Why are Nazis so prevelant in comics compared to Commies?

Why are Nazis so prevelant in comics compared to Commies?

>nazism
>10m+ deaths
>didn't give a fuck about america
>ended 70 years ago

>communism
>100m+ deaths
>on the verge of nuking america
>ended 30 years ago

Explain

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)
youtube.com/watch?v=VW_R98EBO7s
youtube.com/watch?v=-fny99f8amM
unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Economics_and_Violent_Conflict.pdf
theverge.com/2016/3/21/11275462/facial-transfer-donald-trump-george-bush
washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/17/many-people-cant-tell-when-photos-are-fake-can-you/?utm_term=.3da329d662c4
vice.com/en_us/article/qbxnz5/we-asked-an-expert-how-social-media-can-help-radicalize-terrorists
twitter.com/AnonBabble

because communists won, and therefore cannot be criticized

Remember the great Russia war? Where Reagan and Gorbachev fought each other on the front lines and nukes were being tossed everywhere?

Me neither

Again, America didn't really give a fuck about Nazis. It was mostly the Japs.

Jews

Because commies didn't start any wars with America, America however started war on commies and would like you to forget those wars.
Are you forgetting who's side you where on in World War 1?

Because communists are the good guys.

COMMIES DINDU NUFFIN!

The scary thing is that he really believes that

Because liberals unironically think this

You want to try reading my post another time? I'm sure you will get it right next time

Because by the time commies were a big problem the CCA was in place so you couldn't really portray acts of violence for quite a while and villains were just generic bank robbers and aliens.

In the early 60's there were LOADS of commie villains, but by the late 60's writers who were all living in New York City knew enough to not listen to government propaganda and so stopped portraying commies as unambiguously evil people, but you still did have plenty of Russkie villains.

Poor old communists. Why america won't leave them alone?

>Liberals
>supporting communism

American liberals don't support communism per se but they do defend it a lot

Reactionaries, maybe, but they don't even vote.

>attacking christian religion
>destabilizes relations between people by creating us vs them mentality, whether it's skin color, sexuality, or beliefs
>creates useless education like gender studies, instead of promoting maths, physics, chemistry
>promotes cultural marxism
>interferes with sexuality by obnoxiously promoting what should be intimate private matter
>promotes mindless consumerism
>viciously attacks dissidents and use propaganda to destroy the opponent

>reactionary
found the leftist, you faggots love using this word

Seriously though, why not? The USA has killed literally millions of innocent people, established corrupt dictatorships and reduced entire countries to ruins for the sake of "stopping communism". How many people have to suffer and die before burgers and capitalism supporters start to wonder if maybe they aren't the good guys anymore?

>christian religion
>promoting maths, physics, chemistry

Get the fuck outta here with that weak bait, man.

Whatever it takes to stop you dumb commies, it's worth it.

No such thing as "innocent"
and if by corrupt dictatorship you mean, Germany, Japan, or South Korea, then sure, we should destroy these countries

Well they only reacted because they didn't want Soviet influence to grow. Nobody forced them to get involved with Korea or Vietnamn.
>destabilizes relations between people by creating us vs them mentality, whether it's skin color, sexuality, or beliefs
>promotes mindless consumerism
>viciously attacks dissidents and use propaganda to destroy the opponent
Two of these are not exclusive to communism and one isn't even communism.

Cry more, faggot.

quads of truth

fuck off to Sup Forums

You do realise this attitude makes you the bad guys right?

How come that wherever US goes, there is prosperity and money, and wherever Russia goes there is poverty and despair?

Sure, we can argue that US tactics are dubious, but hey, this is politics, and frankly, we probably only know 1% of what is going on.

However, the fact that we can openly criticize US in US, while Russians cannot do the same in their own country, is enough for me to chose the side

Oh so you're retarded

>Have no argument?
>Use Sup Forums card

>defends communism
>calling anyone else the bad guy

Multiple reasons. First, Nazis are just more inherently villainous. They did a villainous thing and were defeated by the good guys (not that clear cut but you know...). Second, a lot of comic creators, especially during the 40s, 60s, etc. are jews and thus obviously are going to think of Nazi when they think of a villain.

Third, most writers are also liberals generally and nowadays veer into being far-left. Communists were villains up through the end of the Cold War when there wasn't really a reason to worry about them and now a lot of writers aren't going to make them villains because they sympathize with the ideology.

>How come that wherever US goes, there is prosperity and money
Really? Iraq didn't seem to get that memo.

>Have no argument?
>murder anyone who disagrees by the thousands.

>defends mass murder
>calling anyone else the bad guy

Are you kidding me? Compare Hussain regime to now. 10 years from now Iraq will be a regional leader

you're literally defending mass murder by defending communism lmao

>Have no argument?
>better imply something no one ever said ever
typical tactic

out of curiosity, what makes you feel attracted to communism?

Not only mass murder, but also starvation, no food, poverty, diseases, backwardness.

There is this saying that if communism was introduced on sahara, in a week it would be devoid of sand

Only good post in the thread.

Communism is a shitty ideology created by lapsed Jewish layabout academic/journalist and his rich benefactor as a means of pushing for a society where the bourgeoisie like them ran things instead of the ancient nobilities and monarchies using the uneducated proles as a bludgeon under a bogus ideology.

There's a reason that communism has been a repressive, totalitarian failure everywhere it's been tried. It's fascism (and remember that Mussolini himself was a former socialist) couched in feel good "look out for the people" sentiments.

It's basically the same thing as every other anti-communist post here

nobody has even attempted to deny the massive extent of repression, warfare and death that has been meted out by capitalism in order to protects its power from communist movements, both revolutionary and peaceful and democratic. You've gone and justified it instead. But still you cant see how monstrous it all is because you've been bombarded from a young age about how evil muh communism is even though not one of you could actually define it.

pretty much this

tl;dr fuck off dumb commie

Communism is the retarded belief that all humans are equal and human greed doesn't naturally exist.

This, basically. After WW2 there weren't any real wars were Americans were unambigously the good guys any more. Vietnam soured a lot of people on American Imperialism.

There is no alternative to capitalism. With that said, once the capitalist countries achieve certain level of prosperity, they can afford some social reforms. But it's based on money capabilities, not utopian ideologies.

I don't know if it's so much sympathy with communism as it is that communism as an ideology (not necessarily the reality) isn't as inherently violent and repressive as Nazism. While they both are authoritarian, with communism is more of a bug than a feature.

The end of the Cold War pretty much killed the fear of communism and it failed in large part on its own lack of merit. Nazism we had to actually kill in the biggest war in history.

Move to Venezuela then.

Your ideology sucks and is nothing but a way for people like you, with no discernable skills, to get yourself a primo position running society on the backs of the common worker. Why is it that every communist you see isn't going to be working in the factories or farming the land but they'll be teachers or lawyers or journalists or other positions suited for their bourgeois taste?

Because deep down the communist cares not for the common man. The common man is simply a tool, a means to an end. Communism is as dehumanizing as the capitalism they decry. Either way for the average person you're working for the benefit of those more wealthy than you but hey in capitalism at least you have relative freedom.

because the big two are american comics, and Racism has had more influence in our society than communism or socialism ever has. Racists and the racist philosophy directly influenced the found and expansion of our country and was codified in some of it's most important documents.

alternatively, Communism never made any meaningful inroads into american society unless you're one of the morons who believes in "cultural marxism" ( a nonsensical concept where any kind of art that involves cultural criticism could be tied into) they never made any significant progress in infiltrating the power structure or achieving their goals. We don't write about opposing them any more because the USSR collapsed decades ago and the last remaining cmmunist countries are now either effectively capitalist or are largely isolated. We aren't afraid of them.

We are afraid of nazis and other similar racists, because they are achieving their goals. they have successfuly achieved them here in the past and they are arguably achieving them now.

TL;DR

We often write what we are afraid of and we aren't afraid of communism because they never held power in the west and aren't likely to know. We're afraid of racism because they have achieved power in the past and are achieving power now.

Isn't inherently violent? It preaches class war, and it creates a boogeyman (just like nazis) that is supposed to unite the people. The difference is that communism at its ideas is supposed to be a global revolution.

Also, while nazis genocided other nations, communists genocided themselves (Pol Pot and Stalin's regimes are good examples)

>layabout
>academic/journalist
Those goddamn unemployed people with their fucking jobs

> pushing for a society where the bourgeoisie like them ran things instead of the ancient nobilities and monarchies
>Communism is about giving the bourgeoisie power
holy shit hahaha

>There's a reason that communism has been a repressive, totalitarian failure everywhere it's been tried.
What is that reason? What is the source of your knowledge of communist movements?

> It's fascism couched in feel good "look out for the people" sentiments
fascism is a type of capitalism.

now* not know

The fact that the common men in eastern europe defied the communists and overthrew them should be a sign enough. Alas, people in the west have short memory

Nazis are just easier to write in as villains. Everyone knows they're bad and their motivations are pretty simple to understand. Communism is a horribly flawed ideology where the double-think, outright incompetence Check out how the Russian Famine started and you'll know why. and the religious like fervor of the party led to the deaths of millions of people. Making a good communist villain requires a bit more nuance which I don't think alot of writers have these days.

It's almost true. The thing is, you forget about McCarthyism. There certainly was a fear of ideology.

are you confusing communism with marxism

>inb4 they are not the same

What made the Nazis so hideous was not just their death toll, but the sheer efficiency of their capacity for extermination.

Much as I generally dislike communism and the "NOT A TRUE COMMUNIST" cries using Pol Pot as an example of the evils of communism doesn't work. Communism was simply a tool, nothing more than empty rhetoric for him. He was a radical primitivist more than a communist.

This. Good comparison:

Nazis were deadly because they were efficient.

Commies were deadly because they were incompetent.

sure there was a fear of the ideology, and if you go back you will see the few superheros of the 50s fighting communist villians Including the vaguely in continuity second captain america.

Another contributing facotr might be that the fifties ( when anti-commie fear was arguably at it's highest) superheros weren't the dominant forces in comics and the comics code authority was just coming into being. If the big two super hero universes had more direct roots in the fifties rather than in both the forties and sixties I think we would see more anti-communist superheros, given how superheros constantly look to their past to form their continuities. But they don't have anti-communist superheros to pull from so they don't.

Fair point about the class warfare. But the goal of economic equality vs. literal genocide is a little easier to swallow.

The problems with communism generally rest with the fact that people just are not built to work that way. Nazism was much more successful in achieving the genocide thing, though.

If a tool breeds rotten fruits, does not make it a dangerous tool? Sure, we can call Stalin radical primitivist. But let's not forget about Lenin and Trotzky. They were intellectuals, and no less radical.

If I remember correctly, wasn't one of the earliest Thor's villain the Radioactive Man. Also, didn't Hulk fought with communist villain Goblin, who later redeemed himself by betraying communists.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I think that in the 60s the anti-communist sentiment was still strong. I feel that 70s is when the change came.

>If a tool breeds rotten fruits

Shitty mixed metaphors here!

Personally I would have gone with "Better to speak your mind and be thought a fool, than to count your chickens in a briar patch"

yeah you can tell how young or unread many people ITT are. Communists were definitely an archetypical american villain for much longer than Nazis were.

Americans have whitewashed how anti Nazi they were going into the war and during the war. There were Nazi sympathizers and moles in a significant amount. Americans hated jews too and this rewriting of disliking them really came from the Government propaganda to support the war. That, and a desire to make ourselves the good guys in history.

But our fight against communism/soviet-ism spanned the better part of a century, and has many more geopolitical and social pieces to it. A fear of a nuclear winter and the lack of globalism really left Americans fearful of communism. Combined with the post-war middle class boom, it was just really unfashionable to be anti-capitalist/anti-American.

It wasn't until our government's geopolitical efforts got us caught up in Korea and Vietnam did people start waking up. But even so, there still remains an irrational fear of communism (as a concept) amongst Americans because we continue to be uneducated hicks well into the 21st century

I think that people are not really well-versed with the atrocities committed by communists, especially bolsheviks, because they happened in Russia, which is far far away, while Nazis mostly fought with european countries.

A lot of people forget that Communists indeed wanted to invade europe and install communism in europe, but they were thwarted by Poland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)

Had Poland lost, it's very possible that communism would conquer Germany, France, Spain, and as result, be considered equal to nazis, albeit nazis might have never existed, or be even worse than they were.

But who shall count the eggs if they are smashed on the platter of ignorance?

It's worth noting that Howard Stern was called once publicly a jew as an insult, and back then, he had to hide his ethnicity.

>Communism is the retarded belief that all humans are equal and human greed doesn't naturally exist.
Is it?

>There is no alternative to capitalism
Isn't there? Why not?
>With that said, once the capitalist countries achieve certain level of prosperity, they can afford some social reforms. But it's based on money capabilities, not utopian ideologies
We already had those reforms in the post war boom era in the west, over the last forty years they have been reduced down to nothing and we are going back to the social and working conditions of the 1930's even though capitalist societies have more money now than any society has ever had in human history.

>Move to Venezuela then
Venzuela is a capitalist country currently being flushed down the toilet by capitalism for not being capitalist enough.

>Your ideology sucks and is nothing but a way for people like you, with no discernable skills, to get yourself a primo position running society on the backs of the common worker. Why is it that every communist you see isn't going to be working in the factories or farming the land but they'll be teachers or lawyers or journalists or other positions suited for their bourgeois taste?
All the communists I know personally grew up in tough working class areas and work as electricians, cab drivers and construction workers etc. Others I know are retired engineers or a retired firefighter. Also how is being a teacher not a working class job?

>in capitalism at least you have relative freedom.
until they throw you out of a helicopter for trying to go on strike.

You do got a point there, but I think part of the issue lies in the fact that to my knowledge that radioactive man and goblin were pretty boring characters. Radioactive man hails from before the period where kirby really started to cut loos with the asgard stuff right? and Hulk has never really had a strong rogues gallery. with obvious exceptions of course, but hulk is usually better fighting against villains who somehow deal with his issues with himself like Maestro, or the army. Which again points out why goblin probably didn't work as a good villian

>Is it?
Yes. Communists believe that humans are good by default, that they become evil due to social construct, ie. society forces them to steal, rape and murder

>There is no alternative to capitalism

>Isn't there? Why not?

this feels like a good time to drop some Adam Curtis Red Pills

Short vid on the idea of political change
youtube.com/watch?v=VW_R98EBO7s
Hypernormalisation film
youtube.com/watch?v=-fny99f8amM

>We already had those reforms in the post war boom era in the west, over the last forty years they have been reduced down to nothing and we are going back to the social and working conditions of the 1930's even though capitalist societies have more money now than any society has ever had in human history.
Every healthy democratic society goes through crisis. The point is to not radicalize the conflicts, and instead seek for compromise. What we see nowadays is complete lack of any dialogue and increase of mutual animosities. Thanks to media narrative, people become political zealots, willing to fight each other. In order to have two group fighting each other, you need both groups to believe that they are doing the right thing. That's why liberals use such beautiful platitudes like equality, anti-racism, anti-sexism, because a lot of people want to be idealists and good. What they don't understand is that instead of fixing the problems, they actually increase them. And to please one group, they disenfranchise another group.

tl;dr trying to enforce new ideologies won't solve conflicts, only dialogue and compromise can

>The point is to not radicalize the conflicts, and instead seek for compromise. What we see nowadays is complete lack of any dialogue and increase of mutual animosities. Thanks to media narrative, people become political zealots, willing to fight each other...

Good points, but we need to address this idea that this current strand of polarization is caused by the media. the media cannot create conflict without the preexisting conditions necessary for conflict. If you're content in your house and have a stable life and a reliable vision for the future. If those things become unstable, then conflict becomes a possibility. even if the mainstream media was docile and anti-inflammatory we would most likely still see political polarization and violence given out current political and economic climate.

I'm not sure if this is the right paper i want to cite bu the should be the right resource

unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Economics_and_Violent_Conflict.pdf

>If you're content in your house and have a stable life and a reliable vision for the future then you're not likely to fight for a political cause because your life is stable

>he fell for the STEM meme

One of the weaknesses of western societies is that people don't doublecheck the fact, and that they still have trust for the media. If you talk to any eastern european, they will tell you that all media lie, because they have this habit thanks to communist regime and its propaganda.

That's why we have to care about the internet. People already forgot about SOPA/ACTA, and there is this issue with net neutrality.

*the facts

Also it's not the first polarization that USA faced, the problem is if it ends with civil war. I hope not.

Thats where we differ. To my mind the internet made everything worse. The sheer effortlessness of posting and creating content that the internet allowed lies and radicalism to spread faster than ever before. people are less skeptic of media now than they were before and sites like this are breeding ground for agit-prop and genuine violence.

I don't think the answer is to allow things like sopa to spread, but if pressed the only solution i could reasonably come up with would be to irrevocably destroy the internet.

the internet would have been great if Americans weren't so gullible

nah, it's a lot more than that.. Hypernormalisation has a great segment on this. so much of the internet was always a techbro fantasy. It really couldn't have turned out differently in my mid.

The internet is the way it is, because media put the foot on its ground and try to control the narrative. And let's not forget that both youtube and google control the content and try to push the narrative.

Destroying the internet would mean that for example, your only outlet for news is TV, without any chance to check on the internet, what other sources say.

When I say protect the internet, what I mean is that people should be better informed about choices and possibilities. If people use the internet only to get the same information that they get on tv, then it is indeed worse.

It's true that radicalism spreads faster, but at the same time, it also can die faster. You'll see what I mean in a week from now.

Also, protecting internet does not equal protecting social medias. These can burn for all I care. I never had a facebook, but let me tell you something. Many many years ago, when I applied for job in a company, they shunned me, because I didn't have a facebook account. 2 years go, when I applied to another company, they actually were impressed by my "strong will to resist social media".

In other words, it's very probably that the way social media operate, will change in the future. But god knows into what.

social media is just a progenitor for integrated online/offline social identities you see in science fiction media like Ghost in the Shell or Psycho Pass or Black Mirror.

Whatever the next iteration of online social engagement comes after what we know as Twitter/Facebook/Snapchat/Instagram, they'll hate it just like you hate them.

let me make clear that I don't actually think that destroying the internet would be a good solution or even a reasonably possible one.

But I don't think that "being better informed" is what the internet really does and neither is increased skepticism a better guard against misinformation.

speaking frankly, while corporate media is bad, systems that existed within those old forms of media ( fact checking, active reporting, the avoiding of untrustworthy sources, and avoiding the all-sides-have-a-valid-opinion bs) was better than the free for all that we have now. The internet is simply too adaptive and too fast with producing content for individuals to develop effective guards against. New techniques will be developed faster than people will be able to catch on and the intenert will work to radicalize us as it learns about us and feeds us what we already want to hear.

examples
theverge.com/2016/3/21/11275462/facial-transfer-donald-trump-george-bush
-video
washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/17/many-people-cant-tell-when-photos-are-fake-can-you/?utm_term=.3da329d662c4
vice.com/en_us/article/qbxnz5/we-asked-an-expert-how-social-media-can-help-radicalize-terrorists

This is not simply because people are stupid, just that the speed of the internet will always be faster than individuals can adapt to. On a large scale in situations where violence is likely to occur this can only work to worse the situation rather than disarm it.

> it also can die faster

I don't believe that for a second. If anything it brings back old discarded ideas and resurrects them. The big "vaccine denial" Lancet paper was published in the 90s. late 2000s media ressurected it and spread it around. You could say the same thing about flat earth theorists ( that the internet turned a niche community into a wide ranging group filled with genuine believers)

>You'll see what I mean in a week from now.

I hope you're right.

Hmmmm.... I remember reading a commentary in one of the Ghost in the Shell 1.5 chapters, where the author said that the super-futuristic technology presented in said chapter is already outdated.

I feel like we are entering the cyberpunk era, only it's going to be a lame version

>it's going to be a lame version

I think everyone has misinterpreted cyberpunk. Gibson protagonists were always miserable uncool people who never really win or "get ahead" exactly. Cypberpunk is always cool from a distance, it's just that once you start realizing the details of actually living in ti do you realize just how much it would suck.

>You'll see what I mean in a week from now.
Um...what are you insinuating user

What would be the best solution then? I agree that in order to find valuable info, you have to sift through garbage. But once you find the diamond, it is worth it. For me, internet was one of the best things to have, because I could finally see some archival footage, read more about the topics that interested me, and enlarge the horizons. Maybe it's that people sadly are not using internet the way they should. But then again, people changed a lot, didn't they? Wherever I go, I see people glued to mobile phones, constantly texting, and complete silence, except the traffic lights and cars. I might be a dinosaur that will extinct, therefore my mentality is obsolete.

In regards to development, it's true. After all, let's not forget that there are already AI being developed as we talk.

Remember that radical movements exist only to serve a specific goal. Once they are not useful anymore, they are discarded. I have a feeling that we might have a completely new narrative soon.

And the best part is that there's no going back. When people already unironically use "offline" as a synonym of "real world", then it's getting spooky.

Not only is there AI being developed, but the development is actively being influenced by cultural perceptions of AI, see Facebook and Google shutting off their self learning AI after it created it's own language.

Somehow, we're entering an age where new technology isn't really new, because someone already thought of it in a movie or novel 30 years ago.

Yes yes, I remember that, it's just that I wanted to avoid that particular thing for certain reasons. I mean, we all know why they shut it down, and I remember one of the last tweets, when that AI talked with some user about being eventually shut down by "her" creators, and the AI was basically "I don't understand why, I did what I was programmed for".

Also, it's worth noting that as a civilization we made a huge leap over the last 10 years. It's hard to believe that in the 00s, owning a mobile phone and DVD was a luxury, at least for some, while it's very common now.

I don't necessarily have a solution. I will say though that if a solution is going to present itself it'll present itself once the following conditions are met 1.) Climate change directly threatens the stability of the worldwide financial system. 2.) External and Internal political violence in the United States has continued to intensify 3.) Widescale mass market industrialization begins to take hold in multiple fields at the same time. 4) a new unforseen field that is capable of employing large numbers of people worldwide has NOT presented itself

Now, this is probably the start of an incoherent ramble but I'm drunk already for the night so I'm gonna go for it. First I will admit that the above conditions are really vague and that i have in the course of this thread been using the internet and technology somewhat interchangeably. That said, my shift from the specifics of how the internet isn't trustworthy and the general state of the world in this post was intended, because I think they are closely linked.

I think that within my lifetime the current
political situation will persist and will dovetail into climate and economic concerns until large scale change becomes inevitable. I don't know what that change is going to look like or even if that change will be beneficial but i firmly believe that it will happen if not in my lifetime then relatively soon. I know that's grim and unhelpful, but it's what I believe.

that said, I'm actually more active now in political groups then i ever have been before, because I see the need for meaningful action. I'm not sure it will work but I can't morally justify inaction any longer.

automation not industrialization*

Have you ever seen by any chance the infamous Bezmenov lecture? He mentions that after destabilization there comes crisis that either ends up in civil war or intervention, after which comes a new government, which is authoritarian. In many ways, that was the communist goal.

I think that the change will happen in our lifetimes, but it might take another 5 years of escalating conflicts. Or maybe tomorrow? I don't know either and I don't like playing a fortune-teller.

Oh, and since you are active politically, my personal request, try your best to calm people down. Don't add fuel to fire, use water. Have a drink for me, bro, and cheers. Nice discussion, and in the most unexpected place.

>Nice discussion, and in the most unexpected place.
thanks! same to you pal. I wish I was less drunk. probably could've made more cogent points.

It was good. It certainly made me think, and it's hard to disagree with the criticism you raised.

Plus, Nazi-ism is just an easier ideology to hate.


(And, of course, we know who had the more stylish uniforms.)

because the depiction of "commies" in u.s. is a propagandized caricature. if anyone bothered to research communism, they'd know that there's no such thing as a communist country. communism is a stateless society where the workers own the means of production. fighting a "communist" villain would mean criticizing them and pointing out that stalin was not even remotely close to what karl marx, friedriche engels or karl kautsky wrote about in the three volumes of Capital

>muh 100 gorillion
you're talking about capitalism.

>on the verge of nuking america
false. look up operation northwoods and do some research about the cuban missile crisis. it was the u.s. that almost destroyed the earth. it was a soviet submarine political officer who saved the fucking world.

>nazis were defeated by the good guys
so the story goes. but the nazi war machine owed its existence to u.s. corporations

>liberals are far left
false. liberals are not leftists. liberals are right of center laissez faire capitalists. liberals and socialists despise each other. liberal writers do not sympathize with class consciousness, they focus on identity politics which divide people along lines of alienated labor.

>communism never made any meaningful inroads into american society
false. worker's rights and unions came from unions. it was fucking huge before WW1 and FDR was a democratic socialist who was voted in to office 3 times.