A judicial activist is not somebody who merely overturns precedent. Conservative and liberal do not analogize to strict constructionism and judicial activism.
If you want to compare yourself to Politico, you should strive to be something other than Bizarro Glenn Beck.
Ok half of the democratic senators voted in favor of John Roberts confirmation. So they were stupid that time. and none of the dems tried to make an effort to filibuster his nomination. With Samuel Alito, 3 democratic senators voted in favor of his confirmation all of which happen to be blue dogs. 17 democratic senators voted for cloture but against his nomination. So yes that part was also stupid.
support the constitution..THATS IT THATS ALL>> THAT WILL KEEP THE PEOPLE FREE ANY OTHER WAY IS PROGRESSIVE TO SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM WHICH IS OPPOSITE OF CAPITILISM AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. GO BACK TO TURKEY YOU TURKEY
Justice nominees lie to get confirmed the way that Senators lie to get elected. Wow. Big shock. You'd think the liars would realize that someone else was in on the game. I never thought those right wing nutjobs were going to stick with precedent or be reasonable.
Judges aren't supposed to be liberal. Liberals reinterpret the constitution, to grant more powers to government than the constitution authorizes. This reinterpretation is in turn, extremely dangerous to the freedom of the people.
The constitution specifically limits the powers of government for a reason, to maintain individual liberty. Hasn't this been fucked with enough already??
@xxxchaindrive Your right, judges aren't suppose to be liberal, but they're definitely not suppose to be conservative either! Never in the constitution does it state that abortion is illegal or drugs for that matter, but being conservative they can rule in favor of these issues and increase gov regulation over the people. The judges MUST and should be neutral no matter what.
@Castropher Traditional conservatism is supposed to conserve the constitution and its principles. What you are talking about, is right wing extremism. Now I understand the two have been juxtaposed and intertwined as of late, but true conservatism IS supposed to maintain the liberty the constitution supposedly guarantees. I suppose that's why libertarians like myself, are called conservative by the MSM, to confuse the issue for people who hate what conservatives have turned into.
@xxxchaindrive Well that does make sense. In essence a libertarian is conservative on economic policies and liberal on social policies. That kind of balance would very appropriate for our SCOTUS.
Actually Roberts, Alito and the like aren't really conservative only what the most recent incarnation of what calls itself conservative. What has called itself conservative the past 30+ years are actually far right radicals engaged in a radical transformation of the country into some neo-gilded age feudalism where wealth and power are alone served and the great majority are used, exploited, and left to fight for their scraps in a sick ass system of social darwinism. They are insane.
Shouldn't what the Constitution actually says trump what someone else says it says? The ACLU was very active in the last case , one of the main voices in fact. Kennedy is not a conservative, he has sided with the liberal justices several times. Groups like the ACLU and NRA are who will benefit from this the most. Disclosure laws, and laws on foreign corporations were left in tact. I challenge you to find where in the constitution it says gov. can ban political speech by corporations and unions.
in the 1st fuckin' place Cenk, Judges are to interpret and rule on what's CONSTITUTIONAL, and NOT uphold precedent
progressive pricks want to destroy the Constitution by having liberal activist Judges little by little eat away at the Constitution and have subsequent Judges uphold those precedents.
Obama has said that our Constitution is flawed because it says what Gov'ts cannot do rather then say what it should do, like income redistribution
But I predict in the future when you have the little guy going against the big corporation, Roberts & Alito will almost always rule in favor of the big corporation.
Come on, Cenk. Who is being naive here? The politicians are obviously covering their ass by saying that. Playing the "oh I got fooled" card is better than the "yeah, I knew but didn't give a shit."
The most ironic thing Cenk, is that Obama himself was one of the few democratic senators in 06 who voted against these two for being conservatively biased. But hey, let's just run with the "he's just trying to channel faux populism!" card, the conservatives like things that are without logic.
MrNiceGuy4TW: You just indicated what is the problem with this country in referring to the Legislators as the people who run this country. It is sad that the limited powers the Legislative branch was granted in the Constitution has become the power to run the country. Government was never intended to run the USA. Retarded people would be much better Legislators than the pretentious power hungry traitorous criminals who now occupy the Nations Capitol.
there is a fresh book that describes and names the corp. owners, how they MADE
mussolini.
-in germany , if you look at who benefitted in and after the war, and they have found that certain banks still sat on nazi-gold untill less than a decade ago.
This is all a show, the dems work for the same people the repubs work for.
Oh what? These guys were conservative all along? Hahah yeah right they aren't that stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing. Act on behalf of the right, bullshit the left.
SCOTUS is always conservative and will remain so! When Sarah Palin becomes President, she will DRIVE all MEN and liberal judges OUT of SCOTUS and make it entirely CONSERVATIVE WHITE WOMEN! Conservative women judges are SUPERIOR to their liberal and male counterparts!
conservatives are obviously bad for america. bourgeois narrow minded biblical capitalists who despite their rhetoric are nothing of what they say.
patriotic, democratic, constitutional, sane...
this unsupreme court that gave us george bush II and individual rights to corporations. it would be hilarious if not true. already a court of monumental ineptitude.
i guess they're only "activist judges" when they protect civil rights and a secular government.
Neocon Corporate-Whore Establishment Democrats who are Slaves to Republicans in Washington DC DID NOT EVEN TRY TO STOP the Nomination of Roberts and Alito.
US Government & Politics in DC is a Staged Reality Show
You only see the Actors (Puppets, both GOP & Dems controlled by Same Puppet-masters & Directors), you never get to see Owners/Directors behind the scene who control politicians, & plans all US policies.
Establishment Neocon Corporate GOP & Dems ARE SAME Party.
Banks, Goldman Sachs, Fed Reserve, Oil, War-Industry, Insurance, Lobbyists, Israel, AIPAC, JINSA, PNAC, CFR, Bilderberg, Rockefeller & Rotchschild are Directors & Owners of it all.
GOP & DEMS ARE THE SAME AND THEY BOTH SUPPORT ENDLESS WARS AND ONLY WORK FOR CORPORATIONS & THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, THEY BOTH WORK AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Every Establishment Neocon/Zionist Corporate-Whore War-Profiting Israels-Pawn Wall-Street-Puppet Federal-Reserve-Owned Republicans and Every Establishment Neocon/Zionist Corporate-Whore War-Profiting Israels-Pawn Wall-Street-Puppet Federal-Reserve-Owned Democrats in WASHINGTON DC and in USA ARE THE SAME.
@daniel987878 Au contrar. Fascism is entirely conservative. The belief and proposition of nationalistic superiority as well as total control of the state's industry and economy for 'the needs of the state' as well as the hatred of neighboring nations, seeing them as inferior to yours.
Conservatism doesnt espouse superiority of ones nation. Conservatism doesnt advocate for national control of the states industry. Conservatism advocates limited government involvement in industry.
Neocons arent conservative they are fascist (corporatist).
@Daniel987878 actually conservatism is far more complex than that and while fascism isn't strictly speaking conservatism... both are consider 'right' on the political spectrum & both focus heavily on the idea of nationalism in the expend of internationalism... and in the case of American Conservatism... corporatism is definitely part of conservatism and getting further & dangerously 'right'...
Conservatism can mostly be associated with nationalism I agree. But modern fascism is more associated with internationalism (international banking and corporations backed by government and central banks, IMF, international military occupations, cronyism etc).
Corporatism is conservative because expanding corporate influence as a result of unjust government backing isnt really conserving our natural rights as people. Corporatism is regresive not conservative.
The right has always been about preserving the status quo, and that is exactly what corporatism is. It may not be conservative per se, but it is definetly on the right.
Conservatism, if taken to it's full extent becomes fascism. But no conservatism is not fascism. I hate it when people say one this is the other. Why the fuck do we have different definition if everything means something else? LOL
Conservatism if taken to its full extent is not fascism. Fascism can only thrive through cronyism and big government largesse protecting the corporations.
Conservatism usually advocates small gov and competition in markets.
Conservatism doesnt change so it cant morph into fascism. The order of society is conserved.
Where did you get the idea that conservatism advocates small gov? This is an American viewpoint. Even though in America conservatives support big government in many areas.
Conservatism to put it simply advocates keeping things the way they are, and in my opinion defending the status quo. It has traditionally represented the aristocracy, the monarchy, the wealthy, the bureaucracy, imperialists and the powerful. Fascism is an extreme form of conservatism taken by the status quo to preserve, or reinstate their rule through traditional "values".
Which is exactly what the Nazis, and Mussolini claimed to be doing.
Alot of conservatives view their ideology a conserving the natural rights given to man not conserving the wealth of the elite. It guess it comes down to definition.
And Reagan increasing spending more than Clinton and expanded the government. Yet they call Reagan right wing...why? The left/right spectrum has very little to do with the size of gov, and more to do with the motives.
The right wants government to keep the masses subdued, thus they favour using the gov for control of social and cultural issues. They favour keeping government out of business, because this is where their own power atm lies.
The left favours using the government to intervene on behalf of the masses to ensure equal rights for all. This is why they favour gov intervention in business. Yet they frown upon gov intervention in social and cultural issues.
The confusion comes from the sheep on the right believing that the right actually stands for individual freedoms. History is full of examples of sheep thinking the status quo's propaganda to keep them in line was in fact true.
Now I realize you're uneducated and you can't tell the difference between opinions and facts but believe me when I tell you these terms already had meanings before you made up your own.
For the last time dummy, socialism and fascism are opposites. Your ignorance doesn't change that a jot.
Don't you love when they try retrofitting words to fit their agenda?
Don't get me wrong. There are times when semantic meaning crosses the lines. But the principles are pretty clear cut. Most forms of fascism, as they've been observed, have been extremely right wing. Socialism, as it's intended, lends itself to the principle of collective ownership and less focus on private property.
I wouldn't call them diametric opposites but we can clearly see how they're distinguished from 1 another.
That's like claiming that North Korea is a democratic country because it is named The Democratic people's republic of North Korea even though it is pretty clear it is a dictatorship.
Socialism was extremely popular at that time. Many parties capitalised on this fact. The Nazis made no secret that they would do anything to appeal to masses to get into power.
@182511419139208 what the fuck are you saying? Facism is national socialism and communism is international socialism? Whahahahahahaha oMG that is the weirdest thing I have ever heard.
NSDAP: Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party.
The Communist Manifesto states that communists support revolutions in any country againgst the current social and political order and that communists wish to abolish all religion and morality.
If you wouldn't parse words you should realize "National Socialism" is something different from Socialism Proper. Just like National Conservatism is different from Fiscal Conservatism.
The NSDAP started off as a third position party under the leadership of Drexler that combined social democracy with racism, nationalism and social conservatism. Under Hitler's leadership it went to the far right and added business nationalism, religious conservatism, Social Darwinism and security paranoia.
Hitler himself had little interest in socialism and even wanted to drop the word "Socialism" from the name of the party. He only decided not to after the original SA wanted to keep the term. Even though the word "socialism" was kept in Hitler and Himmler replaced the social democratic-sympathetic SA with the far-right SS who descended from the brownshirts. Under the new leadership the party purged what little socialist elements were left. They even came to oppose all unions.
Considering I don't try base my YT comments on elitist notions that my degrees in some way give any power or credibility to what I write, I don't believe it is relevant listing my BAs.
Yes, I guess you're right. I did bring up the Academy of interpreting and making up historical "facts" to serve your own purpose.
Basically you have some unsubstantiated "facts" that Hitler, in your opinion, wanted to take away "Socialist" from the name of the NSDAP. Further you use some interpretations about the SA and the SS to add to your speculations, and totally disregarding the fact that the third Reich in essence was run like a socialist state. Your left to right axis is skewed.
(dot) h-net (dot) org / ~ german / gtext / kaiserreich / hitler2 (dot) html
Hitler saw socialism and democracy as Jewish corruptions which were inevitably intertwined. He only used the term in the beginning for populism's sake.
Government support of corporations to build domestic capitalism is not socialism at all.
"Your left to right axis is skewed"
Virtually all political scientists place Fascism and Nazism on the far right.
You use part of a speech in 1919 in order to substantiate that Hitler in essence was opposed to the organization and politics he had put into effect through the 30s and mid 40s?
And yes, factory owners were allowed to maintain ownership of their property, however is that your only "evidence" that the NSDAP was not in fact a leftist party?
Political scientists place Nazism to the far right, with the added notion that the further right an ideology is placed right, it moves towards the left.
Actually as time went on Hitler drifted further and further away from socialism as he gained more support among Germans. Socialism was a proposition that scared many middle class Germans and German businesses and he eventually got rid of the socialistic SA. Hitler promoted corporatism and class collaboration and despised leftism because of their belief in class conflict.
That's pretty anti-leftist. No leftist believes in class collaboration or corporatism.
"is that your only "evidence" that the NSDAP was not in fact a leftist party?"
Name some socialist ideologies other than social democracy which believe in the right of Big Business.
"with the added notion that the further right an ideology is placed right, it moves towards the left"
Not only does that make no sense (so would the opposite be true?) that's not what political scientists claim. The political scale has four quadrants, not a straight line.
The Nazis and Fascists didn't control factories and tell them how much to produce. The government gave them money if they did things which helped the government. A cozy partnership.
"Yes, this is a very common explanation on "far right"
I've heard this claimed by some laymen but I've never heard this claimed by any political scale. If this was true than the opposite should theoretically be true and one could claim Stalin was right-wing.
"The Nazis and Fascists didn't control factories ... cozy partnership."
The corporative system had nothing to do with corporations in the modern sense of the word. You would have a hard time selling the notion that the industry was free to do as they pleased. Of course, what the government would buy, would be more rational for the industry to make.
About the the thing you've heard by laymen, and not true pros like yourself, I agree. It makes no sense. Still, it's listed in some textbooks.
Corporations still existed back then, they started in the 1800s. Though they were not the size of modern ones and not the same scope.
However, Fascist and Nazi corporatism was far, far different from the Bolshevist concept of state ownership of the means of production. Look up the Fascist concept of "Heroic Capitalism". The goal of corporatism in a Fascist society is to meld together private corporate interests and state interests.
The dutch West Indies company might have been the first multi-national corporation. However, I said the corporative system had nothing to do with corporations in the modern sense, in it being merging the heads of the company with the representation of the workers, making a unit which could be instructed by the government of the wishes on what should be produced.
Still, in essence we are talking about societies with an ever increasing governmental sector.
That's not really different from what most capitalist nations did during the world wars. In most cases under the Nazis and Fascists corporations were not instructed on how much to be produced. Usually that only happened for things relating to war such as weapons, food rations, etc.
There are many varieties of capitalism. Deregulated corporate capitalism is not the only thing that qualifies as capitalism.
Yes, but the fascists and nazist did that before a war was declared. That is somewhat of a difference. And even if the western democracies did something similar, the main point was the explanation of corporative system. So, nice try in derailing it, but please don't.
There are many variations of capitalism. As there are many left wing ideologies and blends of socialism. National Socialism being one of them.
They did it during a depression. Which was and to a degree still is common among capitalist nations.
"National Socialism being one of them"
Not only would the vast majority of political scientists disagree with you they would be right in doing so. There is no element of Nazism that is really left wing in any meaningful sense other than the name. But North Korea is called a "Peoples' Democratic Republic" when it is obviously not.
"There is no element of Nazism that is really left wing in any meaningful sense other than the name."
Wishful thinking on your side, based on some quotes taken out of context.
NSDAP, formerly called just German Workers Party, was wholly supported by the working class. Wage control and control of the prices in the market. Now, I only have few characters here, but lets look at some of the results of Nazi policies. Ie. Volkswagen, low cost car produced for the masses. Resembling the Lada?
"was wholly supported by the working class. Wage control and control of the prices in the market"
Being supported by the working class and having a few price controls and wage floors makes a party left wing? I guess that makes the Republican part left wing as well. Lol.
You are completely correct in observing the Republican party moving to the left. As well, I could put in a lot more of socialist doctrines made by the NSDAP, however, I'm getting ready for the Superbowl, so I guess I'll give you a further pounding at another moment in time. Have a nice day.
What in the blue hell are you talking about? Having the support of working class people and supporting a minimum wage makes you left-wing? This is pretty nonsensical.
Not only that your entire "government = left wing" theory crumbles when you take into consideration many left wing ideologies don't believe in government intervention at all:
(dot) huppi (dot) com / kangaroo / L - socialism (dot) htm
You're using the "big government = socialism" fallacy.
"Not only that your entire "government = left wing" theory crumbles when you take into consideration many left wing ideologies don't believe in government intervention at all"
Yes, there are so many communist countries that don't control the economy at all. I guess you can write up a long list?
"I could put in a lot more of socialist doctrines made by the NSDAP"
If your track record is any clue I doubt it. So far you've been operating on the "government = left wing" fallacy.
Government intervention in and of itself is not left or right wing. What makes it left or right is the intention and goal behind it. Government ownership of enterprise on behalf of the working class would be left wing. Government bailing out private enterprise would be right wing.
Of course you would doubt it, as you only want fascism to be a right wing ideology.
"Government ownership...on behalf of the working class would be left wing."
Exactly. The governments of these regimes controlled the industry on behalf of the people. They viewed it as a struggle to heighten their peoples sphere of interests in the world, but they were still struggling to advance all people of their nations.
"Government bailing out private enterprise would be right wing."
"you only want fascism to be a right wing ideology"
I don't want it to be it is. It's classified as right wing for a reason. You want to historically revise it as left wing to deflect any shame brought about by Nazism onto the left. It's a classical deflection tactic.
Nazi governments struggled on behalf of both the lower and upper classes. Class collaboration is a core tenant of Nazism and Fascism. Leftists only support the lower class, not the upper class.
"You want to historically revise it as left wing to deflect any shame brought about by Nazism onto the left."
Nope. The fact is that these were left wing ideologies. That the Nazis themselves openly called themselves socialists doesn't seem to be a clue for some people.
You keep harping on about owners of industry getting to keep their property as being the smoking gun evidence, disregarding most of the policies put forth in the fascist countries and the third reich. It's boring, it really is.
"The fact is that these were left wing ideologies"
According to whom? A couple of dissident political ideologues? I guarantee you your opinion is a minority one.
"the Nazis themselves openly called themselves socialists"
The Nazis didn't call themselves socialists other than the name of the party. Party names are not a good indication of ideology. Unless you want to believe that monarchists are liberal democrats like Vladimir Zhirinovksy's party.
"The Nazis didn't call themselves socialists other than the name of the party."
No, they were a workers party. They managed to bring work for the masses, and also eradicate poverty. They also put forth a lot of policies in order to help the lower classes. Not that this is a bad thing, but their politics were for advancement of the working class.
Yes, that is the smoking gun because that's the main difference between the left and the right. The right supports private or corporate property while the left support common property. If you don't know this then you don't truly understand the political ideology spectrum.
"History"
Do you have an official historical source which shows the Nazis becoming anti-Christian or falling out with Christians?
"there are so many communist countries that don't control the economy"
You're proving my point that you know little about political ideologies. Bolshevism is a form of socialism, not communism. Bolshevists never claimed their societies were communist. Bolshevism is also only one strand of left-wing ideology on the authoritarian left. There are many libertarian left ideologies very much opposed to it.
Your claim is this is supposedly something socialist. It's not really socialist at all. A government funding and supporting a corporation (though corporations back then were not exactly the same as ones today they were still large conglomerate private companies) is not socialistic in any meaningful sense of the word.
The goal of state socialism is to govern on the behalf of the working class and take power away from the bourgeoisie. Not at all a goal of Fascist corporatism.
Again you are disregard that the corporative system has got nothing to do with corporations, as most people would understand the word these days. Sorry.
And the fascists did indeed remove power from the old burgeoisie, also inflating the governmental sector, and sought to employ all of the population. Does this sound similar to some other ideologies around?Nazis at the higher level also had somewhat negative views on Christianity, which would probably fit well with certain other leftist views.
Corporations have existed in the West since the 19th century. The main difference between corporations back then and now was corporations back then had a bit less scope in the global economy and generally had more unions.
"fascists did indeed remove power from the old burgeoisie"
Not really. The Junkers flourished under Nazi rule and the Nazis were handsomely funded by the German aristocracy and business community. Many corporations embraced corporatism.
As for inflating the government sector most parties in general on both the right and the left supported more government intervention than they typically do now. Government intervention in and of itself is not a left-wing thing. The Nazis used government intervention for purposes of national security, regulating morality and helping failing corporations. None of which are left wing.
Under the Nazi regime the Christian church had quite a cozy relationship with the State.
"inflating the government...government intervention..do now."
The question is if they supported creating jobs within the government in order to create a greater middle class of people, and in effect slowly wiping out the classes.
"...Nazi regime .. Christian church .. cozy relationship"
Martin Niemoller, Bonhoeffer, kirchenkampf, Martin Bormanns letter to gauleiter, also look up the SS and their views on Christianity (as you used them as an example on how right wing the Third Reich was).
The Nazis had no intention of wiping out the classes and hated Marxists partially because of their belief in wiping out classes. They believed classes were part of a natural, organic society. That's a core tenant of Fascist beliefs.
"their views on Christianity"
Whatever the view of a few Nazi elites on Christianity (that doesn't mean all Nazis agree) the vast majority of Nazis openly embraced a theocratic bond between Church and State.
"The Nazis had no intention of wiping out the classes"
The Nazis opened up for people from outside former old time feudality taking on assigments they ordinarily would not be granted. They represented a new era for many people in the working class.
"the vast majority of Nazis openly embraced a theocratic bond between Church and State."
A bond that slowly disintegrated as the Nazis gained more power. You are now trying to minimize a general policy on religion to fit your own agenda.
For your first reply classical liberal parties did the same thing. This is not an indication of being left or right wing. At least not in the sense from the late 19th century onward which the left-right distinction is different from the 18th century till the mid-19th century.
"A bond that slowly disintegrated as the Nazis gained more power"
And of course the Nazis opened the party to the working class. They openly supported class collaboration and believed that the State should help all classes and absolve conflicts between classes.
This is a doctrine a socialist would never support.
The original party did but as is commonly known Hitler changed the party significantly. Even being called a 'workers party" is not really evidence of anything as there are many right wing parties around the world called "workers part[ies]".
"the fact they respected property and did not take factories"
No, it's the fact that their aim was to uphold the system of private ownership and uphold the upper class.
Right now I'm having trouble finding a list of parties of any ideology. Off the top of my head I remember the British Peoples' Party and the Workers' Party of the Czech Republic. Both of which have stereotypically "socialist"-sounding names.
"Yes, they respected ownership"
Private ownership. And no, socialists do not believe in private ownership of the means of production.
The people's party is a small fringe party, and probably so called "far right" making it hard to determine whether or not it is left or right wing.
The other one I do not really even know anything about. How about finding some political parties that have, or have had, more than 100 members scattered around?
I wrote many "left wing" governments btw. Many left wing governments allow private enterprise. As in example the communist party of China.
So was the Nazi party originally. It's not hard to determine its ideology because it's spelled out.
"As in example the communist party of China"
China was never really communist and now they're turning towards a 19th century form of capitalism. Most left wing people never really supported them either way. Either their current system or their old Maoist system. Their current system is is contrast with their supposed socialist principles.
"So was the Nazi party originally. It's not hard to determine its ideology because it's spelled out."
Who cares what The National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party started out as? What is important is that they had several million followers and ran a country, with policies you might wanna study before you start ranting on about them being left or right wing.
"China was never really communist..."
Yes, again, something doesn't fit your agenda, just stick your head up your.. ehm.. into the sand.
"Who cares what The National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party started out as"
Because what they became is much different from what they started out as. I love how you keep harping on the name. So I guess North Korea is a democratic republic of the people? It has "peoples' democratic republic" in the name, right? Lol.
"you might wanna study"
I know this subject very well, thank you. It happening to be my secondary field of expertise.
Eh, no. The definition of "communism" is a stateless, classless, post-monetary society where the means of production are freely and equally available to everyone. This is not what China was thus it wasn't a "communist" society. Nor did it claim to be. Communist parties claimed their societies were "socialist", not "communist". They didn't claim to have reached the communist mode of production. They were designated "Communist" by the West.
Semantics. Point is that they are left wing, which is relevant to the discussion. You bring in some elitist nonsense that would only interest less than 0,001 % of the Earth's population on how you and less than 0,001% of the Earth's population define communism, irregardless ot the party itself calling it the Communist party of China. "Oh, but what's in a name! Me and my esteemed fellow students at the Academy of interpreting and making up historical "facts" to serve our own purposes disagree!"
Social democracy is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. What Marxist governments had mass private ownership of the means of production? Point them out.
"some elitist nonsense"
I don't care about your anti-intellectual "I'm Joe Everyman" nonsense. Facts are facts. I don't really care about how 99.whatever of Earth's general population allegedly defines a word. The majority can be incorrect.
Try looking up the Argument By Popularity logical fallacy.
"Social democracy is a mixture of capitalism and socialism."
Well, if you consider social democracy as a right wing ideology, it pretty much explains why sound somewhat deranged. I don't really care to discuss this matter any further with a person who basically wants to control the basis for the discussion. Makes it pretty pointless really.
Who said social democracy is a right wing ideology?
"I don't think you care much about facts either"
Says the guy who claims Nazism is leftist despite the fact that it is virtually universally identified as a far right authoritarian ideology. And quite logically so.
"Who said social democracy is a right wing ideology?"
Why would you bring it up unless you thought it was not a right wing ideology? I just stated that a lot of leftist governments respect property. This is your only "evidence" making Fascism and Nazism right wing.
"Says the guy who claims Nazism is leftist despite the fact that it is"
Yes, it is. Thank you.
Btw. authoritarian is right wing? This is a common right wing trait? Really? Most communist governments of the past were right wing?
You claimed many leftist governments support private ownership of the means of production and I mentioned many leftist governments have been social democracies. Social democracy combines capitalism and socialism, thus explaining their tolerance for private ownership.
"Yes, it is"
Cutting off my quotes to turn them into something I didn't say, I see. Quite desperate. You can claim "Yes it is" all you want but the fact of the matter is it is almost universally classified as right wing.
"Social democracy combines capitalism and socialism, thus explaining their tolerance for private ownership."
All leftist governments of the past have combined capitalism and socialism. Even the Soviet Union, in the sense they did not rid themselves of the monetary system. Fascism and Nazism also certainly have elements of capitalism, but they are still more related to socialism.
"I see. Quite desperate."
Desperate, yes starting to feel desperation, this really isn't worth my time. Bye now!
You'll find little support for this theory. Not only are their policies almost universally right wing even the leaders and founders of the ideology openly boast about their anti-socialist and anti-communist ideology.
"this really isn't worth my time"
It's not worth anyone's time because you're trying to disprove all of political science academia and categorization by using logical fallacies.
"It's not worth anyone's time because you're trying to disprove all of political science academia and categorization by using logical fallacies."
Hmm.. lets see. Mussolini was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist. They both started parties with ideologies resembling socialism. Their policies were to a large extent geared towards socialist goals. One of the parties had a name with the words Socialist and Worker in it. Yes, I see how you are absolutely correct. They were clearly right wing.
"They both started parties with ideologies resembling socialism"
You claim this yet can't list a single policy of theirs or ideological point of theirs that was socialist. Government support of private enterprise is not socialism or socialist. It's quite a right-wing policy.
"the parties had a name with the words Socialist and Worker in it"
And? There's a monarchist party with the words "liberal democratic" in it. Is monarchism a form of liberal democracy?
No, but you're having comprehension problems. Your "example" was them using government to prop up private enterprise and large corporations. Hardly a socialist policy. The rest was baseless sophistry and tortured mental gymnastics to rationalize support of the business class as somehow a form of socialism.
"NATIONAL AND SOCIAL ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism" --Adolph Hitler, Munich speech, April 12th, 1922
Thank YOU for calling since you were the one who responded to me.
Who said that? Marxism is not the only left wing ideology but Marxism is inherently a left wing ideology just as capitalism is inherently classified as right wing.
"you are utterly insane"
Ad hominem. I'm insane for concurring with the near-universal placement of Fascism and Nazism on the political spectrum? Lol.
"Marxism is not the only left wing ideology but Marxism is inherently a left wing ideology just as capitalism is inherently classified as right wing."
Relevance to the current discussion?
Did you know the northern section of the Nile flows almost entirely through desert?
And an Ad hominem well deserved if I might say so!
Are you getting lost? Apparently you are because you seem to be forgetting your own comments which elicit my responses. My post was a response to this question of yours:
"So only Marxism can be left wing?"
Remember? Are you having short-term memory problems? Perhaps this conversation is over your head and your brain is becoming overheated.
Yes, I suppose high-fallutin' stuff like this would be a bunch of Greek to people with little working understanding of politics and political ideologies.
"Yes, I suppose high-fallutin' stuff like this would be a bunch of Greek to people with little working understanding of politics and political ideologies."
Communist parties are parties dedicated to working towards communism. That doesn't mean the society under them is actually communist yet nor did Communist parties themselves claim this. Quote a communist party which claimed their country had reached the communist stage of their Marxist ideology.
Since you invest so much in the names of parties I guess Vladimir Zhirinovsky's party is actually a liberal democratic party and North Korea is a democratic republic of the people.
"Quote a communist party which claimed their country had reached the communist stage of their Marxist ideology."
Pretty irrelevant.
"Since you invest ...blabla.. democratic republic of the people."
I'm still waiting for your long list of far right parties, with a right wing ideology and liberal economic schemes, that calls themselves Socialist Workers parties.
You also conveniently ignored the Fascist theory of Heroic, Dynamic and Supercapitalism which are part of the basis of the Fascist support of corporatism which is a policy based in the preservation of capitalism and the private property system.
I ignored it due to the "remaining character count". The heroic capitalism you are referring to is completely irrelevant. In fact basically killing your own argument:
"Mussolini claimed that dynamic or heroic capitalism could be prevented from degenerating into static capitalism and then supercapitalism if the concepts of economic bourgueous individualism were abandoned and if state supervision of the economy was introduced."
"Italian Fascism presented the economic system of corporatism as the solution that would preserve private initiatives and property while allowing the state, and the syndicalist movement to intervene in the economy when private initiative failed"
"free market indeed"
Who said anything about a free market? Free market (which does no
How do you vote conservative. You can vote republican. You can vote Democrat. TYT is shit
matthewrocks711 1 year ago
@matthewrocks711 you can still vote conservative, and most are republican retards
ilovetheview47 1 year ago
@matthewrocks711 By voting for people who claim to be conservative, no matter what party they are in.
matthewrocks711 is shit
Beannaich 1 year ago
@matthewrocks711 You're a moron
pjmgame 6 months ago in playlist The Young Turks 7
this guy is a is using our air
mikemechling 1 year ago
A judicial activist is not somebody who merely overturns precedent. Conservative and liberal do not analogize to strict constructionism and judicial activism.
If you want to compare yourself to Politico, you should strive to be something other than Bizarro Glenn Beck.
FurryAR 1 year ago
Ok half of the democratic senators voted in favor of John Roberts confirmation. So they were stupid that time. and none of the dems tried to make an effort to filibuster his nomination. With Samuel Alito, 3 democratic senators voted in favor of his confirmation all of which happen to be blue dogs. 17 democratic senators voted for cloture but against his nomination. So yes that part was also stupid.
bart11114 1 year ago
support the constitution..THATS IT THATS ALL>> THAT WILL KEEP THE PEOPLE FREE ANY OTHER WAY IS PROGRESSIVE TO SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM WHICH IS OPPOSITE OF CAPITILISM AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. GO BACK TO TURKEY YOU TURKEY
dr4sherry 1 year ago
Justice nominees lie to get confirmed the way that Senators lie to get elected. Wow. Big shock. You'd think the liars would realize that someone else was in on the game. I never thought those right wing nutjobs were going to stick with precedent or be reasonable.
AntigoneRisen 1 year ago
Comment removed
AntigoneRisen 1 year ago
Comment removed
AntigoneRisen 1 year ago
SCROTUS
Supreme Court (Republican) of the United States of America.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
Judges aren't supposed to be liberal. Liberals reinterpret the constitution, to grant more powers to government than the constitution authorizes. This reinterpretation is in turn, extremely dangerous to the freedom of the people.
The constitution specifically limits the powers of government for a reason, to maintain individual liberty. Hasn't this been fucked with enough already??
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
Judges aren't supposed to be liberal or conservative, they are supposed to be unbiased.
jennisiri1 2 years ago
@xxxchaindrive Your right, judges aren't suppose to be liberal, but they're definitely not suppose to be conservative either! Never in the constitution does it state that abortion is illegal or drugs for that matter, but being conservative they can rule in favor of these issues and increase gov regulation over the people. The judges MUST and should be neutral no matter what.
Castropher 1 year ago
@Castropher Traditional conservatism is supposed to conserve the constitution and its principles. What you are talking about, is right wing extremism. Now I understand the two have been juxtaposed and intertwined as of late, but true conservatism IS supposed to maintain the liberty the constitution supposedly guarantees. I suppose that's why libertarians like myself, are called conservative by the MSM, to confuse the issue for people who hate what conservatives have turned into.
xxxchaindrive 1 year ago
@xxxchaindrive Well that does make sense. In essence a libertarian is conservative on economic policies and liberal on social policies. That kind of balance would very appropriate for our SCOTUS.
Castropher 1 year ago
Comment removed
xxxchaindrive 1 year ago
Comment removed
xxxchaindrive 1 year ago
its called playing dumb.
ccm800 2 years ago
it's not like Rhenquist and O'Connor were liberal in any sense.
ieodksnw787 2 years ago
Actually Roberts, Alito and the like aren't really conservative only what the most recent incarnation of what calls itself conservative. What has called itself conservative the past 30+ years are actually far right radicals engaged in a radical transformation of the country into some neo-gilded age feudalism where wealth and power are alone served and the great majority are used, exploited, and left to fight for their scraps in a sick ass system of social darwinism. They are insane.
Navywxman 2 years ago
Shouldn't what the Constitution actually says trump what someone else says it says? The ACLU was very active in the last case , one of the main voices in fact. Kennedy is not a conservative, he has sided with the liberal justices several times. Groups like the ACLU and NRA are who will benefit from this the most. Disclosure laws, and laws on foreign corporations were left in tact. I challenge you to find where in the constitution it says gov. can ban political speech by corporations and unions.
icecoldbeerr 2 years ago
One of many reasons to despair and be cynical...
marcostar57 2 years ago
"Democratic Republicans"
"Conservative Democrats"
What a bunch of watered down b.s.
SupremePenguinTone 2 years ago
You heard the bolder was going to fall. It has fallen; and is now rolling down the hill.
Oh yeah, this is gonna hurt.
SkreetGil 2 years ago
I other news:
"The sky is blue!"
"Saltwater is salty!"
"Water and electricity don't mix!"
Ralfast 2 years ago
sponge bob for president
tico8007 2 years ago
in the 1st fuckin' place Cenk, Judges are to interpret and rule on what's CONSTITUTIONAL, and NOT uphold precedent
progressive pricks want to destroy the Constitution by having liberal activist Judges little by little eat away at the Constitution and have subsequent Judges uphold those precedents.
Obama has said that our Constitution is flawed because it says what Gov'ts cannot do rather then say what it should do, like income redistribution
this Court upheld the Constitution, PERIOD
genie0390 2 years ago
It's difficult to predict the future.
So call me a genius if you must.
But I predict in the future when you have the little guy going against the big corporation, Roberts & Alito will almost always rule in favor of the big corporation.
Call me a genius if you must.
DillonX 2 years ago
Come on, Cenk. Who is being naive here? The politicians are obviously covering their ass by saying that. Playing the "oh I got fooled" card is better than the "yeah, I knew but didn't give a shit."
TheBottomContributor 2 years ago
we can foregive you if your stupid but not lazy
kokofan50 2 years ago
The most ironic thing Cenk, is that Obama himself was one of the few democratic senators in 06 who voted against these two for being conservatively biased. But hey, let's just run with the "he's just trying to channel faux populism!" card, the conservatives like things that are without logic.
MInuhanyouM 2 years ago
I once had a job working with mentally retarded people. The retarded are much insightful and common sense than Senators and Congress.
klard 2 years ago
Explains why you like TYT.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
MrNiceGuy4W: Who said I like TYT? By "like" do you mean that I agree with the views expressed?
klard 2 years ago
I just assumed you agree with the views they express, since you think retarded people could run the country and make laws.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
MrNiceGuy4TW: You just indicated what is the problem with this country in referring to the Legislators as the people who run this country. It is sad that the limited powers the Legislative branch was granted in the Constitution has become the power to run the country. Government was never intended to run the USA. Retarded people would be much better Legislators than the pretentious power hungry traitorous criminals who now occupy the Nations Capitol.
klard 2 years ago
Well, that I can agree with.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
there is a fresh book that describes and names the corp. owners, how they MADE
mussolini.
-in germany , if you look at who benefitted in and after the war, and they have found that certain banks still sat on nazi-gold untill less than a decade ago.
thereyouhaveit
Realizalize 2 years ago
Justices can be impeached.
Richardgwm 2 years ago
This is all a show, the dems work for the same people the repubs work for.
Oh what? These guys were conservative all along? Hahah yeah right they aren't that stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing. Act on behalf of the right, bullshit the left.
Seleucus84 2 years ago
6 of 9 Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic.
I find it hard to believe anyone finds it hard to believe that SCOTUS is conservative.
EricIndiana 2 years ago
They're a letter away from being SCROTUS
devourerofbabies 2 years ago
SCOTUS is always conservative and will remain so! When Sarah Palin becomes President, she will DRIVE all MEN and liberal judges OUT of SCOTUS and make it entirely CONSERVATIVE WHITE WOMEN! Conservative women judges are SUPERIOR to their liberal and male counterparts!
ecwaufisxtreme 2 years ago
conservatives are obviously bad for america. bourgeois narrow minded biblical capitalists who despite their rhetoric are nothing of what they say.
patriotic, democratic, constitutional, sane...
this unsupreme court that gave us george bush II and individual rights to corporations. it would be hilarious if not true. already a court of monumental ineptitude.
i guess they're only "activist judges" when they protect civil rights and a secular government.
tomitstube 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HAHA!
the ONLY reason the libs are pissed about the latest SC ruling is cuz it seriously threatens their filthy unamerican progressive SCUM agenda.
there IS no other reason.
the SC only has to consider if the law violates the Constitution, nothing else.
they don't have to be concerned if it puts you looney liberals at a political disadvantage.
your fake outrage is another EPIC LIBERAL SCUM FAIL!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
frictionRx5 2 years ago
The supreme court has been packed with conservatives for decades. Thus, their agenda is not constitutional but conservative.
Bellator656 2 years ago 2
@frictionRx5
STFU you troll
dayati 2 years ago
Neocon Corporate-Whore Establishment Democrats who are Slaves to Republicans in Washington DC DID NOT EVEN TRY TO STOP the Nomination of Roberts and Alito.
Democrats = GOP = NEOCONS = Corporate-Slaves = Greed-Infested Selfish Actors and America-Backstabbers
halcyon0830 2 years ago 3
OK halcyon0830, we get your point. i agree but don't overkill it.
TheUSMetalhead 2 years ago
US Government & Politics in DC is a Staged Reality Show
You only see the Actors (Puppets, both GOP & Dems controlled by Same Puppet-masters & Directors), you never get to see Owners/Directors behind the scene who control politicians, & plans all US policies.
Establishment Neocon Corporate GOP & Dems ARE SAME Party.
Banks, Goldman Sachs, Fed Reserve, Oil, War-Industry, Insurance, Lobbyists, Israel, AIPAC, JINSA, PNAC, CFR, Bilderberg, Rockefeller & Rotchschild are Directors & Owners of it all.
halcyon0830 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
tomitstube 2 years ago
They Love To Be Actors.
GOP & DEMS ARE THE SAME AND THEY BOTH SUPPORT ENDLESS WARS AND ONLY WORK FOR CORPORATIONS & THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, THEY BOTH WORK AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Every Establishment Neocon/Zionist Corporate-Whore War-Profiting Israels-Pawn Wall-Street-Puppet Federal-Reserve-Owned Republicans and Every Establishment Neocon/Zionist Corporate-Whore War-Profiting Israels-Pawn Wall-Street-Puppet Federal-Reserve-Owned Democrats in WASHINGTON DC and in USA ARE THE SAME.
halcyon0830 2 years ago 2
Dems are acting like they are surprised, they actually think we are going to buy their lies and acting ??
Neocons and Corporate-Whores LOVE ONE ANOTHER.
halcyon0830 2 years ago 2
Could it be that the dems and the reps are both playing you for a fool?
seanlaca 2 years ago
SCOTUS is fasicst just like the democratic and republican parties. Fascism is not conservative.
daniel987878 2 years ago
@daniel987878 Au contrar. Fascism is entirely conservative. The belief and proposition of nationalistic superiority as well as total control of the state's industry and economy for 'the needs of the state' as well as the hatred of neighboring nations, seeing them as inferior to yours.
That is completely conservative.
Tyler1337Admin 2 years ago 6
Conservatism doesnt espouse superiority of ones nation. Conservatism doesnt advocate for national control of the states industry. Conservatism advocates limited government involvement in industry.
Neocons arent conservative they are fascist (corporatist).
daniel987878 2 years ago
@Daniel987878 actually conservatism is far more complex than that and while fascism isn't strictly speaking conservatism... both are consider 'right' on the political spectrum & both focus heavily on the idea of nationalism in the expend of internationalism... and in the case of American Conservatism... corporatism is definitely part of conservatism and getting further & dangerously 'right'...
BioCapsule 2 years ago 2
Conservatism can mostly be associated with nationalism I agree. But modern fascism is more associated with internationalism (international banking and corporations backed by government and central banks, IMF, international military occupations, cronyism etc).
Corporatism is conservative because expanding corporate influence as a result of unjust government backing isnt really conserving our natural rights as people. Corporatism is regresive not conservative.
daniel987878 2 years ago
@daniel987878
The right has always been about preserving the status quo, and that is exactly what corporatism is. It may not be conservative per se, but it is definetly on the right.
Seleucus84 2 years ago
Conservatism, if taken to it's full extent becomes fascism. But no conservatism is not fascism. I hate it when people say one this is the other. Why the fuck do we have different definition if everything means something else? LOL
Seleucus84 2 years ago
Conservatism if taken to its full extent is not fascism. Fascism can only thrive through cronyism and big government largesse protecting the corporations.
Conservatism usually advocates small gov and competition in markets.
Conservatism doesnt change so it cant morph into fascism. The order of society is conserved.
daniel987878 2 years ago
@dainel987878
Where did you get the idea that conservatism advocates small gov? This is an American viewpoint. Even though in America conservatives support big government in many areas.
Seleucus84 2 years ago
Conservatism to put it simply advocates keeping things the way they are, and in my opinion defending the status quo. It has traditionally represented the aristocracy, the monarchy, the wealthy, the bureaucracy, imperialists and the powerful. Fascism is an extreme form of conservatism taken by the status quo to preserve, or reinstate their rule through traditional "values".
Which is exactly what the Nazis, and Mussolini claimed to be doing.
Seleucus84 2 years ago
Alot of conservatives view their ideology a conserving the natural rights given to man not conserving the wealth of the elite. It guess it comes down to definition.
daniel987878 2 years ago
What natural rights? The only rights we have are the ones we as a society make up.
Seleucus84 2 years ago
I guess everybody has a differnet definition of conservatism then. I know the neocons doubled the size of gov.
daniel987878 2 years ago
And Reagan increasing spending more than Clinton and expanded the government. Yet they call Reagan right wing...why? The left/right spectrum has very little to do with the size of gov, and more to do with the motives.
The right wants government to keep the masses subdued, thus they favour using the gov for control of social and cultural issues. They favour keeping government out of business, because this is where their own power atm lies.
Seleucus84 2 years ago
The left favours using the government to intervene on behalf of the masses to ensure equal rights for all. This is why they favour gov intervention in business. Yet they frown upon gov intervention in social and cultural issues.
Seleucus84 2 years ago
The confusion comes from the sheep on the right believing that the right actually stands for individual freedoms. History is full of examples of sheep thinking the status quo's propaganda to keep them in line was in fact true.
Seleucus84 2 years ago
@Seleucus84
YES THE RIGHT
WANT FREEDOM.
"Cough" cough..
I mean freedom to ban
Same-sex Marriage
freedom to deny you health care because of
pre-exisiting condition.
Freedom to go into Iraq and Afghanistan
Thats RIGHT WING politics for you.
zacky89 2 years ago
Fascism isn't conservative. Its national socialism, as opposed to communisim which is international socialism.
182511419139208 2 years ago
Wrong. Fascism is conservative.
Now I realize you're uneducated and you can't tell the difference between opinions and facts but believe me when I tell you these terms already had meanings before you made up your own.
For the last time dummy, socialism and fascism are opposites. Your ignorance doesn't change that a jot.
nilbud 2 years ago
Don't you love when they try retrofitting words to fit their agenda?
Don't get me wrong. There are times when semantic meaning crosses the lines. But the principles are pretty clear cut. Most forms of fascism, as they've been observed, have been extremely right wing. Socialism, as it's intended, lends itself to the principle of collective ownership and less focus on private property.
I wouldn't call them diametric opposites but we can clearly see how they're distinguished from 1 another.
upabittoolate 2 years ago
Then why was hitler's party national socialist?
daniel987878 2 years ago
@daniel987878
That's like claiming that North Korea is a democratic country because it is named The Democratic people's republic of North Korea even though it is pretty clear it is a dictatorship.
Socialism was extremely popular at that time. Many parties capitalised on this fact. The Nazis made no secret that they would do anything to appeal to masses to get into power.
Seleucus84 2 years ago 2
@182511419139208 what the fuck are you saying? Facism is national socialism and communism is international socialism? Whahahahahahaha oMG that is the weirdest thing I have ever heard.
philateliceun 2 years ago 3
NSDAP: Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party.
The Communist Manifesto states that communists support revolutions in any country againgst the current social and political order and that communists wish to abolish all religion and morality.
"Working Men of the World Unite"
182511419139208 2 years ago
If you wouldn't parse words you should realize "National Socialism" is something different from Socialism Proper. Just like National Conservatism is different from Fiscal Conservatism.
The NSDAP started off as a third position party under the leadership of Drexler that combined social democracy with racism, nationalism and social conservatism. Under Hitler's leadership it went to the far right and added business nationalism, religious conservatism, Social Darwinism and security paranoia.
A86 2 years ago 2
Hitler himself had little interest in socialism and even wanted to drop the word "Socialism" from the name of the party. He only decided not to after the original SA wanted to keep the term. Even though the word "socialism" was kept in Hitler and Himmler replaced the social democratic-sympathetic SA with the far-right SS who descended from the brownshirts. Under the new leadership the party purged what little socialist elements were left. They even came to oppose all unions.
A86 2 years ago
Congratulations! Did you enjoy graduating from the academy of interpreting and making up historical "facts" to serve your own purpose?
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
@MrNiceGuy4TW - None of what I said is made up. Look up the history of the NSDAP and you can see for yourself.
Given that my Minor is Political Science I'm quite well-versed in the history of political ideologies.
A86 2 years ago
mhm.. and your master is in feces?
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
No, Economics. What's yours?
A86 2 years ago
Considering I don't try base my YT comments on elitist notions that my degrees in some way give any power or credibility to what I write, I don't believe it is relevant listing my BAs.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
You were the one who brought up education in the first place.
Anyway, if you think I'm wrong I'd like to hear what I'm supposedly incorrect about.
A86 2 years ago
Yes, I guess you're right. I did bring up the Academy of interpreting and making up historical "facts" to serve your own purpose.
Basically you have some unsubstantiated "facts" that Hitler, in your opinion, wanted to take away "Socialist" from the name of the NSDAP. Further you use some interpretations about the SA and the SS to add to your speculations, and totally disregarding the fact that the third Reich in essence was run like a socialist state. Your left to right axis is skewed.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
This is not unsubstantiated at all:
(dot) h-net (dot) org / ~ german / gtext / kaiserreich / hitler2 (dot) html
Hitler saw socialism and democracy as Jewish corruptions which were inevitably intertwined. He only used the term in the beginning for populism's sake.
Government support of corporations to build domestic capitalism is not socialism at all.
"Your left to right axis is skewed"
Virtually all political scientists place Fascism and Nazism on the far right.
A86 2 years ago
You use part of a speech in 1919 in order to substantiate that Hitler in essence was opposed to the organization and politics he had put into effect through the 30s and mid 40s?
And yes, factory owners were allowed to maintain ownership of their property, however is that your only "evidence" that the NSDAP was not in fact a leftist party?
Political scientists place Nazism to the far right, with the added notion that the further right an ideology is placed right, it moves towards the left.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
Actually as time went on Hitler drifted further and further away from socialism as he gained more support among Germans. Socialism was a proposition that scared many middle class Germans and German businesses and he eventually got rid of the socialistic SA. Hitler promoted corporatism and class collaboration and despised leftism because of their belief in class conflict.
That's pretty anti-leftist. No leftist believes in class collaboration or corporatism.
A86 2 years ago
"is that your only "evidence" that the NSDAP was not in fact a leftist party?"
Name some socialist ideologies other than social democracy which believe in the right of Big Business.
"with the added notion that the further right an ideology is placed right, it moves towards the left"
Not only does that make no sense (so would the opposite be true?) that's not what political scientists claim. The political scale has four quadrants, not a straight line.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Name some socialist ideologies ... Big Business."
Name some capitalist countries that asserts governmental control of a factory and in effect decides what they are supposed to produce.
"Not only does that make no sense (so would the opposite be true?) that's not what political scientists claim."
Yes, this is a very common explanation on "far right".
I agree that this notion makes no sense, but this is where the notion "far right" came from. So we can agree on something. Good.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
The Nazis and Fascists didn't control factories and tell them how much to produce. The government gave them money if they did things which helped the government. A cozy partnership.
"Yes, this is a very common explanation on "far right"
I've heard this claimed by some laymen but I've never heard this claimed by any political scale. If this was true than the opposite should theoretically be true and one could claim Stalin was right-wing.
A86 2 years ago
"The Nazis and Fascists didn't control factories ... cozy partnership."
The corporative system had nothing to do with corporations in the modern sense of the word. You would have a hard time selling the notion that the industry was free to do as they pleased. Of course, what the government would buy, would be more rational for the industry to make.
About the the thing you've heard by laymen, and not true pros like yourself, I agree. It makes no sense. Still, it's listed in some textbooks.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
Corporations still existed back then, they started in the 1800s. Though they were not the size of modern ones and not the same scope.
However, Fascist and Nazi corporatism was far, far different from the Bolshevist concept of state ownership of the means of production. Look up the Fascist concept of "Heroic Capitalism". The goal of corporatism in a Fascist society is to meld together private corporate interests and state interests.
Far different from socialism.
A86 2 years ago
The dutch West Indies company might have been the first multi-national corporation. However, I said the corporative system had nothing to do with corporations in the modern sense, in it being merging the heads of the company with the representation of the workers, making a unit which could be instructed by the government of the wishes on what should be produced.
Still, in essence we are talking about societies with an ever increasing governmental sector.
Far different from capitalism.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
That's not really different from what most capitalist nations did during the world wars. In most cases under the Nazis and Fascists corporations were not instructed on how much to be produced. Usually that only happened for things relating to war such as weapons, food rations, etc.
There are many varieties of capitalism. Deregulated corporate capitalism is not the only thing that qualifies as capitalism.
A86 2 years ago
Yes, but the fascists and nazist did that before a war was declared. That is somewhat of a difference. And even if the western democracies did something similar, the main point was the explanation of corporative system. So, nice try in derailing it, but please don't.
There are many variations of capitalism. As there are many left wing ideologies and blends of socialism. National Socialism being one of them.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
They did it during a depression. Which was and to a degree still is common among capitalist nations.
"National Socialism being one of them"
Not only would the vast majority of political scientists disagree with you they would be right in doing so. There is no element of Nazism that is really left wing in any meaningful sense other than the name. But North Korea is called a "Peoples' Democratic Republic" when it is obviously not.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is no element of Nazism that is really left wing in any meaningful sense other than the name."
Wishful thinking on your side, based on some quotes taken out of context.
NSDAP, formerly called just German Workers Party, was wholly supported by the working class. Wage control and control of the prices in the market. Now, I only have few characters here, but lets look at some of the results of Nazi policies. Ie. Volkswagen, low cost car produced for the masses. Resembling the Lada?
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"was wholly supported by the working class. Wage control and control of the prices in the market"
Being supported by the working class and having a few price controls and wage floors makes a party left wing? I guess that makes the Republican part left wing as well. Lol.
A86 2 years ago
You are completely correct in observing the Republican party moving to the left. As well, I could put in a lot more of socialist doctrines made by the NSDAP, however, I'm getting ready for the Superbowl, so I guess I'll give you a further pounding at another moment in time. Have a nice day.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"Republican party moving to the left"
What in the blue hell are you talking about? Having the support of working class people and supporting a minimum wage makes you left-wing? This is pretty nonsensical.
Not only that your entire "government = left wing" theory crumbles when you take into consideration many left wing ideologies don't believe in government intervention at all:
(dot) huppi (dot) com / kangaroo / L - socialism (dot) htm
You're using the "big government = socialism" fallacy.
A86 2 years ago
"Not only that your entire "government = left wing" theory crumbles when you take into consideration many left wing ideologies don't believe in government intervention at all"
Yes, there are so many communist countries that don't control the economy at all. I guess you can write up a long list?
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"I could put in a lot more of socialist doctrines made by the NSDAP"
If your track record is any clue I doubt it. So far you've been operating on the "government = left wing" fallacy.
Government intervention in and of itself is not left or right wing. What makes it left or right is the intention and goal behind it. Government ownership of enterprise on behalf of the working class would be left wing. Government bailing out private enterprise would be right wing.
A86 2 years ago
Of course you would doubt it, as you only want fascism to be a right wing ideology.
"Government ownership...on behalf of the working class would be left wing."
Exactly. The governments of these regimes controlled the industry on behalf of the people. They viewed it as a struggle to heighten their peoples sphere of interests in the world, but they were still struggling to advance all people of their nations.
"Government bailing out private enterprise would be right wing."
NSDAP did that?
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"you only want fascism to be a right wing ideology"
I don't want it to be it is. It's classified as right wing for a reason. You want to historically revise it as left wing to deflect any shame brought about by Nazism onto the left. It's a classical deflection tactic.
Nazi governments struggled on behalf of both the lower and upper classes. Class collaboration is a core tenant of Nazism and Fascism. Leftists only support the lower class, not the upper class.
A86 2 years ago
"You want to historically revise it as left wing to deflect any shame brought about by Nazism onto the left."
Nope. The fact is that these were left wing ideologies. That the Nazis themselves openly called themselves socialists doesn't seem to be a clue for some people.
You keep harping on about owners of industry getting to keep their property as being the smoking gun evidence, disregarding most of the policies put forth in the fascist countries and the third reich. It's boring, it really is.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"The fact is that these were left wing ideologies"
According to whom? A couple of dissident political ideologues? I guarantee you your opinion is a minority one.
"the Nazis themselves openly called themselves socialists"
The Nazis didn't call themselves socialists other than the name of the party. Party names are not a good indication of ideology. Unless you want to believe that monarchists are liberal democrats like Vladimir Zhirinovksy's party.
A86 2 years ago
"According to whom?"
Anyone who put any thought into the subject.
"The Nazis didn't call themselves socialists other than the name of the party."
No, they were a workers party. They managed to bring work for the masses, and also eradicate poverty. They also put forth a lot of policies in order to help the lower classes. Not that this is a bad thing, but their politics were for advancement of the working class.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Anyone who put any thought into the subject"
Such as who? Apparently, according to your logic, most political scientists have no put any thought into the subject and apparently you know better.
"They managed to bring work for the masses"
And? How does this make a party left wing? All parties promise to do this.
"their politics were for advancement of the working class"
Their policies were aimed for the advancement of all classes as was their staged goal.
A86 2 years ago
"as being the smoking gun evidence"
Yes, that is the smoking gun because that's the main difference between the left and the right. The right supports private or corporate property while the left support common property. If you don't know this then you don't truly understand the political ideology spectrum.
"History"
Do you have an official historical source which shows the Nazis becoming anti-Christian or falling out with Christians?
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"NSDAP did that?"
Yes.
"there are so many communist countries that don't control the economy"
You're proving my point that you know little about political ideologies. Bolshevism is a form of socialism, not communism. Bolshevists never claimed their societies were communist. Bolshevism is also only one strand of left-wing ideology on the authoritarian left. There are many libertarian left ideologies very much opposed to it.
A86 2 years ago
Your claim is this is supposedly something socialist. It's not really socialist at all. A government funding and supporting a corporation (though corporations back then were not exactly the same as ones today they were still large conglomerate private companies) is not socialistic in any meaningful sense of the word.
The goal of state socialism is to govern on the behalf of the working class and take power away from the bourgeoisie. Not at all a goal of Fascist corporatism.
A86 2 years ago
Again you are disregard that the corporative system has got nothing to do with corporations, as most people would understand the word these days. Sorry.
And the fascists did indeed remove power from the old burgeoisie, also inflating the governmental sector, and sought to employ all of the population. Does this sound similar to some other ideologies around?Nazis at the higher level also had somewhat negative views on Christianity, which would probably fit well with certain other leftist views.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
Corporations have existed in the West since the 19th century. The main difference between corporations back then and now was corporations back then had a bit less scope in the global economy and generally had more unions.
"fascists did indeed remove power from the old burgeoisie"
Not really. The Junkers flourished under Nazi rule and the Nazis were handsomely funded by the German aristocracy and business community. Many corporations embraced corporatism.
A86 2 years ago
As for inflating the government sector most parties in general on both the right and the left supported more government intervention than they typically do now. Government intervention in and of itself is not a left-wing thing. The Nazis used government intervention for purposes of national security, regulating morality and helping failing corporations. None of which are left wing.
Under the Nazi regime the Christian church had quite a cozy relationship with the State.
A86 2 years ago
"inflating the government...government intervention..do now."
The question is if they supported creating jobs within the government in order to create a greater middle class of people, and in effect slowly wiping out the classes.
"...Nazi regime .. Christian church .. cozy relationship"
Martin Niemoller, Bonhoeffer, kirchenkampf, Martin Bormanns letter to gauleiter, also look up the SS and their views on Christianity (as you used them as an example on how right wing the Third Reich was).
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
The Nazis had no intention of wiping out the classes and hated Marxists partially because of their belief in wiping out classes. They believed classes were part of a natural, organic society. That's a core tenant of Fascist beliefs.
"their views on Christianity"
Whatever the view of a few Nazi elites on Christianity (that doesn't mean all Nazis agree) the vast majority of Nazis openly embraced a theocratic bond between Church and State.
A86 2 years ago
"The Nazis had no intention of wiping out the classes"
The Nazis opened up for people from outside former old time feudality taking on assigments they ordinarily would not be granted. They represented a new era for many people in the working class.
"the vast majority of Nazis openly embraced a theocratic bond between Church and State."
A bond that slowly disintegrated as the Nazis gained more power. You are now trying to minimize a general policy on religion to fit your own agenda.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
For your first reply classical liberal parties did the same thing. This is not an indication of being left or right wing. At least not in the sense from the late 19th century onward which the left-right distinction is different from the 18th century till the mid-19th century.
"A bond that slowly disintegrated as the Nazis gained more power"
And your source for this claim?
A86 2 years ago
"And your source for this claim?"
History.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
And of course the Nazis opened the party to the working class. They openly supported class collaboration and believed that the State should help all classes and absolve conflicts between classes.
This is a doctrine a socialist would never support.
A86 2 years ago
"And of course the Nazis opened the party to the working class."
LOL, not only did they open up the party to the working class, they in fact called it a workers party.
About the class collaboration, you are a bit vague. Is it again the fact they respected property and did not take factories by force?
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"they in fact called it a workers party"
The original party did but as is commonly known Hitler changed the party significantly. Even being called a 'workers party" is not really evidence of anything as there are many right wing parties around the world called "workers part[ies]".
"the fact they respected property and did not take factories"
No, it's the fact that their aim was to uphold the system of private ownership and uphold the upper class.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"as there are many right wing parties around the world called "workers part[ies]"
Write up a list please.
"No, it's the fact that their aim was to uphold the system of private ownership and uphold the upper class."
Yes, they respected ownership. As many left wing governments around the world do.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
Right now I'm having trouble finding a list of parties of any ideology. Off the top of my head I remember the British Peoples' Party and the Workers' Party of the Czech Republic. Both of which have stereotypically "socialist"-sounding names.
"Yes, they respected ownership"
Private ownership. And no, socialists do not believe in private ownership of the means of production.
A86 2 years ago
The people's party is a small fringe party, and probably so called "far right" making it hard to determine whether or not it is left or right wing.
The other one I do not really even know anything about. How about finding some political parties that have, or have had, more than 100 members scattered around?
I wrote many "left wing" governments btw. Many left wing governments allow private enterprise. As in example the communist party of China.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"The people's party is a small fringe party"
So was the Nazi party originally. It's not hard to determine its ideology because it's spelled out.
"As in example the communist party of China"
China was never really communist and now they're turning towards a 19th century form of capitalism. Most left wing people never really supported them either way. Either their current system or their old Maoist system. Their current system is is contrast with their supposed socialist principles.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"So was the Nazi party originally. It's not hard to determine its ideology because it's spelled out."
Who cares what The National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party started out as? What is important is that they had several million followers and ran a country, with policies you might wanna study before you start ranting on about them being left or right wing.
"China was never really communist..."
Yes, again, something doesn't fit your agenda, just stick your head up your.. ehm.. into the sand.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"Who cares what The National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party started out as"
Because what they became is much different from what they started out as. I love how you keep harping on the name. So I guess North Korea is a democratic republic of the people? It has "peoples' democratic republic" in the name, right? Lol.
"you might wanna study"
I know this subject very well, thank you. It happening to be my secondary field of expertise.
A86 2 years ago
"Yes, again, something doesn't fit your agenda"
Eh, no. The definition of "communism" is a stateless, classless, post-monetary society where the means of production are freely and equally available to everyone. This is not what China was thus it wasn't a "communist" society. Nor did it claim to be. Communist parties claimed their societies were "socialist", not "communist". They didn't claim to have reached the communist mode of production. They were designated "Communist" by the West.
A86 2 years ago
Semantics. Point is that they are left wing, which is relevant to the discussion. You bring in some elitist nonsense that would only interest less than 0,001 % of the Earth's population on how you and less than 0,001% of the Earth's population define communism, irregardless ot the party itself calling it the Communist party of China. "Oh, but what's in a name! Me and my esteemed fellow students at the Academy of interpreting and making up historical "facts" to serve our own purposes disagree!"
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"Point is that they are left wing"
Social democracy is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. What Marxist governments had mass private ownership of the means of production? Point them out.
"some elitist nonsense"
I don't care about your anti-intellectual "I'm Joe Everyman" nonsense. Facts are facts. I don't really care about how 99.whatever of Earth's general population allegedly defines a word. The majority can be incorrect.
Try looking up the Argument By Popularity logical fallacy.
A86 2 years ago
"Social democracy is a mixture of capitalism and socialism."
Well, if you consider social democracy as a right wing ideology, it pretty much explains why sound somewhat deranged. I don't really care to discuss this matter any further with a person who basically wants to control the basis for the discussion. Makes it pretty pointless really.
"Facts are facts."
I don't think you care much about facts either.
Try looking up Delusions of Grandeur.
Goodbye now! Thanks for calling!
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
Who said social democracy is a right wing ideology?
"I don't think you care much about facts either"
Says the guy who claims Nazism is leftist despite the fact that it is virtually universally identified as a far right authoritarian ideology. And quite logically so.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Who said social democracy is a right wing ideology?"
Why would you bring it up unless you thought it was not a right wing ideology? I just stated that a lot of leftist governments respect property. This is your only "evidence" making Fascism and Nazism right wing.
"Says the guy who claims Nazism is leftist despite the fact that it is"
Yes, it is. Thank you.
Btw. authoritarian is right wing? This is a common right wing trait? Really? Most communist governments of the past were right wing?
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
You claimed many leftist governments support private ownership of the means of production and I mentioned many leftist governments have been social democracies. Social democracy combines capitalism and socialism, thus explaining their tolerance for private ownership.
"Yes, it is"
Cutting off my quotes to turn them into something I didn't say, I see. Quite desperate. You can claim "Yes it is" all you want but the fact of the matter is it is almost universally classified as right wing.
A86 2 years ago
"Social democracy combines capitalism and socialism, thus explaining their tolerance for private ownership."
All leftist governments of the past have combined capitalism and socialism. Even the Soviet Union, in the sense they did not rid themselves of the monetary system. Fascism and Nazism also certainly have elements of capitalism, but they are still more related to socialism.
"I see. Quite desperate."
Desperate, yes starting to feel desperation, this really isn't worth my time. Bye now!
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"but they are still more related to socialism"
You'll find little support for this theory. Not only are their policies almost universally right wing even the leaders and founders of the ideology openly boast about their anti-socialist and anti-communist ideology.
"this really isn't worth my time"
It's not worth anyone's time because you're trying to disprove all of political science academia and categorization by using logical fallacies.
A86 2 years ago
"It's not worth anyone's time because you're trying to disprove all of political science academia and categorization by using logical fallacies."
Hmm.. lets see. Mussolini was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist. They both started parties with ideologies resembling socialism. Their policies were to a large extent geared towards socialist goals. One of the parties had a name with the words Socialist and Worker in it. Yes, I see how you are absolutely correct. They were clearly right wing.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"They both started parties with ideologies resembling socialism"
You claim this yet can't list a single policy of theirs or ideological point of theirs that was socialist. Government support of private enterprise is not socialism or socialist. It's quite a right-wing policy.
"the parties had a name with the words Socialist and Worker in it"
And? There's a monarchist party with the words "liberal democratic" in it. Is monarchism a form of liberal democracy?
Like I said, you have nothing.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You claim this yet can't list a single policy of theirs or ideological point of theirs that was socialist."
Are you having short-term memory problems? Perhaps this conversation is over your head and your brain is becoming overheated?
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"Are you having short-term memory problems?"
No, but you're having comprehension problems. Your "example" was them using government to prop up private enterprise and large corporations. Hardly a socialist policy. The rest was baseless sophistry and tortured mental gymnastics to rationalize support of the business class as somehow a form of socialism.
A86 2 years ago
The reason Nazism is classified as right wing is because all of their policies are/were right wing:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Fascism _ and _ ideology # Economics _ in _ Nazi _ Germany
Fascism is even further to the right.
A86 2 years ago
"Try looking up Delusions of Grandeur"
Try looking up Hitler's beliefs:
"NATIONAL AND SOCIAL ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism" --Adolph Hitler, Munich speech, April 12th, 1922
Thank YOU for calling since you were the one who responded to me.
A86 2 years ago
"NATIONAL AND SOCIAL ARE TWO IDENTICAL CONCEPTIONS. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism"
So only Marxism can be left wing? The policies they put through is not at all important, no matter how related they are?
"...since you were the one who responded to me."
Yes, that was before I knew for a certainty that you are utterly insane.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"So only Marxism can be left wing"
Who said that? Marxism is not the only left wing ideology but Marxism is inherently a left wing ideology just as capitalism is inherently classified as right wing.
"you are utterly insane"
Ad hominem. I'm insane for concurring with the near-universal placement of Fascism and Nazism on the political spectrum? Lol.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Marxism is not the only left wing ideology but Marxism is inherently a left wing ideology just as capitalism is inherently classified as right wing."
Relevance to the current discussion?
Did you know the northern section of the Nile flows almost entirely through desert?
And an Ad hominem well deserved if I might say so!
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"Relevance to the current discussion?"
Are you getting lost? Apparently you are because you seem to be forgetting your own comments which elicit my responses. My post was a response to this question of yours:
"So only Marxism can be left wing?"
Remember? Are you having short-term memory problems? Perhaps this conversation is over your head and your brain is becoming overheated.
A86 2 years ago
"Are you getting lost?"
Yes, you are getting so boring I just skim through your nonsense.
"Are you having short-term memory problems?"
Read above answer.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"I just skim through your nonsense"
Yes, I suppose high-fallutin' stuff like this would be a bunch of Greek to people with little working understanding of politics and political ideologies.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Yes, I suppose high-fallutin' stuff like this would be a bunch of Greek to people with little working understanding of politics and political ideologies."
Yes, you would know.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
"Yes, you would know"
Take that back to the 4th grade.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Take that back to the 4th grade."
Mhm.. interesting. And how did that make you feel?
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
Communist parties are parties dedicated to working towards communism. That doesn't mean the society under them is actually communist yet nor did Communist parties themselves claim this. Quote a communist party which claimed their country had reached the communist stage of their Marxist ideology.
Since you invest so much in the names of parties I guess Vladimir Zhirinovsky's party is actually a liberal democratic party and North Korea is a democratic republic of the people.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Quote a communist party which claimed their country had reached the communist stage of their Marxist ideology."
Pretty irrelevant.
"Since you invest ...blabla.. democratic republic of the people."
I'm still waiting for your long list of far right parties, with a right wing ideology and liberal economic schemes, that calls themselves Socialist Workers parties.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Pretty irrelevant"
Pretty relevant since you're claiming Bolshevism is the same as little-c "communism".
"that calls themselves Socialist Workers parties"
That's not what I said. Thanks for misquoting me.
Try reading the quote from Hitler I just posted where he describes what means by "national socialism".
A86 2 years ago
You also conveniently ignored the Fascist theory of Heroic, Dynamic and Supercapitalism which are part of the basis of the Fascist support of corporatism which is a policy based in the preservation of capitalism and the private property system.
A86 2 years ago
I ignored it due to the "remaining character count". The heroic capitalism you are referring to is completely irrelevant. In fact basically killing your own argument:
"Mussolini claimed that dynamic or heroic capitalism could be prevented from degenerating into static capitalism and then supercapitalism if the concepts of economic bourgueous individualism were abandoned and if state supervision of the economy was introduced."
State supervision.. oh my... free market indeed.
MrNiceGuy4TW 2 years ago
Thanks for ignoring this part:
"Italian Fascism presented the economic system of corporatism as the solution that would preserve private initiatives and property while allowing the state, and the syndicalist movement to intervene in the economy when private initiative failed"
"free market indeed"
Who said anything about a free market? Free market (which does no