See the big difference is the US was murdering countless Vietnamese to keep them under the boot of capitalism. The protesters in Tienanmen aren't as black and white. If the protesters were protesting China poisoning the food supply and massacring countless villages of country on the other side of the planet to keep a country's resources easy to exploit and their people's blood ready to be spent keeping other countries under the boot of capitalism, it would be that simple, but they weren't.
Also "against authoritarianism" lmao you are a literal child.
It would be different if the protesters had lynched a dozen soldiers before they responded.
Of course given the context of the Vietnam war, the soldiers wouldn't have been justified even if the protesters killed some of them first; you don't get to claim self-defense when you yourself are only there to put down a protest against imperialism.
The socialists voted for the KDP candidate. Hitler didn't gain power with socialist votes, the liberals promoted Hindenburg as a unity candidate, and won, Hindenburg proceeded to staff the government with nazis and made Hitler chancellor, unifying against the socialists. The nazis "socialist" side were no more socialist than Israelis who romanticize kibutzim as communes.
The socialists in Germany were getting murdered by fascist paramilitaries the liberals armed in the 20s, and fighting them in the streets in the 30s while the liberals' policies continued to nurture them. If you think that having socialist in the name meant the nazis were socialist, I invite you to eat a urinal cake, then actually study history.
You know liberals and capitalists are kinda the same thing? Liberalism is the philosophy of capitalism, and anarchists and socialists are both leftists?
Also the entire lead up to WW II had the socialists trying to ally with literally anyone to deal with Germany, but was rejected, as France and Britain signed Non-Aggression Pacts with Germany and gave them and Poland Czechslovakia in hope that Poland and Germany would invade the USSR and deal with what they perceived as a greater threat. Britain literally tried to join the winter war on the side of Finland and Germany.
The point is even in WWII, the liberals preferred fascism to socialism until they were literally being invaded, and if the socialists supported the liberals aims, the fascists would have won.
Liberalism is incapable of fighting fascism, if liberals were to support the socialist project (this doesn't happen), fine lmao, but for socialists to abandon creating an alternative to fascism to support liberalism, which is what liberals really mean when they say "work together", is self-destructive.
We've seen what happens when liberals get their way; fascism grows stronger and any alternative is crushed, until liberals are ready to hand over power.
You're not looking at this from a materialist perspective; people don't just fall to hate, fear, vengeance or decide to support capitalism or socialism or whatever because they have a big discussion and decide that's the best idea and would have decided something else if only someone made the right argument at the right time. Ideology, culture, etc, the superstructure, is determined by the structure, the relationship with means of production.
Liberalism is not a stable system; the rate of profit declines over time if new markets aren't being added or capital destroyed. In response to declining conditions, the "middle class", due to their privilege, aren't going to question the system that privileged them, that leaves them with weird conspiracies blaming minorities and foreign countries for their declining conditions. The big bourgeoisie will always prefer this to socialism.
Have a list of promises to get people to elect you and an acknowledgement that you should have done it last time you were in power. If I saw them connecting not doing what people who voted in 2020, and not even stopping the Republicans to their 2024 performance, I might have have some faith. But no, all they can do is blame messaging and voters.
Liberals are not the left, the longer they remain in power, the more fascism grows. When liberals work with fascists, they give them power. When liberals tell socialists to work with them, they mean "shut up and help us maintain the conditions that give rise to fascism". Do you think if the socialists supported Hindenburg, Hindenburg would have given power to the people who dont want billionaires to exist? I dont get how this isn't getting through, working with liberals is just another path to fascism.
Shhh youre not supposed to think critically, just nod along, be thankful for your freedom , and remain prepared to liberate those poor brainwashed souls.
The two arent equivalent, because socialists dont work with fascists or create the conditions fir fascism like liberals do, and supporting liberals supports the rise of fascism.
Months? Its always been like this. News media is a loss-maker, you dont get promoted if youre not an effective propagandist for the owners, you don't get interviews with powerful figures if they dont expect it to benefit them. When the press core was informed, for the first time, that we had invaded Panama, their question weren't "wtf what do you mean we just invaded a foreign country" or "how many civilians died", it was "did any americans due"
They didnt fight from a winning position, and they still blame the voters. Short of some kind ofcoup in the party, they will keep trying to be republican-lite while working with Republicans, and then complain when Republicans vote for the real things and people who dont like Republicans simply dont vote, again.
The SDP were the next in the camps after socialists. Working with liberals cannot stop fascism because liberals create the conditions for fascism and would rather fascists in power than socialists.
No, Socialists will not compromise with the people handing power to the fascists. Our objectives are mutually exclusive, we want socialism, liberals want capitalism and will support fascists to maintain capitalism.
Liberals are part of the right, Lenin was correct a century ago: social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.
Also Star Trek and FLOSS are both intrinsically political.