pink hat is supposed to have to do with the rest of the images
Officially named Pussyhats, they were first worn symbolically at the 2017 US Women’s March in Washington DC. Created by Krista Suh and Jayna Zweiman (who met at an LA knitting club), the hat was made in direct response to grab em by the pussy remark from tdump. The original idea was for marchers to knit, sew, or crochet hats to create a visual statement —a sea of pink. “If everyone at the march wears a pink hat, the crowd will be a sea of pink, showing that we stand together, united,” reads the introduction to the knitting pattern on the Pussyhat Project website. The actual hats were created by people who could not attend physically, but wanted to show their support.
Since then, some have come out against it as any one symbol isn’t as all encompassing as they would like, but none have yet given or inspired a good replacement for such a strong show of women’s solidarity.
nothing, it’s just anti-trans, anti-queer bullshitting.
Edit: after looking it up, if i understand it correctly, it’s misogynistic bullshit? maybe? maybe not? idk
No, it’s anti-pinkwashing. It’s anti-liberals failing to protect the vulnerable yet again. What have we gained since the pussyhat movement but the loss of reproductive rights under Biden’s watch?
the loss of reproductive rights under Biden’s watch?
What did Biden have the authority to do that wasn’t done (to avoid this loss)?
Failed to make an executive action codifying abortion rights.
That would have just been superseded by the next admin
So do nothing, got it. Shoo lib begone
If you just want to do things for the sake of doing things so you can say you’ve done things, even though absolutely nothing materially changed. Typical you.
Yeah there is no point in eating, you will just shit it out later so best to not bother at all.
Now this would be like eating things but you’ve had your stomach and intestines removed. Then your analogy works. But it’s a pretty stupid analogy.
By removing, with official acts, justices who violated their oath of office.
The Supreme Court ruled that any Official Act done by the President is Constitutional.
Surely you can think of some pretty cool stuff this enables?
Well you see, catgirls are bourgeois decadence /s
Both can be correct, it’s not a hard black and white split
The leftist revolutionary heroes are resisting the people on the right, it is a hard split. The people on the right are shepherds of the US carceral state and imperial murderers
Last time I checked, that’s not how that works, everyone has a wide range of ideals and views. Not 1 or 2, there can be 1 1/2, 1 1/3, 1 1/10000, whatever
Until we get ranked choice voting, you still need to support them though.
Ranked Choice Voting is both too ineffective to make any change, and too difficult to get in the first place. It’s the perfect endless carrot on a string, the eternal “just one more lane and traffic will be gone.”
Even if that’s so, you’d still need to vote for the people on the right, because voting third party in first past the post is objectively just terrible for everyone with similar goals.
The people on the right work with the Republicans. They aren’t resistance. Revolution is a necessity.
Even so, voting third party or not voting is worse than voting for the people on the right.
Alternative voting methods have proven useless against capitalist power. Countries like Australia and Japan use them, and it does nothing. It might make candidate stacking a little more expensive, and they have to pay more to advertise their candidates, but that’s it.
Alternative voting methods allow for smaller parties, ones who’s values may align more with the general population, an actual fighting chance. You gotta admit at some point that having only two realistic choices is a bit of a problem, right?
In current Polish sejm there is 17 parties and 42 indpendents (on 460 seats). But every single one of them is procapitalist, proimperialist, pro USA, anticommunist. Alternative voting methods do literally nothing by itself.
It seems like it should help, but in practice, its been useless. You end up having a greater diversity of candidates and parties, but if capital still stands above the political system and controls it, it just means more capitalist puppets, and more advertising money required to get those preferred puppets elected.
Multi-party Bourgeois parliamentarism is not really any different from the ancient roman imperial senate. Its government by oligarchy / the wealthy entrenched class.
horseshoe theory with “I’m not like other girls” characteristics
The term “tankie” was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defence of the Soviet use of tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.
The term was literally created by Marxists to insult the kind of person who wants to use tanks to suppress a worker’s revolution. Tankies aren’t communists. They’re counterrevolutionaries who want to stop all progress made towards dissolving the state as Marx said.
They were putting chalk marks on the doors of jews and communists. It wasn’t a worker’s revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demands_of_Hungarian_Revolutionaries_of_1956
We demand general elections by universal, secret ballot are held throughout the country to elect a new National Assembly, with all political parties participating. We demand that the right of workers to strike be recognised.
We demand complete revision of the norms operating in industry and an immediate and radical adjustment of salaries in accordance with the just requirements of workers and intellectuals. We demand a minimum living wage for workers.
So you’re saying the revolution demanding minimum wage and the right to strike wasn’t a worker’s revolution? Are all tankies this right-wing or just you?
What do you think “all political parties participating” means in 1956 Hungary?
One of the biggest and most dangerous mistakes made by Communists is the idea that a revolution can be made by revolutionaries alone. On the contrary, to be successful, all serious revolutionary work requires that the idea that revolutionaries are capable of playing the part only of the vanguard of the truly virile and advanced class must be understood and translated into action.
- Lenin, 1922
It probably means they read Lenin and liked his ideas a lot better than Stalin’s nonsense. Now, you were explaining how tankies oppose minimum wage and the right to strike?
To be clear, drag is calling Nazis and Nazi sympathizers “the advanced working class.” Trying to twist Lenin into supporting fascism is incorrect, to say the least.
Moreover, Stalin was dead before 1956, this was Khrushchev.
drag does realize that the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were working with literal Nazis, and were marking the doors of Jews and Communists, right? They were lynching people, and even freed Nazis from jail to help with the lynching. The “political parties” they wanted to be able to participate were not worker parties, but fascist ones.
This is genuinely what liberals often accuse “tankies” of doing: uncritically supporting movements based on nominally being progressive, despite in reality being highly reactionary. Further, Hungary wanted to get out of paying reparations for World War II, that was one of the biggest cruxes of the situation. Who did Hungary fight alongside in WWII, does drag remember?
Spoiler: the Nazis.
Source?
This is a decent overview of the background that led up to the events of 1956, and this is a decent overview of the darker side, where the lynchings happened. Content Warning: lynched corpses. Here is a source on MI6 training and arming the counterrevolutionaries. Those 3 articles give only the briefest overview of the events, but don’t do the real buildup to them, their complexities, what the people actually supported, or the real character in any depth. If drag wants to actually take a deep dive, these are additional sources:
The History of the Working Class Movement in Hungary
1956 Counter-Revolution in Hungary
Others can offer more sources.
Overall, when it comes to geopolitical enemies of the United States in particular, it would not be a bad idea to treat drag’s current understanding with extreme skepticism until drag has investigated counter-sources as well. That doesn’t mean the US always lies, in fact it frequently tells mostly the truth, but will distory either the quality or quantity of an event.
What the hell you talking about? These are all revolutionary heroes acting in self defense and promoting solidarity.
Calling Fanon a tankie is the most ridiculous thing I’ve read today. Try reading a book for once in your life. He talks about how violence psychologically harms the revolutionary more than it does the people they attack.
Malcolm X was protecting himself after being firebombed here.
Fred Hampton was a socialist and preached cross racial solidarity and black power as a way of elevating black people into solidarity.
The Zapatistas are indigenous heroes who are resisting oppression of the state, who prefer civil disobedience but will act to protect themselves.
Sacco and Vanzetti were organizing a general strike and were framed then murdered by the state
Leila Khalid was separated from her family at 15 during the Palestinian expulsion and resisting Israeli occupation
Where the hell are the tankies in this pic? What are you people even talking about
Drag didn’t accuse anyone in the picture of being a tankie. Drag thought the image was relevant to the discussion. As you can see in this thread, users of this community are defending the use of tanks to suppress the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Drag thought that tankies might like to comment on your meme, and called them tankies. And as everyone can see, drag was right.
drag is defending a fascist counter-revolution, and refused to read sources after asking for them. drag wasn’t right about anything. You are defending people that lynched and massacred Jewish people and Communists.
Section from the book “The Truth about Hungary” by Herbert Aptheker; a prominent figure in U.S. scholarly discourse in the 1940’s, and Marxist Historian. Written in 1957 it outlined what later would be confirmed by the bourgeois Western press:
"The special correspondent of the Yugoslav paper, Politika, (Nov. 13, 1956) describing the events of those days, said that the homes of Communists were marked with a white cross and those of Jews with a black cross, to serve as signs for the extermination squads. “There is no longer any room for doubt,” said the Yugoslav reporter, “it is an example of classic Hungarian fascism and of White Terror. The information,” continued this writer, “coming from the provinces tells how in certain places Communists were having their eyes put out, their ears cut off, and that they were being killed in the most terrible ways.”
“But the forces of reaction were rapidly consolidating their power and pushing forward on the top levels, while in the streets the blood of scores of massacred Communists, Jews, and progressives was flowing.”
“Some of the reports reaching Warsaw from Budapest today caused considerable concern. These reports told of massacres of Communists and Jews by what were described as 'Fascist elements’ …” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 1. 1956)
“The evidence is conclusive that the entry of Soviet troops into Budapest stopped the execution of scores, perhaps thousands of Jews, for by the end of October and early November, anti-Semtic pogroms - hallmark of unbridled fascistic terror - were making their appearance, after an absence of some ten years, within Hungary.”
"A correspondent of the Israeli newspaper Maariv (Tel Aviv) reported:
During the uprising a number of former Nazis were released from prison and other former Nazis came to Hungary from Salzburg . . . I met them at the border . . . I saw anti-Semitic posters in Budapest . . . On the walls, street lights, streetcars, you saw inscriptions reading: “Down with Jew Gero!” “Down with Jew Rakosi!” or just simply “down with the Jews!”
Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."
Perhaps if the revolutionaries had been allowed to seize the government and impose order, they would have put down the opportunistic fascist movement. Instead, it seems at first glance that the USSR sent their tanks in to cause chaos, created the lawlessness that allowed the fascists to fester, and then took credit for solving the problem they themselves caused.
The fascist movement was the “revolution.” If you’re saying that the Soviets caused this by beating the Nazis and the Axis powers in World War II, you’re siding with the Nazis.
Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.” Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."
Leading rabbinical circles in New York received a cable early in November from corresponding circles in Vienna that “Jewish blood is being shed by the rebels in Hungary.”
That’s hearsay.
Very much later-in February, 1957-the World Jewish Congress reported that “anti-Semitic excesses occurred in more than twenty villages and smaller provincial towns during the October-November revolt.” This occurred, according to this very conservative body, because “fascist and anti-Semitic groups had apparently seized the opportunity, presented by the absence of a central authority, to come to the surface.” Many among the Jewish refugees from Hungary, the report continued, had fled from this anti-Semitic pogrom-like atmosphere (N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1957). This confirmed the earlier report made by the British Rabbi, R. Pozner, who, after touring refugee camps, declared that “the majority of Jews who left Hungary did so for fear of the Hungarians and not the Russians.” The Paris Jewish newspaper, Naye Presse, asserted that Jewish refugees in France claimed quite generally that Soviet soldiers had saved their lives."
You already posted all of that. Since your memory is struggling, drag will help you by repeating what drag said when you said all that the first time:
Perhaps if the revolutionaries had been allowed to seize the government and impose order, they would have put down the opportunistic fascist movement. Instead, it seems at first glance that the USSR sent their tanks in to cause chaos, created the lawlessness that allowed the fascists to fester, and then took credit for solving the problem they themselves caused.
No, it seems that drag ks working overtime to sympathize with Nazi collaborators upset that they had to pay reparations for the devastation and genocide they contributed to during World War II. These were not “revolutionaries.” Hungary had a problem with Nazis since World War II and even before that, to blame the Soviets for Hungarians siding with the Nazis is so utterly confused that it can only be interpreted as deliberate bad-faith.
Genuinely, from me to drag, why does drag do this? Why does drag bat so hard for Nazi collaborators and against Socialists in the real world when it is absolutely clear when the Socialists were in the right?
Drop the act. I’m blocking you now, Maybe you can get people to defend your moronic third person shit but I can see your ridiculous trolling for what it is. How dare you make a mockery of people who genuinely need to come to terms with their identities.
We should make a special political spectrum just for these people. Let’s call it the imperial political spectrum.
the fucking hat lmao
Alright no hate on Bernie tho, that dude is a role model through and through.
Bernie has been pretty shitty on foreign policy. He supported the NATO bombing of Belgrade for 78 straight days, which is why he fell out of favor with his socialist friend, Michael Parenti. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLNQEHbusSA&t=39s
Bernie is basically a modern day version of Bernstein. Though a century apart, both peddle reformism as a political pacifier, diverting energy from the radical systemic change required to dismantle capitalism. Their approaches, while superficially progressive, function as ideological traps, diverting energy from serious movements necessary to upend capitalism.
Bernstein was a leading figure in Germany’s SPD, and he famously rejected Marxist revolutionary praxis in favor of evolutionary socialism. He argued capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through parliamentary means, dismissing the inevitability of class conflict. He neutralized the SPD’s revolutionary potential, channeling working-class demands into compromises like wage increases or limited welfare programs that left capitalist hierarchies intact. As Rosa Luxemburg warned in Reform or Revolution, Bernstein’s strategy reduced socialism to a “mild appendage” of liberalism, sapping the working class of its transformative agency.
Likewise, the political project that Bernie pursued mirrors Bernstein’s trajectory. While Sanders critiques inequality and corporate power, his platform centers on social democratic reforms, such as Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage, that treat symptoms instead of root causes. By framing electoral victory as the primary objective, Sanders diverted a what could have been a millions strong grassroots movement into the Democratic Party, an institution structurally committed to maintaining capitalism. His campaigns absorbed activist energy into phone banking and voter outreach, rather than building durable, extra-parliamentary power such as workplace organizations, tenant unions, and so on.
When Sanders conceded to Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden, his base dissolved into disillusionment or shifted focus to lesser-evilism. Without autonomous structures to sustain pressure, the movement’s momentum evaporated similarly to how the SPD was integrated into Weimar Germany’s capitalist state. However, even if his agenda were enacted, it would exist within a neoliberal framework. Much like FDR’s New Deal coexisted with Jim Crow, imperial plunder, and union busting. Reforms within the system are always contingent on their utility to capital, and their purpose is demobilize the workers.
A meaningful challenge to capitalism requires a long-term strategy that combines direct action, mass education, and dual power structures. Imagine if Sanders had urged supporters to unionize workplaces, organize rent strikes, and create community mutual aid networks alongside electoral engagement. Movements like MAS in Bolivia, show how grassroots power can pressure institutions while cultivating revolutionary consciousness. Instead, his campaign became a referendum on his candidacy, leaving his followers adrift after his defeat.
Bernstein and Sanders, despite their intentions, exemplify the dead end of reformism. Their projects mistake tactical concessions for strategic victory, ignoring capitalism’s relentless drive to commodify and co-opt. In the end, the reformist approach ends up midwifing full blown fascism. By channeling energy into parliamentary politics, the SPD deprioritized mass mobilization. Unions and workers were encouraged to seek concessions rather than challenge capitalist power structures. This eroded class consciousness and left the working class unprepared to confront the nazi threat.
When the nazis gained momentum, the SPD clung to legalistic strategies, refusing to support strikes or armed resistance against Hitler. Their faith in bourgeois democracy blinded them to the existential threat of fascism, which exploited economic despair and nationalist resentment. In the end, SPD famously allied with the nazis against the communists.
The “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of the SPD’s reformist trajectory. While advocating for policies like Medicare for All or climate action, it operates within capitalist constraints, undermining radical change and inadvertently fueling right-wing extremism. The Democrats absorb grassroots energy into electoral campaigns while their reliance on corporate donors ensures watered-down policies that fuel disillusionment.
The SPD’s reformism actively enabled fascism by disorganizing the working class and legitimizing capitalist violence. Similarly, the Democratic Party’s commitment to pragmatic incrementalism sustains a system that breeds reactionary backlash. Trump is a direct product of these policies. We’re just watching history on repeat here.
thanks for the breakdown and for your continued work here.
o7
Well said
Before 2017 sure.
What did he do in 2017?
Continued to support Democrats after they fucked him in the 2016 primary, I’m guessing?
I don’t know, I still like him
Same. He saw *gestures broadly* coming and tried to prevent it as best as he could. What’s that Greek legend about an oracle whose catastrophic prophecies always come true, but they’re never believed and always blamed for them?
Cassandra, cursed by Apollo to have the gift of prophecy but to never be believed.
Absol? (j)
There two sides.
1% and their zombies
The rest of us.
Let’s not split up and weaken. 💪
That is indeed the two sides depicted in the meme
“You can’t trust those leftists because they’re just tankies”
The Tankie they’re referring to:
Is equating the defense of Ukraine with that hat the entire point of the meme?
.ml people will stand by people resisting the imperialism of one country, and then condemn people resisting the imperialism of another, and still won’t realize they are effectively nationalists.
Liberals will invent fanfiction about Marxists before genuinely trying to engage with Lenin’s analysis of Imperialism or attempt to have a genuine conversation about it.
Marxists are great people. Leninists have fantastic ideas. And Marxist-Leninists betray everything Marx and Lenin stood for.
“Socialism in one country” is the invention of a bourgeois dictator who sought to destroy communism because it was a threat to his power.
Karl Marx died an anarchist.
“Socialism in one country” is the invention of a bourgeois dictator who sought to destroy communism because it was a threat to his power.
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
A lot of the cold war propaganda about the USSR turned out to be bullshit, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you, including Domenico Losurdo.
Karl Marx died an anarchist.
This is laughably false by simply reading what Marx actually wrote.deleted by creator
I think that report wasn’t an honest assessment but rather the cold war talking points to be used for cold war propaganda. The CIA is as much in the job of disinformation as it is in information. Contemporary Western academic historians, having access to declassified US & USSR documents from the time, have published accounts that put these cold war cartoon villain narratives to bed.
deleted by creator
Please judge this source by the content of the writing and the sourcing of its own arguments rather than by the hosting medium.
Even if it were true that Marx threw out his entire life’s work and became an anarchist on his deathbed, how did the Paris Commune turn out? Why has no anarchist society lasted more than a few months before collapsing from within, or from without by capitalist/imperialist forces? Anarchism has not and can not succeed in the world we presently live in, if for no other reason than they cannot defend themselves against the imperialist forces of the monopoly capitalists who want to profit from everything everywhere.
From Michael Parenti’s 1997 book Blackshirts and Reds:
But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.
No, lol. Marx wanted a fully publicly owned and planned economy free of class antagonisms, Anarchists want decentralized networks of communes. These are very different systems with very different analysis.
Socialism in One Country is correct, Trotsky wanted to abandon building Socialism essentially and just keep trying to do revolutions elsewhere. The correct path is to not abandon building Socialism, while still supporting Socialist movements elsewhere.
Yeah this is some not-so-subtle propaganda from our komrades.
literally just poking fun at this brand of american liberals be so serious
Da, all in good fun.
This is why I usually try not to label myself these days. Invariably there is nuance that I’m not aware of, or that some others interpret differently.
I’m NOT a democrat, republican, conservative, communist, socialist, liberal, maga, or anarchist.
But I lean left on social issues, often hard left, though I say that while also saying I’m firmly anti-authoritarian. And I don’t really put fiscal on a separate axis because there are fiscal impacts to any set of beliefs with regard to how various social issues should be considered. I’m also not at all conversant in the slightest bit of nuance regarding how the economy works.
I’m sure some folks would call me a leftist based on the above. Others would insist I’m a liberal. Am I a progressive? Not sure.
