Slashdot Mirror
Google Listed 'Nazism' as the Ideology of the California Republican Party (gizmodo.com)
Less than a week ago, if you searched for the California Republican Party on Google, you might have read that the political party's ideologies included conservatism, market liberalism, and nazism. The latter listing has since been removed, and Google is blaming the results on Wikipedia "vandalism." From a report: Vice first reported the inclusion of "Nazism" under ideologies in Google's knowledge panel -- the box that shows up to the right of search results. It's unclear how long the term had been there, but the tech giant removed it after being notified by the publication. "We regret that vandalism on Wikipedia briefly appeared on our search results," Google tweeted on Thursday in response to California congressman and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. "This was not the the result of a manual change by Google. We have systems in place that catch vandalism before it impacts search results, but occasionally errors get through, and that happened here."
There are real issues out there in the world. Distracting from them by name calling is not helpful
Google is making a lot of mistakes. They are slowly killing themselves. As is Facebook and a few others. I see regulation coming on them. they will continue down this path and slowly loose. You tube is another easy example to point to as a sequence of mistakes. They must remove themselves and just be an open and honest information provider. The moment they start "we know better then you" people will resist.
Some jerk edited the Wikipedia page. Google served the information without knowing the content. Once discovered, the page and Google presentation were corrected.
In other extremely important breaking news, it was discovered that a Facebook billboard had "penis" spray painted across it. Users are outraged that the company would display such language in their marketing material.
The California Republican Party has more in common with the spotted owl than 1/10th of the U.S. population.
false, nazis were corporate fascists. hilarious the people that only believed what came out of Hitler's mouth compared to what he and the Nazis actually did. No, they were not socialists, if you believe their label you're as dumb as a typical american consumer.
Nazism is or any comparison to the Nazi party of the past should never be used to compare any of our political party system. But if you ask me, much of California's problems are a direct result of a socialist liberal government who cannot understand why we have certain laws and ignore many in order to further their ideology. From a unbiased point of view California has some of the wealthiest companies and individuals in the US. Yet California has one of the largest state debts? Why is that?
That's funny because Republicans are nearly all infrastructure socialists. In fact they're even trying to increase the road subsidy!
Remember, the opposite of socialism is anarchy. Capitalism is somewhere between the two extremes.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
This is just the "no true Socialism" thing again. Of course the Socialists acted as authoritarian fascists, they have to get the money from SOMEWHERE. If you're going to tell me "oh, they can just print it" then I'll invite you to Brazil or Zimbabwe.
Anyhow, the Nazis were all about taking the wealth of the 1%ers, they just happened to identify those as Jews as there were a lot of Jewish bankers, given that most gentiles didn't want anything to do with usury for a very long time.
Unfortunately, socialists have a problem remembering the past and force everyone else to repeat it.
Interesting that the vandalized version of the page only existed for about a minute, and Google somehow managed to run with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
If only Wikipedia had some kind of freely available edit history log, you could find out.
You don't know your history. Let's see what an economist says about the matter. I think most would agree that Thomas Sowell is smarter and better educated than most people who post on slashdot.
This was written back when 0bama was President.
https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist-or-fascist-n742098
Pay special attention to the historical part:
"Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left."
FYI, W.E.B. Du Bois was the co-founder of the NAACP, hardly a right-winger.
https://www.jta.org/2018/05/06/news-opinion/neo-nazi-california-senate-candidate-barred-state-republican-party-convention
No. It's just the natural expansion of the observation that countries with "Democratic" in their name aren't any such thing.
You don't know your history. Let's see what an economist says about the matter.
Why not consult an astrologist or a haruspex?
I think most would agree that Thomas Sowell is smarter and better educated than most people who post on slashdot.
Nope. In fact, Thomas Sowell makes a case every week for being anti-intelligent and miseducated.
If he were actually intelligent, he'd probably realize that the whole left-right paradigm is a misconception, and he's only falling into the trap of self-deception by perpetuating it.
This was written back when 0bama was President.
https://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist-or-fascist-n742098
Oh? This was written back when Nixon was President:
This 14-page memo was written by Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Harry Shlaudeman, who had been following the reporting on intelligence coordination in recent months and had several times solicited reports on the subject from regional ambassadors. He combines the information on Condor and other disturbing trends in a report addressed directly to Secretary of State Kissinger. Shlaudeman states that the Southern Cone governments see themselves as engaged in a Third World War against terrorism and that they "have established Operation Condor to find and kill terrorists in their own countries and in Europe." “ [T]hey are joining forces to eradicate ‘subversion’, a word which increasingly translates into non-violent dissent from the left and center left.” Their definition of subversion is so broad as to include "nearly anyone who opposes government policy."
The National Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party, aka Nazi party had some leftist ideology, a lot of leftist rhetoric, but can't be accurately classified on the left-right spectrum at all. It was primarily nationalist.
The name, "Socialist German Workersâ(TM) Party" fairly accurately represents much of what they SAID; like all politicians what they said isn't what they did. There was a lot of anti-capitalism and especially anti-banker stuff, but Hitler directed that into very different actions. For several hundred years, due to Christian religious teaching and kings using loopholes, most banking concerns were run by Jewish people. Hitler used the anti-banker (essentially anti Wall Street) rhetoric and sentiment to go after the Jews, as most bankers were Jewish.
Leftists are known for identity politics - rich vs poor, gay vs straight, black vs white, etc. The Nazis very much focused on race. Leftists generally talk about race a lot, but not to the extent the Nazis did.
Leftists are socialist / communist, saying the factories and such should be owned by the people, and unlike the conservatives believe people should not be given a CHOICE buy stock in companies they choose, but instead must own all or most of the big companies, whether they want to be owners of an oil company or not. Because a million people can't individually vote or otherwise have a hand in running a company, the government must do that for them, the leftists say. So left says the workers ideally own the company, but in practice the government does, with the politicians in control. Nazis mentioned the government running everything on behalf of the people, but the emphasis was on the nation (government), not on the people. It was about making Germany strong as a nation, as opposed to focusing on individual success and happiness.
That ties into another aspect. Conservatives and US Republicans tend toward individualism, the left is about collectivism. Nazis were an extreme version of collectivism, to the point that individuals didn't matter at all. Germany, the German people mattered, not each German person.
Because it was Germany that mattered, not each person, the state's power was far more important than individual rights. Those on the left and those on the right argue about limited government. Naziism was unlimited government, the government was the nation, and only the nation mattered.
As heads of the only thing that mattered, the nation, politicians / rulers had essentially unlimited power. Particularly there was a cult of personality around Hitler himself.
So Naziism had these major characteristics:
Socialist, class-based rhetoric
Hatred of the bankers and capitalists
Identity politics based on race
Extreme collectivism
Extreme nationalism
Near-absolute power for leaders
Some of that is similar to the modern left, but it's also significantly different in some ways.
Is North Korea a Democratic Republic, or does the name someone adopts not always indicate what they are?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You do know that this kind of pervasive propaganda actually makes you the ... oh, never mind.
California’s 2018 U.S. Senate election attracted nationwide attention in April 2018, not long after the publication of a poll showing that little-known Republican and committed neo-Nazi Patrick Little had 18 percent of support among likely primary election voters, second to incumbent Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein with 39 percent.
In the SurveyUSA poll, Little — who describes himself as a “white nationalist” — had greater support than four other candidates in the state’s open primary, which candidates of any party (or none) can enter. These included outgoing California Senate President Kevin de Léon, a Democrat, and businessman Rocky de la Fuente, a Republican.
If those poll numbers were to hold, Feinstein and Little would advance from the primary as the two top candidates and contest the general election in November. The Republican party would be represented in a national race by a candidate who advocates a future United States “free from Jews” and has repeatedly and unreservedly expressed anti-semitic and white nationalist views during his campaign.
But this is not limited to California:
Little is the third Republican candidate for national office during the 2018 electoral cycle to have expressed openly anti-semitic and racist views.
In March, former American Nazi Party leader Arthur Jones ran unopposed in the GOP primary for Illinois’ Third U.S. Congressional District, and will represent the party in November’s general election.
In Wisconsin’s First U.S. Congressional District, one of the Republicans seeking to replace retiring House leader Paul Ryan in November is Paul Nehlen, who has described himself as “pro-white” and frequently expresses virulently anti-semitic sentiments on social media.
In February 2018, Nehlen was permanently banned from Twitter after posting a racist cartoon in reference to the actor Meghan Markle — whose mother is black — after her engagement to Prince Harry was announced.
They actually removed that phrase a while ago.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Sounds descriptive.
Don't see what the problem is.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You seem to think that sticking the term "corporate" something means that it is right wing; that is false. Both state corporatism and state capitalism are left wing ideologies; that is, the "corporation" is very much a tool of left wing ideologies, used to control free markets. Right wing ideologies are free market ideologies.
What the Nazis actually did is what leftists in general do: they tightly regulated businesses, highly taxed unearned income, controlled prices and wages, engaged in massive redistribution, massively expanded government welfare systems, provided free education, oppressed and controlled the churches, regulated news media to promote what they considered truth, categorized people into desirable/undesirable, implemented free healthcare and mandated fitness, stimulated the economy through government spending, promoted environmentalism an a return to nature, promoted sustainability, and oppressed their critics. That is, in most policies, European fascists were just like leftists. And until the horrific crimes of European fascists in the 20th century came to light, American leftists were quite laudatory of European fascists.
Nazis were indeed "not socialists", but they were most certainly leftists and ideologically very close to socialism and progressivism.
At least not all of them, and I hear there are some very fine people on both sides.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
hilarious the people that only believed what came out of Hitler's mouth compared to what he and the Nazis actually did. No, they were not socialists
The important thing is not whether or not the policies they implemented were actually socialist (which inevitably draws the not-true-socialism argument). The important thing is that they espoused socialism. It reinforces the trend, that political parties that espouse socialism tend to institute totalitarian dictatorships.
Capitalism works best (as in, markets work most efficiently in solving the basic economic problem) when market failures (monopolies, asymmetrical information, negative externalities, etc.) are corrected. This requires government.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
See, it's stupid bullshit repeated by crossburners like this that causes so many problems.
The word is not "national socialists". German language commonly merges words for new concepts. The word they used was "nationalsozialistische". All one word, which dumbasses who don't speak German well try to split apart in order to translate poorly. The word itself accurately translated would come closest to "national social order" or "national social control". The party rhetoric focused around ideas of racial purity ("völkische bewegung" and "volksgemeinschaft", e.g. "race movement" and "race community" from the german word "volk" referring to a specific ethnic group).
What they MEANT is the same thing that Repugnant Klan radio hosts and politicians like Michael Savage and Donald Trump mean when they shout "blood and soil", "borders language culture", and other racial supremacist jargon. They're a bunch of fucking nazis.
It's too bad that Robert "Sheets" Byrd (D) - the Patron Saint of Hillary! - is dead because he could have given them lessons on cross-burning, hood-making, and lynching. Like he did for the 150+ men he recruited into the KKK. And he could also teach them about hating Republicans, the sworn public enemy of the KKK (all throughout his tenure in the Senate, as well).
Much like the modern ANTIFA "anti-fascist" thugs are anything but anti-fascist.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Borders, language, and culture are all important for the survival of a political state. Borders define what is and isn't lawful, and what rights/protection those who live within those borders have. Language is critical to business, trade, political discourse, and official communications. You highlighted this yourself when you began to explore the difficulty of translation due to the confluence of language and culture. Culture is obviously critical for common identity and to reduce the potential of "othering" that often leads to tribal violence and exclusion. Ethno-nationalism is not what's being promoted by Donald Trump, despite how much you may wish to draw ties.
You dumb fuck - Robert Byrd WAS a member of the KKK - and recruited over 150 people into the Klan. That's a fact. But good little Nazi Fascists like you Democrats love to whitewash history, don't you? Go cut your sheet and build your cross to burn, motherfucker!
Bernie is far and away the most popular politician in the country. Clinton, by contrast, is basically the only person that could have managed to lose a general election to Trump.
Also, the demographics of the general election and the Dem primaries are very different. Plus, Clinton cheated.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Nazism is the nationalization of businesses via nationalization of the owners. And if they can't nationalize the owner, they divest the owner and put a crony in charge.
That's redistribution of wealth. A hallmark of Leftist ideology.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
> If the Nazis HATED Capitalists so much then why did they use so many of them to build their Military?
They used the Jews to produce a significant portion of their war materiel too. So Nazis didn't hate Jews?
Internally, Hitler was primarily about power for himself. Externally, his sales pitch was a blend of KKK and Occupy Wall Street.
Patrick Little is not an approved member of the Republican party.
Arthur Jones is not an approved member of the Republican Party.
Paul Nehlen is not an approved member of the Republican party.
But in the US, anyone can call themselves anything they want. The rest of the Republicans cannot prevent these people from using the name. All they can do is say that the Republican Party (the organization) does not agree with or sponsor these people.
> "We don't bias our search results toward any political party," a Google spokesperson told Gizmodo. It's like Orwell's newspeak. As if anyone is going to forget their vulgar behavior during the recent election.
Seems to be the party that's attracting them though. And no wonder why.
More like antefa...
Conservatives were the cross burners; in the 1800s and early 1900s that was the Democrats. Today, the Repugnant Klan Party hangs its banner on shouting "conservatism" over and over again, and has since Nixon's KKK Southern Strategy.
Are you claiming that Byrd was NOT the only KKK member?
Are you claiming that Byrd was NOT a Democrat?
Because both of these are well known facts - Byrd is the only member of the KKK to serve in Congress, and he was a Democrat his entire life.
Did you know there are more or less objective sources where you can read about history, and look up actual facts, rather than believing whatever crap some activist
blogger spews at you?
Did you know that the United States in 2018 isn't historical Europe?
For a THOUSAND YEARS the Roman Catholic Church taught (and fought) that banking, loaning money at interest, was a sin, usury. Until the fourth century it was looked down upon by most Christians, by the fourth century the Church started making church laws against it in various ways. In the eighth century under Charlemagne, they declared usury to be a general criminal offence for you could be imprisoned.
During all this time, the European monarchies shared power with the church. If you were a king, a good way to end up mysteriously dead was to piss off the church. Yet they had wars and huge infrastructure projects to finance, and I between wars the monarchies sometimes had huge amounts of gold and other treasure they'd love to make interest on. Running a country requires banking, but banking is a crime for Christians. Islam similarly taught that interest was usury, sin, and prohibited. What to do? The solution was to enlist Jews as bankers.
The European monarchs didn't have the modern financial system to run up a trillion dollar national debt in times of trouble. In times of trouble, such as war, they had the bankers to go to in order to borrow money to rebuild and supply their armies. Jewish bankers, because Christian bankers would face criminal action. With two sides at war, both asking the banks to finance their armies, the bank was in the position to decide which army got fed and equipped and which army didn't. If you were a European monarch, being friendly with the bankers was a really good idea.
That's the history of why the oldest, largest, most powerful European banks are Jewish.
Dealing with nations, like loaning to monarchs, the bankers, notably the Rothschilds, also were early to expand internationally, with different family members running affiliated banks in different countries. At the time, most businesses were local. Being smart about establishing multinational business before almost anyone else enhanced their size and power, while reducing their dependence on the local monarch.
It's time for me to go do other things now, but if you spend a few minutes learning the facts about anything else you parroted, you'll find it's all just as contrary to fact.
The head of the Republican party says that there are "good people" among the Nazis. And his policies have emboldened the Nazis and similar extremist groups. Not all Republicans are Nazis, but certainly Nazis can now feel comfortable in the Republican party.
If political ideology were a street the Nazis, Communists, and the Liberals/Progressive would all live a few doors down from one another on the left side of town. He Democrats and the Republicans would be on opposite sides of main street within a block of each other. The Conservatives a bit farther out the right side of town and the Libertarians would be living in their non-code tiny houses outside of city limits.
The police would be the most brutal on the left side of town. On the right side they would only call the cops after they shot the criminals.
The libertarians would either invite you in for a pot brownie or blow your head off with a 50 cal sniper rifle the moment you stepped onto their property uninvited.
I recommend you listen to this talk given by Bannon to the Black Americans for a Better Future PAC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"The cleverest trick is to accuse others of what you yourself are doing" - Goebbels. As practiced by ooloorie above in trying to describe fascism as "leftist".
No, Nazis were not leftists, but nevertheless, it is not accurate nor useful to call Republicans Nazis. There are real issues out there in the world. Distracting from them by name calling is not helpful
Republicans are not Nazis, but there is reason for concern.
There are still some conservative Republicans, but true conservatives are becoming rare. The Republican party is becoming dominated by radicals. The party has become increasingly nationalistic and authoritarian. It has become increasingly tolerant of public support of white supremacy.
We haven't hit the point of invading neighboring countries or committing genocide, but Trump has been clear: He wants to overturn the rule of law. He wants to round up ethnic minorities and get rid of them. He's advocated murdering religious minorities. He's talked about wanting to do away with elections and be President for life.
No, he's not joking, and neither are his followers. Authoritarianism is a slippery slope. We're not on that slope yet, but we're disturbingly close, and Trump keeps shoving us closer. If Trump fires Mueller and gets away with it, that's the tipping point. That makes him above the law. That's when he stops being a president and becomes a dictator.
If you think that it can't happen, you're not paying attention.
Meanwhile back in reality:
"Bannon, the former chief strategist in the Trump administration, has expressed his enthusiasm for the alt right, a loose network of individuals and groups that promote white identity and reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy. Alt right adherents oppose multiculturalism, immigration and often claim that there is a Jewish conspiracy to advocate for “white genocide.” These messages are often delivered via social media, using “ironic” memes and/or slogans.
Bannon “proudly” told a Mother Jones reporter at the 2016 Republican National Convention “we’re the platform for the alt right,” referring to Breitbart News, which he headed at the time. ...
When President Trump named Bannon as his chief strategist, numerous well-known white supremacists celebrated the appointment. David Duke called the selection of Bannon “excellent,” adding that Bannon was “basically creating the ideological aspects of where we’re going.” Peter Brimelow, who runs the racist site VDare, said that the Bannon hire was “amazing.”
Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent, and Rocky Suhayda of the American Nazi Party predicted that Bannon would help hold Trump to his campaign promises on immigration. ...
While still at the helm of Breitbart, Bannon made a number of comments about the West being at war with Islam. At a speech at the Vatican in 2014, he said, “We are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism.” During 2015 and 2016 broadcasts of the Breitbart News Daily radio show, he called Islam “the most radical religion in the world” and alleged that “Islamist sympathizers had infiltrated the U.S. government and news media,” according to an article in USA Today."
https://www.adl.org/resources/...
Also this:
"On Thursday, BuzzFeed News’ Joseph Bernstein published the results of a massive investigation into the strategic and ideological inner workings of Breitbart News, and particularly the actions and opinions of former Trump adviser and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon and former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
Based on internal emails and documents from the company, the expose reveals how Bannon, Yiannopoulos, and a large cast of other Breitbart players and employees worked to develop and advance an agenda that embraced tactics, values, and assistance from neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups, among others.
In his roles as Breitbart voice and Bannon surrogate, BuzzFeed reported, Yiannopoulos in particular sought input and content from white nationalists and neo-Nazis, but also collaborated with like-minded (if previously more low profile) members of the media and business communities. "
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
Unfortunately, this trait isn't just limited to socialists. See: BUT BUT BUT THE REPUBLICANS FREED THE SLAVES!
Cognitive fail.
When Republicans freed the slaves, they were on the progressive side of the spectrum and the Democrats were not. They switched places in the 1960s.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
If the past is doomed to repeat itself then I want a dinosaur as a pet.
Go ahead and get one at a pet store. Lots of dinosaurs survived the mass extinction event. Just not the big ones.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I didn't "accuse others", I gave a long list of Nazi policies that coincide with leftist policies and the historical close connections between fascists and leftists. You are welcome to try to try to refute my points with facts. You will find that I am correct: fascism and socialism are both leftist ideologies and closely connected.
You do make an important observation, though: it is leftists that have been going around after WWII to make groundless accusations against others of being fascists and neo-Nazis. Every Republican president over the last couple of decades has been denounced as a "fascist", "Nazi", and/or "white supremacist" by the left. Every conservative commentator or intellectual has been denounced as such. It's not surprising that you quote Goebbels to point out a strategy that has been pursued for more than half a century by leftists.
Also, my family just barely survived the Nazis and then suffered under socialism, so I know first hand how utterly evil both ideologies are. It's also unclear why socialists are so afraid of having it pointed out how closely related they are to fascists; after all, socialists themselves are responsible for mass killings, genocides, racism, torture, war, and destruction that easily puts fascism to shame.
You got your parties mixed up: the party of the KKK is the Democrats. Hillary was best buddies with a former KKK member.
Technically they are fascists and the name of the party was nicknamed by the Poms as being Nazi's. So not even a political ideology, just branding and for example the word socialism just thrown in there for marketing purposes and not because they were socialists, they were fascists, which is a combinant of private companies and government, acting as one ie the US government is a fascist government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., still little 'f' though and not yet capital 'F' but it looks to be going there.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Russians and Nazis are mortal enemies. If you are going to slander someone with that sort of crap, you need to choose one. Your partisan nonsense should at least make sense to anyone with some knowledge of the world.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You seem to think that sticking the term "corporate" something means that it is right wing; that is false. Both state corporatism and state capitalism are left wing ideologies; that is, the "corporation" is very much a tool of left wing ideologies, used to control free markets.
Nope. Not in the case of the Nazis where their "corporations" were privatized enterprises rather than entities of the public fisc. It's the difference between the TVA and Exxon.
One builds up for the public needs. The other seizes public assets with state support and enriches the few.
Right wing ideologies are free market ideologies.
Trump proved otherwise just hours ago.
Calling NASA a "social program" is assinine.
Although it might perhaps be spun as a "government monopoly" on spaceflight. Even that falls down since there was an entire privately owned aerospace industry that grew to support the space program.
You're trying to conflate "pork" with socialism. This tired nonsense started during the election. All it does is make Democrats look stupid.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Except for that whole socialized medicine thing. Some Nazi policies were actually very socialist. They very much resemble things being done by "Nordic socialist utopias" right now.
The real problem here is a bogus one dimensional approach to describing political parties that allows people like you to pretend that Fascists, Communist, and Socialists are on opposite sides of the spectrum.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Have you seen the leader of the Republican Party?
>
> Sorry, Nazis took children from their parents, at least...
This is true of law enforcement anywhere. Otherwise you end up with something that really does look like a concentration camp. The Republican didn't invent this stuff. He's not pushing things any farther than his predecessors.
Partisans were just willing to ignore this stuff before.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You got your parties mixed up: the party of the KKK is the Democrats. Hillary was best buddies with a former KKK member.
Oh ooloorie, you expect us not to remember that former means no-longer, and in this case, repentant?
Or do you think we forgot how Republican Senate leaders praised Strom Thurmond's racist Dixiecraft campaign?
Sorry, but claiming you don't know who David Duke is won't work either.
> Yeah, sure.. you republicans now call legitimate news "fake news" but it's the democrats who are in a total information blackout.
MS-13
The media gets caught in a lie and then doubles down on that lie. Liberal politicians see that and declare "Hold My Beer" and go on to defend MS-13 and object to how they were characterized by Trump.
Charlottesville is NOTHING compared to that.
That's just one easy example that doesn't require alternate sources and fact checking.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Sure you would. You want to dox them and make them unemployable. Liberals engage in Nazi style virtual lynch mobs trying to harm people they disagree with.
Liberal publications complain about the very existence of people that disagree with them regardless of whether or not any actual action is carried out.
The left has even given up on free speech neglecting the fact that real Nazis actually beat people up. The real problem was that they took action. They didn't just say "mean things". You don't have to make thinking differently a crime. There are already laws against murder, rape, and discrimination.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
He wants to round up ethnic minorities and get rid of them. He's advocated murdering religious minorities. He's talked about wanting to do away with elections and be President for life.
You need to take a cold shower. I don't like Trump either but you've been reading too much propaganda.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Also, the demographics of the general election and the Dem primaries are very different.
Wouldn't you say that Bernie is more likely to win in the Dem primaries than in a general election?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
unless my history teachers from the 80s were wrong, and this predates all this polarized politcal correctness, fascims is the polar opposite of communism/socialism. It came as a knee-jerk reaction of communism taking hold among the self appointed 'eleets' who felt it trendy to call themselves communists. They looked down on the common person with disdain, noses in the air, basking in their sense of superiority. The commoners really resented this, so when the nazi party came about and talked about issues that were near and dear to the average 'joe the plumber', Fascism surfaced. If you take any idea and push it to the borders of its possibility you will always result in extremism. Fascism is capitolism run amok to the point of government propping it up to prevent self-correction.
if these self-appointed anti-fascists groups were truly interested in stopping the next fascist movement, maybe the should identify the source of unrest instead of just going out and provoking violence. Its more productive to find out why the average worker is so unhappy that he sees an extremist as the only hope for his/her future. If you can solve the unhappiness, extremists groups like nationalists/fascists or liberal/communists would not be able to take hold. At the end of the day, everyone just wants to be happy and feel like their life matters. If you can solve that one simple need, the media and factions of government would not be so easy to polarize society and pit one half against the other.
Hm. Maybe I'm the one with the cognitive fail. Perhaps you were saying exactly what I said. If so, sorry.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I agree with you on the problem. And the very concepts of left and right economics totally breaks down when power starts to be concentrated. I think the authoritarian-anarchist spectrum tends to be the most important.
Now, you are correct that they had a lot of policies that were for the masses. However, that's something that predates socialism, and even applies to criminal organizations, businesses, and other power structures. Bread and circuses, church mandated holidays, and all of that. The only reason what the Nazis did seems noteworthy is because we're looking at this through the lends of "normal" being Reaganomics on steroids.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
In denial much? Here:
Ringing any bells? American "Progressives" adored Hitler in the 30-ies...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
you do realize the history of the KKK was drenched deeply in the Democrat party right? It was founded by southern democrats to prevent black people from voting. Its amazing how often the Republican party gets blamed for racism. The republicans have their list of flaws.. but KKK is definitely not one of them.
the civil war, a bunch of southern democrats, angry at the election of a republican president, seceded from the union to form a new nation, one were slavery was to remain legal.
Jim Crow laws, enacted by white-Democratic dominated state legeslatures in the 19th century to mandate racial segregation
civil rights act of 1964 - Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition still was from Democrats
maybe you should stop drinking the coolaid and realized that everything you've been told is a lie. There isnt one party worth this loyalty from you. They are all undeserving, they just have manipulated you into thinking all the world problems lay squarely on their competition. Its simply not mathematically possible for one side to do no right, and the other to do no wrong.
Economically they were squarely in the center. They believed in the efficiency of free markets, yet also believed that it was possible to do bad in such a space and that it was the duty of the state to fetter the market if it was not working in best interests of the people.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
corporate fascists
What is that even supposed to mean? Do you mean that Nazi germany was controlled by corporations? Which ones?
Or were they fascist towards corporations? Do you mean like they exerted totalitarian control over the market?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Seriously bringing up that bullshit about Hillary and Byrd? Give us a break... he clearly repudiated the entire philosophy of the KKK back in the early 50's, when Hillary was still in Kindergarten. Read your own link, troll.
I do not have a signature
I didn't "accuse others", I gave a long list of Nazi policies that coincide with leftist policies and the historical close connections between fascists and leftists.
You are exactly correct with your original post and the points you made there.
When Mussolini took power and turned Italy fascist, Lenin congratulated him. They are both at their core a Marxist/Leninist ideology, differing only that by either the state owning factories, railways, etc outright, or under fascism, the entities already in charge were simply placed under government control.
Those who disagree can compare for yourselves the Nazi's own 25 point declaration of their platform against any socialist regime's core principles you'd like. If you are being intellectually honest in the slightest one would have to recognize the obvious and glaring similarities in the majority of principles declared if one simply puts them all into contemporary terms, but yet people insist otherwise.
http://www.historyplace.com/wo...
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
See also: Southern Strategy. You cross burners always like to pretend the last century of history doesn't exist. Back to the trailer park with you.
This is what happens when you create a two party system. Dianne Feinstein seems to have quite a bit of support. Anyone who wanted to win in California would declare as Republican. Why do you think that the Democrat Trump ran as a Republican candidate? Because he would have lost the DNC.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Maybe you should try not being an anonymous coward. But then... we saw what you did in Charlottesville - Nazi.
Every time a liberal *genuinely* attempts to compare the republican party (or infact, anyone, including other liberals they don't agree with) as a nazi, they lose favour.
They look stupid, they look ridiculous, they look crazy. It's not a good look. The endless name calling and branding is mind boggling, how people can be just that dense.
Worst part is for the ex-lefties who are now centrists or perhaps still somewhat left. They don't want to vote right but they feel compelled to, because they can't bring themselves to associate with such wildly insane people.
Let's go punch a nazi and fire whitey from his job, privileged cracker has had it too good for too long!
through taxes and regulation
What? No, in real socialism the government owns all property, so it would be pretty silly to tax or regulate themselves....
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The emphasis in the Third Reich wasn't on the socialism, but on the nationalism (aka "Aryan supremacy"... not even all whites were created equal in their eyes). Any program of socialized medicine wasn't there because it was felt that everyone in society deserved a minimum of care, but because they wanted to ensure that the Master Race would thrive. For how far off the mark you are, you might as well be telling us that concentration camps were really just compassionate end-of-life care.
I do not have a signature
When a party is that far to the left or right, does it matter which?
They both have an overriding attribute which is that they're bat shit crazy!
That being said yes I think calling the Nazis leftists is inaccurate, they governed a system of corporate fiefdoms that served the state and reduced humanity to being nothing more than resources to be utilised however it was needed and tossed into ovens when it was not.
The ADL is a racist (anti-white) and ideologically motivated organization with very little credibility.
At the time, the people who chose to use the label alt-right were mostly a bunch of young men who were tired of the hypocrisy of politicians, as well as tired of the identity politics game that leftists are playing (which is nothing but racism and sexism). If anything, the majority of the alt-right were true anti-racist. When in 2017 the alt-right radicalized itself, most of the people using the label alt-right chose to rename themselves as the alt-light since they didn't want to be associated with the group anymore.
But hey! It's not like the truth matters anymore.
The Wikipedia entry states "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics"
Hitler claimed to be neither left, nor right wing and criticised both, while using elements that were, at the time, both left and right.
Yes, Wikipedia isn't authoritative, but that quote has a couple of attestations. If you'd like to argue otherwise, I'd like to see a similar (or better) standard of evidence to support your claim. Your argument and list of traits you consider left is a mix of traints common with some politically left organisations and some authoritarian organisations (some of which are left). It ignores traditionally right elements of the Nazis (like nationalism and anti-liberalism). It's unbalanced and superficial.
The Nazis were fascist. Fascism is authoritarian.
That authoritarian governments arise from politically left parties is obvious (just as it is obvious that they also arise from politically right parties). That authoritarian governments share common traits should be obvious. Identifying authoritarian traits in politically left governments and comparing those to authoritarian traits in the nazis and declaring the nazis politically left is lazy, dishonest or ignorant.
Politically left fascism kind of exists, mostly as a criticism of the extreme left, but it's a new term and not well defined - mostly it seems to be used as an epithet.
Frankly, both ends of the political spectrum tend to look pretty similar when they get extreme enough and it would be charitable to think that this is where most people are getting confused.
TL:DR
Nazis are usually considered 'far right'. They claimed to be syncretism of left and right and criticised both while taking elements from both. They were fascist and authoratarian (redundant). Observing that the authoritarian 'far left' and nazis have something in common is obvious. Arguing that this makes nazis left is shallow.
Capitalism works best (as in, markets work most efficiently in solving the basic economic problem) when market failures (monopolies, asymmetrical information, negative externalities, etc.) are corrected. This requires government.
Government is a monopoly (on aggression, which it uses to steal, imprison, and enslave) and introduces new, negative externalities (ministers making decisions about resources they do not own, decisions for which the costs are borne by others). Government does not solve the general problems posed by monopolies, information asymmetry, and negative externalities, it simply replaces common examples with new, more destructive ones.
You are exactly correct with your original post and the points you made there.
Except that he avoids traditionally 'right' elements of the Nazis, irgnores that the Nazis claimed to be neither left, nor right but a syncretism of both (and hence have elements that are both traditionally left and traditionally right), listed elements that are authoritarian and by the association with authoritarian-left claims the Nazis were left.
When Mussolini took power and turned Italy fascist, Lenin congratulated him.
And Hitler both criticised and praised Stalin. Because, you know, Nazis are hard to define on a single axis of left and right.
They are both at their core a Marxist/Leninist ideology
Sure, if you ignore what that means, ignore Hitler's criticism of same and the elements of Nazism that are traditionally right.
Those who disagree can compare for yourselves the Nazi's own 25 point declaration of their platform against any socialist regime's core principles
*sigh*. OK. I'll reference by number for brevity.
1. is right (nationalism)
2. is neither (world recognition, lifting of sanctions)
3. is neither or right (demand for land)
4-6. is far-right (citizenship tied to race)
7. is left-ish (state provided opportunity for livlihood - note this is a weaker left than traditional communist/socialist left where the state provides the livlihood, not just the opportunity.)
8. right-ish (limitations on immigration. Traditionally right, and linked to the far-right racism, above, but given the period and the context may not have been as right as it now looks. Certainly not traditionally left)
9. neither or weakly left (equality of citizens. Weakly left because of statement about obligations. Better seen as authoritarian IMHO)
10. far-left (citizens must be productive and have an obligation to the state)
11. left (breaking of unearned income and abolition of debt slavery. Again, I'm moderating this from 'far-left' because of the historical situation. Definately not right)
12. unknown/arguable (abolition of war profiteering. Left if you consider any interference in a free market left. Neither if you consider production through war is frequently nationalised even by capitalist/free-market countries, right if you consider the merging of state and corporation esp. in war production)
13-14. far-left and far-right (nationalisation of industry. Corporatism or communism arrive at the merging of state and corporation from different directions but the same outcome)
15. left (age welfare)
16. unique-right-ish (creation of middle class (right), seizing of assets (left) for loan to small business (right-ish))
17. left-ish (removing land speculation, and allowing for expropriation)
18. extremist (death to certain classes of criminal)
19. neither (rule of law)
20. left-ish (education)
21. left-ish (abolition of child labour, provision of health and sporting facilities)
22. right or neither (national army)
23. neither or far-right (citizenship and the press)
24. neither or far-right (freedom of religion and/or promotion of Christianity)
25. authoritarian (centralised power)
I make about 9-10 right, anything from weakly right through far right. I make about 11 left with similar caveats. Then there's a few that don't fit even within those fairly broad catch-alls. We can argue specifics and there are some I'll accept could go either way, but that's my point.
Nazis borrowed from both left and right, criticised both, were fascist and hence authoritarian. Calling them 'left' is true, but only partly so and is just as true to call them 'right, more true to call them 'far right' and better to add an extra axis and start adding an authoritarian adjective.
If you are being intellectually honest
About that ...
Make up as much BS as you want.
I had several relatives that were there, some died.
Nazis were totalitarians, they wanted industry/Germany to prosper, not individuals, they did not have social welfare.
The holocaust was real.
Nazis came to power because Hitler's party ignored the rule of law and used fake newspaper articles to fabricate stories about political rivals and groups.
The Russians taking over East Germany were worse than the Nazis.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
No, the people who really hate America are stirring up and attempting to radicalise you, rather than letting you see that you can accomplish more by finding common ground and realising that while you have some differences, talking about them civilly and rationally and working together in areas of agreement is likely to be far more useful than name calling, finger pointing or tribalism. Gun rights and gun restrictions - they support and promote both in ever more extreme fashions.
I'm not American. I really hate party politics, especially when it becomes reflexive, or worse, spills over into social and civil divisivness.
Gun restrictions or not, I'll bet most reasonable people could find a common ground that didn't please everyone, entirely, but at least addressed the concerns of most. If only people, internally and externally, would stop stirring the pot.
And those who cannot let go of the past are doomed to be defined by it.
The past is a lesson. Not a definition.
> You might be overstating the collectivism here.
They reasoned that it was perfectly fine to kill half the individual people, if doing so improved things for the nation as a whole. Their respect for individual rights was literally non-existent - torturing individual people was fine, for the benefit of the whole.
It was collectivism, putting the group over the individual, in by far the most extreme which has ever happened in all of human history.
A terrorist would make an effing cool pet. Sic 'em, boy!
No, only you "know" that because it is false. It is you that is believing your own lies. My data? Personal info and family data at the time. My parents lived through it - one Ally, one Axis. Just piss off with your false truths.
Nope. For one very simple reason. The Nazis were elitists and favoured their own. That makes then neither left wing nor socialist. You keep drawing the wrong axis.
And if one were honest... One would consider HOW THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED. Which makes for a very different story.
Why?
E.g. how ooloorie claims to hate identity politics, but also loves labelling people and using this assigned identity to denigrate them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
categorized people into desirable/undesirable
This seems to hardly be restricted to the left. In 1910 it was suggested by the Liberal party in the UK that the 'criminally feeble-minded' should be forced into new workhouses and sterilised. And that was from a party vehmently opposed to anarchism and Marxism, and was also enthusiastic in its support of free trade. Or maybe you think the solidly anti-communist South Africa of the 1980s was left wing. Or the USA prior to the 1860s? You seem to want to ascribe stuff to your bogeymen and ignore other evidence.
The phrases Trump and his ilk use are euphemisms.
For example take "state's rights". When the federal government banned same-sex marriage opponents of same-sex marriage were all for setting that policy at the national level. As soon as that changed it became a "state's rights" issue, because they knew a lot of states would ban it.
Other examples include citing security as a reason to keep Muslims and Mexicans out. It plays to everyone - the bigots know what you mean and understand the outcome is what they want, without having to admit it to themselves or anyone else. The moderates just have to go along with it because who else are they gonna vote for?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I want to mod down this whole article and topic.
Synopsis: The division is not left/right; that is the wrong way of approaching the situation. Instead it is individualism versus tribalism.
Here is the story:
Stand and face (let’s say) North. Put your hands together and extend them pointing towards N. Now, open them 90 degrees each until they cut 180-degree arc. Your hands just described the spectrum of regular, let us call it sane (enough) politics. Quadrant I (looking top down) is the right wing, quadrant II is the left wing. You might color them if you like. Let’s say the left is red and the right is blue. Now, what about quadrant III and IV? Those are populated with people who have taken either side to the extreme.
And here is an interesting fact – since we have numerous examples throughout the 20th century of both left and right going crazy (cross culture and cross race mind you!), we have very clear record of the tactics they applied. And they are largely the same! Labor camps – check, both the Nazis and the Commies did it. Group identity – check (superior race against everyone else in one case, the proletariat against everyone else in the other). Overreach of governmental meddling in people’s lives – check. Emphasis on “morality”, “patriotism”, “national pride” – check. Cult of personality – check. Stricter control of the populous, massive secret services and surveillance programs, emphasis on “reporting the undesirables” and “catching the enemy within” – check. Vilifying all who do not belong to said groups and do not sing endlessly the party line – check. So, the color of quadrants III and IV is mostly purple. Those people come from different quadrants but they end up in the same place (while hating each other viciously of course and completely not aware that they are the two sides of the same coin).
So, it seems to me that the actual division we must be aware of is not along the line North – South but East – West. At one end – North stands the sovereignty of the individual and the idea that all systems and ideologies are eventually oppressive so no ideology should be allowed to trump individual human rights and dignity. Equality in front of the law (or God if you will), maximum freedom for the individual to follow his/her ambitions, talents, capabilities, etc. and equality of opportunity are the hallmarks of that ideology. On the other side is the group identity and the toxic tribalism. The individual is but a cog in the great machine of the state. The party line is everything. Everyone else is an enemy. In the pursue of our goals anything goes (because we are right!). “The goals of the group and the greater ways are transcendent and (I am the one that defines them) to embrace them is to achieve enlightenment” – chairman Sheng-ij Yang.
And that is why, for instance, at the moment in the so-called intellectual dark web people as remote in their ideology as Richard Dawkins (fireproof atheist; top dog evolutionary biologists), Stephen Fry (gay; bleeding heart liberal and fireproof atheist who argues that the church is not a force for good; renaissance man), Ben Shapiro (conservative Jew who still thinks being gay is a sin) and Jordan Peterson (quite religious in his own way, fully aware of the dangers posed by people from quadrant III and IV) are allies and speak in one voice against the disappearance of freedom of speech, the cessation of a meaningful dialog between the left and right, the forceful and violent de-platform/shutting of/attacking stints by the extremists, the mainstream media fiasco and so on.I saw it with my own eyes and could hardly stop laughing – Shapiro for example was viciously attacked by both the alt-right and the commies who claimed he is one of the “others”. What can be more revealing than that?
Final note: we absolutely need both sides of the argument to go forward. Either extreme breeds destruction and suffering, but the
And thank you for a civil discussion on an often heated topic.
Fascism is authoritarian, and both the far right and far left end up as authoritarian, which makes them all share a lot of characteristics. Nazism was fascist, and had some traits that were more closely far right than far left (don't take my word for it, read the wikipedia article and follow the references). To that end, the elements I consider to be typical of the far right in the Nazis are also likely to be elements that are fascist. Elements that are far left are less likely to be classically fascist although they are just as authoritarian. I've tried to distinguish between authoritarian and things that are more definately right/left.
I don't think I've used a nazi=fascist=far-right=nazi loop, but that's the problem with unconscious bias; it's hard to see.
specifically;
4-6 are citizenship and race. The right is usually focused on its own citizens, uses nationalism and in the far right can become xenophobic. I think this is a pretty clear case for being classically 'right' and then exaggerated by the far right.
13-14 I acknowledge as being both far right and far left. It's a failure mode both can reach, although from different paths.
23 and 24 I acknowledge can be argued to be either neither or possibly far right. I think this is a case where traits that are present in the moderate right (citizens first, and the sort of conservatism that values national culture/religion) become exaggerated by the far right but I can see an argument that sees these points as being so far removed from the concerns of the moderate right that they are qualitatively different. ... and that's all I identified as 'far right'. One that's an exaggeration the nationalism to the point of xenophobia. One that's as much far right as far left and one that's arguable.
I'm genuinely curious, can you provide an example where you think I've used a circular definition?
---
You list a number of things that the right have endorsed, but you've omitted a number as well. The right is usually nationalistic, the left usually internationalisation. The right is usually (in the modern era) conservative culturally and socially as well as fiscally, the left is usually progressive and/or liberal. Personally, I'd add that the right advocates individual rights and responsibilities, the left focusses on collective rights and responsibilities.
Specifically the nationalism - which when distorted by extremism becomes the racism/xenophobia of the far-right and can give rise to militarism. I don't know. Maybe that's where I'm arguing circularly. The far left can be just as bloodthirsty, but it's usually classist, not racist, so I do think that racism is usually a far-right phenomenon.
Agreed.
I'd argue that it arose from the remnants of the Nazi's socialist roots and is more usually arrived at from the left, but like a number of these, you can argue different ways, in part because a one dimensional abstraction is pretty limiting.
Nope. It has nothing to do with "not liking" him. It's about things that he's said and done. Maybe you should start paying more attention to the news. You've missed a crazy couple of years.
Le pen is a far right party. FFS look up the "national front" they are a bunch of "immigrant go home" racist guy. That is the main base of her party, the main ideology of all FN guys : "foreigner go home". This is in no way shape or form a socialist party, they are a far right party.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
This is silly. You're silly. The term "corporate" isn't necessary to make Nazis right-wing. The term "fascist" is sufficient.
This comes up a lot, the problem seems to be that no one really knows what fascist means. Fascism is at the extreme right of the left-right political spectrum. No really, it is. Yes I'm serious.
The rest of what you said is also silly, but I'll let someone else answer that.
Lie with dogs, don't be surprised when you get up with fleas. If you don't want to be associated with Nazis then dont associate with Nazis
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
No, the Nazis were not leftist. Anyone who studied history could tell that.
How could they tell do you ask? Simple - The night of the long knives, shortly after Hitler took power, he ordered the rounding up and execution of all known liberals and socialists. This was before he had a single jew rounded up. His goal was to get rid of the people who would mount a proper internal opposition to his coming attacks on the jews.
The name National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism from an economic standpoint but instead a racial purity, just like the "unite the right" rallies of today where get this: They were flying the nazi flag and promoted them with nazi imagery.
The concept that the nazis were leftist was fabricated in the 70s by the John Birch society, a hard right neo nazi group that was trying to redeem nationalism and make an all white ethnostate. To declare them leftist is a sign that the person making the statement did not study history and should not be listened to in regard to any historical items.
out out, traitors
I thought it was "brief candle!" So much for the classics, eh? "R.I.P, liberal college education."
From now on, we'll be focusing on indoctrinating and conditioning half of the nation's morons to fear and distrust the other half.
The terms "Left" and "Right" are beyond meaningless and only serve to divide: the Nazis rose to power taking advantage of the German workers/people, who'd been bled dry by Versailles... but in reality, they were there to represent the interests of the feudal elite - on both "sides." "Old Money Aristocracy" has been waging a war against the middle (merchant) class ever since Serfdom began to unravel (with, of course, the invention of the printing press).
People can be against fascism and still be assholes.
It's disturbing how, when there are protests between wannabe Nazis and basically anyone else, some people leap to condemn the "anyone else". Whatever ever happened to not being huge fans of the Nazis?
That's because it's been removed. It was added on 24th May and removed again on 30th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind...
And if you have to lie to get your point across, maybe your point isn't that great. :)
I didn't list policies that were exclusive to the left, I listed policies that the left and fascism shared.
Yes, that was a policy of the progressive movement. In the US, this was the policy primarily of the Democratic party.
So? Catholics and protestants killed each other by the millions over minor differences in religion, yet both are Christians. Closely related ideologies often hate each other fiercely, for the simple reason that they are competing for the same pool of followers. Fascists and Marxists clearly hated each other, but at their core, they are very similar ideologies.
The evidence is crystal clear: fascism is a modification of socialism that replaces "class" by "nation" and adopts some ideas from the progressive movement. This is true both if you look at the history of the parties and at their political programs. Both fascism and socialism are totalitarian, anti-capitalist ideologies, and both in in practice lead to mass killings and economic ruin.
A love of law and order is not exactly the same thing as overbearing totalitarianism. I wouldn't be surprised if America had a higher prison population than Nazi Germany.
Yes, Germany had no place for people not working towards the betterment of society. But that does not say anything about how much freedom was available to the non-criminal Volk.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
false, nazis were corporate fascists. hilarious the people that only believed what came out of Hitler's mouth compared to what he and the Nazis actually did. No, they were not socialists, if you believe their label you're as dumb as a typical american consumer.
This, if you believe that the Nazis were socialist because that is part of a translation of their name, then Kim Jong Un must be the elected leader of the Democratic Republic of (North) Korea.
Fascism itself has no enforced fiscal ideology like Communism, but most end up being capitalist because it fits in best with the other parts of Fascist ideology. I'm pretty sure that Hitler never expunged what we'd consider to be Socialist views.
Nazi Germany were definitely a corporate state, many industrialists like Porsche, Henschel and the Krupps were high ranking Nazi officials (Alfred Krupp joined the SS in 1931) and in many cases, decided policy. Hitler was happy to oblige as he desperately wanted to be considered one of them (but never really was, he was tolerated, but not treated as an equal).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Socialists are "elitists and favor their own" as well, they simply favor a different group: socialists favor "the working class" and fascists favor "the nation". That's not a post hoc analysis, that is how historically fascism was justified.
In practice, of course, both fascism and socialism lead to the same form of governance: an unaccountable, corrupt, murderous elite that wrecks the economy and stays in power through violent oppression; usually, minorities and homosexuals are oppressed or killed, after having been initially wooed when the parties wanted to come to power.
You also seem to forget that most of the racist southern Democrats switched parties after the Civil Rights movement.
You seem to think that sticking the term "corporate" something means that it is right wing;
It is, the left wing equivalent is co-oprative, not corporate.
What the Nazis actually did is what leftists in general do: they tightly regulated businesses, highly taxed unearned income, controlled prices and wages, engaged in massive redistribution, massively expanded government welfare systems,
In other words, you dont know anything about what the Nazi's did.
The Nazis tied themselves to indrustrial titans like Porsche, Krupp and Henschel, they were high ranking party members who wrote polities in favour of themselves. Alfred Krupp was an SS member from 1931... Why would one of Germany's most wealthy industrialists join a socialist party?
The Nazi's didn't regulate business, they removed regulation. The Nazis wanted to regulate people's thoughts to ensure they were pure (which is why Orwell's diatribe on Nazi Fascism, Nineteet Eighty-Four had thought crime as a primary theme). Businesses could do as they please, up to and including using slave labour from the concentration camps.
Tax rates, Nazi's lowered corporate tax rates several times. That was key to the "Reinhardt Program" in 1933. Taxes were increased for all, but mostly for individuals in 1936 to pay for increased military spending, during the war, no major country had low tax rates.
As for redistribution and social programs, again never happened. The closest thing the Nazi's had to a social program was Action T4, the systematic forced euthanasia of anyone who might be a burden to the state, the sick, the elderly, the infirm, the mentally ill and handicapped.
The Nazis did eliminate foreign investment, but that is a very right wing philosophy and it fits in with their xenophobic tendencies.
You don't have a clue what the Nazi's did. You just listed a bunch of thing you didn't like and tried to call them Nazi. The way the Nazi's ran their economy makes the Republicans look like communists in comparison.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
"Capitalism is a woman who wants to trade sex for money and uses it to empower herself. No government is needed. Everything done to curtail capitalism is based on some "moral" outrage of some sort or another"
That capitalist hooker is only empowering herself until other women start doing the same and then she's only to happy to pay government thugs to secure her corner & declare the stuff she doesn't want to do as "morally outrageous" and as she gets older, she tries to control or destroy younger & more attractive women from taking away her customers.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Oh, come on, that's not exclusive to "liberals".
The rightwingnut snowflakes are all a-Twitter about Samantha Bee referring to Ivanka Trump as a feckless cunt but were perfectly at ease with Ted Nugent calling Hillary Clinton a toxic cunt back in the day.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
"they also do not agree with persecution or scapegoating of people who disagree with them, or the burning of books and censoring of facts deemed heretical (hate facts"
Which right wing conservatives are these? You'll find plenty of counterexamples including many in elected office.
And tell us who are the ones looking to promote creationism and remove evolution from science textbooks. Or telling government scientists they can't discuss climate change
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
People can be against fascism and still be assholes.
It's disturbing how, when there are protests between wannabe Nazis and basically anyone else, some people leap to condemn the "anyone else". Whatever ever happened to not being huge fans of the Nazis?
The "Nazis" aren't a threat. Your "anyone else actually is.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I don't dispute that they are "usually considered" that.
How about an analysis from a former Marxist and accomplished economist?
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.
It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.
If the Southern Strategy magically caused Democrats and Republicans to trade places, then former KKK member Senator Byrd should have gone over to the Republicans, shouldn't he?
True, I grew up poor in Europe, where we couldn't even afford trailers. I'm sure from your privileged American upbringing, I must be deplorable.
However, as a gay, atheist foreigner, I assure you, the KKK hates my guts.
He wants to round up ethnic minorities and get rid of them. That's what you think he said, eh?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You mean through dismantling of civil liberties, economic control, secret police, military force, labor camps, and mass murder? Seems to me they were implemented in the same way in fascist Germany, fascist Italy, the USSR, China, and most other socialist countries. If one were honest...
I stated a simple historical fact: the Democrats were literally the party of the KKK. You may argue that they have "repudiated" that, but the historical fact remains.
the southern strat, when you actually look at the facts is a myth though....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Oh, that's easy: fascism is a political ideology formulated by Giovanni Gentile and implemented in the 1930's by Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany. All three of these people have left extensive writings on what fascism is and how they implemented it. So you can find out exactly what it means.
From your link: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." Indeed, it usually is placed there. We are talking about whether it ought to be placed there.
Go down a little further in the article, and you get to the meat:
See how close they are?
you stole my sig!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
"Myth" admitted to by both Nixon and Atwater. Lie more, crossburner. You'll be fact checked every time.
it means a collaboration, a merger, between corporations and fascists.
Fuck off and die bigot. I hope it happens slow and painfully by another bigot such as yourself. I look forward to civil war with assholes like you. You don't deserve to live.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Why do wealthy industrialists in the US support the Democrats and even self-proclaimed socialists? Why did Patty Hearst join the
Symbionese Liberation Army? For the same reasons: the sex is good, or they actually believe in the ideology and don't mind sacrificing personal wealth, or they want to increase their power by joining the government, or they don't have a choice (after 1933, German industrialists didn't have a choice).
I know exactly what the Nazis did; my parents barely survived the Nazi regime.
We were comparing political ideologies and stated objectives of fascism and socialism. It's patently obvious that neither fascism nor socialism actually are capable of delivering on their promises.
If you want to compare what fascists and socialists actually do in practice, you'll find that they behave the same way too: economic ruin, control of the media and educational systems, mass starvation, death camps, the creation of an extremely wealthy ruling elite, and the oppression of everybody else.
That is, not only is fascist ideology closely related to socialist ideology, fascist regimes operate pretty much the same way socialist regimes do.
Right, because what bad things have Nazis ever done?</sarcasm>
Normally, I wouldn't think I need a sarcasm tag, but given the nature of some of the discussion here, it seems that I might need to establish that "Nazis weren't on the right side of history." And the cognitive dissonance among Trump supporters must be bonkers. You have propaganda that acknowledges that Nazis were bad and scary, but trying to make it sound like they were liberal and had the same ideology as modern Democrats, and then other propaganda saying that Nazis are totally nice people who aren't dangerous at all. Either one of those viewpoints is completely insane all by itself, but trying to hold both in your mind at the same time... I don't know how you do it.
Yup. Get rid of Mexicans. They're rapists, according to Trump. That was the basis of his first campaign speech. Mexican Americans born in this country also shouldn't be allowed to be judges, according to Trump.
Also, he supports racial profiling and "stop and frisk" on the basis that black people are likely to be criminals anyway. He has said he supports deporting Muslims, perhaps even if they're citizens.
When asked whether waterboarding was torture, he said it was, but he supported torture, and wants us to do worse than waterboarding. When asked about minimizing civilian casualties when attacking terrorist groups, he went the other way and said he thought we should wipe out the entire families of suspected terrorists.
The guy is a monster. A stupid, pathetic, cowardly, ineffective monster, but a monster no less.
Yup. Get rid of Mexicans. They're rapists, according to Trump. That was the basis of his first campaign speech
The only way you could think that is if you misunderstood what he said. Political derangement syndrome.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
ANTIFA is basically a neo-Nazi organization with different goals. Same evil tactics, same corrupt ideology. No support for Nazis - or those who are just as bad and use the same tactics.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Ahh yes, you point to the problem with our current system in the US. Established interests use the government to entrench their position. Regulations become barriers to entry. They force small companies to go through the larger ones to access the market. Or like copyright law, they seek to steal from the public domain, impoverishing the whole country so one company can make more money. Competition is stillborn or aborted at conception due to onerous startup costs.
This is not capitalism. It is, in my opinion, the conglomeration of extant corporations into the government machinery, much akin to fascism. It's a "pay to win" scheme, where each side pays each other and is compensated in the legally proscribed manner. Companies pay for candidates election, permanent re-election, appointment, lobbying, etc. The government, in turn, pays for and enacts corporate favorable regulations, gives the companies a seat at the table for discussion of new laws and regulations, and provides financial remuneration like tax cuts, lucrative government contracts, and even favorable trade laws.
Both sides are spending money the people give them, either through patronage or taxation, to dominate, control, and fleece the people. We are, quite simply, paying for our own impoverishment and disenfranchisement.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
White nationalists (which is what the people being called nazis are) are more dangerous to Americans than all muslim extremists combined.
Totalitarianism exists across the political left-right axis. You're begging the question by defining it as solely a left-wing phenomenon, when the reality is there are oppressive right wing regimes (Nazi Germany is the archetypical example despite your idiot protestations otherwise) and oppressive left wing regimes (the USSR would be the archetype).
OK, which ones? IBM? Coca Cola? Volkswagen?
Give a specific example of a corporation in Nazi Germany that had control over over the populous, that shared power with Hitler.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
how about you lift your finger and read one or more of the entire books written on the subject?
a little light reading to get you on your way:
https://coreyrobin.files.wordp...
Sure, the KKK was founded by conservative southern white democrats. But those conservative southern whites aren't Democrats anymore, and haven't been for decades.
cf his presidential run announcement in Philadelphia Mississippi.
This is quite a peculiar argument
Unless you'd like to be more specific, I'm going to have to assume you're referring to the several posts in this discussion. That the Nazis aren't 'left' is not odd. That the Nazis are considered far-right is not unusual. Calling it 'pecualiar' with a hand wave is cheap and lazy. I'm disappointed.
Now substitute the right with Muslim and Nazis with so-called "islamists".
Rather than instructing me on what to do, how about you make the substitution and go on to make the point or argument? You seem to have a confusion of ideas that I'd rather you elaborated before I engaged.
I'm pretty sure that Hitler never expunged what we'd consider to be Socialist views.
Socialists absolutely were "expunged" by the nazis. They were #2 on the list to be liquidated, after Jews.
I suppose you were probably trying to type "espoused", though.
Except for that whole socialized medicine thing.
That was von Bismarck, not Hitler.
I LOL'd.
I think this too etymologically high brow for the black bloc, unfortunately.
Those were German Nazis in the 1940s. These are American Nazis of the 2010s. The venn diagram of those two groups is essentially empty. You can't punch one for the actions of another without being a hypocrite.
To be fair, we have way more white people. There are plenty of peaceful white nationalists (the vast majority).
I don't think it's quite fair to say corporatism is leftist. It can come from either side. From the left it's a partnership in control, from the right it's a competitor to control.
I'm glad we agree on that.
Well, let's see, I wrote: Seems to me they were implemented in the same way in fascist Germany, fascist Italy, the USSR, China, and most other socialist countries. If one were honest...
So you agree then that "fascist Germany, fascist Italy, the USSR, China" were all "solely a left wing phenomenon"? Glad we settled that!
Politics in Europe post WWI saw a rise in popularity for socialism. In Germany, struggling to recover from the war and burdened with the sanctions imposed on them, socialism was especially popular. There are elements in early 20th century fascism that grew out of these socialist movements, however it became its own beast, taking with it traits from it's leftist roots and adopting traits that are more usually associated with modern right-wing politics.
In Hitler's case, his rise to power through the Nazis saw an even greater shift away from the roots of Nazism and into the fascism we now associate with the Nazis - itself a distortion of the Italian fascism that it originally emulated. That Hitler continued to pay lip service to socialism is no different to modern politicians in authoritarian states paying lip service to democracy.
It's no contradiction, then, to acknowledge that the beginnings of Nazism had socialist elements, or to report that commentators of the period considered them such. Nor do most people with a decent understanding of the period deny it. Trying to use this as a denial of the elements that Nazism adopted that are traditionally associated with the modern political right is either ignorant or lazy.
Fascism itself has different definitions and different influences depending on period and location. The adoption of the Roman 'fasces' and the concept of strength through unity can be expressed as leftist when that unity is class based, or politically right when it's nationalist or racist.
TL DR; Nazis have elements from both the left and right. Claiming that people of the 20s identified them as left is not disputed because we usually don't talk about Nazism from the 20s, but rather it's 'evolved form' from the late 30s and 40s, which was its own thing, different even from Mussolinis fascism and different from its own roots.
I've disagreed with you, elsewhere, so while this is something of a 'me too', I'd like to balance my contention with agreement.
As you say, socialism divides us/other based on class; fascism usually on nationalism/race. As you correctly identify, in extremum, both are authoritarian with very similar expressions.
The far-right and far-left end up looking very similar.
They are close only because you are using non left/right elements for classification.
Both are totalitarian/authoritarian. Their similarity lies on a different (often orthoganl) axis.
Bold it all you like, extremism ends poorly whether it espouses socialism, fascism, corporatism or your other bogeyman de jour. Claiming only one side of the left/right axis is capable of extremism is nonsense.
I didn't. I pointed out that corporatism is an aspect of left wing ideologies, not that it is exclusive to it.
(1) The economic model of socialism is state ownership of corporations, run for the purpose of a fair distribution of wealth.
(2) The economic model of fascism is strong regulation of privately owned corporations, regulated for the purpose of a fair distribution of wealth.
The reason this is so endlessly confusing to many people is because parties like Democrats and European social democrats advocate some form of (2) while identifying as leftists or "democratic socialists". That's why it makes more sense to view both socialism and fascism as variants of political leftism.
The other common objection to (1) and (2) is that people say that fascist governments benefit industrialists (which is true), and hence cannot be socialist. But that is comparing outcome to ideology. Both fascism and socialism create plutocracy in practice, yet both fascism and socialism claim to want to achieve economic fairness.
The economic model of the American right is private property and free markets with no political consideration given to fairness. That clearly is diametrically opposed to both socialism and fascism.
I gave the differences: socialism defines history as a class struggle, fascism defines it as a struggle between nations. Furthermore, socialism adopts public ownership of the means of production, while fascism nominally retains private ownership and merely asserts public control of the means of production.
Now, the traditional left-right distinction was between either revolutionaries and monarchist, or people who want rapid change vs people who want slow change.
Can you explain why fascism ought to be on the side of monarchists and people who want slow change, instead of the side of revolutionaries and people who want rapid change?
"Antifa" got its name because the fascists running it couldn't stop laughing for long enough to type out the whole phrase "anti-fascist".
Related; virtually every political movement that includes the word "anti-" in their names is actually "pro-" whatever it is, and is trying to maintain the masquerade that that's not REALLY what they're trying to accomplish. Simple deflection strategy.
" to the point of including false claims about treaties negotiated by the prior government"
President Obama didn't even ATTEMPT to have any of his "informal administrative agreements" ratified as "treaties", because the U.S. Senate, which must ratify all treaties, would never have approved them. So the climate "agreement" was never a treaty binding on the United States; it was Barack Obama's PERSONAL promise. Ditto the Iran deal, which was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.
I think there is a large common core, defined by Gentile, Mussolini, Hitler, and their parties in their massive writings. That defines what fascist ideology is.
And that's an important point to be made, since the "extreme left/extreme right" language wrongly suggests that the two ideologies are diametrically opposed, and that's what most people tend to believe. So, if we want to learn from history, we need to dissect which parts socialism and fascism have in common and where they differ. The primary differences are (1) class struggle vs national struggle, and (2) public ownership of the means of production vs public control of the means of production. I see little other difference between the two, but if you know of any, please state them.
Now (1) is what made fascism more palatable to Europeans than socialism. And (2) is actually not that big of a difference in reality: socialist party functionaries act like wealthy industrialists in fascist societies. What's confusing about the left/right terminology is that Democrats and progressives identify as "left" but actually generally advocate public control of the means of production instead of outright public ownership.
While this might have been a bit of wikipedia vandalism, until recently apparently one of the front runners for a senate seat on California's Republican ticket was Patrick Little, a self proclaimed Neo-Nazi.
cross burner? yawn. ad hom attacks. but if you want facts - https://www.nytimes.com/2006/1...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I think there is a large common core, defined by Gentile, Mussolini, Hitler, and their parties in their massive writings. That defines what fascist ideology is.
It defines what it was, for those people, at that time. What it became and how it is interpreted historically also adds to that.
the "extreme left/extreme right" language wrongly suggests that the two ideologies are diametrically opposed,
They are. On one axis. On the authoritarian/anarchic axis, they are quite close. There's no confusion unless you continue to try to use only a left/right distinction and then go on to claim that they are the same.
On (1)
Your assessment of the palatability of fascism is superficial. In Italy, support for the fascists from landowners and capitalists was out of a concern for the growing labour movements and socialist organisations. Fearing revolution, they supported those who opposed such movements - the Fascists. That didn't necessarily make them palatable, nor anything more than allies against a common enemy. This split the fascist movement into various groups that included some that were left-fascist, some right-fascist and some that had elements of both. Fascism, even in its infancy was neither purely left, purely right or even singularly defined. Mussolini wrote that it was right, could be as easily considered centrist and that it didn't really matter. That's three different positions from the one author.
Trying to simplify all of that into a singular definition is only useful if you want to make some fairly broad statements and falls apart in detail.
On (2)
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, you seem to define a left right split as a public ownership / control of production and then claim they are similar. They are. Both are left. Public control with private ownership is mild-to-moderate left (or centrist). Public ownership is harder left. Private ownership and control is right.
With respect to the US political identities;
The confusion resolves itself when you observe that the US spectrum is shifted right of center with respect to most 20th century definitions of same. That the Democrats are left of US center doesn't make them 'left' in a broader sense. They have elements that are more left than the Republicans, but both parties have elements that are defined as 'right' elsewhere. Again, I'm not sure of the distinction you are trying to make with the public control/ownership. Both are traditionally left. Democrats advocating control vs ownership is moderate left rather than harder left.
If enough people 'help with this translation', they can change the meaning of a word in a language to whatever they want. I remember a word that I saw on Renren frequently, Every time I translated it, it would translate as 'kazakhstan'. That made me suspicious that some group had changed the meaning as a joke. It would be easy to do for any other word, too.
Closely related ideologies often hate each other fiercely, for the simple reason that they are competing for the same pool of followers
You think the Liberal Party in the UK in 1910 was close to fascism????
stop paying your taxes, see who owns you.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Now, the traditional left-right distinction was between either revolutionaries and monarchist
In the oiriginal, French, definition, yes. But even then it quickly became a worker vs merchant class split that is closer to the meaning, today.
people who want rapid change vs people who want slow change
This touches on a progressive/conservative split that often aligns left/right but not always. Now that Eurpoe has had a period of mostly moderate left governments, those who support the status-quo and who are, technically, politically conservative are also politically left. Those who advocate a change to a more right-wing polity are described as reactionary.
Fascism, in as much as it concerns itself with race and nation, shares elements with the modern right and more closely with the far right. In that Fascism has an element of an idealisation of national identity and national history, they claim they want a return to this idealised state. Whether that involves rapid change or slow change is moot and not really relevant. They wanted change. That makes them reactionary/progressive in terms of change, but conservative in terms of the ideals they wanted to change to.
I'm really not sure where you're going with all this. There are elements of Fascism that are classically left, classically right and far right. There are different strains and versions of Fascism at different points in history and finding the common ground ends up with some fairly broad definitions to cover them all
You are saying that fascism in practice was different from what fascism promised. The same is true for socialism. In fact, if we go by outcomes, fascism and socialism seem pretty much indistinguishable.
I never claimed that "socialism and fascism are the same". I said that they are both "leftist ideologies". There are many left wing ideologies (socialism, communism, progressivism, social democracy, etc.), just like there are many right wing ideologies (libertarianism, conservatism, theocracy, monarchy, etc.). Within that spectrum, I think fascism belongs on the left, not on the right.
So you agree with me then: socialism and fascism differ in the groups defined a struggling. Pointing out that that made fascism attractive to the bourgeoisie is an aside. We see the same mechanisms today where moderate left wing policies are also attractive to the bourgeoisie and the wealthy in the US.
Well, then you agree with me as well on that point.
Since fascism both advocated and implemented public control with private ownership, it should therefore be "mild-to-moderate left" in your own words.
That's a common trope. It used to be true when the Democratic party was (briefly) fairly liberal on both social and economic issues. Over the last decade, the Democratic party has become a party similar to the Greens in Europe. Republicans are generally far more politically liberal than European Christian Democrats in their policies (though not necessarily their personal views).
I think this definition is a pretty good one:
Do you agree?
It seems to me that under that definition, socialism and fascism as ideologies are both clearly left wing ideologies (whatever differences you may see between them). Do you have a rational argument why fascism shouldn't be classified as left wing under that definition?
Damn right it will.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
The reason this is so endlessly confusing to many people is because parties like Democrats and European social democrats advocate some form of (2) while identifying as leftists or "democratic socialists". That's why it makes more sense to view both socialism and fascism as variants of political leftism.
No, the reason it's confusing is that you keep mixing left/right and authoritarian/anarchic.
Strong government regulation - either by direct ownership (left) or private ownership (right) is authoritarian.
That European left leaning governments 'allow' private ownership makes them moderate, not confused. That they regulate this to some extent makes them moderate or centrist. Not confused. That they have other policies in other areas makes them 'left' and not moderate/centrist as they would appear if we just look at property ownership. Also not confused.
That the US has strong private ownership makes them right. Not confused. That they have much less regulation makes them less authoritarian. Not confused.
Less regulation and private ownership (US) is diametrically opposed to strong regulation and state ownership (socialism). Strong regulation and private ownership (fascist) is similar to the US in that both have private ownership, and similar to socialism in that both have strong regulation.
I said what I meant: the liberal party in the UK was a progressive party, just like the Democratic party was in the US. Progressives in both the US and Europe were the primary proponents of eugenics and forced sterilizations. Eugenics and forced sterilizations were viewed as the rational application of science by the state for the purpose of achieving social progress, the core progressive credo. Keynes was certainly a Liberal Party representative; how about Galton?
And while I don't know enough about UK political figures at the time, American progressives generally viewed Mussolini and Italian fascism favorably. Furthermore, the race policies advocated and implemented by American progressives were used directly as the basis for Nazi Germany's race laws. Whether that means that the UK Liberal Party was "close to fascism" is something you have to decide for yourself. They were certainly progressives.
When I found out about the history of progressivism and verified it with original sources, however, I became so utterly disgusted with the progressive movement and the associated political parties that I became an independent and a classical liberal.
...and for the 50 years since the Civil Rights Act, you'll find that the GOP has made themselves the home of proud racists of all stripes and the Dixiecrats left the democrats to join the GOP. It's why the Southern Strategy has been central the any GOP presidential ambition.
It's like you're watching the American Revolution and saying "Wait a second, Benedict Arnold was on our side". Times, people and parties change.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
"States rights" generally means the right to treat Black people like shit. All other times you hear it used it generally isn't the basis of a deep abiding principle that any Republican claims it to mean. They will always be consistent on the being shitty to dark people, but on all other issues it's "If we want it, we'll push for it on a national level. If we can't have that, we'll push for it on a state level and pretend the government cannot prevent states from having that due to a temporary interpretation of the constitution."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I think this definition [wikipedia.org] is a pretty good one:
Excellent. The links for ref 23 and 24 that discuss fascism all describe it as right wing, for eg.
" After World War I, fascism supplanted monarchism as the principle ideology of the extreme Right." - Thomas M. Magstadt, Understanding Politics: Ideas, Institutions, and Issues, 12th ed.
There's another four references that all say similar things.
By the definition you claim to use, fascism is right wing.
We're done.
if you think that the Democrats are any better, you need to go get a spectrum analyzer on the coolaid your drinking. I see two parties doing their best to create a Serf class. The GOP wants to stagnate wages in order to keep the costs down for corporations, and in turn attempt to keep cost of living down to prevent riots. The Democrats need their party members to actually go vote. For whatever reason they have a higher ratio of sit-on-their-asses-and-not-do-shit members than other parties. If they actually did something about minorities and gave them an equal chance, they would not be pissed off voters. Keeping the minorities pissed off, and carefully deflecting the blame away from the democrats, is a significant method of guaranteeing voter turnout. People who are happy with life seldom vote. This is the reason the partisanship has been steadily ramping up since the mid 90s. Back in the 80s and early 90s voter turnout was in the teens. Meanwhile as long as the constituents are all equally pissed off and at each others throats, nobody notices both parties robbing the coffers and padding their bank accounts.
This is why I became a libertarian over a decade ago. I quickly realized that both main-stream parties were in it for themselves and their sick obsession with power. Anyone truly serving the country would step the fuck down when they got diagnosed with brain tumors, or was taking some very expensive Alzheimer medication and still spacing out and slurring their speech, or goes around wearing some sort of support structure that one hides underneath a winter scarf and a heavy wool coat in the middle of may in 90F weather to make people think they are in perfect health. A true patriot would step aside for whats best for the country and not be so filled with such ego that nobody, not one other person out of the 150Million in this country, could possibly do as good if not better job.
Maybe not, but if you're willing to stand next to Nazis in a rally, maybe you need to re-evaluate your life choices.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
You're saying that the left/right distinction is primarily one of public ownership vs private ownership? Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Both the American left (including Sanders) and democratic socialists in Europe support widespread public ownership, both for individuals and businesses. That distinction is also not historically correct and it doesn't conform to mainstream definitions.
A definition that I think captures the left-right distinction well is: The Left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends property rights and free markets. Another quite different definition would be The left seeks social change, the right seeks to preserve the status quo. Fascism and socialism both end up on the left according to either definition.
If you want to turn that into a political argument, you'll have to define what you mean by "strong/weak regulation and strong/weak ownership". They don't correspond to any phenomena that I have observed in either Europe or the US.
[Fascists / Marxists] believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for [armed conflict / class struggle] and to respond effectively to economic difficulties
See how close they are?
You shocked me for a second there, when I thought you were actually quoting. But I guess you've proven me wrong - it's Marxism, not Fascism, which you know nothing about.
Also, where did you get the idea that we were talking about where fascism ought to be placed on the left/right spectrum? We weren't talking about that, no one has said anything like that other than you. This is coming completely out of the blue. It kind of sounds like you're trying to backpedal by just making things up.
No, merely according to the references you found on the same page as my definition. The definition is clear:
Fascism seeks social justice; it is one of its primary objectives.
Fascism strongly limits private property.
Fascism is strongly opposed to capitalism.
So, on what basis is fascism on the right according to that definition?
As in any quotes, portions that have been modified are in square brackets, so you shouldn't have been shocked. If this shocks you, you need to read more.
I was pointing out that the sentence works equally well for both, since every thing that sentence states for fascism is equally true for Marxism.
Oh, and I know quite a bit about Marxism, having spend part of my youth under its "tender mercies". What is your experience with Marxism?
Yeah, they look peaceful.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Communism is explicitly anti-authoritarian, the ideal of communism is a classless, stateless, egalitarian society. This runs into a couple of problems though: one is noncompliance, how do you enforce the law without a state? Another problem is a power vacuum, what's to stop some warlord or demagogue from claiming power if there's no state to oppose him?
So... my guess is that some people like the parent get the idea that communism is actually authoritarian (even though it's just shy of anarchy) for another couple of reasons: first, because the idea of property rights is so ingrained in our culture at this point that people think of the concept of property as inherent, rather than something created and enforced by the state. And so a state which does not recognize private property seems like it's violating a fundamental right, and this can come off as authoritarian. And the second reason is because countries which pursue a communist system frequently end up ruled by authoritarian dictators.
Commenting so I can undo the accidental positive moderation I gave your uninformed comment.
I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
We're not talking about some theory about a one-time event, such as 9-11, nor any secret. You can very, very easily check any of Christian literature over a period of a thousand years, or any history of the court of any European monarch.
To claim that a thousand years of open public policy never happened is as ridiculous as claiming the United States never existed. It's not like it's a secret - just open any book of European not Christian history written above the 4th grade level.
I had a typo at the end. That should be European OR Christian history. Pretty much every European monarch had a Jew at court to handle the banking, and other related financial matters.
Ah, well that explains why you might equate the two then. Most countries which try communism have wound up like Germany above - retaining the language of communism, while running a government which is very different. I will assume that's the case for you.
This is why it's been argued that the left-right scale should really be more of a circle: even though the extreme right (fascism) and the extreme left (anarchy) are very different in terms of ideals and how those ideals are pursued, they seem to result in the same thing (slavery, totalitarianism, or something similar) whenever people try to actually implement them. In other words: it's extremism that's the problem, rather than the left or the right, per se.
Trump specifically referred to the Nazi march. When a Nazi killed someone. And said "there are good people on both sides". He couldn't bring himself to just saying something like "Nazis bad".
Check my post history, dipshit. Not American, just sick of the internet being politicised by morons.
Sorry, but what kind of bullshit are you spouting?
Are you seriously quibbling over the intersection between German Nazis and American NeoNazis? I don't doubt that there's little overlap in personnel, but that doesn't excuse either group.
Ok, first, I don't know that I care what Marc Thiessen says in an editorial. Second, I have no love for Antifa.
In any case, that does not excuse NeoNazis. Not in the least. Stop trying to excuse Nazis with the idea that some other group is also bad. I don't care. I'll accept that other groups are bad. The NeoNazis should still be condemned. Stop trying to shift blame to excuse NeoNazis.
Extremism is a symptom, not a cause. The root of the problem is that social justice is impossible to achieve by any means. Ideologies promising to deliver social justice through the state often start out near the center and then become more and more extremist as they find it impossible to deliver on their promises. The problem is usually accelerated by the fact that, in addition to not being able to deliver the promised social justice, as the state expands, it becomes more and more corrupt and the economy falters as individuals are less and less incentivized to work. Left unchecked, a totalitarian, poverty-stricken, mass murdering state is the inevitable outcome, each and every time.
Well, people have certainly argued that, but that's only because attempts by the left to distance themselves as far as possible from fascists have made a farce of the left-right scale. Historically, the left-right distinction was simply one between revolutionaries vs reactionaries, and later between people who wanted social change and progress vs people who wanted to protect private property and free markets. With either historical definition of left-right, fascism clearly ends up close to socialism, since, whatever their other differences may be, both are revolutionary and anti-capitalist ideologies.
You can play the "I know the real reason!" game all day. For some reason you've chosen to go only one layer deeper than extremism, but why is social justice impossible to achieve? And what causes that? And the next thing? Extremism is a good place to stop, because extremism is actionable - you can fight against extremism internally, recognizing that positions and opinions other than your own do have merit, and fight against it externally, calling out extremists when they try to sway others to their cause.
Speaking of which, your continued denunciation of "the left" is part of the problem.
The left-right scale is about power and where it resides - at the top or at the bottom. It's not about progressive vs. conservative, it's not about revolutionaries vs reactionaries (which is basically just another way of saying progressive vs conservative). It's about who you fear more: the tyrant at the top, or the mob at the bottom. Fascism, at the extreme right, puts the power solely in the hands of the tyrant (not necessarily a single person). Anarchism, at the extreme left, puts the power solely in the hands of the mob.
Those other things that you talk about often correlate with power - the tyrant is more likely to protect property rights, for example (this is the classic reason why the aristocracy supported the monarchy, and also why they were aristocrats in the first place), while the mob is more likely to start a revolution - but those other things you're talking about do not describe governmental bodies. Monarchy is to the right of democracy, but is a monarchy more or less reactionary than a democracy? There's no answer to that, those words don't go together.
Also, fascism is not anti-capitalistic. I don't know where you got the idea that it was... Mussolini did denounce "supercapitalism" at one point, but this was mostly about seizing more power. Economically, fascism functioned as a public-private partnership.
Death panels?
The Liberal party was using a form of modern liberalism at the time, which would be considered centre right, much like the 1930s Democrat mainstream of the1930s. Not very fascist. Mussolini mostly got support in the UK from the harder right, although not exclusively along left-right lines. The same is true of eugenics, which had strong, and early support on the right (,e.g. Kitchener). You still seem eager to ascribe labels or behaviour to those you oppose politically that do not match reality or history. Burleighs book is one I like and would help you understand more and get over your new convert zealotry. I suspect you are originally from an Eastern block nation.
Except that calling Republicans Nazis has been en vogue for liberals since at least as far back as the 70s.
But you could skip the ad hominim and go to the sources cited, which include academics stretching back to the 20s or 30s. Fascism as anything but a progressive idea is demonstrably a post-WWII revisionism. It's part of historical myth-making. Like how we all use the name Troy, even though it was called Illios.
Look how capitalism solved all of Russia's corruption and violence problems.
Marxists in Russia killed millions decades ago. Should we punch Marxist demonstrators in the U.S. today? Unless these so-called Nazis are actually engaging in violence, you are punishing one for the actions of another. Nazis are not typically violent today. White supremecists are not typically Nazis. White nationalists are not typically white supremacists. Right-wing demonstrators are not typically white nationalists. Claiming to fight bigotry by punishing one person for another's actions is hypocritical.
Capitalism works best (as in, markets work most efficiently in solving the basic economic problem) when market failures (monopolies, asymmetrical information, negative externalities, etc.) are corrected. This requires government.
Uh, no.
Tell it to the people at "Consumer Reports". They've been reducing some kinds of information asymmetry for decades. Didn't require government.
Where do those governments come from? Most places, voting. And there's considerable information asymmetry involved when people make decisions in the voting booth. Fortunately, (?) given the government-created shortage of choices there, a lack of accurate information about them doesn't make much difference. Especially when there is only one name on the ballot, as is typical in stage legislature elections, and even happens occasionally in congressional races.
Government creates more monopolies than it prevents.
Negative externalities exist in government enterprises, as we learned after Soviet Union fell and started looking around. And U.S. military bases -- foreign and domestic -- have a tendency to resemble Superfund sites.
The more I learn about history and faraway places and the history of faraway places, the more I realize that "This requires government" isn't nearly as applicable as I've been told it is.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Russia isn't capitalist
It would likely take Russia several generations to transition to capitalism if they tried, because it takes decades to create the institutions, networks of trust, and markets necessary for capitalism to work. It only takes a couple of years to destroy them.
I didn't say it was "fascist", you did that. What I claimed was that the liberal party was "progressive".
Progressivism is a deplorable and destructive political movement, but for all its faults, it is distinct from fascism, and nowhere have I claimed otherwise.
You seem eager to put words in people's mouths and then accuse them of "ascribing labels or behaviour that do not match reality or history".
What is deplorable about progressivism? Would you rather regression? Or what is good progress to you? Or is no progress good?
Social justice is impossible to achieve because inequality is an essential part of human nature: people differ greatly from each other in abilities and culture, hence they are going to have vastly different outcomes. Furthermore, (neo-)Marxists not only fail to recognize that, they make the mistake of ascribing the existing inequality in society to power structures.
I said Historically, the left-right distinction..., which is a fact you can look up. Your view, that it is about power, is the view of neo-Marxism and critical theory; that's not a mainstream view, and more importantly, it's not a tenable view because the (neo-)Marxist analysis in terms of power is not internally consistent or consistent with reality.
From the writings of fascists. You can read up on it, but here is a pretty clear statement from one of the founders of fascim: "We are enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one!"
Fascists were explicitly tolerant of small businesses and individual property, but socialists have been as well, so this is not a significant distinction.
So when fascists state an economic viewpoint that gains them public support it is "mostly about seizing more power", but when (neo-)Marxists do it, it is somehow genuine? What's the difference? I mean, after getting into power while denouncing capitalism, both fascists and (neo-)Marxists go on to create totalitarian states and state monopolies.
Its history (eugenics, segregation, scientific racism, among others), as well as its ideology (redistributive policies, government indoctrination and propaganda, etc.).
Progressivism is about progress in the same way that socialism is about being social, modern liberalism is about liberty, or communism is about community: an empty promise. All these ideologies pick a desirable goal, apply that goal as a label to their political ideology, and then promise that they will use state power to make that goal happen if only you put their experts in charge.
Or, to put it differently, just because some yahoos create an ideology called "X-ism" doesn't mean that their ideology is henceforth the only way to accomplish "X" and we should support them in perpetuity if we desire "X".
You know, the usual: increasing material wealth for everybody, better education, technological progress, and (most importantly) freedom from coercion and oppression.
What I like to see is the promise and policies of the Enlightenment realized; progressivism (despite its name) returns people to pre-Enlightenment dependence on the state.
They may not have free market capitalism, but crony capitalism is still capitalism.
Right, because what bad things have Nazis ever done?
If you have to put words into someone's mouth then your argument is truly stupid. FWIW, I never said that they aren't bad, I said that they aren't a threat.
For example, getting struck by lightning is bad but it isn't a threat.
Examine your motives for reading "$FOO isn't a threat" as "$FOO isn't bad".
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
So I absolutely hate the quote-and-response thing, but you've said so many things here that need responding. My question about why social justice was impossible to achieve was rhetorical - I was illustrating that you can always find a deeper reason for something if you look for it. The point was that working against extremism is a good approach in combating tyranny. I would challenge your assertion that inequality stems from differences in abilities and culture, but I don't care.
You should also probably stop talking about "things that neo-maxists believe" - neo-marxism is an extremely broad catch-all term. Neo-marxists believe lots of different and conflicting things, this is true for just about any group with the neo- label.
I don't need to look up the historic left-right distinction, I know it very well. It was absolutely about power. You may be thinking of the sans-culottes, who mostly didn't care about power, they just wanted cheap food and stable employment. But though the sans-culottes provided most of the drive behind the left, they themselves were neither left nor right. The term comes from the assembly, and they were all about arguing over where the power should be. If anything, the historic left-right distinction was more about power than it is today, where we no longer have big arguments over whether and how many people should be able to vote, or how much influence the king should have, and instead argue about conservative vs progressive social and economic issues and we use "left" and "right" as very lose indicators of where people fall on those issues. The distinction is poorly suited to this purpose.
Also, I made no claim about what "fascists state." I mentioned one case, by one man, specifically. I will repeat myself, so you don't miss it this time: 'Mussolini did denounce "supercapitalism" at one point, but this was mostly about seizing more power.' Wikipedia points out that fascism doesn't really have a consistent economic policy, so... okay. Italy's policy is usually described as "corporatism" though, and it involved a significant portion of the country's economy run by private enterprise. All in service to the war effort, of course.
I didn't bring "capitalism" into this discussion, you did, for the same reason socialists and their ilk always do: to mislead people. The correct term for "capitalism" is "free market economy", and the correct term for "crony capitalism" is "rent seeking" (if it's legal) or "corruption" (if it's illegal).
Free market economies make people wealthy and free. Rent seeking and corruption make people poor and oppressed. Russia does not have a free market economy, but it does have plenty of rent seeking and corruption.
Conservatives and classical liberals advocate free markets and strongly oppose rent seeking.
No, you merely interpret it as being about power because that is apparently how you view all of politics. And that interpretation is wrong anyway: the left does not consistently represent people without power. In any case, the left-right distinction can be interpreted in many other ways; your interpretation is not definitional.
Mussolini's fundamental ideology was "everything within the state, nothing outside the state"; that is obviously incompatible with "capitalism" (in the sense of free markets), since under capitalism, it is individuals and the market that make decisions about how to allocate resources and who to reward. Mussolini also acted on his beliefs, since he implemented "state capitalism" and achieved massive state ownership of corporations. Ditto for Hitler. Therefore, both fascists and socialists stated that they were anti-capitalist, and they both acted on their political program by dismantling free markets and imposing state control on the economy. They even achieved the same disastrous outcomes.
Why should they? I said fascists and socialists are characterized by both being anti-capitalist, not that they had the same economic systems. There are many ways of being anti-capitalist. For example, socialists and Italian fascists were anti-capitalist by transferring ownership of large corporations to the state, while Nazis were anti-capitalist by directing big corporations how to operate. Both socialists and fascists generally tolerate small businesses and small private enterprises.
Obviously you don't, because you have already made up your mind.
The reason for why social justice isn't going to work is not particularly deep, it's basic economics. It comes down to the fact that people like me tell people like you to go f*ck themselves when you want to take our stuff and redistribute it more fairly.
I don't know what to say there, even if you've got some true-blue hippy who who fits every stereotype about what people think "the left" represents - he can be sitting around a tie-dye shirt, listening to the Grateful Dead and smoking a joint - if he says that strong leadership is what's really important so we need a monarch to protect us, then he's not on the left. The rest of that crap doesn't matter. The left-right scale doesn't cover economics, or environmentalism, or tie-dye shirts. It only covers this one specific thing.
Yes, other people do that stereotyping like you did above. You're not alone there, tribalism has a long tradition: "I associate with one side of the scale, and I equate my side with all that I like, and the other side with all that is objectively evil." This is the same extremism that I was talking about before. I'm not sure that I agree that I need to accept every modern abuse of well-established terms, but even if I did then as you stressed above: we are talking about the historical left-right distinction.
You want to claim that socialism and fascism are both anti-capitalist? Even though fascism has no consistent economic policy? Uh huh. Okay I will drop a few quotes from the article that I linked, since your reading comprehension seems to be lacking:
Hitler and the Nazis held a very strong idealist conception of history, which held that human events are guided by small numbers of exceptional individuals following a higher ideal. They believed that all economic concerns, being purely material, were unworthy of their consideration.
Hitler called his political party "National Socialist", but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism", saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not".
At another point, Hitler said in private that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[97] On yet another occasion, he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[98] In spite of this, he later asserted: "It is my firm conviction that property rights... must be unconditionally respected. Any tampering with them would eliminate one of the most vital incentives to human activity and would jeopardize future endeavor".[99] Hitler clearly believed that the lack of a precise economic programme was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all".
As for Italy: the fascists started out laissez-faire and then became more protectionist. Then the Great Depression happened and Mussolini decided that free trade was to blame, or at least he blamed it on free trade, and the Italian government started taking over failing companies. Then the war happened and everyone had war economies, in which the government controls most things. (This includes the United States / Britain / other non-fascist countries.) Here is the wikipedia article about corporatism.
You would also do better to keep your claims about communism rather than socialism. They still wouldn't be true, but at least communism has a political aspect. Socialism is really just about economics, and economics are not a big part of fascism.
Again, the businesses were nominally private, but the owners themselves were "nationalized".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Funny, up until a few years ago, there was no mention of Nazism being "conservative" or "right-leaning" in the definition. Maye compared to Joe Stalin, sure. But isn't that EVERYONE?
I have numerous dictionary and encyclopedia entries to pull from.
So, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the modern redefinition of nazi has been done with a distinct political bias.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Socialism is the correct term: it refers to many political and economic systems that involve state control of the means of production. It encompasses many related leftist ideologies other than Marxism (and predates Marx). The USSR called itself the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" because it was socialist. Communism refers to a society in which scarcity has been eliminated and both class and the state disappear. The reason parties call themselves "communist" is because that's the ideal they are striving for; the political system within which they want to accomplish that is socialism.
Now, back to the question of whether fascism is anti-capitalist. You quote from Wikipedia:
And how are those beliefs incompatible with being anti-capitalist? Many people (even today) oppose capitalism precisely because they claim that "economic concerns, being purely material, [are] unworthy of their consideration".
So he is saying he is a socialist but not a Marxist, a view shared by many socialists at the time, and many socialists today.
Yes, we already agreed that fascists encouraged limited private property but imposed government control over it. It's even in the NSDAP party program. Fascism and socialism have different ideologies and different economic systems but are both anti-capitalist.
Yes, that is what I want to claim. By analogy, people who are anti-Christian have no consistent religion. People who are anti-Windows have no consistent operating system (many of them even use Windows). People who are anti-sugar have no consistent sweetener. And nations that are anti-capitalist have no consistent economic policy between them. On top of that, many individuals who are politically anti-capitalist have obtained their money and power through capitalism.
You have said a lot about how you view politics, even if you don't realize it.
Nope. Clinton was popular within important groups in the Dem party, but hated outside of them. Similar to Trump and GOP. That's why they both polled so negatively.
Your reasoning, though, is very much in line with out-of-touch beltway politics. Clinton is more "moderate," so she should appeal more to the voters that are on the right. The problem is that she compromises for the elites on the right, not the masses. Same with most corporatist Dems, not grasping that in order to be popular outside of donors, they need to adopt populist policies, not just pick half of each party's platform and pretend everyone is going to like it.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Ok, so what's your argument? That NeoNazis and the KKK are so rare as to be virtually non-existant?
You know what? It doesn't matter, because you're just trying to change the subject, because you can't win a straight argument. Antifa is a tiny fringe extremist group that is built behind a good idea: fascism is bad. On the other side, you have a much larger extremist group built around a bad idea: white supremacy and fascism are good.
I don't think we're forced to take sides. We can be opposed to both (I am opposed to both). But it's noteworthy that not only are you picking sides, but you're taking the side of the wannabe Nazis. Hide behind whatever rhetoric you want, but I see you.
Well maybe democrats will choose a candidate with populist policies so your theory can be tested.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Ok, so what's your argument? That NeoNazis and the KKK are so rare as to be virtually non-existant?
No, that they are such a fringe group with so little support that they aren't a threat. The last count of active members in these groups were a few thousand in the US.
You know what? It doesn't matter, because you're just trying to change the subject, because you can't win a straight argument
I never made the argument that you are railing against so there's nothing to win. I also see that you are unwilling to consciously examine your reason for reading "$FOO is not a threat" as "$FOO is not bad". If you aren't able to overcome your own self-delusions about what other people are saying, why should anyone examine what you say?
But it's noteworthy that not only are you picking sides, but you're taking the side of the wannabe Nazis.
You should refrain from calling black atheists "Nazis". It just weakens your argument that there are Nazis everywhere and makes yuou look foolish.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
No true capitalism fallacy.
the political system within which they want to accomplish that is socialism.
The economic system with which they want to accomplish that is socialism. Elimination of both class and state is a political goal, cooperative control (not necessarily state control) of the means of production is an economic... goal. I guess. Goal isn't the right word there, but that's not important. It's not unreasonable to say that communism incorporates socialism. It is completely unreasonable to say that socialism, an economic system, is actually about politics.
You've given several examples showing that it's possible to support different alternatives, while being consistently in opposition to one. But the issue is not that Italy and Germany were consistently anti-Capitalist, while perusing different alternatives. The issue is that they were inconsistent. Italy was initially very laissez-faire, then turned protectionist (at the behest of business owners), then started to seize companies, then the war happened. That is not definitively for or against capitalism, it's inconsistent. That's the point. Germany is likewise, though Hitler seems to have fallen a little further on the pro-property rights side.
You really seem to be a little obsessed with the economic angle here, bending over backwards to try and turn apathy into opposition. Tell me then: why is socialism the right word? Why are you so focused on claiming that it's economics which equates these two, even though it's politics which sets them so directly in opposition to one another?
No, that they are such a fringe group with so little support that they aren't a threat. The last count of active members in these groups were a few thousand in the US.
That depends on how you count it. The number of people who literally, publicly, explicitly claim to be Nazis? You might be right that it's in the thousands. But there are a lot of different groups that might use different labels. There are a lot of people who won't admit to being part of extremist groups, so numbers are hard to verify. I've seen estimates around 150,000 who are active members of white supremacy groups. That's not even counting people who have white supremacist leanings, or sympathy for white supremacy groups.
They're responsible for more violent crime and more deaths each year than Antifa Muslim terrorists.
You should refrain from calling black atheists "Nazis".
Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're a black atheist transexual lesbian Muslim. How dare I disagree with you, right? I don't care who you claim to be, and I'm not saying you're necessarily a Nazi yourself. You might be a Russian spy, or just some troll that escaped from 4chan. Whatever it is, your purpose here is clearly to spread misinformation in order to defend Nazis.
Look, if you want to include "crony capitalism" as a kind of capitalism, then, fine, capitalism doesn't serve Russia. Of course, if you believe that crony capitalism is a kind of capitalism, then socialism is a kind of capitalism as well, since socialism is pretty much the ultimate in crony, state capitalism.
I defend free markets, private property, and small government. Those are the factors that help countries succeed. Socialism makes countries fail.
We're discussing the left-right distinction between ideologies. The definition we are using is "The Left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends private property and capitalism." Along this spectrum, political ideologies fall in various places. Now, the question is: was the stated ideology of fascism more that of private property and free markets, or was it more that of redistribution and social justice? Based on statements from Strasser, Hitler, and Mussolini, it's pretty clear that it was the latter.
You are correct that fascism didn't put its stated ideology into practice. But the same is true for socialism: socialism in practice frequently tolerates private property and market mechanisms, and socialism frequently results in massive inequality and injustice.
That's absurd; there are socialist political movements, socialist parties, and entire socialist states; it's obviously about politics. And in Marxism, socialism is not just an economic system, it's a state of society between democracy and communism; hence it isn't just about economics. But the imprecision in Marxist terminology is deliberate: it lets propagandist tweak their message to their audience. Another example is the term "capitalism", which sometimes refers to free markets, and at other times some kind of corporatism, industrialism, or the stock market.
You need to separate theoretical ideology from what followers of that ideology do; you are comparing what fascists did with theoretical socialist ideology.
Fascists and socialists both stated that they were anti-capitalist (by which they meant that they were against free markets and equity markets). Neither fascists nor socialists have implemented their anti-capitalism consistently because they can't: they would alienate supporters and ruin their economies. So, fascists and socialists were anti-capitalist in the same way: in theory, but not consistently in practice.
If you want to address any of the other commonalities between fascism and leftism, please feel free to do so.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're a black atheist transexual lesbian Muslim. How dare I disagree with you, right? I don't care who you claim to be, and I'm not saying you're necessarily a Nazi yourself. You might be a Russian spy, or just some troll that escaped from 4chan.
I've been here for decades and my posting history is available. I've always identified as black and as atheist.
Whatever it is, your purpose here is clearly to spread misinformation in order to defend Nazis.
You know just because someone corrects your misconceptions it doesn't mean that you're the target of some conspiracy theory. Nazis just aren't a threat anymore.
TBH, all conspiracy theorists sing the same song. Yours is no different. It's foolish to assert something for which there is absolutely not a single shred of supporting evidence. "The Russians Dit It" is a good example.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
We're discussing the left-right distinction between ideologies. The definition we are using is "The Left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends private property and capitalism."
Ha ha ha ha... Okay. I'm sorry, I couldn't even make it through the rest of your post. We're done here.
"The Russians Dit It" is a good example.
I'm not sure what you mean. We know, factually, that there was a massive effort by Russian Intelligence to get Trump elected. What's more, by the small margin that Trump won, it's extremely hard to argue that they didn't successfully change the results of the election.
It's no a conspiracy theory any more than it's a conspiracy theory to think that the NSA intercepts emails and text messages, and collects metadata on phone calls. These are facts.
funny how he has no reply when presented actual facts....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The definition comes from here (and is sourced there). It's reasonable and corresponds to common usage.
Yours is the laugh of an idiot. Yes, we're done here: rot in hell where evil pricks like you belong.
"The Russians Dit It" is a good example.
I'm not sure what you mean. We know, factually, that there was a massive effort by Russian Intelligence to get Trump elected.
We know no such thing. There's a lot of conjecture but no evidence. The fact is that any evidence would have gotten trump kicked out by now. Politicians on both sides want him gone so if there was any actual evidence he'd be gone by now.
This is why it's called "conspiracy theory" - there's no evidence, only allegations.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
We're discussing the left-right distinction between ideologies. The definition we are using is
If we had been discussing this and using that definition, you would have mentioned this definition at some point earlier in the conversation, with your reference. You're clearly attempting some kind of revisionism, where you are always right and clever and have a good response to every criticism. More importantly though, this tells me that you're not listening to, or even paying attention to, anything that I'm saying.
I know I said that people should fight against extremism, but that doesn't mean I enjoy doing this.
I did: Historically, the left-right distinction was simply one between revolutionaries vs reactionaries, and later between people who wanted social change and progress vs people who wanted to protect private property and free markets. I also said that Your view, that it is about power, is the view of neo-Marxism and critical theory; that's not a mainstream view, and more importantly, it's not a tenable view because the (neo-)Marxist analysis in terms of power is not internally consistent or consistent with reality."
I have listened to what you said, and I have responded to it: it's standard leftist drivel, in particular of the neo-Marxist variety. Unlike a neo-Marxist intellectual, you can't even give sources or justify it.
No doubt as a fool for neo-Marxists, you hate having to punch yourself in the face.
Incidentally, returning to an earlier point:
And, by the way, how is that different from the American left? Democrats favor private property rights, have been very laissez-faire at times (in the sense of Italy), have protected banks and corporations from domestic and foreign competition, and have nationalized businesses. In what specific way were Mussolini's policies different from the American left then?
Adolph Hitler selfie identified as a democratic socialist.
No, we know for a fact that the Russians tried to get Trump elected. It's not even in dispute. It's not even really in dispute that his campaign colluded. His son and campaign manager have admitted to meeting with a Russian spy to coordinate the effort. That's a fact too.
The ongoing investigation is all about who can be charged with which crimes.