The caveat is that being a “racist mass murderer with a superiority complex” is a very right-wing thing. It wouldn’t be possible to fit that mold and be leftist because it’s entirely incompatible with leftist ideology.
I don’t understand why someone would bring up that being right-wing does not make one a nazi unless they were right-wing and felt like the type of person who is at risk of being called a nazi.
That being said, in reference to your commenr: in America it is as you say. Elsewhere in the world it’s a bit more complicated. Left and Right originally referred to the sides of the French National Assembly, who either supported the king or the revolution. In some uses it just means people who support liberal economics (more funding) or conservative economics (less debt).
Most people would agree that communism is a left-wing ideology, but there have been famous communist leaders that were racist, mass-murdering and/or with superiority complexes (the famous examples of Che Guevara, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot all fit some of those criteria each).
It’s not uncommon for fascists to adopt socialist rhetoric to try and gain mass appeal. However that falls away under the lightest scrutiny of their actions and ideology. “National Socialism” is the most obvious example. I’d include Pol Pot in that bucket as well.
The USSR under Stalin and PRC under Mao are a bit different. The government in either case made decisions that led to unnecessary death, but there’s no evidence to suggest any of their missteps were motivated by racial animus.
Sure, but then so is Hitler by that standard. They just used leftist iconography on the surface for propaganda purposes, and did not commit their crimes in the name of any sort of left-wing ideology. Pol Pot in particular was supported by the US military and intelligence mechanisms (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge), and is fair to assume that his movement was used as a psy-op to hurt the communist cause in Cambodia and Vietnam.
Another cool pol pot fact: mao took him at face value and said “hey, it’s cool that you’re down but you’re kinda fuckin up, wanna read some of these books and get your shit right?” And pol pot was all “no, I’m fine.”
So you’re saying that racism and mass murder did not exist under communist China?
What about Russification in the Soviet Union? Minorities were marginalized.
Why would it be a problem if the Nazis were actually left-wing? You’re not realizing you’re actually a victim of a fallacy. And even more concerning, you’re trying to use the same fallacy to attack back. It’s just flawed logic all over the place.
I said it doesn’t matter if the Nazis were right wing or left wing, what matters is that they were criminals. Then that person said that mass murder and racism is only aligned with the right, so I showed him/her that that is wrong, murder and racism can also happen on the left.
The point being that just because in the past there were rotten apples in the left/right, it doesn’t mean that being in the left/right makes you a rotten apple.
I said it doesn’t matter if the Nazis were right wing or left wing
And you’re completely wrong. They absolutely were right wing, and teaching history accurately matters.
The point being that just because in the past there were rotten apples in the left/right, it doesn’t mean that being in the left/right makes you a rotten apple.
Except for one little thing: Republicans are calling for the eradication of vulnerable minorities and then pretending that they’re not acting like nazis and using the lie that nazis were left wing as justification.
Exactly, Republicans are using a fallacy. That is my whole point. Even if Nazis were left-wing, it is totally irrelevant. Both left and right can behave like Nazis.
The Nazis weren’t criminals, they followed the rules exquisitely. It’s just that they used their politics to put themselves in positions to change the rules.
It also is important, if we’re to learn from history, to know that the nazis were favored for their conservative (right-wing) economics and their pro-worker (left-wing) rhetoric, but their actions were mostly defined by their fascism (a far right-wing economic and social philosophy).
Ignoring this is a great way to create a blind-spot that treats any group with fascist tendencies as perfectly safe as long as they’re not actively doing a genocide yet.
On the other hand, i do understand and agree with what you’re saying to some degree: the Left/Right divide is mostly rhetoric of divisiveness and quickly becomes a shorthand for “people with morally correct beliefs (people who agree with every single political belief I have and whom i will uncritically adopt more political stances from)” and “people with morally evil beliefs (people who disagree with every single one of my political beliefs and whom i will uncritically adopt the opposite stances of).”
This too creates a blindspot where people just assume their chosen team is incapable of morally heinous acts and will also ignore historical fact in order to maintain that dissonance, incidentally recreating the conditions that allow such abusers to rise to positions of power.
Ok, so if it is important to keep awareness, why did people get triggered here when I pointed out that there have also been murderers, racists and dictators in the left? Is it fine to keep awareness only for the opposition?
Keeping an eye on this is exactly the type of fear that the Republicans use to suppress the left. “A leftist president? Have you seen North Korea?”
It’s just flawed logic.
The only logic that has created the perfect conditions for racists in power is exactly this type of discrimination based on past examples.
As I understand it the keystone between left and right is that:
The left belief is that all people are created equal and should have equal authority to point out wrong doing.
The right belief is that people should be in a hierarchy with people at the top exerting control downward.
I think they are actually just saying if you really believe everyone is equal you can’t pick a group to target for mass murder. But if you are at the top of a pyramid tge people below you naturally look expendable.
Correct, and my point was that they can’t. If you view everyone as equal you can’t make yourself a dictator. You can lie to yourself about your value, most people do for better or worse. But if everyone is equal you can’t decide to boost one group over another. Or if you do decide that is better and you deserve to be in charge, then your views have shifted right. That is my understanding of left vs right in it’s most basic form.
Hilarious how people who know exactly one “racist mass murderer with a superiority complex” assume that it is a right-wing thing. Try humanities most famous left-winger ever.
Im not saying that nazis and right-wing are unrelated, but you picked exactly those characteristics in Hitler that actually arent related to political views at all.
The caveat is that being a “racist mass murderer with a superiority complex” is a very right-wing thing. It wouldn’t be possible to fit that mold and be leftist because it’s entirely incompatible with leftist ideology.
I don’t understand why someone would bring up that being right-wing does not make one a nazi unless they were right-wing and felt like the type of person who is at risk of being called a nazi.
That being said, in reference to your commenr: in America it is as you say. Elsewhere in the world it’s a bit more complicated. Left and Right originally referred to the sides of the French National Assembly, who either supported the king or the revolution. In some uses it just means people who support liberal economics (more funding) or conservative economics (less debt).
Most people would agree that communism is a left-wing ideology, but there have been famous communist leaders that were racist, mass-murdering and/or with superiority complexes (the famous examples of Che Guevara, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot all fit some of those criteria each).
Did you just seriously say that there has never been a left wing racist mass murderer with a superiority complex?
There hasn’t been.
Certainly been a few waving the flag of socialism/communism that have lead to those consequences.
It’s not uncommon for fascists to adopt socialist rhetoric to try and gain mass appeal. However that falls away under the lightest scrutiny of their actions and ideology. “National Socialism” is the most obvious example. I’d include Pol Pot in that bucket as well.
The USSR under Stalin and PRC under Mao are a bit different. The government in either case made decisions that led to unnecessary death, but there’s no evidence to suggest any of their missteps were motivated by racial animus.
Mao’s Great Leap Forward was him trying to push Communist ideology onto nature. He had one hammer in his tool box and tried using it on everything.
Like who?
Pol Pot should be a uncontroversial pick.
Sure, but then so is Hitler by that standard. They just used leftist iconography on the surface for propaganda purposes, and did not commit their crimes in the name of any sort of left-wing ideology. Pol Pot in particular was supported by the US military and intelligence mechanisms (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge), and is fair to assume that his movement was used as a psy-op to hurt the communist cause in Cambodia and Vietnam.
Another cool pol pot fact: mao took him at face value and said “hey, it’s cool that you’re down but you’re kinda fuckin up, wanna read some of these books and get your shit right?” And pol pot was all “no, I’m fine.”
So you’re saying that racism and mass murder did not exist under communist China?
What about Russification in the Soviet Union? Minorities were marginalized.
Why would it be a problem if the Nazis were actually left-wing? You’re not realizing you’re actually a victim of a fallacy. And even more concerning, you’re trying to use the same fallacy to attack back. It’s just flawed logic all over the place.
“I don’t like nazis”
“YEAH? Whatabout Commies?! Huh? HUH?”
What? I’m just saying that being racist or a murderer is totally unrelated to political views. Those can happen in both the left and right.
Guys, you’re smarter than this. For real.
The conversation is about nazis. You keep trying to talk about communists.
I said it doesn’t matter if the Nazis were right wing or left wing, what matters is that they were criminals. Then that person said that mass murder and racism is only aligned with the right, so I showed him/her that that is wrong, murder and racism can also happen on the left.
The point being that just because in the past there were rotten apples in the left/right, it doesn’t mean that being in the left/right makes you a rotten apple.
And you’re completely wrong. They absolutely were right wing, and teaching history accurately matters.
Except for one little thing: Republicans are calling for the eradication of vulnerable minorities and then pretending that they’re not acting like nazis and using the lie that nazis were left wing as justification.
Exactly, Republicans are using a fallacy. That is my whole point. Even if Nazis were left-wing, it is totally irrelevant. Both left and right can behave like Nazis.
Republicans, not the left, are currently calling for the eradication of vulnerable minorities. That’s nazi shit.
Republicans are lying. They’re saying that Democrats are closer politically to nazis than they are, while they’re doin’ nazi shit.
The Nazis weren’t criminals, they followed the rules exquisitely. It’s just that they used their politics to put themselves in positions to change the rules.
It also is important, if we’re to learn from history, to know that the nazis were favored for their conservative (right-wing) economics and their pro-worker (left-wing) rhetoric, but their actions were mostly defined by their fascism (a far right-wing economic and social philosophy).
Ignoring this is a great way to create a blind-spot that treats any group with fascist tendencies as perfectly safe as long as they’re not actively doing a genocide yet.
On the other hand, i do understand and agree with what you’re saying to some degree: the Left/Right divide is mostly rhetoric of divisiveness and quickly becomes a shorthand for “people with morally correct beliefs (people who agree with every single political belief I have and whom i will uncritically adopt more political stances from)” and “people with morally evil beliefs (people who disagree with every single one of my political beliefs and whom i will uncritically adopt the opposite stances of).”
This too creates a blindspot where people just assume their chosen team is incapable of morally heinous acts and will also ignore historical fact in order to maintain that dissonance, incidentally recreating the conditions that allow such abusers to rise to positions of power.
Ok, so if it is important to keep awareness, why did people get triggered here when I pointed out that there have also been murderers, racists and dictators in the left? Is it fine to keep awareness only for the opposition?
Keeping an eye on this is exactly the type of fear that the Republicans use to suppress the left. “A leftist president? Have you seen North Korea?”
It’s just flawed logic.
The only logic that has created the perfect conditions for racists in power is exactly this type of discrimination based on past examples.
No one is triggered by you.
As I understand it the keystone between left and right is that:
The left belief is that all people are created equal and should have equal authority to point out wrong doing. The right belief is that people should be in a hierarchy with people at the top exerting control downward.
I think they are actually just saying if you really believe everyone is equal you can’t pick a group to target for mass murder. But if you are at the top of a pyramid tge people below you naturally look expendable.
At least that is my reading of this debate.
And my point was that even in the left, murder, discrimination and racism can exist.
People just choose to think their position is ideal and the opposition is flawed. This type of brainwashing is disgusting.
Correct, and my point was that they can’t. If you view everyone as equal you can’t make yourself a dictator. You can lie to yourself about your value, most people do for better or worse. But if everyone is equal you can’t decide to boost one group over another. Or if you do decide that is better and you deserve to be in charge, then your views have shifted right. That is my understanding of left vs right in it’s most basic form.
Yeha, tell that to the North Korean God, Kim, who rises above everyone while keeping everyone else equal.
Hilarious how people who know exactly one “racist mass murderer with a superiority complex” assume that it is a right-wing thing. Try humanities most famous left-winger ever.
Im not saying that nazis and right-wing are unrelated, but you picked exactly those characteristics in Hitler that actually arent related to political views at all.
State enforced racism and industrialized government implemented mass murder are central to nazis’ political views.
Who, exactly?