507
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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
[-] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 128 points 2 months ago

Plus we keep using this outdated first-past-the-post voting system in the 21st century.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 69 points 2 months ago

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

[-] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 42 points 2 months ago

Literally any voting system other than the one we use is an improvement.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 24 points 2 months ago

Yeah, ranked choice already seems to have a lot of momentum, and would fix a lot. That counts more than theoretical perfection that may not even exist in the real world.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 71 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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 38 points 2 months ago

Yup. We need ranked choice balloting first.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

in presidential elections

Or in House of Representative, or Senate. The real power is in Congress.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 29 points 2 months ago

Local elections is where most of the current people in power got started. Anyone voting for third party in the presidential race missed the boat.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago

Vote progressives into local offices so they can get experience to work in state offices so they can get experience to work in Congress so they can get experience to be a good presidential candidate. Also to fill offices at every level with progressives.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 55 points 2 months 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months 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.

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 2 months ago

Alaska does it (assuming they won't repeal it in nov). Oregon is going to try and do it, if it hopefully passes. If we get two states proving it works and isn't a problem, that momentum can snowball.

Please help support the RCV effort in Oregon if you can. https://www.oregonrcv.org/

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] grue@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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 (14 replies)
[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 40 points 2 months 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)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 32 points 2 months ago

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

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months 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 (21 replies)
[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 32 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

[-] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] frezik@midwest.social 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The real lesson, I think, is that fascists take power when the mechanisms of liberal democracy crumble away.

I have great reason for concern on this in modern times, even if the details are different.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 months 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)
[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

We could avoid this with ranked choice voting.

load more comments (26 replies)
[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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 12 points 2 months 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

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?

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Weirdmusic@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months 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)
[-] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 months ago

Lemmy users be like "bUt I cAnT VoTe FoR gEnOcIdE"

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 28 points 2 months ago

Sadly, Israel's genocide is not on the ballot given that both candidates support "Israel's right to defend itself" (read that with seething sarcasm). What is on the ballot is the prevention of genocide (or at least a flood of atrocities) in Ukraine, the invasion of multiple former Soviet republics, Women's rights, minority rights, queer rights, voting rights...basically rights and the rule of law in general.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
507 points (85.4% liked)

politics

19145 readers
1994 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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