"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."
Plus we keep using this outdated first-past-the-post voting system in the 21st century.
Yup. We need ranked choice/instant runoff voting first.
We need the presidency first. We need a majority in both houses first. We need a supermajority in the senate first. We need a 2/3 majority in the senate first. We need to completely overhaul the voting system first.
There’s always something we need to do first. It’s right there on the timetable. Timetable subject to change. Offer void in red states.
That’s why one should always vote for Democrats who support voting system reform.
Are we talking about the same Democrats that sued to keep ranked choice boating off the DC ballot this year? or the Democrats that chose to keep ranked choice voting that had already been passed by voters off the Alexandria VA ballot?
I interpreted it as “vote only for those democrats who support voting reform,” but it could also be sarcasm.
What’s your plan to change the system?
Different user, but still have an idea.
Take over the DNC with actual leftists that will implement better voting systems, starting at the lower levels with grassroots campaigns, and slowly work our way up.
Don’t fall for the third party trick, keep voting for the red and blue party and go back to work so a bunch of billionares and politician can keep feasting
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
Are you doing a lot of things exactly the way they did in 1850?
Politics is
Marx didn’t live long enough to see just how ineffectual that line of thinking actually is.
I don’t think “ineffectual” is the word you’re looking for there.
Is the US Socialist? Has Socialism been brought about by establishment parties anywhere in history?
Nope, which is part of the problem.
Yep, which is why Socialists answered the Reform or Revolution question in Marx’s time quite definitively. The answer is Revolution.
careful what you say to jordanlund. he’s a mod and despite his supposed love for socialism (and chaotic good t-shirt), he likes to ban accounts that promote violent revolution.
If my relatively tame comments defending the basics of Marxism get me banned, then they will be doing me a favor.
Admins and mods in the West are walking a fine legal line, and servers can be seized. Not saying I agree with it, but that I do recognize it.
Yes. Look up ‘the New Deal.’
FDR was a Social Democrat, not a Socialist.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Same capitalists trying the same failed tactics of voter suppression.
Every one of his perspectives of capitalism and it’s bourgeoisie governments still rings true.
Rings true, isn’t true in actual practice.
Rings true in practice
Sounds a lot like the Trumpers decide if something is true to me.
I agree entirely, in regards to politics in 1850’s Germany with its diverse multiparty political ecosystem.
As for current American politics, where we are deeply entrenched in a societal tug-of-war in an ostensible two-party system, where third parties can swing policy in a largely undemocratic direction by spoiling the vote in close elections, I disagree completely. Third parties serve no purpose in a two-party representative democracy.
If we can break the two party political duopoly, then I will never complain about another fringe party voter ever again. Until then, you better fucking vote for the lesser evil, because letting the greater evil win, as we learned in 2017-2020, is really fucking bad.
If anything, letting Democrats win the next few major elections could spell doom for the Republican party as a whole, and give us a chance to introduce some actual competition to the Democratic party.
I wish that I could snap my fingers and have it fixed today, but that’s not how societies work. Accelerationism always requires violence, and violence isn’t how you should uphold democracy, unless you are defending its pillars against a direct threat. A two-party duopoly is something we the people need to defeat.
That means we need to abolish the electoral college, introduce universal mail-in voting, defeat all right-wing disenfranchisement efforts, and introduce ranked-choice voting to all elections. These are radical changes that will take a lot of work to accomplish, and that will face a lot of opposition.
Under Democrat leadership, these things are possible. Under Republican leadership, we’ll be lucky if we still have elections.
Your solution to defeating the duopoly is continuing giving them power and participating in it?
It’s not a way to defeat the duopoly, it’s a way to survive under it.
Voting 3rd party is also not a way to defeat the duopoly.
Give me a reasonable alternative and I’ll take it.
You don’t name a candidate to vote for, just say we shouldn’t participate.
Who do you think scares Donnie more, Harris or your non-participation?
Would you like your vote to matter after November?
Then yes, I’m pushing the duopoly this time around.
It’s not like your vote matters now. Money has all the power in this country, voters have none. When 1 billionaire has more political influence than entire states you have no power. You’ve surrendered your power to the donor class.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/opinion/politicians-voters.html nyt. “Despite extensive public outreach…11%…” The NEW YORK TIMES, of all publications!
This is the epitome of why Democrats hate Trump. He says the quiet things out loud. He has said ‘I dont care about you. I just want your vote.’
This article confirms this, the Princeton study from 2012 confirms this. Several sources have confirmed politicians don’t care about us, only the monied class
Who do you think has a better chance of fixing that? Putin’s orange Fleshlight? The chick he had dinner with? Brainworm? Some other rando that gets less than 1% of the vote?
I hear you…it’s a problem…
Throwing your vote away this cycle ensures that your vote will never matter again.
The vote thrown away is the vote that’s cast out of fear. The dnc’s entire platform for the last few decades has been. We are not the other guy. You were casting a vote in opposition to the other guy, not in favor of policy or legislation, but not the other guy, that’s a protest vote
No…I’m voting for policy this time around. If I get the state exception for state taxes I get a point and a half back.
Trump’s tariffs should fucking terrify everyone…think shit is expensive now, wait until that goes through.
What’s the 3rd parties offering that has a remote chance of dealing with either of those problems?
So if they can’t vote for their views now, and we keep pushing the duopoly, when do we get democracy?
That’s the neat part… you don’t.
That’s the thing, they never do. They have been pushing the lesser evil splitting the vote bullshit for over 150 years. The only people that benefits is the wealthy
Were the party system changes before then more due to
-
a major party crushing the other major party, and then splitting, or
-
a minor party growing and eventually replacing one of the two major parties?
Bonus points if anyone has a source on this.
October Surprise comes to mind.
-
When you start doing things that actually work.
Look up the Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell. They would show up at every local GOP organizing event with enough voters to make sure their candidates for jobs like mayor, sheriff, and county clerk got the nod.
Gotcha, I’ll keep organizing outside the useless electoral system.
That’s a neat way to say “being too lazy to actually make a difference, but I don’t want to feel bad about it”.
What laws have you gotten passed?
If anything, letting Democrats win the next few major elections could spell doom for the Republican party as a whole, and give us a chance to introduce some actual competition to the Democratic party.
This will never happen. The replacement party will be fascist. The Republican Party’s fascism doesn’t exist because of “brainwashing” or “conmen,” it exists because fascism rises from decaying Capitalism. If you don’t get rid of the Capitalism, the conditions for fascism remain.
That means we need to abolish the electoral college, introduce universal mail-in voting, defeat all right-wing disenfranchisement efforts, and introduce ranked-choice voting to all elections. These are radical changes that will take a lot of work to accomplish, and that will face a lot of opposition.
Under Democrat leadership, these things are possible. Under Republican leadership, we’ll be lucky if we still have elections.
The Democrats will never work against their donors. This will never happen.
Especially when their donors are the same donors to the GOP
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
If you live outside the ~5 swing states that decide the election you can go ahead and ignore stuff like this saying you can’t vote third party.
Shoutout PSL
So people who don’t live in swing states should vote third party until there’s enough of them that the state is in danger of going to trump (or whoever)? If they’re successful at some point that’s a threat.
How do we actually get third party candidates to win, not just “oh, Ross Perot Jr got 3% of the vote”?
However you slice it, we’re looking at like a 20 year struggle minimum to get election reform, and it would be at least the same length to elect a third party candidate to the office of president, but that’s a one off thing. (Or more likely that third party would be the new one of two parties)
If we’re committed to the struggle of improving things, we might as well improve a reusable process rather than have a single go at a third party presidential candidate.
If enough people are voting third party that it’s a threat then maybe the other parties should take notice and change to support the popular policies and win back support.
Also we can do more than 1 thing at a time. We should be pushing things like ranked choice voting while also showing our displeasure with the current parties where it makes sense to do so.
Giving support to third parties gives them and the issues they’re promoting more visibility to the general public.
If enough people are voting third party that it’s a threat then maybe the other parties should take notice and change to support the popular policies and win back support.
This does not work in a FPTP system. Every vote you peel off the Democrats just enables the Republicans and sets reform back even farther. The only way telling people to vote 3rd party is helpful is if they were going to vote for the GOP. Peeling votes away from Democrats HURTS the chances of other parties to be viable in the future.
You’re looking at things through there lens of 1 election cycle.
If a third party that’s against the genocide Israel is carrying out gets say 5% of voters in deep blue or deep red states would that not be a signal to the democrats that they should change their stance before the next election?
No. If 5% of my voting base sits out over a single issue, I’m going to lose my interest in trying to triangulate their support and move in another direction to identify a more persuadable bloc of voters. That goes more if the abandonment is repetitive, and if the issues constantly change, or if the issue is something I can’t bend on for electoral reasons.
If one bloc of voters is easier to please than another, then I’m moving in their direction, even if it’s rightward. Unfortunately it’s winner-take-all, and you’re either in power or you’re not. There are no half-wins.
Not funding and supplying a genocide seems to be a pretty clear and easy issue to change especially when 60%+ of democrats are in favor of it. We’re already violating our own laws by continuing to do so.
The democrats are already moving to the right even with the left continuing to vote for them. They think they can win over some centrists republicans (even though they can’t in a meaningful number) by adopting right wing policies while not losing the left because at the moment they know votes are guaranteed because “republicans worse”.
Having voters in areas that effectively don’t matter this cycle show there displeasure in the genocide we’re enabling is the least we can do to counter it.
I directly answered your question, and you seem to have ignored what I said. Plus you really should reexamine your assumptions about the importance of Gaza, the “ease” of withdrawing support, how much Democrats have moved rightward, and how many centrist Republicans vote for Democrats.
Your level of frustration with the process is inversely proportional to your awareness of these trends, of which Democratic leaders are likely well aware. Moreover, you seem to be valuing the strongly-held opinions of voters in non-swing states (what you’re calling “deep blue states” or “areas that effectively don’t matter”) more highly than the maybe-less-strongly held opinions of voters in swing states. If 5% of Democratic voters in California want sushi, and 5% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania want steak, I’m picking steak and telling the California voters to take a hike. Their opinion doesn’t even register on my radar thanks to the electoral consequences of pissing off the Pennsylvanians who wanted steak.
The presidential election is not the time for any of that. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how elections work if this is the only time you care about third parties.
It definitely isn’t the only time I care about third parties. Continued direct action in the community is the most important way to affect change. The election is just a useful event for publicity and gaining support for groups.
There’s 0% chance my comment is going to convince enough people this election cycle that it effects a non swing states election. It’s about slowly building support for groups.
I’m with you. I’m all about building support. Just as long as people understand there’s a time and place for it.
People have said that for 40 years. It’s always the right time to do the right thing.
Eta and for 40 years things have gotten worse for everyone but fat international corporate conglomerates and VERY wealthy people. The time is now.
And for 40 years voting in your local elections has changed things. That’s when you vote for change. If you think the presidential election is the time to vote differently you’re not paying attention, plain and simple.
Depends on how “safe” the states are. If its by just 100,000 then that’s not as safe as you think. If it’s by 600,000 then yeah that’s pretty safe. But at the same time why vote for a party that won’t win?
Also, the PSL is not your friend. Back in 2020 they realized they weren’t gonna get the Peace and Freedom nomination in 2020, so instead of having solidarity with their fellow socialists, they threw their weight behind the joke candidate Roseanne Barr. They blatantly sabotaged their fellow socialists because they realized they weren’t going to win. They are not a party worth your investment.
Here’s a great article about them and their shit.
But at the same time why vote for a party that won’t win?
Building support for change has to start somewhere, while they won’t win this election the more support they get the more visibility socialism gets as well as showing that people aren’t willing to vote for genocide. At the very least it shows the amount of people unhappy the democrats aren’t taking a harder stance on Israel.
As for the PSL specifically, they’re the best option on the ballot in my state. Thank you for the link though I’ll take a deeper look when I have a chance.
Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932
The mistake Ernst Thälmann made was not throwing his support behind checks notes Paul von Hindenburg, the man who ordered the police massacre of the Spartacus League?
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested.
Who elevated Adolf Hitler to the Chancellorship in 1933?
It’s not old Junkers like von Hindenburg that they’d ally with. It’s other slightly different leftist factions and a few centrists.
The centrists were aligned with Hindenburg. Friekorps were just as avid commie-bashers as any National Socialist.
The main problem Ernst had was affiliating himself with the Russian Revolution and advocating for more of the same in Germany. That made him an enemy of nationalists during a period in which “International Jewery” was the boogie man under everyone’s bed.
The idea that he could just strike up common cause with people who wanted him dead is absurd.
The mistake Ernst Thälmann made was not throwing his support behind checks notes Paul von Hindenburg, the man who ordered the police massacre of the Spartacus League?
Um…no? Von Hindenburg was the conservative. They’d have thrown their support behind the centrist, Wilhelm Marx, who lost by about 3%, thanks (in part) to the 6.3% Thälmann took. The rest of the blame lay with the BVP when they protested against the Social Democrats by siding with von Hindenburg.
Who elevated Adolf Hitler to the Chancellorship in 1933?
Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis and DNVP, all of whom were conservative.
What point are you trying to make?
They’d have thrown their support behind the centrist, Wilhelm Marx, who lost by about 3%
The Catholic Centre Party was in open - often violent - conflict with the largely atheist-leaning German Communists. The German Catholics were terrified of a repeat of the Spanish Civil War, where Spaniards were revolting against a religious dictatorship and burning down churches.
Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis and DNVP
Wilhelm was aligned with the DNVP as far back as 1923. He was the one who pushed through the Enabling Act of 1923, which the Nazis would ruthlessly exploit a decade later, with their help. And he continued to govern in coalition with the DNVP through 1928, when he was dismissed from the Chancellory by…
Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis and DNVP
So, to answer your question
What point are you trying to make?
My point is that blaming Ernest Thälmann for his minority party position in the German government through 1933 when it would make much more sense to finger Alfred Hugenberg and his DNVP, which abandoned Wilhelm in '28 and aligned with
Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis
What point are you trying to make?
Muddying the waters. That’s the point these shills are trying to make.
I’m planning on voting PSL and you can too.
They’re running de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to Israel.
She’s on the ballot where I live. I’m probably voting for her.
Hell yeah.
Hell yeah! Celebrate throwing away your vote! Wooo!
The vote is counted. It gets tallied for the candidates it’s marked for.
Yes. And who do you think has a chance to win the election?
Any candidate who gets 270 electoral votes.
Right. And PSL cannot get 270 votes from 18 states. It’s literally impossible. You’re throwing your vote away.
PSL and De La Cruz are only on the ballot in 18 states for 220 Electoral College votes. They literally cannot win.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
Taking votes away from Harris only helps Trump.
If winning were the only effect that voting had then you’d have a great point.
No ones taking votes away from Harris, if she wants to get psl voters she can take up policy positions they support.
Winning really is the only effect and sometimes, not even then.
Votes are used to determine ballot access in future elections, funding, event presence and of course, by the two major parties to figure out where they could pick up an electoral vote or two by tacking a third parties platform onto their own.
Why some parties and political movements even use voting as a means to organize and raise awareness around their platforms and issues!
No third party has reached those thresholds in years.
2020:
- Democratic - 51.31%
- Republican - 46.85%
- Libertarian - 1.18%
2016:
- Republican - 46.09%
- Democratic - 48.18%
- Libertarian - 3.28%
2012:
- Democratic - 51.06%
- Republican - 47.20%
- Libertarian - 0.99%
2008:
- Democratic - 52.93%
- Republican - 45.65%
- Ralph Nader - 0.56%
2004:
- Republican - 50.73%
- Democratic - 48.27%
- Ralph Nader - 0.38%
2000:
- Republican - 47.86%
- Democratic - 48.38%
- Ralph Nader - 2.74%
And before then?
Even if the threshold for funding and ballot access isn’t met, voting third party helps get your party at events, tells the major parties how popular their platform is and builds support and awareness.
As we all know, time doesn’t pass and yesterday is today. Nothing ever happens for any reason. The world is exactly the same as it was decades ago.
Tell you what, I’ll put my money where my mouth is. I’ll personally donate $1,000 to any 3rd party that cracks 3% nationally in the upcoming election.
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
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.
Totally fucking agree with this. Well said!
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.
Hillary proves you wrong, though. Awkward!
Blaming progressives for not aligning with centrists instead of blaming centrists for siding with Nazis to lock out progressives is a weird take.
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.
That comment was not referring to literal nazis. They were talking about the American right wing.
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.
Huh. Thanks for the correction. Sounds like Hindenburg sold Germany out big time.
The only way a third party would be viable in the US is if it grew organically from small, local races that aren’t captured by large donors. A dedicated group of volunteers knocking on doors and spreading a message can have a real effect in those races. Get a few candidates in office and start doing some good, and a party can grow around it. Draw up a blueprint for how you did it, and spread it around to other towns and cities, making allies with other local groups as they spring up.
Is that easy to do? Of course not, but that would be a viable path for the formation of a functioning third party.
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.
There’s a lot you can say about how broken US electoralism is, but using this as an example is just not accurate.
-
Hitler wasn’t elected by people, he lost to Hindenburg in 1932 and was appointed Chancellor later.
-
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
-
Hindenburg didn’t want to appoint him, but meetings with industrialists made him change his mind
-
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.
The only part that is wrong is that Nazis did not have an overall majority, it was because of Hindenburg, monarchists, conservatives, and right-wing liberals deciding to side with the Nazis.
Number 2 is wrong. The nazis never had a majority, only a plurality. If the other parties, the social democrats, the communist party, and the Centre party had banded together instead of fighting amongst themselves, he wouldn’t have been made Chancellor.
No, that still incorrect. First, KPD, SPD and Centre did not have an outright majority together. Second, it is the Chancellor that is in charge of forming coalitions, they can’t just form a coalition if they had an outright majority anyway in the Weimar system and at no point did Centre try to form a coalition and was turned down by the KPD. The entire point of Hindenburg appointing Franz Von Papen was that he thought that he could convince both the Nazis and Centre to form a coalition with the conservative and monarchist parties. And the reason later to appoint Hitler as chancellor was to form a Nazi led coalition.
Banded together and all refused to have a Nazi Chancellor? They could have done that, this just happened in France but this time the left had a majority. Centrists are more likely to join the Nazis than the communists though
I’m gonna assume you’re still talking about the Nazis since that was your original comment so let’s look at the reichstag breakdown of the election prior to Hitler being appointed Chancellor.
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. So if the leftists had combined they would have kept Hitler from being chancellor when he was appointed that in January 1933. But what about the centre party? Well, they had 70 seats and had a significant wing that was left and wanted to work with the social democrats. Now if we are conservative about it and say just 25 of those 70 were leftists, that would bring the 221 up to 246. And if the other 45 went to the nazis, which all of them never would because it was a big tent with diverse view points, that would have brought a nazi coalition to 241. So not as big of a majority but still a majority for leftists.
So yes, again, if the socialists, communists, and leftist wing of the centre party had combined their powers and hadn’t been bickering, hitler wouldn’t have been chancellor.
Basic source for the election results of November 1932. There’s more pages for the parties and stuff on there so go ahead and poke around.
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.
-
I’m not voting for Harris. I’m voting against Trump via Harris.
I’m voting for Harris i like the money for middle class people thing
I hope you never suffer an illness or injury that suddenly thrusts you into the group of working poor, living out of the car, couch surfing or sleeping rough.
American mercenary healthcare is the primary reason I abandoned my green card efforts. It just wasn’t worth the risk that a car accident could render me homeless.
The average American tax payer individuals who make less than a certain amount get nothing in return. If we got services instead of global war, I believe very few would have an issue with taxes.
And they have no clue how close to reality that is for all of them.
There currently is no middle class. There’s people that think they are still middle class, but they are struggling just as much as they poor.
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.
Given that she has the same stance on Gaza / Palestine as Biden, I vote against the orange bad rather than for her.
Single issue voters are hilarious. That’s how we got here.
My comment said that I’m voting against my conscience wrt Palestine, so your comment doesn’t really make sense.
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.
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.
there sure seems to be a lot of Nazi apologia coming out of .world recently. wonder why that is 🤔
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.
Gleefully?
No you’re right they’re super sad about funding the genocide
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.
That was going back much further. The Communists had tried to overthrow the Weimar Republic in the Hamburg Uprising a decade earlier. So the social democrats, who were a key supporter and really the creators of the Republic, saw them as an enemy. Thälmann was especially outspoken against the social democrats. Hence they saw supporting Thälmann as supporting an enemy of the Weimar Republic.
However Jill Stein and co policies are mostly about as radical as the German social democrats back then. All of it could be done by reforming the US political system. At least near term.Also the German communists were much better organized then the US left. They were sitting in most parliaments of German states and cities. The US Green Party has no officeholders on a federal or even state level right now. Of the 8 state level officeholders they did have only 3 have run on a Green Party ticket, the rest was elected Democrat and switched to the Greens. That has to be changed first, before running for president. Seriously if you can not take state seats, then you can not win the presidency.
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.
Hitler and Thälmann lost to the center right Hindenburg who was backed by the social democrats. Hindenburg was already president since 1925, so he was seen as no direct threat to democracy. Then Germany had parliamentary elections in July 1932. Those had a Nazi + Communist majority, so they repeated the election in November as they did not have a majority to form a government as both the Communist and the Nazis were against democracy. That however although slightly better did not solve that problem. So Hindenburg used decrees to work with the Nazis so they could form a government.
So if the Communists and social democrats would have worked together and elected a left president. That might have been somebody from the social democrats or indeed Thälmann, then a minority centrist or left wing or a majority centrist and communist government would have been possible. The Communists however never tried to work with the democratic forces. The Nazis actually did exactly that, which they were able to use to gain total power.
Point should be obvious.
both the Communist and the Nazis were against democracy
This is ridiculous, the Communists opposed the Weimar Republic, but they absolutely supported democracy. In their view, in fact, they supported a much more authentic form of democracy by extricating private interests from the process.
Hindenburg used decrees to work with the Nazis so they could form a government.
We keep glossing over this “liberals siding with Nazis” thing
The Communists however never tried to work with the democratic forces.
I really think the word you’re looking for here is “liberal”
Point should be obvious.
You’re making significant assumptions, such as any of the liberals actually being willing to work the with the Communists, which would be a hell of a change for the SPD after that business with the Freikorps. Otherwise, the argument is just “join the SPD” and assume that they can bring their voters with them while completely abandoning their revolutionary project and putting themselves under the discipline of a liberal party. I feel that this is something of a muddy issue that you’re interpreting in a convenient way.
“Aren’t you as well?” Fair question, and there’s a lot about this situation that I can’t speak to, but what I said before I am completely sure holds, which is that Hitler gained power, on the most proximate level, because of liberal collaborators.
The SPD initially prefered to work with further left forces. They worked together on the Reich Congress of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils however the SPD wanted a parliamentary democracy and the USPD wanted a council republic, so when they realized the most of the councils were not in fact communist and actually supported the SPD, that caused uprisings against the interim SPD lead government, which the USPD left. The USPD was also unwilling to work with the SPD in the national assembly, which was the parliament they set up and they were sitting in. Intresstingly the Weimar constituion has a few points which could have been easily turned to accomadate workers councils. Hence the more centrist forces worked with them and the consitution was born.
I really think the word you’re looking for here is “liberal”
No it is democratic, which the KPD at this point was no longer. They were working on setting up a Stalinist dictatorship and no longer a council democracy.
You’re making significant assumptions, such as any of the liberals actually being willing to work the with the Communists,
I am looking at what we might want to learn from what happened back for the US election and other struggles against the far right. So pointing out that this was an option is imho extremely important. Obviously they did not do it, but that does not mean it is impossible to do it at least partly today, with different left wing groups considering different centrist groups not radical enough.
No it is democratic, which the KPD at this point was no longer. They were working on setting up a Stalinist dictatorship and no longer a council democracy.
I was going to let it go, but this really bugs me. What are you even talking about here?
The background for the KDP’s uprisings is WWI. The war was incredibly destructive and pointless for every country in Europe. Before the war, the Second International (of which the SDP was a founding member) put out a manifesto with unanimous support that said:
In case war should break out anyway it is their duty to intervene in favor of its speedy termination and with all their powers to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to arouse the people and thereby to hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule.
However, once the war actually started, the SDP (along with many other social democratic parties in Europe) suddenly found all sorts of reasons to rally around the flag and support it unconditionally. The British socialists would point to problems in Germany under the Kaiser, the German socialists would point to problems with Russia under the Tsar, and each side would talk about how it’s not that they support the war, it’s just that they don’t want to lose. And so there was a failure across Europe (except in Russia, of course) to create domestic pressure to put an end to the war, and result was that it raged on until it had claimed 20 million lives.
It was only at the end of the war, when it was clear that Germany was going to lose regardless, that a revolution occurred, initially supported by both the SDP and the communists, which is what brought an end to the German Empire. During that uprising, the SDP and communists split over the direction of the country, and the SDP won and sent in the Freikorps to exterminate communist leadership. So when you talk about Thälmann trying to overthrow the government, I think it’s important to put that in the context that the government in question had come to power only 4 years prior by overthrowing the government - and that government would go on to last only 15 years in total before the Nazis were able to seize power through it. All of which is to say, it was a chaotic period, and there were reasons for the KDP to resent the SPD as well.
The tendency to force history into boxes defined by modern day politics loses a lot of that nuance. In contemporary American politics, there is no Second International. There is no Great War. There is no Sparticist Uprising. It’s bad enough when contemporary politics outside of the US are forced into the boxes defined by American politics, we don’t need to extend that throughout history.
