GarbageShootAlt2

You'll probably need to think beyond liberal dogma if you want to solve a problem with liberalism. "Paying for something is speech and therefore unimpeachable" is an insane thing to take as a fundamental element of how society is run when the end result is so obviously and demonstrably the rich using that ruling (which was always made for them) to buy elections.

People want to find some policy wonk solution to these fundamental problems ("Oh! Sortition fixes everything! Wait, maybe a parliamentary system. Ooh, ooh, how about . . .") but they are just red herrings, silly schemes that distract you from critical thought about the assumptions that brought you here.

If diverse opinions were allowed, what was the entire focus on eradicating factionalism?

The general line according to Stalin (e.g. in "Foundations of Leninism") was that there should be thorough and exhaustive debates among those with differing opinions within the Party but that, once a resolution was reached by a vote following the debate, further fighting on the topic as a Party official was essentially a form of wrecking, though of course matters were revisited periodically (for good and for ill). Even if you disagreed, you were then expected to go along with whatever the motion was in the interest of the integrity of the Party as an actor. This was "Diversity of opinion, unity of action" [edit: I got the motto slightly wrong, see cowbee]

I don't really have a developed opinion on it (I guess I should have left this to cowbee for that reason) but I definitely have sympathy for this approach when I look at it in the context of glory hounds like Trotsky being constantly contrarian for the sake of political brinkmanship instead of, you know, acting in good faith and believing in things besides that he should be top dog. There shouldn't be tolerance for people like that, and the long-term harm that Trotsky's opposition bloc did to the SU is hard to fathom.

where it means that everyone must vote whatever the elite thinks

citation needed

I disagree about sortition, but I appreciate pushing back on elitist, misanthropic bullshit like you did. I think elections with a strong ability to quickly recall faithless representatives is a much better solution because it involves the decision-making of the whole community, rather than a community member chosen at random.

Seems like campaign finance reform is a more pertinent question then.

I've always really loved Zarbon. He has a cool design that fits his snobbish attitude and then when he sacrifices his looks to transform into his grotesque true form, to was a good foreshadowing of Frieza.

Also the Ginyu Force, of course. Ginyu himself is great and even the oft-overlooked Guldo is pretty interesting (and DBZ needs more weird bullshit powers like his).

Yeah, you're probably right

Which West Germany didn’t face?

We already established they had a Nazi problem

the latter is more of that “librul witchcraft” of globalization.

Again, the poverty in the region was longstanding and persists even today.

the Soviets brutalized the East, and that left a legacy of uneducated poverty.

I'm not impressed with your link, remember that the West had the RAF, which enjoyed a fair deal of popular support. I'd also need a source on things like poor education since socialist states historically are the most consistently excellent at things like mass literacy (though of course modern Germany is fine in that regard).

So it's reduced to "They were poor" which was always the case and is still the case, though at least there was virtually no homelessness in the East, which the West and notably modern Germany cannot say.

Oh, and you’re right there were no camps in East Germany, those camps were in the USSR

I said death camps, which the USSR also didn't have. Labor camps are just a form of prison labor that people use the Holocaust's work-to-death camps to sound more brutal than they are. Prison labor was also practiced in West Germany, is practiced in modern Germany, and is practiced in whatever liberal state you like. The equivocation here is really the peak of the "Soviets were also Nazis" bullshit that is of course popular with the aggrieved German liberals and anticommunist historians the world over.

Well no, there's one step further, but I hope we can avoid talking about it because it doesn't concern Germany.

I obviously don't expect you to have a positive regard of the Soviets, but equivocating between the East German government and Nazis is frankly disgusting. We can start with something uncontroversial: The East Germans absolutely did not have death camps (probably the closest thing they did was the killing of many former Nazis) and were not engaging in ethnic cleansing.

The modern trend of people from the former East Germany supporting AfD probably has more to do with the interceding decades of liberal rule, combined with the region's historic relative poverty (which preceded even the Nazis).

It should also go without saying that I despise the Russian federation like I despise all liberal governments, and the Russian government especially for its primary purpose being anti-communist suppression. That said, again, "hard Nazi" is a disgusting thing to call them when they aren't doing things like running death camps or engaging in ethnic cleansing. It's just hysterical projection from the liberal masters of a country that has a civil religion around an actual Nazi collaborator and perpetrator of the Holocaust, Stepan Bandera.

Whatever that poster planned to implement their beliefs would probably devolve into adventurism but, taken at face value, I think it would be much more accurate to call their proposal blanquist.

Notice how Germany is a good country nowadays

That really isn't true, and it's not true for the same reasons as you describe of the American South. There was relatively little denazification in West Germany, and the West German government eventually became the German government, so now we have a country where the supposedly liberal parties respond to the blatantly fascist AfD by adopting their policy positions.

Yeah, but that's something that is harder to be succinctly convincing about to someone who is enough of a philistine to say "nazis were socialist" to begin with. That said, in the source I linked, the very next paragraph is:

‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…

If it's nearly as appropriate to call yourselves liberal as it is to call yourselves socialist, you probably aren't much of either (and indeed, as much as I despise liberals, Hitler was not a liberal either).