View Full Version : Were Nazi's Democratic Socialists?
Mr Bernie Sanders said he's a Democratic Socialist last night at the clown sho... I mean Democrat Debate. I've heard the Nazi party described as Democratic Socialists in the past, and now 'Bernie is a nazi' memes are popping up all over. However I was under the impression that the Nazi party was more right wing fascists than left wing socialists, even though their policies are very similar with modern liberal goals. Of course its hard to tell what is what anymore in this political mumbo jumbo world we live in, and I admittedly am not a political science major by any means.
I think "Right wing" is a revisionist term for the Nazis. Nazi is short for National Socialist. No, they weren't strict capitalist but we're not communist. They had an idea of nationalized production and planned economy moreso than laissez faire. But on that same token, they were somewhat miserly. They were not 'right wing' as we know the term. They were left wing and even stated they based some of their deal on FDRs New Deal. They definitely said they adopted America's racial policy.
As a country they can be smart with money but Christ, the taxes.
It would suck to be an individual. That's why they're so leftist by modern standard.
Not an expert but it's a weird place.
Everything about this thread so far is so laughably ignorant that anyone wanting to engage this further may be better served starting their own thread.
do you care to add and correct what has been stated?
MountainRaven
10-14-15, 23:38
There was nothing democratic about the Nazis.
Most European countries would be considered "democratic socialist" states. The US even has a few elements of democratic socialism.
The Nazis were the ultimate crony capitalists. Government and business (and the people - with their will or against it) working together as one for the security of the state. One of the unique things about Naziism as opposed to our modern crony capitalism is that the nation was viewed as an organism and by such logic were the excesses of the Nazi regime's policies justified: The weak and the deviant weren't just quaint curiosities, they weakened the state, they threatened the state. Add in the hip eugenics program, and anyone who didn't actively support the state? Gone. Old, sick, crippled? Gone. Of an undesirable race or ethnicity? Gone.
Describing the Nazis as "national socialists" is probably a relatively accurate description. Better would likely be to call them, "nationalist socio-capitalists".
I'll try to push off the Poli Sci degree cobwebs and see what I can remember.
The Nazis (National Socialists) were a pretty hard-core socialist organization, very anti-communist and began as the "German Workers Party". Why they have become bastardized as a right-wing organization I have no idea. I suspect some of it was the incredibly strong nationalistic leanings they had when it came to the Jews and foreigners. If you weren't a member of "the Race" and not a German citizen they you had certain alien laws that controlled your actions.
They had a platform in the 1920s of wealth redistribution or as they knew it, profit sharing in large corporations, the state was charged with providing jobs for a livelihood and way of life for the people, no unearned income (loan interest was a prime example used), they were against war profits, the common good over the individual good. They also wanted all trusts to be nationalized and controlled by the government. Free collegiate level education was also a point of the original 25 point Nazi Party Platform. Profits were generally frowned upon and they desired to create a strong middle class through government control. These promises are what helped bring them to power via the ballot box. Once Hitler was Chancellor, it was all dictatorship from there.
Many of the original 25 points were to discourage laziness and get people back to work following the Great War and yes, some of it was based on the New Deal.
They also wanted newspapers and journalists who published anything against he common welfare be suppressed along with a strong and heavily centralized government. This was designed to allow the government to carry out it's overall plan for a German, Socialist agenda.
Here is a link to the original 25 points of the Nazi Party for those who wish to continue reading all of them. I picked out the ones with the most relevance.
Nazi Party Platform's 25 Points (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/nsdappro.asp)
Ok so what is a Democratic Socialist? And why would some compare them to the Nazi party? (Sorry political science guys who are probably stroking out at my lack of education on the topic)
Ok so what is a Democratic Socialist? And why would some compare them to the Nazi party? (Sorry political science guys who are probably stroking out at my lack of education on the topic)
Why would a person compare someone they disagree with to a Nazi?
Why would a person compare someone they disagree with to a Nazi?
Ah good point. Haha I see this was a stupid thread, mods you can delete if you deem fit.
.....all I know is as messed up as they were they went from dirt poor to having money but were all up in your business. I dunno. They had cool uniforms and high tech weapons for the day but were pretty horrible.
All I know is John C. Garand and the 101st Airborne unfornicated whatever they were and THAT is wy the sky is blue
HighDesert
10-15-15, 00:22
Probably better places to research this topic than asking for opinions on a gun forum.
There was nothing democratic about the Nazis.
Except for the fact that they were democratically voted into office. The Weimar Republic was more democracy than Republic and that is what made it vulnerable. And once Hitler was made Chancellor and Hindenburg died, that was pretty much the end of Weimar.
Many elements of the early Nazis, especially the SA, were very socialist. Of course that was mostly resolved during the Night of the Long Knives. The nazi's were never really what they claimed to be and evolved politically into whatever was necessary at the time to gain more power. This of course resulted in the same "statism" practiced by extreme left wing and extreme right wing governments where the state exists at the expense of the individual. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini...it is essentially all the same.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-15-15, 06:42
A collectivist political and economic system that puts the state over the rights of the individual can come from 'right' or 'left'. R and L never have seemed to translate well from Europe to the US.
Gulag or concentration camp, 'state' or the 'people' (notice it isn't 'person'), left or right- it's all a dude with a rifle pushing you onto the train.
ISIS or Putin, it's not that one is good and the other bad.
A collectivist political and economic system that puts the state over the rights of the individual can come from 'right' or 'left'. R and L never have seemed to translate well from Europe to the US.
Gulag or concentration camp, 'state' or the 'people' (notice it isn't 'person'), left or right- it's all a dude with a rifle pushing you onto the train.
ISIS or Putin, it's not that one is good and the other bad.
I was fortunate enough to work with a guy who was 13 yr old German kid when the war ended.. He got a front row seat as to how National Socialism worked.. Talking to someone like that who was there, is at the least eye opening.. He told me of one time the Gestapo stopped by his school, and asked the kids what their parents were saying about Hitler.. Two kids in the class volunteered information, shortly after that, these kids were no longer in school, and the houses where they lived with their parents were all of a sudden empty.. When people asked what happened to them, they were told that they were "relocated" They were never seen again. This lesson wasn't lost on the rest of the class, as this guy told me, the next time the Gestapo came around asking questions, nobody knew nothing..
My father is Hungarian, and he watched the last year's of the war as a child.
He watched the terror and brutality of the Nazis but also saw the final stages of a dying regime.
He was only 5 years old when the war ended but it made a lasting impression on his state of mind and some nightmares that will never go away.
End of day, Hitler took over the party and turned it into what it later became.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Whiskey_Bravo
10-15-15, 08:23
Everything about this thread so far is so laughably ignorant that anyone wanting to engage this further may be better served starting their own thread.
Well that was super helpful.
SomeOtherGuy
10-15-15, 10:06
Many elements of the early Nazis, especially the SA, were very socialist. Of course that was mostly resolved during the Night of the Long Knives. The nazi's were never really what they claimed to be and evolved politically into whatever was necessary at the time to gain more power. This of course resulted in the same "statism" practiced by extreme left wing and extreme right wing governments where the state exists at the expense of the individual. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini...it is essentially all the same.
Yes. Not like anyone else has ever campaigned on one thing and then changed. Our current President was made out to be a socialist but is really much more of a neo-con and crony capitalist, just favoring a different mix of industries than his predecessor.
Reading the original NSDAP platform is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
But there are at least three ways to look at the NSDAP:
1) What they said they were,
2) What they actually did, and
3) What later people have claimed they did.
Their own statements would have them be socialists, but not global communists in the Marx-Engels model, more of a unique nationalist-socialist.
What they actually did was a lot of crony capitalism and pure fascism, where obedience to some individuals supercedes any real political doctrine.
What later people claim them to be varies but is generally a claim of extreme rightism and total ignoring of their espoused socialism.
A key point is that right and left aren't significantly different from each other at the extreme where they tell you that they OWN YOU and you cannot do anything except with the absolute consent of "the state", which is all powerful and more important than human beings. This concept is seen with the Nazis, all of the Communists, with ISIS, the Taliban, Uganda under Idi Amin, etc. etc... it is fascism and totalitarianism, and the claims of political justification are simply that, claims.
brickboy240
10-15-15, 11:03
My father's best friend was a young child living in Poland in the WWII years and shortly thereafter. His parents sneaked he and his sister out of Poland in the early 50s, through hiding in a railroad tanker car.
He has always said that the Nazis treated the Polish better than the Russians. Oddly enough, he dislikes the Germans but has a burning hatred for the Russians.
Same is said of the Russians by an older friend that is Finnish.
Odd how they hate the Russians much worse than the Nazi Germans.
Same is said of the Russians by an older friend that is Finnish.
I am Finn. Well, my family is; myself, never been there. This is true...the Finns generally don't like anyone, but REALLY hate the Russians....
Facism, socialism and communism are all left wing. Far right would be anarcho capitalists.
My father's best friend was a young child living in Poland in the WWII years and shortly thereafter. His parents sneaked he and his sister out of Poland in the early 50s, through hiding in a railroad tanker car.
He has always said that the Nazis treated the Polish better than the Russians. Oddly enough, he dislikes the Germans but has a burning hatred for the Russians.
Same is said of the Russians by an older friend that is Finnish.
Odd how they hate the Russians much worse than the Nazi Germans.
The Russians by prior agreement with Hitler divided Poland. Hitler may have invaded them first, but the Russians invaded and occupied their half within a few weeks. More importantly, when the Russians returned to Poland on their way to Berlin, they let the Polish underground believe they would be liberated with the support of Russian forces.
But what actually happened is the Russians waited while Polish resistance forces came out of hiding and fought the nazis to the last man. Then, when they were all gone, the Russians attacked the Germans. This meant anyone who might fight for Polish independence was dead, and the Russians wouldn't have to worry about them when they declared Poland a client state.
Poles were pretty unhappy about that. Also when the Russians first occupied Poland, they massacred the Polish military officer class. They later tried to blame it on the Germans, but declassified Russian documents prove it was done under Stalin's orders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
Pretty much 22,000 victims of Stalin's purges. Word of the atrocity made it's way to Churchill and FDR but they either didn't believe it or simply refused to believe it. They accepted Stalin's version that "the Germans did it."
So yeah, it's sometimes hard to say who the "bad guy" was in Poland when you are simultaneously invaded by both Germany and Russia and both commit mass murder. Of course the Russians got them twice so I could see how some Poles might hate them even more.
It's a shame Poland didn't have an alliance with Finland. They both got screwed over by the same two countries.
Facism, socialism and communism are all left wing. Far right would be anarcho capitalists.
Fascism is typically far right.
My father's best friend was a young child living in Poland in the WWII years and shortly thereafter. His parents sneaked he and his sister out of Poland in the early 50s, through hiding in a railroad tanker car.
He has always said that the Nazis treated the Polish better than the Russians. Oddly enough, he dislikes the Germans but has a burning hatred for the Russians.
Same is said of the Russians by an older friend that is Finnish.
Odd how they hate the Russians much worse than the Nazi Germans.
One Word: Katyn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
PatrioticDisorder
10-15-15, 21:15
Fascism is typically far right.
Fascism is typically considered far right only by crazy leftists who are embarrassed at the results of previous attempts at government control in other nations. Far right would be pure free market, no regulation, no government intervention and that is definitely not fascism or the Nazi (national SOCIALIST party) ideology.
Fascism is typically considered far right only by crazy leftists who are embarrassed at the results of previous attempts at government control in other nations. Far right would be pure free market, no regulation, no government intervention and that is definitely not fascism or the Nazi (national SOCIALIST party) ideology.
That is not far right, that is Libertarianism and Anarchism.
Fascism was created in Italy as a "far right" movement during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and Anarchism.
There is general agreement that the Left includes: anarchists, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, autonomists, communists, democratic socialists, feminists, greens, left-libertarians, progressives, secularists, socialists, social democrats, and social liberals.
There is also general consensus that the Right includes: capitalists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, theocrats, and traditionalists.
That is not far right, that is Libertarianism and Anarchism.
Fascism was created in Italy as a "far right" movement during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and Anarchism.
There is general agreement that the Left includes: anarchists, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, autonomists, communists, democratic socialists, feminists, greens, left-libertarians, progressives, secularists, socialists, social democrats, and social liberals.
There is also general consensus that the Right includes: capitalists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, theocrats, and traditionalists.
I thought left generally meant more government and right meant less.
Thus extreme left might be government control via communism or facism, while extreme right would be anarchy (no government).
MountainRaven
10-15-15, 23:35
I thought left generally meant more government and right meant less.
Thus extreme left might be government control via communism or facism, while extreme right would be anarchy (no government).
This is why I prefer a matrix to a left-right line.
Political Compass - Analysis/Explanation (https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2)
This is why I prefer a matrix to a left-right line.
Political Compass - Analysis/Explanation (https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2)
That's too complicated for America.
I thought left generally meant more government and right meant less.
Thus extreme left might be government control via communism or facism, while extreme right would be anarchy (no government).
Ummm no. That would mean far right conservatives ultimately want to abandon the Constitution.
The left is basically "more change" and the right is basically "less change." At the extremes they both become totalitarian states.
This is why I prefer a matrix to a left-right line.
Political Compass - Analysis/Explanation (https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2)
Equating Libertarian with Anarchism is pretty laughable. Anarchism is "no government" while Libertarian definitely has government but one that upholds liberty as it's principle objective. But you need government to remain Libertarian, otherwise you will become a pure Democracy and quickly become something you never wished for like communist.
Equating Libertarian with Anarchism is pretty laughable. Anarchism is "no government" while Libertarian definitely has government but one that upholds liberty as it's principle objective. But you need government to remain Libertarian, otherwise you will become a pure Democracy and quickly become something you never wished for like communist.
To add to this I would say that libertarian has received a bad name as being anarchist due to the fact that many actual anarchist will try to fly under the libertarian banner since it makes them a little more palatable to people. Every time I tell someone that I'm libertarian, they make a remark like "so you don't think we should have a government or any laws?" or "so what about traffic laws? I suppose you don't think we should have stop lights, do ya?" People are completely ignorant on what a libertarian actually is when the reality is most people are a libertarian at heart.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
To add to this I would say that libertarian has received a bad name as being anarchist due to the fact that many actual anarchist will try to fly under the libertarian banner since it makes them a little more palatable to people. Every time I tell someone that I'm libertarian, they make a remark like "so you don't think we should have a government or any laws?" or "so what about traffic laws? I suppose you don't think we should have stop lights, do ya?" People are completely ignorant on what a libertarian actually is when the reality is most people are a libertarian at heart.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
If your average American learned what Libertarian actually meant, we'd have a three party system of government.
What I have found is people who think they are communists, usually aren't, they are usually something much worse or they are faddish communists who think it's cool to call themselves communists in the way LeVay satanists call themselves satanists even though they don't actually believe in god or satan.
People who think they are social democrats are often communists, and would gleefully use government force to impose their "democratic values" on everyone, even it it means without a vote.
Anarchists usually have no real understanding of politics at all and the vast majority are drug addicted serial activists who mainly live to destroy other people's property. If they ever achieved a "no government" state, they would be the first to die.
People who believe they are conservatives are often social democrats bordering on socialism. They have no idea what the word "conservative" means as it applies to government and they gleefully introduce one bill after another hoping to create a power base and effect change that they can take credit for. The spend money like a crack addicted hooker with a stolen Amex Platinum card.
Sadly only the fanatics seem to have a real understanding of their political position. The Green Party has very clear views and goals and they state them plainly. This is why most normal people aren't "Greens."
The American Nazi Party, The American Communist Party and all the other "yes, that is what we are...yes we are serious" fringe groups thankfully represent less than 1% of the voting public.
The vast majority are mostly "I'm a Republican because my Dad is a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat because my Dad was a Democrat" individuals who truly can't comprehend why everything is going to hell because their part won the Presidential election AND has majority power in Congress but still nothing meaningful or productive is being accomplished.
The rest are those tortured souls who truly understand what the Republican Party and the Democratic Party were "supposed to be" and they recognize this isn't it. Today John Kennedy would be more Republican than anyone running and Reagan would probably have a massive stroke if he saw the clowns we were currently considering. They also understand the main point of what it is to be Libertarian, but most of the candidate from the LP aren't true Libertarians any more than the candidates from the other two parties actually represent the traditional views of their party. Most Libertarians think "free weed" and "no war" is the answer to everything.
A few guys like Rand Paul figure out they can never win running as a Libertarian and have a better shot being a "small l" Republican, but even then it's a popularity contest with points awarded for best sound bite and guys like Paul are political nerds.
So basically, no matter what, you cant win.
Business_Casual
10-16-15, 05:50
I thought left generally meant more government and right meant less.
Thus extreme left might be government control via communism or facism, while extreme right would be anarchy (no government).
No, actually the "left" wants state control and the "right" is conservative, the hint is in the name, they want to conserve - whatever is at issue, rights, fiscal responsibility, etc.
Where does Democratic enter this equation? The translation of NSDAP is National Socialist German Workers Party. There is no Democratic in there. The Democratic Socialists work to vote in a Socialist agenda, as opposed to Communists who want to bring about a worker's paradise at the point of a bayonet.
Fascism is typically considered far right only by crazy leftists who are embarrassed at the results of previous attempts at government control in other nations. Far right would be pure free market, no regulation, no government intervention and that is definitely not fascism or the Nazi (national SOCIALIST party) ideology.
The idea that Fascism an Nazism were not socialist movements is a constructed of the left
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-16-15, 06:38
Equating Libertarian with Anarchism is pretty laughable. Anarchism is "no government" while Libertarian definitely has government but one that upholds liberty as it's principle objective. But you need government to remain Libertarian, otherwise you will become a pure Democracy and quickly become something you never wished for like communist.
To add to this I would say that libertarian has received a bad name as being anarchist due to the fact that many actual anarchist will try to fly under the libertarian banner since it makes them a little more palatable to people. Every time I tell someone that I'm libertarian, they make a remark like "so you don't think we should have a government or any laws?" or "so what about traffic laws? I suppose you don't think we should have stop lights, do ya?" People are completely ignorant on what a libertarian actually is when the reality is most people are a libertarian at heart.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
The right in Europe is usually very Nationalistic, while the left is usually more global- as in one communistic system for the world. We don't really get that left-right/national-global differentiation here. That is why 'right' parties in the EU would seem to analogs and allies of the GOP, but since they can very nationalistic, they can be fairly anti-American. Progressives in the US and lefties in EU often can see more eye to eye.
Libertarians get a bad name because they attract people that are actually just anti-social ass hats. They want in effect no laws and even worse, don't want to follow the law and they think that is Libertarianism. I am a law & order Libertarian. I want the least impactful and intrusive laws, but I think those laws should be followed, strictly. Most people that call themselves Libertarians just want to skip to Anarchy.
They are all just labels. What ever the funding principles or names, most systems evolve to some kind of overbearing control- often in the name of progress and fairness.
PatrioticDisorder
10-16-15, 07:27
This is why I prefer a matrix to a left-right line.
Political Compass - Analysis/Explanation (https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2)
The American left is
PatrioticDisorder
10-16-15, 07:29
This is why I prefer a matrix to a left-right line.
Political Compass - Analysis/Explanation (https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2)
The American left is left/authoritarian while the American right is right/libertarian and has been for a very long time. Europe & European understanding of left/right are definitely different than American understanding. Nazi's have more in common with the democrat party than they do with the Republican Party.
PatrioticDisorder
10-16-15, 07:31
The American left vs. right so eloquently explained by the late great Ronaldus Magnus in this short video clip.
http://youtu.be/Dg0Axyvlkm0
SomeOtherGuy
10-16-15, 08:34
So in case it's not obvious yet - there are no universal agreements on exactly what left/right means or exactly who is and isn't part of right/left in the USA. It's one of those vague and fuzzy things. Real, but without obvious dividing lines that all can agree on.
As for the OP question, the Nazis were definitely socialists by their own definition and claims. They weren't democratic - basically the complete opposite, look up Führerprinzip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip). That's just as well since they would have been much more successful without the Führerprinzip.
I will point out one misconception raised above... and that of "Neoconservatism". It has its roots in left wing ideology and the first people deemed "neocons" were in fact democrats and some national socialists. The difference was the "neocons" tended to be foreign policy hawks in favor of using the military to achieve goals. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton fits the profile of the classic "neocon".
Now since the days of Daniel P. Moynihan (one of the original neocons) that term and the people called this have changed. Wolfowitz and Cheney now fit the modern definition of neocon.
But do not be deceived; Neoconservatives sprung from the well of leftists.
I will point out one misconception raised above... and that of "Neoconservatism". It has its roots in left wing ideology and the first people deemed "neocons" were in fact democrats and some national socialists. The difference was the "neocons" tended to be foreign policy hawks in favor of using the military to achieve goals. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton fits the profile of the classic "neocon".
Now since the days of Daniel P. Moynihan (one of the original neocons) that term and the people called this have changed. Wolfowitz and Cheney now fit the modern definition of neocon.
But do not be deceived; Neoconservatives sprung from the well of leftists.
BRAVO good sir!
I would submit to the readers that the term "Fascist" is often used incorrectly, misidentified and defies conventional definition.
While it can trace the early roots to 1880's or so, Italy under Mussolini is regarded as the first real world application. When one examines the tenets of fascism, it is as much or more an economics structure as it is political. If one properly examines it, one will find a great many parallels to communism. Totalitarianism at the point of a bayonet. Because it opposed communism, and nationalism is its banner, then the natural tendency is to declare this to be "right wing". Especially because of the social conservatism espoused. However, when one also examines the rhetoric from fascist leaders, you can take the quotes and find they mirror quotes from Lenin, Marx, Trotsky and even Nietzsche. Mussolini called fascism "right" while at the same time condemning capitalism and religion. "Experts" of today who classify fascism as "left" do not agree even as to why. Interesting then that Chinese Marxists used to call Stalinist Russia "fascists" while Stalin called Communist China "fascists". Go figure. Pot... meet kettle.
I'd suggest folks do their own research to properly understand or make up their mind on what Fascism is... if one so desires. Please, oh please, do not rely on wiki for your source. It provides some facts but is otherwise misleading to a great degree.
To the point of the OP, Hitler and Stalin were doing very much the same things at the same time. I am of the mind that Nazism and Communism agree on much, much more than where they disagree.
As far as democratic socialism is concerned, no, it was not that at all.
Nazism allowed for private ownership of property and companies, even though controlled by the government. Once Hitler declared himself "der Fuhrer" from simply Chancellor there was no democracy left.
Democratic socialism is still all about "collective" or state ownership of property, means of production and wealth redistribution but not with the totalitarianism of communism.
Equating Libertarian with Anarchism is pretty laughable. Anarchism is "no government" while Libertarian definitely has government but one that upholds liberty as it's principle objective. But you need government to remain Libertarian, otherwise you will become a pure Democracy and quickly become something you never wished for like communist.
Think about it. All left ideaology wants full control over its subjects. The founding Fathers were far right with limited government. Even more farther to the right than them would be no government.
It really doesn't matter what you call it. Fascism, Communism, Democratic Socialism, it all comes down to Totalitarianism. The masses are oppressed, and power is in the hands of the few elite. I align fascism more with the far left than the right. Look at the PC culture, and you will see fascism. I am afraid to speak my mind in fear of my own government. That is fascism.
Business_Casual
10-18-15, 09:54
It really doesn't matter what you call it. Fascism, Communism, Democratic Socialism, it all comes down to Totalitarianism. The masses are oppressed, and power is in the hands of the few elite. I align fascism more with the far left than the right. Look at the PC culture, and you will see fascism. I am afraid to speak my mind in fear of my own government. That is fascism.
I think that you can replace all the ideologies with "government" and you will be at the nub of it. The Founding Fathers feared government, the trick that Republicans and Democrats have pulled on the electorate is convincing us that there is a difference between oppression from Hillary and oppression from Bush. There isn't. Wedge issues - Republicans are pro-gun? Why did Reagan and Bush sign bans? Democrats are pro-social spending? Why did Clinton sign welfare reform? And on and on...
I think that you can replace all the ideologies with "government" and you will be at the nub of it. The Founding Fathers feared government, the trick that Republicans and Democrats have pulled on the electorate is convincing us that there is a difference between oppression from Hillary and oppression from Bush. There isn't. Wedge issues - Republicans are pro-gun? Why did Reagan and Bush sign bans? Democrats are pro-social spending? Why did Clinton sign welfare reform? And on and on...
I totally agree. We have two parties in love with government, and its expansion. Politicians want personal gain, and power, and they get it through bigger, and bigger government.
PatrioticDisorder
10-18-15, 10:21
I think that you can replace all the ideologies with "government" and you will be at the nub of it. The Founding Fathers feared government, the trick that Republicans and Democrats have pulled on the electorate is convincing us that there is a difference between oppression from Hillary and oppression from Bush. There isn't. Wedge issues - Republicans are pro-gun? Why did Reagan and Bush sign bans? Democrats are pro-social spending? Why did Clinton sign welfare reform? And on and on...
Well that's the rub, the "left" in this country has shifted towards statism, RINO's are borderline authoritarian/statist while we on the American "right" are more libertarian minded and because of that we are considered "extremists" but in reality we are in line with the founders ideology and the reat of the idiots supporting D's and RINO's apparently have not learned from history.
The difference between our "extremism"'and the extremism of the statists, they wish to IMPOSE on people and we wish to be left and leave people the **** alone. Their language is warped, the democrat debate they discussed imposing their will on the masses but they'll describe it as freedom, a total perversion of the word.
Think about it. All left ideaology wants full control over its subjects. The founding Fathers were far right with limited government. Even more farther to the right than them would be no government.
I don't think you understand that at the extremes of the political spectrum is totalitarianism, just two different roads to the same result.
The goal of right wing politics certainly is not "no government."
MountainRaven
10-18-15, 14:33
I don't think you understand that at the extremes of the political spectrum is totalitarianism, just two different roads to the same result.
The goal of right wing politics certainly is not "no government."
I was going to say - with few exceptions, most anarchists are considered leftists, as I recall. Sure there are - what are they called, anarcho-capitalists? - but most anarchists don't fall under that banner.
And I think it's safe to say that the founding fathers were not anarchists - they wanted government, but they wanted "pure" government, government harnessed to ensure the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of white men, unyielding to the masses but not actively oppressing them, either. They wanted it to serve the people, but to also be independent of the people - hence the republic, rather than a democracy, never mind that a direct democracy was largely impossible in a country the size of the US (or anything larger than a couple thousand people) until the late 20th Century - concentrate too much power in the hands of the ruling class and they'll use their power to take from the ruled, concentrate too much power in the ruled class and they'll use their power to make the ruling class take from others in the ruled class.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.