Nikki Haley-What was the cause of the Civil War

[SunsetBengal]

(01-15-2024, 02:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: There are subjects where I have the information and I try to cite as many sources as I can.

Others on here have a more educational background than I do.  That's what I meant.

Some just would rather toss insults at things they don't want to look deeper into rather than admit someone else might know more.

Oh...

Ask yourself, do they really know more? Or, do they simply have more idle time on their hands with which to seek out sources that align/agree/support their particular point of view?  It's not like anyone on here is presenting us with their own published 'findings'...

[GMDino]

(01-15-2024, 02:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ask yourself, do they really know more? Or, do they simply have more idle time on their hands with which to seek out sources that align/agree/support their particular point of view?  It's not like anyone on here is presenting us with their own published 'findings'...

I know the ones who have a more academic background vs the ones who "know" things.

Some of the more scholarly ones have been chased away over the years, which is a shame.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2024, 02:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why do you care?  Lots of people agree on lots of things on this board.  Some more than others.  On both sides of the aisle.

I don't "care".  Why do you "care" that I point it out?

Quote:You just have a personal woody for me and Dill.  I get it.  Move on.

Ewww.

Quote:No, it was joke.  I made no reference to you saying it or believing it.  Not everything is a an "attempt to ascribe" anything to anyone.

But it gave you an opportunity to insult me again, so Kudos?

Asking you what WW2 was about is an insult?  The thin skin on you and your ilk.

Quote:There were a myriad of reasons for our entering WWII.  Pearly Harbor was the catalyst but the US was very much involved before that without actually sending our boys and men.

You're just mentioning US involvement.  I get why in the context of the Haley cartoon, but we were a rather late entrant into the war.

Quote:Fighting the spread of fascism, defending allies (and our territories).  But hey, you had another chance to insult me so more kudos. 

Again, still wondering where the insult is in asking you what WW2 was about.  Another surreptitious attempt to play victim and get the mods involved?  I can't believe that, though, it's so not like you.

Quote:Dill is well educated and willing to provide in-depth response with references that I don't always know about.  I get that some people think long worded responses are too much to respond to themselves, but sometimes the topic requires more than a passing response.  I admire everyone who brings something to the discussion more than insults and personal vendettas...especially if they have sources to look at and a background where they can speak well on the subject.

No, you admire anyone who reinforces your way of thinking and dislike anyone who does not.  You and Dill are in lockstep, hence your slavish devotion to him.  Same with Fred, an odious person who was disliked by a large percentage of posters, but not you or Dill.  For the exact same reasons.

Quote:Again, you don't speak for the board any more than I do.  In fact I really wish you'd quit speaking to me at all.

A simple solution, you can always block me.  

Quote:But thanks for again saying you know me better than I know myself.  Once again it says more about you than it does me.

You don't see yourself as a highly partisan actor who never disagrees with those on his side of the ideological spectrum?  I gave you a chance to show otherwise, give me a position on which you and Dill disagree.  You, for some odd reason, chose not to do so.  Odd thing, that.

[Dill]

(01-15-2024, 03:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you two share the same hive mind, but the question was not directed at you.  Also, I was very surprised to learn that the USSR was a liberal and leftist nation, rather than a despotic regime that engaged in mass murder.  

I have a lot more to teach you, if you are ready.

But we start with parsing sentences accurately by recognizing conjunction =/= identity.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2024, 02:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ask yourself, do they really know more? Or, do they simply have more idle time on their hands with which to seek out sources that align/agree/support their particular point of view?  It's not like anyone on here is presenting us with their own published 'findings'...

It is interesting.  He'll spout off about law enforcement all the while ignoring posts from those in the actual profession, because they don't jive with his worldview.  The more left leaning posters here, outside of some stellar examples, seem to use this sub-forum as an echo chamber to reinforce their own prejudices and bully those who think differently.

(01-15-2024, 03:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know the ones who have a more academic background vs the ones who "know" things.

Do you?  Pray tell, who are they.

Quote:Some of the more scholarly ones have been chased away over the years, which is a shame.

Please give us some examples.  I'm honestly interested in who you consider to be "scholarly" since you discount the position of anyone who is to your ideological right.  Here's another challenge.  Give me an example of a right leaning poster and a position you agree with them on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2024, 05:15 PM)Dill Wrote: I have a lot more to teach you, if you are ready.

I'm sure you think you do.

Quote:But we start with parsing sentences accurately by recognizing conjunction =/= identity.

Can we start by deciding on what Conjunction Junction's function is? 

[Dill]

(01-15-2024, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahaha, see the first part of this response.  Also, there's a reason no one actually engages with Dill anymore, plenty of people have stated it, but you'll never see it because, see the first part of this response.  It's actually very interesting.  You guys on the far left see any divergence from the approved group opinion as evidence of being a far right extremist.  It's why you, Dill and others are so desperate to slap the Republican label on me (or a far right conspiracy theorist, as in the very post I'm responding to).  I refuse to be in ideological lockstep with any group, as there is zero chance any group will perfectly match my positions on every issue.  You, and several others, are slavish in your adherence to far left orthodoxy and attack any perceived divergence from it.  I'd actually pity you if you hadn't bought into it so willingly.

The bolded could be said about anyone in this forum.  

Where did the "perfectly match" criterion come from? Who has asked you, or anyone, to be in "ideological lockstep" with any group?

I've never called you a "Republican." But I'm "desperate" to slap that label on you? 

I'm not the only one who wonders why you constantly attack "the left" and defend right wing policies,

but present yourself as "independent," simply because you and Luvnit, whom you often stand shoulder to shoulder with, don't "perfectly match." 

You call people who consistently defend left and liberal politics "leftists."

Why are you so desperate NOT to be called a "rightist" for consistently defending right wing politics? 
 

[Dill]

(01-15-2024, 02:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ask yourself, do they really know more? Or, do they simply have more idle time on their hands with which to seek out sources that align/agree/support their particular point of view?  It's not like anyone on here is presenting us with their own published 'findings'...

This implies that there are always and equally "sources that align/agree/support" any side's point of view. 

I don't assume that.  And I don't assume that no one here ever presents his own "published findings."

And I also don't assume that "published" is what settles the question of whether "findings" are accurate. 

E.g., if someone here published an article claiming the Holocaust was faked, there would have to be something more to it
than "publication" to persuade me. It would have to show why all the historical testimony, photographs, and my own memory
of visits to concentration camps were wrong.

One of the central problems with US politics right now is that so many voters have diverged from basic respect for evidence and logic
when evaluating policies and politicians. That basic respect is demonstrated, in part, when people make an effort to learn about and understand 
the other side's arguments, and demonstrate that they have made the effort. It is not the case when people substitute labels for evidence.
Sound arguments don't rest on adjectives. Can you and I agree on that?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-15-2024, 05:32 PM)Dill Wrote: The bolded could be said about anyone in this forum.

No, it absolutely cannot.  Give me a left leaning policy you don't support.

Quote:Where did the "perfectly match" criterion come from? Who has asked you, or anyone, to be in "ideological lockstep" with any group?

Reading comprehension fail.  It's not that it's asked, it's that it's attacked if it is not given.

Quote:I've never called you a "Republican." But I'm "desperate" to slap that label on you? 

Have you, maybe not?  Have several other posters here, absolutely.  In fact later in this very post you'll essentially do exactly that.

Quote:I'm not the only one who wonders why you constantly attack "the left" and defend right wing policies,

Actually, I attack policies I disagree with, both right and left.  Examples of right wing policies I vehemently disagree with; abortion, gay rights, transgender people serving in the military, immigration, legalization of marijuana.  Could you name any left wing policies you disagree with?

Quote:but present yourself as "independent," simply because you and Luvnit, whom you often stand shoulder to shoulder with, don't "perfectly match." 

And here you actually label me a Republican, after claiming not to in this very post.  Luvnit is a self described Republican.  I probably disagree with him on more things than I disagree with you on.  But I absolutely will not allow you and your buddies to bully him simply because the left outnumbers the right here.  If he is being treated unfairly you're damned right I'll call it out.

Quote:You call people who consistently defend left and liberal politics "leftists."

Uh, is that inaccurate?

Quote:Why are you so desperate NOT to be called a "rightist" for consistently defending right wing politics? 
 

I'm not desperate for anything.  But if you think I'm going to allow you and your ilk to slap labels on me simply because it makes you feel better about being confronted on your bullshit then I will absolutely push back on it.  I've cited some very left leaning policies I am in favor of.  Perhaps you could provide me with a similar list of the right wing policies I defend.  it should be simple as you claim I do so "consistently".  I'll not be responding until after the Steelers game, so spare yourself the effort until then.

[GMDino]

(01-15-2024, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't "care".  Why do you "care" that I point it out?

You care a lot. I responded because you continue to attack me personally with no repercussions.

(01-15-2024, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Asking you what WW2 was about is an insult?  The thin skin on you and your ilk.

(01-15-2024, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're just mentioning US involvement.  I get why in the context of the Haley cartoon, but we were a rather late entrant into the war.

So I answered the question you asked but you want to change the question now?

(01-15-2024, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, still wondering where the insult is in asking you what WW2 was about.  Another surreptitious attempt to play victim and get the mods involved?  I can't believe that, though, it's so not like you.

Oh, that wasn't the insult. These were:

(01-15-2024, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A pathetic attempt at an attack even by your low standards. 

(01-15-2024, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you can't answer it then just be a big boy and state as much.

(01-15-2024, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd actually pity you if you hadn't bought into it so willingly.

(01-15-2024, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you admire anyone who reinforces your way of thinking and dislike anyone who does not.  You and Dill are in lockstep, hence your slavish devotion to him.  Same with Fred, an odious person who was disliked by a large percentage of posters, but not you or Dill.  For the exact same reasons.

I'm glad you have your finger on the pulse of the board I guess.

I mean I wasn't looking to win a popularity contest so...

(01-15-2024, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A simple solution, you can always block me. 

I still would see you in other responses. And you will still ALWAYS follow me around and insult me and try to drag me personally. So sometimes I will respond to that. I probably shouldn't.

(01-15-2024, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't see yourself as a highly partisan actor who never disagrees with those on his side of the ideological spectrum?  I gave you a chance to show otherwise, give me a position on which you and Dill disagree.  You, for some odd reason, chose not to do so.  Odd thing, that.

I see myself as someone who is definitely a liberal. I have on occasion agreed with conservatives. I don't keep a list of when and which ones, sorry.

If I find Dill someone I agree with more than others so be it. We know the real reason you do what you do to me and Dill and others on the board:

(01-15-2024, 05:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is interesting.  He'll spout off about law enforcement all the while ignoring posts from those in the actual profession, because they don't jive with his worldview. 

You've never got past that I was wrong once and admitted it.

It's sad, really. And that moderators follow you in the thread to agree with the way you post is equally sad.

And that's not "playing the victim", that's just reading this thread.

So either get back on topic or get another thread closed due to your personal feelings. Doesn't matter much to me.

[CJD]

(01-15-2024, 03:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you two share the same hive mind, but the question was not directed at you.  Also, I was very surprised to learn that the USSR was a liberal and leftist nation, rather than a despotic regime that engaged in mass murder.  

For what it's worth, Russia was originally on Germany's side in WW2. They only became enemies with Germany when Hitler needlessly invaded them (for Lebensraum, or "living space"), creating a two front war that ultimately ended in Germany's downfall (one of the many reasons that I think Hitler was WAY overrated in terms of his military prowess).

So, you could argue Russia was "right wing" like the other Axes of Power nations, but joined the "left" due to the betrayal by Germany.

With that said, simplifying anything to left vs right is almost always incorrect and that likely holds for WW2 as well.

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2024, 10:28 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: With that said, simplifying anything to left vs right is almost always incorrect and that likely holds for WW2 as well.

Pretty much. We use it as shorthand because everyone is familiar with it, but in political science it is almost universally dismissed.

To make it even more interesting, I read a paper one time thanks to a Wikipedia rabbit hole that looked at the political typologies in former Soviet Bloc countries. What was of note was that while we in western democracies have our view of right v. left, where left-wing economic views coincide with liberalism, in the former U.S.S.R. those with left-wing economic positions tend to be more of the nationalistic sort. So think of that and how it may related to the Soviet Union of old. We know from history that while they espoused the economic side of Marxism, their adherence to the liberal ideals of democracy (something Marx was a fan of) was severely lacking. It is because of this that trying to project our understanding of right v. left onto the U.S.S.R. is flawed form the start.

[CJD]

(01-16-2024, 11:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretty much. We use it as shorthand because everyone is familiar with it, but in political science it is almost universally dismissed.

To make it even more interesting, I read a paper one time thanks to a Wikipedia rabbit hole that looked at the political typologies in former Soviet Bloc countries. What was of note was that while we in western democracies have our view of right v. left, where left-wing economic views coincide with liberalism, in the former U.S.S.R. those with left-wing economic positions tend to be more of the nationalistic sort. So think of that and how it may related to the Soviet Union of old. We know from history that while they espoused the economic side of Marxism, their adherence to the liberal ideals of democracy (something Marx was a fan of) was severely lacking. It is because of this that trying to project our understanding of right v. left onto the U.S.S.R. is flawed form the start.

The left vs right debate is one that almost always lacks context. What is left or right is almost always based on a person's own biases.

A libertarian will argue that "personal freedom" is a right wing concept, but a socialist will argue that "personal freedom" is left wing. Their definitions are not similar though. A libertarian thinks "personal freedom" means doing whatever they want, whenever they want without any government institution trying to control them. 

A socialist thinks "personal freedom" means freedom from the exploitation that power hierarchies create, such that each person has exactly as much freedom of will to pursue their ambitions as any other person. This second definition basically requires some sort of government intervention, as it would be extremely difficult to prevent hierarchical structures from oppressing people otherwise.

Others view leftist vs rightist as strictly a economic conversation.


The one thing about left vs right that I find fascinating is that political parties/governments will frequently masquerade as left wing governments ("The National Socialist Party," "The People's Republic of China," "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea," etc), but will NEVER masquerade as right wing governments. You'll never see a political party call themselves, "The Fascistic Party of Cambodia."

I don't know what that says about the left vs right debate or what these words actually mean, but I still find it interesting.

[GMDino]

Oh.

Nikki Haley: "We've never been a racist country.” @atrupar
pic.twitter.com/uDiC3kqbk3

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) January 16, 2024

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-16-2024, 11:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretty much. We use it as shorthand because everyone is familiar with it, but in political science it is almost universally dismissed.

To make it even more interesting, I read a paper one time thanks to a Wikipedia rabbit hole that looked at the political typologies in former Soviet Bloc countries. What was of note was that while we in western democracies have our view of right v. left, where left-wing economic views coincide with liberalism, in the former U.S.S.R. those with left-wing economic positions tend to be more of the nationalistic sort. So think of that and how it may related to the Soviet Union of old. We know from history that while they espoused the economic side of Marxism, their adherence to the liberal ideals of democracy (something Marx was a fan of) was severely lacking. It is because of this that trying to project our understanding of right v. left onto the U.S.S.R. is flawed form the start.

I think if you really break it down to its bare bones the USSR wasn't concerned with either.  They were concerned with being powerful, respected and feared.  Russia has always had an inferiority complex when it comes to Europe.  They wanted to be part of the club and the European nations looked down on them, openly, as a agrarian, uneducated peasant land.  A huge part of Russian foreign diplomacy, to this day, can be attributed to this inferiority complex.  It's why Putin, and others, yearn for the days of the USSR, as it was the only time the nation was respected, albeit in a negative fashion.  When you couple that with the fact that Russia never had a tradition of free thinking or even a desire to engage in liberal (in the classic sense of the world, not the US label) politics, you get this tend towards authoritarianism.  Freedom is scary, as we all remember from the first months after moving out of our parent's home, especially when you have no history or familiarity with it.

(01-16-2024, 12:01 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The left vs right debate is one that almost always lacks context. What is left or right is almost always based on a person's own biases.

A libertarian will argue that "personal freedom" is a right wing concept, but a socialist will argue that "personal freedom" is left wing. Their definitions are not similar though. A libertarian thinks "personal freedom" means doing whatever they want, whenever they want without any government institution trying to control them. 

A socialist thinks "personal freedom" means freedom from the exploitation that power hierarchies create, such that each person has exactly as much freedom of will to pursue their ambitions as any other person. This second definition basically requires some sort of government intervention, as it would be extremely difficult to prevent hierarchical structures from oppressing people otherwise.

Others view leftist vs rightist as strictly a economic conversation.

At their extremes both ideologies have more in common than they would like to believe.  Once you get towards the poles the behavior becomes identical, the only difference being the justification for said behavior.  It's actually one of the major flaws on this board, and a microcosm of the problem we have a society at large.  People are engaging in the exact same behavior they decry in their ideological opponents, but they are either blind to it or justify it.  See cancel culture as an example. 

The right was, correctly, up in arms about people being cancelled for things they did and said years, sometimes decades, ago.  Or being cancelled for having an unpopular opinion.  Yet the exact same people are now rejoicing in people losing their jobs over their stance on the war in Gaza.  Sometimes for taking down posters of hostages, sometimes for expressing their opinion on Zionism, sometimes for other reasons.  The justification is different, but the outcome and method is the exact same.  Ans you'll find no shortage of people justifying it with the shoe being on the other foot excuse.

Quote:The one thing about left vs right that I find fascinating is that political parties/governments will frequently masquerade as left wing governments ("The National Socialist Party," "The People's Republic of China," "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea," etc), but will NEVER masquerade as right wing governments. You'll never see a political party call themselves, "The Fascistic Party of Cambodia."

I don't know what that says about the left vs right debate or what these words actually mean, but I still find it interesting.

I think a large part of that can be attributed to WW2.  Far right autocracies were rightly vilified and their crimes widely exposed after WW2.  The equally awful atrocities of the far left were largely hidden, overshadowed, or ignored.  Let's also be honest, the West tended to not care much what happened to the people in China, the USSR, North Korea or Cambodia.  Or Vietnam after we left.  If you correctly equate the two, the crimes of the USSR are absolutely on par with Nazi Germany, but a person will proudly walk down the street wearing the hammer and sickle on their t-shirt.  Che Guevara was a monster of a human being (and vehemently anti-homosexual btw), but the fact that his crimes are largely unknown and he is seen as a fighter against the oppression of capitalism make him an icon for left leaning younger people to this day.

It's easy to see the evils of the society you are immersed in.  It is equally easy to overlook those of a society thousands of miles away.  When one of the key "selling points" of that other society is focusing on the perceived evils of your own it can become a very attractive alternative.  I think that's why you get the masquerade of a "Democratic People's Republic" of North Korea, and why uneducated and iconoclastic people will buy the obvious lie.

It would be very interesting though to see any self proclaimed Marxist in a western nation be teleported to the USSR or modern day North Korea.  They'd be begging for a return to their home nation within a day or two.

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2024, 12:01 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The one thing about left vs right that I find fascinating is that political parties/governments will frequently masquerade as left wing governments ("The National Socialist Party," "The People's Republic of China," "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea," etc), but will NEVER masquerade as right wing governments. You'll never see a political party call themselves, "The Fascistic Party of Cambodia."

I don't know what that says about the left vs right debate or what these words actually mean, but I still find it interesting.

In a very broad-brush way of looking at the linear political spectrum, the further left you go the more people make up the state. So, in a libertarian utopia, there is no state. Just to the left of that we have the totalitarian autocrats. Then, as we continue shifting to the left you have pure democracy on the extreme other side which is where the people are the state. This is just one aspect of the political typologies and is oversimplified, but it helps to get this sort of understanding for this discussion.

For those seeking to wrest power in a democratic society they cannot come in and outright claim that they have the power. To shift the government to the right they need to first gain the support of the people and you have to do that by appealing to the idea that you are there for them. You have to play the populism angle. We see it in every successful attempt at this and we see this in so many unsuccessful ones, as well, not pointing any fingers or naming names or anything.

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2024, 02:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think if you really break it down to its bare bones the USSR wasn't concerned with either.  They were concerned with being powerful, respected and feared.  Russia has always had an inferiority complex when it comes to Europe.  They wanted to be part of the club and the European nations looked down on them, openly, as a agrarian, uneducated peasant land.  A huge part of Russian foreign diplomacy, to this day, can be attributed to this inferiority complex.  It's why Putin, and others, yearn for the days of the USSR, as it was the only time the nation was respected, albeit in a negative fashion.  When you couple that with the fact that Russia never had a tradition of free thinking or even a desire to engage in liberal (in the classic sense of the world, not the US label) politics, you get this tend towards authoritarianism.  Freedom is scary, as we all remember from the first months after moving out of our parent's home, especially when you have no history or familiarity with it.

I would disagree. Sure, there was a large element of that in the latter years especially, but it wasn't always just a concern for one-upping the west. Sure, there was a good bit of that, but keep in mind how the revolution really kicked off and the intention behind it. I say this, though, and my wife's opinion on this when I discussed this conversation with her just now was that it was the whole "power corrupts" thing, to which I retorted that doesn't fly when it was corrupt from the start. Regardless, they did engage in the more left-wing economic policies despite not being liberal in any sense of the word.

(01-16-2024, 02:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think a large part of that can be attributed to WW2.  Far right autocracies were rightly vilified and their crimes widely exposed after WW2.  The equally awful atrocities of the far left were largely hidden, overshadowed, or ignored.  Let's also be honest, the West tended to not care much what happened to the people in China, the USSR, North Korea or Cambodia.  Or Vietnam after we left.  If you correctly equate the two, the crimes of the USSR are absolutely on par with Nazi Germany, but a person will proudly walk down the street wearing the hammer and sickle on their t-shirt.  Che Guevara was a monster of a human being (and vehemently anti-homosexual btw), but the fact that his crimes are largely unknown and he is seen as a fighter against the oppression of capitalism make him an icon for left leaning younger people to this day.

Yeah, but we saw this prior to WW2, as well. I mean, Hitler called his party socialist while hating communists so much he reneged on his alliance and put communists in death camps.

(01-16-2024, 02:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It would be very interesting though to see any self proclaimed Marxist in a western nation be teleported to the USSR or modern day North Korea.  They'd be begging for a return to their home nation within a day or two.

Depends. Do they understand the difference between the different flavors of communism?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-16-2024, 02:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would disagree. Sure, there was a large element of that in the latter years especially, but it wasn't always just a concern for one-upping the west. Sure, there was a good bit of that, but keep in mind how the revolution really kicked off and the intention behind it. I say this, though, and my wife's opinion on this when I discussed this conversation with her just now was that it was the whole "power corrupts" thing, to which I retorted that doesn't fly when it was corrupt from the start. Regardless, they did engage in the more left-wing economic policies despite not being liberal in any sense of the word.

I'm not ignoring the reasons for the revolution, but they're not part of my argument in this regard.  As you just discussed, once in power this inferiority complex, once again, became a motivating factor.  You could be a Czarist or a Bolshevik, but at the end of the day you were still a Russian.  I think the rank and file genuinely bought into the promises of communism, but for the higher ups I think a large percentage of them just wanted to seize power.  

Quote:Yeah, but we saw this prior to WW2, as well. I mean, Hitler called his party socialist while hating communists so much he reneged on his alliance and put communists in death camps.

Absolutely, but the question was why doesn't it happen now, was it not?  At least that's what my entire answer was addressing.

Quote:Depends. Do they understand the difference between the different flavors of communism?

True communism has never actually been tried.  

[Belsnickel]

(01-16-2024, 02:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, but the question was why doesn't it happen now, was it not?  At least that's what my entire answer was addressing.

He was saying that it is interesting how right-wing governments seeking that whole authoritarian or fascist thing always masquerade as leftist rather than right-wing. Liberalism is always touted as the ideal in those scenarios rather than owning up to the asshattery they are up to.

(01-16-2024, 02:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True communism has never actually been tried.  

Well, that is the case on a nation-state scale, at least, but that's because people suck to much, including college-aged "Marxists."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-16-2024, 03:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He was saying that it is interesting how right-wing governments seeking that whole authoritarian or fascist thing always masquerade as leftist rather than right-wing. Liberalism is always touted as the ideal in those scenarios rather than owning up to the asshattery they are up to.

[/quote]

The National Socialism was a holdover from the party's earlier days.  The main proponents being the Strasser brothers who were eliminated on the Night of the Long Knives.  I don't think the Nazis, under Hitler, made any pretense of being anything other than a far right, nationalist, party.

Quote:Well, that is the case on a nation-state scale, at least, but that's because people suck to much, including college-aged "Marxists."

You filthy commie.