"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."

      • GlobalCompatriot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        If it wasn’t for his Secretary of Labor, Francis Perkins, who was socialist, none of the things that he passed would have ever come to fruition. He gets way too much for credit for the ideology of a female socialist

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Slow motion is better than no motion.

        It’s pointless to argue over who is a ‘real’ Socialist. I can come up with arguments about anyone you care to name to prove they weren’t ‘real’ Socialists. What are the policies that actually improve people’s lives?

        • Cowbee [he/they]
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          FDR was okay, then his safety nets were stripped away. They were only ever temporary concessions because Capitalists were always the ones in control, and they still are. In this manner, it was eventually no motion.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Almost as if the point of socialism is to strip away the the means of production from the capitalists in order to install a dictatorship of the proletariat, and not simply apply social safety-net band-aids so that capitalism can continue to function.

            American liberals are so exhausting in their selective application of definitions.

            • Cowbee [he/they]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              100%, I’m trying to get them to come to that conclusion on “their own.”

              American liberals are so exhausting in their selective application of definitions.

              Would make things a lot easier, lol

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            then his safety nets were stripped away.

            Almost as if it’s important to get out and vote in every election.

            Ronald Reagan sabotaged Jimmy Carter’s Iran policy and squeaked in with the help of spoiler John Anderson.

            You yourself said it; there were good policies in place, the Right hated them, and used a lot of dirty tricks to get rid of the good policies.

            Having good government is like controlling diabetes; you have to be vigilant all the time.

            • Cowbee [he/they]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              No, I fundamentally disagree with your entire view of historical development, ie the why behind everything.

              History is a progression of material conditions, not people and ideas, not Great Individuals making Big Moves. Social Democracy came at a time when the Soviet Union was rising, and Capitalists within America feared similar uprisings in America, compounded by the Great Depression. Concessions were allowed in that context, temporarily.

              Neoliberalism came later, after WWII, during the height of the Cold War. It was a way to further seek profits in the Global South.

              Fascism is rising now because Capitalism is undoubtedly in decline, and is decaying further.

              Material Conditions drive the ideas that drive the masses that drive what’s salient, not random Great People doing everything.

              • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                3 months ago

                History isn’t people? History is nothing but people.

                Also, nothing you wrote disproves what I said.

                We had the New Deal in place, and Reagan came along and stripped away things like banking regulations.

                We could have a 90% tax rate tomorrow if people voted for it.

                • Cowbee [he/they]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  History isn’t people? History is nothing but people.

                  History is the process of Material Reality moving through time. The events of history are guided by the past, they aren’t random, chaotic events. In your analysis, Social Democracy came because FDR came, in my analysis, Social Democracy came because America was recovering from the Great Depression and the Ruling Class was terrified of a US Revolution, coming hot off the heels of the October Revolution.

                  We had the New Deal in place, and Reagan came along and stripped away things like banking regulations.

                  Why was Reagan elected in the first place? Why did he have the ideas he had, and why did people vote for them?

                  We could have a 90% tax rate tomorrow if people voted for it.

                  Where’s the ballot measure for that?

                  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    We could have a 90% tax rate tomorrow if people voted for it.

                    Where’s the ballot measure for that?

                    Now you’re just playing word games.

                    What you call a ‘Process of Material Reality’ could as easily be called G*d or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

                    You can’t disprove what I wrote about voting, so you’re trying to change the discussion.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Jesus christ, that’s just not what socialism is.

              There’s a reason why social-democrats are castigated in communist circles. Social-democratic policy is always inevitably eroded because social safety nets don’t solve the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. It isn’t a matter of ‘getting out the vote’

              • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                I’ve spent decades listening to Communists tell me that the revolution was just around the corner.

                  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    So we agree. The Communist revolution isn’t coming anytime soon so we should work with what we’ve got.