Im baffled by the americans that want to live under a monarchy, they see themselves as peasants i guess
There are authoritarians in every country. I don’t get the appeal - you have to think less I guess? less responsibility? - but lots of people seem eager to give up their voice if they think the person getting the power will use it against the people they don’t like.
The key is to get them to realize that eventually someone who doesn’t like them is going to get the power - maybe? But I think I’ve also heard that some of these preferences are down to physical brain structure that determines sensitivity to fear and empathy
Good point but id back it up a bit and ask first if they are prepared to change their mind, no point “debating” someone if they are narrow minded and adamant they know their shit. Kinda why i stopped doin the whole religious debate debacle, im not gonna change their mind.
It was totally leftist…which is why small business owners backed them and other conservative parties formed government with them.
Also, they called themselves National Socialists. After all, would a government ever lie?
People these days really are sheltered if they can’t detect sarcasm without it being specifically called out…
How do these people function in their daily lives? Do they have service dogs or something who bark every time someone makes a joke?
~70% of communication is nonverbal. Body language and tone of voice convey that you intend something opposite of the literal words you’re using. When you throw the nonverbal aspect out the window for an entirely verbal exchange, especially online where everybody is a stranger and potentially something akin to but not necessarily a Nazi, it’s pretty difficult to ascertain whether you’re dealing with somebody who is broadcasting silly thoughts to satirically display the stupidity and absurdity of supporting fascism or an actual supporter of fascism who is actually stupid and absurd. Without using italics or “/s” we can’t know for sure because there are almost certainly some dipshits who believe whatever you say sarcastically without a shred of self awareness.
But yeah, I think the comment you’re talking about was pretty obviously meant to be sarcasm. It could only be misunderstood by people who don’t know what those words mean lol.
At first I thought lemmygrad was a satirical instance making fun of communist talking points by exaggerating them…
So yeah, sometimes it’s hard to distinguish.
Maybe but that’s also kinda the main point of this post init?
It was rightwing and fascist… How do you come to the conclusion it had something to do with communism?
Read the first part of my comment and then read after the ellipsis. It was sarcasm. 🙂
Clearly a left wing party is not going to be supported by business owners and conservative parties.
Did you miss an \s?
I thought the sarcasm was obvious enough to not need that. 🙂
I got it, but in our current age with what’s going on we need to be clear unfortunately. We will not accept fascist/Nazi views and should do everything possible to remove them from society. Tolerance of intolerance (specifically in the context of this post) does not fly. Those views are not welcome in modern society. They should never be welcome in any society. This isn’t for you SeaJ. It’s for anyone who could even contemplate that ideology. If you sympathize with Nazi ideology you are not welcome here and “here” is Earth. Go subjugate Pluto and get off my planet!
But if nazis aren’t socialist, what does the S in NSDAP mean? Checkmate liberuls!
/s <- obviously
National Sarkastische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei?
Damn, it was a long con joke all along! 🤯
It’s like when US calls itself a democracy. :)
deleted by creator
This is such a stupid talking point I can’t believe it still gets parroted.
If you have elections for government officials chosen from the people, you are a democracy - there’s no real high bar for that.
If you are an independent nation not beholden to any foreign power, you are a Republic. The American head of state is the US President chosen by the American people, not a King or Queen from another nation.
One does not exclude the other.
As a Greek speaker who also knows Latin and Ancient Greek, both words mean the same thing and come from the same roots in their respective language (demos = publius = people/community/population). I don’t know why political theorists try so hard to separate them. The only real use of separating them is for easily differentiating the Athenian Democracy from the Roman Republic, for historical purposes, but nowadays both democracies and republics are functionally the same thing (and linguistically should be the same too). The only difference is sometimes the functioning leader’s name (president vs prime minister). Every other difference between them are for the sake of local cultural/historical traditions.
In the classical sense, Parliamentary/Representative Republics/Democracies ARE oligarchies. A true democracy would give voting power not just for electing representatives but also for determining specific policies and laws (i.e. Referendums), which very rarely, if at all in many cases, actually happens.
Demos-kratos = government of the people
Res-publica = thing of the people, as in government of the people
It’s like the tankies who say Stalin was a fascist and not a Marxist, they’re, like you said, brain dead
could you remind me which part of Marxism exactly it was Stalin was implementing, other than claiming to be in line with Marxism? a dictatorship of the proletariat perhaps?
Participating in a violent overthrow of capitalism? ✅
Establishing an authoritarian socialist dictatorship that rules with an iron fist? ✅
Seizing land and property by force? ✅
Purging anybody and everybody that didn’t fall in line under the guise of being “anti-revolutionary”? ✅
Destroying the environment, cities, culture, and people to bring about the social climate necessary to bring about communism™? ✅
Committing genocides to get rid of “anti-revolutionary” groups? ✅
Pumping propaganda about Marxism? ✅
Ruling as the dictator of the the communist party that supposed to rule on the “behalf” of workers? ✅
He’s a Marxist and there’s literally nothing you could say to change that.
Many Marxists are damaged enough to actually believe that Marxism isn’t authoritarian when it inherently is. Authoritarianism ≠ fascism. Fascism is just one of many ideologies that are authoritarian, Marxism is among these ideologies.
Marx had two things: a critique of industrialist society, and a plan for how to fix said society. His critique was valid, his solutions were questionable. I don’t think you’ll find many socialists today who consider themselves Marxists.
That’s where you’re wrong, the vast majority of socialists today are Marxists.
Here we go again with people confusing socialism and communism…
Maybe the most vocal but I don’t believe that.
Any proof of that?
Stalin cherry-picked what he wanted from “Marxism” and left behind the things he didn’t like. That doesn’t make him a Marxist, it makes him a Stalinist, and there’s literally nothing you could say to change that.
Stalin was a dictator - which is antithetical to the core principles of communism. You cannot be both a communist and a dictator, they are diametrically opposed.
It’s a shame Lenin died right after the establishment of the USSR, he disdained everything Stalin became.
Communism is and isn’t authoritarian. The establishment is, and the struggle to prevent regress into capitalism is, but for the people who aren’t trying to exploit others, it isn’t.
Authoritarianism ≠ fascism
Authoritarianism + ultranationalism = fascism.
Communism isn’t anything like fascism. Communism, by definition, rejects nationalism, and considers every proletariat family, regardless of nationality and ethnicity. The only enemy of communism is the bourgeoisie (dictators and fascists foremost)
1984, just change the definition
I saw a video from Ronnie-boy who equated Fascism with the left because Fascism is government control and the left wants government control. I’ve found with the most far right, any “-ism” is a leftist idea, except for conservatism. That one’s all about freedom.
Modern-day fascists are desperate to distance themselves from the nazis, despite the fact that the nazis are literally their idols.
Wait, do people really care if Nazis were left or right-wing?
Their leader was a racist mass murderer with superiority complex, who cares about his political views?
Let’s say they were left-wing… Does that make the left wing Nazis? Mmm no. If a dictator is right-wing, does that make the right-wing dictators? No.
Do people understand these are two unrelated things? Imagine seeing a dog owner cheating on his wife and assuming all dog owners are cheaters.
Their leader was a racist mass murderer with superiority complex, who cares about his political views?
People who know that his political views included “we should use the state to enforce racism” and “mass murder is ok.”
Thats not the point, youre twisting the order. Every nazi is right-wing, by definition. Not every right-winger is a nazi and thats not what people are saying. A big part of nazi ideology is overlapping with general right-wing ideologies, they are separate but not unrelated at all.
You don’t understand. What I’m saying is that you shouldn’t care about it. Do you care if the North Korean dictator is left-wing? No? Good, you shouldn’t. The same way you shouldn’t care if Nazis were right-wing.
I’d argue that you should very much care about the political alignment of extremist leaders, because it show you where an ideology can ultimately lead to if left unchecked. As the poster above said, it doesn’t mean that all right-wing people are nazis, but knowing the nazis were right-wing shows you where a right-wing government can end up if the wrong set of conditions happen to come along. This is important information, as you can spot the warning signs as they appear and (hopefully) nip it in the bud before it gets to that point.
You could literally replace all this with “left wing” and use “communism” incorrectly instead of fascism (which isn’t just dictatorship, it was also a set of economic and societal philosophies invented by the fascisti of Italy) because at the end of the day, both sides of the political aisle have the same tendency to go extremist authoritarian when allowed.
There has been no non-authoritarian state of existence of humans inside any civilisation. None. Liberals/centrists playing this bullshit trope of feudalism or anarchism or some dreamy impossible organisation of society with literally zero hierarchy, is impossible. Direct democracy works at best on a scale of a small village. If we go by Dunbar’s number, no bigger than a group of 148 people can have direct relations.
They are behaving like Nazis regardless of if the Nazis were right-wing or left-wing. Nazi behavior can happen in the left or the right. As I already said, discrimination, murder, superiority complex, racism and exploration has also happened in left-wing systems.
Of course bad things happen at the extremes of both sides, but I’m going to have to object to “regardless of if the Nazis were right-wing or left-wing.” I don’t think there’s really room to equivocate on that - nazism is right-wing.
It is. Just like fascism, these are terms associated with the right-wing. But that’s not my point… My point is that whatever affiliation the right or left had in the past does not necessarily represent the current affiliations. The fact that the US right-wing is turning to white supremacy is unrelated to Nazis being right wing. That is just a reflection of their systemic racism.
What I’m saying is that it is irrelevant if Republicans are trying to associate the left with Nazis, because even if such association existed, it is not a valid argument to say that the left today is ruled by Nazis, or that the right can’t behave like Nazis. That’s just a fallacy, the same fallacy that they use to point out that voting left will turn us into North Korea or an authoritarian left-wing dictatorship.
I can’t believe people aren’t getting this. It’s like they don’t understand I’m actually pro-left with this argument, somehow they think I’m protecting Nazis and Republicans because I’m not shouting “REPUBLICANS BAD!”
Going back and pointing out how Nazis were right-wing is something that will bite the left in the ass because there are plenty of examples of the left turning into shit too. So instead of comparing with past examples, just analyze their current positions. Is the right currently behaving like Nazis? Yes. Do you need WWII Nazis to be right wing for this to be a fact? No. So even if they convince people that Nazis were left wing, how does that disprove that RIGHT NOW they are the racists and white supremacists?
I’m just saying, don’t play their games.
I feel like you’re being deliberately obtuse. You’re right in that by itself trying to define the nazi party of the past in terms of present day left/right ideology is reductivist, and unproductive in discourse. But you’re ignoring two important facts in the present day right/left dynamic. First that literal modern day nazis have shown a distinct preference for right wing ideaology. Second is that fascism as an ideology is a chameleon that latches onto present day conflict to unite people through oppression of a weak other, which is the basis for present day right wing policy. As such the comparison becomes apt because the fascists of the past are a model for the fascists of the present.
OK, by that same logic the left-wing dictators and collapsed systems of the past are a model for the present. So is the right justified to push fear with those past examples to show how bad the left is?
Do you see that’s just the same flawed logic they use to scare people away from the left?
Yeah, you’re a troll.
Do you care if the North Korean dictator is left-wing?
Kim Jong-Un is right wing. So were Kim Jong Il, Kim Il Sung, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Xi, and Che Guevara. In fact, they were all moderate Republicans whose ideas are 100% in line with the current Republican Party platform. There’s no daylight at all between any of them and Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Before you respond, remember that you don’t care what their politics are because it doesn’t matter.
Dafuq, North Korea is left wing. OK, so was the Soviet Union also right wing when they marginalized minorities through Russification?
“if it is bad, it is right-wing”.
And yes, my whole point is that the fact North Korea has a left-wing dictatorship doesn’t mean that all left-wing parties will become dictatorships. You finally got my point, damn, it took you so long.
Now it matters. Now you care.
North Korea is 100% a right wing country, right wing policies and a dictator. You can’t argue with that fact.
Stalin claimed his government was left wing and Marx based but it was revealed that he was right leaning, a dictator and instilled right wing policies.
Ah ok, as I said, “everything that is left wing is good and paradise. Everything right wing is pure evil”.
In a left-wing state the state always holds the power… So once that state becomes corrupted and uses that power to keep all workers equally poor, then it is suddenly right wing? Show me what were the capitalist principles in the Soviet Union? Was there a free market, private incentive, private property, competition, minimal state intervention, entrepreneurship, individual rights and freedoms? NOOO THERE WEREN’T. It wasn’t a right-wing state.
You guys are insane. Lemmy became an echo chamber for your delusions. It’s really sad to see people this radicalized.
A dictator is a dictator, who the fuck cares if they are right or left wing? A racist is a racist. A murderer is a murderer. They can be found in any side of the political spectrum, but you’re too biased to believe the left can be corrupted… You are too blinded by what is right and what is left and are totally unable to see there can be combinations of ideologies.
You say dictators are right wing because they don’t follow some left-wing principles? Then I could argue that all dictators are left-wing because by definition the right strives to minimize government controls, and a dictatorship is authoritarian, which goes against right-wing policies… But I’m done arguing. This is my last Lemmy comment. You are so blinded by the left vs right argument you can’t see beyond that. This degree of fanatism can’t be healthy, I don’t want to become radicalized like you people. This self imposed blindness is sad and pathetic. Good bye.
Let me clarify. To be crystal clear, we’re talking about “left” and right on the political compass. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s the most well known one. Overall, “left” and “right” are bizarre terminologies with aqueous meanings deeply embedded in history.
You are technically correct if you are talking about the political compass. we call “authoritarian left” “Stalinism” and we call “libertarian right” “anarcho-capitalism” or just “libertarianism” in the US.
The problem is that all philosophy founding “leftist ideology” has consistently been “libertarian left”, focusing on collapsing hierarchies, dividing power into many hands, and dismantling power structures (such as currency). Anarchism is basically the prime example.
With Marx’s communism, his end game is a system without any government, where people simply exchange services and collaborate to create only what they want or need (not to endlessly proliferate waste for profit). Even his “dictatorship of the proletariat”, one of the stepping stones to communism, is a democratic system. It is called a “dictatorship” because it revokes the voting rights of the rich.
To boot, the ideologies which exist in the “authoritarian left” and “libertarian right” are full of contradictions and mental gymnastics. They all swear they’re communist but make no attempts to actually disseminate power, or gear towards a more democratic system, directly going against Marx’s ideals.
Because of this, pretty much every leftist agrees that the “authoritarian left” are not leftist, because they directly betray the philosophy which founds leftist beliefs.
SO to conclude, there is literally no world where someone can genuinely believe the various philosophies within leftism while at the same time starting a campaign alienating minorities, appealing to the general population with populism and returning the state to a former glory, and embarking on a Nazi take-over. This is why Nazism and leftism are completely incompatible, and why literally no Authoritarian can be considered a leftist.
The caveat is that being a “racist mass murderer with a superiority complex” is a very right-wing thing. It wouldn’t be possible to fit that mold and be leftist because it’s entirely incompatible with leftist ideology.
So you’re saying that racism and mass murder did not exist under communist China?
What about Russification in the Soviet Union? Minorities were marginalized.
Why would it be a problem if the Nazis were actually left-wing? You’re not realizing you’re actually a victim of a fallacy. And even more concerning, you’re trying to use the same fallacy to attack back. It’s just flawed logic all over the place.
As I understand it the keystone between left and right is that:
The left belief is that all people are created equal and should have equal authority to point out wrong doing. The right belief is that people should be in a hierarchy with people at the top exerting control downward.I think they are actually just saying if you really believe everyone is equal you can’t pick a group to target for mass murder. But if you are at the top of a pyramid tge people below you naturally look expendable.
At least that is my reading of this debate.
Yeha, tell that to the North Korean God, Kim, who rises above everyone while keeping everyone else equal.
And my point was that even in the left, murder, discrimination and racism can exist.
People just choose to think their position is ideal and the opposition is flawed. This type of brainwashing is disgusting.
Correct, and my point was that they can’t. If you view everyone as equal you can’t make yourself a dictator. You can lie to yourself about your value, most people do for better or worse. But if everyone is equal you can’t decide to boost one group over another. Or if you do decide that is better and you deserve to be in charge, then your views have shifted right. That is my understanding of left vs right in it’s most basic form.
“I don’t like nazis”
“YEAH? Whatabout Commies?! Huh? HUH?”
What? I’m just saying that being racist or a murderer is totally unrelated to political views. Those can happen in both the left and right.
Guys, you’re smarter than this. For real.
The conversation is about nazis. You keep trying to talk about communists.
I said it doesn’t matter if the Nazis were right wing or left wing, what matters is that they were criminals. Then that person said that mass murder and racism is only aligned with the right, so I showed him/her that that is wrong, murder and racism can also happen on the left.
The point being that just because in the past there were rotten apples in the left/right, it doesn’t mean that being in the left/right makes you a rotten apple.
Hilarious how people who know exactly one “racist mass murderer with a superiority complex” assume that it is a right-wing thing. Try humanities most famous left-winger ever.
Im not saying that nazis and right-wing are unrelated, but you picked exactly those characteristics in Hitler that actually arent related to political views at all.
deleted by creator
State enforced racism and industrialized government implemented mass murder are central to nazis’ political views.
I don’t understand why someone would bring up that being right-wing does not make one a nazi unless they were right-wing and felt like the type of person who is at risk of being called a nazi.
That being said, in reference to your commenr: in America it is as you say. Elsewhere in the world it’s a bit more complicated. Left and Right originally referred to the sides of the French National Assembly, who either supported the king or the revolution. In some uses it just means people who support liberal economics (more funding) or conservative economics (less debt).
Most people would agree that communism is a left-wing ideology, but there have been famous communist leaders that were racist, mass-murdering and/or with superiority complexes (the famous examples of Che Guevara, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot all fit some of those criteria each).
Did you just seriously say that there has never been a left wing racist mass murderer with a superiority complex?
There hasn’t been.
Certainly been a few waving the flag of socialism/communism that have lead to those consequences.
It’s not uncommon for fascists to adopt socialist rhetoric to try and gain mass appeal. However that falls away under the lightest scrutiny of their actions and ideology. “National Socialism” is the most obvious example. I’d include Pol Pot in that bucket as well.
The USSR under Stalin and PRC under Mao are a bit different. The government in either case made decisions that led to unnecessary death, but there’s no evidence to suggest any of their missteps were motivated by racial animus.
Mao’s Great Leap Forward was him trying to push Communist ideology onto nature. He had one hammer in his tool box and tried using it on everything.
Like who?
Pol Pot should be a uncontroversial pick.
As someone who is fairly into ideologies I can tell you, that national-socialism or nazism, which is a sub-ideology of fascism isn’t called that for no reason. If you look at it closely it does take a lot home from nationalism, but socialisim as well. These are right-wing (with some exceptions) and left-wing ideologies respectively and both can take extremes. This is why a lot of people in the sphere call the fusion of these two the “Third Way”, meaning it’s between the extreme left and extreme right and opposite to Centrism, which is between the calmer ends of the two sides. This means that nazis are neither right nor left-wing, at least as seen in european politics, in the exteremely polarized american political climate they (or at least their grossly dumbed-down interpretation) could be considered extremly right wing, but I think american politics are stupid anyway. And now to answer the question (pretending I didn’t just saw a question where there wasn’t any) anyone who calls nazis leftists just has a politcal bias against them and tries to make them appear even worse by blending them with those goddamn liberals. Okay but seriously, people really shouldn’t dumb down “old enemies” because that just means that they didn’t learn anything.
You’re “fairly into ideologies”, but you’re not well versed on political literacy. It seems like you got your idea of where Nazism sits on the political spectrum from the PoliticalCompassMemes subreddit (where “nAzIS ARe aUtHCENter” is the most commonly promoted talking point).
First and foremost, “third way” isn’t even the correct term to use here. You’re most likely referring to the term “third position”, which is an honest mistake in terminology, but that term refers to a different thing than third way entirely.
“Third way” refers to the more social liberal side of centrism. “Third position” is in reference to fascist tendencies to reject the binary notion of either standard socialist economics and/or laissez-faire free market capitalist economics. This comes with an important caveat: rejection of “typical socialism” and “typical capitalism” doesn’t mean you’re neither left-wing or right-wing, as we don’t really, in terminology, use your stance on socialism and capitalism as an inherent way of noting whether you’re left-wing or right-wing.
Some people might hear this reference to Nazism and assume this means it’ neither left-wing or right-wing, but this is a misinterpretation of definitions. Nazis most certainly were not free market capitalists, but they weren’t socialists either. However, the methods in which you run your economy are not necessarily the prime dictator of being left-wing and/or right-wing, like I said.
Nazis have historically been, and to this day still are, placed on the far-right end of the political spectrum due to upholding hierarchical doctrines within society because left and right are not “socialism vs. capitalism” as much as they are “egalitarianism vs hierarchy”. Nazis didn’t take hugely consistent economic positions, but they still were extremely hierarchical, and that serves as the basis of considering their ideology far-right.
Unless you want to argue that Nazis are not fans of rigid hierarchies (which would be foolish to do so), then you should, in some capacity, be able to acknowledge them sitting on the far-right end of the polspec.
Also, one more thing to mention. Leftists tend to be socialists because it’s an egalitarian mode of production. However, you can still support a less regulative corporatist economy like Nazis did while not being any degree of egalitarianism. Just stating this so people don’t misinterpret me as saying that “leftists aren’t inherently socialists”.
You are probably right about the third way/position thing, it’s just that I haven’t informed from english-speaking sources, so I’ve never been really sure of the correct translation. This might just have completly screwed up the meaning of my comment. As for the rest I don’t oppose the idea that nazis are more right than left, I just say they incorporate enough ideas of the left-wing, both cultural and economic to be called a blend of the two sides.
Nazis took nothing from the left wing other than some rhetoric they used to gain popular support from the working class. Their politics were more inspired by European colonialism than anything else. Lebensraum is basically just manifest destiny applied to Europe.
Nazis are right wing in a European political context, that is not really a discussion in academia. This has nothing to do with current American politics, this is established history.
The only people claiming that they are left wing are right wing fascists who tries to distance themselves from the term (while doing everything in their power to emulate them), and that is done by both European and American fascists.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
When a small but dedicated group of vocal people started unironically and emphatically believing the planet was a pancake, I lost a significant portion of my lingering reserves of hope for the future of mankind.
Extremist politics and all the associated mindsets have long since jumped a row of sharks in my mind by comparison.
From my limited understanding, it mostly seems like misattribution of all the very obvious chaos and uncertainty about “grand” events like climate change, economical strife, etc.
It’s less that someone holds pancake planet as their sole belief but more a web of interconnected beliefs that would explain the true cause of these nebulous events if they were true.
Not that it makes the outcome any better that people choose a more palatable ideological narrative over reality but there is a part of me that recognizes ignorance would be more blissful.
They decided that the financial success of a certain group of people can be fully attributed to these people exploiting the rest of the populace, and therefore the world will only benefit if they get rid of these people.
Yup. Doesn’t sound like anything modern day leftists and socialists would say.
Strawman aside, anyone who thinks national socialism has anything to do with socialism needs to seriously educate themselves on Nazi ideology. Socialism to Hitler was nothing more than a buzzword he used to boost approval rates and votes quickly
As soon as they came into power, the Nazis did a complete 180° and swept every single promise they had made under the rug, kicking out or straight up murdering anyone, even in their own party (e.g. Sturmabteilung), who may have genuinely believed the party’s socialist façade.
Their socialist agenda was not the only falsehood the Nazis pushed though (surprising, I know!). The only three things the Nazis actually believed in were:
- Hitler
- Jews/Poles/anyone Hitler didn’t like = kill
- Germany is entitled to take what they want from anyone because Lebensraum
Unfortunately in the west we are heavily indoctrinated against socialism. Or even knowing what socialism is. While at the same time heavily apologist to groups and parties closely aligned to the Nazis and the fascists. A large group of Republican legislators and their wealthy friends wanted a fascist overthrow around the same time Hitler attempted his first coup. They were never punished nor was the party ever admonished or reformed. To this day the descendants of people likely involved are still in power.
Socialism is when Democrats do things. Especially when they give things to people who aren’t me. Doubly especially if they aren’t white.
That’s socialism. And Naziism.
(/s since Poe struck other people here already)
Sounds like we need to rebrand the original word “socialism” to something without the Nazi continuation. I’m thinking humanism (I’m worried that might turn into complete disrespect for any non-human form of life) or human dignitarian. I’d love to hear better versions than what I just came up with on the fly.
Lol good call on the /s especially in lieu of the seed of this thread. It’s pretty frightening just how willing so many are to go along with groupthink. And realistically espouse just that.
In the west means America? Bc I know for a fact that me, and many of my European brothers and sisters, are well aware of the tenets of socialism, and that our various socdem governments are little more than capitalists in sheep’s clothing. Also, fascism is not treated kindly here. Though tbf, also not harshly enough.
Especially in America definitely. Things are a little better in Europe. But are degrading heavily at a steady pace. But yes West generally means US sphere of influence. Because Europe and much of that is generally in what’s considered globally the east in a physical sense.
It is pretty terrifying though. How few people understand that while Hitler had his beer hall putsch. Republicans here were plotting their own. And we’re never punished or had any repercussions for it. They just got called out and temporarily shamed into behaving. But quickly went right back to fascist plotting. The extra sad bit being that our far left party here is actually well right of center. And generally pretty willing to work with fascist Republicans on many things.
The western world definitely includes Europe dude
I didn’t say it didn’t.
I’m not gonna say you did, my reading comprehension might be off, but I got the impression that you implied Europe is part of the east, which is obviously silly. Also, the maps why use here does not even places us in the east, in a physical sense, but smack dab in the middle. I guess the takeaway should be, it all comes down to perspective… Also, I appreciate your comment, my friend.
Eastern hemisphere. Western sphere of influence. But yeah. We’re on the same page. I’m definitely open to being wrong though. I realized quite a while back just how indoctrinated and miseducated we Americans are. And constantly finding more to undo. Gotta keep an open mind and all.
Unless they didn’t pay attention they were taught it here in the U.S.
No one should be able to make a logical leap from the way people refer to hitler in the U.S. to anything attempting at equality or socialistic.
There are 2 seperate terms that are taught here that could confuse people though. State and Australia. Using the term state for a U.S. state like Utah or New York is somehow different than using the term state to define Germany or Pakistan. (Generally we are taught just to call them countries)
Australia on the other hand is taught to be a Country, and a Continent. Other places teach it under the name Oceania I believe which could confuse people. Saying New Zealand is in Australia would be both right and wrong. It is a part of the Australian continent, not a part of the country.
I’ve never heard of the continent Australia is on being called Australia. I’ve always heard and been taught that it’s Oceania here in Canada. Do people actually call it all Australia?
Everyone in the U.S. calls it Australia that I know, some other countries do as well.
Wikipedia lists it as Australia for us as well. (All textbooks did here)
The reasoning we were taught is that Continents were large land masses, which Oceania unlike the other 6, isn’t really a landmass so much, rather just the name of the tectonic plate.
Socialism is very much not covered. In general it is just equated to ML communism and nothing more. No one is educated about true libertarians. Or what anarchism actually is or other forms of communism or anything like that. Maybe that’s different now back in the '80s no and before that hell no. I sincerely hope things are better now. But I can only go by what I personally experience.
I think it was more that in the early days of the Nazi party they did accept socialists. It was more of a big tent party because they needed to attract members. Hitler was never a fan of socialism and as he gained power he purged the socialists from the party.
This isn’t true. They didn’t immediatly do a 180, instead they slowly escalated. They got in power in 1933 and the holocaust started in 1941, 8 years later.
The kind of people who think the Nazis were socialists know neither what socialism is nor what Nazism is.
I mean, their “proof” is that Socialist is in the name. From there on out, they apparently missed everything that happened post-1934
Ask them if they think North Korea is a democracy
By that same logic, guinea pigs are pigs.
Oh, simple counterpoint to anyone making that claim: is Democratic People’s Republic of Korea democratic?
The GDR (German Democratic Republic) wasn’t democratic as well. Namen sind Schall und Rauch.
“No problem, I’ll just misinterpret Godwin’s Law.” - the same brain dead people
This is the real issue with troll communities (and subreddits). The_Donald started out as a troll community, and it was effectively overrun with nutjobs.
Yes, satirizing these people is hilarious, but they’re often too stupid to differentiate between ironic support and endorsement and actual agreement. These are the same people who routinely fall for The Onion articles.
Don’t be surprised at the level of stupidity people are willing to duck under to confirm their own beliefs. Lol
A wise man once said “Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they’re in good company.”
Makes me think of the “fake it 'til you make it” saying. Guess the “pretending to be an idiot” folk end up becoming idiots from all the faking they did.
LoveForLandchads is getting there
It’s an argument made in bad faith and/or ignorance caused by same.
