this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
432 points (98.2% liked)

politics

30118 readers
2856 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mlatu@moist.catsweat.com 12 points 2 days ago (24 children)

you honestly think people turn to communism because they want to become billionaires themself?

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (18 children)

Of what use, then, are the American Communists?

They serve one function extremely useful to you and to the country, so useful that, if there were no Communists, we would almost be forced to create some. They are a reliable litmus paper for detecting real sources of danger to the Republic.

Communism is so repugnant to almost all Americans, when they are getting along even tolerably well, that one may predict with certainty that any social field or group in which the Communists make real strides in gaining members or acceptance of their doctrines, any such spot is in such bad shape from real and not imaginary social ills that the rest of us should take emergency, drastic action to investigate and correct the trouble.

Unfortunately we are more prone to ignore the sick spot thus disclosed and content ourselves with calling out more cops.

--Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government

[–] mlatu@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 2 days ago (15 children)

i agree, national socialism is not the way.

long live international solidarity.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Drop the national part. Socialism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the 20th and 21st centuries.

[–] mlatu@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

did you somehow read my comment as condoning the national part? if so, please explain how you came to that conclusion or simply do everyone a favour and re-read what it says

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your comment is talking about national socialism in response to a different comment talking about individual American communists, right?

I gotta say, I don’t really see the connection you made, either.

[–] mlatu@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

heinlein was opposed to communism and flirted with fascist ideas, coming to the conclusion that when he was talking about communism it was most likely some form of nationalized subtype isnt that far off. hence the ending

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

National socialism is not just left wing nationalism, which probably covers most nationalized subtypes of communism though, it’s Nazism, which is fascist and far right, not at all left.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Holy shit, I didn't even think of the possibility that this person didn't realize National Socialist = Nazi.

In a fucking politics board, no less.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t think it’s likely, but there’s always a chance.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Fair enough, I wait with bated breath for their reply, lol.

[–] mlatu@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

and what makes you think i dont know that?

my point is: if he disliked communism, but flirted with fascism, perhaps he was never really talking about international communism at all but only ever conceived of the notion of a nationally limited socialism. or nazism if you like, but needless contractions of words wont get you anywhere closer to understanding what i am talking about if all you can think about is "gotcha"

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

and what makes you think i dont know that?

I don’t know what you know without you communicating it to me.

my point is: if he disliked communism, but flirted with fascism, perhaps he was never really talking about international communism at all but only ever conceived of the notion of a nationally limited socialism.

That’s a perfectly clear statement that I would have had no trouble following the first time.

or nazism if you like,

No, those aren’t the same, so now I’m lost again

but needless contractions of words wont get you anywhere closer to understanding what i am talking about if all you can think about is "gotcha"

It’s not a needless contraction if you’re trying to talk about two different ideologies under one name- it helps to distinguish two very different ideologies. It’s not a gotcha to ask for clarification. You’re taking an attempt to understand as an attack.

[–] mlatu@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

to you, a nationally limited socialism is not equal to nazism, to me the distinction is negligible. if you think we (as in all humans) are not the same, then we truly are not.

read the thread with a sober mind and point to one person other than wpb that didnt call me names or made an effort to project their opinions on my comments but rather asked what i was talking about. all in all i am left with the impression that this community seems to prefer calling names over having civilized discussions

i kept giving you the benefit of the doubt, but watching you cheer with your peers over how "this person seemingly doesnt know the difference between such distinctive ideologies" ... yeah no, i dont think i want to talk to you (plural) anymore. you (singular), kept it relatively civil, so i wish you (+wpb) a nice day.

and a whole day of 100% packet loss for the rest :3

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

You sound fucking insufferable, do you know that?

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Both of our comments were pretty straight forward. You seem confused.

[–] mlatu@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

confusion is one thing, replying "drop the national part" to "national socialism is not the way" is another.

have a nice day :3

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, they are definitely two different things.

You as well ✌️

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)