Never been that big on politics to be honest. Wasn't till the US presidency I started to frequent pol but mostly due to the "Happenings" as 9 times out of 10 /pol/ would report the news before the news reports it and with high accuracy. Other than that I stuck to /mlp/
The image related is something I have seen before growing up, found this image off the webs. And is pretty much the extent of politics as I understand it. But then I started to see this "political compass" and these "tests" which are nearly like personality tests to see if you are Left or
Right and every time I try to comment on it I seem 100% wrong.
My understanding is Left is the people control the Country.
Right is the Government controls the Country.
What is the difference between a Liberal and Libertarian? They both are left right? Or are they right? Then I see many arguing about Socialism vs Nationalism vs Globalism vs National Socialism.
There is so much jargon is makes my head spin and you try looking it up and it is either an info dump or filled with even more jargon. Video related is how I see trying to learn politics https: //www. youtube.com/watch?v=AYJdC-VZvZE
So anyone care to give a run down in a clear cut manner?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): E17C1A54A15110306165C3FBDDD0ECBA-548237.jpg (535.4 KB, 1536x2048, e-cow-nomics.jpg)
>>9311
Left and right, traditionally, refers to a group that wants revolution on the left with the right being supporters of the established order. It originates in the french revolution with revolutionaries on the left, and those that support the monarchy on the right.
In modern terms they refer to economic systems - Socialism on the left with capitalism on the right (particularly in America. What left and right mean is a bit subjective depending on geography).
There is, technically, not much difference between a liberal and a libertarian. In fact another name for a libertarian is a classical liberal. However over time "liberal" has come to mean something much closer to socialism than it did back at its founding, thus the "classical" prefix for libertarianism. Liberals were traditionally on the left (opposing the monarchy). These days liberals are still on the left (opposing western civilisation as we know it, trying to transmute it into their multiculti paradise), while libertarians place themselves on the right, wanting to mainting the individual freedom underpinning capitalism, for better or worse.
Jargon and confusion is inevitable, as these are concepts that have evolved through time yet still refer back to their origins. You really just have to learn all the various relationships in order to get it. Introduce Marxists and their intentionally obfuscating rhetoric that only makes sense from a Marxist perspective and shit goes nuts trying to keep track.
Left and right, traditionally, refers to a group that wants revolution on the left with the right being supporters of the established order. It originates in the french revolution with revolutionaries on the left, and those that support the monarchy on the right.
In modern terms they refer to economic systems - Socialism on the left with capitalism on the right (particularly in America. What left and right mean is a bit subjective depending on geography).
There is, technically, not much difference between a liberal and a libertarian. In fact another name for a libertarian is a classical liberal. However over time "liberal" has come to mean something much closer to socialism than it did back at its founding, thus the "classical" prefix for libertarianism. Liberals were traditionally on the left (opposing the monarchy). These days liberals are still on the left (opposing western civilisation as we know it, trying to transmute it into their multiculti paradise), while libertarians place themselves on the right, wanting to mainting the individual freedom underpinning capitalism, for better or worse.
Jargon and confusion is inevitable, as these are concepts that have evolved through time yet still refer back to their origins. You really just have to learn all the various relationships in order to get it. Introduce Marxists and their intentionally obfuscating rhetoric that only makes sense from a Marxist perspective and shit goes nuts trying to keep track.
File (): 4D8E89E460244449AE08F8B9A93A2EE0-8746.png (8.5 KB, 189x267, chuckle.png)
File (): 18A32A6B26B1908002D8DAC7D8DCB9F9-145320.jpg (141.9 KB, 800x800, political-compass-zones.jpg)
The political compass has two different axises that determine how much controll the government has in the nation. The y-axis demostrates how much controll the government should have over peoples life and if there is free elections and the likes. Governments high on the y-axis offer less freedom to it's citizens while governments lower on it generally gives more freedom.
The x-axis determines how much controll the government has over the economy with socialism on the left and capitalism on the right.
These two concepts are very related so it's not the perfect representation of political ideoligies.
The x-axis determines how much controll the government has over the economy with socialism on the left and capitalism on the right.
These two concepts are very related so it's not the perfect representation of political ideoligies.
>>9313
Hence the youtube link, heh. Politics goes way back and it hard to even find a point to begin at.
Hmm I sorta get the whole liberal thing now. But is Left synonymous with Liberal? My veiws seem a bit close then to what you are saying. As I though with left being people rule, it is anarchy while with the right, it is government and totalitarianism. And if you over throw your government, well that is anarchy.
But now you bring in socialism. So that brings in a whole new dimension to the picture. Because you can have a government control socialism or you can have the people control socialism (referring to the graphic) Either you have 2 cows and give one to your neighbor or the government takes one cow and give it to your neighbor. So in modern times this is considered left? And if this is socialism, then what is National Socialism? Isn't socialism, socialism?
Hence the youtube link, heh. Politics goes way back and it hard to even find a point to begin at.
Hmm I sorta get the whole liberal thing now. But is Left synonymous with Liberal? My veiws seem a bit close then to what you are saying. As I though with left being people rule, it is anarchy while with the right, it is government and totalitarianism. And if you over throw your government, well that is anarchy.
But now you bring in socialism. So that brings in a whole new dimension to the picture. Because you can have a government control socialism or you can have the people control socialism (referring to the graphic) Either you have 2 cows and give one to your neighbor or the government takes one cow and give it to your neighbor. So in modern times this is considered left? And if this is socialism, then what is National Socialism? Isn't socialism, socialism?
>>9321
In general theres three types of socialism.
Communism is where the government controls the cows and forcefully redistribute milk to the people.
Anarcho Communism where the people collectively control the cows and everyone just agrees to share it.
Then theres democratic socialism wich is kindof in between and a mix of the two.
In general theres three types of socialism.
Communism is where the government controls the cows and forcefully redistribute milk to the people.
Anarcho Communism where the people collectively control the cows and everyone just agrees to share it.
Then theres democratic socialism wich is kindof in between and a mix of the two.
>>9327
Please read. I think you are mistaken.
https:// www. marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
Please read. I think you are mistaken.
https:// www. marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
>>9321
>But is Left synonymous with Liberal?
No. Your American hard right are (from the perspective of the British Empire that you broke away from) our hard left.
It simply means wanting to maintin the order on the right, whie the left wants to change it. What that order is, and how people want to change it differs, but that pattern does not. Technically we, as people who want to break away from the current lefty order, are the hard left. We don't use that designation though because of modern and historical connotations of the word.
As for Socialism, in theory Communism is a stateless society where everything "just works" in a sunshine and rainbows fashion. In reality it never works that way (or "has never been tried", as Comminusts like to say). It has only ever lead to Communism, as has existed.
National Socialism is a bit of a misnomer. It does not actually adhere to socialist economic principles of the workers owning the means of production and so on - there is still private enterprise. What their socialism is is helping your fellow countrymen, rich or poor, however you can. Be careful when reading up about it, as Muh Nazis are still as much of the wartime boogyman they always were since the war. The winners write history.
>But is Left synonymous with Liberal?
No. Your American hard right are (from the perspective of the British Empire that you broke away from) our hard left.
It simply means wanting to maintin the order on the right, whie the left wants to change it. What that order is, and how people want to change it differs, but that pattern does not. Technically we, as people who want to break away from the current lefty order, are the hard left. We don't use that designation though because of modern and historical connotations of the word.
As for Socialism, in theory Communism is a stateless society where everything "just works" in a sunshine and rainbows fashion. In reality it never works that way (or "has never been tried", as Comminusts like to say). It has only ever lead to Communism, as has existed.
National Socialism is a bit of a misnomer. It does not actually adhere to socialist economic principles of the workers owning the means of production and so on - there is still private enterprise. What their socialism is is helping your fellow countrymen, rich or poor, however you can. Be careful when reading up about it, as Muh Nazis are still as much of the wartime boogyman they always were since the war. The winners write history.
>>9319
So where would America be? People have freedoms to elect, bear arms, and of speech so I go negative on the Y axis. We also have a free market, the ability to merge companies or aquire them. SO I go right? So America is a Libertarian government? But then again I do see Ultra-Capitalism and Libertarian Capitalism.
So now I am trying to get my head around Conservatism and Progressivism on the chart. Everything I hear "Progressive" just wants more Cultural diversity in this country and allow in more immigrants. Which I guess is people's rules so… Lower on the Y and Concervatists want to keep them out so Higher?
Am I finally getting this down right?
So where would America be? People have freedoms to elect, bear arms, and of speech so I go negative on the Y axis. We also have a free market, the ability to merge companies or aquire them. SO I go right? So America is a Libertarian government? But then again I do see Ultra-Capitalism and Libertarian Capitalism.
So now I am trying to get my head around Conservatism and Progressivism on the chart. Everything I hear "Progressive" just wants more Cultural diversity in this country and allow in more immigrants. Which I guess is people's rules so… Lower on the Y and Concervatists want to keep them out so Higher?
Am I finally getting this down right?
>>9327
Ok stop, Socialism is Communism? What?
I have heard this phrase lurking on /pol/
"There can not be communism with out socialism first." OR something on that line. But it sounds to me on the lines of the government morphing into another. Never got that line.
Ok stop, Socialism is Communism? What?
I have heard this phrase lurking on /pol/
"There can not be communism with out socialism first." OR something on that line. But it sounds to me on the lines of the government morphing into another. Never got that line.
>>9332
Yeah a simpler way to explain it is that conservatives want to keep society the way it is while liberals want to change it.
Yeah a simpler way to explain it is that conservatives want to keep society the way it is while liberals want to change it.
>>9337
Socialism is generally a milder form of communism. Marx described socialism as the way to achieve communism. You can think of it as a stepping stone to communism.
Socialism is generally a milder form of communism. Marx described socialism as the way to achieve communism. You can think of it as a stepping stone to communism.
>>9331
I agree whole heartedly that the History is always written by the victors. So indeed there is always conflicting stories. And Ok I was right with my Hunch that National Socialism was referring to Nazis. But not equal to socialism. Thank you for clearing that up. This is the most I got into politics so it makes me happy to learn, and for the first time with out all the shit posting.
I agree whole heartedly that the History is always written by the victors. So indeed there is always conflicting stories. And Ok I was right with my Hunch that National Socialism was referring to Nazis. But not equal to socialism. Thank you for clearing that up. This is the most I got into politics so it makes me happy to learn, and for the first time with out all the shit posting.
>>9339
I do not know where you learnt about political philosophy but you seem to way off base in many ways. You need to first remember that the name of a party is not always a description of their politics. The US democratic party is a good example. The Liberal party in the UK is not actually liberal and the communist party in Japan is no where close to what people think communism is.
I do not know where you learnt about political philosophy but you seem to way off base in many ways. You need to first remember that the name of a party is not always a description of their politics. The US democratic party is a good example. The Liberal party in the UK is not actually liberal and the communist party in Japan is no where close to what people think communism is.
>>9342
Unfortunately though what Marx was writing about is very different to modern politics. The US political system has always been far right. It therefore is scared of socialist values because it think that will lead to communism. However in the UK with a more pic-n-mic political system we have both socialist thinking and communist thinking and even those who would consider themselves purest Marxist. The leader of the labour party at the moment is most definitely a socialist but he is not a communist. He liaises with the Unions who are mainly socialist but with a hardcore of Marxists.
What people need to understand is that wanting to have a government that provides for the less fortunate is not the same as having a government run by the people and it is not a matter of slipping from one to the next because it would need a change in the factors of production for that change to come about. Factors of production are real tangible inventions. Not just words.
Unfortunately though what Marx was writing about is very different to modern politics. The US political system has always been far right. It therefore is scared of socialist values because it think that will lead to communism. However in the UK with a more pic-n-mic political system we have both socialist thinking and communist thinking and even those who would consider themselves purest Marxist. The leader of the labour party at the moment is most definitely a socialist but he is not a communist. He liaises with the Unions who are mainly socialist but with a hardcore of Marxists.
What people need to understand is that wanting to have a government that provides for the less fortunate is not the same as having a government run by the people and it is not a matter of slipping from one to the next because it would need a change in the factors of production for that change to come about. Factors of production are real tangible inventions. Not just words.
>>9341
America growing up it was a pain in the butt to learn anything. I was a major book worm but politics never once grabbed me. American education failed to even remotely brush on it. Schools here are K - 12. By 4th year is when I started to learn history and you have every subject brushed off as it was everything taught in the same classroom. And UP till the 6th grade every year it was the same thing and mostly ancient history. When I entered the 6th grade it was Ancient history and the classes were divided into periods. So Egypt, Greece, and then Rome. I spent hours in the library learning about these because the teacher didn't teach enough. Most learned were Ancient gods, capital cities and a few important peoples names, politics. NOPE. I skipped the 7th grade. 8th grade finally American History, and all it was about was war. Revelation, Civil, Vietnam, and then a bit about checks and balances and who all the presidents were. Parties or ideologies, nope. Other systems of government there was only the cow chart. Highschool was 9th grade and all I needed was 1 history and that was it. Ancient History again and what ever other courses required. Almost how out colleges are where required classes make a degree and you just take the course during a semester. My focus has been on software development so politics I never ventured into till like last year.
America growing up it was a pain in the butt to learn anything. I was a major book worm but politics never once grabbed me. American education failed to even remotely brush on it. Schools here are K - 12. By 4th year is when I started to learn history and you have every subject brushed off as it was everything taught in the same classroom. And UP till the 6th grade every year it was the same thing and mostly ancient history. When I entered the 6th grade it was Ancient history and the classes were divided into periods. So Egypt, Greece, and then Rome. I spent hours in the library learning about these because the teacher didn't teach enough. Most learned were Ancient gods, capital cities and a few important peoples names, politics. NOPE. I skipped the 7th grade. 8th grade finally American History, and all it was about was war. Revelation, Civil, Vietnam, and then a bit about checks and balances and who all the presidents were. Parties or ideologies, nope. Other systems of government there was only the cow chart. Highschool was 9th grade and all I needed was 1 history and that was it. Ancient History again and what ever other courses required. Almost how out colleges are where required classes make a degree and you just take the course during a semester. My focus has been on software development so politics I never ventured into till like last year.
>>9344
Political and Historical education in all countries is skewed. In England is is English centric and we have a lot to cover. The modern history I did at school only just touches on the Vietnam war as mainly stuck to WWII. You learn more once you leave school.
However Japanese still have a very odd sense of history which is against the Chinese and the Chinese the opposite. So think yourself lucky you had a least some sense of balance in your classroom.
Political and Historical education in all countries is skewed. In England is is English centric and we have a lot to cover. The modern history I did at school only just touches on the Vietnam war as mainly stuck to WWII. You learn more once you leave school.
However Japanese still have a very odd sense of history which is against the Chinese and the Chinese the opposite. So think yourself lucky you had a least some sense of balance in your classroom.
>>9343
That is baffling, one thing glanced over was the fact the US and Russia were allies then quickly became enemies. US opposed to Communism. But the US was also opposed to Nazism. Oh and yeah WWI find out we were opposed to Russia.. WWI wasn't even mentioned like at all in school it skipped to WWII. It is the great war for peat sake!
So are you saying that British parliament runs like a communist/socialist party?
That is baffling, one thing glanced over was the fact the US and Russia were allies then quickly became enemies. US opposed to Communism. But the US was also opposed to Nazism. Oh and yeah WWI find out we were opposed to Russia.. WWI wasn't even mentioned like at all in school it skipped to WWII. It is the great war for peat sake!
So are you saying that British parliament runs like a communist/socialist party?
>>9347
UK opposition party is socialist. It is in fact called the labour party and the leader of it is a socialist but other members of the same party are far closer to being marked as liberals. Tony Blair was basically a conservative thinker running the a socialist party. As I state the uk is very pic-n-mix.
The US and Russian ally/not ally is mainly because of game theory. Basic game theory would state that the best option for an owner of a nuclear bomb is to use it. That is why once it was invented it needed to owned by at least two countries to make the world safe. Russia and America have to be against each other to prevent all out chaos. Game theory is a bit more complex than that but as you can see with trump ship movements, dropping a single bomb are just keeping the balance in what has become quite and unstable environment.
The US were not really opposed to Nazism. They were loosing money because of the war and had an agreement with the UK so that had no choice on who to side with. I personally think the US stayed out of the war/late to join so they could develop the bomb undisturbed.
UK opposition party is socialist. It is in fact called the labour party and the leader of it is a socialist but other members of the same party are far closer to being marked as liberals. Tony Blair was basically a conservative thinker running the a socialist party. As I state the uk is very pic-n-mix.
The US and Russian ally/not ally is mainly because of game theory. Basic game theory would state that the best option for an owner of a nuclear bomb is to use it. That is why once it was invented it needed to owned by at least two countries to make the world safe. Russia and America have to be against each other to prevent all out chaos. Game theory is a bit more complex than that but as you can see with trump ship movements, dropping a single bomb are just keeping the balance in what has become quite and unstable environment.
The US were not really opposed to Nazism. They were loosing money because of the war and had an agreement with the UK so that had no choice on who to side with. I personally think the US stayed out of the war/late to join so they could develop the bomb undisturbed.
>>9348
The UK political system in simple terms is made up of two houses. The Commons and the Lords. Both are actually below the Queen but as she does not take a political stance it is not important.
The Lords are land owners, ex-politicians and people of note (people who have done good things to help the UK).
The commons are democratically voted by the people.
Laws are discussed in both houses and then decided on. The commons out ranks the lords but not by much.
In the commons the two main parties are the Conservatives (middle to right leaning thinking) and Labour ( middle to left thinking). A third party being the liberals. (middle thinking). Plus representations from Ireland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
All politicians have the right to vote for or against a policy but sometimes they will be asked to vote in line with their party. This is run by the whips office. The whips keep lots of juicy info . on everyone so if a politician does step out of line there normally end up being fucked over in the press.
It is too late in the day for me to write something more accurate than that.
The UK political system in simple terms is made up of two houses. The Commons and the Lords. Both are actually below the Queen but as she does not take a political stance it is not important.
The Lords are land owners, ex-politicians and people of note (people who have done good things to help the UK).
The commons are democratically voted by the people.
Laws are discussed in both houses and then decided on. The commons out ranks the lords but not by much.
In the commons the two main parties are the Conservatives (middle to right leaning thinking) and Labour ( middle to left thinking). A third party being the liberals. (middle thinking). Plus representations from Ireland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
All politicians have the right to vote for or against a policy but sometimes they will be asked to vote in line with their party. This is run by the whips office. The whips keep lots of juicy info . on everyone so if a politician does step out of line there normally end up being fucked over in the press.
It is too late in the day for me to write something more accurate than that.
>>9348
Well it was also Japan dragging the US to war as well or well not war but confrontation. The US was backing the UK. It's like "Here take your guns, fight your war and leave us out of it."
And two countries has to oppose each other? Well what is stopping the two becoming one and taking over the entire world? Of course if everyone else makes bombs that stops right there.
Also another term I see being flung around is Nationalism vs Globalism. That isn't on the political chart as the other anon posted only nationalism. I don't understand that at all but assume it has to do with how a country deals with other countries? Either though trade or agreements, but a country like Cuba would be forced nationalist? And before west invaded Japan it was nationalist? This is only my guess.
Well it was also Japan dragging the US to war as well or well not war but confrontation. The US was backing the UK. It's like "Here take your guns, fight your war and leave us out of it."
And two countries has to oppose each other? Well what is stopping the two becoming one and taking over the entire world? Of course if everyone else makes bombs that stops right there.
Also another term I see being flung around is Nationalism vs Globalism. That isn't on the political chart as the other anon posted only nationalism. I don't understand that at all but assume it has to do with how a country deals with other countries? Either though trade or agreements, but a country like Cuba would be forced nationalist? And before west invaded Japan it was nationalist? This is only my guess.
>>9349
Wow, for the first time learning how the UK works. So how many can hold seat as you mentioned the Lords could just about be anyone. I would assume you had to make an announcement that you wish for a seat in office. How does this differ from Roman senate which an active officer in the military couldn't even hold a seat. (Gaius Julius Caesar had to give up his Triumph to run in office.)
And you know what, This has been one heck of a thread and I thank you so much for sharing your insights. I think I will definitely be digging a bit deeper to learn about different systems of government. But it is also nice to hear it straight from the horses mouth first had how things work on the other side.
Wow, for the first time learning how the UK works. So how many can hold seat as you mentioned the Lords could just about be anyone. I would assume you had to make an announcement that you wish for a seat in office. How does this differ from Roman senate which an active officer in the military couldn't even hold a seat. (Gaius Julius Caesar had to give up his Triumph to run in office.)
And you know what, This has been one heck of a thread and I thank you so much for sharing your insights. I think I will definitely be digging a bit deeper to learn about different systems of government. But it is also nice to hear it straight from the horses mouth first had how things work on the other side.
>>9351
>Nationalism vs Globalism
the way I understand it, globalists are in favour of centralising power into supra-national institutions like the EU for instance and nationalists want a complete control of their state, without any superior institution influencing the way they manage their state and their ressources. I could be wrong though these words get thrown around a lot, they tend to loose their meaning.
Also it's important to make the difference between globalisation and globalism, trade deals,agreements and exchange of goods fall under globalisation, a country with a nationalist leader can perfectly have trade deals, for instance Russia sell gas to China and some european countries
>Nationalism vs Globalism
the way I understand it, globalists are in favour of centralising power into supra-national institutions like the EU for instance and nationalists want a complete control of their state, without any superior institution influencing the way they manage their state and their ressources. I could be wrong though these words get thrown around a lot, they tend to loose their meaning.
Also it's important to make the difference between globalisation and globalism, trade deals,agreements and exchange of goods fall under globalisation, a country with a nationalist leader can perfectly have trade deals, for instance Russia sell gas to China and some european countries
>>9357
Just when I thought I was grasping everything there are even more isms and ations. Alright, but with organizations like the UN or EU isn't it more like a treaty organization to not inflict war not necessarily being a one government which nations just act as really large states? (gosh I really fill like an idiot here) I am trying remember but WWI had the league of nations to sorta prevent a next war, then after Nato but wasn't that just a defensive alliance? Unless I am getting all things mixed up here.
OK so what, globalists wants a 1 world state which rules over everything? Nationalist want independence?
Just when I thought I was grasping everything there are even more isms and ations. Alright, but with organizations like the UN or EU isn't it more like a treaty organization to not inflict war not necessarily being a one government which nations just act as really large states? (gosh I really fill like an idiot here) I am trying remember but WWI had the league of nations to sorta prevent a next war, then after Nato but wasn't that just a defensive alliance? Unless I am getting all things mixed up here.
OK so what, globalists wants a 1 world state which rules over everything? Nationalist want independence?
>>9359
>Alright, but with organizations like the UN or EU isn't it more like a treaty organization to not inflict war not necessarily being a one government which nations just act as really large states?
No, the clowns in Brussels actually want to be a European government but they lack popularity and legitimacy. Hence they prefer to not ask the people directly if it can be avoided through other means.
They do have an impact on European citizens. Relations between the states are handled on matters like migration within the EU. And the European Court often topples national decisions. It's a huge mess that only politicians understand at this point because they created it. They also often use this as an excuse after shitting something up: "it's not our fault, there are European regulations for this…".
It all started off as coal and steel exchange union between France and Germany after the war (France needed mats to rebuild, Germany wanted to regain sovereignty). Later european monetary exchange rates were handled by some kind of trade organization between the states. And after the Soviet Union they finally introduced the European Union step by step based on these previous organizations. But the EU moved away from merely regulating trade relations. The European Central Bank also shackled us all together. It was supposed to be a neutral organization but has long since become the plaything of politicians to sweep their failures under the rug.
>Alright, but with organizations like the UN or EU isn't it more like a treaty organization to not inflict war not necessarily being a one government which nations just act as really large states?
No, the clowns in Brussels actually want to be a European government but they lack popularity and legitimacy. Hence they prefer to not ask the people directly if it can be avoided through other means.
They do have an impact on European citizens. Relations between the states are handled on matters like migration within the EU. And the European Court often topples national decisions. It's a huge mess that only politicians understand at this point because they created it. They also often use this as an excuse after shitting something up: "it's not our fault, there are European regulations for this…".
It all started off as coal and steel exchange union between France and Germany after the war (France needed mats to rebuild, Germany wanted to regain sovereignty). Later european monetary exchange rates were handled by some kind of trade organization between the states. And after the Soviet Union they finally introduced the European Union step by step based on these previous organizations. But the EU moved away from merely regulating trade relations. The European Central Bank also shackled us all together. It was supposed to be a neutral organization but has long since become the plaything of politicians to sweep their failures under the rug.
kek that's in part why it's cool, there are always more isms it's like an hydra, it's never ending.
I don't think most globalists want a 1 world state, even if they want that it would be impossible to manage, more something like big blocks interconnected. The nationalists I don't know know exactly it depends on the people.
Personally I'm not that nationalist but I don't exactly trust governments so I'd like to have mine the smallest and the closest possible from me
I don't think most globalists want a 1 world state, even if they want that it would be impossible to manage, more something like big blocks interconnected. The nationalists I don't know know exactly it depends on the people.
Personally I'm not that nationalist but I don't exactly trust governments so I'd like to have mine the smallest and the closest possible from me
>>9377
Holy ****
So it starts off as a trade agreement and then became pretty much a centralized bank which now though economic powers reigned control over what 28 countries? Imposing laws because it controls the money? I can see why Britain said, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."
Holy ****
So it starts off as a trade agreement and then became pretty much a centralized bank which now though economic powers reigned control over what 28 countries? Imposing laws because it controls the money? I can see why Britain said, "Screw you guys, I'm going home."
>>9382
Understandable. I think allot of people are suspicious of their country and others especially. Always corruption in politics and always shady characters with opposing cultures which someone will not like.
Many try to put faith in the country's government to bring security to their country and when they fail that is when more concerns of foreign powers bring anxiety and just makes the government look weak. That happens everywhere though.
In a Sci-Fi fantasy sorta way a 1 world government sounds idealistic. Like "No wars, now venture in space and fight aliens and shit." But again idealistic. What planets become new states or countries? But Thing about ideas is that they are always flawed and everyone will always have differing ideas which leads to different cultures which lead to wars.
Understandable. I think allot of people are suspicious of their country and others especially. Always corruption in politics and always shady characters with opposing cultures which someone will not like.
Many try to put faith in the country's government to bring security to their country and when they fail that is when more concerns of foreign powers bring anxiety and just makes the government look weak. That happens everywhere though.
In a Sci-Fi fantasy sorta way a 1 world government sounds idealistic. Like "No wars, now venture in space and fight aliens and shit." But again idealistic. What planets become new states or countries? But Thing about ideas is that they are always flawed and everyone will always have differing ideas which leads to different cultures which lead to wars.
>>9383
The ECB does not directly make laws. But it is a powerful actor in all of this. Money runs the world as they say and the ECB creates and manages European money (well for most states in the union anyway, not all of them have the Euro as their currency). With Mario Draghi at its helm the ECB has started go beyond what it was initially supposed to do - "printing" large sums of money to bail out countries and financing state that way. The ECB has become an object of desire to control for all the involved states.
The ECB does not directly make laws. But it is a powerful actor in all of this. Money runs the world as they say and the ECB creates and manages European money (well for most states in the union anyway, not all of them have the Euro as their currency). With Mario Draghi at its helm the ECB has started go beyond what it was initially supposed to do - "printing" large sums of money to bail out countries and financing state that way. The ECB has become an object of desire to control for all the involved states.
>>9377
>hence they prefer to not ask the people directly if it can be avoided through other means.
Case in point the Lisbon treaty in 2007, which we refused by referendum with the Dutchland. They merely reformuled it and adopted it anyway
>hence they prefer to not ask the people directly if it can be avoided through other means.
Case in point the Lisbon treaty in 2007, which we refused by referendum with the Dutchland. They merely reformuled it and adopted it anyway
>>9394
Don't worry, we're not allowed to vote on anything EU-related ever either. And people don't even seem to mind.
Don't worry, we're not allowed to vote on anything EU-related ever either. And people don't even seem to mind.
>>9401
You misunderstand. Germany has a big say in the EU. But not the German people themselves, the German government. Most EU decisions are made between the top bureaucrats in Brussels and the leaders of the states. Our politicians however do not let us vote on anything related to EU business unlike other countries. Kohl for example simply introduced the Euro without letting us vote on it. Most other countries let their citizens vote on that issue.
You misunderstand. Germany has a big say in the EU. But not the German people themselves, the German government. Most EU decisions are made between the top bureaucrats in Brussels and the leaders of the states. Our politicians however do not let us vote on anything related to EU business unlike other countries. Kohl for example simply introduced the Euro without letting us vote on it. Most other countries let their citizens vote on that issue.
>>9404
I should probably also mention that European citizens can elect the European Parliament. But that parliament is of no importance and mostly serves as a retirement home for politicians who have served their party well enough. They still earn plenty of money there.
I should probably also mention that European citizens can elect the European Parliament. But that parliament is of no importance and mostly serves as a retirement home for politicians who have served their party well enough. They still earn plenty of money there.
>>9407
Other Europeans will tell you differently. It has become pretty obvious during the Euro crisis. Many think Germany runs the union and exploits them for some reason. From here it rather looks like we're getting milked and sold out by our own government. Then again, most people will still vote for Merkel and Schulz in the next national elections this fall. Despite the Euro crisis, despite the refugees, etc, etc.
Other Europeans will tell you differently. It has become pretty obvious during the Euro crisis. Many think Germany runs the union and exploits them for some reason. From here it rather looks like we're getting milked and sold out by our own government. Then again, most people will still vote for Merkel and Schulz in the next national elections this fall. Despite the Euro crisis, despite the refugees, etc, etc.
>>9413
Seems the whole EU is just a mess.
So where does Nato and the UN fit, how much power do they have as I am sure thee powers over one county will set up some crazy antics.Hey it the three stooges.
Seems the whole EU is just a mess.
So where does Nato and the UN fit, how much power do they have as I am sure thee powers over one county will set up some crazy antics.Hey it the three stooges.
>>9431
Can't really say much about those two. Nato used to be an alliance against the Soviet Union, now it's something of the European military in these parts (or the American military influence in Europe). Each country runs its own military though.
Nato has a rather aggressive stance towards Russia. And Nato also includes Turkey which is pretty much an islamic dictatorship at this point. It looks like Turkey is not getting scolded at all for all the shit Erdogan is pulling, partly because of the strategic location of the country I think.
The UN is a mystery to me. Seems pretty useless.
Can't really say much about those two. Nato used to be an alliance against the Soviet Union, now it's something of the European military in these parts (or the American military influence in Europe). Each country runs its own military though.
Nato has a rather aggressive stance towards Russia. And Nato also includes Turkey which is pretty much an islamic dictatorship at this point. It looks like Turkey is not getting scolded at all for all the shit Erdogan is pulling, partly because of the strategic location of the country I think.
The UN is a mystery to me. Seems pretty useless.
>>9436
Yeah Nato I always though was the Anti-Soviet union. While the UN being the ANTI lets not start another world war, union similar to the league of nations. But even I am unsure, guess most others are just as clueless.
Yeah Nato I always though was the Anti-Soviet union. While the UN being the ANTI lets not start another world war, union similar to the league of nations. But even I am unsure, guess most others are just as clueless.
File (): 1CED1BDEA6E701FA204E4D0EE9603AB6-119213.gif (116.4 KB, 560x420, 1143474.gif)
File (): F366F690C1D05EE56C45E92B70782D9C-346239.jpg (338.1 KB, 818x879, 1041442.jpeg)
File (): 1A66FC7DEA77AB6BBFCCA88C227EB564-451002.jpg (440.4 KB, 1171x1078, 1232368.jpeg)
File (): 268A57B13F58416F08DFFCFBD264DF9B-178596.jpg (174.4 KB, 600x494, postal_3_review_comic_good….jpg)
File (): 36F4CA8F44500D3EA6BBF4DD0C67C6BC-327607.png (319.9 KB, 803x236, Capture.PNG)
Fixed
File (): F4592F3067E474CCDCDEC1494EA102F6-646131.jpg (631.0 KB, 1451x1941, WWII_Posters_Safety_Securi….jpg)
>>9436
>The UN is a mystery to me. Seems pretty useless.
It's supposed to mediate between countries to avoid wars and spread human rights but yeah they aren't that effective. For instance iirc when the Irak war started they condemned it but they didn't go further than that.
I guess their role is more to provide a supposedely neutral framework for diplomacy than doing concrete actions, though they have peacekeepers which intervene in conflicts.
It's probably better that way tbh too much centralised power is cancerous
>The UN is a mystery to me. Seems pretty useless.
It's supposed to mediate between countries to avoid wars and spread human rights but yeah they aren't that effective. For instance iirc when the Irak war started they condemned it but they didn't go further than that.
I guess their role is more to provide a supposedely neutral framework for diplomacy than doing concrete actions, though they have peacekeepers which intervene in conflicts.
It's probably better that way tbh too much centralised power is cancerous
>libertarian and liberal
Libertarians want less control and restriction on the individual, liberal want more citing morality as a reason to control.
Left and right are based on communism vs fascism in western terms. The disregard authoritarian vs libertarian.
Libertarians want less control and restriction on the individual, liberal want more citing morality as a reason to control.
Left and right are based on communism vs fascism in western terms. The disregard authoritarian vs libertarian.
>>9754
The UN was not meant to be based in the US but it was and immediately became a patsy. They are their as a pressure group for the world rather than a political power. Mostly the UN helps to support financially and political for democracy and freedom. It is separate to the US government, the Sorus foundation and the world bank but is basically similar to all of them. It is corrupt and useless and quite regularly protects criminals including peados.
About 15 years ago I was out drinking with an off-duty prostitute. She was between clients and was just hiding out in a North London pub. Her ex-husband was a member of the UN and she began her sex career by doing favours for votes. That is how the UN worked in the past and I expect not much has changed amongst the African nations represented there.
The UN was not meant to be based in the US but it was and immediately became a patsy. They are their as a pressure group for the world rather than a political power. Mostly the UN helps to support financially and political for democracy and freedom. It is separate to the US government, the Sorus foundation and the world bank but is basically similar to all of them. It is corrupt and useless and quite regularly protects criminals including peados.
About 15 years ago I was out drinking with an off-duty prostitute. She was between clients and was just hiding out in a North London pub. Her ex-husband was a member of the UN and she began her sex career by doing favours for votes. That is how the UN worked in the past and I expect not much has changed amongst the African nations represented there.
>>9758
Read that Pence stated today that "the era for strategic patience with North Korea is over" or something to that effect.
Do you think it's stock-standard bluster or is there more to it? The Syrian incident causes me to wonder.
Read that Pence stated today that "the era for strategic patience with North Korea is over" or something to that effect.
Do you think it's stock-standard bluster or is there more to it? The Syrian incident causes me to wonder.
>>9762
I think that there will be action against N.Korea by the end of the month. I am hoping just one big bomb like Syria but it is not like Fat Boy is a rational leader of N Korea. Trouble is all main media are going with war narrative and that is normally what happens when something horrible is about to happen. Even Pence made claims of nuclear tests and I know that is a fake narrative as I have studied up on the scientific data available. Obviously I have no access to secrets but I don`t think we can trust any government to be honest.
Hoping China will calm the situation and hoping no all out war as that will mean US soldiers dying and being accompanied by Japanese soldiers which would be a strategic mistake. Both armies have very little battle experience and the Japanese soldiers never expected to actually be shot at.
I think that there will be action against N.Korea by the end of the month. I am hoping just one big bomb like Syria but it is not like Fat Boy is a rational leader of N Korea. Trouble is all main media are going with war narrative and that is normally what happens when something horrible is about to happen. Even Pence made claims of nuclear tests and I know that is a fake narrative as I have studied up on the scientific data available. Obviously I have no access to secrets but I don`t think we can trust any government to be honest.
Hoping China will calm the situation and hoping no all out war as that will mean US soldiers dying and being accompanied by Japanese soldiers which would be a strategic mistake. Both armies have very little battle experience and the Japanese soldiers never expected to actually be shot at.
>>9765
People need to remember that a N Korea soldier will not give up and will die for their country. A US soldier with not real experience will not have the same tenacity and in arm to arm combat the winner is the person who can be the most brutal. Overall though the US with a few bombs could destroy the N Korea but they still need justification.
People need to remember that a N Korea soldier will not give up and will die for their country. A US soldier with not real experience will not have the same tenacity and in arm to arm combat the winner is the person who can be the most brutal. Overall though the US with a few bombs could destroy the N Korea but they still need justification.
>>9767
>A US soldier with not real experience will not have the same tenacity and in arm to arm combat the winner is the person who can be the most brutal.
America has been at war with someone, somewhere in the world for near enough their entire history. They don't lack experience.
>A US soldier with not real experience will not have the same tenacity and in arm to arm combat the winner is the person who can be the most brutal.
America has been at war with someone, somewhere in the world for near enough their entire history. They don't lack experience.
>>9772
Some have experience but the ones on the Japanese bases do not do that many tours of other countries. Most of the grunts are not even allowed off base. They have some serious issues because of it.
The last tour my friend did in the middle east resulted in zero casualties on the British side. That is a cake walk compared what might happen in N Korea.
Some have experience but the ones on the Japanese bases do not do that many tours of other countries. Most of the grunts are not even allowed off base. They have some serious issues because of it.
The last tour my friend did in the middle east resulted in zero casualties on the British side. That is a cake walk compared what might happen in N Korea.
>>9774
>The last tour my friend did in the middle east resulted in zero casualties on the British side.
Where was he deployed? I've known people who stayed in Bastion yet still knew people who were killed, and had to deal with Jihadi nutcases trying to storm the base. One of their jobs was to put what mince remained of them into little labelled bags.
>The last tour my friend did in the middle east resulted in zero casualties on the British side.
Where was he deployed? I've known people who stayed in Bastion yet still knew people who were killed, and had to deal with Jihadi nutcases trying to storm the base. One of their jobs was to put what mince remained of them into little labelled bags.
>>9781
I didn't ask for his name and rank. Where he went is nothing sensitive unless he's SAS or something.
I didn't ask for his name and rank. Where he went is nothing sensitive unless he's SAS or something.
>>9786
You could even make up that you know such a person entirely, which is looking most likely at this point.
You could even make up that you know such a person entirely, which is looking most likely at this point.
>>9787
As a case in point you can read through the published statistics. 2016 72 deaths in Total.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/603600/20170330_UK_Deaths_National_Statistic_2017_O.pdf
As a case in point you can read through the published statistics. 2016 72 deaths in Total.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/603600/20170330_UK_Deaths_National_Statistic_2017_O.pdf
>>9660
To be honest, that is the point that I made early on socialism.
People vs Government when I was trying to figure the whole left vs right ideology.
To be honest, that is the point that I made early on socialism.
People vs Government when I was trying to figure the whole left vs right ideology.
>>9894
In the end it all boils down to Karl Marx. Hardly anyone will even bother to read the load of shit (convulted, odd and too much) he wrote. Secondly socialism was a late 19th / early 20th century worker class movement. It has long lost its meaning and what remains are just stories younger people heard from older people.
The lines are bound to remain unclear.
When people speak of socialism they therefore either refer to the romantically glorified old movement or to the here often called "real existing socialism" which is also equalled by many with communism (while communism in the thinking of Marx was just some sunshine out of your butt utopian stage that would be reached after socialism had performed its mission). The latter is an image of decayed countries where nothing is working anymore after socialists fucked them up.
In the end it all boils down to Karl Marx. Hardly anyone will even bother to read the load of shit (convulted, odd and too much) he wrote. Secondly socialism was a late 19th / early 20th century worker class movement. It has long lost its meaning and what remains are just stories younger people heard from older people.
The lines are bound to remain unclear.
When people speak of socialism they therefore either refer to the romantically glorified old movement or to the here often called "real existing socialism" which is also equalled by many with communism (while communism in the thinking of Marx was just some sunshine out of your butt utopian stage that would be reached after socialism had performed its mission). The latter is an image of decayed countries where nothing is working anymore after socialists fucked them up.
>>9767
>>9762
Since we are talking about systems of governments and all, N.Korea has been a hot topic for quite some time. My own father asked me, "What is their end game?" , to which my only response would be a logical one.
"They wish to break from isolation and become a world power."
This of course is my only guess. N.Korea doesn't have many allies left, especially after the soviet collapse. What ever soviet/communist countries were left ended up isolated off. But some of these countries warmed up to global relations, others have remained isolated. So what indeed is N.Korea's end game? All I know is that they stated their nuclear program and threatening the US that they will attack very openly, at least with Iran they were subtle and not that aggressive (from what I recall)
>>9762
Since we are talking about systems of governments and all, N.Korea has been a hot topic for quite some time. My own father asked me, "What is their end game?" , to which my only response would be a logical one.
"They wish to break from isolation and become a world power."
This of course is my only guess. N.Korea doesn't have many allies left, especially after the soviet collapse. What ever soviet/communist countries were left ended up isolated off. But some of these countries warmed up to global relations, others have remained isolated. So what indeed is N.Korea's end game? All I know is that they stated their nuclear program and threatening the US that they will attack very openly, at least with Iran they were subtle and not that aggressive (from what I recall)
>>9896
Through out this thread, we have all talked allot about socialism and communism. How about the flip side of the coin?
I bring this up due to the US riots with "Anti-fa". Nazi is National Socialism Zionist Party, if I remember correctly.
One other stated National Socialism is just a misnomer. The Anit-fa claim Fascism = Nazi, the cow chart states otherwise, almost like state controlled capitalism. Very Totalitarian (Complete control over government and economy) in nature.
This is why I always saw Communism and Fascism hate another as I though it was due to total control vs people in control. But I quickly learned then and know now that Communism was very much with the government in control as wit Fascism.
I also remember hearing something to the effect of the Nazi party wanting to eliminate the central banks. But how does that work exactly? In communism, if state ran, the government has to take goods then redistribute it equally to their people. In Fascism the government again has to take the goods then determine their worth.
My other idea of the whole thing is Socialism is more or less like an open bargaining system which you distribute equally but still have to weigh, is this can of beans really worth a pound of rice? While Fascism determines how many notes they are worth.
Through out this thread, we have all talked allot about socialism and communism. How about the flip side of the coin?
I bring this up due to the US riots with "Anti-fa". Nazi is National Socialism Zionist Party, if I remember correctly.
One other stated National Socialism is just a misnomer. The Anit-fa claim Fascism = Nazi, the cow chart states otherwise, almost like state controlled capitalism. Very Totalitarian (Complete control over government and economy) in nature.
This is why I always saw Communism and Fascism hate another as I though it was due to total control vs people in control. But I quickly learned then and know now that Communism was very much with the government in control as wit Fascism.
I also remember hearing something to the effect of the Nazi party wanting to eliminate the central banks. But how does that work exactly? In communism, if state ran, the government has to take goods then redistribute it equally to their people. In Fascism the government again has to take the goods then determine their worth.
My other idea of the whole thing is Socialism is more or less like an open bargaining system which you distribute equally but still have to weigh, is this can of beans really worth a pound of rice? While Fascism determines how many notes they are worth.
File (): 500CF21D9A3A1533D07655BD1FD3694D-542302.png (529.6 KB, 4000x3108, 1491875481497.png)
>>9904
>Nazi is National Socialism Zionist Party, if I remember correctly.
Wat?
Nazi is just an abbreviation for national socialist. Hitler's party was called NSDAP which meant national socialist German worker party.
I don't think it makes much sense trying to interpret how socialism or fascism may have worked in theory. I simply regard them as singular historical occurences that are now behind us. If you want to discuss the ideologies I fear you will have to talk to a believer.
>Nazi is National Socialism Zionist Party, if I remember correctly.
Wat?
Nazi is just an abbreviation for national socialist. Hitler's party was called NSDAP which meant national socialist German worker party.
I don't think it makes much sense trying to interpret how socialism or fascism may have worked in theory. I simply regard them as singular historical occurences that are now behind us. If you want to discuss the ideologies I fear you will have to talk to a believer.
>>9937
That I cannot tell you either. You probably know as much as I do. I have no knowledge on how the economy actually worked during Hitler's reign. Once the fighting started they probably picked up the same plans from WW I on how to run it I guess. Companies like Krupp (the steel manufacturer) had close ties to the government and were supplied with forced labour to keep the war machinery going.
Soviets planned their economy top down as you know. I think they set certain goals for every 4 years and always fucked up. There were common jokes about people in East Germany never having seen a banana in their lives before the wall in Berlin fell. They also had waiting times of several years till they received a crappy car from the government (if they were lucky). East Germany constantly got loans from West Germany too to keep relations friendlier. The fucked up economy was one of the reasons why people were eventually fed up and fled the country in 1989 when they had the chance to. Which again ultimately led to the collapse of the GDR when the elites did not receive support from Russia (they actually asked for tanks afaik to regain control).
That I cannot tell you either. You probably know as much as I do. I have no knowledge on how the economy actually worked during Hitler's reign. Once the fighting started they probably picked up the same plans from WW I on how to run it I guess. Companies like Krupp (the steel manufacturer) had close ties to the government and were supplied with forced labour to keep the war machinery going.
Soviets planned their economy top down as you know. I think they set certain goals for every 4 years and always fucked up. There were common jokes about people in East Germany never having seen a banana in their lives before the wall in Berlin fell. They also had waiting times of several years till they received a crappy car from the government (if they were lucky). East Germany constantly got loans from West Germany too to keep relations friendlier. The fucked up economy was one of the reasons why people were eventually fed up and fled the country in 1989 when they had the chance to. Which again ultimately led to the collapse of the GDR when the elites did not receive support from Russia (they actually asked for tanks afaik to regain control).
>>9937
Their aim isn't a stateless society/planet, instead a strong and long lasting nation.
They aren't looking to sieze the means of production from the rich, their socialism is more pensions for old people and giving the unemployed jobs building infrastructure (the famous German Autobahns came from such an initiative).
They don't force equality like with communism, i.e everyone being equally poor (with some more equal than others). In fact, the exceptional is lauded.
In essence, the Nazis were all about creating a strong nation and people. If you are looking for a possible downside to that: they didn't let anyone get in the way of that goal.
Their aim isn't a stateless society/planet, instead a strong and long lasting nation.
They aren't looking to sieze the means of production from the rich, their socialism is more pensions for old people and giving the unemployed jobs building infrastructure (the famous German Autobahns came from such an initiative).
They don't force equality like with communism, i.e everyone being equally poor (with some more equal than others). In fact, the exceptional is lauded.
In essence, the Nazis were all about creating a strong nation and people. If you are looking for a possible downside to that: they didn't let anyone get in the way of that goal.
>>9943
>>9942
It wouldn't surprise me that a German wouldn't know too well. (No offense) American history have also been heavily washed out, especially the american civil war which makes many still believe that the Confederates were rebel and blah blah blah. Makes it harder to find out even how their politics worked, because evil.
And to the Brit, I think it is with in any nations goal to be long lasting. Otherwise what are you?
From the sounds of it though is there key differences from a Nazi government and a Fascist one? Capitalism seems to be a common trait for the both of them. Just a bit to the extreme.
>>9942
It wouldn't surprise me that a German wouldn't know too well. (No offense) American history have also been heavily washed out, especially the american civil war which makes many still believe that the Confederates were rebel and blah blah blah. Makes it harder to find out even how their politics worked, because evil.
And to the Brit, I think it is with in any nations goal to be long lasting. Otherwise what are you?
From the sounds of it though is there key differences from a Nazi government and a Fascist one? Capitalism seems to be a common trait for the both of them. Just a bit to the extreme.
>>9944
>And to the Brit, I think it is with in any nations goal to be long lasting. Otherwise what are you?
True, but few actually out and say that a 1000 year reich is their stated aim.
>From the sounds of it though is there key differences from a Nazi government and a Fascist one?
Yes. Here's the two most prominent figures of both on it.
Mussolini: "The Fascist conception of the state is all-embracing: outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have any real worth. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist state — a synthesis and a unit of all values — interprets, develops and potentiates the whole life of a people…It is not the nation that generates the state…Rather it is the state which creates the nation, conferring volition and, therefore, real life on a people…In the Fascist conception, the state is an absolute before which individuals and groups are relative…"
Hitler: "The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar creatures… States which do not serve this purpose are misbegotten monstrosities in fact."
As you can see, both have very different ideas about the role of the state, even though both tend to have a strong one.
Other differences are that Fascism doesn't care about race, or much of anything about you really, so long as you are subservient to the state. Under nazism, if you're not German, you're not a part of Germany.
They are not necessarily capitalistic, instead more of a mixed economy (mostly free enterprise, but with some government direction and regulation etc). Later they moved more towards direct control, but that's because they were at war and that's what everyone did then.
>And to the Brit, I think it is with in any nations goal to be long lasting. Otherwise what are you?
True, but few actually out and say that a 1000 year reich is their stated aim.
>From the sounds of it though is there key differences from a Nazi government and a Fascist one?
Yes. Here's the two most prominent figures of both on it.
Mussolini: "The Fascist conception of the state is all-embracing: outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have any real worth. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist state — a synthesis and a unit of all values — interprets, develops and potentiates the whole life of a people…It is not the nation that generates the state…Rather it is the state which creates the nation, conferring volition and, therefore, real life on a people…In the Fascist conception, the state is an absolute before which individuals and groups are relative…"
Hitler: "The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar creatures… States which do not serve this purpose are misbegotten monstrosities in fact."
As you can see, both have very different ideas about the role of the state, even though both tend to have a strong one.
Other differences are that Fascism doesn't care about race, or much of anything about you really, so long as you are subservient to the state. Under nazism, if you're not German, you're not a part of Germany.
They are not necessarily capitalistic, instead more of a mixed economy (mostly free enterprise, but with some government direction and regulation etc). Later they moved more towards direct control, but that's because they were at war and that's what everyone did then.
>>9955
Seems Fascism also prized the state before the people. Which Nazism tried to put the people before the state. Both of course using the state as a bridge to the people.
Same idea, different approaches.
Seems Fascism also prized the state before the people. Which Nazism tried to put the people before the state. Both of course using the state as a bridge to the people.
Same idea, different approaches.
>>9982
More like same means (collectivist ideology which puts a common goal before individual goals with a big state to enforce it)
but different endgoals, facism was about creating strong people to create a strong society as explained by >>9955 and communism was about the abolishment social classes to give to people equal chances to succeed via meritocracy iirc
More like same means (collectivist ideology which puts a common goal before individual goals with a big state to enforce it)
but different endgoals, facism was about creating strong people to create a strong society as explained by >>9955 and communism was about the abolishment social classes to give to people equal chances to succeed via meritocracy iirc
>>9982
Not the same idea at all. Killing in self defence is not the same as murder just because both have someone die.
They both ultilise a strong state but in the case of Fascism it's a central point of the ideology, in the case of NS it's a means to an end but not absolutely necessary. You could, technically, have a nazi anarchy. It would be a clusterfuck, like most anarcho-somethings, but it wouldn't violate anything about the ideology.
Not the same idea at all. Killing in self defence is not the same as murder just because both have someone die.
They both ultilise a strong state but in the case of Fascism it's a central point of the ideology, in the case of NS it's a means to an end but not absolutely necessary. You could, technically, have a nazi anarchy. It would be a clusterfuck, like most anarcho-somethings, but it wouldn't violate anything about the ideology.
>>9996
Each to their own. Personally I don't mind that there is a government, but Fascism sees the line and then jumps to hyperspace in my oppinion.
Each to their own. Personally I don't mind that there is a government, but Fascism sees the line and then jumps to hyperspace in my oppinion.
>>9995
Ok I am getting a bit tangled up here. I don't see how that differs from what I just said. Each goal seems to want to prize the individual.
Fascism, appears that the state is absolute necessary to reach this goal and only when the state becomes in full control does the citizens have control. (Or something to that effect)
National Socialism uses the state as a tool to maintain the relevancy of the citizens but isn't always necessary.
Seems each just work back ward from each other.In the end is power to the people.
Ok I am getting a bit tangled up here. I don't see how that differs from what I just said. Each goal seems to want to prize the individual.
Fascism, appears that the state is absolute necessary to reach this goal and only when the state becomes in full control does the citizens have control. (Or something to that effect)
National Socialism uses the state as a tool to maintain the relevancy of the citizens but isn't always necessary.
Seems each just work back ward from each other.In the end is power to the people.
raid bumper
bump
bump
87 replies | 10 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived