Certified classical fascist and neo-nazi
Proud zionist, loves war and capital
Also hates stalkers
What would that accomplish? Designating something as a human right doesn't decommodify the thing, nor does it magically make it infinite.
I went through the same exact thing somewhat ""recently"" after realizing reforms aren't gonna do jack shit, media creating narratives obfuscating reality and this obfuscation of reality being heavily bought into by people both online and irl.
You're likely getting radicalized leftward, and this emotion and panic is a temporary part of it. It has happened to me and to others in the past, but this intense feeling eventually passes.
What helped me personally in the later stages was getting a coherent worldview, reading and studying some political theory so you can actually spot what doesn't fit in the news and in the comments, know what's actually in your interest to support rather than falling for some general moralizations, etc.
I'm down to talk more about it if you need it, this can really be hard to go through alone (speaking from experience).
I'm neither from US, neither do I consider myself as being a leftist.
When I critique democracy here, I don't critique the concept of it in general (for the records I'm 100% fine with it) but liberal democracies that dominate the world and is the status quo. It's what OP most likely means when they mention democracy in terms of world governments given the present state of things.
But that isnt possible in capitalism because threw wealth you can buy yourself influence, and a stage. So it is easier for wealthy to get a crowd. But that doesnt mean only wealthy people get elected. The many left partys in europe for example are quite the good example to disprove this.
Yeah, it doesn't - thats why media presence is as crucial as having a high campaign budget.
True, but the post isn't really talking about democracies in general but liberal democracies (the specific societies kind you mention), stretched to a worldwide scale. Probably should have clarified that.
From an objective materialist standpoint, democracies are a tool of the ruling capitalist class to legitimize its own rule and keep their position of class domination while providing an illusion to the working class that they have some sort of power in the matter (they don't, all candidates are pre-selected so all you can choose is essentially the "flavor", who ultimately gets selected usually is determined via campaign money spending and media, once they're in power they gotta preserve the state machinery and capital in place etc).
Nationalism is also a very powerful tool of capital to unite people under single unified volk, deliberately obfuscating the class that might divide said volk and it's constantly used by opportunists and conservative elements.
Given these two statements, I don't think a world government like that can even exist, or if it did it'd implode via separatism from opportunists who want to be the next "great man". US for the longest time was and still is closest to this kind of position though, but they sure as shit are never going to let foreigners vote.
OSRS is legit on its way to become bigger than it was in 2007 on miniclip days, it broke 250k players recently I believe, there's also been a WoW streamer exodus towards OSRS too
So yes
Short answer is no.
Long Answer: Communism is an economic progression from capitalism where things aren't produced for profit/money, but for it's use value to fulfill needs, where private property and capitalists as a class are abolished.
(Partial) State ownership is something that would happen in a period of transition after workers have took over the state and toppled the capitalists (in US case it'd be all the political parties, government and organs serving it), with all of their private property being repurposed to building up the production - it's what's called state capitalism or transitory period, not communism or socialism, as things are still being distributed for money, which means markets, etc.
However, capitalist liberal democratic countries can just own stuff. Mussolini's Italy for instance had owned a large share of factories, countries such as US/UK had nationalized industry during ww2, there's tons of EU countries right now that have partial ownership in private companies or have complete national ownership of certain companies (mostly transport or broadcasting).
In other words, it's heavily contextual, not unique to the building of communism, and Trump's acquisitions if you look a closer look at them are less of "we control you now" and more like US becoming a shareholder like a private individual (they don't even have the seat at the board apparently) so none of the explanation was relevant and it's just a weird way of managing some crisis (probably).
MAGA Communists continue to be vindicated
That's what most countries are doing rn, with Denmark or some other """"nordic socialist"""" country recently pushing retirement age to 70 and others talking about it or slowly pushing the age forward as well
Not for Disney, they don't need the publicity. Jimmy Kimmel's show on the other hand would benefit drastically - just look at the publicity he's been getting for the past week.
Perfectly executed publicity stunt
Capitalism is a historical development from feudalism, so you don't need communism as a point of comparison/contrast for capitalist nation to exist.
Also, the "communist" countries are, strictly speaking, capitalist if you look at their mode of production and mode of distribution. Stuff is made largely for profit, there's private ownership, markets, things are distributed via money. As a wise man once said, name doesn't make a thing.
The right is dominating so much right now it's even running laps around the "adventurist propaganda-of-the-deed left" whose whole thing used to be murder and planting bombs 5 times a month. It's probably for the best though, literally nothing came out of terrorism/adventurism like that except temporary spectacle and crackdowns.
From what I've pieced together, it's a guy from a MAGA family that was recently radicalized, possibly in college towards left-wingism (possibly via exposure and humanization of trans room mate?). There's not that much evidence to suggest he was a far-righter himself (the groyper claims are literally just "yeah the engravings are a dogwhistle trust me bro" but many libs here are buying it), and now it's just turning into a war of push from both sides being like "no it's not OUR guy it's YOUR guy!".
In other words, it's impossible to tell for certain due to how deliberately muddied the waters are by everyone.
This is really bad for conservative marxist bait ngl
Which actions did they take that were polar opposites?
USSR in 1918 granted equal women's rights through its constitution which was unheard of in liberal world where women were largely under legal guardianship of their husbands. Nazi Germany, meanwhile, actively suppressed them.
Bolsheviks abolished landlordism and redistributed land to peasantry as part of their revolutionary goal, Nazi Germany actively preserved large estates.
Not to mention the differences on who they oppressed (former exploiting classes vs workers + ethnic and racial groups), how they handled education, property, how they handled unions (having them spread communist thought instead of being independent organs vs actively dismantling them and enforcing collaboration between classes), etc.
You do talk about autocratic power a lot, and yes - if you look at it superficially then both countries were single party states. They were different though - in terms of its class character and the function they had. For instance:
- USSR's single party rule was (until bourgeois opportunism completely took over) a dictatorship of proletariat, meaning that the interests which the state advanced were that of the workers - the abolishment of private capital, land redistribution, development of productive forces to meet everyone's needs, etc. The suppression of dissent was also justified - immediate post-revolutionary periods are the most tumultuous, that's where you often get back to back revolutions, and this line of reasoning was justified historically with the Russian Civil War popping up shortly after. In other words, the power was used in an attempt to abolish capital, to achieve an entirely different mode of production.
- Nazi Germany's single party rule was there to preserve capitalism and the capitalist ruling class, suppression was used on political opponents to keep the monopoly on power, but also used on ethnic and racial groups so it certainly was more ideological rather than being a necessity at least in this regard.
People always say liberal democracy inevitably leads to fascism but is there actual evidence for this?
Not inevitably - if there's no worker militancy, then fascism is not necessary.
Still, as shown by historical materialist analysis of Capitalism and actual history (Germany, Italy), the system has internal contradictions that inevitably lead to crisis (falling rate of profit, overproduction, concentration of capital, bubbles - read Capital if you want an academic analysis on these), and if this capital under crisis also gets threatened by the workers, that's when you get fascism.
It's a good tool to overcome the existential crisis, suppress the worker militancy and commit some atrocities under the name of nationalism as the unifying cause.
Anyway yap yap wall of text nobody will read, these subjects tend to be much more complicated than "democracy good anything else bad and leads to hitlerism"
Bolsheviks and Nazis had a lot of common
Close enough, welcome back "red fascism" narrative. Are we going to wave tricolors while yelling "no to communism!" while hand-in-hand with fascists as seen historically?
Hyperboles aside, Bolsheviks and Nazis are polar opposites (with some superficial overlap). Bolsheviks were a revolutionary communist party on a mission to liberate workers and help other communist parties internationally, but it eventually fell into opportunism due to various factors such as underdevelopment, failure to achieve internationalism, Stalin being THE opportunist who later ordered for the old Bolshevik guard to be murdered, etc.
Nazis on the other hand were a direct response to existential capital crisis which stemmed from poor post-war economic conditions and worker militancy/uprisings (that aimed to topple the existing capitalist order, being inspired by USSR). Nazis were there to reinforce and protect capital while crushing the workers.
If anything, a more apt comparison would be between Liberal Democracies and Nazism, given how one directly leads to another once existential crisis hits and workers start to rebel, rhetorical similarities such as nationalism, and both having the exact same purpose which is to ensure capitalist domination over society.
Even those 2 parts are usually not enough.
If you look at 2 red years in Italy or the worker uprisings in Germany shortly before Nazis got in, there was plenty of revolutionary class consciousness with factories being taken over and constant gunfights, but there was no one to lead them making them an easy target for the military.