I came on here because I am tired of conservatism being linked up with these fascist Nazis like the guy who killed the people in Buffalo.
Racist Nazis are not conservatives in the American tradition of honoring the Constitution and the values in the Declaration of Independence.
Race war Nazis, who take pride in mowing down innocent, unarmed people, have nothing to do with American conservativism which is about individual rights, responsibility, and liberty.
These horrendous acts by race war Nazis (I don't care if they call themselves Nazis or not, that's what they are) discredit conservatism. People think the choice is between murdering lunatics and Big Pharma controlled Democrats.
We are left with no choice.
And to top it off, these Nazis are destroying the greatness of America. We used to be proud of defeating Nazis. As a conservative, I was proud that we moved beyond slavery, fighting the Civil War (remember Republicans were against slavery, Democrats, for), many conservatives joined with the Civil Rights movement (against most Southern Democrats). Blacks fought with whites in World War 2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.
We are one nation, under God, no matter what ethnicity we are, if we hold to the Constitution. That's what matters, not the color of someone's skin.
Race war Nazis are destroying that and destroying America, weakening us internally as well as externally.
So I'm going to say something radical: they want a war? We should take that war to them. I don't mean Black Americans should take the war to them. I mean patriotic Americans, black white, brown, whatever. They're going to shoot up innocent people? I say we start taking up arms against them. They're armed. They aren't innocent. They intend to do harm to Americans. They are a violent threat to Americans and America.
Patriots can give it to these cowardly Nazis shooting up unarmed citizens ten times over. 100 times over. Just wipe them from the face of the earth.
Who's with me?
Fascism is far left. Nazis are far left. Attempting to associate them with right wing is a purposeful misrepresentation of history intended to smear their political opponents. The far right is anarchism. The American republic defeated these ideologies a number of times in the past and yet they continue to attempt to promulgate their evil through subversion.
Seeking to measure it is potentially useful though agree challenging. You can measure it by examining the flow of factually inaccurate misrepresentation of history across sources. You can also track the funding sources of these compromised institutions.
You do not understand fascism if you think it's far left. What do you think "left" and "right" mean? Anarchism is far left. Anarchism means without hierarchy. An-archy. Without hierarchy. It's socialist, but without coercive government to enforce it. It also has no government to enforce "property rights" because in anarchy you don't have property rights as there is no private property.
Read the anarchists. Kropotkin, Bakunin.
Fascism is authoritarian corporatism whereby property remains in private hands (show me a fascist who argued otherwise) but both capitalists and labor were controlled by the Authoritarian, because under fascism there is one ruler.
If you can show me a fascist who believed in the primary principle of socialism, that the means of production should be in the hands of workers, not the capitalist, then I will grant you the point. You won't be able to. Fascists themselves believed they were creating a middle ground between capitalism and socialism, maintaining private property but with state direction of production.
You've fallen for false right-wing revisionism. You don't get to just rewrite definitions because it suits your sensibilities. What anarchism is was defined by anarchists. What fascism is was defined by fascists. Read them.
I've studied plenty of history and encourage you to take a look at the relationship between socialism, communism, and fascism. This is basically a continuum of increasing government control and involvement in people's personal lives. NAZIs we're socialists who on practice enacted fascist policies. The enlarged roll of the state is characteristic of leftist ideologies. The state is idyllic and the people are flawed. Anarchism being further to the right of corporatism suggests that self assembled corporate entities emerge as governing authorities. This is congruent with what we see both philosophically and in practice.
Please don't assume my support for something based upon my ability to describe it.
None of this response addresses my argument. (Just for the record, and it doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, but you brought up the fact that you've studied a lot of history. I have a history degree + 45 hours of grad school--all but thesis--in political science).
Your dichotomy of Left and Right being about the degree of government control over people is overly simplistic. You need to think about this as a Euclidean plane, with one axis being social control over lives vs the other being economic control. In fact, there's an interesting test you can take. Here. I took it just now. I'll share mine if you share yours. Nazis fall on the right both economically (right authoritarian) and socially. Stalinists are left authoritarian. True, Nazis are less right economically than Stalinists are left.
If there are two unifying characteristics of socialism and communism of all stripes they are:
If there is a third plank of socialism it is internationalism, also explicitly rejected by the Nazis.
The Nazis adopted none of these main tenets of socialism. How can they be socialists if they rejected the main tenets of socialism?. Let's ask Hitler what he meant by "socialism":
So Hitler basically redefined the word "socialist" to mean the "common weal" and "patriotic." This is not what any socialist considers socialism. So, sure, by Hitler's made up definition of socialism, they were socialist. But they were not socialist by the terms that all other socialists accept: repudiation of private property, elimination of social classes and economic hierarchy, and internationalism.
Find me a Nazi embracing those main tenets of socialism. So far you have failed to do that.
It's not about the size of the state. If it were about the size of the state, Bill Clinton would be the most right-wing president in modern times. Reagan would be a leftist. Bush (W) would be leftist. But that's absurd. It's an absurd measure of left vs right.
You are talking about Anarcho-capitalism, not classical anarchism which argues that worker collectives would naturally emerge centered on democratic decision-making, not private "corporate entities."
In classical Anarchism (again, see Bakunin, in particular), "ownership" of land will essentially be abolished. You cannot have a non-hierarchical society with owners and workers. In any system of private ownership, some people must be compelled to work, rather than voluntarily joining an association or collective. That's the main point of actual Anarchism as opposed so called Anarch-capitalism (which is actually just radical Libertarianism).
Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this with you further. But please, present evidence of any Nazi anywhere at anytime repudiating private property, social hierarchy, or nationalism. It's impossible. Naziism fails to meet the three most important tenets of socialism.
More of Hitler's "socialist" views:
How to debate with you when any source material, as you reference, is not accurate due to circumstantial context. Then later, using source documents to support your points of view against circumstantial context? You have to chose an epistemology or else the argument is not internally coherent.
Fascism is state control of estates beyond the economic (since that is a special case of fascism called socialism). Communism is a special case of socialism that believes in collective ownership. Using this definition and historic evidence of past control of the means of production we then can clearly categorize Nazi as socialist. They are also nationalists (not debating that).
Modern parties likely do not believe the same ideologies. This is true of GOP and Dem. Modern GOP is ~ classic liberalism. Modern Dem ~ classic socialism / borderline fascism.
Agree that corporatism is a special case of anarchism, was using it as an example implementation of how hierarchies do emerge within that form of "governance". Agree that social communities could also emerge independent of corporations but question the practical distinction.