I'm more far right than Hitler
>>82683990No shit. Hitler was leftist socialist. It would be hard to not be more right than him, but modern liberals sure are trying their damndest lol
>>82684046Assuming you're not a bot, why do you (and others, generally) conceive of politics as existing on only one dimensional axis? Are you familiar with the idea of multiple political axes? It does everyone a great diservice if you cannot work with multiple political dimensions.
>>82684150Because you people are disingenuous. Hitler was "far right" until you point out the fact that he was literally socialist then you say we need to be more nuanced so you can figure out a way to twist everything to fit your personal belief system. The world is simple. People who try to complicate it just want to find a "gotcha" that only applies 0.01% of times that they can use to justify their actions 100% of the time.
who told you... to larp as me in 4 threads only to make a 5th that says "i'm not even larping but"
>>82684150>It does everyone a great diservice if you cannot work with multiple political dimensions
>>82684220>disingenuousNo. Not all anons are the same person, anon. This particular anon (me) was anticipating you being a bot because there has been an uptick in political posts on this board which felt disingenuous to me. I'm glad you're not though, assuming I'm not too autistic to mistake your person-hood.>Hitler was "far right"I personally disagree with this because of the combination of beliefs which describe his goals/interests. The way we (in modern western society) use this language is very imprecise because most people don't care enough to be specific, and therefore we use the terms "far right/left" to refer to cultural & ethnic conservatism and cultural & ethnic disruption to quickly/easily communicate general ideas, despite the fact that both groups they are based on (Nazis and Communists) not being completely adversarial for some political axes/issues (eg. authoritarianism / the role of power).>twist everything to fit your personal belief system>find a "gotcha"No. When people describe Hitler as far right, they are talking about the cultural side of his politics. When people describe Hitler as leftist, they are talking about the economic side of his politics. Isn't that obviously a problem? Both groups are defining an entire ideology (and combination of beliefs) by a single part of it. It creates an opportunity for people to speak past each other, muddying communication.>complicate it just want to find a "gotcha" that only applies 0.01% of times that they can use to justify their actionsWhat did you mean by this? I'm not picking up what you're putting down.>>82684409thx, it's the autism
>>82684046Potentially the single most retarded post ever submitted to this website. I'm actually not even upset, I'm just impressed.
>>82684437Too bad for you I'm not a bot because I didn't think this was going to lead into a whole big thing and I'm not gonna be a great discussion partner, in fact I really didn't expect to get a reply at all unless it was complete bait lol.>Not all anons are the same person, anonI expected you to be op.>there has been an uptick in political posts on this board which felt disingenuous to meYeah we catch the runoff spam from /pol/ for some reason. >this language is very imprecise because most people don't care enough to be specificVery true and it's become a common nuisance. >Isn't that obviously a problem?Yeah it's very annoying for everything to be compared to Hitler, especially when it's authoritarians saying it.>What did you mean by this?Things like using rape cases to justify abortion as a birth control method or using intersex people to justify sexually confusing kids so they'll be more likely to become transgender.
>>82684046October 1923 interview with Adolph Hitler, by George Sylvester Viereck in The American Monthly:>"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?">"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.>"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.Not to mention that Hitler and the Nazis were: 1) vehemently opposed to labor unions / labor movements, 2) clearly, vocally, explicitly, and obsessively hated leftists and liberals of all kinds, 3) rose to power in alliance with the mainstream German right-wing, who of course also hated leftists and liberals, etc.Their idea of "socialism" was seizing land owned by Jewish families and giving it to "Aryans". It had nothing whatsoever to do with the ideological tradition associated with figures like Marx.The whole debate is just absurd and comprised of people who are either arguing in bad faith or who don't know jack shit about that era of German history. To remedy that, I wholeheartedly recommend The Coming of the Third Reich by Sir Richard Evans (and the other two books in his masterpiece trilogy on the Third Reich), who is among the world's preeminent scholars on the topic.
people who say hitler and his party was far left socialist>most european neo nazis>lolbertarians>conservativespeople who say hitler and his party wasnt left wing and not real socialist>most american neo nazis>marxists>liberalits weird.in my opinion nazis and fascists werent real socialists otherwise there would be no argument about it. not to mention nazbols and revolutionary conservatives(the other prominent socialist&nationalist forces at the time) also didnt like hitler and believed that he wasnt commited to nationalizations and socialism
>>82684632>Too bad for you I'm not a botActually no, I meant that I am glad you are real. If I wanted to talk with a bot, I'd talk to an AI.>I expected you to be op.Thats my bad; I should have had the theory of mind to realize that.>everything to be compared to HitlerThat wasn't quite my point, but indeed that's an issue too. I was trying to talk about the issue of people talking past each other in conversation. And to be autistically clear, I am not implying such a thing about our exchange.>Things like using rape cases to justify abortionI think I can understand what you meant in your other post now; thanks for clarifying. Also I agree with both of your concerns there. We share beliefs I think, but I put myself forward (at least due to my odd wording) in such a way that makes me appear to be against you (and therefore a leftist, which I am not).>>82684718>otherwise there would be no argument about itI think this discussion exists because of what each type of socialist is collectivizing. The modern ones are (typically) culturally progressive and so they are in favoring of socializing economies for the sake of literally everyone. This contrasts with the dissident right who are in favor of socializing only for a small in-group (typically along ethnic or (at least) national lines).
>>82683990The nazi party platform would be pretty popular among the young leftists in the West. Really, the only thing that would be considered right are the anti-jew and anti-immigrant policieshttps://www.vaholocaust.org/25-points-of-nsdap/
>>82684645>Their idea of "socialism" was seizing land owned by Jewish families and giving it to "Aryans". It had nothing whatsoever to do with the ideological tradition associated with figures like Marx.So taking the property of the rich and giving it to the people? How is that not socialism???
>>82685176>So it was [heavily rephrased version of events that doesn't at all resemble the thing I actually said]? That's, like, basically the same exact thing lmao Why do you people do this
>>82685176Hitler himself specifically said he was "taking socialism away from the socialists." What he wanted was very pointedly NOT socialism, if anything it was the opposite, but used the same name.
>>82683990>Further to the right than HitlerBut there's nothing next to argentina?
>>82685259The phrase "taking socialism away from the socialists" is attributed to Adolf Hitler during a 1923 interview with George Sylvester Viereck. In this context, the statement was a tactical effort by the Nazi party to redefine and appropriate the term "socialism" for their own ultra-nationalist, racist, and antisemitic agenda.Meaning of the phraseA nationalist redefinition: Hitler claimed that Marxism had "stolen" and "confused" the meaning of socialism. He reframed it not as an international class struggle, but as a patriotic, "Aryan" institution based on "race solidarity," in which the state fulfilled the claims of the "productive classes".A rejection of Marxist principles: By stating he would "take Socialism away from the Socialists," Hitler positioned himself in direct opposition to actual socialist and communist parties, which he saw as enemies. National Socialism rejected core Marxist concepts like class conflict, internationalism, and public ownership of the means of production.Political appropriation: The Nazi party strategically used populist and anti-capitalist rhetoric to attract working-class voters who were disillusioned with the existing political order. However, the Nazis preserved private property rights and quickly moved to crush trade unions and persecute socialists and communists once in power.Historical contextThe Weimar Republic: In the early 1920s, Germany's political landscape was fractured, with socialist parties gaining influence after World War I. By co-opting the term "socialism," the Nazis aimed to appeal to this working-class base while simultaneously subverting the genuine socialist movement.Internal party conflict: The struggle to define "socialism" within the Nazi Party led to internal conflict. This was famously demonstrated by the suppression of the party's left wing during the 1934 "Night of the Long Knives," in which key figures like Gregor Strasser were murdered.
>>82684220hitler wasn't socialist.
SameI make hitler look like a telletubby
>>82685145Lefts are antijew and the right loves jews.
>>82685410I do find that a pretty entertaining development, the people calling everybody nazis and fascist are, at least untill the next current thing, antisemitic.
>>82685548Being antisemitic has a definition, you know, and it isn't just being critical of israel
>>82685571Well, go ahead, tell us your very specific and nuanced definition of antisemitic.
>>82685608the intent to harm, discredit, or ridicule jewish individuals for being jewish. it's not nuanced, it just doesn't involve criticism of a state or anything like that. I
>>82685628Antisemitic describes prejudice, discrimination, or hostility directed against Jewish people or Jewish institutions. It is a form of hatred that manifests through myths, stereotypes, and conspiracy theories about Jews, their power, and their global control, often demonizing them and denying them rights. Antisemitic acts can range from hateful rhetoric, vandalism, and verbal abuse to physical aggression, and can even involve denying the Holocaust or holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel.
