It's a socialist forum, I assumed people would know what I meant when I said "when push comes to shove" in relation to SocDems. It's not specific enough, my mistake. For the 748373th time, I don't agree with Stalin I'm just giving my take on why someone would link Social Democracy with Fascism.
And as many revolutions involve war, there isn’t a clean distinction between the two anyway.
There's a clear distinction in the war between a country's revolutionaries and counterevolutionaries and a war between a country and some foreign invader let's not be silly here. The times where the two overalp only prove my point.
How is the largest conflict in human history not "when push comes to shove" as much as anything? It doesn't make any sense to write off WWII when considering the accuracy of such a big, bold claim. It doesn't make any sense to write off the most direct, dire threat social democratic countries have ever faced -- that involved open war between fascists and communists -- when making sweeping predictions about who they're likely to side with in a contest between fascists and communists.
Even making the much more limited claim that "in a revolutionary context, social democrats are more likely to side with fascists than communists" runs into a fair amount of historical trouble. For starters, many revolutionary contexts don't fit neatly into fascism vs. communism. Fidel Castro didn't hold himself out as a communist until months (if not years) after the Cuban Revolution, and when he did it was primarily because the U.S. had made its hostility clear. Ho Chi Minh famously modeled the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence after the American Declaration of Independence and sought an alliance with the U.S. after WWII. You have situations like Chile, where Allende's government was better described as social democracy than communism. You have situations like Venezuela, where Chavismo isn't exactly communism, and where the stooge backed by the U.S. is pretty close to social democracy. You have situations like Jamaica and Sierra Leone where a social democracy granted independence to former colonies in a situation where independence was popular but there was no movement worth calling a revolution.
Even that more limited claim has some pretty major shortcomings, and that's before we get to how little application it has to any sort of movement towards American socialism.
For the 748373th time
We've had a pretty short exchange where we've been clarifying our points. There's no reason to pretend you've had to repeat the same exact thing over and over and over and over again.
We’ve had a pretty short exchange where we’ve been clarifying our points. There’s no reason to pretend you’ve had to repeat the same exact thing over and over and over and over again.
One would think you would understand them by now then. Done engaging with you.
yeah they are pissed at you because you are pinning them to "when push comes to shove", a phrase they only used once and which, once contested, they immediately, repeatedly clarified towards a more nuanced position talking about revolutionary context. In that light YOU are refusing to engage with their argument in a miserably pedantic, sniping way. It's a testament to their character that you got as much text out of them as you did before they gave up on you.
Even making the much more limited claim that “in a revolutionary context, social democrats are more likely to side with fascists than communists” runs into a fair amount of historical trouble.
This is a claim
For starters, many revolutionary contexts don’t fit neatly into fascism vs. communism.
This seems to be the beginning of you reinforcing that claim.
Fidel Castro didn’t hold himself out as a communist until months (if not years) after the Cuban Revolution, and when he did it was primarily because the U.S. had made its hostility clear. Ho Chi Minh famously modeled the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence after the American Declaration of Independence and sought an alliance with the U.S. after WWII. You have situations like Chile, where Allende’s government was better described as social democracy than communism. You have situations like Venezuela, where Chavismo isn’t exactly communism, and where the stooge backed by the U.S. is pretty close to social democracy. You have situations like Jamaica and Sierra Leone where a social democracy granted independence to former colonies in a situation where independence was popular but there was no movement worth calling a revolution.
This is basically a bulleted list of extremely different places with extremely different circumstances, linked vaguely under the umbrella of revolutionary action. You don't even use the words social democracy until you insinuate that Juan Guaido, a LITERAL CIA OPERATION, is somehow an example of how social democracy is NOT at least tentatively linked with fascism. It's trash.
YTA. fix your engagement style. Moreover, get over the part of yourself that gets frustrated to be argued against.
I addressed the "in a revolutionary context" qualifier at length after first pointing out that it's not part of the Stalin comment OP asked about. Rather than discuss any of that, they got pissy about how exhausting it is to have a short conversation.
your whole attitude throughout the exchange oozes undeserved self-superiority
Hysterical coming from someone who just dropped an unsolicited, reddit-tier YTA comment.
It's a socialist forum, I assumed people would know what I meant when I said "when push comes to shove" in relation to SocDems. It's not specific enough, my mistake. For the 748373th time, I don't agree with Stalin I'm just giving my take on why someone would link Social Democracy with Fascism.
There's a clear distinction in the war between a country's revolutionaries and counterevolutionaries and a war between a country and some foreign invader let's not be silly here. The times where the two overalp only prove my point.
How is the largest conflict in human history not "when push comes to shove" as much as anything? It doesn't make any sense to write off WWII when considering the accuracy of such a big, bold claim. It doesn't make any sense to write off the most direct, dire threat social democratic countries have ever faced -- that involved open war between fascists and communists -- when making sweeping predictions about who they're likely to side with in a contest between fascists and communists.
Even making the much more limited claim that "in a revolutionary context, social democrats are more likely to side with fascists than communists" runs into a fair amount of historical trouble. For starters, many revolutionary contexts don't fit neatly into fascism vs. communism. Fidel Castro didn't hold himself out as a communist until months (if not years) after the Cuban Revolution, and when he did it was primarily because the U.S. had made its hostility clear. Ho Chi Minh famously modeled the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence after the American Declaration of Independence and sought an alliance with the U.S. after WWII. You have situations like Chile, where Allende's government was better described as social democracy than communism. You have situations like Venezuela, where Chavismo isn't exactly communism, and where the stooge backed by the U.S. is pretty close to social democracy. You have situations like Jamaica and Sierra Leone where a social democracy granted independence to former colonies in a situation where independence was popular but there was no movement worth calling a revolution.
Even that more limited claim has some pretty major shortcomings, and that's before we get to how little application it has to any sort of movement towards American socialism.
We've had a pretty short exchange where we've been clarifying our points. There's no reason to pretend you've had to repeat the same exact thing over and over and over and over again.
One would think you would understand them by now then. Done engaging with you.
OK, fuck off you condescending asshole.
yeah they are pissed at you because you are pinning them to "when push comes to shove", a phrase they only used once and which, once contested, they immediately, repeatedly clarified towards a more nuanced position talking about revolutionary context. In that light YOU are refusing to engage with their argument in a miserably pedantic, sniping way. It's a testament to their character that you got as much text out of them as you did before they gave up on you.
This is a claim
This seems to be the beginning of you reinforcing that claim.
This is basically a bulleted list of extremely different places with extremely different circumstances, linked vaguely under the umbrella of revolutionary action. You don't even use the words social democracy until you insinuate that Juan Guaido, a LITERAL CIA OPERATION, is somehow an example of how social democracy is NOT at least tentatively linked with fascism. It's trash.
YTA. fix your engagement style. Moreover, get over the part of yourself that gets frustrated to be argued against.
I addressed the "in a revolutionary context" qualifier at length after first pointing out that it's not part of the Stalin comment OP asked about. Rather than discuss any of that, they got pissy about how exhausting it is to have a short conversation.
Hysterical coming from someone who just dropped an unsolicited, reddit-tier YTA comment.
you're not learning
Learn deez nuts
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
Now this is a synthesis we can agree on comrade
Right back at ya :gigachad: