Apparently just as hard for people to admit that a nazi symbol is a nazi symbol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM&t=135s

In this case, the "positions" are "he is in any way a Nazi" vs "he is NOT in any way a Nazi," and the "next argument" is whether or not we can find anyone who isn't a Nazi in any way, instead. The frame is that having this tattoo means he's in any way a Nazi or that's relevant to this discussion.

(Watch the video for how "next argument" and "frame" line up within the propaganda technique. It's a very powerful method, it's especially effective in this type of online discussion.)

I'm sure there is room for a progressive candidate without a Nazi tattoo to run also. The platform seems really popular

So this is why this kind of propaganda works perfectly. Long story short, he really does have a deaths-head tattoo, and so it literally doesn't matter if he didn't get it for Nazi reasons, isn't a Nazi, it wasn't used exclusively by the Nazis, all that kind of stuff. All someone has to do is sound rock solid confident and say something like this, and it undoes all of that, and all of a sudden this kind of label will stick to him like glue especially when it is repeated from all kinds of different corners. Just like "AOC = genocide" based on one vote on one trivial amendment, just like "Bernie = Zionist" based on some very bizarre definitions of "Zionist," you can undo all the potential good this person can do and all the total factual wrongness of the accusation just by being simple, super-confident, and repetitious with it. That's really all you need to do. It works really well.

Anyway. Why is this always applied this way towards the most progressive candidate? And, more to the point, why don't you ever apply this electioneering energy against someone like Nancy Pelosi, or Nancy Mace, or Susan Collins, or someone who actually is part of the dark side?

I realize that by even making a long comment, I'm feeding into it. "If you're explaining, you're losing" type of thing. But anyway: Yes, it's total bullshit, it's not a Nazi tattoo any more than the swastikas on Hindu temples are Nazi symbology. It's just a death's head, he's in no way a Nazi, and all of a sudden now we're talking about that instead of about what he wants to do politically. Good job.

how difficult is it to not have a Nazi tattoo?

@skiluros@sh.itjust.works FYI. For whatever reason, the original post was deleted.

So like I said, I think this one was much more what actually got them riled up, and the other thing was just pretext. I don't think just mostly-agreeing with Cowbee subjects someone to a 14 day ban. I think this was it.

(Also, I really do apologize for the length of this. I do feel like it's important to see the facts of what they decide is worth banning for, even if it's massive and tedious and it's sort of dubious whether copy pasting all this stuff to further litigate it is worthwhile.)

---

So I said (in reference to the same meme as previously):

Haven’t you heard? Shitting on liberals and not voting is all you need to do to defeat fascism. It’s literally the most important thing.

It’s too bad the Weimar Republic didn’t think of that. I feel like if only the German Communists had been spending all their energy shitting on the center, they might have had a pretty good chance of stopping Hitler from coming to power. Well, at least now we have the chance to try again, with the benefit of hindsight, and make sure we do that known successful strategy…

---

So Cowbee said:

The KPD was being murdered by the Nazis with the aid of the SPD. The KPD was correct, liberals will side with fascists over leftists when push comes to shove.

---

So I said:

I feel like we had this conversation before at some point lol… I will summarize my point of view on it and then probably dip from it:

• KPD in 1917: We’re going to seize all the guns and overthrow you and make Communism because Communism
• German government + German people and unions + SPD: Fuck no you’re not (gunfire)
• KPD in 1918: Wooooooowwwwwwwwww okay fuck you, I see how it is
• Germany: Hey KPD you still can have a seat in government, you have to get the votes though, no shooting your opposition, no seizing
• KPD: Woooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
• SPD in 1932: Hey we’re going to make an alliance with you because this guy is dangerous, we don’t care about the whole “trying to overthrow thing” that happened a generation ago
• KPD: Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
• Hitler: (wins)

And then much later:

• KPD (ones still alive): Hey we’re going to need all the trade unions to do what we want instead of what the workers want, because that’s leftism
• Germany: Lol fuck OFF

That is my summary. I realize you may have a different one but I don’t think I really want to get in an extended argument about it today. But yes, Germany in the 30s is a relevant example on this topic, I absolutely think.

(Oh, also, the KPD was being murdered by the Nazis with the aid of Stalin. The KPD was coordinating with Stalin, and he was selling them out because of course he was. I have absolutely no idea where you got this idea that the SPD was involved in what Hitler was doing to his opposition.)

---

So Cowbee said:

No, this is ridiculous. The KPD correctly warned of the rising threat of fascism, and correctly pointed out the need for revolution. The SPD pushed for Hindenburg, got him elected over Thallman, then Hindenburg gave the seat to Hitler. The SPD murdered KPD members, such as in the “bloody may” incident. Stalin did not “sell out” KPD members and work with Hitler, the negotiations to get Thallman out of prison fell through.

---

So I said:

https://www.wsws.org/en/special/library/foundations-ger/10.html

73 - The KPD had been established as a response to the betrayal of social democracy. But it proved just as unable as the SPD to weld together the working class and lead it into a struggle against the Nazis. A ten-year campaign against “Trotskyism” had politically corroded the party and transformed its leadership into a willing tool of Stalin. It repeated all the opportunist and ultra-left errors, against which Lenin and Trotsky had fought ten years before, and hid its paralysis and fatalism behind radical phrase-mongering. Until 1933, Trotsky tried relentlessly to correct the wrong course of the KPD. His writings on Germany from these years, which fill two thick volumes, prove his genius as a Marxist and political leader. Banished to a remote Turkish island, forced to rely on newspapers and reports from political friends, Trotsky demonstrated an understanding of German events and their internal dynamics that remains unparalleled to this day. He foresaw the events clearly and precisely and developed a convincing alternative to the devastating course of the KPD. The KPD responded not with arguments, but with slanders, violence and the entire weight of the Moscow apparatus.

74 - At the heart of the policy of the KPD was the thesis of social fascism. From the fact that both fascism and bourgeois democracy were forms of capitalist rule, the Comintern drew the conclusion that there was no contradiction between them, not even a relative one. Fascism and social democracy were the same―in the words of Stalin: “not antipodes, but twins”―the social democrats therefore were “social fascists”. The KPD rejected any collaboration with the SPD against the rightwing danger and, in some cases, even went so far as to make common cause with the Nazis―for example, when it supported the referendum initiated by the Nazis in 1931 to bring down the SPD-led Prussian state government. Occasionally it called for “a united front from below”. But this was not an offer to collaborate, but an ultimatum to the SPD members to break with their party.

75 - Trotsky decisively opposed this form of vulgar radicalism. He recalled that Marx and Engels had protested fiercely when Lassalle had called feudal counterrevolution and the liberal bourgeoisie “one reactionary mass”. Now Stalin and the KPD were repeating the same error. “It is absolutely correct to place on the Social Democrats the responsibility for the emergency legislation of Brüning as well as for the impending danger of fascist savagery. It is absolute balderdash to identify Social Democracy with fascism”, he wrote. “The Social Democracy, which is today the chief representative of the parliamentary-bourgeois regime, derives its support from the workers. Fascism is supported by the petty bourgeoisie. The Social Democracy without the mass organizations of the workers can have no influence. Fascism cannot entrench itself in power without annihilating the workers’ organizations. Parliament is the main arena of the Social Democracy. The system of fascism is based upon the destruction of parliamentarianism. For the monopolistic bourgeoisie, the parliamentary and fascist regimes represent only different vehicles of dominion; it has recourse to one or the other, depending upon the historical conditions. But for both the Social Democracy and fascism, the choice of one or the other vehicle has an independent significance; more than that, for them it is a question of political life or death.”[3]

76 - Trotsky fought untiringly for a policy of the united front. This would have made it possible for the KPD to use the contradiction between social democracy and fascism to unite the working class, win the confidence of the social democratic workers and expose the social democratic leaders. In an article written at the end of 1931, entitled “For a Workers’ United Front Against Fascism”, he explained: “Today the Social Democracy as a whole, with all its internal antagonisms, is forced into sharp conflict with the fascists. It is our task to take advantage of this conflict and not to unite the antagonists against us.” One must “show by deeds a complete readiness to make a bloc with the Social Democrats against the fascists” and “understand how to tear the workers away from their leaders in reality. But reality today is―the struggle against fascism.” It was necessary to “help the Social Democratic workers in action―in this new and extraordinary situation―to test the value of their organizations and leaders at this time, when it is a matter of life and death for the working class.”[4]

77 - The refusal of the KPD to accept such a policy led to the German catastrophe.

I won’t say I agree with 100% of the analysis on that page but a lot of that last part of analysis seems completely spot-on to me. And, of course, how Trotsky predicted is exactly how it played out.

---

So Cowbee said:

Trotsky was a wrecker through and through in his later years. Any claims of wanting “unity” are laughable when contrasted with his own anti-unity wrecker behavior within the soviet union. Trotksy himself was no “Marxist genius,” he believed the proletariat should attack the peasantry and hoped the developed countries would rebel and save the Russian proletariat from backlash. Social Democracy had sided with the fascists against the communists, and insodoing ruined Germany.

What Trotksy wanted happened: The SPD got what they wanted, and Hindenburg gave the seat to Hitler. Trotksy was wrong, just like the SPD was.

---

So I said:

“The party cannot fail, it can only be failed.”

Anyway, like I said I don’t plan to have an extensive debate. I’ll leave you with this:

https://jacobin.com/2021/08/hitler-stalin-pact-nazis-communist-deportation-soviet

Edit: Fun fact, I’ve actually visited Trotsky’s house in exile in Mexico City.

---

And that was the end of that, I think. Apologies again for the length and tedium. Here, see a dog and an owl, they're buds:

So someone posted:

---

And Cowbee said:

Liberals didn’t do this, it was the working class organizing and banding together that forced their hand. Liberals opposed these measures until they were forced to implement them.

From the suffragettes, civil rights movement, abolitionists, Black Panther Party, trade unions, communists, socialists, and regular working people together, these measures were forced. Social Security was a reaction to revolutionary potential, fearing the working class would overthrow the capitalists like they did in Russia in creating the Soviet Union and implemented sweeping safety nets.

Liberals are not on the left, and trying to take credit for the measures they had to be forced into implementing is peak liberalism.

---

And I said:

Not really, dude. Civil rights absolutely, social security, kind of, the activists didn’t create the idea but they gave muscle to the labor movement to the point that FDR got elected in the first place and had the momentum so sure, clean air act and clean water act, you must be joking, those were just liberal government things. The things from the "clean air act" end of the spectrum are actually really good examples of why having a functioning government is a good thing even if it means “electoralism,” meaning it can’t all just be people in the streets fighting. You need both sides of the equation: The vigor and blood to push things forward, and then the paper and system to lock it in. Without either side of that, it doesn’t work.

More to the point, stop shitting on people who did good things. If you live in America, you benefit from all of the things on that list. Look for enemies elsewhere. This is the left’s favorite thing, to turn its guns exclusively on its own side, and it’s super good at it.

---

So Cowbee said:

FDR only implemented the New Deal because social strife was intense, and the soviet union was showing an alternative. Environmental protections were only passed because the working class struggled for them, especially indigenous peoples. Policy that benefits the working class does not get handed down from benign rulers, but is something forced out of their hands.

Liberals are not on the side of leftists. Historically, for these measures, liberals have often opposed them, such as the civil rights movement. Liberalism itself has consistently been wielded in the name of countless atrocities and social injustice since its inception.

---

So I said:

Policy that benefits the working class does not get handed down from benign rulers, but is something forced out of their hands.

Absolutely completely correct.

Historically, for these measures, liberals have often opposed them, such as the civil rights movement.

Also correct.

I still feel like someone throwing firebombs at FDR (along the lines of vandalizing AOC's office because she's "pro-genocide" if you ignore all the anti genocide she does), because he's a "liberal" and therefore an enemy and the labor movement were the ones that did all the progress, would be making an error. That is what I am saying.

---

So Cowbee said:

Not a single person here is advocating for adventurist terrorism, though. When leftists state that liberals are not our allies, the answer isn’t to kill them, but to bring the liberal working class into our ranks through organizing and educating. The liberals who side with capitalism, try to persuade the working class into accepting concessions, rather than revolutionary change and social liberation, who try to box us into the narrow frames of electoralism in a system set up by capitalists, are ideologically the enemy of the working class.

---

So I said:

Sure. I still feel like someone throwing criticism at FDR (along the lines of vandalizing AOC’s office because she’s “pro-genocide” if you ignore all the anti genocide she does), because he’s a “liberal” and therefore an enemy and the labor movement were the ones that did all the progress, would be making an error. That is what I am saying.

---

So Cowbee said:

FDR was also responsible for expanding the US Empire, putting millitary bases in Antigua, Jamaica, Guyana, and more on 99 year loans from the UK. AOC has caped for Israel and the DNC. These are not enemies because of a label, but because of their actions. In their natural state, without being forced by the working class, they will continue to serve the interests of the US Empire.

---

So I said:

AOC has caped for Israel and the DNC

Sure she has lol

---

That was the end of my involvement. Anyway, allegedly for that conversation, I was instance banned for 14 days. After all, everyone should feel welcome here!

I know whining about lemmy.ml doing unreasonable moderation is kind of carrying coals to Newcastle, but come the fuck on lol. I think the actual issue was a separate conversation I had with him in which case I was displaying some wrongthink with citations which is not allowed I guess. Who knows. Anyway, that's what happened and why they said it happened.

Yeah. It’s a jungle in here.

190 min read

Hoo fuckin’ boy

I do have to say that including Hyprland in the original post is silly. Hyprland had a problem with ignorant users making ignorant speech in their community, and they didn’t police it, and once a shitstorm started, they recognized their error and started trying. It’s fine. Putting them up top, and Omarchy which is literally lead-developed by an open fascist, down below, is weird.

Holy God it’s a shitstorm… reading

I just want to point out there is nothing true in this statement. No such thing as far-right in current government (unless you consider anything right of your beliefs to be far-right, which is just silly), and immigration is completely fine, currently. My wife is an immigrant and non-us citizen and we have many immigrant friends. They are only deporting criminals, illegals, people who have broken the law.

Fuckin’ hell man. (That quote is from nobody in particular, just some random user chiming in… but still fuckin’ hell man.)

nrp’s reaction in the reply chain mostly just reads like he hasn’t picked up what’s going on. He still thinks fascism is “a political view” instead of “an active threat that might come for him and people he cares about right now, into his house and his safety, that needs resistance.” I don’t think DHH needs to be in prison or anything unless he’s done something. I do believe in free speech. But yes, the time has come for boycotts, strikes, marches, strengthening the organizations that we’ll need as things continue to get worse. It sounds like nrp is just privileged enough living his tech life that he doesn’t grasp that, and he can’t understand what people are mad about here.

Nobody remembers Switzerland as unsung heroes of World War 2, because of their commitment to freedom of expression and commerce for any side without prejudice. They’re lucky they got away with it, to be honest.

Great read. Also true.

@anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com - Just to wrap up the thing I wasn't permitted to say on dbzer0:

You’re ‘fine’ with the undecided movement, but make big time noise about people choosing not to vote as a result of those protests, even though that protest and every other always has the same implicit threat.

What, the threat of a great increase in the genocide including a rapid acceleration of its finish line and introduction of new genocides that didn't exist before? I mean, I don't agree that every protest carries that implicit threat. This one did though. That was one of the main threats that made me oppose this particular tactic of letting Trump come to power in order to make your political point.

And look, here we are. I mean the Palestinians and American Hispanics and whoever else already paid the price (some of it so far at least) for the outcome this principled protest contributed to. We might as well get some mileage out of it. It does seem like Gaza adding to the Democrats' loss has helped in some way to galvanize establishment politicians in and outside the US to recognize as a problem for them the genocide that's been a project for decades. So anyway, those vulnerable people paid the price (and will continue to), we might as well try to get some reformation to our internal politics out of their bitter sacrifice.

Honestly my big issue with this is you have absolutely no idea what my actual politics are. I can tell you that above is what I think, and you're free to say I am lying or whatnot. Would you like to know my politics? Or just tell them back to me? Tell me.

I mean you don't have to tell me. I don't know if you want to rekindle some extensive argument. I'm happy to break down what my actual politics are, if you want to hear it. In this community I can touch of some of the issues about voting that I wasn't allowed to in the /0 community. I sort of anticipate some kind of long argument about whether or not I am lying about them when I do. Do you want me to? Or are you good leaving it alone?

Ultimately it doesn’t matter what you think. You’re right - I am absolutely in good company here.

I think this part is, for the most part, true. It doesn't matter what I think or what I tell you. Politics and allegiances that are built on camaraderie with allies, uniting against a common foe, and the feelings and community that go with it, are incredibly powerful. It kind of doesn't matter what I tell you. You've already got this emotional attachment to the idea that I'm an "enemy." You already know, and it feels good. It binds you with your people. That is why you keep assigning me various political views and demanding that I am lying about my liberal-ness.

That's dangerous to do, though. Doubly so when some of your comrades are online comrades, and you can't really get real togetherness from them or condition it on a good read on their intentions and qualifications, or make progress on real world issues regardless of the typing typing part.