Remember, the American Nazi party had a ridiculous amount of traction. Enough to fill Madison Square Garden for Washington’s birthday. Those people didn’t just vanish after WWII. They didn’t denounce their beliefs. They just crawled into the cracks like cockroaches.
Also the Nazis took example with the pledge of allegiance as an effective tool for indoctrination of school children. In the US it also used to be done with the same gesture that is now the Nazi salute.
Furthermore eugenics and race theory were prominent as “sciences” in the US and the Nazis also took example there. If it wasnt for the alliance to the Japanese and Pearl Harbor, the US might well have been on the Nazis side of history, given that the social and ideological culture had many more similarities than disagreements.
While your comment about the Nazis getting a lot of their eugenics ideas from America in the 20’s-30’s is accurate, there’s no way in hell that we’d have just accidentally ended up in the Axis powers like that.
Were there Nazis in the US? Absolutely. Was their ideology common and/or the majority? Not at all.
We were literally allied with countries that the Nazis were attacking, and assisting them with supplies long before we ever entered the war due to Pearl Harbor. That’s before we even get into things like the Zimmerman note which indicated that the Germans in WW1 wanted to engage us as an enemy, which doesn’t bode well for their actions against those same allies 20 years later.
You’re taking the fact that eugenics existed here in the US and making up a metric fuck ton of revisionist history surrounding it.
You say all that, but remember the time Prescott Bush was part of a group of rich and powerful men that tried to overthrow FDR and install a fascist government?
That last paragraph is a load of bs.
As long as FDR was in office, there was literally no way the US would have joined Germany. It wasn’t a matter of if, but a matter of when the USA got involved. The us was in by proxy before 41/42, Doing the same stuff the modern US has done for Ukraine, but for the Commonwealth nations.
Don’t forget, however, that it was not the “right” in the US that was pro eugenics. It was the left and the Fabien socialists. Also didn’t forget, how those were the groups that were aligning themselves with the KKK.
The raised-arm salute isn’t inherently bad, it’s bad now because the Nazis did it. And so, America using a similar salute before the Nazis doesn’t mean America was as evil as the Nazis.
Out of the shadows and into the light.
Not as much of a rebrand as a merger
Got em!
Oh great, we’re doing political feel-good posting on this site too? Such low hanging fruit.
There’s definitely a discussion to be had for how the very far right (people whose core political ideology is based in racial prejudice and literal palingenetic ultranationalism) latch onto the sole major conservative political party in the United States and how they, as a component voting block, are catered to, if not explicitly represented by, portions of that party, and even dog whistled to by the party as a whole. This post, though, comes across as straight liberal smugposting and is somewhere between completely useless and actively harmful.
Agree with almost everything except the useless or harmful part. It’s just a meme meant for a quick laugh, it’s not that serious.
If we want to be serious though, the Republican party has been going further and further right in the past couple of years. The meme is kind of expressing this in a way.
the Republican party has been going further and further right in the past couple of years.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say you’ve never heard of Strom Thurmond?
Also, I would argue that memes like this are more designed for reddit style, low-effort upvote farming, than anything genuinely productive. This makes Lemmy worse and oversimplifies any conversation about American politics, with all of its complex and disparate, if nominally similar, but still competing ideologies, and how they shape its material composition and practical functioning. This all a fancy way of saying that the underlying sentiment of “Republicans are all Nazis and we don’t need to understand them further than that” attempts to trivialize a complex problem and a complex set of ideological beliefs and leverages that oversimplification as banal clickbait. And it makes those that consume it dumber for having done so, potentially.
It’s no different in function from any other form of demonising the outgroup. It’s slightly less bad than some because your political views can change, but it’s still a sign of politics gone wrong.
the Republican party has been going further and further right in the past couple of years
Tell me you only recently started paying attention to politics without telling me you only recently started paying attention to politics
The past couple? 2016 was 7 years ago
Yeah, but like… That’s a couple years ago for my old ass. 😂
Well then take the first shot and start the war… Otherwise it’ll just be drama memes for LIFE.
The war is inevitable… The sooner it starts the sooner it’s over. Neighbors, family, cops, thugs, there’s no knowing who the enemy is. It’s everyone vs everyone…
I see no point in furthing my personal life and goals until something real is done.
Please have some respect; nazis are nowhere near as bad as Microsoft
As a commie linux user I fight nazi and microsoft
But not china or Russia?
Fighting China is like fighting a lost fight.
Russia is currently destroying itself,no help needed.
Before the current Ukraine war people would have said fighting Russia would be a lost fight, but we’ve learned a lot since then about what their readiness actually looks like. This makes me wonder if China is all that tough, or if they just talk a good game.
But what about your Komerades?
Removed by mod
Lmao, ask Hungary how “anti imperial” the USSR was
I am Hungarian, and it would have made more sense to bring up any other post-socialist country instead. One of the most popular historical leaders of Hungary is János Kádár, who was the one who requested help from the Soviet Union in 1956 after Imre Nagy announced that he would withdraw from the Warsaw Pact.
Also, at the second parliamentary election after the socialist era, MSZP (one of the successor parties of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party, alongside the Hungarian Workers’ Party) campaigned on the promise of democratically restoring all the “good things” (they put it this way) from socialism, which immediately won them all the parliamentary seats that could be won by one party in 1994. Of course, the MSZP did not keep any of their campaign promises and implemented more neoliberal policies with strong austerity (the infamous Bokros package). The then-prime minister, Gyula Horn, also made explicitly anti-strike statements. As a result, there was a significant chance that the still-Marxist Hungarian Workers’ Party would enter parliament in the 1998 parliamentary election. Therefore, the parliamentary parties voted to raise the electoral threshold in common agreement, so that this could not happen.
TLDR: In Hungary, the assessment of the socialist era is not as black and white as many people think.
Removed by mod
That was disrespectful, literally no one in Hungary thinks positively of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the oppression of the Habsburg Empire. It was not a coincidence that in 1918 the monarchy was overthrown by revolution and replaced with a people’s republic then with a soviet republic in 1919.
China is not socialist mate, it’s technically a market economy with “chinese characteristics” and is run by one massive coalition. there’s private property ownership in China, there is stock exchange for example.
Removed by mod
You can scratch your neckbeard all you want, it’s very much a market economy. Whether there’s the term socialist or not
Removed by mod
Not aligning with the United States does not socialism nor anti-imperialism make
What is anglo?
Agreed. Microsoft is bad to the point to where I switched to Arch Linux. They ain’t getting my data now!
Neither are you
Hehehehehe
Jokes on you, I have all my data
Jokes on you, I don’t have any data
Thanks for telling us. You are legally obligated to inform us that you use Arch btw.
Bold of you to assume that I don’t already do that. :)
Nazis > Microsoft > Spectrum Internet > Nestle
Nestle > republicans
GGOS, KissOS, Atlus are a refreshing alternative
To be honest, a lot of Republicans are still very respectable. The republican platform is fucked up, but if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief. A Democrat doesn’t believe in everything in the Democrat’s platform either.
In that sense, insulting a party is not generally helpful for public discourse.
I don’t give a shit about personal beliefs, I care about outcomes. Republicans’ desired outcomes actively hurt people I care about, so I can absolutely tell them to fuck off. Even if they don’t “believe in everything,” they are indifferent enough to let horrible things happen.
deleted by creator
It’s quite a tall order to be kind to those who want you and those you care about dead.
Oh you don’t give a shit about personal beliefs? You the kind who thinks a king is better than a democracy? Because democracy is all about personal beliefs, and convincing your fellow citizens of what you think is right.
What an insanely stupid read of my comment
To be fair your comment was entirely baseless and inaccurate.
Fuck Republicans and fuck Democrats.
That’s the spirit.
Removed by mod
Then where is the Republican outrage against the fascist policies so many Republican politicians are advocating for? There are only two options: either they don’t care, or they’re secretly happy.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” ~~Martin Luther King, Jr
Exactly anyone today that votes Republican or calls themselves one (my boss) yet continues to vote republican just because either don’t care or wants what they want.
If you are not in the republican circle, how do you even know how they perceive the policies?
… did you read the MLK quote I included? The fact that there aren’t many Republicans loudly and repeatedly condemning the leaders of the party says exactly that. If you want to read the whole thing, I recommend you take a look at King’s full Letter from a Birmingham Jail to fully understand the point: silence means acceptance.
You look at this thread, and you ask “where’s all the voices”. You don’t find that ironic?
Silence could mean acceptance, it doesn’t mean agreement. Just like being on the left if I say “let’s keep the discussion going” all you fuckers are gonna downvote me to oblivion and accuse me of less intelligent and make anyone who have a different idea an outcast, it is the same thing for republicans. Someone who don’t go with the flow is made an outcast, so if you don’t agree, tough luck.
Yeh, if the left treat its different opinions like this, what the fuck you think a republican having a different opinion is treated like? So if you are strongly for the core policies of your affiliated party, would you raise your voice? Or if you did, you think those voices get heard and get reported?
See, now, the 1920s and 1930s taught us that reasonable debate with fascists is impossible. So where are all the Republicans in the public sphere standing up for moderation? No offense to you, but you’re a rando on the internet (and so am I). Where are the politicians standing up to the far right?
So where are all the Republicans in the public sphere standing up for moderation?
You know even from liberal media that there is a moderate republican faction, and they are indeed getting hammered exactly by people just like you but from the right.
See, now, the 1920s and 1930s taught us that reasonable debate with fascists is impossible.
Where did you learn that? A reasonable debate with any extremism is impossible, it isn’t just fascism. Point is you can’t let an ideology slip into extremism to begin with. If you refuse to debate your position, that’s already a sign of extremism, and calling your counterpart fascist doesn’t really make yourself better.
Democrats are not perfect, but if someone identifies as a Republican in 2023, there is something deeply wrong with their personal beliefs.
Dehumanizing your subject is easy. Republicans do that to people on the left too. Let’s just hate each other till we destroy each other. That’s gonna get a good society going.
One side says, “Kill em all”
The other says “Line those killers against the wall”
—Father John Misty
That’s like half the USA
Your comment implies that people take insult when someone calls them out for supporting a platform that - just to take one example - decides it’s proper to prosecute victims of crime because they also think the government should have jurisdiction over woman’s body and a say in their health and wellbeing.
Is them taking umbrage to valid crisis the real issue here?
You support a platform for many different reasons. For example you really want small government, so what choice do you have? And how do you know that a republican definitely is a pro-lifer? And if he is a prolifer, how do you know he believes government should control woman? You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagined. What you imagined is not your neighbor.
You can’t just paint them all as evil as you imagine
Perfectly illustrates my point. I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”. Branding that as insulting or hateful is just attempting to dodging accountability by disingenuously claiming victim status.
Party allegiance aside, it’s unreasonable and hypocritical for anyone to support a platform with an agenda that will directly and adversely impacts broad swathes of society with an expectation that they will not be directly or adversely impacted by their actions and decisions (which in this case is something as innocuous as simply drawing criticism).
I didn’t paint them as evil, I just criticised them. Big difference, which you seem unable to draw.
Rebranding Nazism as Republicans is not painting them as evil?
I mean I understand as the discussion goes people often confuse themselves with what we are talking about, but the OP of the post is branding republicans as nazis, and nazis are people we don’t need to give any consideration to, these are people we should eliminate from the surface of the earth.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with me saying “I get you have ideological views, but supporting a party that hurts people to win culture wars is not something I am not cool with”.
Hey you want to get things done you have to start somewhere. If you think your republican friends are better off getting a new party started, I guess you can start the conversation there.
But have a conversation, don’t just call them nazis.
The republican platform is fucked up, but if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief.
…is the part of your argument I am responding to. Saying “don’t five people a hard time for supporting fucked up things” is pretty fucked up.
deleted by creator
Amen brother. Everyone should be prepared to be face criticism, because no one is altruistic and never will be if they can’t bear to be challenged about their beliefs.
So something being messed up doesn’t mean you can’t support it. Let’s not even talk about the party, you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it. You support it because, say, you rely on it to achieve your own ideal, or perhaps you just love what it used to be and you want it to be more successful, or whatever.
The platform isn’t a singular thing. I can totally see someone who’s in the party to support small government and having to endure the mess that is abortion and extreme gun rights.
you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it.
Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.
So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?
This belief depends entirely on the state. Other red states don’t give a shit. Kansas and Florida for example haven’t restricted it at all.
Not familiar with those states but after a quick search:
Florida has an an abortion plan that permits prosecution of a women as a third degree felony in some circumstances.
Kansas prohibits abortions after 22 weeks and “a woman who seeks an abortion will be given state-mandated propaganda designed to change her mind. She will then have to look at an ultrasound image, wait 24 hours and pay for the procedure out of her own pocket.”
“Not as bad” isn’t really a W.
Every country limits abortion to some extent. The UK limits it at 24 unless medically necessary. Denmark is at 12 weeks.
The US was unique in that you weren’t permitted to limit it at all due to the supreme court decision.
Some limitations are fine, imo.
During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women’s ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother’s health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and “narrowly tailored” to protecting mothers’ health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state’s interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother’s life or health
In the argument you call out, wasn’t the republican side pushing the decision of abortion legality to state level, putting it more in the hands of the people?
Edit: should clarify, I’m unaffiliated, and just looking for answers.
It used to be up to the individual. The Republicans took it out of the hands of the people.
Yeah they pushed it for state level and when they realized most people even in Republican states didn’t support the ban they went straight to trying to push it federally.
It’s all a grift for the sake of control and power. Acting like it’s anything less when the mask has been removed makes you complicit which is why I say fuck all republicans.
Is the Republicans platform not anti-abortion?
It is, and I don’t know how anyone could disagree with you on that.
We bash the Confederacy for using “states rights” to try and justify slavery. We should bash Republicans for using the same tactics.
Ok I hate that you are beeing down voted. The downvote button is not the “I disagree” button, but more like a “this does not help the discussion” button. And your point was fair and your opinion. If you agree or not does not matter. That’s the point of a discussion for fucks sake.
Pls don’t get to that reddit point of downvoting. The downvote behavior was so nice here the first few weeks, after I joined, but got so much worse after the last very big reddit migration wave.
I agree the original commenter doesn’t deserve to be downvoted. If you disagree then leave a comment. Mass downvoting will build an echo chamber a la reddit
Here’s a little snippet from the documentation of lemmy.ml and lemmy.world. I understand it as meaning that the downvote is actually there to express a negative opinion about something you don’t like.
Lemmy uses a voting system to sort post listings. On the left side of each post there are up and down arrows, which let you upvote or downvote it. You can upvote posts that you like so that more users will see them. Or downvote posts so that they are less likely to be seen. Each post receives a score which is the number of upvotes minus number of downvotes.
deleted by creator
It’s sad isn’t it, how predictable people are.
If they’re respectable, why are they still voluntarily supporting such a fucked up platform?
You can’t have it both ways.
Best I can say, don’t make it so absolute. No one is perfect. Everyone has their share of sin. You are not an exception.
What kind of “respectable” people support a “fucked up” platform?
United Fruit Company —> Chiquita
your meds, take them
Nah I’d rather buy a gun and fight the war.
deleted by creator
Bro they are literally calling to exterminate liberals, LGBT and trans people. If you really want to wait until that jackboot is crushing your windpipe so you can smugly whisper “both sides” with your final breath, that’s your deal. I will call a spade a spade.
deleted by creator
Calling such people Nazis is counter productive and only inflames the current issues at hand.
If they talk like a Nazi, act like a Nazi, or sympathize with Nazis, I’m gonna call them a Nazi. There’s no room to be tolerant here, Nazis have zero place in our society. And those that are Nazis are right wing and hide within the Republican party. That doesn’t make them any less of a Nazi, and we should call them out on it.
deleted by creator
Where did I say that all Republicans are Nazis? Look closely, I said no such thing. I am saying that Nazis hide in the Republican ranks. There are openly white supremacist factions within the Republican Party (i.e. “Christian Identitarians”) that hide behind a veneer of civility. These groups have far greater influence in the Republican Party than ideological extremists on the left have with the Democratic Party.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Why then is extremist, explicitly Nazi rhetoric so pervasive within the Republican ranks? A good example of this is the United The Right rally in Charlottesville. The Nazis present were not condemned by the leader of the Republican party at that time when it would be the easiest thing for him to do. This tacit implicit support emboldens them for future action. Any sensible President would have denounced Nazis and their actions, especially as a woman was killed as a result of their actions.
deleted by creator
Historians have a word for people who joined the Nazi party, openly associated with Nazis and flew the Nazi flag because of economic anxiety, misplaced politics or simple ignorance.
Nazi. The word is Nazi.
If these people do not like what the party currently stands for, then it is incredibly easy to simply not associate with them.
deleted by creator
Dude, literally only one side is calling for the extermination of an entire group of people.
deleted by creator
No, I don’t hate the other guy. I have 30 years worth of experience dealing with well meaning conservatives. I hate Nazis. I can tell the difference. If you can’t because the issue is too close to home, again, that is on you.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The very fact that Manchin/Bernie and McCain/MTG share parties shows the two party system is an issue. Calling every democrat a commie and every Republican a Nazi is retarded.
ah yes. The old tradition of calling you political opponents nazis or communists, or liberals. Wasn’t this the worst part of nazism?
I suspect the worst part of nazism was something different.
deleted by creator
“Wasn’t this the worst part of nazism?”
No, and this is disgusting. The worst part was disenfranchising jews, LGBTQI*-People, communists, disabled people, sinti&roma and others, locking them up under terible conditions and killing millions of them. Deliberatly killing millions of people to get rid of them.
deleted by creator
The Nazis over-generalising Jews was secondary as a simple means to an end of removing a faction that disagrees with Nazis. The correct way to say it was that, to gain and maintain power, the conservatives scapegoated Jews, socialists, and dissidents, to help generate hatred and genocidal tendencies to ultimately overthrow democracy and remove threats to capitalist power. Jews, socialists, and dissidents in general were framed using any random words that sounded good and then killed off. Conservative values are based on using power in any way to achieve their goal; If you think that their contradictory, scapegoating, culture wars make no sense, its because you aren’t looking at it simply enough. they lie and get what they want each step of the way.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you trust the conservative lies about what a communism and socialism is.
deleted by creator
I think i misunderstood you. I assumed you were acting in bad faith. Your grammar is making this a bit more difficult(mine eyes doth protest).
I’m trying to argue in good faith but will admit i assumed you weren’t from previous experiences and half-assed things.
The Nazi ideology to me, is the same as the conservative ideology, and both are simply reduced to tribalism/totalitarianism. Nazi/conservative values are just the truth of ANYTHING for the sake of gaining and maintaining power for the self first, then the tribe(as a means for more self power). The rest is a cover.
If you would like to single out anything we can swap to discussing that so i can show you what i mean. Originally i was talking about you going into minutia about generalising Jews, but the dislike for them was always just fabricated. Generalising or not makes no real difference, same with labeling your enemies as some simple thing you don like to delegitimise them. It’s standard conservative practice to use words in reduced good/bad form. For example, when a conservative talks, they can use socialist, communist, liberal, fascist to describe the same person in the same conversation. The conservative means “I don’t like you” but calls you a name, not realising they have no idea what it means, and you may know it properly and be annoyed with its misuse.
My final point was based around the standard opinions being the conservative lies. How you mentioned soviets as an example of socialism is a standard misunderstanding. They got co-opted the same way Nazis originally did. Both had some socialists attracted and in both cases they seemed to have been purged in favour of the totalitarians.
I’m going out for an hour and wanted to reply, but felt this reply should be deleted as it’s pretty meh. I sent the reply either way thinking you’d prefer one, sorry for the mess.
deleted by creator
As for my grammar: Sometimes I have trouble putting my thoughts on paper. I half blame it on being “noschooled” where I was given a lot less writing assignments (I will note that it wasn’t all bad, as I channeled all that time into programming and computers. Thus making me better in my field than my peers. I think it has pros and cons, I plan to better explain my thoughts in a later comment). I also heavily use autocomplete. However I’m normally a better writer if I give myself time to review my work (I have gone through and made multiple edits on my comments). The other half I blame on me rushing to explain my ideas. I’m not used to the forum format and I was rushing myself before the post became irrelevant. I plan to take more time in the future when commenting on forums regardless of whether my comment becomes irrelevant. As I now see that harm it causes, and how I appear to others.
Thanks for the effort, It’s hard to put text down how we want, which is why I wanted to delete my last comment and rewrite it later haha. I was a bit the same and am learning as I go too. :) As long as you have paragraphs and the ideas come out how you want them then I’m happy.
As to Nazis using their ideology as a cover. It is fully plausible and I do not have any retorts to that statement.
I used to hear people from your POV before, and thought they were exaggerating, but the more I thought about it, the more I will noticed it’s not hyperbolic.
I have a habit of avoiding good/bad words such as Nazi/Woke/Socalist/Etc unless I can prove your arguments line up. I find that most people will shutdown around these words. Most republicans I speak with will ignore everything you have to say, if they hear a phrase like “Republicans are Nazis”. It’s also why it is so hard to talk with them.
I completely agree. I’ve had some scary experiences, easily breaking through conservatives defences, if I just use neutral language. The downside is that skilled people can make fast progress if they explain and agree on terminology, which on the internet is probably best avoided most of the time.
I still think it is wise to not address republicans as Nazis, as this often rings as a generalization that causes the conversation to be unproductive. I still think it is best to address their beliefs on their own merit; as I believe the best way to expose an idiot, is to explain how they are an idiot in a calm manner. Only describing the nature of Nazism and how it effects their voter base, emphasizing that not all republicans are necessarily Nazis. However, I have both learned from your comment and realized how I was not following my own beliefs in fear of being ignored. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me.
You are wiser than I am lol. I know it leads to nothing of value, but feel it needs to be associated as hard as we can, as most of their actions are based on conformity and Pavlovian conditioning(they do the inverse to an enemy I guess. I should stop).
The problem with the latter half of your paragraph, is that most conservatives don’t really believe what they say. They conform to their tribal values. It’s partly due to them having a bad foundation, leading to any thoughts ending in cognitive dissonance, then frustration, then anger, then either changing subjects or abuse.
Underneath the average conservative is an insecure, submissive, desperate for attention person that needs a better tribe to defect to, and the best way to win one, is to invite them to a friendly group of anti-conservatives. Some stealth might be required.
Conservatives tend to learn through direct actions, not rational discussion, so talking with them is only beneficial when dealing with an audience unless you know specific tactics.
Nighty night, thanks for the chat.
note: Most of what I say, such as “conservatives” is meant to be a generalisation and not an absolute thing for all. Sometimes I will clear it up and sometimes not. Sometimes I don’t even know I did it. I try to use “-ism” terminology to talk about the actual ideology.
Calling the NAZIs conservatives doesn’t quite fit the history of Germany. Conservative is an ideology that depends on time and place. For example conservatives in Russia are pro-communism.
In the case of the NAZIs they were progressive nationalist socialists advocating for a “third way" that was not liberalism or communism, which is why they campaigned hard as anti-marxists and anti-capitalists. Anti-semitistm was of course a major part of this as well and part of the reason Jewish conspiracy theories seem to simultaneously be associated with both marxism and capitalism.
The key overlap between Fascism, Nazism , and conservatism is that they are all exactly the correct definition on recent conservatism which is best described by the following quote from Frank Wilhoit:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Conservative values in the modern sense is
taking power, while saying whatever the hell helps you take power. It applies perfectly to Nazis and Fascists historically.If you zoom in on Nazi actions, you see clearly they have the same style as modern conservatives. I hope you don’t misunderstand, I’m not calling Nazis conservatives, I’m calling conservatives NAZIS; And by that I mean the way they use power. ANYTHING to gain and maintain power, the rest is an illusion.
In the case of the NAZIs they were progressive nationalist socialists advocating for a “third way" that was not liberalism or communism, which is why they campaigned hard as anti-marxists and anti-capitalists. Anti-semitistm was of course a major part of this as well and part of the reason Jewish conspiracy theories seem to simultaneously be associated with both marxism and capitalism.
Nazis acted as standard capitalists. They busted unions, they worked alongside corporations without really controlling them in a bad way for them etc. We have tons of jokes about old Nazi companies like Hugo boss that just mysteriously got overlooked and thrived for some time after WW2. They never lost their identity or profits, they gained a lot. It’s the people that lost, as always. Fascist(as we call it today) actions are really just capitalist democracies, that throw away the illusion of democracy, more specifically, they can no longer maintain the illusion - see conservatism.
As for Russians, I’ve been saying this a lot but… I don’t speak Russian, I don’t speak Mandarin, Haven’t visited them, I haven’t done the levels of research needed for me to have an opinion on this matter. There is also a wall of massive propaganda making it 10x harder to validate information. When people talk about modern Russia or China they are talking out their asses and the conversation devolves into shit-flinging. So I shut it down in my very first response. It’s a start of a bad-faith conversation at least 90% of the time. I’m not saying you would be in the 90%, just that I’m opting out of that part of the convo.
I don’t really know how to respond to this other than to say your worldview is firmly grounded in ideology.
deleted by creator
I like those. Thanks!
This is seriously funny! Too bad so many commenters are apologists.
How is Microsoft and Target rebrands when it literally still says Microsoft and Target?
The brand is the corporate iconography, typography, etc. Not necessarily the name.
Targets was a minor one but still a good update! The new logo is much more eye catching, the red is what you immediately notice first, whereas the old one your attention was divided between the name text and circular logo. The new logo is also much larger and uniform in colour making it easier to remember.
I was thinking the same thing until I saw the punchline. Target and Microsoft were just fodder here.
I still don’t understand how so many people equate the party that supports free speech with the Nazis, and equate the party that wants to disarm the poor with the freedom fighters.
Yeah, right, “free speech,” unless you write a book with two guys kissing, then it must be banned from schools. Or tear up a photo on TV. Or protest wars in the Middle East. Or kneel during the national anthem. They are all for Cancel Culture and silencing people who speak out against them and their ideas.
The only time conservatives actually get up in arms about “free speech,” which they don’t actually know what it even is, is when they get banned on Twitter for spewing lies and hate. So get out of here with your “supports free speech” nonsense.
deleted by creator
Cancel culture has nothing to do with free speech. One is people deciding not to support a company. The other is the government threatening to steal more of a companies money if that company doesn’t silence a person.
You mean the party banning books? That free speech party?
When you say banning books, do you mean removing them from a public school library?
Don’t forget local town/city libraries!
You mean in the kids section? I couldnt find any references to the adults section having books removed in the public libraries.
Banning books is very different to removing them from the school curriculum. I’m sure you know that though
Definitely curious how the party actively working to ban books and prevent people from expressing themselves artistically in public is supporting free speech.
Removing a book with graphic illustrations of blowjobs from a high school library is about as sensible as you can get.
So a teenager can engage in sex, but can’t read about it? Do I have that correct?
Minors can’t consent.
When you say ban books, do you mean removing them from a public school library?
Im not sure what you mean by prevent people from expressing themselves artistically in public. I’m happy to be enlightened.
Drag .
Good propoganda and PR campaigns.
Don’t worry, the grownups understand.
Walt Disney would be proud
The confederates were (southern) democrats
… that became Republicans in the 60s?
But that’s not the history I want to remember!!!
They’ll say this is a lie and a conspiracy. I’ve had this argument many times.
Do you not know what actually happened and want people to tell you? Or are you just being willfully ignorant?
tHe CoNfEdErAtEs WeRe DeMoCrAtS
More important than the name of their party is their ideology. Conservative.
It was supposed to be a commentary on calling it a rebrand. It’s like if Coca-Cola rebranded to Pepsi.
Conservative is not always bad, but take it too far and you end up with fascists and stalinists.
When have conservatives ever been on the right side of history?
The situation was mostly middle-ground, but the US in Cold war? In the USSR, the far left policies gave way for the Far right stalinists to take charge when Lennon died.
The problems with the USSR were a case of leftists making mistakes that allowed reactionaries to take over, not a case of conservatives being on the right side of history.
true but the party switch was a thing
It wasn’t really a switch, more like both parties having an ideological shift. A switch implies they didn’t change core beliefs at all and just flipped, when many of the beliefs of both parties changed.
The parties never switched. The Democrats just started pandering to the minorities they’ve been fighting against the entire time because they were losing a lot of votes.
Republicans freed the slaves. Republicans ended segregation.
Democrats just keep promising change that never comes.
Look, I’m pretty centrist and do my best to split my vote for both parties if policies align, but you can’t ignore or handwave away the southern strategy. Republicans have been pandering to conservatives for decades.
Besides, many of their policies have been implemented. The change you say hasn’t occured definitely has, just mostly at state levels. Obamacare is still pretty successful.
The federal government has barely done shit in ages.
Yet which modern party flies the confederate flag?
deleted by creator
Well this is about as far off as it gets.
