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.
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.
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.
Like who?
Pol Pot should be a uncontroversial pick.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Yeha, tell that to the North Korean God, Kim, who rises above everyone while keeping everyone else equal.
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.
State enforced racism and industrialized government implemented mass murder are central to nazis’ political views.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now it matters. Now you care.
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.”
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.
iTs In ThE nAmE.
Yeah, that’s literally their whole reasoning. I’ve had to deal with a number of those all the way back in 2014, “national sOcIaLiSm”
Of course, whenever I pointed to The Guardian’s interview with Hitler in 1923 (and republished in 1932), where he energetically complains about marxists (marxians, as he calls them) “stealing” the socialist term from “real germans” and actively calls for the end of bolshevism, I was completely ignored.
“Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?”
“Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Wait, but what did he even mean by “socialism” here? I get call what was happening in Russia not socialism, but what was the un-Marxist form of socialism Hitler was talking about? Also, wasn’t Marx also German, did Hitler see him as not a “real german”?
He’s opportunistcally envokning it as socialism is popular, but cares for nothing other than the political clout the label may bring.
Fascism exists to capture popular revolutionary sentiment, while preserving the old power structure.
Marx was famously also Jewish.
Ah, yeah, that’ll do it.
He didn’t mean anything at all. That was the brilliance of the Nazi propaganda machine. They stole words that referred to popular things and said them enough times in relation to themselves that they lost all meaning.
Its exactly the same as how the modern day right wing say anything that supports them is “patriotic” and anything that doesn’t is “anti-[country]”. If they say the word “patriotic” enough times, it loses all meaning & makes it impossible for opponents to argue against, because you can’t have a rational debate when language is meaningless.
Ah, oh… why did I expect the answer to not be kinda scary…
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea entered the chat
A country with republic and/or democratic in its official name is usually neither.
Most republics afaik have “Republic” in their name. I don’t think that’s the problem.
they don’t tend to actually use that name, no one says “the republic of finland”
Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal republic of Germany)
Which is basically never used, everyone just says germany.
That depends, in Germany, the federal republic part is fairly regularly used in news when talking about international affairs, basically using it so they don’t have to say Germany as often.
Maybe in English it is not used as often. In Germany it is used as just Bundesrepublik in News etc to don’t repeat oneself too much or in historic context to differentiate from the German Democratic Republic (where the naming is again ironic, but it’s the Democratic party)
I thought us Americans had egos, but I’m not going to tell people they’re referencing their own countries by the wrong name.
It is used in Germany though lol
Yes they do.
Source: Am Irish.That’s true, though in that case it’s to disambiguate from northern ireland or the whole island.
Same deal as the Kingdom of Denmark, you only ever say that to emphasize that you mean greenland as well.
Most Americans have no idea what socialism is. You’re not supposed to think about it here. They just hear that socialism is bad and it’s in the name of the nazi party which is also bad, so that tracks.
Most Americans don’t know what capitalism is either. We’ve been so brainwashed into believing capitalism and simple commerce are the same thing that people think any system that isn’t capitalism is some authoritarian hellscape where the government forces you at gunpoint to share your toothbrush with everyone else in the neighborhood because personal property will be outlawed somehow.
Most Americans think that “liberal” is someone on the left, while most European nations (as well as what little political theory I had) place them somewhere in the center, usually fiscally progressive but socially conservative.
yup, exactly
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.
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.
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’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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interestingly enough that is an American thing I believe. In Germany no one thinks the Nazis were socialists.
Oh boy, we have met different people
Just ask them how come you can find plenty of swastikas at Trump rallies, plenty of merchants selling them too, but none of either at Democratic rallies?
Are the communists supporting the Republicans?
Are the Republicans communists?
Finally why is the person you’re talking to aligning themselves with communist sympathisers?
That doesn’t really hold water too well. Most european right wing parties, including those which are veiled neonazis, have close ties with Russia. The Russia, which has a leader cult around someone who claims to be stomping out Neonazis in the Ukraine.
Many of them also have ties with China, which officially is still communist and also is best friends with the leader-cult leader in Russia.
Most often international “friend groups” are determined by the “enemy-of-my-enemy” principle, and not by ideological similarities.
Are you talking about Germans or Americans with your comment?
Not the person you’re talking to but I have, in fact, talked to actual Kartoffel-Germans who’d straight up swallowed the American propaganda and insisted on the “Sozialisten” part being the important one. They’re few and far in between because our schools aren’t complete failures but they do exist.
Especially the new far right is pushing this narrative.
I was talking about germans, and those are exactly the people I meant
I have heard that the right wing party of my country are actually communists and the “left wing” party are actually conservatives so. Not just an American thing.
Think! They all believed in an unison solution. Like Covid. Baaah.
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.
Democracies and Republics are bad because Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is proof that it’s bad.
Reject Democracy! Back to Monarchy!
You jest, but there are a lot code people who would like to see the US become a monarchy.
Aee those people are emergency fertalizer for the joshua trees.
I pledge allegiance to Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson
The argument can at the very best be very loosely made about the early NAZI party before the Night of the Long Knives. There were some incredibly loose planks in the platform up to that point that could be described as progressive/socialist. Not that any of the leaders with the possible exception of Röhm actually believed it. It was just a tactic of throwing out anything that would garner support to the movement. In this case to bolster interest among poor workers that would have been more inclined to side with the parties on the left.
This. And of course one way to interpret “socialist” is the same way many fascist parties use “people’s” in their name now == “populist”
Some socialism can be populism, fascism can wrap itself in populism at the beginning, but there is no relationship between populism and socialism. Not unless you believe government, like corporations, should only serve wealthy shareholders and nothing that serves the people is both populist and socialist.
Case in point - look at the modern day US fascism distracting the plebes with juicy culture war while stealing from their plates and banks and dismantling the government.
It was totally leftist…which is why small business owners backed them and other conservative parties formed government with them.
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?
Also, they called themselves National Socialists. After all, would a government ever lie?
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!
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.
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.
Fascism is not a political ideology, it is a system of oppression to the dry, where a person or a chosen elite dictates the rules for the rest of the population, eliminating personal rights and discrepancies, this is what is defined as dictatorship. It is irrelevant which political label is put on. Communism under these conditions is not communism, nor would a real democracy be, in both, by definition sovereignty resides in the population and never in a small elite or a single person. In the western world we have the illusion of living in a democracy, but this is an illusion, since it is not the people who dictate the rules, but the interests of capital for the benefit of a few. This is why a capitalist system always promotes fascism and fights and maligns communism, democracy and human rights…
How would a true democracy differ from the one we’re living in now? What is a country like Norway or Germany then if not a democracy?
Depends who you ask. If you ask a Marxist, they’ll tell you that in an electoral system where elections are largely determined by who has the most money in order to reach the most ears, is not really a democracy.
A democracy would be a system that gives you the right to actually and directly influence specific policy through voting (e.g. through referrenda), and direct control over representatives (e.g. ability to recall them if they are not doing their jobs).
In Norway and Germany (to use your examples) people might enjoy a lot of personal freedoms and a high standard of living, but both domestic and foreign policy is still functionally determined by corporations and the rich elite.
The economic system of capitalism makes it so governments realistically care more about the interests of business, rather than the interests of the citizens. And that’s an oligarchy. It’s just that some countries are better able to pacify their populace because they happen to have the resources to do so. But we still see that in Norway and Germany (and any other traditionally-regarded “good democracy”) the social welfare systems, that make them such appealing examples, are systematically diminished and destroyed. I do not think it’s the citizens who demand that.
All this, without getting into the fact that we spend 1/3 of our lives in a feudal-like or dictatorial system we call “job”, where we hardly have the power to influence how it operates.
I don’t really have anything to add, but I wanted you to know that you gently yet succinctly described the uncomfortable truth that America is borderline brainwashed into fervently defending capitalism to the point that most Americans can’t even fathom a functional system other than capitalism. The first time it clicked for me was from reading a comment very similar to yours a few years ago. You might not get much feedback, but I’m sure your comments will help educate people. Cheers!
Thank you :)
A true democracy would have more than one hegemon dictator in the world, like USA/NATO/SWIFT exists today.
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
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.
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.
Demos-kratos = government of the people
Res-publica = thing of the people, as in government of the people
This is why I try to use authoritarian -ism when I’m not being lazy. Three reality is it’s nothing to do with left or right, it’s about control.
Yes while they can be definitively left or right. It is not ultimately important to them which they are. As you said it’s all about maintaining control and power. And if they believe it would be better for them to maintain control and power. They would happily switch from capitalist to communist or vice versa. So I guess at least on an economic standpoint. Is probably most accurate to say that authoritarians are centrist. But boy won’t that piss off all the people who believe they’re centrists. It’s just that on social axis authoritarians are extreme.
The Political Compass shows that authoritarianism is on a completely different axis than the economic policy spectrum. You’re correct. I’m not sure of any true, long-lasting authoritarian left systems though, since they seem to quickly transition to cronyism oligarchies, enriching the people in power. Maybe the oligarchs don’t directly own the means of production, but using their seat of power to skim money off of the fruits of the productivity is just unfettered capitalism with extra steps.
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
Because people who can’t make their own discussions need an authority to follow. In the US, they turn to fox news, AM radio, or manosphere podcasts. Most of them have serious daddy issues.
In the US, they turn to fox news, AM radio, or manosphere podcasts.
In the US, the “opposite” side turns to CNN/BBC, toxic feminist Instagrammers and virtue signalling YouTubers. I cannot agree with that either.
There is a lot of adulteration in “leftism”, just as there are some correct things about “rightism”. I am no centrist, but I would rather take one step back from leftism, and be 10 steps away from rightism, than swing fully in any direction. I think contextual rationale, and not necessary a “centrist” 50-50 both sides bullshit, is the correct path to take. Forging your own path as a mindhacker with no like minded company is the hardest thing.
What do you really want to say? You’re trying very hard to say both sides are wrong without being labeled as a centrist.
“Toxic left wing” pundits haven’t gotten their followers to storm the capital building or fly a plane into an irs biulding. If you’re really mad someone has opinions on video games, install a 3rd party channel blocker for firefox. The things the toxic femists/pick-me types are up to pale in comparison to the manosphere are up to.
I cannot agree to just treating and branding men’s spaces like that. Manosphere may be doing a bad job, but its not all redpillers and Tateists. I hate this attack on and absolutist “shit on men constantly” trope in society. Its almost like the very thing feminists become they swear to destroy. Society and life is more complex than “shit on men and worship women”.
When feminists say “all men bad” “kill all men” “men are dogs” “men are b***hes” “masculinity is fragile” and so on, the ignorance of men being oppressed throughout history is really telling, and the same
strong“fragile” men have built this world. Putting the bourgeois royalties’ doings on “men” exclusively is incredibly fascistic of feminists, and is the reason why I have taken one step back from leftism, while maintaining 10 steps distance from rightism.If you want to know how leftist I am, I have been a 1 year long dedicated member of Lemmygrad.
Manosphere is a very specific thing. They’re the Andrew Tate types. If it’s a legitimate form of mental health or self care thing, it isn’t Manosphere. Hell, if it’s mental health, it’s rarely branded as male orientated because it’s genderless advice.
You’re creating this weird narrative in your head. The feminists you have a problem with are a minority who are only visible because they’re gaming the algorithm. They have no effect on your daily life.
Most feminists and women brand men’s safe spaces as redpill, right wing, part of manosphere, horrible and so on. They absolutely have an effect on me, the way random transphobes have an effect on the existence of transgender people. Men are not treated like equal humans with compassion, just because 0.1% rich ultracapitalists or harassers or rapists have subjugated women in society. There is no desire for equity or equality, but gender superiority. Plenty women who distance themselves from feminist movement agree with this today.
Manosphere is a very vague term in itself, even though it started as simply redpillers and Tateists. Wikipedia defines it as a “collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting masculinity, misogyny, and opposition to feminism.[1] Communities within the manosphere include men’s rights activists,[2] incels (involuntary celibates),[3] Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW),[4] pick-up artists (PUA),[5] and fathers’ rights groups.[6]”
Its true that manosphere has misogyny, and that it has issues, but it provides an alternate point of view and is NOT all Tateists, even if there does exist misogyny, the same way misandry and vitriolic hatred for men exists in female safe spaces, which are abundant today. The world is not all black and white, and just as men treat women like a pair of breasts and a vagina, women treat men with the well known small dick hand gesture and other verbal slangs for degradingly equating us with penis. Women are more compassionate than men, and they have chosen to keep it all to themselves with their sisterhood. Men have no brotherhood today.
Every feminist I have met, no matter radical, communist or liberal, has always degraded and blamed all men, and downplayed issues with women while screaming “all men _____” the moment anything happens. And literally anything you say against this makes you a redpiller, woman hater, incel or any of the buzzwords they decide to cancel you with. I have a lot of grievances with it, and it affects all men, which includes me, so I will find solace in places that support men instead of supporting agendas aimed to hate men. Men have unheard grievances, and if feminists think they will win the battle against half the planet, their movement deserves to crash and doom. Feminism by the day is behaving less like a leftist movement for equality for both sexes, and more like a woman supremacist movement with right wing shades.
