this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
752 points (95.6% liked)
Political Humor
1636 readers
443 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Member when England thought Hitler wasn’t that bad and had “peace in our time?”
Or when the “free world” sat back and let the anarchists lose the Spanish civil war because anarchism was scarier than fascism to them?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Yeah, it would be hilariously ironic if not for the tragedy.
"We can't try anarchy, because bad people will become warlords! Then they'll compete and the winner will take full control as a dictator!"
"Uh huh, and what do we call that?"
"Anarchy! That's why I'm voting for fascism!"
[Facepalm]
I'm actually not a big fan of anarchy, but the idea that it's worse than Totalitarianism seems pretty silly to me.
It’s doubly hilarious when you realize anarchy isn’t that.
Anarchy isn't that. It's just what happens when people try to install it in a geopolitical environment that's inherently imperialistic. It would be interesting to see what kind of social structures are possible without outside interference, but I don't expect to see that in my lifetime.
"Anarchy" is a transition state, almost always to something worse. The point of instituting a democracy is to prevent that something worse. Granted, that doesn't always work, but it's better than nothing.
That's not the anarchy they're talking about. "Anarchy" here refers to the state of society sought by anarchism.
...an' I wanna pony with wings, an' I wanna pretty castle, an' I wanna be a princess, an' I wanna dress made out of pretty rainbows and sunshine, an' I wanna...
This is what educated people used to say about democracy before it became widespread.
It took a while, but it’s getting harder to say they were wrong. I still hope they were wrong though.
that's not a problem with democracy; it's a problem with capitalism...
I suspect it might actually be a problem with humanity.
yeah i call that libertarianism
The ruling capital owners would never let actual citizens gain control over the system. Of course they installed Trump, as in many instances in the past.
"They" were mostly Russia running a massive propaganda campaign through all social media, of course with Trump and the GOP allowing it.
You... you think Trump doesn't have the support of large swathes of the American rich? Russian propaganda helped of course, but mainstream media amplifying Trump's rhetoric and suppressing leftist ideas weren't and aren't paid off by Russia.
I would say Russia is the catalyst since they have tons of overlapping interests, maybe like 30% of it, but the ruling class are 70+% reason he is president.
I'd swap those. Most of the ruling class didn't want him in until he won the nomination. They preferred him to taxes on billionaires and that's about it. Most of them were forced to get on board or get out.
We don't remember the "get out" ones as much, because, you know, they got out. They're no longer relevant.
In the very beginning, yes they would've preferred someone more predictable, but once they saw his cult power, they absolutely wanted him.
This one is more understandable though. It's always iffy to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. Even if the anarchists had won they would be seen as less legitimate if they had outside help. And if they had helped the anarchists and they lost anyway the relations would be way worse.
Nazi Germany helped the Spanish fascists and Franco's rule even continued after Hitler's fall. And the big threat after fascism threatened the freedom of the world? The communists that did most of the hard work and dying to defeat fascism.
The crisis of legitimacy would have come from the ruling classes of the world feeling threatened by the change in social order, not because aid was given to a side in an internal conflict.
If your countrymen are trying to kill you and foreigners who support your position help you defeat them, people who complain about who helped get it done are just more supporters of that defeated side trying to play victim and position for their next run for power.
Like liberal democracy in America, getting help from France?
While I do see your point I don't know if I like that comparison. The world was heck of a lot more connected in the 30's than the 1700's.
Chamberlain had to buy time to arm Britain. At that point, the Luftwaffe was cutting edge. The RAF had only biplanes.
He played politics, while modernising Britain's defences. He then fell on his sword, politically, so that Churchill could lead without too much political baggage to deal with.
Britain would have been flattened, without his delaying actions.