Most Helpful Opinions
- Yoda Age: 34+1 y
You know, I'd still feel like this is done to death. Yeah, Hitler was bad. Sure. Now. What about Stalin and Mao? Where in culture today are those? Mainly ignored. Killed more than Hitler, but nobody cares. And make no mistake, they were not communists, that's just tool they used. They were brutal dictators.
So I guess the misconception is that naziism killed less people than „communism“ and dictatorship.
Nazi rule ended, but USSR has negative influence to this day. Nobody cares. Communist China is the new buly on international stage. Nobody cares. But nazis are bad. Yes, they are, we all know, but they are also dead. Sure, you have couple „nazi movements“, racists and stuff like that, but to be honest, that's just dumb, shitty people. They're harmless. CCP, however, that's something else. Or Putin and bros.
And I guess this always fascinate/pisses me off. Past problems, which don't really have much effect today are being discussed, but current ones? Naaah, it's fine. „But today's nazis kill people too!“. Yeah. They do. So does any other people group. So does CCP. In highly organized manner. Aka. Xing Jian province. Or latest Russian landgrab.
It's like crying about 10 dead while ignoring 1 000 000's. You know, what I mean?00 Reply
650 opinions shared on Trending & News topic.
Don’t elect right wing populist demagogues.
Enough with the hate on Jews, the disabled and gypsies.356 Reply
I love how the Nazi SOCIALIST party, which was extremely left fascism, is somehow flipped around to be right side.
The Nazis were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their programs called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape today.
Democratic and National socialism aren't as different as you think.
When you post something online, on a public forum, it's anyone's business.
Also I love that you took the time to examine what I posted instead of immediately closing your eyes, your mind, burying your head in the sand, and then declaring everything else wrong.
I mean surely you read that mountain of articles in 3 minutes 30 seconds.
Or... maybe you didn't.
Yet they’re two differing political ideologies and parties.
No, it’s not your business just because you’re allowed to comment. I’m having a conversation with someone other than you.
Lol i don’t need to do so. I’m not here to discuss anything with you, you aren’t invited to the question. Sooo don’t bother replying :) I’ll just either remove your comments or block you. :) good night
What a surprise that a liberal would immediately block or remove any comment they disagree with. Guess I'll screencap this and post it to reddit, for posterity sake.
Ok, report me pls.
@MajesticTwelve You should have read that Snopes link you posted a little more thoroughly. The last two sentences reads:
"Despite co-opting the name, some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of historical reality."
The snippet you posted is actually text the Snopes article is centered on refuting. It's unclear if you are aware of that or not (whether or not you're being sarcastic, that is).
Anyway, I'm pretty familiar with these claims that the Nazis were somehow a left-wing organization simply because they called themselves "Socialist". If you're familiar with the history of what the Third Reich actually did, then you'll be aware that the Nazis *hated* Marxism and made every attempt to set themselves apart from it. Adolf Hitler even said explicitly this in a speech on December 28, 1938:
"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not."
If that doesn't convince you, there are others. Like this one, quoted by Otto Strasser in 1940:
"I am a socialist, and a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend Reventlow. I was once an ordinary workingman… But your kind of socialism is nothing but Marxism."
(Reventlow referring to Ernst Graf zu Reventlow, a Marxist German naval officer at the time)
My point here is that yes, the Nazis called themselves Socialists, but they weren't Marxists, which is the variety of Socialist nearly all modern leftists practice.
I can debunk a lot of the other claims in the things you've posted here, like the myth of Nazi gun control, which has been thoroughly debunked many times over. But, I won't belabor the point.
- +1 y
@HungLikeAHorsefly The articles talk about the tactics and how it took power and show the same thing almost identically that the left does. you getting hung up on all the semantics doesn't help really.
@Quags Ah yes, Jonah Goldberg's book... which has received widespread criticism by nearly everyone who actually knows what they're talking about *including many Conservatives*. He does a pretty good job of demonstrating he knows next to nothing about either Liberalism or Fascism. And then before that, we have an article that includes the time honored claim that America is a Republic, not a Democracy, which is utter bullshit that doesn't even make sense if you understand what Republics and Democracies actually are.
Also, semantics is precisely what we're discussing here. Mr. Goldberg's half-assed attempt at a structural analysis of the two notwithstanding, the conversation right here, right now, is semantic.
For your reference:
"The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism", by Robert Paxton, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Columbia University, writing in the History News Network, published by George Washington University
"Goldberg's Trivial Pursuit", by Austin Bramwell, in the American Conservative
A scathing rebuke of Goldberg's research at - of all places - the Mises Institute, by well known Libertarian scholar David Gordon
-Yes the Nazis were about as socialist as the DEMOCRATIC People's Republic of Korea is Democratic
-The Nazis privatized more of their economy from 1933-1939 than any other Western country. They only put it under State control in 1942 because they were at war.
-Germany had Universal Healthcare since the 1880s (Hitler didn't introduce it) and Universal education was introduced during the Weimar Republic.
-Hitler laxed gun control laws instated by the Weimar republic.
-If a German woman got an abortion that was punishable by death while "undesirables" were forced to have abortions. The left is called "pro choice" on this issue for a reason.
-Hitler's "class warfare" was against Jews because they were supposedly behind Judeo-Bolshevism, not because they were the rich elite.
- +1 y
well too late xD trump was already elected.
@HungLikeAHorsefly Socialists have been rebranding socialism pretty much since socialism's inception given its zero percent success rate. The idea that a group from yesteryear didn't practice the exact same policies word for word that today's socialists support makes that group not socialist is utterly ridiculous.
The undeniable fact is that the NAZIs were far left wing socialists as they believed in the superiority of the state over the individual. They opposed school choice, supported division of profits, nationalization of industry, extension of welfare and the concept that the state is to provide for its people.
The only policies they supported that are common among the political right were the formation of a strong military and that only citizens can vote in their elections.
Like Libertarianism, there are variations of socialism, but the basic idea remains the same. The NAZIs were on the left side of the political spectrum, this is completely undeniable.
@gotc147 "WERE left wing" Umm, you know that there are unrepentant SS veterans alive to this day and they ARE supportive of far right extremist movements.
If anyone on the left wants to do something about the reactionary cesspit that is this website, welcome to the iron front of G@G
- +1 y
@Ad_Quid_Orator why can't I upvote replies to comments? I just subscribed to that guy you posted.
@gotc147 You, and I assume a lot of other people here on GAG, are making a common mistake of confusing Socialism with Statism. This is precisely the same mistake Mr. Goldberg did in his book.
You can read about Statism here:
It's essentially the belief that the state should run everything - including the economy. Socialism often (but not always) makes use of Statism, and so do various right-wing ideologies. It's very common for Americans to confuse these two things - possibly due to the rhetoric we hear in the news and such about how Statism and Socialism are basically the same things. They aren't.
Let me give you an analogy. Let's say Left-wing regimes are cars and Right-wing regimes are tractors. They're both vehicles, they both run on some refined petroleum product, they both have wheels, etc. but they're very different things.
In this analogy, Statism is a stereo system. Nearly all cars (Left-wing regimes) have one, from very basic models all the way up to massive sound systems. And while most tractors (Right-wing regimes) don't have one, some do (from basic to moderate complexity).
Most Socialist regimes employ Statism to a greater or lesser degree. The Soviet Union, the PRC and others depend heavily on Statism for the economic ideology. Others, like the modern Nordic countries, use it only moderately.
Similarly, Right-wing regimes like the Third Reich and Fascist Italy also adopted Statist economies, even though their core political ideologies are solidly right-wing. Ironically, the United States does this to some degree as well.
I guess my point here is that what you call "Socialism" is what political scientists call "Statism" and it isn't unique to the Left. It's a building block of an political regime and not one in and of itself.
@HungLikeAHorsefly More conjecture and "it wasn't real socialism" excuses, they never end.
The core ideaology of the NAZIs was completely on the far LEFT, not right. Division of profits, nationalization of industry, this is all left wing policy parrotted by avowed leftists of today including but not limited to Bernie Sanders, Nikolas Maduro, Jeremy Corbyn, Emanuel Macron and Elizabeth Warren.
The right edge of the political spectrum is anarchy, no government of any kind, no laws, no rules, survival of the fittest. Nothing like what the NAZIs supported. The left edge is total and complete state control, much closer to NAZI ideaology.
@gotc147 Hmm... it depends on what criteria you use when you refer to the (1-axis) political spectrum. The traditional, 1-axis spectrum refers almost exclusively to the level of individual freedom is in play for each ideology, with freedom in the middle and slavery/oppression at either end. It looks a lot like this:
It's easy to understand why this is: as ideologies get more extreme, on both sides, people lose their liberty. The fact that ideologies on the right side of the spectrum favor a market economy has little to no impact on this outcome.
It's also easy to see that this simple 1-axis spectrum leaves a lot to be desired. That's why nowadays nobody uses the 1-axis any more; we use a 2-axis and in some cases a Venn diagram to categorize ideologies. The most common of these takes into account individual liberty vs. authoritarianism on the Y-axis and Statism vs. market Capitalism on the X-axis, like this:
So, when you're talking about Fascists - including the Nazis - they fall at the top of the 1-axis spectrum, in the Authoritarian or anti-individualism section. Which quadrant, though? Top Left or Top Right? That depends on what degree to which Fascists - in this case, the Nazis - exerted government control of the economy (Statism).
Yes, the Nazis nationalized industry. And then they funneled huge amounts of money into German corporations. This is called "croney corporatism" and it's solidly a right-wing economic mechanism.
They also outlawed trade unions, outlawed all forms of Socialism (including Social Democracy and Communism), built a brutally anti-egalitarian social regime, loosened gun control laws and were extremely nationalistic. All of these things are fundamentally contrary to what Socialism stands for, in all it's various flavors.
Oops, I meant to post this for the 1-axis
@HungLikeAHorsefly The NAZIs outlawed PRIVATE unions, but created the German Labor Front, which was essentially a union, and mandated membership.
They only losened gun control laws for Aryans, Jews and others had their gun rights further restricted.
Racism is collectivism and collectivism is a left wing thing, always has been.
I've seen many different charts of political ideaology and the only one that makes sense is the 1-axis, everything else tries to create hillarious mashups like "libertarian communist" which I think you can agree is just silly.
Academics are the ones creating these charts and academics are overwhelmingly on the left side of the spectrum. As I said before, they work hard to make people attribute bad things with the political right.
Anyway, I've made my point and grow tired of this back and forth, good day.
@gotc147 Yeah, the Nazis had the DAF, which wasn't actually a labor union. Workers had no ability to strike, they couldn't negotiate wages and the government used it as a clearinghouse for trade agreements with business. The DAF was essentially a giveaway to German Capitalists. Rather than being an example of a German labor union, it's an example of German corporatism. All of these features are antithetical to Marxist Socialism.
How does racism equate to collectivism? Are you one of those folks on the Right who have a selective definition of racism?
Yes, academics are the ones creating these charts. They're also the ones who actually use evidence in their argumentation and unlike yourself, they understand the difference between calling yourself something and actually doing it.
@HungLikeAHorsefly By his definition Nationalism would be left wing because it's collectivist LMAO.
@Ad_Quid_Orator I think, by his definition, anything other than a complete return to the State of Nature is Leftist.
@HungLikeAHorsefly I don't use evidence, that's hillarious.
Libertarianism is on the right side of the spectrum right? Of course it is, nobody denies that, even you. And Libertarianism is the belief in no government or at the very least almost no government right? Again yes.
Then answer me this, how does on go from a libertarian belief, which is far right, to NAZI, which is wholly against just about any type of freedom, in a single step?
In order for what you're saying to make any sense, you're going to have to provide a good answer to that question, because you're ultimately asking me to accept the concept that a person who is libertarian is going to say to themselves "you know what would make this state-less society with no police, no taxes and no regulations and unlimited freedom even better? A totalitarian police state that taxes huge amounts of money in taxes, crushes the economy in red tape and eliminates all freedom!"
You never asked that question, likely because you never ask questions, you just accept the absurdity. So go ahead, explain that one to me.
Avoiding the question and putting words in my mouth, you're off to a bad start.
Libertarianism is not the only ideaology on the right, far from it. I said anarchy is on the right (specifically the natural end on the right side), conservatism is also on the right, anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, all on the right, all favor far less government power than NAZIs, so how does NAZIism fit in with them?
My argument is that the NAZI system was far closer to Communism than Minarchism in how it functioned, yet you tell me NAZIism is on the right, which makes no sense.
@gotc147 You literally just explained to all of us exactly why we don't use the 1-axis spectrum any more: it simply can't describe some ideologies, like Libertarianism and Anarchism.
Let's put aside for the moment that there are multiple different kinds of Libertarians (what us Americans call a "Libertarian" refers to Right-Libertarianism, or "Minarchy"; it's a relatively recent semantic invention and it's only referred to as such in the United States).
In order to answer your question, I'd have to ask you what you're measuring on that single axis you have. Is it the degree of personal freedom vs. authoritarianism? If that's the case, then yes Libertarianism would be solidly on the Right. And Neoconservatism would be solidly on the Left, as it's quite Authoritarian in nature.
Or maybe we're measuring the degree to which the economy is statist (statism on the left, free market on the right). In that case, Right-Libertarianism would be on the Right, Left-Libertarianism would be on the Left, corporatist Fascists would be on the Right, statist Fascists would be on the Left, Neoconservatives would be dead center and so would most Liberals.
Or maybe we're measuring radicalism vs. conservatism. That is, radical though versus a relatively conservative outlook on the world that favors tradition, established structures, etc. In that case, Fascism is solidly on the Right due to its very strong adherence to tradition, nationalism and cultural history. While Libertarianism and Anarchism are solidly on the Left due to their rejection of tradition and radical thinking.
See how none of that works? You could poke holes in pretty much any kind of representation you might choose to show, with a single axis spectrum. This is exactly why we use a 2-axis chart *if not more*.
@gotc147 Anarcho socialists also want less government but they're on the left. It's not necessarily how much power the government has but how it exercises it. If it exercises it on behalf of the employees it's left and if it does so on but if it does so on behalf of the owners (like the Nazis did) it's on the right.
You'll also notice something else: if you do insist on a single axis spectrum, Fascism falls on the Right in all cases except when you're talking about a Fascist regime with a Statist economy. It sounds great in theory, but in practice, all Fascist regimes employ corporatism to a greater or lesser degree; none of them can really be said to have a statist economy. Therefore, traditionally we place Fascism on the Right regardless of what that axis means.
@HungLikeAHorsefly First off, "anarcho-socialists" don't exist, that's what I was talking about when I said multi-axis charts don't work because they create absurd ideaologies like that. You can't be socialist and not support big government, big government is the heart of all socialism.
It doesn't matter what terms we're talking about (social or economic), the 1-axis chart is the only on that works. You're trying to fit ideaologies into people instead of people into ideaologies, it's how you come up with contradictory (and non-existent) ideaologies rather than just saying "that person is mostly liberal but conservative on gun control".
Take the center of the 1-axis chart, the first notch to the left is liberal and the first notch to the right is conservative. Both liberal and conservative ideaology have overlap, such as support for moderately sized government. Conservatives support less overall government while liberals support more. Yes they vary on *where* government power should be expanded or retracted, but they both support government power in areas of both social and economic importance. The further to the left and right you go, the less overlap you find, you'll find zero or almost zero overlap between an anarcho-capitalist and a communist for example.
Another example would be the minarchist and the anarcho-capitalist. The minarchist supports government run national defense, basic law enforcement and courts whereas the anarcho-capitalist opposes government running any of those things. A person could support the minarchist view on law enforcement and courts but the anarcho-capitalist view on national defense. This does not require the invention of another ideaology and certainly not another axis on the chart. The dot representating the person would just be in between minarchist and anarcho-capitalist (being slightly closer to minarchist)
Andrew Yang, currently running for President as a Democrat, is undeniably on the left and just last night he came out in favor of banning air travel, automobile confiscation and even eating meat. These are social restrictions he wants to implement in addition to the usual shmorgishboard of economic restrictions the average Democrat candidate supports. According to you, this would make him a conservative socialist, which doesn't exist, what it makes him is a communist.
So I ask again, why would somebody who believes in a state-less society be only on step away from believing that a totalitarian police state is what would make it better?
@gotc147 Again, you've demonstrated that the 1-axis spectrum doesn't work, except for the single specific attribute you're looking at. For example, you categorize all of Socialism into "they want state control of everything" when that is simply not true. It's not even a core tenet of the ideology. Similarly, you categorize all right-wing ideologies into "individual freedom", when that isn't true at all either. There have been plenty of regimes throughout history that employ widespread state control to funnel money directly into the hands of business owners. The Nazis are a prime example of this.
So, the question becomes: what defines right- versus left-wing ideologies? Is it the level of Statism employed to accomplish their goals, or is it the ideological goals themselves? Nearly everyone in the world categorizes philosophical ideologies by their underlying principles, not the methods they use to realize those principles.
The underlying motive of Socialism is to put the means of economic production under the control of workers - those whose labor creates that production. Yes, a lot (but not all) varieties of Socialism use state control to achieve that. But Statism inherently has nothing to do with their ideology.
Obviously, you disagree with me here. You characterize the Left as being all about Statism and the Right as being all about individual liberty. However, in practice this is rarely the case. Take American Conservatives, for example. They espouse a philosophy of individual liberty and simultaneously support public policy that places widespread limits on individual liberty. Most of us who study this have the takeaway that individual liberty has *nothing to do* with Right wing ideologies; it's about social control and free markets (to foster a new aristocracy for the purposes of exercising social control). Therefore, both ends of the 1-axis spectrum represent a low degree of individual freedom, whereas the middle represents a high degree.
I've already answered your final question, but I'll repeat myself. Nobody - and I mean nobody - who knows what the fuck they're talking about - uses a 1-axis spectrum any more. It's antiquated because it doesn't work. Period. That's why things like Libertarianism (which by the way does not in any way support a stateless society) doesn't work on either side of the spectrum. That's why it doesn't make sense.
@HungLikeAHorsefly Still no answer to the question, still deflecting with pointless questions, more and more conjecture and now, utter denial of reality.
This debate is over, you lost.
How sad it must be, to know so little of how the world works, and to cling so desperately to half truths and antiquated ideas.
You're right - I did lose this debate. I shouldn't have even tried.
@HungLikeAHorsefly Coming from a guy who believes in the gender pay gap myth, I take that as a compliment.
@HungLikeAHorsefly Not as much as you seem to think since I deal with quite a few insufferable fools like you.
But you're not much on thinking, as you have established.
@HungLikeAHorsefly No, that's me, you're the one saying 1-axis charts don't make sense.
One of your early arguments was that the NAZIs weren't socialist because they didn't use the power if government for the good of the community. Your latest argument is that government control has nothing to do with socialism. So you contradicted yourself by first saying that socialism is government control for the good of the community but then saying socialism has nothing to do with government control.
You lost this debate fully on the merits, you jumped from argument to argument and dodged a question no less than three times because your worldview can't explain it. You can't even come up with a good explanation of why a 1-axis chart doesn't work other than it can't account for non-existent ideaologies. Hint: it's not supposed to, because they don't exist.
What are you going to tell me next? That Nikolas Maduro is an anarcho-capitalist fascist socialist conservative NAZI? Or that Kim Jong Un is a conservative communist minarchist marxist? Stop embarrassing yourself.
@gotc147 Oops, you're right. I meant to say "2-axis spectrum". My bad.
As for the rest: eh, no. I didn't say the Nazis weren't Socialists because they didn't use government power for the good of the community. Didn't say that at all. I said the Nazis were right-wing because they used to power of the government to funnel large amounts of money right into the hands of business owners, at the expense of the workers. Which is precisely the opposite of the Socialist ideology. It's the antithesis of Socialism, in all its forms.
You keep clinging to this idea that Statism = Socialism. As I've said before, that's a grave misunderstanding of what Socialism is. Statism is a means to an end, and Socialists aren't the only ones who do it.
So, you keep saying the same thing: state control is Socialism, and vice versa. I'm saying that's fundamentally wrong. A lot of forms of Socialism do use it, and so do a lot of right-wing ideologies.
Maybe you'll understand this if I put it in simpler terms:
*Statism is not what determines the Left side of the spectrum from the Right side*, in contemporary usage in the United States.
What does? On the 1-axis spectrum, social hierarchy determines Left from Right. The Left side represents egalitarianism while the Right side represents strict social hierarchy. *Any other interpretation* is an exception to the rule, not the norm.
It's only been in the past 50 years or so that people have associated regular old Conservatism or even Neo-Conservatism with Right-Libertarianism (the idea that free markets = Conservatism). Even then, it's primarily been Americans who do that.
However, worldwide, just as many Capitalists support authoritarian, statist governments when it suits them to do so. Just as it did many wealthy families in Nazi Germany. They bear little resemblance to modern American Conservatives, but they are nonetheless on the Right side of the 1-axis spectrum when you so foolishly choose to use it.
@HungLikeAHorsefly Seems I pulled a Bidenism, got you confused with someone else, appologies.
However my argument stands, you are trying to fit ideaologies into people rather than people into ideaologies. When it comes to a political ideaology the only thing that needs to be measured is the level of control the government has because that's the only thing that separates political ideaologies.
Your trying to create new ideaologies for every difference people have issue to issue, in which case you'll have to come up with about seven billion of them.
Things are blurrier in the middle of the spectrum due to the overlap between liberals and conservatives. The edges are much clearer in their positions.
The NAZIs were totalitarians, it doesn't matter if they funneled money to the private sector, all governments do that, but nearly everything those businesses did had to be green-lit by Hitler so while the private sector did still own the means of production, they could only use them the way the government allowed.
Trying to create a new ideaology every time a texbook liberal decides to support restrictions on abortion or similar situation is idiotic.
@gotc147 I'm not trying to create ideologies - they already exist, and have existed for a very long time before either you or I were born. In fact, your definitions (especially that of Libertarians) are ironically quite new and were established about the same time political scientists started using the 2-axis chart to describe ideologies.
For example, the idea that Libertarianism is synonymous with Minarchy or Anarcho-Capitalism came about in the United States a little after WWII. The 2-axis chart was proposed in 1956.
Similarly, things like Anarcho-Socialism have existed since about the mid-1800's. A good century before your idea of what Libertarians are took hold.
The fact that there are a wide variety of different political ideologies that you may not have heard of before, and that they have names, doesn't mean we're just sitting here making stuff up. It just means you're ignorant of both history and political philosophy.
Speaking of Libertarians; let's do a thought experiment. According to you, Libertarians are on the right side of the spectrum, to the right of Republicans. That's understandable - they favor free markets, limited government, few regulations on business and personal responsibility. Your assessment sounds about right.
Yet, Libertarians also support LGBT, just like Democrats. They're Pro Choice, like Democrats. They're against maintaining an unnecessarily large military *and* military action abroad. Just like Democrats. They support legalization of a variety of drugs, including marijuana... just like Democrats. They oppose the Death Penalty, just like Democrats. They support transgendered people in the military, just like Democrats. They're pro-immigration and against The Wall, just like Democrats. They're against the militarization of police and generally suspicious of the police. Just like Democrats. They're sympathetic to Black Lives Matter and have many views in common with Feminists. Just like Democrats.
Now, consider that Republicans use the state to enforce a system of social control that goes against nearly everything Libertarians stand for. So it's not even about individual liberty. It's *just* about the market at this point.
Liberals and Libertarians agree on a lot of the same things - far more so than Libertarians and Republicans agree. They have very different ideas on what to do about these things, though. That is, they use different tools to achieve their goals.
So, Republicans and Libertarians have neither similar goals, nor do they use similar methods to achieve those goals. Yet, to you, they're on the same side of the spectrum.
@HungLikeAHorsefly Because they are on the same side of the spectrum, this is neither difficult to understand nor contradictory.
I've said at least twice now that liberals and conservatives have a lot of overlap, because they're both close to the center, much closer than libertarians. I never said or even implied that being on the right meant you support zero or near zero government, you seem to think I'm saying the political center is much further to one side than it is.
Both Conservatives and liberals support public education, libertarians do not. Both Conservatives and liberals support various trade regulations, Libertarians do not. Liberals support gun control, libertarians do not... Two can play the nitpick game.
Just because an ideaology is on the right doesn't mean it doesn't support government control in some areas. *Where* that control is supported is just details.
You say libertarians have more in common with liberals than Conservatives, that's highly debatable. You like to talk about recent history but you seem ignorant of the fact that Democrats used to be much closer to Republicans on the issues of immigration, drugs and national defense. And by "used to" I mean about ten to fifteen years or so ago. That's why many people have taken to calling the Democrat party the new American Socialist party.
- New +1 y
@gotc147 I said Libertarians are closer to Democrats than Republicans in social areas, in an attempt to disabuse you of the idea that the political spectrum is about the level of authoritarianism in play. Because it's not.
I also don't think you ever said being on the Right means you support zero government. I said you think all Libertarians support zero government.
My goal here - which I obviously did a poor job of achieving - was to illustrate that simply gauging ideologies based on their level of state control is not sufficient to describe some ideologies, like Libertarianism and Anarchism.
It's well understood that when political scientists refer to the "political spectrum" in the traditional, 1-axis sense, they almost universally use the level of equality/egalitarianism as the measure, not the level of statism. There are other ways to do it, like you've been suggesting, but those are exceptions, not the norm. That's the special little snowflake approach, not the generally accepted way of doing things ;)
Yeah, I know you have a low opinion of political scientists, but in the end they're the ones who came up with the political spectrum in the first place.
Nevertheless, political scientists generally categorize Fascism as a right-wing ideology. Why do you think that is?
- New +1 y
@HungLikeAHorsefly As I've said, academia is made up of people overwhelmingly left in their politics, they litterally make careers out of obfuscating simple concepts like the political spectrum with the goal of manipulating people into thinking a certain way. Funnily enough, the NAZIs used this very tactic.
As I said in my answer, the lesson to be learned from WWII is that people are easily manipulated. You are a prime example of this. What other easily-disproven nonsense do you believe? Let me guess, that 97% of scientists believe climate change is getting worse and humans are the cause? That our lack of restrictions on guns are the reason for our homicide rate? Better yet, that our crime rate is rising? That Trump called the Richard Spencer crowd in Charlottesville good people? That Denmark has a $25/hour minimum wage?
Given your demonstrated gullibility I'd be surprised if those even scratch the surface of your ignorance.
- New +1 y
- New +1 y
@gotc147 You know what, you're pretty right about most of these things. I mean, not the "obfuscation" part, but pretty much everything else. I do understand the truth in a lot of these things.
What we're seeing here is that science doesn't support what you want to believe, so you made up a fanciful tale about a conspiracy to deceive the public into following a Liberal worldview.
I mean, what's more likely - that thousands of social scientists around the world have conspired to deceive the public (something that's HIGHLY improbable if you actually understood how science works), or... you're just some dude who doesn't understand the world and rejects science because it doesn't agree with what he wants to believe? You have to be a very special kind of delusional snowflake to think the former.
To answer your other questions:
- Yes, climate change is getting worse and humans are the cause. The global scientific community is in consensus on this.
- I don't know if the crime rate is rising across the board, but I did recently discover that homicide rates in Chicago increased sharply when their gun ban ended in 2014. As for the rest, that dog won't hunt; I'm pro-gun.
- Yes, Trump did call the Richard Spencer crowd "good people", but not on purpose. I don't think he thought "Neo-Nazis are good people"; I think he was laboring under the false assumption that there were a large amount of regular, rank-and-file Republicans there, too. There weren't.
- I haven't heard about Denmark's minimum wage. What I know about minimum wage, in general, is that sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn't.
If you want to talk about ignorance, perhaps you should check those assumptions you're making first.
- Xper 5 Age: 18+1 y
Which one? Pacific? Or the one with Hitler? I forgot got the name00 Reply
What Girls & Guys Said
The lessons to be learned are people are easily manipulated.
The NAZIs, like all socialists, promised the world to the masses and even delivered to an extent, thus gaining them support even today.
Academics have worked VERY hard over the last 80 years to get a majority of people to believe the NAZIs were on the right side of the political spectrum, despite such a thing being absurd given 90% of the policies they supported.
People will believe anything if you work hard enough to make them believe it. Zohnerism is the elite's favorite weapon. I highly doubt the human race will last long enough to see a time when a majority of them realize what the real problem and who the real enemy is.013 Reply
How were they socialist when they privatized more than any other western country at the time?
The NAZI party was in financial ruin in 1932 and was bailed out by two German firms, Krupp (an arms manufacturer) and I. G. Farben (a chemical company). The leaders of these two business giants were later charged with war crimes at Nuremberg.
The privatization of German government services came with the hitch that the government still be in control of distribution, the businesses doing only producing. While it may have been private businesses doing what they do, the government was the one in control.
That is the classic definition of socialism.
Many governments buy things from private companies and sell them but that doesn't make them socialists.
Also, government control doesn't mean it's "leftist", just not libertarian. It depends on whether the government uses its' control to benefit the owners or the workers.
Where do you get your information?
The only correct thing you just said is that government buying things doesn't make them socialist. Government controlling the production of those things does however, and that's exactly what the NAZIs did.
Here's a story you probably didn't know: the term "assault rifle" was coined by Adolf Hitler himself when he discovered his soldiers were using what is known today as the STG-44. The manufacturer of the rifle originally called it the MP-44 so as to disguise the project from German authorities because Hitler had not approved it.
Another story you likely didn't know: early in his Administration Hitler signed the German version of an Executive Order limiting the output of farmers to choke off supply, causing prices to rise and raising the pay of the farmers due to mark-up.
The government having such control over the private sector is what makes the NAZIs socialist. In fact it is exactly what Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto as he saw socialism as the transition period between the fall of capitalism and the rise of communism. Where do you think the old communist adage "seize the means of production" came from? Once socialism has run its course the government seizes direct control over the machines and raw materials, signaling the beginning of communist rule.
I get my information from the definition of socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Government control is only "Socialist" if the government is acting on behalf of the community as a whole while Hitler did it on behalf of corporate owners. If the government controlling how companies develop weapons is "Socialist" then the US is socialist. Pretty much every government has some degree of control over the economy but as a whole more was privatized under Nazi Germany than the Weimar Republic. In the Weimar parliament, the Nazis sat on the right side of the room for a reason.
Hitler WAS acting on behalf of the community, he dictated where reasources went based on his own belief of what was best. That is how all socialism works, it's idiotic to suggest that the government has total control over production and distribution is not socialist just because it's done in a manner that didn't end up working best for the people.
Capitalism is private control of production and distribution, the market decides where resources go. If government having programs was all that is needed to be socialist then all nations with a functioning government would be socialist.
Dude just accept it, the NAZIs were classic socialists, just as Karl Marx described. They were far left wing wackjobs who sought totalitarianism and the superiority of the state over all else. Why do you think college students usually can't tell if Bernie Sanders said a quote or if it was Adolf Hitler who said it? Todays Democrat party supports the core of the NAZI platform, as do all socialist organizations.
Here's the big difference though, when I say that certain people are like NAZIs I don't try to lump them in with genocidal maniacs, whereas when people accuse me of being a NAZI they ARE trying to lump me in with genocidal maniacs.
All governments today have some degree of control over their economy and this was also true of the Weimar Republic but the Nazis transferred more means of production to the private sector. If the government having some control over industry makes a country Socialist then fine the Nazis were socialists but then pretty much every country on Earth is socialist and we're just arguing semantics.
The only reason academics put the Nazis on the right side of the spectrum is because that's where they are. Note I sad are, not were because there are still unrepentant SS veterans alive to this day and guess if they support right or left wing extremist groups?
And any restrictions put on business by the Nazis has to be put in context of the restrictions put on everybody by a Totalitarian regime (and no, being a Totalitarian regime doesn't make it "leftist").
Also, while the Nazis regulated interfirm relationships they had mostly a hands off policy when it came to the relationship between the owners and employees.
I said "mostly" because the government was involved in stamping out union activity and sending the organizers to concentration camps. But I guess because that's government interfering in business you'd consider it "socialist".
Okay so you've never heard of the German Labor Front, the other half of the NAZI union-busting story.
If you are unable to see the difference between regulations concerning safety in the workplace and truth in advertising, along with the other basic protections for workers and consumers and the government having 100% control over resource distribution then I really can't help you. I already said government programs do not make a nation socialist, government control of production and distribution is what makes a nation socialist.
One more time, government saying you need to provide your workers with hearing protection because they work in extremely loud environments is not socialism. Government saying those concrete slabs you just created have to be taken to a given place, outside of having a government contract for those slabs, IS socialism.
Lastly, totalitarianism IS a left-wing ideaology. Communism, socialism, marxism, fascism... All of them are statist and statism is on the left, anarchy is on the right, they're opposites.
The German Labor front was instituted to protect productivity, not the workers; it was the other side of the same coin. You can stay that a government telling you what you can and can't sell is "socialism" all you like but unless they're taking the means of production from you and giving it to your employees, your claim doesn't mean shit. Totalitarianism is not a leftist ideology any more than anarchy is. You have anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-socialists just like you have communism (left) and fascism (right).
- Master Age: 37+1 y
i think the most underappreciated lesson that comes from ww2 is this:
we always just put the "evil person" label on nazis. yes they did horrible stuff and i have no doubt that there were some really messed up in the head people among them.
however you must always consider, that the average person that ended up being a guard in the concentration camp torturing jews or mowing down enemies on the front with a large MG was just the normal guy next door. we know that every normal person can be pushed to become like that.
if you think it isn't possible to push you to do such things, you are horribly wrong and this lack of knowledge about yourself and about the human character is almost as big a problem as forgetting about the holocaust.10 Reply
513 opinions shared on Trending & News topic.
The Nationalist-Socialist (Nazis) were leftists, appeasement doesn't work, the allies performed poorly man for man and had to rely on overwhelming numbers and more resources in order to win the fight especially in Europe, don't ever neglect national defense readiness, and isolationism doesn't work.02 Reply
The Nazis weren't "leftist", they called themselves National Socialists but they privatized more than pretty much any Western country at the time. Also there's the other term in there (National) and nationalism is a right wing ideology.
Also, on the Eastern front (the largest front), the Axis to Soviet loss ratio was 7:10 and the Red Army didn't outnumber the Germans on the field more than 2:1 until after the Battle of Kursk at which point Germany's defeat was already just a matter of time.
A lesson to be learned is that if a defeated enemy has the victors also stomping his head in the mud and pissing all over him, that defeated enemy may one day turn to some extremist who tells them what they want to hear. During the Weimar Republic era Germany could have gone NAZI OR Communist. Imagine the allies having to deal with a combined Soviet Union/Communist Germany.00 Reply
Stop calling anything and everything nazi or fascist. Not every alt-right or populist movement is nazi. Wehrmacht soldiers were not nazis. Whether you like it or not, the 3rd Reich allowed for tremendous progress when it comes to technology, military tactics, medicine and other fields. The French are not cowards, learn about the Résistance, the Free French Forces, the Normandie-Niémen, Charles de Gaulle, the Battle of the Saint-Louis Bridge and more.00 Reply
- Xper 6 Age: 36+1 y
I guess be ready to nip facist, Nazi, communist and imperialist aggression in the bud.
Also it's important to learn how the United States won ww2 and emerged as the world's most powerful superpower.10 Reply
- Master Age: 23 , mho 50%+1 y
I'd say looking at the rise of political extremists in both Europe and America that it's too late and we haven't learnt anything.20 Reply
- Yoda Age: 27+1 y
Japan didn't surrender because of the Nukes
Operation Barbarossa saved the European Continent from the Soviet Union.00 Reply
- Master Age: 41+1 y
A lot of the modern liberal views in the USA are the same/similar to those of the Nazis.03 Reply
- +1 y
Free speech for one. Look at the events at universities when conservatives try to give a speech when they were invited to do so. Or even people talking regularly. Liberal groups frequently use violence to suppress opposing ideas.
Politically motivated violence by the right is far more common than by the left
- Xper 5 Age: 30+1 y
Someone has to stop excessively powerful and arrogant countries. This leads to nationalism and concept of superiority, which has already caused a bloody war.00 Reply
- Master Age: 33+1 y
that we always will see wars until countries learn to compromise an stop hating 1 another an respect rights for all00 Reply
The lessons need to be taught as many are clueless about it, the holocaust and other points. But they know the are 37 genders... or 87... whatever.00 Reply
435 opinions shared on Trending & News topic.
Blind nationalism and total faith in one leader is dangerous on any level. (Listening Trumpers?)00 Reply
351 opinions shared on Trending & News topic.
Its a matter to hold all human life as we should in God. Lets not let any country try to snuff out those who are just living life00 Reply
- Xper 1 Age: 38+1 y
Hitler did nothing wrong00 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions
The obvious answer that most will turn to in asking what are the lessons of World War II is always avoid appeasement. Stand up to the bully. Fight for freedom.
These are obvious as the lessons of Munich - when Chamberlain (and reluctantly a very unhappy Daladier) sacrificed then Czechoslovakia to what they assumed to be "peace in our time" - linger. Indeed, there is a grain of truth in that lesson. Preparedness and all the rest.
However, the answer is too pat and too abstract. It is the application of abstract principle to concrete realities without taking into account the implications. As the historian A. J. P. Taylor pointed out in his - at the time very controversial - book, "The Origins of the Second World War," the problem was less appeasement than that Hitler and Mussolini were willing to pursue their nation's concrete and historic national interests while Chamberlain (with poor Daladier in tow), was willing to sacrifice his nation's to an abstraction - freedom, peace and all the rest.
As Lord Palmerston said, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." This Chamberlain lost sight of. He thought in terms of Utopian ideals and took no account of the realities.
To be sure, Chamberlain was not operating in a vacuum. The First World War had destroyed Western self-confidence and, indeed, it has never really recovered. As John Toland put it in his book on the Battle of the Somme, "The boys in the trenches went over the top and off of a moral cliff." Chamberlain was, in that context, seeking to affirm those Western principles of peace, fair play, freedom and all the rest. The irony then being that he ended up sacrificing Czechoslovakia and affirming nothing.
Ditto, if fairness, Taylor's analysis was a bit too simple. Hitler (and Mussolini and Stalin) were not simply asserting and defending their nation's national interests as those had been defined by geography, economic factors and history. Rather, he was (and they were) pursuing a messianic vision of a new world order. The West was dead, so Mussolini elevated the state to the pinnacle of creation, Stalin said class was the driving force in History - with a capital "H" - and Hitler argued with him that it was race and not class.
These visions were as anti-historical in their way as what Chamberlain was attempting. The difference was the former operated in the context of the strategic realities. Specifically, that the international arena - NOTE: "arena" and NOT "community" - is the realm of power and not principle. Of Machiavelli and not Mother Teresea. Absent a neutral authority above states that can define and impartially impose rules, international relations are "the law of the jungle" and not "the laws of man and God."
The lesson should have been learned sooner. President Wilson at Versailles had sought to replace the balance of power and spheres of influence with a system based on international law, collective security, a "parliament of man" (called the League of Nations), and global free trade. For his troubles he got a profoundly flawed peace treaty and another world war.
The U. S. interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were waged not through the prism of national interest, but in the name of freedom and democracy and all the rest. The result was "nationbuilding" in lands of which the United States knew little and thus endless war with no real definable goals or endpoint.
To be sure, Western ideals should not be neglected. However, the lessons of the WWII are that such principles will prevail only where the West is successful and thus there is generated a belief that such principles are the key to success and security in a tumultuous and uncertain world. To achieve that success means that nations must accept the world as it is and that international affairs are about interests and power, not ideals and principles.
It is a funny to conclusion to reach given that the Second World War was so obviously - as human affairs so seldom are - a straight up choice between good and evil, right and wrong. Even then, the USSR was not exactly a model of Western values. Even in a war between good and evil, when choosing allies, good had to make accommodations to brute reality.
Yet that the Second World War had to be fought at all - with all its costs in blood and treasure and human suffering and misery - was born of the fact that the West failed to recognize that morals and values must often operate imperfectly if they are to work at all. As Burke said of natural rights, "their abstract perfection is their practical defect." Had Chamberlain been less concerned with "peace in our time" and more with British national interests historically and narrowly defined, many lives might have been saved.
So it was then, so it is now.
In response to your update, who said this? "I'm a socialist, but a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend Count Reventlow."
The year was 1932 and the writer was a rising German politician named Adolf Hitler.
Socialism of the Marxist sort believed that the division of the classes was the driving force in History - with a capital "H." The difference was that National Socialists argued that the competition between the races - not classes - was the fundamental driving force in History.
They were both socialist, and merely differed on what they saw as the central driver of history.
Indeed, "Mein Kempf," Hitler's seminal work, is replete with attacks on what he and other socialists called the "rich decadent Anglo-Saxon capitalists." There was no love of capitalism in Hitler's worldview.
Not BS. History and political philosophy.