Every single leader after WW2 in western world is a center-left/ultra-leftist retard

>Lenin's NEP and Stalin after WW2 were classical neo-liberal policies to counter balance the previous years.
>Neo liberalism is nothing but invest the taxpayer's money in the private sector instead of spending in the public sector.
these statements contradict each other

Leftist understanding of economy
1) Government should as money from banks to pay for welfare
2) people should pay tax to pay the loan
3) if tax is not enough you ask more loans
4) when bank ask money back you scream the ''evil capitalists are trying to kill the working class.''

I don't agree with viewing the political spectrum this way but to be fair, Spencer bothered to get a Hitler haircut. I can understand why people would assume his views are literally Hitler's. Which actually, they might be for all I know. I know he says he just wants a white ethnostate, but I suspect maybe what he really wants is a bit more extreme than that.

You're the same as everyone, literally fucking retarded. Everything you don't agree with "lefty". My mother is turning like you, are you 57 years old?

>Stalin
>Lenin
>Neo-Liberal
No you fucking retard. Learn the definitions before using grown-up terms.

And no I won't even bother to look them up for you, just know that what you wrote is incredibly retarded.

Yeltsin was Neoliberal. Thatcher was neoliberal. Not fucking Stalin or Lenin.
GTFO the board.

Only in your pathetic marxist mind.
In the neoliberal stage the tax is still collected but the government spend less on ''social welfare'' to use the money to spend on the private sector.
Stalin post-WW2 was some good 10 years of state budget recovering the war economy by investing in factories in the private sector (either owned by russian oligarchs jews or communist party members).

>muh haircut
Not significant. Spencer is quite likely a literal homosexual who hangs around trannies, jews and mixed race pornstars. He also banned other nationalists from his events for being too homophobic. If Hitler was still alive he would have this faggot sent into Auschwitz.

They weren't but Lenin's NEP and Stalin post-WW2 were neoliberal policies.

I had no idea Stalin privatized Russia's industries, kept a budget balance, cut taxes to the bone, promoted free trade and the Washington Consensus please tell me more.

i think the whole left vs right thing is a bunch of bullshit. after ww2 the anglos stepped in and said enough of this shit, we're not having another world war, let's try to all unite so it never happens again. obviously this attempt to unite people under a union has been subverted by banks and corporations and manipulated to put their interests before the people

>neoliberals
>balanced budgets
Top kek. Reagan was one of the biggest deficit spenders.

Hitler was quite likely a literal sex pervert who drove his cousin to kill herself and hung around homosexuals, degenerate playboys, and autistic chicken farmers.

The fathers of the modern oligarchs got rich right after WW2 and more rich after Stalin died.
He who thinks it was the late 80s Russia that made them rich is an idiot.
True some families were rich even before the first WW1 but if you make a map of the top 30 richest men in Russia their got filthy rich under Stalin and Kruschev.

...

I've came to the conclusion marxists are like rats. People can dream about a world free of rats but everyone knows it's impossible

>making shit up is a proper analogy
The only homosexual he hanged around was Ernst Roehm and he didn't actually tolerate his faggotry.

Examples?

Spencer is such a neonazi he made two public speeches in support of an indian democrat politician (who is a feminist btw)

>Lenin's NEP and Stalin after WW2 were classical neo-liberal policies
>Neo liberalism is nothing but invest the taxpayer's money in the private sector instead of spending in the public sector.
Please ask your parents permission before going online.

Hitler himself was a sexual weirdo who never had one normal sexual relationship. Yes, he was technically straight, but that's about the only standard thing about his sexuality.

Yeah, and Hitler allied with Japs and Arabs. Nazis are always opportunistic. They're willing to do ANYTHING as a tactical move.

stupid fucking Americans

Holy shit

>when your statement is retarded for multiple reasons

>Neoliberalism is left-wing
>Pinochet is right wing
Reallymakesyouthink.jpg

How fucking deluded are you?
You are misusing every fucking term you say. That is some objectivist level retardation.

>He made deals with japs and arabs
>not with communist russia

That's my point. Spencer is only "nazi" in the sense that he's bringing the idea of race into political discourse. Milo Yabadabadoopoulos is only "extreme right" in the fact he supports Trumps and criticizes feminism. I'm saying leftists are so used to fringe leftist politics they view actual moderates as extremists.

>never had one normal sexual relationship
Eva Braun.

>Eva Braun
It wasn't a normal relationship.

Yeah, also with communist Russia. I was making a point about how Spencer supporting a non-white politician is irrelevant. Nazis are always willing to do seemingly non-Nazi things for tactical reasons.

Says who?

Spencer is closer to Hitler than Sanders is to Stalin.

I don't know, man. Normal sane non-Nazi people don't get Hitler haircuts.
You can bring race into political discourse without getting a Hitler haircut.
You can be a white nationalist without getting a Hitler haircut.
You can support a white ethnostate without getting a Hitler haircut.
Spencer got a motherfucking Hitler haircut.

Spencer is such a "nazi" he's basically a zionist.
>he does non-nazi things but who cares he's still nazi somehow

I think you might actually be retarded.

Spencer is far closer to Sanders than either of them is to Hitler or Stalin.

Pretty much every historian. Germans didn't even know they were together.

Didn't the Nazis in the 30s also talk about supporting Zionism?
I'm not about to trust that a guy who supports a white ethnostate AND got a Hitler haircut AND did a Roman salute isn't a Nazi, and I don't know why anyone would.

They are political prostitutes like marxists
what's new?

Considering some modern capitalist states, it isn't that odd to say it. There are circles that see any government act as left wing. Political spectrum is defined by the political class and if there isn't a real left wing(socialist) opposition, even historically right wing positions seem radical leftist to them.

You got some more of that logical argument where that came from?

No they didn't. They wanted to deport all Jews to Madagascar and prevent them from contacting the outside world. If you read Mein Kampf or NS German literature, zionism is the last thing you will find there.

Nothing, but it seems some people in this thread don't understand this fact.
Yes, Bolsheviks and Nazis are always willing to play nice when it's in their tactical interests. That doesn't mean they act nice when they take power.

I'm curious what your "argument" is actually based on. I didn't know people had detailed information about Hitler's bedroom habits.

And Spencer is fine with Jews in Israel, but something tells me he's not a fan of Jews in the US (although unlike Hitler, he probably prefers them to blacks and hispanics)

>If anything, the USSR's collapse simply made the informal control more formal.
>For a society that was supposed to be anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, anti-elitist, and fair, the Soviet Union's post-Stalin period was the opposite. A few well-connected people, primarily the Nomenklatura, made and hoarded a lot of money while the rest of society stagnated. To understand how and why this happened, we need to understand Soviet society of this period. There are two main factors that come into play: the long period of stability, unusual for Russia, and the release from Stalin's repression. Mancur Olson predicts that right after a social upheaval, small groups of individuals with similar interests will be the first to form because it is easier for them to overcome problems of collective action. This indeed happened in this period. But Mancur Olson also predicts that over time, larger, more inclusive interest groups will form. This did not happen in the Soviet Union. Why not?

People really think the oligarchs were born in late 80s. Like their families were poor and hungry and suddenly they bought russian industries

sras.org/privately_enforced_capitalism

If "muh haircut" is a logical argument to you then I guess I don't have any.

Point is Spencer is okay with Jews living in their own sovereign country. Hitler would've slapped your shit for having such ideas.

>The oligarchs are a group of Russians who control much of the Russian economy. There are two main types of oligarch: the Nomenklatura oligarch who came from the mid-level to upper ranks of the Communist party, and business oligarchs who took advantage of the Wild West climate of Perestroika and reform. The Nomenklatura oligarchs seem to have won with the election of President Putin and the subsequent crackdown on some of the business oligarchs.
>The Nomenklatura oligarchs largely took their positions in the parallel economy and their political power and brought this to the market economy. The business oligarchs were able to make lots of money initially and then emulate the Nomenklatura oligarchs. Both types of oligarchs gained their enterprises through rigged privatization auctions and outright stealing.

He obviously got the haircut because of its political connotations.
He obviously did the Roman salute because of its political connotations.
Come on, don't be an idiot. You can argue that he's just a troll, if you want. You can argue that he's an FBI plant. What you can't argue, with any degree of believability, is that he just randomly happened to get that haircut because he thought it looked good, with no reference to its political meaning.

Like 90% of the oligarchs were Jewish.

His haircut is trying to combine WW2 german haircut with capitalist clothing and fashion.
Either a FBI plant or some low level rich boy with double digits IQ

>Point is Spencer is okay with Jews living in their own sovereign country.
Is he, or is he just keeping mum on his real beliefs for the sake of security and disinformation?

You're actually saying that fashion is somehow more significant than actual declared policies, which makes you a 89 IQ fucktard and I shouldn't even bother replying to this garbage.

He is. Stated as much numerous times. His mentor and the guy who created the alt-right moniker was also a paleocon jew named Gottfried.

>post-Stalin period
You said it started after WW2.

>The nomemklature wasn't powerful under Stalin
It's way more difficult to name the ones who got rich under Stalin because he would either kill them or burn the documents. After all the world needs a anti-capitalist model.

>Lenisn's NEP and Stalin
>spending on the private sector
yeah no
>russian oligarchs or communists party members
one in the same, you couldn't not be one.
Also all production was state directed. There was no private industrial sector.
>jews
they were persecuted and scapegoated
Im not saying you're wrong abou neoliberals, im saying your wrong about communists Russia. It wasn't neoliberal, (it ignored the personal liberty aspect completely and was collectivized and not very privatized at all) and even if it was, its repressive government was the main point of its wrongness, not its economic policy (though it didnt help)

That haircut isn't just fashion, it's political language. I don't understand why you trust what comes out of his mouth so much. Obviously, if he came out as a full-blown Nazi in modern America it would result in even more negative consequences for him than what he's faced so far. So he plays this game where he simultaneously acts like he's just a white nationalist and nothing more than that, but at the same time he signals to more hard-core extremists with things like his haircut.
This is completely typical modern neo-Nazi behavior. They've realized that by keeping people guessing about the extent of their extremism, they can avoid the David Duke trap (of being stuck getting

>It's way more difficult to name the ones who got rich under Stalin because he would either kill them or burn the documents.
Exactly. It started after Stalin's death. I'm sure many Stalinists lost their influence and power after 1956.

>muuuh haircut

Jews suffered under Stalin but that's what they got for working for him. Some jews were happily working for him. In 1934, 38% of high positions under Stalin were jews.
The truth is the jews were used by Stalin, some got rich in the process and didn't mind killing jews (and a lot of goys).

>noooo argument
Yes, a man who wants a white ethnostate and has a Hitler haircut is totally not a Nazi.
Sure thing.

>It started after Stalin's death
The article says that Stalin repression of some parts in Russia paved the way for an informal economy to grow with lots of richs who were tolerated because they were providing economy comfort.
You didn't even read it.

Are you American?

I would like some examples and who tolerated this. Stalin?

Stalin? no. He was a pure marxist who wouldn't tolerate rich people. He even hated the fact Karl Marx was a petit bourgeois.

Yes.

Figures.

>What you can't argue, with any degree of believability, is that he just randomly happened to get that haircut because he thought it looked good, with no reference to its political meaning.
That doesn't matter, it's still just a fashion statement. Hitler himself stylized everything after shit like Teutonic knights and Friedrich Barbarossa, that doesn't mean he was fanatically religious.

Still no arguments.
Explain to me why a guy who is just 14 but not 88 would get a Hitler haircut. Unless, of course, he's just trolling or a plant, in which case you shouldn't take what comes out of his mouth seriously anyway.

That's my point. Even if it happened it was informal and the scale of this was probably rather small. After WW2 Stalin pushed for collectivisation and nationalisation of the industry in all newly conquered territories.

Hillary Clinton literally said she was in between center left and center right, which isn't far from the truth.

Arguments are all over the thread. I can wear a Stalin mustache without being a Stalinist.

Sure, but if you talked about class warfare all the time and then went out of your way to grow a Stalin mustache, certain conclusions could be drawn with a high degree of probability about you... specifically, that you were a tankie.

I was being cynical you inbred retard

You have no understanding of the terms you use, neo-liberalism is term defining a historical period from 70's-2010's describing economic trends and policies that align with fiscal consrvativism, austerity politics, and rolling back the welfare state.

It is not a cycle because the labour unions in US and Uk are still powerless and destroyed by Reagan-Thatcher era policies. In Europe neo-liberalism started appearing more forcefully only after the fall of the USSR and roll backs to the welfare state started happening in 2008.

The NEP has nothing to do with liberalism altogether, it was a plan by Lenin to intergrate limited trade and private enterprise back into the SU, many of these policies were already existing in the so called "war communism' period.

you're deluded if you think Clinton is a leftist

Plenty of people talk about class warfare, including Hitler. That's not enough to make you a Stalinist.

Not him but I'm a reactionary. Everything that's not a monarchy is leftist.

So what is your center?

And if you talk about class warfare AND get a Stalin mustache?

>every single leader after WW2 in western world is a center-left/ultra-leftist retard

thats wrong tho, it dosent even make sense as a statement

>The very few exceptions are Pinochet, Franco and perhaps now Trump that is a centrist globalist but also somewhat protectionist

again, wrong and nonsensical, ahistorical, poor bait

and trump isnt anything near any of those ideologicaly or politicaly, trump isnt realy much of anything, thats how populism works

>Veeky Forums and hysterical Leninists keep repeating the world is ruined by (((neoliberalism))) and (((extreme right-wing)))

neoliberalism does screw thing up wherever it pops its ugly head, which is pretty much everywhere for decades now, almost every example of states applying neoliberal solutions and practices resulted in failure, crash or depression, almost like its not even a glitch but a feature

but what the fuck am i even doing replying to a 12 year old in a poltard bait tread

>Franco
>Salazar
>Viktor Orban
>Putin
>Kohl
>Thatcher
>left wing

Kill yourself you historically illiterate mouthbreathing subhuman

Reagan was not a neoliberal

Actually he was, through and through, the very essence and epitome of the posterboy neoliberal.

Though I suspect you're one of those who has conflated "neoliberal" with the American-Left, which is pretty much its antithesis.

Neoliberalism is free trade, laissez faire capitalism., privatization, free trade, removal of worker's rights (ie. union busting), shrinking of the government save where it can assist in the above, removal of welfare and public aid programs and protections, aka. "Greed is Good - Corporate Greed doubly so". Pretty much the very legacy Reagan has left us, and, aside from maybe free trade, everything American "liberals" advocate against.

Reagan and Thatcher were possibly the biggest neo-liberals around

Neo-liberal doesn't Mean left wing, although it is possible to be left wing and neo-liberal

A spectre is haunting Veeky Forums, the spectre of neo-liberalism

>Putin
I'd put him closer to the center. If anything Medvedev is Putin's right wing man.
Putin held Medvedev back when he launched a massive program of economic reforms.

>90% of the oligarchs were Jewish.
They were, and are, just tacky nouveau rich slavs that milked the State.
Stop having that knee-jerk reaction that every guy with some dubious cash is a jew.