General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

andrew gold | heretics.
comments

Comments by "" (@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae) on "" video.

"thus all children would receive the private school level of education." Wrong. They won't. All children would receive the lowest level of education possible and there would be no competition of any kind. The government doesn't run things efficiently and they don't even have the funds for private school level of education, and public schools are vulnerable to government propaganda. One would think you people would have learned by now, what happened to education under Soviets and Nazis when you start to socialize and nationalize things. If private schools are abolished, you are at the mercy of whoever runs the government at the time. It never ends well.
2
Wrong. Hitler most certainly was a socialist also, and what made him and Strasser have a falling out was, as written in the text by Strasser titled "The socialists leave the NSDAP", that he did not approve of Hitlers imperial "Lebensraum" policies and considered National Socialism to be a non-expansionist movement. Nothing to do with socialism. Not to mention, Gregor Strasser had sought in the winter of 1932 to reach an electoral agreement with then Chancellor von Schleicher that would have barred Hitler from rising to power.
2
@nathanm6050 : Nothing ridiculous about that post though.
2
@willquinn8993 "And no Benjamin jumps the shark by calling Hitler a socialist. That’s just revisionist crap and not worthy of respect given the overwhelming weight of evidence." Wrong. By definition and according to Hitler's own words even, he was a socialist. Nothing revisionist about it. It's a basic WW2 era historical fact. The overwhelming weight of evidence literally supports this. I highly suggest reading some primary sources such as "The Vampire Economy" Günter Reimann for starters.
2
"but he was a right wing socialist, " There is no such thing. All socialists are on the far-left.
2
No, just no. Only far-left is advocating for socialism.
2
@mdiciaccio87 "It is literally one of the first things he did! " Hitler was simply imitating Lenin, who had earlier closed down all independent labor associations, factory committees and worker cooperatives, banned strikes, walkouts, and lockouts. Lenin even forced workers to work a slavish 80-hour week. After the Bolsheviks banned all labor unions, one unionist “described the unions as ‘living corpses.’” Any Russian worker who participated in general strikes was arrested, imprisoned or shot. Under Lenin’s regime, workers had no real representation or bargaining rights and were treated like industrial serfs who were chained to their factories. Although Hitler followed Lenin’s nationalizing craze, his treatment of workers did not mimic their Russian counterparts.
2
" If you're so far gone that you have to pretend that the Nazis were socialists" There is nothing to pretend. By definition, National Socialists were socialists. It's a basic historical fact. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control.
2
" and when they came into power, they immediately started imprisoning and killing scoialists and communists. " And? The Bolshevik regime did the exact same thing after the October Revolution. Your point being?
2
"The Nazis were a right-wing party from the outset, " Wrong. National Socialism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism. It sits on the right side of Marxism. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever.
2
"Hitler didn't think of himself as or identify as socialist. " Wrong. He certainly did identify himself as a socialist, a national socialist in fact. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd. "Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one's fellow man's sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism ... Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism... How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!" "Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.
2
@mdiciaccio87 "The nazis did not aggressively collectivise agriculture and destroy small businesses, " Actually they did, and this was also mentioned in the Time magazine back in the day. "Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism." "Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938", Time; January 2, 1939.
2
There is no left/right Liberalism. There is just Liberalism. The problem with "negate" and "positive" freedoms is the simple fact that the other one has nothing to do with freedoms at all, since it needs to be enforced.
1
No, just no. The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the collective. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the collective, such as the state, for the benefit of all (collectivism). Meanwhile people on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
1
@DanAdlingtonOnline : Well there is one news piece from the Time magazine itself, when he was chosen to be the "man of the year". Personally I would recommend a book called "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann. While a bit biased for the simple reason that Günter himself was a marxist, it certainly describes how socialist the National Socialist economy was. "Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism." "Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938", Time; January 2, 1939.
1
Correct, however need to point out that Juan Perón wasn't a fan of National Socialism per se. He admired Mussolini and his Fascism instead, hence, Peronism being a Neo-Fascist movement.
1
"hitler was not a socialist, thats just bs." Wrong. He most certainly was a socialist, even according to his own words. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@karlfechner9602 "you have a very primitive way of thinking about what socialism is. " Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production. National Socialists had the latter.
1
@karlfechner9602 "Is He really a socialist If he Puts all the people from the socialist Party into concentration Camps? " Yes. Being a socialist has nothing to do with killing other rival socialists. There is no conflict there. The Bolshevik regime and every socialist regime to this day have done the same.
1
@ArgentWolf95 "but my ideology is a Classical Liberal and Conservative " Conservative in what way? What is that you try to preserve exactly? If you are American, then I understand since the US constitution coincides with Classical Liberalism, however by being a Classical Liberal like myself, you are by definition a progressive in almost every single country in the world which are based on mixed economies and left leaning social-democracies. You do mention preserving cultural traditions, but it would most certainly go against your Classical Liberalism if you think that those traditions should be enforced by some entity, like the government ... since by definition, you then think that your set of traditions and values are above someone else's, therefore violating people's personal liberties and freedoms, which are essential in Classical Liberalism.
1
Rather interesting points you are advocating there if you are a Liberal... sounds more like an authoritarian left than a Liberal though.
1
Wrong. Nazism had nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever. National Socialism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism.
1
@mdiciaccio87 "nor did the instated quotas or 5 year plans. " Actually they did. They had their 4 year plan, managed by Hermann Göring.
1
@mdiciaccio87 "These were all private companies doing business WITH the government." Wrong. They weren't private companies. They were government subsidiaries and owned by NSDAP members themselves. They were part of the government.
1
@mdiciaccio87 "Even in 1944 they were still buying tanks from porches," Ferdinand Porsche was a government official, an NSDAP member. Same goes for Hugo Boss.
1
@mdiciaccio87 "the Nazis never directly seized control of private businesses (with the exception of Jewish ones)." Wrong. They did. Junkers and Volkswagen being probably the most notable ones, IG Farben also.
1
@mdiciaccio87 "but calling nazi Germany socialist is fanciful, and only done by online YouTube historical channels who want to advocate right wing politics. " Wrong. It is a historical fact. Nothing to do with some random youtube in the first place. How many book recommendations do you want, so that you can also learn the basics of this ideology?
1
"but calling Hitler a socialist is actually extremely stupid. " Wrong. Nothing stupid about it, since it's a literal historical fact. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
"Every policy Hitler had from the late 1920s onwards was the complete opposite of anything left wing." Wrong. They were a textbook definition of the modern left; expand the government, consolidate the power and economy, collectivize and nationalize. It was socialism, by definition.
1
@SM-fk5or "Nothing more socialist than allying with rich industrialists, " They didn't. In fact, they subjugated those industrialists under the iron boot of the NSDAP. They issued quotas for industries and farms and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. Not only that, but also they nationalized most if not all of the German industry. They called this as "Gleichschaltung", a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education. "I will tolerate no opposition. We recognize only subordination – authority downwards and responsibility upwards. You just tell the German bourgeoisie that I shall be finished with them far quicker than I shall with Marxism... When once the conservative forces in Germany realize that only I and my party can win the German proletariat over to the State and that no parliamentary games can be played with Marxist parties, then Germany will be saved for all time, then we can found a German Peoples State." - Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.,
1
@SM-fk5or "banning trade unions, " First of all, they nationalized and merged those unions into one single nation wide union known as the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF, or German Labor Front). The DAF created a single overarching labor union. Essentially all German workers and employees in every economic sector belonged to the DAF. For example, farmers were coordinated into the Reich Food Estate. While traditional unions prioritized workers’ rights, the DAF emphasized national economic goals above personal well-being. Secondly, Hitler was simply imitating Lenin, who had earlier closed down all independent labor associations, factory committees and worker cooperatives, banned strikes, walkouts, and lockouts. Lenin even forced workers to work a slavish 80-hour week. After the Bolsheviks banned all labor unions, one unionist “described the unions as ‘living corpses.’” Any Russian worker who participated in general strikes was arrested, imprisoned or shot. Under Lenin’s regime, workers had no real representation or bargaining rights and were treated like industrial serfs who were chained to their factories. Although Hitler followed Lenin’s nationalizing craze, his treatment of workers did not mimic their Russian counterparts.
1
@SM-fk5or "outlawing communism and socialism and sending their followers and party representatives to concentration camps " And? That exact same thing was done by the Bolshevik regime after the October Revolution. Socialist infighting has always been the norm.
1
@SM-fk5or "he did not have a single policy aligned with socialism" Sure he did. They nationalized most if not all of the German industries and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They called this nationalization as "Gleichschaltung", a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education. You can read more about their socialist economy from a book called "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann.
1
"As far right as it gets means fascist. " Actually no. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology. Meanwhile "as far-right as it gets" would be a Libertarian / Minarchist. Extreme right would be Anarcho-Capitalist.
1
"As fascist as is possible according to his own description, that would be a Nazi." Actually no. Fascism and National Socialism were two different, far-left socialist ideologies.
1
"So Argentina has a form of Nationalist Socialism? " Today? No, the complete opposite of it.
1
"Sounds almost like something that was brought to them by a certain kind of German Socialism back in the 1940's :)" Not really. Interestingly enough, Juan Perón was more interested in the Italian Fascism and Mussolini, which is why Peronism became a Neo-Fascist movement.
1
@ogierthedane6025 : No worries. Now you know haha. :)
1
"DIE is pretty right wing, if you actually think about it" No. It's about enforcement i.e. the left.
1
@mdiciaccio87 "hitler banned unions." He merged them into one single nation wide union known as the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF, or German Labor Front). The DAF created a single overarching labor union. Essentially all German workers and employees in every economic sector belonged to the DAF. For example, farmers were coordinated into the Reich Food Estate. While traditional unions prioritized workers’ rights, the DAF emphasized national economic goals above personal well-being.
1
@mdiciaccio87 "Socialism requires workers controlling means of production " Wrong. That is the definition of Marxism. Socialism doesn't limit the direct ownership or control to mere workers. Again, socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production.
1
"he took a step back, then developed his own "non abrahamic" capitalism and science," Wrong. They had no capitalism of any kind. National Socialism was textbook socialism and anti-capitalistic ideology.
1
"in the same way, chinese communism was a right wing step back in order to create its own "state capitalism". " Wrong. China never had Communism. They had Maoism and other Neo-Marxist iterations. They were also on the far-left, and there is no such thing as "stat capitalism", such a word is an oxymoron.
1
" all materialistic, religionISM is inherently right wing (because it's conservative)," Wrong. That is not how right wing and the spectrum in general works. Also conservatism is neither left nor right.
1
@natmanprime4295 "and the empire state is inherently right wing." That is not how right wing works at all.
1
@natmanprime4295 : You just have no clue what you are talking about. Keep coping.
1
@natmanprime4295 Keep coping, and while you are doing so, please go read some history before commenting.
1
It's not a saying... it's a literal historical fact. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
"Hitler being a socialist? " Yes, by definition and even according to his own very words. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
"National Socialism was just a label to gain working class support." Wrong. It signified what they were advocating for, that is, socialism on a national level. He was very clear about this. “After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.” — Adolf Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
1
"This like fascism, is right wing ideology." Wrong. Both National Socialism and Fascism were totalitarian far-left, 3rd position socialist ideologies.
1
Liberalism doesn't mean what you think it means.
1
Ethnonationalism is a form of collectivism, a far-left trait.
1
Except Fascism was a far-left, socialist ideology.
1
"but there not many actual socialist policies. " Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production. Nazism had the latter.
1
@willquinn8993 "Imagine telling someone of Jewish descent that Hitler wasn’t a fascist. Clown." He most certainly wasn't. He was a National Socialist. Mussolini's followers were Fascists, hun.
1
@willquinn8993 "However ultranationalism is considered an integral part of Fascist ideology by historians old and new. " It was part of Mussolini's ideology i.e. Fascism, sure. However it wasn't part of Hitler's ideology, where the mythical "Aryan" race superseded the mere government apparatus. The race was their #1 priority. As Hitler himself said; "We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
1
"3. We are ALL born equal because the sun shines on each of us. Distorted Mind Beliefs deny and suppress this Truth." Equal when it comes to humanity and social status etc. , however it's rather intellectually dishonest to claim that people are born equal when genetic disorders and other similar disabilities exist. Someone born healthy and someone with quadriplegia, clearly aren't equal in the sense of the word.
1
@newtonia-uo4889 "Nationalists, Traditionalists, Localists, Corporatists, etc are right wing." Wrong. Maybe Corporatists are from that list. Being a nationalist, traditionalist etc. will put you into the camp of the collectivists, which is antithetical to Right wing.
1
"If Carl were actually right wing he would renounce capitalism immediately. " You mean embrace, right? Also if Carl would be "as Far-Right as it gets" like he says he is... then he would advocate for Laissez-faire.
1
@nonope7359 "Where they hell do you think all the illegals and sky high cost of living came from?" That's a problem created by the Government.
1
@nonope7359 " You mean the puppet government entirely controlled by plutocrats?" Almost all of the plutocrats are politicians in the first place.
1
@nonope7359 "You're not honestly going to sit here and try to sell anyone the lie of democracy are you?" Democracy is nothing more than majority mob rule.
1
@nonope7359 "Or lemme guess, if we just get rid of ALL the government and let Musk and Gates rule us directly with private armies that will fix the problem, right?" They cannot afford such armies, hun, and they cannot push the bill to the citizens anyways, like the Government can via taxation, which is theft.
1
"except for the when he suggests that Hitler wasn’t on the right because “he wasn’t a traditionalist”. " It's not a suggestion, but a historical fact. Hitler was a far-left, 3rd position socialist.
1
"He became radical, a radical right winger, " Wrong. He was a radical far-left socialist. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind whatsoever.
1
"His “socialism” was his re-defined, non-leftist version, " Wrong. There was no re-defining of any kind. It was textbook socialism and socialism by definition is always on the left. Socialism is an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) either directly own or control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership or control of the means of production. National Socialists had the latter.
1
"He was trying to take the term away from leftists." This is what he actually said, from his interview with Viereck, edited and reprinted in Liberty, July 1932; "Socialism, 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. Socialism is an ancient Ary an, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
1
"But he was definitely on the right." Wrong. He was a far-left socialist, and on the right side of Marxism.
1
"Right wingers can be in favor of command economies if their reason for doing so... " Wrong. They cannot. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties (individualism) are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized. That is antithetical to Command economies which by definition are socialist in nature.
1
"This is like leftists who insist that Stalin was on the right, that he wasn’t a sincere communist and that totalitarianism/authoritarianism is of the right by definition, regardless of the fact that Stalin was justified in everything he did by Marxist doctrine and was, as all of the historical evidence makes clear, absolutely sincere in his ideological commitment. " You do realize that Hitler was almost identical to Stalin, right? So if you think that Stalin was on the left, then logic dictates that Hitler must also be on the left. Either they both are on the left or they both are on the right. Also neither Lenin nor Stalin were Communists. They were Marxists, and they never manage to achieve Communism, nor did they even wanted to really.
1
@jessebarnes1963 "He wasn’t motivated by any leftist ideals. He was a nationalist, and the far left is never nationalist" Wrong. Stalin was a great example of a yet another far-left nationalist, not to mention the Chinese socialists.
1
@jessebarnes1963 "but internationalist, in favor of abolishing nationalism completely." Not every far-leftist is a Marxist.
1
@jessebarnes1963 "He wasn’t capitalist, but the essence of the right is not fundamentally capitalist. He wasn’t in favor of “small government”, but the essence of the right isn’t necessarily small government. He was a collectivist, but the essence of the right isn’t necessarily individualism." Wrong in all accounts. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
1
@jessebarnes1963 " The essence of the right is about preservation, and that was his entire purpose." Wrong. Preservation, properly known as Conservatism is not a political ideology. It's a philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values. It's a stance against progressivism, which both are completely relative and change country-by-country basis. There is no single set of policies regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Neither Conservatism nor progressivism exist on the left/right spectrum.
1
@jessebarnes1963 "Again, there is a radical right, and it believes that an authoritarian government is necessary to protect nationalism, whether that is nationalism along racial lines, religious lines, etc. " Again, right wing does not believe in Nationalism, which is a form of collectivism and therefore only advocated by the left.
1
@jessebarnes1963 "If Stalin was a nationalist, then he wasn’t a Marxist or a communist. You really can’t be both." While this is true, Stalin was still a socialist ... just like Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Mao etc.
1
@jessebarnes1963 "None of these people are nationalists. " Nationalism is just one of the many different forms of collectivism. Doesn't mean every leftist would be advocating for that flavor.
1
@jessebarnes1963 " That’s pretty much exactly how people define left vs right, progressivism or conservatism. That’s what “the right” has always meant, the conservative side of a political divide, and “the left” has always meant the side of a political divide that is pushing for equality, the removal of hierarchy, progressivism." Then those people are defining the political spectrum wrong. The French revolution was about (Classical) Liberals being against Monarchies and Aristocracies. In that time and place, Liberals happened to be the progressives and the Monarchists/Aristocrats conservatives. However you cannot base the political spectrum on those two terms which vary country-by-country basis. Case and point; the spectrum based on progressivism vs. conservatism already fails in America, due to the American constitution which is more or less based on the tenets of Classical Liberalism, the same principles that were advocated by the progressives during the French Revolution. Meanwhile China for example, their status quo was established by Mao and other socialists. Now, if you would transport American Conservatives to China, they would be classified as progressives there, since they would be advocating values that would be going against their status quo, and the Chinese Conservatives would be in favor of socialism. Both conservatism and progressivism by themselves, mean nothing. They need context in order to mean something.
1
@jessebarnes1963 " So I don’t know how you define “right and left”, but it isn’t how pretty much everybody else defines them." The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the collective, for the benefit of all (collectivism). People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount (individualism) and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized. All that which limits individual power and increases group/state power is on the left. All that which limits group power and gives all freedom to individuals is on the right.
1
"Yeah Hitler was socialist in the same way north korea is a 'democratic people's republic'." When it comes to Hitler, you cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd. When it comes to North Korea, they are democratic to a degree. After all, they allow people to vote and hold elections in the first place. Meanwhile in socialist countries like Cuba, neither voting nor elections are a thing.
1
@brawndothethirstmutilator9848 : Carl most certainly is not a Classical Liberal anymore... he's like right leaning centrist now.
1
Racism has nothing to do with the political left/right spectrum, hun.
1
@nathanm6050 "Holy cow I can't believe that people still use this talking point lol. " It's not a talking point, it's a literal historical fact. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a soci alist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
1
@nathanm6050 "You should actually look into history rather than repeat these tired and refuted talking points." You cannot magically refute historical facts, hun. I highly suggest you go read some history, starting from "the Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann.
1
@NowioFel : Nationalism is a form of collectivism though. Nationalism is devotion to the State which sees all other states as inferior and in competition. Right wing ideologies do not embrace Nationalism, but rather Patriotism. In all Right wing ideologies, the Individual is superior to the State. In collectivist and socialist ideologies, the collective (such as the State) is superior to the individual. Regarding monarchism, it's not either on the left nor on the right since it's a form of governance and almost identical to dictatorship. Could by anything, since it all depends on the monarch. It could exert socialist goals better than any socialist democracy and it could be a better free capitalist economy than any anarcho-capitalist could ever do.
1
@NowioFel "as a monarchical structure is the epitome of individualism and private property." Rather interesting take, considering all the Monarchies that existed were highly anti-individualistic and anti-private property... you know, Feudalism. Historical monarchies being highly against Liberalism i.e. personal freedoms and liberties, were the very reason why the French Revolution happened in the first place.
1
@NowioFel "You are confusing nationalism and national socialism, not surprising but should still be embarrassing." They are not the same thing, obviously. Again, Nationalism is devotion to the State which sees all other states as inferior and in competition. Good example of this would be Mussolini's ideology, Fascism. Meanwhile National Socialism was a political movement which saw the mythical "aryan" race as superior, and that race was the basis of the society and the State apparatus itself. Presumably.
1
Monarchism is neither on the left nor on the right by default. It could be anything really, just depends on the monarch...which aren't that different from dictators anyways.
1
@Krinsta1 "I think the aim should be to make all education outstanding." Well the most logical thing to do then, would be to abolish any kind of public education and then privatize it... after all, only when you allow people to compete on the market, you can get better quality products.
1
So it's safe to say, that Carl lost the plot and became a sellout.
1
Nope. That is not how left/right works.
1
@againsttheleftandright4065 : Far-right has nothing to do with socialism whatsoever, and National Socialism itself was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology.
1
Sure there are. Anyone who is similar to the new Argentinian president, Javier Milie, are the far-right... and anyone advocating for Classical Liberalism.
1
@dnaseb9214 : Hitler was never anti-establishment per se. He was anti-Monarchy and thought his nationalist, socialist and racial establishment was better.
1
@andrewbclinton : There is no logical way to construct the left/right spectrum from the French Revolution, which was literally about Monarchies and Aristocracies vs. Classical Liberalism i.e. personal liberties and freedoms.
1
@SenserAwe "stealing rich peoples stuff is literally what the left is all about, " Except it was the "rich people" stealing peasant's stuff via taxation etc.
1
@SenserAwe "socialism is total government control on behalf of the "people", no property rights ... Monarchy is right wing" There is little difference between a monarchy and an authoritarian regime. In what way did any of the socialist dictators differ from kings? They were all worshiped and elitist but presented themselves as the ally of the people. Kings have done that in the past to appeal to the population.
1
How? What are you smoking exactly? People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the government is minimized.
1
"He called his approach National Socialism and said it wasn't socialism. " Wrong. He specifically said it was socialism, in fact, he said it was "proper" socialism unlike Marxism.
1