Who is everyone voting for in 2024?

@BohemianBoo we can't engage with the duopoly in good faith. They're selling us to the corporations.

@Roundandroundwego Yes, but Neo-Liberalism is still better than Authoritarianism. Unless you're able to explain to me why the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany were the same.

@BohemianBoo neo liberalism is just the economic justification for fascism. But you certainly can't fix stupid! Murkan people loves them some poverty, austerity and earlier death. They're not socialist. It's a free market solution to the ecosystem and the libs!

@BohemianBoo The Wiemar Republic was mostly run by conservatives leftover from the Kaiser's regime, and those same officials held on to power after Hitler came to power. Remember, fascism is just authoritarian nationalism + capitalism, so neo-liberals want fascism eventually. This is why us tankies love pointing out liberals and reactionaries worked together to kill Rosa Luxemburg. Because liberals will always make alliances with fascists to preserve capitalism.

@Razoreye001 So the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany were the same?
Actually, you're a Tankie, so you probably think the Nazis were the lesser evil there.

@BohemianBoo Not really, although knowing you're a liberal, you probably think Stalin was worse than Hitler.

@Razoreye001 So you think Nazi Germany was worse? Or it was just as bad as the Weimar Republic?

@BohemianBoo The conditions of the Weimar Republic made Nazi Germany possible. Conservatism and capitalism pave the way for fascist regimes.

@BohemianBoo Just as bad, because the Weimar Republic's actions and mismanagement led to the Nazis.

@BohemianBoo I checked your profile, and you claim to be a socialist, so why are you defending capitalists?

@Gloomy Which is why the accelerationist strategy never works. Right now, the AFD is on the rise in East Germany because that region never economically recovered from being a puppet state of the Soviet Union.
So this idea that if the Republicans win, that somehow makes it easier for a socialist revolution, is completely wrong. If the Republicans win in 2024, that means we move closer to Fascism.

@Razoreye001 [quote]I checked your profile, and you claim to be a socialist, so why are you defending capitalists?[/quote]

Because Fascism is worse than Liberalism.
Yes, the Weimar Republic failed to take care of people's material needs and that's why the Nazis were able to take over. The Weimar Republic was still the better society. Politics is not about getting what we want, it's about harm reduction.

@BohemianBoo East Germany was actually one of the best countries in the Warsaw Pact. It just so happens to be less industrialized than the west claimed by the capitalist allies. In fact, East Germany was more progressive than the west, having state-funded gay bars, and that region was economically richer under communism than capitalism. Try to learn the actual history of the USSR, and Warsaw Pact. Not American propaganda.

@BohemianBoo The AFD is on the rise because fascists are unfortunately very good at using bad socioeconomic situations to their advantage by making the situation worse.
The Soviet Union wasn't perfect but should have never fallen. It's capitalism that leads to the rise of fascism because due to the competitive market forces east germany never had a chance to prosper.

Of course the lesser evil is better but it cannot be the solution. There need to be radical changes.

@BohemianBoo Ok, but if we keep voting for liberals we're never going to get anywhere. So it sounds like you have no path to actually advocate for what you actually claim to believe. Harm reduction is just fear tactics to scare us to support capitalists. To be a socialist means supporting socialists, even when it's hard, and even if it means some people are worse off in the meantime. Tell me kid, do you think elections is all politics are actually about, or do you participate for activism. Second question, if fascism ever does come to America are you prepared to actually put your beliefs before everything else, or do you only care about change when it's convenient? Because if you don't have convictions, your political beliefs are meaningless.

@Razoreye001 [quote]East Germany was actually one of the best countries in the Warsaw Pact. [/quote]

Talk about being the thinnest kid at fat camp.

[quote]that region was economically richer under communism than capitalism. Try to learn the actual history of the USSR, and Warsaw Pact. Not American propaganda.[/quote]

That is absolutely not true. They literally had to build walls and shoot people to keep them from escaping into West Berlin and West Germany. And the reason East Germany is so poor today is because brain drain has been going on since unification.
None of this is "American propaganda." Historians in all of Europe accept this reality.

@Razoreye001 [quote]Ok, but if we keep voting for liberals we're never going to get anywhere. So it sounds like you have no path to actually advocate for what you actually claim to believe.[/quote]

Voting for the lesser evil moves society to the Left. Not voting moves society to the Right, because that's where the power structure is. The myth of accelerationism has never actually worked anywhere. Rather, the accelerationists help society get worse which leads to people becoming more vulnerable to Authoritarianism.

Though really, if you want a society like the Soviet Union or East Germany, then I don't think you really care about Socialism. You want a red fascist state.

@BohemianBoo People wanted to leave East Germany because it's easier to run away to a more economically repressive system that is rich, than it is to build a more just system that is poor in the now. The Warsaw Pact had better hospitals, social services, and education than the west until the 1970's. That's why older people in the eastern world yearn for the return of the Soviet Union. Because when the USSR fell all social services were privatized, and many people lost their jobs and way of life. I won't say the USSR is blameless, but when they had the advantage, they should have led a global crusade against capitalism. Khruschev and Gorbechav also screwed over the USSR by liberalizing the markets. The only truly, and unquestionably, competent leader in the USSR after Lenin was Brezhnev.

@BohemianBoo The Soviet Union has been the most successful socialist state to ever exist, and yes it is flawed, but we can improve upon it. For one thing, Leon Trotsky was correct that socialism is incompatible with capitalism, and the USSR should have invaded the west immediately after WW2. Also, with modern computer programming, resource management in a planned economy is better and more viable now than it was before.

@Razoreye001 [quote]People wanted to leave East Germany because it's easier to run away to a more economically repressive system that is rich, than it is to build a more just system that is poor in the now.[/quote]

Duh. My point is that you're wrong about East Germany being better off when the wall was up. It was poor back then, because that's what State Capitalism does, and it's poor now because of brain drain. And as a result, the AFD is popular there. You want the same thing for America. You want things to get worse, so it gets easier for Fashies to take over.

[quote]. That's why older people in the eastern world yearn for the return of the Soviet Union.[/quote]

No, they yearn for the days of the Soviet Union because they were kids at the time and have fallen for nostalgia in propaganda.
This is literally what the Right does. Right-wing propaganda is all about a return to a mythical past that never existed and it's based entirely on how much better life was when you were a kid. That's why the right-wing narrative is that things were always better about twenty years ago, before this new generation came about and everything changed.

@Razoreye001 [quote]The Soviet Union has been the most successful socialist state to ever exist, and yes it is flawed[/quote]

Socialism requires democracy. The Soviet Union had State Capitalism.

@BohemianBoo So I guess you'd call yourself an ANCOM, or Liberal Socialist then? Socialism just requires that the means of production belongs to the workers, which can be in the form of state-industry. Also, you don't give the USSR enough credit. They managed to fight off the Nazis with little assistance, turn a third world country into a superpower, had great social services, advanced scientific discoveries, and better schools than most of their enemies at their height of power. They started failing when they tried to privatize their markets, diverted domestic spending to defense, and didn't innovate when the technology was available to. Also, they did well for themselves in spite of the fact they were economically cut off from most of the world for the majority of their existence.

@BohemianBoo The reason why Socialist countries are less "rich" than capitalist ones is that global capitalism fights them both militarily and economically.
That's why Stalins "Socialism in one country" was stupid as fuck besides his terrible planning and paranoia.

Only an international socialist system can work.

@Razoreye001 [quote]So I guess you'd call yourself an ANCOM, or Liberal Socialist then? Socialism just requires that the means of production belongs to the workers, which can be in the form of state-industry.[/quote]

I'm not a Communist or a Marxist. I think any kind of Anarchy is pretty stupid. Socialism should be the final stage.
Nationalized industry is one way for the workers to control the means of production, but without democracy, that's just State Capitalism. In countries like China, industry is still private, it's just the government that privately owns everything.

[quote] Also, you don't give the USSR enough credit. They managed to fight off the Nazis with little assistance, turn a third world country into a superpower, had great social services, advanced scientific discoveries, and better schools than most of their enemies at their height of power. They started failing when they tried to privatize their markets, diverted domestic spending to defense, and didn't innovate when the technology was available to.[/quote]

The Soviet Union only beat the Nazis because they had help from America and the British Empire. WWII was basically three super powers against one.
Sure, there were good things about the Soviet Union, there were good things about every country. But the quality of life for the average worker was pretty bad, especially under Stalin. And you have it backwards, things actually got much better when the USSR started switching from State Capitalism to Western Capitalism.

The problem with Authoritarianism is that the workers are always at the mercy of the government. It's totally possible to have a good dictator who gives generous social services and allows for civil liberties. But eventually, every dictator has to either step down or die. And you never know who the next guy is going to be. Lenin drastically improved life in Russia when he became dictator, but then he was replaced with Stalin. This is why there should always be checks and balances. Something that Neo-Nazis and Tankies have in common is that y'all both seem to think that the dictator is always going to be a guy you like.

@Gloomy [quote]The reason why Socialist countries are less "rich" than capitalist ones is that global capitalism fights them both militarily and economically.[/quote]

So first, like I mentioned before, Socialism requires democracy. So I don't consider China to be socialist.
Secondly, countries like America really don't shut out the so-called "socialist" countries. America and China are heavily economically dependent on each other, even while our politicians pretend to hate China.