Fascism

[bripat9643]

Every one of those "characteristics" fits progressive, communist, socialist and religious theocracies as well. That's the problem with the list, it is so non specific, and general, as to be useless other than showing that pretty much all collectivist government systems suck in some manner or other.

Another dishonest post, using the half-truth, a lie by omission. These characteristics do not define the liberal or progressive; and each of the other noted ideologies can but are not always examples of an Authoritarian Regime, which is what fascism (small f) is too. Do try to think and consider with whatever amount of sagacious ability you might have on each of the 14 points, and compare them with the words of P-e Trump.

"Authoritarian" does not equate to "fascist." Authoritarian regimes have been around since civilization began. Fascism is supposedly an economic system. Nothing in the 14 points is related to economics. It's pure bullshit.

Fascism is not an "economic system". Capitalism is. Socialism is to large degree as is communism.

Actually fascism IS an economic system. As are socialism, and communism. They are three systems who's economic systems are wholly tied to the governmental system as well. They are completely integrated. The progressives here in trying to paint fascism as merely a governmental type by pointing out that the corporations were allowed to remain independent completely ignore the bureaucracy that the Nazi's and Italians implemented to CONTROL what those corporations could produce.

Nothing was produced in Nazi Germany, or fascist Italy without prior government consent. Consent that was predicated on the perceived needs of the government. And, everything about that production was controlled by the government. How much the workers had to be paid, which workers they could use, where the resources had to accessed, how much those resources were to cost, etc. etc. etc.

The only difference between communist russia, and fascist germany was the germans allowed private citizens to own property. In Soviet Russia that wasn't allowed.

I agree that part of fascism is economic, blending capitalism and socialism - but the ideology doesn't revolve around an economic system the way socialism/communism and capitalism do does it? Didn't those originate as economic systems first?

I know you decry progressives but frankly, the rightwingnuts are just as loosie goosie with definitions here. And with ignoring their own ideolgy's extremes such as fascism which maintained capitalism to a degree and private property rights where as leftism went towards collective ownership, ostensibly by the people, and no private property.

Yes, actually, it does. However, turds like you agree with that economic system, so you do everything in your power to focus in irrelevant minutia.

Furthermore, as has already been explain multiple times, fascism did not maintain private property rights.

 

[bripat9643]

National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

Bullshit. You don't know anything about the history of Nazi Germany. The fact is that as time went on it became more and more socialist.

 

[Coyote]

We know where you stand....sadly...

View attachment 104552

A more accurate representation of political ideologies and Fascism:The Political Compass
Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!

But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.



The Political Compass

A good breakdown of differences between Left and Right Wing:
Left Wing vs Right Wing - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......

First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.

Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.

....They deny their fascism almost as much as they deny starting the kkk....

Correct about the KKK being started by Democrats. What party do most KKK, Sovereign Citizen, Christian Identity and other White Supremacists belong to today? Democrats or Republicans?

Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.

This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.

Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.

All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....

With left = big government, and

Right = small government

Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.

Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....

It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....

Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view.

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences [10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]

The meaning of right-wing "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[29] According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists.[30][page needed]

Roger Eatwell and Neal O'Sullivan divide the Right into five types: 'reactionary', 'moderate', 'radical', 'extreme', and 'new'.[31] Chip Berlet argues that each of these "styles of thought" are "responses to the left", including liberalism and socialism, which have arisen since the 1789 French Revolution.[32] The 'reactionary right' looks toward the past and is "aristocratic, religious and authoritarian".[32] The 'moderate right', typified by the writings of Edmund Burke, is tolerant of change, provided it is gradual, and accepts some aspects of liberalism, including the rule of law and capitalism, although it sees radical laissez-faire and individualism as harmful to society. Often the moderate right promotes nationalism and social welfare policies.[33] 'Radical right' is a term developed after World War II to describe groups and ideologies such as McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, Thatcherism, and the Republikaner Party. Eatwell stresses that this use has "major typological problems" and that the term "has also been applied to clearly democratic developments." [34] The radical right includes right-wing populism and various other subtypes.[35] Eatwell argues that the 'extreme right' has four traits: "1) anti-democracy; 2) nationalism; 3) racism; and 4) the strong state".[36] The 'New Right' consists of the liberal conservatives, who stress small government, free markets, and individual initiative.[37]

Other authors make a distinction between the centre-right and the far right.[38] Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (though they may accept government regulation to control monopolies), private property rights, and a limited welfare state (for example government provision of education and medical care). They support conservatism and economic liberalism, and oppose socialism and communism. The phrase far right, by contrast, is used to describe those who favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and often to criminalize other ethnic groups or religions.[39][40][41][42][43] Typical examples of leaders to whom the far right label is often applied are Francisco Franco in Spain and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.[44][45][46][page needed][47][48] The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethnic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue.[49] The phrase is also used to describe support for ethnic nationalism.

​

Left–right politics - Wikipedia

Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."[15]


Political scientists and other analysts regard the Left as including anarchists,[16][17] communists, socialists and social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality are also usually linked with left-wing organizations.[21] Trade unionism is also associated with the left.[22]


Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including christian democrats, classical liberals, conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries, and traditionalists.

A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[26] Nationalism is often regarded as characteristic of the right, although nationalism is also sometimes present in the left.[27] Populism is regarded as having both left wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism, right-wing populist).[28] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[2​

 

[bripat9643]

A more accurate representation of political ideologies and Fascism:The Political Compass
Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!

But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.



The Political Compass

A good breakdown of differences between Left and Right Wing:
Left Wing vs Right Wing - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......

First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.

Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.

....They deny their fascism almost as much as they deny starting the kkk....

Correct about the KKK being started by Democrats. What party do most KKK, Sovereign Citizen, Christian Identity and other White Supremacists belong to today? Democrats or Republicans?

Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.

This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.

Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.

All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....

With left = big government, and

Right = small government

Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.

Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....

It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....

Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view

Yes it is always small government. Basing it on anything else makes nonsense of the political spectrum. Of course, that's exactly the intent of demagogues like you. Clarity is not in your best interest. You want to obfuscate and confuse.

When you cite Wikipedia about anything even remotely political, you only destroy your credibility.

 

[owebo]

That graph is a piece of propaganda intended to deceive. Below is how the political plain is properly divided:

That's really not very different than the model he posted.

And both yours and his are more accurate than the linear ones.

A more accurate representation of political ideologies and Fascism:The Political Compass
Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!

But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.



The Political Compass

A good breakdown of differences between Left and Right Wing:
Left Wing vs Right Wing - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......

First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.

Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.

....They deny their fascism almost as much as they deny starting the kkk....

Correct about the KKK being started by Democrats. What party do most KKK, Sovereign Citizen, Christian Identity and other White Supremacists belong to today? Democrats or Republicans?

Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.

This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.

Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.

All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....

With left = big government, and

Right = small government

Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.

Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....

It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....

Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view.

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences [10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]

The meaning of right-wing "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[29] According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists.[30][page needed]

Roger Eatwell and Neal O'Sullivan divide the Right into five types: 'reactionary', 'moderate', 'radical', 'extreme', and 'new'.[31] Chip Berlet argues that each of these "styles of thought" are "responses to the left", including liberalism and socialism, which have arisen since the 1789 French Revolution.[32] The 'reactionary right' looks toward the past and is "aristocratic, religious and authoritarian".[32] The 'moderate right', typified by the writings of Edmund Burke, is tolerant of change, provided it is gradual, and accepts some aspects of liberalism, including the rule of law and capitalism, although it sees radical laissez-faire and individualism as harmful to society. Often the moderate right promotes nationalism and social welfare policies.[33] 'Radical right' is a term developed after World War II to describe groups and ideologies such as McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, Thatcherism, and the Republikaner Party. Eatwell stresses that this use has "major typological problems" and that the term "has also been applied to clearly democratic developments." [34] The radical right includes right-wing populism and various other subtypes.[35] Eatwell argues that the 'extreme right' has four traits: "1) anti-democracy; 2) nationalism; 3) racism; and 4) the strong state".[36] The 'New Right' consists of the liberal conservatives, who stress small government, free markets, and individual initiative.[37]

Other authors make a distinction between the centre-right and the far right.[38] Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (though they may accept government regulation to control monopolies), private property rights, and a limited welfare state (for example government provision of education and medical care). They support conservatism and economic liberalism, and oppose socialism and communism. The phrase far right, by contrast, is used to describe those who favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and often to criminalize other ethnic groups or religions.[39][40][41][42][43] Typical examples of leaders to whom the far right label is often applied are Francisco Franco in Spain and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.[44][45][46][page needed][47][48] The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethnic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue.[49] The phrase is also used to describe support for ethnic nationalism.

​

Left–right politics - Wikipedia

Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."[15]


Political scientists and other analysts regard the Left as including anarchists,[16][17] communists, socialists and social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality are also usually linked with left-wing organizations.[21] Trade unionism is also associated with the left.[22]


Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including christian democrats, classical liberals, conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries, and traditionalists.

A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[26] Nationalism is often regarded as characteristic of the right, although nationalism is also sometimes present in the left.[27] Populism is regarded as having both left wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism, right-wing populist).[28] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[2​

rightwing is ALWAYS smaller government....

 

[Coyote]

National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

Bullshit. You don't know anything about the history of Nazi Germany. The fact is that as time went on it became more and more socialist.

Don’t ever call Hitler a socialist

...“There is an accepted mainstream view that the origins of Nazism lie in socialism, or that they have common roots,” Frosh wrote in a piece for one right-wing website. Her definition of the “accepted mainstream” turned out to be something about Hayek written on Wikipedia.


“I believe Nazisim [sic] and Fascism to have far more in common with socialism than conservatism,” wrote the blogger Iain Dale. “The clue is the phrase ‘National Socialism’.” On which basis, the German Democratic Republic was presumably a flourishing democracy.


According to the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, “Almost everyone in those days accepted that Fascism had emerged from the revolutionary left.” Which is true, so long as you ignore what happened to Hitler’s old comrades during the Night of the Long Knives.


Anyone who has studied Hitler’s rise to power knows he was no socialist. He was an opportunist, even a political schizophrenic. Which served him well, because in a Weimar Republic struggling – and failing catastrophically – to come to terms with military humiliation, a crisis of national identity and an economic implosion, ideology was a moveable feast. Indeed, it was so moveable, it opened the door to Hitler’s rise to power. “Who cares what he thinks?” Germany said to herself. “He’ll do for now.”


Pin the ideology on the Führer is a fun game. Actually, it’s quite a tasteless game. But we can all play it. “The government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organised by the state, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property,” Hitler told the Reichstag in 1933. Not exactly the words of a man about to break into a rendition of “The Red Flag”.


But does it matter? Yes, it does, actually. Hitler wasn’t a socialist, nor was he a conservative. He was a political mutation. And to try to place him anywhere on the conventional political spectrum is not just to abuse history but to play a dangerous game with the future.​

In fact...it got less and less socialist as time went on...Nazi Party | political party, Germany

On July 14, 1933, his government declared the Nazi Party to be the only political party in Germany. On the death of Hindenburg in 1934 Hitler took the titles of Führer (“Leader”), chancellor, and commander in chief of the army, and he remained leader of the Nazi Party as well. Nazi Party membership became mandatory for all higher civil servants and bureaucrats, and the gauleiters became powerful figures in the state governments. Hitler crushed the Nazi Party’s left, or socialist-oriented, wing in 1934, executing Ernst Röhm and other rebellious SA leaders at this time. Thereafter, Hitler’s word was the supreme and undisputed command in the party. The party came to control virtually all political, social, and cultural activities in Germany. Its vast and complex hierarchy was structured like a pyramid, with party-controlled mass organizations for youth, women, workers, and other groups at the bottom, party members and officials in the middle, and Hitler and his closest associates at the top wielding undisputed authority.​

Once Hitler consolidated power, he kicked our killed the socialist members in his party, specifically repudiated socialism, maintained private property rights as well as capitalism as long as it "served the national interests" - in fact, the complete opposite of socialism.

 

[Coyote]

First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......

First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.

Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.

....They deny their fascism almost as much as they deny starting the kkk....

Correct about the KKK being started by Democrats. What party do most KKK, Sovereign Citizen, Christian Identity and other White Supremacists belong to today? Democrats or Republicans?

Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.

This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.

Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.

All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....

With left = big government, and

Right = small government

Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.

Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....

It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....

Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view

Yes it is always small government. Basing it on anything else makes nonsense of the political spectrum. Of course, that's exactly the intent of demagogues like you. Clarity is not in your best interest. You want to obfuscate and confuse.

When you cite Wikipedia about anything even remotely political, you destroy your credibility.

No. It isn't. Look outside of America.

 

[bripat9643]

National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

Bullshit. You don't know anything about the history of Nazi Germany. The fact is that as time went on it became more and more socialist.

Don’t ever call Hitler a socialist

...“There is an accepted mainstream view that the origins of Nazism lie in socialism, or that they have common roots,” Frosh wrote in a piece for one right-wing website. Her definition of the “accepted mainstream” turned out to be something about Hayek written on Wikipedia.


“I believe Nazisim [sic] and Fascism to have far more in common with socialism than conservatism,” wrote the blogger Iain Dale. “The clue is the phrase ‘National Socialism’.” On which basis, the German Democratic Republic was presumably a flourishing democracy.


According to the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, “Almost everyone in those days accepted that Fascism had emerged from the revolutionary left.” Which is true, so long as you ignore what happened to Hitler’s old comrades during the Night of the Long Knives.


Anyone who has studied Hitler’s rise to power knows he was no socialist. He was an opportunist, even a political schizophrenic. Which served him well, because in a Weimar Republic struggling – and failing catastrophically – to come to terms with military humiliation, a crisis of national identity and an economic implosion, ideology was a moveable feast. Indeed, it was so moveable, it opened the door to Hitler’s rise to power. “Who cares what he thinks?” Germany said to herself. “He’ll do for now.”


Pin the ideology on the Führer is a fun game. Actually, it’s quite a tasteless game. But we can all play it. “The government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organised by the state, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property,” Hitler told the Reichstag in 1933. Not exactly the words of a man about to break into a rendition of “The Red Flag”.


But does it matter? Yes, it does, actually. Hitler wasn’t a socialist, nor was he a conservative. He was a political mutation. And to try to place him anywhere on the conventional political spectrum is not just to abuse history but to play a dangerous game with the future.​

In fact...it got less and less socialist as time went on...Nazi Party | political party, Germany

On July 14, 1933, his government declared the Nazi Party to be the only political party in Germany. On the death of Hindenburg in 1934 Hitler took the titles of Führer (“Leader”), chancellor, and commander in chief of the army, and he remained leader of the Nazi Party as well. Nazi Party membership became mandatory for all higher civil servants and bureaucrats, and the gauleiters became powerful figures in the state governments. Hitler crushed the Nazi Party’s left, or socialist-oriented, wing in 1934, executing Ernst Röhm and other rebellious SA leaders at this time. Thereafter, Hitler’s word was the supreme and undisputed command in the party. The party came to control virtually all political, social, and cultural activities in Germany. Its vast and complex hierarchy was structured like a pyramid, with party-controlled mass organizations for youth, women, workers, and other groups at the bottom, party members and officials in the middle, and Hitler and his closest associates at the top wielding undisputed authority.​

Once Hitler consolidated power, he kicked our killed the socialist members in his party, specifically repudiated socialism, maintained private property rights as well as capitalism as long as it "served the national interests" - in fact, the complete opposite of socialism.

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum in thousands upon thousands of posts in hundreds of threads. I'm certainly not going to ignore all that and be swayed by some fake news outlet like "The New Statesman." The article you posted is an outright lie. Left wingers always lie about the Nazis because the truth is that the Democrat economic program is identical to the Nazi economic program. That's a truth that is just to horrible for left wingers to admit.

 

[westwall]

Every one of those "characteristics" fits progressive, communist, socialist and religious theocracies as well. That's the problem with the list, it is so non specific, and general, as to be useless other than showing that pretty much all collectivist government systems suck in some manner or other.

Another dishonest post, using the half-truth, a lie by omission. These characteristics do not define the liberal or progressive; and each of the other noted ideologies can but are not always examples of an Authoritarian Regime, which is what fascism (small f) is too. Do try to think and consider with whatever amount of sagacious ability you might have on each of the 14 points, and compare them with the words of P-e Trump.

"Authoritarian" does not equate to "fascist." Authoritarian regimes have been around since civilization began. Fascism is supposedly an economic system. Nothing in the 14 points is related to economics. It's pure bullshit.

Fascism is not an "economic system". Capitalism is. Socialism is to large degree as is communism.

Actually fascism IS an economic system. As are socialism, and communism. They are three systems who's economic systems are wholly tied to the governmental system as well. They are completely integrated. The progressives here in trying to paint fascism as merely a governmental type by pointing out that the corporations were allowed to remain independent completely ignore the bureaucracy that the Nazi's and Italians implemented to CONTROL what those corporations could produce.

Nothing was produced in Nazi Germany, or fascist Italy without prior government consent. Consent that was predicated on the perceived needs of the government. And, everything about that production was controlled by the government. How much the workers had to be paid, which workers they could use, where the resources had to accessed, how much those resources were to cost, etc. etc. etc.

The only difference between communist russia, and fascist germany was the germans allowed private citizens to own property. In Soviet Russia that wasn't allowed.

I agree that part of fascism is economic, blending capitalism and socialism - but the ideology doesn't revolve around an economic system the way socialism/communism and capitalism do does it? Didn't those originate as economic systems first?

I know you decry progressives but frankly, the rightwingnuts are just as loosie goosie with definitions here. And with ignoring their own ideolgy's extremes such as fascism which maintained capitalism to a degree and private property rights where as leftism went towards collective ownership, ostensibly by the people, and no private property.

There is no capitalism in fascism. Not in the slightest. The only corporations that are allowed to exist are those who have been supportive of the fascist leaders. They are first rewarded with contracts, Krieghoff comes immediately to mind, the son of the founders of Krieghoff married Goerings daughter, so they were rewarded with contracts to produce Luger (a Mauser product) pistols for the Luftwaffe. Latter on, as the fascists began to exercise total control over the economy, Krieghoff was treated like every other company out there, they had to produce that which the government wanted it to, whether they were interested in the product or not. They were a very high end firearm manufacturer so when they were ordered to produce cannons for the aircraft they were a bit out of their depth.

 

[bripat9643]

First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.

Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.

Correct about the KKK being started by Democrats. What party do most KKK, Sovereign Citizen, Christian Identity and other White Supremacists belong to today? Democrats or Republicans?

Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.

This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.

Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.

All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....

With left = big government, and

Right = small government

Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.

Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....

It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....

Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view

Yes it is always small government. Basing it on anything else makes nonsense of the political spectrum. Of course, that's exactly the intent of demagogues like you. Clarity is not in your best interest. You want to obfuscate and confuse.

When you cite Wikipedia about anything even remotely political, you destroy your credibility.

No. It isn't. Look outside of America.

Why, because the leftwing demagoguery is even worse and the lies even bigger? If the left/right dichotomy doesn't refer to government control of the economy, then what does it measure? Lefties can never explain that.

 

[westwall]

A more accurate representation of political ideologies and Fascism:The Political Compass
Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!

But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.



The Political Compass

A good breakdown of differences between Left and Right Wing:
Left Wing vs Right Wing - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......

First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.

Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.

....They deny their fascism almost as much as they deny starting the kkk....

Correct about the KKK being started by Democrats. What party do most KKK, Sovereign Citizen, Christian Identity and other White Supremacists belong to today? Democrats or Republicans?

Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.

This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.

Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.

All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....

With left = big government, and

Right = small government

Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.

Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....

It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....

Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view.

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences [10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]

The meaning of right-wing "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[29] According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists.[30][page needed]

Roger Eatwell and Neal O'Sullivan divide the Right into five types: 'reactionary', 'moderate', 'radical', 'extreme', and 'new'.[31] Chip Berlet argues that each of these "styles of thought" are "responses to the left", including liberalism and socialism, which have arisen since the 1789 French Revolution.[32] The 'reactionary right' looks toward the past and is "aristocratic, religious and authoritarian".[32] The 'moderate right', typified by the writings of Edmund Burke, is tolerant of change, provided it is gradual, and accepts some aspects of liberalism, including the rule of law and capitalism, although it sees radical laissez-faire and individualism as harmful to society. Often the moderate right promotes nationalism and social welfare policies.[33] 'Radical right' is a term developed after World War II to describe groups and ideologies such as McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, Thatcherism, and the Republikaner Party. Eatwell stresses that this use has "major typological problems" and that the term "has also been applied to clearly democratic developments." [34] The radical right includes right-wing populism and various other subtypes.[35] Eatwell argues that the 'extreme right' has four traits: "1) anti-democracy; 2) nationalism; 3) racism; and 4) the strong state".[36] The 'New Right' consists of the liberal conservatives, who stress small government, free markets, and individual initiative.[37]

Other authors make a distinction between the centre-right and the far right.[38] Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (though they may accept government regulation to control monopolies), private property rights, and a limited welfare state (for example government provision of education and medical care). They support conservatism and economic liberalism, and oppose socialism and communism. The phrase far right, by contrast, is used to describe those who favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and often to criminalize other ethnic groups or religions.[39][40][41][42][43] Typical examples of leaders to whom the far right label is often applied are Francisco Franco in Spain and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.[44][45][46][page needed][47][48] The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethnic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue.[49] The phrase is also used to describe support for ethnic nationalism.

​

Left–right politics - Wikipedia

Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."[15]


Political scientists and other analysts regard the Left as including anarchists,[16][17] communists, socialists and social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality are also usually linked with left-wing organizations.[21] Trade unionism is also associated with the left.[22]


Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including christian democrats, classical liberals, conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries, and traditionalists.

A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[26] Nationalism is often regarded as characteristic of the right, although nationalism is also sometimes present in the left.[27] Populism is regarded as having both left wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism, right-wing populist).[28] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[2​

Wiki is not a good source for philosophical discussions. Too many hands in the pie as it were. And, they ignore fact in favor of Fabian Socialist dogma. Right wing is no government. Left wing is collective government. The Fabian Socialists have spent decades trying to convince people that fascism is "rightwing", and communism is "leftwing". The reality is they are both collective government systems which makes them BOTH leftwing.

 

[owebo]

Another dishonest post, using the half-truth, a lie by omission. These characteristics do not define the liberal or progressive; and each of the other noted ideologies can but are not always examples of an Authoritarian Regime, which is what fascism (small f) is too. Do try to think and consider with whatever amount of sagacious ability you might have on each of the 14 points, and compare them with the words of P-e Trump.

"Authoritarian" does not equate to "fascist." Authoritarian regimes have been around since civilization began. Fascism is supposedly an economic system. Nothing in the 14 points is related to economics. It's pure bullshit.

Fascism is not an "economic system". Capitalism is. Socialism is to large degree as is communism.

Actually fascism IS an economic system. As are socialism, and communism. They are three systems who's economic systems are wholly tied to the governmental system as well. They are completely integrated. The progressives here in trying to paint fascism as merely a governmental type by pointing out that the corporations were allowed to remain independent completely ignore the bureaucracy that the Nazi's and Italians implemented to CONTROL what those corporations could produce.

Nothing was produced in Nazi Germany, or fascist Italy without prior government consent. Consent that was predicated on the perceived needs of the government. And, everything about that production was controlled by the government. How much the workers had to be paid, which workers they could use, where the resources had to accessed, how much those resources were to cost, etc. etc. etc.

The only difference between communist russia, and fascist germany was the germans allowed private citizens to own property. In Soviet Russia that wasn't allowed.

I agree that part of fascism is economic, blending capitalism and socialism - but the ideology doesn't revolve around an economic system the way socialism/communism and capitalism do does it? Didn't those originate as economic systems first?

I know you decry progressives but frankly, the rightwingnuts are just as loosie goosie with definitions here. And with ignoring their own ideolgy's extremes such as fascism which maintained capitalism to a degree and private property rights where as leftism went towards collective ownership, ostensibly by the people, and no private property.

There is no capitalism in fascism. No in the slightest. The only corporations that are allowed to exist are those who have been supportive of the fascist leaders. They are first rewarded with contracts, Krieghoff comes immediately to mind, the son of the founders of Krieghoff married Goerings daughter, so they were rewarded with contracts to produce Luger (a Mauser product) pistols for the Luftwaffe. Latter on, as the fascist began to exercise total control over the economy Krieghoff was treated like every other company out there, they had to produce that which the government wanted it to, whether they were interested in the product or not. They were a very high end firearm manufacturer so when they were ordered to produce cannons for the aircraft they were a bit out of their depth.

One of the most significant difference between fascism and communism is how industry (capitalism for simplicity only) is controlled. Communism owns the machine while fascism owns the people around the machine....

Both forms of leftist government require massive governments to function......

 

[Coyote]

First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......

First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.

Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.

....They deny their fascism almost as much as they deny starting the kkk....

Correct about the KKK being started by Democrats. What party do most KKK, Sovereign Citizen, Christian Identity and other White Supremacists belong to today? Democrats or Republicans?

Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.

This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.

Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.

All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....

With left = big government, and

Right = small government

Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.

Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....

It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....

Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view.

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences [10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]

The meaning of right-wing "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[29] According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists.[30][page needed]

Roger Eatwell and Neal O'Sullivan divide the Right into five types: 'reactionary', 'moderate', 'radical', 'extreme', and 'new'.[31] Chip Berlet argues that each of these "styles of thought" are "responses to the left", including liberalism and socialism, which have arisen since the 1789 French Revolution.[32] The 'reactionary right' looks toward the past and is "aristocratic, religious and authoritarian".[32] The 'moderate right', typified by the writings of Edmund Burke, is tolerant of change, provided it is gradual, and accepts some aspects of liberalism, including the rule of law and capitalism, although it sees radical laissez-faire and individualism as harmful to society. Often the moderate right promotes nationalism and social welfare policies.[33] 'Radical right' is a term developed after World War II to describe groups and ideologies such as McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, Thatcherism, and the Republikaner Party. Eatwell stresses that this use has "major typological problems" and that the term "has also been applied to clearly democratic developments." [34] The radical right includes right-wing populism and various other subtypes.[35] Eatwell argues that the 'extreme right' has four traits: "1) anti-democracy; 2) nationalism; 3) racism; and 4) the strong state".[36] The 'New Right' consists of the liberal conservatives, who stress small government, free markets, and individual initiative.[37]

Other authors make a distinction between the centre-right and the far right.[38] Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (though they may accept government regulation to control monopolies), private property rights, and a limited welfare state (for example government provision of education and medical care). They support conservatism and economic liberalism, and oppose socialism and communism. The phrase far right, by contrast, is used to describe those who favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and often to criminalize other ethnic groups or religions.[39][40][41][42][43] Typical examples of leaders to whom the far right label is often applied are Francisco Franco in Spain and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.[44][45][46][page needed][47][48] The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethnic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue.[49] The phrase is also used to describe support for ethnic nationalism.

​

Left–right politics - Wikipedia

Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."[15]


Political scientists and other analysts regard the Left as including anarchists,[16][17] communists, socialists and social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality are also usually linked with left-wing organizations.[21] Trade unionism is also associated with the left.[22]


Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including christian democrats, classical liberals, conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries, and traditionalists.

A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[26] Nationalism is often regarded as characteristic of the right, although nationalism is also sometimes present in the left.[27] Populism is regarded as having both left wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism, right-wing populist).[28] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[2​

Wiki is not a good source for philosophical discussions. Too many hands in the pie as it were. And, they ignore fact in favor of Fabian Socialist dogma. Right wing is no government. Left wing is collective government. The Fabian Socialists have spent decades trying to convince people that fascism is "rightwing", and communism is "leftwing". The reality is they are both collective government systems which makes them BOTH leftwing.

Disagree - fascism was always considered rightwing, including by the fascists themselves who rejected leftwing ideology. It's only been recently that American right decided to redefine it as leftwing. Like the left - there isn't always a concensus on what it means to be rightwing, but here are some more examples:

Right-wing, rightist: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

A general descriptive term for any of several otherwise rather different, conservative, reactionary or fascist political ideologies, the common denominator of which is their qualified or enthusiastic support for the main features of the current social and economic order, accepting all (or nearly all) of its inequalities of wealth, status and privilege (or even in some cases support for a return to an earlier, even more inegalitarian and hierarchical political-economic order). Right wing ideologies tend to emphasize the values of order, patriotism, social cohesion, and a personal sense of duty that makes the individual citizen who “knows his place” responsive to discipline from his political and social superiors. In America, the term has a somewhat more derogatory flavor than in Europe.​

Left-wing, leftist: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

General descriptive terms for any of several otherwise quite varied political ideologies (socialism, communism, social democracy, welfare statism, contemporary American liberalism, some versions of anarchism, etc.) that join in denouncing the extent of economic and social inequality in the present order of society and advocate the adoption of vigorous public policies to reduce or eliminate these inequalities, usually through some combination of the following:

• Reduction or elimination of legal protections for private property rights
• Greater regulation (or complete expropriation) of private economic activity
• Stringent limitations on the right to inherit wealth
• Higher tax burdens on the rich and the middle-class, and/or the provision of more tax-supported government services and money payments to the poor.

In America, the term has a somewhat more derogatory flavor than in European usage. ​

Fascism: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

• A class of political ideologies (and historical political regimes) that takes its name from the movement led by Benito Mussolini that took power in Italy in 1922. Mussolini's ideas and practices directly and indirectly influenced political movements in Germany (especially the Nazi Party), Spain (Franco's Falange Party), France, Argentina, and many other European and non-European countries right up to the present day.

The different "fascist" movements and regimes have varied considerably in their specific goals and practices, but they are usually said to be characterized by several common features

• 1. Militant nationalism, proclaiming the racial and cultural superiority of the dominant ethnic group and asserting that group's inherent right to a special dominant position over other peoples in both the domestic and the international order
     
  2. The adulation of a single charismatic national leader said to possess near superhuman abilities and to be the truest representation of the ideals of the national culture, whose will should therefore literally be law
     
  3. Emphasis on the absolute necessity of complete national unity, which is said to require a very powerful and disciplined state organization (especially an extensive secret police and censorship apparatus), unlimited by constitutional restrictions or legal requirements and under the absolute domination of the leader and his political movement or party
     
  4. Militant anti-Communism coupled with the belief in an extreme and imminent threat to national security from powerful and determined Communist forces both inside and outside the country
     
  5. Contempt for democratic socialism, democratic capitalism, liberalism, and all forms of individualism as weak, degenerate, divisive and ineffective ideologies leading only to mediocrity or national suicide
     
  6. Glorification of physical strength, fanatical personal loyalty to the leader, and general combat-readiness as the ultimate personal virtues
     
  7. A sophisticated apparatus for systematically propagandizing the population into accepting these values and ideas through skilled manipulation of the mass media, which are totally monopolized by the regime once the movement comes to power
     
  8. A propensity toward pursuing a militaristic and aggressive foreign policy
     
  9. Strict regulation and control of the economy by the regime through some form of corporatist economic planning in which the legal forms of private ownership of industry are nominally preserved but in which both workers and capitalists are obliged to submit their plans and objectives to the most detailed state regulation and extensive wage and price controls, which are designed to insure the priority of the political leadership's objectives over the private economic interests of the citizenry. Therefore under fascism most of the more important markets are allowed to operate only in a non-competitive, cartelized, and governmentally "rigged" fashion.
     

​

 

[Correll]

No one can know how Trump will govern; Trump himself does not have a clue, nor do you.

So why is he being criticized by lefties?

Define lefties! The truth of the matter is the criticism of Trump is wide and not restricted to only one side of the aisle. Many of those today, like Ryan, once criticized Trump and now kiss his ass. If the Tea Baggers, aka the Freedom Party, vote to pass an unbalanced budget, we can see that they are less fiscally conservative and more partisan bigots.

You complain about "dimocrat" and are still using the term, "Tea bagger"?

 

[Divine Wind]

Wiki is not a good source for philosophical discussions. .....

Wiki gets bad rap for some flaws, but even RWNJs use it when it suits them.

The bottom line is that any reference is only as good as it's references. Any Wiki article that is well references with links to easily viewed resources is good. If it isn't, then skepticism is warranted.

Philosophy is an old subject, both literally and figuratively. Why you think Wiki isn't a good source there is a bit puzzling to me. Please provide more specifics.

 

[Divine Wind]

You complain about "dimocrat" and are still using the term, "Tea bagger"?

Proves that political partisans are hypocritical asshats regardless of political affiliation.

 

[Correll]

National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

Nope.

You want to guess what Volkswagen translates to in English?

 

[Correll]

You complain about "dimocrat" and are still using the term, "Tea bagger"?

Proves that political partisans are hypocritical asshats regardless of political affiliation.

This is about Wry Catcher's personal actions, and I am judging HIM by them, not trying to paint a bigger picture.

His hypocrisy, your word, reflects upon and undermines his OP and his claims though out this thread. NOt that they were not already completely weak.

 

[Coyote]

National SOcialism. He was certainly that. Very much hated by the NObility.

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

Nope.

You want to guess what Volkswagen translates to in English?

Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

 

[Divine Wind]

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

Nope.

You want to guess what Volkswagen translates to in English?

Yep. Folks car. So you do believe China is a Republic and that North Korea is a Democratic Republic. Awesome. Figured you did.