• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mussolini and Hitler were right wing dictators

NatMorton said:
I said the left is closer to Nazism than the right because of the common reliance on centralized political authority, as you rightly pointed out, to achieve their respective objectives. Someone who advocates for smaller, more limited government -- like me an any conservative worthy of the name -- is farther away from that.

My political views, on the other hand, are closer to anarchy than are yours.
Click to expand...

So are social conservatives not right wing? Seems like social conservatives are fine with centralized government to force social conservatism on people who don't want it.

Pretty sure Matt Walsh wants to use big government to force social conservatism on people and you love that guy.
 
Yes_Minister said:
So are social conservatives not right wing? Seems like social conservatives are fine with centralized government to force social conservatism on people who don't want it.

Pretty sure Matt Walsh wants to use big government to force social conservatism on people and you love that guy.
Click to expand...
You’re welcome to quibble over labels, but I won’t be joining you. My point stands: on the political spectrum, big government liberals are closer to fascism than are small government conservatives. I realize you don’t want to accept that, but I don’t care. The reasoning is sound no matter how much it bothers you.
 
NatMorton said:
You’re welcome to quibble over labels, but I won’t be joining you. My point stands: on the political spectrum, big government liberals are closer to fascism than are small government conservatives. I realize you don’t want to accept that, but I don’t care. The reasoning is sound no matter how much it bothers you.
Click to expand...
On the political spectrum small c conservatives are closer to small l liberals than either are to Fascists or Communists
However Fascism is was and remains a far right ideology
 
Quag said:
On the political spectrum small c conservatives are closer to small l liberals than either are to Fascists or Communists
However Fascism is was and remains a far right ideology
Click to expand...
No, it’s much closer to left wing ideology: a quest to centralize and concentrate political authority.
 
NatMorton said:
You’re welcome to quibble over labels, but I won’t be joining you. My point stands: on the political spectrum, big government liberals are closer to fascism than are small government conservatives. I realize you don’t want to accept that, but I don’t care. The reasoning is sound no matter how much it bothers you.
Click to expand...

How is social conservatism a small government ideology if it wants the state to impose social conservatism on people who don't want it, that is what Walsh wants.

Is Charlie Kirk supporting "small government" when he said Church should direct the state?

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Hitler was a social conservative:

Kinder, Küche, Kirche - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Yes_Minister said:
How is social conservatism a small government ideology if it wants the state to impose social conservatism on people who don't want it, that is what Walsh wants.

Is Charlie Kirk supporting "small government" when he said Church should direct the state?

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Hitler was a social conservative:

Kinder, Küche, Kirche - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Never said social conservatism was “small government.” Suggest you find someone who has if you want to have that arugment.
 
NatMorton said:
Probably because like so many on the left, they believed the “solution” to their society’s problems was the centralization of of authority.
Click to expand...

Do you know who Franz Van Papen is? Because frankly I have no reason to respect your analysis unless you actually acknowledge the people who got Hitler into power and their motives.

Or do you know what the Freikorps were and how they became a the backbone of Hitler's support?

Without that, your arguments are ahistorical.


Athanasius68 said:
By early 30s Germany, the choice was either 'imprisonment' from the Nazis, or liquidation from the Communists.
Click to expand...

Are you saying Franz Van Papen didn't have a choice but to help Hitler into power?

Or a lot of rich people was "the Nazis were the lesser of two evils" because they were business friendly than the Communists would be and the wealthy put their economic well being above any concerns the antisemitism the Nazis expressed.
 
NatMorton said:
Never said social conservatism was “small government.” Suggest you find someone who has if you want to have that arugment.
Click to expand...

But you are saying all dictators are left wing, right?

So would a dictatorship based on social conservatism be left wing? How does that work?
 
NatMorton said:
No, it’s much closer to left wing ideology: a quest to centralize and concentrate political authority.
Click to expand...

This is not a strictly leftwing tendency. Just look at the rightwingers trying to ban abortion on the federal level (e.g. Pence and Graham).
 
Geoist said:
This is not a strictly leftwing tendency. Just look at the rightwingers trying to ban abortion on the federal level (e.g. Pence and Graham).
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was strictly a left wing tendency. I do assert it is a defining left-wing tendency in a way it is not for conservatives.
 
Yes_Minister said:
But you are saying all dictators are left wing, right?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying they have more in common with liberals than they do small government conservatives.

Yes_Minister said:
So would a dictatorship based on social conservatism be left wing? How does that work?
Click to expand...
It would be consistent with the objectives of the left: creating a strong, centralized government. The difference is only measured in degree.
 
NatMorton said:
No, I'm saying they have more in common with liberals than they do small government conservatives.


It would be consistent with the objectives of the left: creating a strong, centralized government. The difference is only measured in degree.
Click to expand...

So what, Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles are all left wingers because they want a centralized social conservative government?

Knowles want the state to ban trans people, Walsh thinks it should be illegal for adults transition and Kirk wants the Church to control the state.

Is Lindsay Graham a left wingers because he wants a national abortion ban?

This whole construction falls apart under the slightest bit of weight.

It also ignores left wing anarchists who don't think the state or corporations should exist, because they think they are both unjust hierarchies.

Centralization is a tool, not an ideology, anyone can use it and I think you know that.
 
NatMorton said:
I didn't say it was strictly a left wing tendency. I do assert it is a defining left-wing tendency in a way it is not for conservatives.
Click to expand...

Except social conservatism is fine with centralized government if it suits its purposes, your whole construction falls apart when social conservatism is added in.
 
CLAX1911 said:
how are they better if they come up with the absolute dumbest solution you can think of?
Click to expand...
I don't know what you are referring to. How can trying to save lives ever be dumb?
CLAX1911 said:
you're not very smart fighting literally said he wants to take guns away a few weeks ago.
Click to expand...
No one, I repeat, no one is trying to "take guns away". Making it more difficult for undesirables to get certain weapons is the aim. You have a link proving otherwise?
 
NatMorton said:
You’re welcome to quibble over labels, but I won’t be joining you. My point stands: on the political spectrum, big government liberals are closer to fascism than are small government conservatives. I realize you don’t want to accept that, but I don’t care. The reasoning is sound no matter how much it bothers you.
Click to expand...
NatMorton said:
I didn't say it was strictly a left wing tendency. I do assert it is a defining left-wing tendency in a way it is not for conservatives.
Click to expand...
NatMorton said:
No, I'm saying they have more in common with liberals than they do small government conservatives.


It would be consistent with the objectives of the left: creating a strong, centralized government. The difference is only measured in degree.
Click to expand...


Your entire argument just boils down to you just wanting to define terms and ideologies in a way you find convenient and expect others to go along with them.
 
element94 said:
I don't know what you are referring to. How can trying to save lives ever be dumb?
Click to expand...
it isn't trying to say a lot it's doing everything but that.
No one, I repeat, no one is trying to "take guns away".
Click to expand...
they said it themselves you can lie to yourself all you want.
Making it more difficult for undesirables to get certain weapons is the aim. You have a link proving otherwise?
Click to expand...
No disarming is the goal. What makes you think they'll stop their death by A thousand cuts at cut 623
 
NatMorton said:
No, it’s much closer to left wing ideology: a quest to centralize and concentrate political authority.
Click to expand...
Nope you are inventing a definition of right left to fit your desire to pretend fascism is left wing
 
Right wing and left wing, along with conservative and liberal, are far from being definitive. Over time positions on issues can change from one camp to the other. Groups of people can also swap sides.

I find it more useful to think of the United States, politically, as being inhabited by two tribes -- red and blue. This helps, among other things, in accepting the politics of each tribe as tribe-centered and not nation-centered. The lack of concern about the United States of America qua the United States of America by both the Republicans and the Democrats is more easily explained by thinking of them as tribes.

Note also that given a tribal framework, fascism is, well, fascism. It needs no other label nor pigeonhole.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Your entire argument just boils down to you just wanting to define terms and ideologies in a way you find convenient and expect others to go along with them.
Click to expand...
No, it boils down to a point you’re unable to refute. Liberals and fascists both seek to accomplish their policy objectives with strong, centralized political authority. You haven’t countered this point, and we both know why.
 
NatMorton said:
No, it boils down to a point you’re unable to refute.
Click to expand...

It has already been refuted; right wing governments, political factions, and organization have never had any issue using centralized political authority power to pursue right wing agendas.

You have to invent a segmentation of the right wing in order to ignore all that so you can pretend that "small government conservatism" sits on a pedestal unrelated to any other form of right wing politics.

You *have* to pretend this, because otherwise your entire argument falls apart, but all it really does is highlight your lack of understanding of politics, ideology, and history.
 
Quag said:
Nope you are inventing a definition of right left to fit your desire to pretend fascism is left wing
Click to expand...
I’ve invented nothing. When you can muster a logical, well reasoned argument against my point, let me know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom