Right Wing regimes vs Left Wing regimes

>nationalist socialist
Would this not imply a left wing, ie socialist state? Can commie be nationalist?

That's the only accurate part of that shit chart

>fascism
>right wing

Looks like someone doesn't understand what right wing means.

Nice bait fagbrain, fascism is extreme rightism and if you think it's the left you're retarded.

Right wing socialism exists, why do you think so many avowed marxists turned fascist in the 20th century?

Anyway, Nazi socialism was influenced by Spenglers conception of "Prussian Socialism". Hitler purged the left wing of the party because they posed a threat to the german industry which he needed for upcoming war. See Strasserism and National Bolshevism

The post above mine was arguing that point, I don't know enough to discuss it. I thought that in the specific case of Nazi Germany, they were opposed to socialization

...

>left right spectrum
>any year
kys

>fascism is extreme rightism

It's actually the third position, neither left or right. Extreme rightism is shit like Maistrean reaction.

Fascism is radical centrist.

Educate yourself.

But I thought public ownership was a requisite part of socialism? Am I mistaken?

Every time I see this image I wanna die of cancer

Also, left wing regimes were far worse, although they couldn't be classified as 'leftist' (I say this as a fairly right-wing person myself).

I think you're talking about the bottom-top/left-right scale, right? I think it's far more accurate than the traditional left-right scale, but it ends up putting people who come from extremely different philosophies very close to eachother (for example, the libertarian left and the libertarian right are constantly bickering amongst themselves, as each side view themselves as the "only true libertarians"). I think the problem comes when you attempt to assign a value to things like how "libertarian" or "progressive" someone is. In reality, political opinion is more nuanced than that. Political opinion is a lot more of a series of large, complex venn diagrams than a graph.

> public ownership was a requisite part of socialism

That's what Rohm and Strasser wanted.

American education.

Guess I misinterpreted your image, it seems to imply that Hitler also practiced National Socialism despite being against public ownership. Let's go back to then - how is Nazism socialist if it doesn't support public ownership? Doesn't that support the idea that Hitler tacked 'socialist' on just to garner public support?

The origins of fascism lies in authoritarian marxism. Read Sorel and the rise of intellectual fascism in Italy

Nazi ideology was officially anti-capitalist, it opposed the free movement of capital and ultimately should be subject to a strong Nation (as opposed to the class in marxism). Hitler of course compromised in this because he felt he needed the leaders of industry on his side to run a war, the left wing of the party was a great threat to this when Ernst Rohm said The National revolution had been won but the second Social revolution was yet to come. Still, Nazi germany remained a high centrally planned economy with massive labour iniatives. fascist Italy probably represents a truer practice of collectivist economic ideology

>Anarchy is slavery
What the fuck are you smoking? Anarchy in its purest form is the opposite of slavery.

Ignoring the part where I hit you on the head and enslave you because lol no laws, sure.

ah, answers this Thanks.

No. Hitler didn't even create national socialism, he only joined an existing movement created by Draxler and took over.

Fixd

Well if you join a movement and change their ideas it's hardly the same movement, is it?
breaks it down

>That pic

>Democrats
>Liberal

You stated that Hitler tacked on the socialist moniker, which did not happen. The socialist moniker was there even before Hitler.

And if Mein Kampf is any indication, then Hitler was a socialist at least initially, until he got compromised by the industrialists and the Junkers.

Right-Left spectrum only as merit if you treat it as solely a measure of the amount of government as a whole. In this regard, fuck the left.

In a sense he did, but it was also an effort to reclaim "socialism" in his defination. Nazism did institute nationalisation of much industry in the hands of the state, but in the corporatist sense.

Beautiful

Left wing regimes have murdered more of their own citizens.

You faggots need to get Albigensian Crusade'd again.

FUCKING BURGERS STOP FUCKING UP POLITICAL TERMINOLOGY REEEEEE
CLASSICAL LIBERALS = LIBERTARIANS
WHAT YOU CALL LIBERALS ARE PROGRESSIVES AND SOCIALISTS

Classic liberals still buy into Progessivism

So it sounds like socialism was indeed a core of the party in general, especially the preceding DAP, but Hitler compromised in its execution and fell short of implementing socialism - is that fair?

Yes.

My god that image

>things I don't like are American

>anarchism to the right

literally everybody in the mainstream is a liberal

Why?

Socialist anarchism is Anarchism in name only and Anarco-capitalisim is definitely right wing. The spectrum makes sense then, more government on the left, less government on the right.

>Socialist anarchism is Anarchism in name only

all anarchism until like the 1950's was left wing you retarde
you don't actually care about reality and just want to feel moral yet edgy for supporting muh freedums and have the terms reflect that
historically anarchism has always been socialist in some way, this is literal facts

...

>let's coerce people into doing what we want by force, but it's okay as long as we don't call it a state!

Anarcho communism has to be the most braindead, self-contradictory ideology ever invented.

>Rothbard invented anarchism

Don't you have to go sell your first born in the free baby market to a pedophile right now?

the only type of anarchism that really isn't coercive is the individualist kind that says that the individual shouldn't be ruled and doesn't go further than that into specific economics

Look retards just because Socialist anarchism was a thing and came first doesn't mean it makes any sense, we can discard it as anything serious.
Right wing anarchism is coherent regardless if you agree with it or not and in the context of this thread it makes sense to be on the right.

dun woray, the collective will save u comrade!

But libertarians and ancaps are left wing.

Communists and "an"-coms are right wing.

but it's not coherent at all, the only coherent anarchists are people like max stirner who don't give a shit about what goes on outside the individual because any political ideology that applies to anybody other than *you* is inherently coercive because it says that what people are doing is wrong and needs to be changed

The whole point of Marxism is to pull people together, as Marx felt that people's natural state was a state of connection and he felt that the current state of the world was very much against this innate state. Hitler felt very similarly but had a much different solution. Hitler's socialism was called socialism because he wanted to frame socialism in a different light, while still maintaining the main goal of driving people together, not apart.

>anarchism is exclusively a left-wing philosophy
anyway, both are shit

>horseshoe political spectrum
Disgusting.

You are basically taking a contemporary political view and then trying to simplify everything to a stupid degree by grouping all opposition to your position together.

Sage and report, I'll call it in

>100 years of political tradition don't matter because I disagree the ideology

This shit is like a Mormon calling his faith the one true version of Christianity and that all the others don't make sense to him because they don't have ancient Hebrew submarines and you don't get to become a polygamist God, therefore Catholicism and the like don't matter.

Generally nazism refers to Hitler's ideology, not that stuff all the socialists purged from the Nazi party during the Night of The Long Knives wanted.

Left and right are antiquitated political diichotemies from the French Revolution that was only meant to describe traditional conservativism (which included monarchists and Tories) with liberalism (Republicanism and Whigism).

Communism, Anarchism and Fascism don't really fall onto the scale neatly.

Socialism is in some sense far left because it's advocates for a deviation from the traditional system of land ownership. However Communism as a whole cant be grouped as either left or right as its core principles revolve a revolt against both groups with lots of variation as to what is considered "true" communism.

Nazism is just a subgroup of Fascism, which is in itself not right wing but is considered to be because it developed as a reactionary response to Bolshevism. You have plenty of Fascists who use Marxist rhetoric in their speeches, but the core idealogy revolves around he creation of a militarized nation state.

Anarchism is hugely divergent with almost no constant theme apart from the abolishment of government. One could place it anywhere on the spectrum.

What the fuck is going on in this thread what the fuck. What a fucking mind fuck jesus fucking christ americans fucking stop it for fuck's sake

daily reminder that nazis were socialists

>right left axis
politicalcompass.org/

>Anarcho
>Capitalism

Where do you side, Veeky Forums?