Beautifully put. Winston Churchil and Adolf Hitler were both right wingers, I'm sure if you asked Adolf Hitler if he saw Winston Churchil as a fellow right winger he'd say he was about as left wing as Josef Stalin.
Edit: realized this might be misunderstood without context, I'm not saying Hitler and Churchil are comparable at all, just showing that spectrum exist, and just because you're on the same side of the center doesn't mean you are the same at all.
To be fair Churchill committed a genocide of millions of Indians and was horrible to the British colonies. So yeahā¦ he and Hitler had more in common than we dare admit.
But he did send the Black and Tans into ireland, so while he wasn't responsible for genocide, he sure as hell was responsible for a lot of irish deaths.
if anything, people have talked about it so much that they've forgotten why he was loved for so long, the man who didn't surrender in the face of tyranny
I don't know whether it was a purposeful genocide, obviously millions of Indian people died, and none of them should have, but I think the main issues were the risks of getting supplies there due to Japanese submarines, and the corruption of the more local leaders in British India, he was by no means perfect, he did many things wrong, but I wouldn't call him genocidal
Churchill committed genocide? Just because he wanted to keep India as a colony does not make it so. Please donāt use that word so loosely, it degrades actual genocides like Ukrainians under Stalin, Cambodians under Pol Pot, Armenians under Turkey and so on.
There was a bad famine going on at the time in the Indian subcontinent and Churchill famously didnāt give a fuck (because he was a racist who disliked Indians) and increased food quotas to supply the British mainland during ww2. This caused around 3 million Indians to die of starvation. Same situation as the holodomor actually.
Thereās extermination camps and concentration camps. A concentration camp like an Indian reservation becomes an extermination camp when the concentrated population in the allotted land is systemically killed either by starvation, disease or direct violence by the military forces who control the population placed there.
Hitler really hoped Britain would join him. He considered the British people to be "Worthy". One of his minions (Rudolf Hess?? Not sure) actually flew to Britain thinking he could persuade them to join the cause. I didn't go that way and the guy spent the rest of the war as a pow
I think its important to note you are saying rhy are conparable for being right wingers, and that is apt.
Church over saw the running of the british empire even if its powers and lands were diminished he was a colonialist.
Hitler viewed himself as a national socialist. Calling him a nazi would've pissed him off. He did like socialism and communism. He didn't like that marx was "genetically jewish". Mind you hitler was the first to think of jewish as a race.
Hitler referred to himself as a national socialist to steal votes from the working class, but he deeply hated socialism and communism. He eliminated the socialist movement inside the government in the night of the long knives in 1934. Also, the famous poem starts with āfirst they came for the communistsā, he viewed communism as the largest threat to his fascist rule. He lied about being a socialist just like he lied about being a vegetarian.
Also, right wingers in Germany and Eastern Europe started calling Jews a race decades before Hitler, it was Nazis who started calling them Semitic to make them sound foreign.
He eliminated the socialist movement inside the government
'The government' lol. Inside HIS party. After he has used them to get power. NDSAP were a left party in their route to power until Hitler could discard its socialist wing in the Night of the Long Knives. "First they came for the communists" is cute but they were already assassinating conservatives such as the leader of Austria long before Hitler removed these useful idiots from his party to go totalitarian.
The entire Nazi ideology was bent on the destruction of communism i.e. the USSR. Hitler absolutely viewed Churchill differently from Stalin. Nazi Germany was offering peace and alliance to Britain until 1940, right after their occupation of France.
Churchill let 3 million Indians die from starvation who he could have saved.
Hitler deliberately murdered 3 million Jews
Stalin murdered 9 million people and caused the deaths of another 9 million.
Politics is irrelevant here. Totalitarians are evil. Stalin was the most evil.
Churchill was not a totalitarian but was no innocent, he let people die because they were not white.
I am a socialist and do not live in the USA.
Comparing Hitler and Stalin as I said is comparing two pyschopathic totalitarians.
It most definitely not a comparison of Nazism and Communism.
Communism has nothing within its edicts that relate to mass murder of anyone. In principle it says all people should be treated equally, distributing wealth evenly.
Nazism is based around the social construct of race. It says there is a superior humanity - the master race that should take over the world - a white supremacy that should erradicate all other races - using forced sterilisation.
One has perfectly reasonable scientific principles that if they were applied properly should not inherently do evil things.
The other has utterly unscientific pseudo science that is designed to pick a random trait to justify the mass enslavement and extermination of the majority of humanity.
There is literally no comparison wrt. the principles of the two political ideologies. But politics has nothing to do with the level of atrocities committed in the name of both. Both also deny any democratic rights, both are totalitarian and so both can end up committing similar atrocities.
Its not the ideals, its the lack of checks and balances on those in power that cause that. Hence I am very much a democratic socialist. SInce democracy when it works exercises some of those controls.
It is more complex than "Churchill let people die because they were not white".
The Japanese army had cut supply lines and destroyed fields during the war
Brown spot disease and record cyclones had ravaged the crops that remained
speculative and panic buying had resulted in private hoarding of food stores
local and provincial administrators mismanaged (read corruption) distribution of emergency food services and hid the growing crisis from London
Churchill had to choose between feeding troops in Europe and Africa during a war or feeding India
And while Churchill's actions were late and his comments about the people "breeding like rabbits" were unhelpful. When Japan was no longer threatening to invade Australia, and a new (less corrupt) Viceroy was put in charge, they were able to get food to the people there.
Blaming Churchill is only part of what happened there, Imperial Japan was much more at fault for blockading food supplies to an already delicate situation.
This is Redditā¦get the hell outta here with your fact based balanced accounts of historical events! Mention Churchill or even just a photo and we have to explode in 2nd hand rage and regurgitate āwhat about the famineā nonsenseā¦.
I have a comment on another subreddit being down voted into the ground because I dared to say that making it more difficult to use AI to cheat doesn't solve the underlying problem, which is a lack of basic ethics education in today's students.
Something that is going to lead to even more unethical people in business in the future.
That is not the issue at all, you got downvoted because you were wrong.
As someone that work in education, I can tell that we have known the real issue for decades. And it's that standardized test do not work, reward people that are good at taking test, and not those that are different but potentially just as competent. Ultimately people cheating at something that is inherently unfair is fully expected, has always happened and will always be happening. It's just easier now. We need to rethink how we evaluate students. And thankfully the discipline I teach already kind of allows me to do that, to some extent.
And yes, standardized test are inherently unfair. Being equally unfair to everyone wouldn't make it fair but it's not even that.
I think it may be informative to google Katharine Birbalsingh and listen to her. She is well known and has some strong opinions on views, such as the one you raised. Iām referring to the view that see teaching information to students and then having uniform tests is somehow unfair. She points to how this makes the teacher feel good about themselves in the moment ālook at how compassionate and understanding I am by not requiring a student, that may have less fortunate circumstances, to do the same tests as another student, because it may be too hard for themā but it is doing a huge disservice to the student as they wonāt be prepared for the real world. THAT is a teachers job, not to teach children that the world has only two classes, oppressed and oppressor or that because they started with less, the world owes them something and should make accommodations for them. Please take a listen as if you are teaching students, and I applaud you for that, it is very important that they learn how to and believe that they can succeed in the world, nomatter their circumstances.
Amartya Sen (who is not the foremost expert of famine in India, but is a Nobel prize winning economist and the most widely cited source), argued that it was a failure of food entitlement. He also argued that democratic governments with a free press rarely allow famines because they face political pressure to act. The lack of which, again, is the direct consequence of British colonialism and rule. While he didnāt blame Churchill solely, he did say that imperial priorities placed military objectives above Indian civilians and that colonial governance lacked accountability.
Janam Mukherjee, who IS cited as the leading specialist working today, writes that the famine was deeply rooted in, exacerbated by, and to a degree caused by colonial wartime policy. Something that Churchill and his wartime cabinet were very involved in.
Examples include:
- British denial policies that confiscated boats and destroyed rice stocks to prevent a possible (not ongoing) Japanese invasion. Rice stocks were also removed or destroyed in vulnerable coastal districts. This, alongside crippling Bengalās transport infrastructure, food markets, and local fishing and farming communities.
- Delayed or rejected requests for grain imports.
- Refusal to redirect shipping when Bengalās crisis became evident
- Stated mass civilian casualties were acceptable losses.
Lastly, he argues that Churchillās well-documented derogatory remarks about Indians, together with similar attitudes among sections of the colonial administration, reflected a government that did not value Indian civilian lives equally.
Hitler and the Nazis regime famously killed 6million Jews in the Holocaust and approximately 5 million gays, gypsies, Slavs, and political adversaries (to name only the largest groups), in total the Holocaust caused the deaths of over 11 million people, and that doesn't count civilians killed in bombings, war dead in general, or those who died of causes of the war. The Bengal famine of 1943 has a wide range of people from 800,000 to 3.8 million according to Wikipedia, and could be considered a side effect of the war against both the Nazis and Japanese, and not deliberate genocide, or if you want to go over famines as deliberate acts of genocide I'd love to hear your take on the Holodomor and Stalin's and to a lesser extent Lenin's effect on that situation and how it differs from Churchill's actions.
Sorry fair point, figures are wrong. Stalin also systematically victimized Jews with pogroms and policies after the war. But my point was Stalin was as bad as Hitler in terms of totalitarian mass murder.
It's not a good point. Hitler killed so many people because his ideology demanded it, he truly believed that so many people were worthless and needed to be killed.
Stalin was a monster too, he was paranoid, moody, and wielded his absolute power horribly but nothing in his ideology asks for mass murder of him. Eventually he would have run out of people to kill, and in fact, he kind of did. It took a few decade to reach his grim kill count. It is sometimes argued wether if was truly a totalitarian leader versus merely an authoritarian one. Personally, I think he was a totalitarian but it's a legitimate question.
Hitler would have never ran out of people to kill as long as was gays, jews, slavs, disabled folks, roma folks alive. It didn't even take one decade for Hitler to be responsible for over 20 million death. He was unquestionably a totalitarian leader.
Both horrendous people without a question, but there is a nuance to be made here.
it's so funny how people try to portray churchill , then again those most critical of him are usually nazi oriented which resulted in such a polarised opinions about him , fighting the bad guy doesnt necessarily make you a hero.
The was a civil war post revolution in the USSR. Saying he murdered this or that many million people always varies in number, and is a quite juvenile attempt to revise history to portray soviets as boogeymen, so terrified the western ruling elite is of socialism. Wild that so many adopt ruling class interests(maintain the status quo of record breaking wealth inequality) as their own.
National socialism was just one flavor of socialism. It was collectivist in nature and would aptly be considered more left wing than right wing in its entirety.
In 1920, the party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party to attract working-class support away from left-wing parties (socialists and communists).
Adolf Hitler initially opposed the addition of "socialist" to the party name.
While the name contains the word "socialist," historians and political scientists classify Nazism as a far-right, totalitarian ideology distinct from, and in opposition to, socialism
Youāre an idiot. Winston Churchill wasnt even elected he was selected by the crown to convince the people to go to war because they wanted no part in it. Heās a con
Did you know that Adolf Hitler was only far right in the old Kings right/left terminology? The right/left lines have shifted dramatically over the centuries. They no longer look as they did back then. In todayās society, Hitler having been a democratic socialist himself, would be a lefty. The left have also become the authoritarians.
I know āFirst they came for the socialistsā as the left love to spout as they claim the NAZIs werenāt socialists despite it being in the name. But they were; they were a different type of socialist than the ones they went after.
Adolf Hitler was not right wing. He was a left wing figure who was anti another left wing movement. Fascism is simply the nationalistic form of socialism whilst communism is the globalist form of socialism. The term fascism comes from the Italian term fasces which means a bundle of sticks or that the bundle of sticks is stronger than a single one. The Nazi party literally stood for the national workers socialist party. And racism and nationalism do not make someone right wing there are hundreds of left wing nationalists movements throughout history. Ghandi and Mandela were nationalists even.
The nazis first action when they reach power was to kill all the left wingers. Because they were far right shitbags. Just like yourself, you just are ashamed of the association and sharing the same ideology as the greatest evil in our history.
Amazing how the mud singers hijack the actual terms.
Maybe folks should start calling the Peter theils and Elon musk of the world "communist" because they want more "central planning" (corporations replace democracy)
Lmao you haven't got the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
Names mean nothing in politics. Do tell me, which of Hitler/NSDAP policies were left wing?
Churchil was not a conservative? Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain to the audience how Churchil, a man who was a member of the conservative party, wasn't a conservative.
Adolf Hitler wanted to work with Churchill up until England started to get involved against him. So I donāt think Hitler saw Churchill as a liberal minded man.
They called Hillary a socialist lol. She's incredibly corporate-friendly and status-quo-pushing to be considered anything but a moderate, and would be firmly considered right in most first world democracies. They just throw anything they don't like under one giant umbrella because they can only remember 7 words at a time.
They call everyone who isn't in their gang "socialists." It's just a word they use to shut down conversations while signalling to their tribe that they are loyal.
I've told this story before but each is so embedded on their own side they're clueless or complacent on the facts.
I had a coworker who was was calling Harris "commie Kamala". I asked him how exactly was she showing signs of being a communist? How commie is it to get endorsed by Dick and Liz Cheney? Is falsely claiming that Goldman Sachs endorsed her financial policies winning any points with the commies?
He just stared at me in disbelief and said "Un, I hadn't heard any of that". I pulled out my phone and showed him the various articles. He was a older guy and after looking he just says "well, I only follow conservative news". I just told him that if he's genuinely interested in being informed, he might want to look at other sources. Won't feel as good as confirmation bias, but sadly, news isn't supposed to be where you get your dopamine, it's where you're supposed to get your facts.
The problem is America doesn't have a far left they only have a left and then the other problem is that the conservatives are in the far right the whole party is far right.
I'm a Democratic party is center right.
America doesn't have any true political parties on the left
Norway, Sweden and Denmark are all far happier, prosperous nations than the USA if we are talking about the living conditions and life experience of the average citizen.
It wasn't that long ago we heard about liberals being okay but that extreme liberals are the real problem. They really had no interest in defining the distinction, and I guess they eventually figured out they don't really have to.
Could someone list what the only far left president we've ever had accomplished in his 4 terms while winning the only war we've ever won and pulling us out of only depression we've had and creating the middle class and social safety nets?
Even more interesting is how authoritarians, regardless of if their economics are left or right, always seem to end up os socially conservative and extremely anti-progressive.
The Stalin was incredibly racist, and so was his regime. His personal racism towards Mao probably did as much to kill Russian-Chona relations as anything political.
The Soviets didn't like the music of the 50s/60s and were even nastier about it than any "silent Generation" parent who called their boomer kids music "jungle sounds" or a ther equally 50s soft racist stuff. They didn't LGBTQ people, they didn't fantasy or sci-fi fiction unless they censored the hell out of it.
Communist societies the world over have always become extremely socially conservative with massive expectations of performative conformance to being "normal." Which is the exact same thing the far right wants, only with a different person in charge of the money.
I have no idea where you have the '"Stalin was racist to Mao" thing from... the Sino-Soviet split didn't happen until after Stalin died, among other things due to Maos dislike of Kruschevs "destalinization".
It wa the prime minister of Norway. They are a strongly capitalist system but believe in high taxes and high government services. Not really the right cup of tea for the US.
Ya but as a centrist who is down for a social Democrat leadership, I have to admit there are so many factions of the āDemocratā party, it makes it easy for far right folks to latch on to a message from any one of them and scream āsee what he/she said?ā Thereās too many people trying to push multiple ideologies.
Oh I forget it is the other way around actually. Everyone is a far right nazi. That's why these labels don't work anymore because you overused them for everyone you don't agree with.
Trump winning a democratic election really showed how people on the far left don't care about democracy. They care about winning.
The fact that me writing "trump" gives me a popup " we don't want a flame war, so please ensure you are civil to one another" speaks volumes.
You know what doesn't give me that popup, "Mao", "Hitler", "Stalin". Looking forward to seeing this post removed or people calling me a nazi for pointing out facts
When you're part of the far-left everything is the far-right.
I'm center left, support pro choice, solid regulations, unions, lgbt and minority protections, etc. Yet I get called right wing and fascist because I don't support socialism.
Socialism is not the fulcrum on the left/right divide.
I'mma guess "social ownership of the means of production." Which gets confusing because a lot of flavors of socialism that exist in 2026 no longer advocate for that either, but it is the most basic principle of non-hyphenated Socialism.
Employee stock ownership plans still fit squarely within capitalist market economies imo. And I love them! I want more! I support those businesses in my community whenever I can!.
But it's a joint ownership plan created within a capitalist system, which isn't what the base model of Socialism described.
Granted, again, in 2026 almost every market philosophy and system that is actually used is a hybrid that starts with a capitalist foundation and adds concepts from socialism, which makes it hard to draw lines.
But there are absolutely still people on the left who want the OG 'abolish capitalism' Socialists, and they'll love to hop online and say stuff like "Scratch a liberal, find a fascist."
Employee stock ownership plans still fit squarely within market economies imo (and I love them! I want more! I support those businesses in my community whenever I can!).
Then I have to admit that you have me confused. You do not support socialism because you do not support social ownership of the means of production, but you love policies that promote social ownership of the means of production, and you want more of them. I have not yet found from where "I don't support socialism" comes.
But it's a joint ownership plan created within a capitalist system, which isn't what the base model of Socialism described.
Well I think what you're saying is that you don't support "pure" socialism, which is fair as I'm not sure any thinking person supports "pure" capitalism either. Any ideology stretched to its uncompromising extreme is the model for a sci-fi dystopian story.
I suppose a better question from me would be: what specific socialist policies do you not support? And by that I don't mean sentence-long hot takes posted on social media by college freshman looking for attention, but actual black-letter law bills that are genuinely put forward.
Not the guy you're talking to but you're muddying the conversation, there are people that support pure socialism, there's also those that support pure capitalism, the latter call themselves anarcho capitalists and while goofy, they do exist.
You're grounding the conversation into applied policy not political rhetoric which is where we currently are and where definitions break down but they still lead to things like maga, which is a good example.
Maga would tell you they wouldn't want to push for "pure" fascism but with project 2028, a partisan hack court and a rogue president you wouldn't call their behavior fascistic just because it's not "pure"?
This is why I don't care for the socialist commy and lately maoist rhetoric whitewashing these movements.
there are people that support pure socialism, there's also those that support pure capitalism
Are they, as I identified later people who are writing "actual black-letter law bills that are genuinely put forward", or are they "college freshman looking for attention"?
You're grounding the conversation into applied policy not political rhetoric which is where we currently
I don't think the political rhetoric of people looking for attention on social media is particularly important nor compelling. I think actual, applied policy and the rhetoric of elected officials is important. That you call focusing on that "muddying" is odd.
Maga would tell you they wouldn't want to push for "pure" fascism but with project 2028, a partisan hack court and a rogue president you wouldn't call their behavior fascistic just because it's not "pure"?
That's actually a really great example, because you're referring to MAGA people who say "I support fascist policy X, Y, and Z, I just don't support pure fascism" as kind of saying nothing when clearly they do support fascism. Similarly, I'm talking to someone who says, "I support socialist policy X, Y, and Z, I just don't support pure socialism". Which I also find to be a kind of empty statement from someone clearly supporting socialism, just not liking the name.
The problem with addressing the issue in two separate entities (legislators vs online pundits) is that your claims or dismissals start taking an accidental motte and bailey dynamic which makes it easier to disregard criticisms of the system by chalking it up to "unimportant" online pundits and not the legislators.
IĀ
don't think the political rhetoric of people looking for attention on social media is particularly important nor compelling.
This is an example of that dismissal, reducing online pundits as unimportant when they're the ones shaping the opinions of those who will vote the legislators in is somewhat deceiving, without them the legislators don't gain power. Our conversation right now is a byproduct of their rhetoric, hashing out the facts is pretty important, otherwise all you have is people voting on catchy slogans and the price of eggs, and then you end up with project 2025 legislators.
After 2024 I can easily see the same happening with socialism and even worse movements based on recently seeing Mao suit wearing pundits giving speeches about casting off our representatives.
Because of social media rhetoric has never had as much influence as it does today, pundits and anyone espousing opinions of high consequence need to be taken as seriously as those consequences.
Well I think what you're saying is that you don't support "pure" socialism, which is fair as I'm not sure any thinking person supports "pure" capitalism either.
Yes, both of these are correct. Socialism in his original form through the Third International advocated exclusive social ownership of the means of production. I do not support this, and I think this is what the OC was saying too.
Thankfully, most modern parties that have had electoral success and have the word "socialist" in their name have a Mixed Economy philosophy instead of a pure Socialist economy. That's why even though I fit ideologically closer to the New Democrats wing of the left in the US, I have zero qualms about being in a coalition with people like Mamdani.
Ultimately the current major political divide in the US is "liberal vs. illiberal." Mamdani is firmly on the side of liberal in that divide (historical Socialism was not particularly liberal).
ETA: "I'm not sure any thinking person supports "pure" capitalism either." These are Libertarians, lol. The flip side of a pure Socialist is a Libertarian. Both of these philosophies in practice tend to end in disaster.
The whole workers owning the means of production, y'know the core one, most everything else you hear like free buses is just social services, we've had government welfare programs for decades.
That's not what that means to me, what you describe can exist in capitalism, it's moving away from free markets and private business ownership, the goal socialists and specially the more extreme movements want is to get rid of capitalism wholesale, the more extremes want state control instead of people deciding how to consume goods.
Capitalism has its flaws, can't imagine a system that wouldn't, the problem is not the system it's the people, socialism can and has been abused leading to really bad outcomes.
People are fallible, we will always have corruption so you need a systemic measure to counteract this, spreading out power and control helps mitigate this, its why we have multiple branches of power and why the country and capitalism got out of control when rulings started consolidating said power (citizens united being the go to example).
I'm not just going off a sentence log catchy phrase but the implications that follow, past executions of the system and keeping people's nature in mind.
I'm curios, let's pretend maga was for socialism, how do you think Trump and maga have executed on it? Would you trust socialism then?
the goal socialists and specially the more extreme movements want is to get rid of capitalism wholesale, the more extremes want state control instead of people deciding how to consume goods.
But here's the thing, is it fair of me to say "the goal capitalism want is to get rid of social safety nets wholesale, the more extreme want private corporate control instead of people deciding how to consume goods."
That's not how you would describe your own ideology, right? How you define socialism is not how I would describe mine. I would describe mine in reference to things like Employee Stock Ownership Plans.
You might say "hey, that's just socialism inside of practical capitalism" and I say "it's just capitalism inside of practical socialism". It doesn't really matter what we call it as long as we're both in favor of the policy, right?
The unfortunate thing about modern political discourse is that looking at individual policies is hard, so we just want those policies to fit under a specific ideological umbrella that we can look up in our own Pokemon weakness charts to determine if we agree with it or not. But I think at the end of the day, if we compare policies, we're basically in total agreement.
I'm curios, let's pretend maga was for socialism, how do you think Trump and maga have executed on it? Would you trust socialism then?
I admit that's a bit too abstract for me to imagine. It's a bit like asking "how different would World War 2 be if instead of being a fascist, Hitler was an environmentalist". I don't really know. That would require changing so many other things that it becomes extremely speculative.
is it fair of me to say "the goal capitalism want is to get rid of social safety nets wholesale, the more extreme want private corporate control instead of people deciding how to consume goods."
That's not how you would describe your own ideology, right?Ā
The goal of capitalism as an inanimate object is supply and demand free markets, taken to an umipeded extreme that is exactly how I would describe it, and it has a name I already mentioned, anarcho capitalism or "pure" capitalism, this is being pushed by losers like Peter Thiel, Musk and Yarvin, but let's notice the difference, you are saying it's unfair to compare socialism the same because your personal interpretation is "Employee Stock Ownership Plans" when it's not, you admit it's your interpretation of it.
The interpretation of socialism is not my interpretation of it, it is the core base of it not the extreme, so you want to compare the extreme of capitalism to your interpretation of the core base of socialism. Furthermore the example you gave is inaccurate, we can't say core base capitalism wants to get rid of social programs when we've had social programs flourish within a capitalist system, this wouldn't have happened if your example was true whereas the core base goal of socialism is to replace capitalism.
Democratic socialists are supposed to try and implement socialism via legislation yet in their own words...
Our primary goal, the goal which informs all of our organizing work, is to abolish capitalism and, ultimately, to achieve communism. We do not believe that capitalism can be reformed into socialism ā it must be overthrown and replaced.
This is not Democratic socialism, for one they want communism and to overthrow capitalism, so more innocent framings such as "Employee Stock Ownership Plans" fall flat in the face of official organizations subverting even the socialist label, which considering how communism took over previous socialist movements, it's something people should be scared of.
The apprehension is earned and honestly, necessary.
The interpretation of socialism is not my interpretation of it
Okay, but who are the equivalent of Thiel, Musk, and Yarvin on the left who are giving the interpretation you're talking about?
so you want to compare the extreme of capitalism to your interpretation of the core base of socialism
No I don't want to do that. I think I have been clear that I desperately want to have a conversation with you about your opinions where you show an interest in me and my opinions without asking me to speak on behalf of other, different people with whom I don't agree, who you're mad at.
this is from an official DSA caucus
That is from a fringe (Points of Unity) of a fringe (Libertarian Socialists) of a subset (Democratic Socialists of America) of a group of people (Socialists). Is it really helpful for you to talk past me about a fringe of a fringe of a fringe, while I talk past you about a fringe of a fringe of a fringe? Or can we talk about our own opinions, as I have been trying to do since the beginning?
I keep talking past you because the conversation I find more valuable is the consequential one, niche and personal interpretations of socialism aren't helpful at best and subversive at worse, kind of a rabbit hole not worth chasing or a misconception worth dispelling.
And the equivalent of those I mentioned, one big extremist voice currently is Hasan Piker who is touted as a growing influence in politics, so like the others, he's a crackpot pundit as you call them. I'm sure there's more but I'm not as familiar with the extreme left as I am with the extreme right since that's been prevalent a lot longer but it's worth identifying it.
In the end you are correct both sides of the argument are the fringe of a fringe of a fringe on either side and both should be treated as a threat, not disregarded as unimportant or reframed as more innocent than they are.
Edit: Oh and I have no clue what your other comment says since it was removed.
Fact: Trump was a Democrat longer than heās been Republican. It shows how far left the Democrats have moved left to shift a percentage (15% or more) of their Democrats into independents and Republicanās.
When you are part of the Left, you shed centrists like RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, Bill Maher, Elon Musk, John Fetterman, etc. because anybody who disagrees with socialism and communism is branded extreme Right. The GOP welcomes centrists and folks who appreciate science (basic biology, distinctions between a motherās DNA and that of a fetus, male/female differences, etc.)
291
u/Cyiel Jul 27 '26
When you are part of the far-right everything else is the left.