GrammarPolice

At present yes. If you read what i wrote you'll see that they can create a third

Because yank politics is the most prevalent political discourse on the fediverse

I'm not a yank, don't know why you're using 2nd person. Secondly, the conditions for revolution in America are non-existent. The working class is fragmented across a variety of things, most notably cultural issues. Thirdly, i myself am skeptical of a first-world socialist revolution and believe revolution in the third world to be the most expedient issue.

The democrats are not the best option. Time and time I've battled this idea in this community. The democrats continuously swing further and further to the right. What's the evidence for this? Their unwaning drive to shirk everything to the left of them, no matter how moderate (see Mamdani and Sanders 2016).

What then is the best solution for America? Well that would have to be decided by the Americans, but if i had to give an opinion, it would be to organise within a third party (the green party). America is still in love with electoralism, so the next best step is to get people the fuck out of the democratic party and into a party that actually has a shot of moving left. This party isn't the end though, just the means; to serve as a promotion ground for genuine revolutionary leftism.

Voting in Harris or any democrats is wasting revolutionary energy; energy that could be spent elsewhere doing real organising. It doesn't matter who has the presidency. The democrats are only the moderate wing of the fascist republican party, so them having the presidency is tantamount to republican leadership, just more moderate.

Fair enough

Male drivers dominate the app. Don't exactly know what this achieves other than being performative

So are you going to address the claims or not?

Abstinence isn't the best course. However passively voting in fascist collaborators is even worse

Alright buddy I'm just about done here. I have nothing to gain from pursuing this argument with you further. There's also nobody I'm likely to convince of my point reading this, so I'm done here.

"Palingenetic ethnonationalist state that hits the 14 points of Ur-Fascism isn't fascist"

The DPRK isn't ethnonationalist. It's nationalist, but it doesn't care about creating a super race. That alone disqualifies it from being fascism. The question here is if YOU know anything Juche. The basic idea of Juche is self reliance and adherence to the guidance of the supreme leader. Nothing fascist. Totalitarian, authoritarian, whatever. But it's not fascist. Pick up a book dawg.

It literally has all of those aspects.

No it doesn't.

Yes, crushed under the weight of [checks notes] being unable to do business with one (1) capitalist market.

Are you fucking dense? The embargo explicitly limits Cuba from access to all forms of US technology from medical equipment to payment processors which the US has a monopoly on. It also probes any shipping vessels—no matter the country—that touch Cuban ports and extends the embargo to any countries/companies that do business with nationalised US property. As a result of all this, most countries don't even attempt to do business with Cuba so as not to take any risks. They are completely rat-fucked by this embargo

You're absolutely right, I've never noticed a hint of ethnonationalism...

The question you have to ask yourself is, "Were there ever any attempts to espouse ideology of racial superiority during Stalin's regime?" If the answer is no, then you know to stop pursuing this thread and concede that the USSR wasn't fascist. I'm the last Marxist you'll find on this site defending Stalin, but that doesn't mean I'll let you get away with misinformation.

Maybe if you endorse the execution of another 100,000 Polish civilians

This is the fundamental issue here. You're so hellbent on smearing the USSR that you make shitty arguments because your arguments rest on nothing but grasping at straws. Slaughtering 100k Poles doesn't make you a fascist. Your reasons for slaughtering those Poles do. This is like calling apartheid South Africa fascist. Dude, use your brain.

I'm a leftist, fuckwit

Leftist that refuses to realise the reality of Cuba's situation. Alright bucko.

And for that matter, fascism's defining characteristics aren't racial. There have been numerous non-racist fascist movements

Lol, and I'm the one that needs to pick up a history book, with shitty opinions like this from you? Alright buddy

I'm sure, then, you regularly object to Pinochet, the Estado Novo, and the Francoist regime being described as fascist?

Yes, because I'm very particular about definitions. Also, not sure if you know what fascist means if you categorize the DPRK as such. It's by all means a shit state, but by no means a fascist one.

would you like to remind me what word is used for a single-party government which attempts to control and direct all aspects of society from the top-down, without allowance for dissent?

....that's not what Cuba is? It has some of these aspects yes, but as with all things it's nuanced.

Cuba is a repressive totalitarian state that gets glazed by some people because it has a coat of red paint.

There's not much to glaze about Cuba other than their ability to remain stable—and moreso doing better than the DPRK—whilst being crushed under the weight of an unethical US embargo.

No, it really isn't. Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Stalinist Russia all read from the same playbook with regards to treating the workforce, not just the military, as part of a renewing struggle.

This just isn't true. Fascism is about ethnonationalism. There isn't a hint of ethnonationalism in stalinism. The primary struggle of socialist governments is the class struggle; the only struggle that moves history forward. That struggle is intensified because it can bring about socialism. Stop trying to equate that with fascism.

For fascists, domestic society is made anew and strengthened through conflict, international war is to express that supposed strength and ensure continued vitality. The Doctrine of Fascism goes into this.

Conflict as expressed by war. You've barely disagreed with me here.

We're fighting for GOOD PAINT not BAD PAINT" is not very fucking convincing

Of course it isn't, that's why you have to do the job of reading the theory and seeing for yourself. I can only do so much here. Fascists intend to create a super race, socialists want workers in power. You decide what ideology you like better.

In casual conversation, using fascist to describe merely authoritarian regimes only obfuscates your argument and bastardizes the term.

Further, your characterization of Cuba is more similar to the DPRK. Cuba is not fully totalitarian, just authoritarian. That is not to defend the state of affairs over there; it could be better.

Also your language "constant renewal of society through struggle" is deliberately chosen to mirror fascist ideology even though it's something much different. For fascists, society is made anew and strengthened through war, and not just any war but oppressive war, the kind that fosters nationalism, martyrdom and loyalty to the state. For socialists, particularly of the guerrilla and Guevarian strain, struggle and war is purely revolutionary, liberatory and progressive. It is a struggle of oppressed nations against their oppressors; this isn't the same as fascism.