iwillspankyou wrote:@Googol why would Nazy Germany kill every red/communist, if they were the same?
Because in Hitlers mind the bolsheviks/reds/communists were created by his mortal enemy the Jews to undermine the German Aryan nation. Think of it like this way.
You have the communists in the USSR which collectivise the wealth based on the class in which they strive to create equality and socialist utopia. In Nazi Germany, basically the same thing happens but not based on class, it is based on the idea of race, hence why i call them racist communists. Or atleast, thats my point of understanding it.
Except that they never collectivised wealth... they confiscated jewish wealth, maybe. But corporations and industrial barons thrived under the nazi regime... if they wouldve collectivised things, porsche, volkswagen, bayer, ig farben wouldve all been owned by the state and the workers... they didn't strive to create an equal society either, they were strict believers in a natural and vertical hierarchy.
You cant just take an idea which says that all production facilities should belong to the people that work in them, and then say its the same as someone who says all production facilities should belong to white people, the only difference being class vs race... or all production facilities should belong to mormons... or women... or homosexuals... And respectively call them racist, religious, or sexist communists.
ye, that article claims it pretty much rejects marxism and by proxy communism and their most fundamental tenets. So to then claim it's the same seems a very awkward stretch of mental gymnastics...
That tends to happen when you delete my (conservative) response. Good thing Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith's response wasn't deleted.
I would have to agree with Dolan here. I wouldn't identify as right or left. There's no party in The Netherlands that completely aligns with my views, and for that reason, I didn't vote in the latest election. They all have too many bad policies.
Age of empires is so complicated you have to think of many things at a time and do many things at a time too but politics is apparently so simple it's just about left and right.
I would join a political party containing: The Quartermaster, The Exiled Prince, The Tycoon, El Presidente. I'd imagine these guys would be on the right side of the spectrum.
UrvyZnapy wrote:Age of empires is so complicated you have to think of many things at a time and do many things at a time too but politics is apparently so simple it's just about left and right.
Come on guys!
One label doesn't represent the entirety of someone's worldview, but it helps. For one, labeling oneself communicates more about one's political opinion than complaining about labels
UrvyZnapy wrote:Age of empires is so complicated you have to think of many things at a time and do many things at a time too but politics is apparently so simple it's just about left and right.
Come on guys!
One label doesn't represent the entirety of someone's worldview, but it helps. For one, labeling oneself communicates more about one's political opinion than complaining about labels
Labels do tell you something but that something is less and less clear. Is the Democratic party from the USA a left-wing, centre-left wing or centre party? Some say that compared to European centre-right parties, they are right-wing even. So how is slapping a label on the US Democratic party clarifying anything? Or slapping a label on yourself, based on the fact that you're voting Democrats?
When you identify with a certain political orientation, that probably says more about you than about the label or political party you vote for. Political parties can be broad churches that absorb a motley assortment of political ideas.
So how is slapping a label on the US Democratic party clarifying anything?
It clarifies you're not a republican, which is meaningful because a lot of Americans are.
The Republican and Democratic party in the USA are purely the product of American history and "culture". Not much of what they say makes sense in Europe or elsewhere, for example the debate on gun ownership. You're neither leftwing or rightwing in Europe if you don't support civilian ownership of guns, you could be either.
I'm confused by all this label discussion. You can go into as much detail as you'd like here, nobody is forcing you to limit how you describe your political beliefs.
Horsemen wrote:I am right-wing in the US and extreme right-wing in the UK
Want to hear something that will shatter everything you thought you knew about conservatism? Conservatism in the 19th century was anti-nationalist, because they thought nationalism was a political force for the plebs, that could threaten the establishment. Conservatives back then were supporters of the monarchist establishment.
Fast-forward to the 21st century, conservatives are nationalist.
Horsemen wrote:I am right-wing in the US and extreme right-wing in the UK
Want to hear something that will shatter everything you thought you knew about conservatism? Conservatism in the 19th century was anti-nationalist, because they thought nationalism was a political force for the plebs, that could threaten the establishment. Conservatives back then were supporters of the monarchist establishment.
Fast-forward to the 21st century, conservatives are nationalist.
That's true, in some weird way where they are pro-corporate nationalists.
So how is slapping a label on the US Democratic party clarifying anything?
It clarifies you're not a republican, which is meaningful because a lot of Americans are.
The Republican and Democratic party in the USA are purely the product of American history and "culture". Not much of what they say makes sense in Europe or elsewhere, for example the debate on gun ownership. You're neither leftwing or rightwing in Europe if you don't support civilian ownership of guns, you could be either.
That's because we have a culture of this or that, and that has driven the parties to adopt positions of disagreement, even if the majority of a party may support that issue.
fightinfrenchman wrote:I'm confused by all this label discussion. You can go into as much detail as you'd like here, nobody is forcing you to limit how you describe your political beliefs.
Exactly. If you don't want to use evil, meaningless labels, then you can always just spend some time actually writing down your own thoughts. There's no implicit request to copy someone else's.