this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
24 points (96.2% liked)

askchapo

23247 readers
246 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What historical figures (recent or ancient) can compare to Trump?

Liberals will of course say Putin (which of course they know nothing about), but in my limited knowledge, Putin gained support by reighning in oligarchs and stabilizing the country. Trump is doing the opposite of this.

In my limited knowledge, he seems most like Boris Yeltsin. A complete dolt and perfect avatar for the terminal stage of a failed empire.

I think certain traits are unprecedented. He may be the most anti-social leader in history. His administration is doing things that don't make sense on a societal level, like defunding research for extreme weather and disease prevention.

Maybe this is just the most extreme form of narcissism on history: the entire world can end as long as I get what I want.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mardoniush@hexbear.net 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Napoleon III comes to mind.

[–] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 4 points 13 hours ago

“To the proletariat, the election of Napoleon meant the deposition of Cavaignac, the overthrow of the Constituent Assembly, the dismissal of bourgeois republicanism, the cessation of the June victory. To the petty bourgeoisie, Napoleon meant the rule of the debtor over the creditor. For the majority of the big bourgeoisie, the election of Napoleon meant an open breach with the faction of which it had had to make use, for a moment, against the revolution, but which became intolerable to it as soon as this faction sought to consolidate the position of the moment into a constitutional position. Napoleon in place of Cavaignac meant to this majority the monarch, in place of the republic, the beginning of the royalist restoration, a sly hint at Orléans, the fleur-de-lis hidden beneath the violets.[87] Lastly, the army voted for Napoleon against the Mobile Guard, against the peace idyll, for war.

Thus it happened, as the Neue Rheinische Zeitung stated, that the most simple-minded man in France acquired the most multifarious significance. Just because he was nothing, he could signify everything save himself.”

Marx, 18th Brumaire