587
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

"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."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] hate2bme@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Vote for who YOU want to be president, regardless of if they have a chance to win or not. I wasn't going to vote for Biden (or Trump) no matter what. I see people saying if you vote 3rd party you're waisting your vote. You aren't. You are supporting the candidate you like.

[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

I am sorry, but this take is founded on a lack of knowledge about the spoiler effect in first past the post voting systems. Until more representative forms of voting are introduced this is an idealistic but ultimately misinformed take.

The spoiler effect is a system powerful encumbant politicians use to manipulate populaces at large in part by taking advantage of your better nature and belief in a flawed system. Voting your heart will just not be enough and it's got hidden dangers. Pressure needs to be applied after this election to change the voting structure to a more stable and open system.

https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE?si=qCvPLnk4u6FJ0ec2

Here's a video that explains fairly susinctly what the spoiler effect is and how alternative voting systems disrupt it.

[-] hate2bme@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Still gonna vote for who I like and always will. I was gonna vote for Vermin Supreme until Biden dropped out.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 75 points 5 days ago

The liberals fucking won that election and it was the liberal Hindenburg appointing Hitler to the Chancellorship that facilitated his rise to power, not anything the KPD did. This is disgusting historical revisionism that a search engine could dispel in 5 seconds, but you choose to warp history to make it look like Hitler actually won the election and make the liberals who enabled him seem blameless. It is, in effect, apologia for Nazi collaborators. Exactly appropriate for someone shilling for Dems while they gleefully subsidize genocide.

[-] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

there sure seems to be a lot of Nazi apologia coming out of .world recently. wonder why that is 🤔

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I've seen a lot more come out of lemmy.ml.

Especially the Russian and Chinese kind, they apologise for all kinds of atrocities those fascist states make. Even apologise illegal invasions of sovereign nations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 13 points 3 days ago

These posts are always missing the point. Voters will vote third party. Your moral claims won't change that, but your candidate's policies could. Also, most of us don't live in swing states. Don't pretend our vote matters when it never did.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

Voters will but they can't do so under the delusion that a) they are making any sort of change or b) that they aren't hurting the actually viable candidate closest to them.

The winner of the election in every state will be the Democrat or the Republican, full stop. You can choose to help or harm the one closest to your opinion.

[-] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 29 points 4 days ago

Do not forget that in '32 the SPD backed Hindenburg... who then nominated Hitler as chancellor.

Thälmann was foolish, but even if he didn't run, Hitler would still get into power. If the far right is strong enough, mere electoralism will not stop them. Fighting them must happen on the street level.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 127 points 5 days ago

Plus we keep using this outdated first-past-the-post voting system in the 21st century.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 71 points 5 days ago

Yup. We need ranked choice/instant runoff voting first.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 40 points 4 days ago

Hitler didn't win because he beat Hindenburg after Thälmann split the vote. He lost to Hindenburg, the center-right candidate endorsed by the social democrats, then won anyway because Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor.

The social democrats were the ones who refused to back Thälmann, the only anti-Hitler candidate in the race. And the same way that the communists called them "social fascists," the social democrats used similar rhetoric, frequently saying that the communists were no different from the Nazis, that there was no difference between the far left and the far right.

But also, we don't have to keep rehashing 100 year old grudges from another continent.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago

We could avoid this with ranked choice voting.

[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 13 points 4 days ago

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.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 10 points 4 days ago

Oh, you mean like these two Democratic reps and the one Democratic Senator who just introduced a bill to do ranked choice voting for all 2028 congressional races? https://rankthevote.us/raskin-beyer-welch-bill-would-bring-ranked-choice-voting-to-congressional-elections/

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 13 points 4 days ago

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933

WHO GAVE HITLER POWER MOTHER FUCKER?

Nobody in history has been more vindicated than Ernst motherfucking Thälmann. A vote for a Social Democrat is a vote for fascism now just as it was then - and the Democrats aren't even that!

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I'm pretty sure if all Nazi voters instead voted SDP, Hitler wouldn't have risen to power. The only reason the Nazi Party had any appeal whatsoever is because fractured voting meant chaotic governments, weak and ineffective chancellors, and leaving the president with no choice but to issue emergency decrees just to keep the state apparatus in semi-functional condition.

The one way, the only way, given the composition of the Reichstag, that the Nazis could have been kept out of power is if the Communists were willing to swallow their pride and work with the Centre Party, moderate right-wing parties, and SPD to keep Hitler out of the Chancery. Instead, look what happened. Hitler was appointed Chancellor and purged the Reichstag of opposition. The Enabling Act wasn't passed because everyone wanted Hitler to have those powers. It was because you either voted with the chancellor or the SS would gun you down on the way back home.

That's the problem with today's so-called socialists. An absolutely myopic stance that what isn't perfect might as well be the worst thing on the planet.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] grue@lemmy.world 63 points 5 days ago

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

[-] prole 40 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 71 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

We desperately need more real third-party participation in politics, but voting for third parties in presidential elections doesn’t make that happen—the US voting system isn’t a business that adapts its products to meet consumer demand.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 41 points 5 days ago

Yup. We need ranked choice balloting first.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Weirdmusic@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 37 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Republicans are not going to suddenly stop being evil, so what's the solution? Just endlessly comprise and never accomplish anything? Fuck that. I refuse to be held hostage. If Democrats want leftist votes then they have to deliver leftist policies. Otherwise they're just as responsible

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago

That is what Liberals are perfectly fine with. An infinite state of groveling with people in power and never doing anything else. They are hostile to protesters too and ignore bad actions by Dems. Everything turns into but Trump is worse.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

Every time they run on a left policy, they lose. Every time they enact left legislation, they lose. And you wonder why they don't run a big left platform? Frankly they do left things in spite of it always costing them.

What the left needs to do is actually show up.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 12 points 4 days ago

Just a note, while ranked voting is much better, the people who are influenced by parties that game the system and a gullible ignorant base usually consolidate themselves into one big party that still does everything to undermine the rest of the coalitions as long as it makes them look bad even if it's worse off for society as a whole and that like a tumor can keep growing until it goes past the midpoint for toppling the democracy that elected it. It's part of the solution, but not all of it, societies act like headless chickens when things get bad enough, regardless of who was responsible for them. For example, Brexit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] yogurtwrong@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Not a single party on the face of the earth is gonna switch to an alternative voting system. Democracy devolving into 2 parties is a problem in nearly every country and unfortunately the ones who can make the change are the ones who benefit from first pass the post voting

No "democratic" party is gonna switch to STAR or a similar voting system unless the citizens start being very loud.

On other hand, radicalizing people to support alternative voting is also very hard, because it is hard to explain and hard to understand for majority of people and its often viewed as if the supporter is trying to benefit from the said change and trying to sabotage democracy, when in reality, they are the ones who want real democracy

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 35 points 5 days ago

I’m not voting for Harris. I’m voting against Trump via Harris.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 36 points 5 days ago

I'm voting FOR Harris in the same way I was previously voting FOR Biden. Biden/Harris & Harris/Walz support policies that most closely match those policies I support.

If Trump died tomorrow I still wouldn't support Vance or any other Republican because they support policies that I am strongly opposed to.

I would like to have more options, but realistically those are my choices.

I don't have to agree with Harris/Walz on 100% if issues. I'm allowed to criticize them. But at the end of the day I'm voting FOR something and not just against the worst possible choice.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 41 points 5 days ago

I feel like we need something like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that is aiming to eliminate the electoral college, but for Ranked Choice.

Passing this federally is too hard. We need do to this state by state.

Until I can vote for a third party with RCV, then I might as well be saying that I have zero preference about the GOP and DNC options on the table.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 38 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

There's a lot you can say about how broken US electoralism is, but using this as an example is just not accurate.

  1. Hitler wasn't elected by people, he lost to Hindenburg in 1932 and was appointed Chancellor later.

  2. The Nazis who appointed him Chancellor had the majority, meaning more than every other party combined. Meaning third parties didn't syphon the Hitler vote

  3. Hindenburg didn't want to appoint him, but meetings with industrialists made him change his mind

  4. Hindenburg then gave Hitler more powers after the Heischtag fire.

If anything, it's an example of what happens when you reach over the aisle and compromise with nazis.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 28 points 5 days ago

Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body. If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed

Karl Marx 1850

load more comments (74 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
587 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3378 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