The premise here is that the interests of social democracies categorically align more with fascism than communism. You're saying -- correctly -- that the interests of social democracies in WWII aligned more with communism than fascism. I don't see how WWII (which had yet to happen at the time of Stalin's statement) isn't a major counterpoint to the original premise.
They didn't "align with communism". Look at the death tolls of other countries compared to the USSR... look at the post-war situation... They did far less than the USSR but still took over everything west of Berlin and continued imperialism in the Global South. It's more like the interests of communists aligned briefly with those of some capitalists, but its hard to say it was an equivalent exchange.
Their interests weren't perfectly aligned -- no one's claiming that -- but they were clearly more aligned with their allies than with their enemies. That's the opposite of what Stalin was saying: that when push came to shove, social democrats would side with fascists over communists.
You nail someone to the phrase "push comes to shove" but then "well obviously not perfectly_" when someone questions your wording. Just saying, that is probably how the other person feels about the harping on that one sentence
Using the exact phrase the person you're responding to used, which is a version of the phrase everyone in the thread is using, is not the same as clarifying that "more aligned" does not mean "perfectly aligned." It's the difference between responding to what the other person is actually saying vs. responding to an exaggeration of what they said.
You really have no clue how bad faith that comes off? No one wants to engage with someone who does that, I know cause I used to exactly do that. They clarified and you wouldn't stop. It is absolutely the same, and responding with the same semantic defensiveness is exactly what I am talking about. You keep calling the kettle black. People are supposed to know what you mean, but also you know what they mean better than they do
edit: what I am saying is I get why you felt Toledo was condescending, and that you come off that same way. So put yourself in their shoes. That's all I ask
I explained my thinking at length in good faith, and what I got back was some curt, snarky-ass "well I've already told you million times so I'm done here" shit that didn't address any of the many new points I raised. That was after at least two "as I've told you several times now" remarks two or three comments in.
To protect their own interests obviously. When fascists get in power in their own countries they're fine with it.
The premise here is that the interests of social democracies categorically align more with fascism than communism. You're saying -- correctly -- that the interests of social democracies in WWII aligned more with communism than fascism. I don't see how WWII (which had yet to happen at the time of Stalin's statement) isn't a major counterpoint to the original premise.
They didn't "align with communism". Look at the death tolls of other countries compared to the USSR... look at the post-war situation... They did far less than the USSR but still took over everything west of Berlin and continued imperialism in the Global South. It's more like the interests of communists aligned briefly with those of some capitalists, but its hard to say it was an equivalent exchange.
Their interests weren't perfectly aligned -- no one's claiming that -- but they were clearly more aligned with their allies than with their enemies. That's the opposite of what Stalin was saying: that when push came to shove, social democrats would side with fascists over communists.
You nail someone to the phrase "push comes to shove" but then "well obviously not perfectly_" when someone questions your wording. Just saying, that is probably how the other person feels about the harping on that one sentence
Using the exact phrase the person you're responding to used, which is a version of the phrase everyone in the thread is using, is not the same as clarifying that "more aligned" does not mean "perfectly aligned." It's the difference between responding to what the other person is actually saying vs. responding to an exaggeration of what they said.
You really have no clue how bad faith that comes off? No one wants to engage with someone who does that, I know cause I used to exactly do that. They clarified and you wouldn't stop. It is absolutely the same, and responding with the same semantic defensiveness is exactly what I am talking about. You keep calling the kettle black. People are supposed to know what you mean, but also you know what they mean better than they do
edit: what I am saying is I get why you felt Toledo was condescending, and that you come off that same way. So put yourself in their shoes. That's all I ask
I explained my thinking at length in good faith, and what I got back was some curt, snarky-ass "well I've already told you million times so I'm done here" shit that didn't address any of the many new points I raised. That was after at least two "as I've told you several times now" remarks two or three comments in.
You know how you felt about what you said, no shit. That does not mean its what came across to everyone else