If Fascism was a literal ideology, then why are there no pro Hitler liberal politicians?

[aociswundumho]

This is just you creating your own definitions.

No, I'm using definitions that actually work.

Right-wing politics is generally defined by support of the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, authority or tradition.

This is just some mindless shit you copied off of wikipedia.

Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

nypost.com

Consider that a command economy operates like the military - a massive, top down, hierarchical structure which the left adores. Hence by wikipedia reasoning, left-wingers are actually right wing.

This just shows a misunderstanding of history. Bismarck was a well-known manipulative character who said a lot of stuff he didn't mean to get what he wanted. It's generally accepted his state socialism and welfare programs were intended to avoid socialist revolution in Germany and to appease the working classes after his initial anti-socialist laws didn't work.

Right, so he imposed socialist policies, and he spoke positively about socialism, but he really, really, really didn't mean any of it.

Gimme a break.

I could go ahead and say "well actually Ayn Rand was left-wing because she was opposed to racism" but to define leftism as simply anti-racism would be ludicrous.

It would be ludicrous because racism is a form of collectivism, and Rand was a staunch individualist. The left's greatest hero of all time is Karl Marx, and he was a vile racist and antisemite, despite being an ethnic Jew himself.

You can't just try to redefine well-established political labels based on your own beliefs and political identity and how you view your opponents.

"well-established" by leftist history professors.

The best way to determine where someone sits on the political spectrum is to look at their values and their actions.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, I'm using definitions that actually work.

This is just some mindless shit you copied off of wikipedia.

Lmao what a pathetic attempt.

The first ever usage of the term right wing was to describe proponents and supporters of traditional aristocracy and monarchy.

The right wing has never in history been solely defined by an emphasis on individualism vs collectivism. The only reason you think so is because you aren't informed enough to know otherwise.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'm sure you've heard of the curse, "may you live in interesting times"??

Well, so it is with democracy, and so it would be with throwing the Constitution open every few years for Thunderdome-like rewrites.

Nations, societies, and people need stability and freedom to flourish, thrive, and endure in a positive condition over time. In no way does democracy provide those conditions.

A true republic on the other hand, that being a nation with a Constitution that establishes government, clearly defines its role, and severely restricts its powers, does exactly those things which facilitate the positive conditions mentioned above.

The Establishment has been quietly pushing for a con-con for many decades. Once the Constitution is opened up, it is game over.

They're building the tension now, it's only a matter of time before they hit us with the coup de grace. War, terrorism, food shortages, energy shortages, surges in crime, etc... it's all intentional - and for what I should think are very obvious reasons.

------------------------------------------

America is being systematically dismantled. Destroyed from within. As Yuri Bezmenov said of the demoralization process, "it is irreversible".

We are in the final phases now... the family unit has been destroyed, our educational system is poison, our manufacturing base is gutted, our currency is being destroyed - soon to be hyper-inflated, our military is "woke", our institutions are wholly corrupt, etc.

I know you don't see it, but the writing is on the wall.

I asked you if you think it would make sense to deliberately collapse the economy??

Yes, no, why??

No where in this rambling rhetoric is there even a coherent argument, much less a good one.

 

[wist43]

No where in this rambling rhetoric is there even a coherent argument, much less a good one.

My arguments are exactly those of our Founders - democracies are unstable.

Our Constitution was designed to "bind men (sic) down from mischief with the chains of a Constitution...". Since the Establishment was able to redefine the Constitution in the 1930's, they've be mischievous indeed.

Mischief is what happens when scheming men are set loose within a government and allowed to wield its power.

All of this is history repeated and covered by our Founders in both the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

My arguments are, from an historical perspective, on very solid footing. Which is more than I can say for democracy.

----------------------------

So, answer my question if you would...

Would it make sense to deliberately collapse the economy??

 

[Jredbaron96]

democracies are unstable.

[Citation needed].

 

[wist43]

[Citation needed].

Have you never read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers??

And what are you afraid of?? Answer my my question please... would it make sense to collapse the economy??

Here, I'll ask it in a more specific way - Would it make sense for the Establishment Elites to collapse the economy??

 

[Proudmoore]

It would be ludicrous because racism is a form of collectivism, and Rand was a staunch individualist. The left's greatest hero of all time is Karl Marx, and he was a vile racist and antisemite, despite being an ethnic Jew himself.

So the founding fathers of the USA were all left wing? and most of our politicians until recently? because almost all of them were very racist.

 

[aociswundumho]

So the founding fathers of the USA were all left wing? and most of our politicians until recently? because almost all of them were very racist.

Like nearly all people, they held a mixture of individualistic and collectivist viewpoints.

 

[wist43]

So the founding fathers of the USA were all left wing? and most of our politicians until recently? because almost all of them were very racist.

The political spectrum has nothing to do with racism.

The Communist Chinese are most definitely left wing, they are also crazy-ass racists.

 

[Doug64]

So you think communes are authoritarian? Hardly. Countries with no history of democracy often become dictatorships and the "ideology" a dictator uses matters little, Right or left they are pretty much the same.

Membership in communes is voluntary, but beyond that, yes, any system in which the State (however small or democratic that State might be) gets to call all the shots economically is inherently authoritarian.

Do you have any actual argument against the well-established consensus that Nazism was a form of Fascism?

@aociswundumho already covered this, really, but yes, the fascists were all about the nation while the nazis were all about race--beyond that, there wasn't much difference. Which is why it's best to describe them as siblings with the USSR as a cousin. They weren't as Left as Communist Russia, but certainly more Left than FDR.

​

In 1937 ...

I tried to verify the information in your post but was unable to. Can you provide links? Also, considering the dates, you'd need to clarify which were due to capability and which due to actual policy.

Since the Establishment was able to redefine the Constitution in the 1930's, they've be mischievous indeed.

Actually, a good deal of that redefinition was carried out post-Civil War, when activist courts suppressed the constitutional right of state governments to control their own domestic economies. The major difference between that and the 1930's (and onward) was that the courts were pro-Big Business instead of pro-Big Government.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Have you never read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers??

Do you really believe these two sets of documents contain absolute truths?

 

[Jredbaron96]

I tried to verify the information in your post but was unable to. Can you provide links?

The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry by Cristoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner. The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 66, No. 2 (Jun., 2006), pp. 390-416

Also, considering the dates, you'd need to clarify which were due to capability and which due to actual policy.

Capability to what? Restructure the economy?

 

[Jredbaron96]

@aociswundumho already covered this, really, but yes, the fascists were all about the nation while the nazis were all about race--beyond that, there wasn't much difference.

Yes, there was as a matter of fact. Philosophically Nazism and Fascism are not similar.

 

[TypicalRussian]

No socialist country has ever allowed independent unions, and Hitler was a communist in 1919:






There are many different kinds of socialism.

Nazism was socialism based on race, fascism was socialism with a nationalist bent.

please just stop, Hitler was not socialist

 

[wist43]

Do you really believe these two sets of documents contain absolute truths?

Answer the question... beginning to think your account is a bot.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Answer the question... beginning to think your account is a bot.

I'm beginning to think you're incapable of doing anything besides referencing the Federalist Papers as if they are the the sole legitimate source of information in this world.

 

[wist43]

I'm beginning to think you're incapable of doing anything besides referencing the Federalist Papers as if they are the the sole legitimate source of information in this world.

I'm done with you.

Ciao

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'm done with you.

Ciao

Well your argument started out poorly, sagged in the middle, and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that it was brilliant.

 

[wist43]

Well your argument started out poorly, sagged in the middle, and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that it was brilliant.

You're a joke.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You're a joke.

I've been called worse by better people.

 

[wist43]

I've been called worse by better people.

Look dude, leave me alone - I've had enough of you.

Get it??

I can't put you on ignore because you're a mod, so censor yourself would ya??

 

[Jredbaron96]

Look dude, leave me alone - I've had enough of you.

Get it??

I can't put you on ignore because you're a mod, so censor yourself would ya??

You know you can just stop replying, right?