https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/2044854007257354327?s=46
If you're struggling with ED as you get older this video will help perk that pecker right up. Wake up and choose violence. Have yourself a day Mr. Thomas. Cheers. @bradstevens you have a homework assignment.
I saw this earlier. Two of the four (Stalin and Mao) were totalitarian communists, while the other two (Hitler and Mussolini) were populists who built their regimes on populism and grievances to lead into fascism. If you use a typical definition of progressivism which is "aimed at improving society through government action, focusing on progress, equality, and addressing injustices", I don't know how any of the four would be considered progressives. You might make an argument that Trotsky was a progressive kind of guy as it relates to the treatment of Jews (he was Jewish), but not Stalin, and Trotsky was persona non grata the day Lenin died. I would hardly call forced modernization and depressed humanistic values in both Mao and Stalin's regimes as progressive.
Mussolini was a socialist until right before WWI, but was expelled. He was the founder of the Italian National Fascist Party which immediately targeted progressive institutions with violence (he wrote a book the doctrine of fascism in the early 30s). He was an absolute populist and master of propaganda. He built a bunch of buildings, but that hardly engenders a label of progressivism.
Hitler was a far-right totalitarian who blended nationalism, populism, antisemitism and eugenics. He did create limited social benefits and economic programs, but the economy of Germany was dreadful, as it was almost immediately geared for war production beginning in 1933. From 1933 until 1939, wages of 85% of the German population fell by 11%. Only the annexation of Austria improved those numbers.
Thomas is likely right on the issue of Natural Rights if we use the Lockean definition of "life, liberty, and estate", as fundamental inalienable rights inherent to all individuals, regardless of government or culture.
My point is that Thomas has connected too many dots. It is clear why he wants to connect those dots--he's serving a political master here.
I get your point but there are no far right dictators. That's a fallacy. Far right is libertarianism, decentralization, and no government. Hitler was on the far left.
https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/2044854007257354327?s=46
If you're struggling with ED as you get older this video will help perk that pecker right up. Wake up and choose violence. Have yourself a day Mr. Thomas. Cheers. @bradstevens you have a homework assignment.
I saw this earlier. Two of the four (Stalin and Mao) were totalitarian communists, while the other two (Hitler and Mussolini) were populists who built their regimes on populism and grievances to lead into fascism. If you use a typical definition of progressivism which is "aimed at improving society through government action, focusing on progress, equality, and addressing injustices", I don't know how any of the four would be considered progressives. You might make an argument that Trotsky was a progressive kind of guy as it relates to the treatment of Jews (he was Jewish), but not Stalin, and Trotsky was persona non grata the day Lenin died. I would hardly call forced modernization and depressed humanistic values in both Mao and Stalin's regimes as progressive.
Mussolini was a socialist until right before WWI, but was expelled. He was the founder of the Italian National Fascist Party which immediately targeted progressive institutions with violence (he wrote a book the doctrine of fascism in the early 30s). He was an absolute populist and master of propaganda. He built a bunch of buildings, but that hardly engenders a label of progressivism.
Hitler was a far-right totalitarian who blended nationalism, populism, antisemitism and eugenics. He did create limited social benefits and economic programs, but the economy of Germany was dreadful, as it was almost immediately geared for war production beginning in 1933. From 1933 until 1939, wages of 85% of the German population fell by 11%. Only the annexation of Austria improved those numbers.
Thomas is likely right on the issue of Natural Rights if we use the Lockean definition of "life, liberty, and estate", as fundamental inalienable rights inherent to all individuals, regardless of government or culture.
My point is that Thomas has connected too many dots. It is clear why he wants to connect those dots--he's serving a political master here.
I get your point but there are no far right dictators. That's a fallacy. Far right is libertarianism, decentralization, and no government. Hitler was on the far left.
This is Hickory-level shitposting
@jdb you can't become a dictator without centralizing most things and limiting rights/ freedoms. None of those actions are far right, but they all are far left.
The term “conservative dictator” is an oxymoron.
I've never uttered the phrase "conservative dictator", so not sure why you said it.
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
The term “conservative dictator” is an oxymoron.
Hardly.
With Trump, it's redundant 😉
@jdb you can't become a dictator without centralizing most things. That's not far right.
And we all know many conservatives are perfectly fine with centralizing things when their guy is in charge.
I don't think I have even heard a peep from the maga crowd about states rights now that Trump is president.....maybe it's because they love their dictator.
https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/2044854007257354327?s=46
If you're struggling with ED as you get older this video will help perk that pecker right up. Wake up and choose violence. Have yourself a day Mr. Thomas. Cheers. @bradstevens you have a homework assignment.
I saw this earlier. Two of the four (Stalin and Mao) were totalitarian communists, while the other two (Hitler and Mussolini) were populists who built their regimes on populism and grievances to lead into fascism. If you use a typical definition of progressivism which is "aimed at improving society through government action, focusing on progress, equality, and addressing injustices", I don't know how any of the four would be considered progressives. You might make an argument that Trotsky was a progressive kind of guy as it relates to the treatment of Jews (he was Jewish), but not Stalin, and Trotsky was persona non grata the day Lenin died. I would hardly call forced modernization and depressed humanistic values in both Mao and Stalin's regimes as progressive.
Mussolini was a socialist until right before WWI, but was expelled. He was the founder of the Italian National Fascist Party which immediately targeted progressive institutions with violence (he wrote a book the doctrine of fascism in the early 30s). He was an absolute populist and master of propaganda. He built a bunch of buildings, but that hardly engenders a label of progressivism.
Hitler was a far-right totalitarian who blended nationalism, populism, antisemitism and eugenics. He did create limited social benefits and economic programs, but the economy of Germany was dreadful, as it was almost immediately geared for war production beginning in 1933. From 1933 until 1939, wages of 85% of the German population fell by 11%. Only the annexation of Austria improved those numbers.
Thomas is likely right on the issue of Natural Rights if we use the Lockean definition of "life, liberty, and estate", as fundamental inalienable rights inherent to all individuals, regardless of government or culture.
My point is that Thomas has connected too many dots. It is clear why he wants to connect those dots--he's serving a political master here.
I get your point but there are no far right dictators. That's a fallacy. Far right is libertarianism, decentralization, and no government. Hitler was on the far left.
That isn't right. Hitler wasn't on the left in any respects. He had a hatred for all things left. If you are referring to the official name of the Nazi Party "the National Socialist German Worker's Part, that was nothing but propaganda to attract the working class and those disillusioned with the political parties existing after WWI. It was a clear populist movement and Goebbels and other higher ups wrote about it being a sham on the population. In the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler purged every element of socialism from the party. By the end of 1934, the Nazis ignored the working class and focused on winning support from the wealthy industrialists and big business--all of whom were obviously anti-socialist and anti-communist. I don't know anyone except David Irving who would say otherwise.
There are tons of examples of far right dictators. Mussolini another, Franco, Pinochet, Salazar, even Chiang Kai-shek.
And Putin.
I'm not sure what Putin. He might be. You should never know who is really pulling the strings in Russia. The Soviet Union, as we have come to find out, the Politburo had far more influence on things than we thought. The book Putin's People is a fantastic read on early days of Putin's regime and the amount of influence his former KGB comrades had on policy. Not sure if that is the case and whether the pseudo large companies are pulling strings there.
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
To state that embracing eugenics it is a hallmark of progressive thinking is way way out there in bizarroland. CT is losing it.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
To state that embracing eugenics it is a hallmark of progressive thinking is way way out there in bizarroland. CT is losing it.
Of course it is. You're the party of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.
@jdb you can't become a dictator without centralizing most things and limiting rights and freedoms. That's how it works and not far right.
I didn't make the rules of political theory. But, nobody on this board is intelligent enough to try and rewrite them. Historical "right-wing" regimes have been limiting rights and freedoms (not to mention executing dissidents) for many centuries. There is a reason why the political spectrum is described as a horseshoe or circular.
Fascists kept rights (including private ownership) for those in groups they accepted or promoted. They didn't centralize everything - just created large militaries, removed unions, etc.
Of course it is. You're the party of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.
All my life I've been the party of Reagan, Bush, Dole, GWB, McCain, Romney, and (since 2016) anyone but Trump. Deep disdain for both the progressive shitlibs and for the MAGA King and his cult / your cult.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Because many think right wing is the same as conservative and some also explain conservatism simply as the opposite of socialism.
@jdb you can't become a dictator without centralizing most things and limiting rights and freedoms. That's how it works and not far right.
I didn't make the rules of political theory. But, nobody on this board is intelligent enough to try and rewrite them. Historical "right-wing" regimes have been limiting rights and freedoms (not to mention executing dissidents) for many centuries. There is a reason why the political spectrum is described as a horseshoe or circular.
Fascists kept rights (including private ownership) for those in groups they accepted or promoted. They didn't centralize everything - just created large militaries, removed unions, etc.
Your last two sentences are examples of centralization and limiting freedoms.
Because many think right wing is the same as conservative and some also explain conservatism simply as the opposite of socialism.
I don't think that is necessarily true in either case. At least not serious people.
Your last two sentences are examples of centralization and limiting freedoms.
Those are symptoms of authoritarianism. The political intent is different, even if the results are the same.