Remix.run Logo
themgt 13 hours ago

The number of different national and international situations that get compared to Nazi Germany seems to reflect a paucity of historical imagination and desire to collapse every conflict into an manichaean analogy with modern civilization's foundational battle of good vs. evil.

It might make at least as much sense to compare to Erdoğan's Turkey, Orban's Hungary, Syria's Assad and al-Julani, Chile with Allende and Pinochet, Bolsonaro and Lula in Brazil, the Spanish Civil War, Maidan and the Ukraine war, Cerén and Bukele in El Salvador, etc etc etc.

The point is, if you drew up a few dozen historical parallels that were at least as close to the current American predicament as is Germany in the 1930s, you might draw (and implicitly suggest your audience draw) more tentative and complex conclusions regarding the correct course of action. Whereas the Nazi Germany analogy ends with near-inevitable wave function collapse into "start shooting Nazis", other historical analogies might caution against encouraging everyone escalating into a violent conflict as the only imaginable course of action.

bix6 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Whereas the Nazi Germany analogy ends with near-inevitable wave function collapse into "start shooting Nazis"

Does it? I haven’t thought about shooting anyone. I would like to see more widespread awareness, protesting, and a general strike.

microtonal 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This. If you read Reddit, a whole lot of comments go from Nazi parallels (which is partly justified, but as another comment points out there are also a lot of parallels with Orban's Hungary, Erdogan's Turkey, Putin's Russia, etc.) to 'Luigi'.

There are so many non-violent approaches that would be effective. First, there is the 3.5% rule [1]. Second, if 10%-20% of the general population would go on a general strike, pretty much all of society would come to a standstill and it would send a heck of a powerful message. One of the issues though in the US is healthcare tied to employment, combined with fire at will. It reduces preparedness of people to protest until it's possibly too late. So, it's simultaneously important to build/strengthen unions, etc.

Aside from that, and this is true for Europe as well, we need to heal as a society. People have divided themselves in stupid 'teams', fueled by politicians, foreign interference, algorithms, etc. Not woke enough? You are cancelled. Left-wing? You are cancelled (employer contacted and fired). We have to do a little less social media and go outside and talk to other people. Even if I disagree with people politically, there often a lot of common ground (we all want food, health, to be safe, etc.), we all like to talk about some sports match, and whatnot. We don't have to agree with each other, but we can at least try to understand and care for each other. Break the stupid tribe wars.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule

varjag 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That 3.5% rule stopped working some time ago with the rise of technical surveillance state. There are now several notorious counter-examples.

8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
ajross 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> First, there is the 3.5% rule [1]. Second, if 10%-20% of the general population would go on a general strike

FWIW, when the best case recommendations for a restoration of civil order and the rule of law involve very large scale society-wide civil disobedience...

...then maybe the comparison to Nazi Germany and authoritative dictatorships more generally are perhaps not as far afield as you're implying. Like, once your thinking goes beyond "just win the next election" things are kinda over as far as "democracy" goes.

(And FWIW I don't necessarily disagree: the existing regime's leadership, not just the White House, seem extremely unlikely to just walk out the door if they lose an election. It was tried four years ago and failed, the resulting loyalty tests have produced a very different cabinet this time.)

erikerikson 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Like, once your thinking goes beyond "just win the next election" things are kinda over as far as "democracy" goes.

Elections are not the only form democratic participation can take. We can take local action, coordinated action, talk to our representatives at various levels, and so on.

DrewADesign 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Your suggestions aren't really addressing the things people are actually worried about here.

If leadership-aligned politicians won't dare step out of line, and those opposed are systematically marginalized by the executive, other legislators, and the courts, then what good does that do? Deliberately neutralizing the opposition's power renders the opposition's ideas, efforts, and proposals useless, and the allied politicians will never disobey, so petitioning either of them to make changes is pointless.

I'm not saying any of that is completely true right now, but people are nervous that this is becoming true.

ajross 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> people are nervous that this is becoming true

It seems abundantly clear that there will be no peaceful/rule-of-law transfer of executive power in January 2029 to anyone but a hand-picked Trump successor that wins an election. A democratic victory (or even a Republican primary winner that isn't appropriately selected) will be resisted at all levels of the executive, and... we'll just see. Whatever the result, the losing party will call it a coup and illegitimate, and such an administration will survive only so long as it can hold control of the government by authoritarian means.

It may even happen earlier. A lot of the kerfuffle around redistricting is being presented to right wing audiences in a way that would be very easy to spin as "cheating". What do we do if democrats win the house next year and Johnson simply refuses to seat the California delegation to keep power? Are we prepared?

Basically, the End of the American Experiment may have already occurred.

DrewADesign 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not so quick to pull the trigger on that assessment. I think we're at point where the rubber band has ostensibly been pulled back nearly as far as it can go, and it may snap, or it might make a surprising move in the opposite direction in response to the tension. I don't think any of us peons has any meaningful control of which of those two things happens, but I think it will hinge a lot on how much big businesses are affected by the economic and political consequences of recent policy moves. No matter how much Trump might bluster about big businesses and such, he'll still fall in line if enough get pushed to the point of having to draw a line in the sand. Too bad it will probably be big business operating in pure self-interest and not some actual principled entity. Maaaaybe if there's enough economic pain among his base, that could point us towards a voter-driven repudiation to some extent. Even if they cement their power significantly, I don't think they could swing it with an outright rejection of their approach. I doubt that will happen though.

microtonal 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

...then maybe the comparison to Nazi Germany and authoritative dictatorships more generally are perhaps not as far afield as you're implying.

Sorry, I was not implying they are far afield. We have seen this playbook in several nearby European/Asian countries in the last two and a half decades (I live in Europe). Of course, not all these countries did have a long democratic history, but they did show the fragility of democracy, you have to actively protect it.

Heck, even in the country where I live, which has quite a healthy democracy, a majority of parliament has just accepted a motion to request declaring antifa a terrorist organization because Trump did it as well (all Dutch experts, including former secret service personnel agree that antifa is neither an organization, nor terrorist). Some of them just to score a few points for the upcoming elections. Only a judge can declare an organization to be a terrorist organization, but it's all small steps in eroding the rule of law.

(Coincidentally, the next day 1500 right wing hooligans rioted in the streets of The Haglue the next day, burning police cars, damaging the office of a center-left political party and the parliament square.)

mindslight 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Reddit, a whole lot of comments go from Nazi parallels to 'Luigi'.

oof. I certainly understand where Luigi came from, but I'd also say that Luigi represents an escalation that empowers the Trump regime. The general population's latent desire to see some "justice" metered out on the "elites" pushes those elites into cozying up to Trump. Because those elites know that if Trump chooses to go after them, even the masses against Trump aren't going to be terribly concerned with their plight.

rjbwork 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is why people say that "fascism is the failure mode of capitalism." When the rich and powerful get too fat off their structural advantages and society starts coming apart at the seams, capital will align with anti-democratic, anti-freedom, bigoted, and genocidal forces to suppress change rather than relinquish some wealth and power.

They would rather rule over ashes than join us in a little bit more of an equitable society.

username332211 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have nagging the suspicion that the knowledge that a good portion of the population wants them dead is a slightly more significant factor in pushing elites to the Republican side compared to the Trump administration's threats.

mindslight 10 hours ago | parent [-]

My point is they're not different factors, they're the same dynamic.

As for your comparison, the actual threat from more Luigis is small. There are at least thousands of CEOs at or above the level of Armstrong? And one death, over a seeming period of several years? And the motive wasn't just "elites bad", but very specific healthcare denials.

Meanwhile Trump is actively attacking many companies and institutions. Part of the pressure are the populist memes that makes the masses unsympathetic to their plights, even though they are the structure of our society.

username332211 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> As for your comparison, the actual threat from more Luigis is small. There are at least thousands of CEOs at or above the level of Armstrong? And one death, over a seeming period of several years?

It's less about the murderer himself, and more about the high level of support he has. "Many of the rank and file in the Democratic coalition want you dead, but not to worry nearly all of them are cowards who'd never do anything about it." is cold comfort.

> And the motive wasn't just "elites bad", but very specific healthcare denials.

Do I really need to go trough Reddit to find you people calling for the murder of "capitalists", right down to landlords and homeowners?

I'm sure the elites (if we could call them that) prefer to seem like they are being pressured by the Trump administration. It's better for business and it's safer that way. But their compliance comes a little too easy.

mindslight 10 hours ago | parent [-]

You seem to be trying to make this into a partisan thing by invoking some imagined attribution to Democrats, when the outrage against elites is clearly pan-partisan. Also if anything it's rightism that tends to encourage individualist violence (and I'm saying this not as a partisan slam, but as a libertarian who sees the virtues in both philosophies)

You've also completely sidestepped the fact that Trump is actively attacking many companies and institutions. Sure, it's conceivable that some capitulating-institutional leaders were looking for an excuse to bring their institutions to heel, but it's not conceivable that they all were.

It seems like your goal is to absolve the autocratic authoritarians, and justify the elites cozying up to the autocratic authoritarians. So I don't see how continuing this conversation can be productive.

iwontberude 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the oligarchs saw Trump unable to break a general strike and it was destroying the economy, maybe they would let an opposition take hold.

Thanks for the downvotes

12 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
username332211 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Have you seen social media's reaction to that murderer Mangione?

bix6 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Social media is not real life. How many of those comments are bots? How many people say things online they wouldn’t say in person? The right and left are not as far apart as the internet would have us believe.

epistasis 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's especially important to realize this when it's TikTok where most of that is happening, and where TikTok is the propaganda arm of China, a country that the US currently considers a frenemy at best, if not an outright enemy, and that considers the US in somewhat similar terms.

And when the algorithms on the rest of the media sites are used to drive maximum engagement for profit purposes, or maximum dissent because of the political leanings of their owner (e.g. X), social media is most definitely not the reality.

username332211 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> How many of those comments are bots?

Wasn't there a group cheering in front of the courtroom when the judge dropped the terrorism charge? Those people were not bots.

> How many people say things online they wouldn’t say in person?

Ohh, so lovely of them. I wonder how Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and ultimately Paul Graham feel, to know that the only reason why a good portion of the population doesn't advocate for their death is taqiyya?

TRiG_Ireland 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How many deaths have Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk caused, in their active campaign to destroy the climate?

username332211 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Perhaps very many. Perhaps few. Perhaps none.

I'd like to sidestep the question, and ask, is lethal violence justified as a retaliation? But I'd like to ask that as an ethical, not as a strategic question.

Suppose the starts align and the omens are good. Imagine the assassination of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk would be highly beneficial to all your pet political issues. Would killing them be a good thing?

anigbrowl 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Elon Musk is actively poisoning people in Tennessee to make more money. I don't really care about his problems; if he's worried about his popularity he could try being nicer to other people.

https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/07/07/a-billionaire-an-ai-...

ElevenLathe 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Alleged murderer*

gjgtcbkj 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The case against has basically fallen apart already. If he’s a murderer why does he walk free? The prosecutors will keep billing hours those. They need a scapegoat.

dghlsakjg 11 hours ago | parent [-]

They dismissed the terror charge.

He is still in jail and being charged with murder.

He is not free, and the meat of the of the case - a murder charge - is still being actively prosecuted.

libraryofbabel 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This should be the top-voted comment of the whole thread. I used to teach history; it makes me roll my eyes when I hear comparisons between Nazi Germany and the current moment. It reflects both a lack of historical familiarity with the unique circumstances of Germany in the 1920s and 30s (including recently losing a world war), and also, as you say, a lack of knowledge of other more relevant historical examples — of which I’d also put Erdoğan at the top. It’s just a conversation-stopper and a rhetorical cudgel rather than a serious attempt at historical contextualization.

010101010101 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Surely the Venn diagram needs not be a circle for you to draw parallels, nor does the existence of a more direct comparison make other comparisons moot.

naravara 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Surely the fact that the current ruling party has an influential faction who explicitly reference Nazi Germany as an ideal worth striving for is relevant to setting the current moment in historical context. Yes we're not LITERALLY Nazi Germany for a variety of reasons but that doesn't mean it doesn't paint a picture of what they want to do, regardless of how successful they will be or what that will look like in practice.

Personally I think the most apt historical comparison is the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, but since we don't LITERALLY live in the Middle Ages and have ethnic divisions between Greeks and Latins one might say that's not a relevant comparison either.

api 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some of it reminds me of the CCP, which I think is openly considered a model by some neo-authoritarians. Ubiquitous mass surveillance, social credit, and state capitalism with heavy control though regulatory pressure. I assume we will eventually see party men installed on boards of major companies, especially in media, tech, and entertainment.

The “tech right” is a major player here and a lot of those folks idolize China right now.

I think the US has been spiraling toward authoritarianism since 9/11 personally. This did not start yesterday or with the most recent election, nor is it exclusively the result of the right or the Republican Party. A lot of people to the left have also abandoned liberalism and ideas like free speech. There’s been a broad based shift away from liberalism and individualism and toward collectivism, which always leads toward totalitarianism.

Right wing collectivism comes in the form of racism and nationalism, while for the contemporary left its identity-grievance politics and a resurgence of Marxism.

“Why did everyone across the entire political spectrum abandon individualism in the 20-teens?” is one of the questions I keep asking.

aidenn0 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I think the US has been spiraling toward authoritarianism since 9/11 personally. This did not start yesterday or with the most recent election, nor is it exclusively the result of the right or the Republican Party. A lot of people to the left have also abandoned liberalism and ideas like free speech. There’s been a broad based shift away from liberalism and individualism and toward collectivism, which always leads toward totalitarianism.

On small example: The president openly ordering targeted killings started under Bush and was broadened to include US citizens under Obama.

Of course the dangerous concentration of power in the executive branch has been something the US has contended with on and off over the years. If you read The Federalist Papers, it seems clear to me that the architects of our government did not envision congress steadily abrogating its power; the expectation was rather that it would be jealously guarded by those it was granted to.

overfeed 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Why did everyone across the entire political spectrum abandon individualism in the 20-teens?”

You mean in the aftermath of the great recession where most people were struggling economically and saw that the rules are only for little people? The 20-teens were the time of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party - I don't see how it can be

I think individualism increased, after the teens, in a "don't trust the experts, do your own 'research'" way. Regardless of one's politics, its hard not to be a conspiracy theorist when you see a conspiracy play out in front of your eyes, at your expense. You could draw a straight line between the GFC and the growth of the "burn it all down" contingents on the left and right - indeed, a lot of "Bernie bros" became Trumpers whole remaining true to that ethos.

yinznaughty 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would recommend 'Adapt! On a New Political Imperative' by Barbara Stiegler. The movement away from classical liberalism has been going on for far longer and was by design. It is very important to explicitly separate traditional or classical liberalism from neoliberalism when discussing these things. And just to be pedantic the term liberal should also absolutely be avoided when discussing anything involve impacts from the "new left" movement.

>Why did everyone across the entire political spectrum abandon individualism in the 20-teens

IMO they didn't - at least not explicitly. Individualism has been somewhat illusionary since the progressive era it is just finally coming home to roost. What happened is that the internet finally out ran the ability of the traditional media consensus methods at the national level as the internet generation aged in. So we are sort of in unknown territory where it is not clear any "expert" can play the designated role to drive the consensus required in the neoliberal system.

Where to go from there is an open question but her thesis is that the neoliberal system needs to be adapted in someway. Anyway that is largely the picture of the problem she paints. I'm not doing it justice but it is worth a read to at least place a lot of the problems people are observing in a mental and historical framework.

I think a good step is moving towards federating into smaller communities. The best of those ideas will get adopted by other communities. Basically the fediverse model applied to society. People already have this feeling intuitively and it is playing out with the push back against globalization.

BlueTemplar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Preach !

The political quadrant is more important than ever compared to the mess of one-dimensional politics :

Right wing is economic (neo) liberals, while fascists are top wing center : these will (like a century ago) gladly use left-wing policies and rhetoric if they bring them the power they crave above all else. Or ally with corporations when convenient.

While societal liberals are on the bottom wing, and regularly clash with anti-liberal socialists/communists (left center, but also left top).

(Proto-Antifa used to ally with Nazis to beat up Social Democrats, until Stalin had decided to change direction, it's wild how both the name and flag are still reused today despite that dirty history...)

deadbabe 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Individualism started dying when it became clear the problems we face are now too large for any one individual to overcome. Massive institutions crush the individual. You can’t chase individualist dreams as easily as you once could. It requires a lot of money and luck, and luck has run out.

Social media also made it easier for you to be a group thinker and reap the benefits of that. Being an individual gives you no clout.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would also remind the short of memory that during covid, the states with the most draconian restrictions were mostly left-leaning, and many were loathe to give up that control.

Control of the people comes from all sides. The end result is the same, but the methods are different, intended to make people happy to be controlled.

phony-account 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I would also remind the short of memory that during covid, the states with the most draconian restrictions were mostly left-leaning, and many were loathe to give up that control. Control of the people comes from all sides

This depiction of Covid restrictions (restrictions that were actually relatively permissive given the seriousness of the disease and the unknown nature of the virus at the time) as though they were an authoritarian power grab by malevolent politicians instead of a health policy, is part of the problem.

Maybe if people had been willing to accept a small curtailment of their personal desires for a short time for the sake of the common good, rather than framing it as a dictatorial punishment,we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re heading into now.

qcnguy 5 hours ago | parent [-]

None of the COVID measures had any effect on public health and yet they were enforced long after that became obvious to anyone watching the graphs the government themselves published. And the nature of the virus was known within weeks of it appearing - there were no real surprises from that point on. It acted very similarly to any other respiratory virus with the only differences being the unusually steep gradient in age effects.

COVID was 100% an authoritarian power grab by public health officials. Zero percent actual health. And public health is an overwhelmingly left wing and political field, being as it is the idea that health should be managed collectively.

benjiro 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I would also remind the short of memory that during covid, the states with the most draconian restrictions were mostly left-leaning, and many were loathe to give up that control.

...

Some exerts from 3 different studies but you may find more if you want.

> This suggests that red states faced a more pronounced impact from COVID-19, experiencing elevated mortality rates compared to their blue counterparts.

> Red states had higher COVID-19 infection rates and deaths in 2021 compared to blue states.

> A study in June published in Health Affairs similarly found that counties with a Republican majority had a greater share of Covid deaths through October 2021, relative to majority-Democratic counties. The Yale researchers behind the new working paper say vaccine hesitancy among Republicans may be the biggest culprit.

There is a different between draconian restriction that saved lives, vs "FREEDOM" that resulted in more people dying but hey, they did not need a vaccine or mask. I hope it was worth it for those that had family *unnecessarily* die because of their own, or others "FREEDOM".

I think you confuse dictatorships with measures to help a to prevent deaths. Hey, i remember the "dictatorship" of required seatbelts outcry's. And yet, how many lives have been saved.

There is a difference between people crying how their rights are removed, vs the general good of the population. Being selfish in a society does not make you a freedom proponent, but just a selfish person. If people want to live with all the freedoms in the world, great, go live in some mountain somewhere where you have no contact with others. But the moment you have a semblance of society, there will be more and more pressure to prevent individual actions from harming others. If you want to shoot your guns out in the open like Rambo when your a individual and do not harm to others, fine, have fun. But if your shooting your guns in any society structure where you have neighbors or people around, and you actions have consequences to those around, you will always have some form of governance that will "restrict" your freedom, as now your part of a society.

The issue become dangerous when that governance is MISUSED by those that pass laws and restrictions, that are not for the global good but for their own financial or power benefits. And i feel that people misunderstand the difference between what a social governance is and a autocracy governance.

BlueTemplar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Funnily, the original (regulated and temporary!) job description of 'dictator' does seem to fit quite well.

api 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That mostly mapped to population density, which maps to blue states because the main divide is urban vs rural.

More intense pandemic measures make more sense where density is higher.

But did we even have any true lockdowns in the US? Maybe in some cities, but we had nothing close to China or even Australia. Were there any places in the US with actual curfews where you were not allowed to leave, or anything like that?

I lived in California in the start of the pandemic and Ohio the rest of the time and neither place had true “lock downs.” I only saw businesses requiring masks and some jobs requiring the vaccine.

mystraline 12 hours ago | parent [-]

In Indiana, there were groceries that had early morning for healthcare workers and elderly only. That helped limit spread as well.

Again, we had no real lockdowns. School was remote, which had its own really bad effects on early socialization.

I'm not at all sure what we should have did differently. Technically a hard lockdown for 6 weeks could mostly eradicate it everywhere. But a lot of people can't handle that.

What I do now know is our society and public kinda sucks, people will show up and do stuff sick, spread sickness, and not really care much. And our government has been getting steadily worse and worse as long as Ive lived. And my generation and younger ones are either in for a terrible time, or already IN a terrible time.

api 12 hours ago | parent [-]

There are things we could have done very differently but it’s all Monday morning quarterbacking.

mystraline 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I wasn't really recommending anything. Was more just observations what happened here.

The 6 week lockdown was more a potential way to slow covid and basically knock it out across the country. But I'm not sure we could even do that if we wanted to. Most people only have a few days of food in their house.

I also note that domestic abuse skyrocketed also during the vaccine-less parts of the pandemic. There was a whole lot of weird.

However with RFK and Dr Phil (cringe) as heads of respective health agencies, I know if we get a new pandemic, we're fucked. These are the same idiots that think vaccines cause autism and horse dewormer cures covid.

tbrownaw 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Whereas the Nazi Germany analogy ends with near-inevitable wave function collapse into "start shooting Nazis", other historical analogies might caution against encouraging everyone escalating into a violent conflict as the only imaginable course of action.

This is, is course, why it's the one preferred comparison.