Bullshit. You don't know anything about the history of Nazi Germany. The fact is that as time went on it became more and more socialist.
All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......A more accurate representation of political ideologies and Fascism:The Political Compass
Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.
Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.
Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!
But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.
Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.
Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.
The Political Compass
A good breakdown of differences between Left and Right Wing:
Left Wing vs Right Wing - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.
Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.
This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.
Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.
With left = big government, and
Right = small government
Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.
Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....
It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....
All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......A more accurate representation of political ideologies and Fascism:The Political Compass
Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.
Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.
Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!
But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.
Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.
Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.
The Political Compass
A good breakdown of differences between Left and Right Wing:
Left Wing vs Right Wing - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.
Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.
This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.
Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.
With left = big government, and
Right = small government
Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.
Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....
It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....
Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view
That graph is a piece of propaganda intended to deceive. Below is how the political plain is properly divided:
That's really not very different than the model he posted.
And both yours and his are more accurate than the linear ones.
rightwing is ALWAYS smaller government....All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......A more accurate representation of political ideologies and Fascism:The Political Compass
Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.
Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.
Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!
But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.
Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.
Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.
The Political Compass
A good breakdown of differences between Left and Right Wing:
Left Wing vs Right Wing - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.
Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.
This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.
Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.
With left = big government, and
Right = small government
Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.
Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....
It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....
Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view.
Right-wing politics - Wikipedia
Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences [10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]
The meaning of right-wing "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[29] According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists.[30][page needed]
Roger Eatwell and Neal O'Sullivan divide the Right into five types: 'reactionary', 'moderate', 'radical', 'extreme', and 'new'.[31] Chip Berlet argues that each of these "styles of thought" are "responses to the left", including liberalism and socialism, which have arisen since the 1789 French Revolution.[32] The 'reactionary right' looks toward the past and is "aristocratic, religious and authoritarian".[32] The 'moderate right', typified by the writings of Edmund Burke, is tolerant of change, provided it is gradual, and accepts some aspects of liberalism, including the rule of law and capitalism, although it sees radical laissez-faire and individualism as harmful to society. Often the moderate right promotes nationalism and social welfare policies.[33] 'Radical right' is a term developed after World War II to describe groups and ideologies such as McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, Thatcherism, and the Republikaner Party. Eatwell stresses that this use has "major typological problems" and that the term "has also been applied to clearly democratic developments." [34] The radical right includes right-wing populism and various other subtypes.[35] Eatwell argues that the 'extreme right' has four traits: "1) anti-democracy; 2) nationalism; 3) racism; and 4) the strong state".[36] The 'New Right' consists of the liberal conservatives, who stress small government, free markets, and individual initiative.[37]
Other authors make a distinction between the centre-right and the far right.[38] Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (though they may accept government regulation to control monopolies), private property rights, and a limited welfare state (for example government provision of education and medical care). They support conservatism and economic liberalism, and oppose socialism and communism. The phrase far right, by contrast, is used to describe those who favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and often to criminalize other ethnic groups or religions.[39][40][41][42][43] Typical examples of leaders to whom the far right label is often applied are Francisco Franco in Spain and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.[44][45][46][page needed][47][48] The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethnic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue.[49] The phrase is also used to describe support for ethnic nationalism.
Left–right politics - Wikipedia
Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."[15]
Political scientists and other analysts regard the Left as including anarchists,[16][17] communists, socialists and social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality are also usually linked with left-wing organizations.[21] Trade unionism is also associated with the left.[22]
Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including christian democrats, classical liberals, conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries, and traditionalists.
A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[26] Nationalism is often regarded as characteristic of the right, although nationalism is also sometimes present in the left.[27] Populism is regarded as having both left wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism, right-wing populist).[28] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[2
Don’t ever call Hitler a socialist
...“There is an accepted mainstream view that the origins of Nazism lie in socialism, or that they have common roots,” Frosh wrote in a piece for one right-wing website. Her definition of the “accepted mainstream” turned out to be something about Hayek written on Wikipedia.
“I believe Nazisim [sic] and Fascism to have far more in common with socialism than conservatism,” wrote the blogger Iain Dale. “The clue is the phrase ‘National Socialism’.” On which basis, the German Democratic Republic was presumably a flourishing democracy.
According to the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, “Almost everyone in those days accepted that Fascism had emerged from the revolutionary left.” Which is true, so long as you ignore what happened to Hitler’s old comrades during the Night of the Long Knives.
Anyone who has studied Hitler’s rise to power knows he was no socialist. He was an opportunist, even a political schizophrenic. Which served him well, because in a Weimar Republic struggling – and failing catastrophically – to come to terms with military humiliation, a crisis of national identity and an economic implosion, ideology was a moveable feast. Indeed, it was so moveable, it opened the door to Hitler’s rise to power. “Who cares what he thinks?” Germany said to herself. “He’ll do for now.”
Pin the ideology on the Führer is a fun game. Actually, it’s quite a tasteless game. But we can all play it. “The government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organised by the state, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property,” Hitler told the Reichstag in 1933. Not exactly the words of a man about to break into a rendition of “The Red Flag”.
But does it matter? Yes, it does, actually. Hitler wasn’t a socialist, nor was he a conservative. He was a political mutation. And to try to place him anywhere on the conventional political spectrum is not just to abuse history but to play a dangerous game with the future.
In fact...it got less and less socialist as time went on...Nazi Party | political party, Germany
On July 14, 1933, his government declared the Nazi Party to be the only political party in Germany. On the death of Hindenburg in 1934 Hitler took the titles of Führer (“Leader”), chancellor, and commander in chief of the army, and he remained leader of the Nazi Party as well. Nazi Party membership became mandatory for all higher civil servants and bureaucrats, and the gauleiters became powerful figures in the state governments. Hitler crushed the Nazi Party’s left, or socialist-oriented, wing in 1934, executing Ernst Röhm and other rebellious SA leaders at this time. Thereafter, Hitler’s word was the supreme and undisputed command in the party. The party came to control virtually all political, social, and cultural activities in Germany. Its vast and complex hierarchy was structured like a pyramid, with party-controlled mass organizations for youth, women, workers, and other groups at the bottom, party members and officials in the middle, and Hitler and his closest associates at the top wielding undisputed authority.
Once Hitler consolidated power, he kicked our killed the socialist members in his party, specifically repudiated socialism, maintained private property rights as well as capitalism as long as it "served the national interests" - in fact, the complete opposite of socialism.
All the racist whites I see here in DC are democrats....not sure where that was going....are there kkk meetings here in DC, no....First rule of partisanship: Leave your brain at the door.First rule of thumb when dealing with fascism: resist the propaganda......A more accurate representation of political ideologies and Fascism:The Political Compass
Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.
Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.
Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!
But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.
Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.
Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.
The Political Compass
A good breakdown of differences between Left and Right Wing:
Left Wing vs Right Wing - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Second rule of partisanship: Education is evil.
Discussions like these always end up in exercises of protecting one's turf. The more a person invests their ego in their party affiliation nor sense of left/right ideological schism, the more fiercely they deny anything negative attached to such.
This thread was started by one such, whose understanding of the world is extremely limited. If you told this boy that liking dogs was a "conservative" trait, he would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure. In turn, this thread has attracted some who are resolutely conservative, who ALSO indulge in similar processes. It become a game of label first and then react against the label.
Yes, the early kkk was composed of democrats and yes, the current white racists are mostly republican, if anything. By the same token, racist blacks are more likely democrat. When people have a dog in the race, such matters often escape them, however.
With left = big government, and
Right = small government
Then fascism is of the left as it is a big government system.
Since conservatives are small government, and liberals are big government, there is no label, it's just a choice of the people participating. Fascism cannot exist with small, limited, or no government, while conservatism can.....
It just is what it is, and the truth is shocking to many democrats and liberals....
Rightwing is not always "small government". That's seems more of an American view.
Right-wing politics - Wikipedia
Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences [10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."[14]
The meaning of right-wing "varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies."[29] According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists.[30][page needed]
Roger Eatwell and Neal O'Sullivan divide the Right into five types: 'reactionary', 'moderate', 'radical', 'extreme', and 'new'.[31] Chip Berlet argues that each of these "styles of thought" are "responses to the left", including liberalism and socialism, which have arisen since the 1789 French Revolution.[32] The 'reactionary right' looks toward the past and is "aristocratic, religious and authoritarian".[32] The 'moderate right', typified by the writings of Edmund Burke, is tolerant of change, provided it is gradual, and accepts some aspects of liberalism, including the rule of law and capitalism, although it sees radical laissez-faire and individualism as harmful to society. Often the moderate right promotes nationalism and social welfare policies.[33] 'Radical right' is a term developed after World War II to describe groups and ideologies such as McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, Thatcherism, and the Republikaner Party. Eatwell stresses that this use has "major typological problems" and that the term "has also been applied to clearly democratic developments." [34] The radical right includes right-wing populism and various other subtypes.[35] Eatwell argues that the 'extreme right' has four traits: "1) anti-democracy; 2) nationalism; 3) racism; and 4) the strong state".[36] The 'New Right' consists of the liberal conservatives, who stress small government, free markets, and individual initiative.[37]
Other authors make a distinction between the centre-right and the far right.[38] Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (though they may accept government regulation to control monopolies), private property rights, and a limited welfare state (for example government provision of education and medical care). They support conservatism and economic liberalism, and oppose socialism and communism. The phrase far right, by contrast, is used to describe those who favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and often to criminalize other ethnic groups or religions.[39][40][41][42][43] Typical examples of leaders to whom the far right label is often applied are Francisco Franco in Spain and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.[44][45][46][page needed][47][48] The US Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethnic or religious minorities and may be dedicated to a single issue.[49] The phrase is also used to describe support for ethnic nationalism.
Left–right politics - Wikipedia
Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."[15]
Political scientists and other analysts regard the Left as including anarchists,[16][17] communists, socialists and social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality are also usually linked with left-wing organizations.[21] Trade unionism is also associated with the left.[22]
Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including christian democrats, classical liberals, conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries, and traditionalists.
A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[26] Nationalism is often regarded as characteristic of the right, although nationalism is also sometimes present in the left.[27] Populism is regarded as having both left wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism, right-wing populist).[28] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[2
One of the most significant difference between fascism and communism is how industry (capitalism for simplicity only) is controlled. Communism owns the machine while fascism owns the people around the machine....
Wiki gets bad rap for some flaws, but even RWNJs use it when it suits them.
Proves that political partisans are hypocritical asshats regardless of political affiliation.
Yep. Folks car. So you do believe China is a Republic and that North Korea is a Democratic Republic. Awesome. Figured you did.
