I don't know of any legislation introduced by any right wing government anywhere in the world, that literally empowers Nazis. I'm sorry that you feel like you're fighting for your life, but I'd be interested to know which country you live in that you fear for your safety. Surely, unlike during WW2, we have enough freedom of movement that you can leave a place where genocide could occur at any moment?
I suspect that you may already be aware that one does not need explicit government legislation to empower. Also, "if you fear for your life because of your ethnicity, you should leave" literally supports ethnic cleansing. Healthy societies view that as outside the bounds of legitimate political discourse.
Communism has killed millions around the world, yet it's ideology is growing on the left as well.
That's part of the problem. There's such focus by the left on Nazis and by the right on Communists that the overall capacity to form a consensus and negotiate between the two groups is significantly hindered.
The majority of both sides is not extremist, but ignoring each other is amplifying those extreme groups.
Biden is about a billion miles away from Communism.
In Germany he would be a boring conservative.
This insinuation that the Democratic Party makes the world in some sense safer for Communists is blatant absurdity.
The reverse – the Republican Party and especially Trump making the world a safer place for Nazis – is very true. Nazis can feel encouraged and supported in what they do by Trump.
Obviously even Trump, however shambolic, manages to build up some level of plausible deniability there.
(All of this says someone who, yeah, is totally up for some Marxist ideas. Don’t worry, I’m not an American.)
The difference being, of course, that the left hasn't been in power for four years. One side of this discourse is based on projection and conjecture, the other on observable behaviour. I think that's one reason why I'm not seeing a huge appetite for finding the middle ground in some parts of the left: they need to see that the reasonable folks on the right will repudiate and, where necessary, punish the extremists they see as having been encouraged and given a free rein, rather than continue to give them a political home. I think the core of it is that with the extremists on the right wing (whether that's swastika-flashing Actual Nazis or the radical theocrats) they've actually had power, whether in the form of boots-on-the-ground "very fine people" that the police turn a blind eye to or actual elected/appointed office, whereas "card-carrying communist" describes an uninfluential fringe of Democrats who won't now be able to achieve very much. Because that repudiation hasn't happened yet, some would view anyone who unflinchingly supported the Republicans over the last four years as complicit in the actual, demonstrated, real actions that the extremists performed as at least an enabler, and possibly worse. Until that gets fixed, and mainstream Republicans own that, I don't see them moving.
Unfortunately, if McConnell is still in the driving seat in the Senate, form says we should expect political logjams, which won't help win anyone over either, and contrition isn't a trait I'd expect to magic itself into being purely on the basis of the presidential result.
I won’t say there are no communists on the left, but they are very few in number. Even most people that call themselves “socialist” really mean something more like capitalist with a string safety net. Any communists in the left are a threat to exactly nobody right now. They don’t really have many opportunities to forcefully take central control of the means of production.
Unfortunately Nazis can do their work retail, they don’t need to take over government to do real harm individually.
You may not realize it but you're referring to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 1951.
It is long considered a fundamental human right to be able to flee danger. Because otherwise wars start and atrocities happen.
Trump consistently blocks their rightful entry into the US, vilifies them as invaders, denies that they have rights to entry, and tries to scare people into thinking they are a threat.
The child separation from parents policy, and there are hundreds that have still not been reunited with their parents today, has been admitted publicly without shame. Vindictiveness. It is to scare immigrant and refugee alike so they don't come here. It is to bully them in order to make American liberals angry, because making liberals angry is an inherent good in right-wing ideology.
Meanwhile Europe is having its own problems with refugees, and right-wing movements who hate them. So no we do not have freedom of movement, at least not everywhere and not for everyone who needs it. And that means we haven't learned a few important lessons - all of which are relatively well contained and explained in the 1951 Convention documents.
It is long considered a fundamental human right to be able to flee danger
They are still able to flee danger, but they now need to wait in a detainment center while awaiting their hearing. This exists because only a tiny fraction of those released would actually go to their hearings, and most would stay here illegally.
Meanwhile Europe is having its own problems with refugees
You admit here that mass immigration causes issues. Well mass immigration has been occurring in the US for decades. We have over 10 _million_ illegal immigrants today. This is why trump's anti-immigration statements gained traction, because it was/is an issue here too, especially in the southern region of the US.
> Surely, unlike during WW2, we have enough freedom of movement that you can leave a place where genocide could occur at any moment?
I know you went for hyperbole, but ... refuges are not exactly wanted. Have a look at what life in refuge camps is, the issues and destabilization it brings.
There are genocides and atrocities going on now and last years. And it was not easy or possible for those people to leave. It was even less possible for many of those who left to actually build new lives.
And in any case, by the time of WWII Hitler was firmly in power. The time to prevent his atrocities was years before and atrocities happened because his party was not stopped 1918-1932.
