Current Events > What specifically makes fascism a right-wing form of government?

(+) Yeah! (+)

yoshifan1 posted...

Fascism is seen as right-wing due to its heavy focus on nationalism over globalism, which is a heavy right wing ideology.

So why aren't North Korea, Maoist China, or Stalinist Russia seen as right-wing? All of them are heavily nationalist, right?

yoshifan1 posted...

Also, government control of businesses appears in both left-wing and right-wing ideologies. Free markets only exist in a small subset ideologies on both sides.

This is true, but only in the left-wing is a powerful central government seen as the ideal. Authoritarian right-wingers tend toward a strong decentralized government.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Again read the first part of my post. During war times, Authoritarian governments appear because they are the most efficient during war time.

The definition of right-wing and left-wing don't change depending on whether you're at war.

And if you still want to argue the point, Hitler and Mussolini were unquestionably socialists before they took power and went to war.

During war time exactly! What country wasn't by definition socialist during WW2?
---

Libertarians believe taxation is theft, and are right wing.

Anarcho-marxists believe taxation is theft. Does that mean they're also right wing, because they agree with Libertarians?
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Again read the first part of my post. During war times, Authoritarian governments appear because they are the most efficient during war time.

The definition of right-wing and left-wing don't change depending on whether you're at war.

And if you still want to argue the point, Hitler and Mussolini were unquestionably socialists before they took power and went to war.

During war time exactly! What country wasn't by definition socialist during WW2?

Hitler took power in 1934 and didn't invade Poland until 1939. What's the excuse for his blatant authoritarianism for those 5 years?

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Libertarians believe taxation is theft, and are right wing.

Anarcho-marxists believe taxation is theft. Does that mean they're also right wing, because they agree with Libertarians?

No of course not, because your stance on taxes has no bearing on whether you're right-wing or left-wing. Same with nationalism, racism, anti-civil rights, etc.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

@Error1355 where are you in the topics

I only have a small amount of political shit posting I can handle at a time and I decided for some god awful reason to reply to one of your shitty topics. Your deep seeded need to try to force everything to have some over the top political bias because you yourself can't get beyond your own doesn't mean everyone else has one. The moment you try to force me into one category is the moment I stop trying to argue with you because you can only debate in generalizations.
---

Error1355 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

@Error1355 where are you in the topics

I only have a small amount of political shit posting I can handle at a time and I decided for some god awful reason to reply to one of your shitty topics. Your deep seeded need to try to force everything to have some over the top political bias because you yourself can't get beyond your own doesn't mean everyone else has one. The moment you try to force me into one category is the moment I stop trying to argue with you because you can only debate in generalizations.

I made it really clear ITT that I do not believe all leftists are Nazis, and the OP doesn't suggest such a thing either. I would love you to quote the part where I unfairly generalized a group of people.

Perhaps you need to pay more attention!
---

Mal has really hit the bottom of the barrel

Guess that's what happens when you attempt to defend Nazis, in such a weird and blatantly hardcore way.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Again read the first part of my post. During war times, Authoritarian governments appear because they are the most efficient during war time.

The definition of right-wing and left-wing don't change depending on whether you're at war.

And if you still want to argue the point, Hitler and Mussolini were unquestionably socialists before they took power and went to war.

During war time exactly! What country wasn't by definition socialist during WW2?

Hitler took power in 1934 and didn't invade Poland until 1939. What's the excuse for his blatant authoritarianism for those 5 years?

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Libertarians believe taxation is theft, and are right wing.

Anarcho-marxists believe taxation is theft. Does that mean they're also right wing, because they agree with Libertarians?

No of course not, because your stance on taxes has no bearing on whether you're right-wing or left-wing. Same with nationalism, racism, anti-civil rights, etc.

Ummmm planning for war against the soviets, western empire, Jews, and the conquest of outside occupied areas he felt belonged to Germany?!?! Really man
---

Compared to communism and socialism, fascism focuses more on military strength, has a somewhat free market (allowing people to "win" and "lose"), lacks an apparent focus on supporting minority groups (not that either side is nice to them; see also: Holodomor), and is much more nationalist. It does not pretend to be a benevolent force. (Not that communism is a benevolent force, but it pretends to be.) That being said, it's kind of a weird point where it's awfully close to communism. I mean, China largely switched over to fascism years ago, even if most people still call it communism (in part because it still itself that). Per consequence, there is a huge overlap.

I will note that properly speaking, Liberalism is more about new ideas and Conservatism is about keeping the old ones in place. Fascism is closer to the old standard than communism in this regard, even if both are quite different.

In American and British politics, Conservatism is based around smaller government, a more proactive military (as seen with North Korea), and a greater economic focus (which hangs on the tenet that inequality encourages people to work harder rather than resting on their laurels), whereas Liberalism is more about using a larger government to protect its members (both in terms of how others react toward them and in terms of things like food), shying away from the military and using it abroad, and keeping things more equally distributed (though that is at the expense of economic growth and stability). The stuff about freedom is a difficult one to attribute to either side. I guess Liberals generally focus on increasing civil rights, so as to protect civil liberties, whereas the Conservatives generally focus on decreasing civil rights, so as to prevent those from paradoxically infringing on civil liberties (which generally happens much more than Liberals think, and much less than Conservatives think).

And before anyone talks about the Republicans being against civil liberties and all that, I've got a question for y'all: So y'all often say that Jim Crow Democrats were akin to modern Republicans, right? So does that mean FDR was also a modern Republican (despite the New Deal being a backbone of modern Democratic policy), and that Calvin Coolidge was a modern Democrat (despite trying to cut back on governmental growth like Buckley Conservatives, even if not like the minority of Republicans that are the Trump supporters)? And by the way, the Democrats were still appealing to minorities back then. They generally took New York City because of the Irish, Jewish, &c. vote (it's just that upstate was more populous than the City back then).

Anyway, in France, the Conservatives focus on a much bigger government than in the United States and Great Britain. Not sure how that compares to the Socialists, who also favor a bigger government than the U.S., but it's still worth noting.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

where they're making generalizations about Republicans and conservatives?

Wait, is a moderator upset because the left was being generalized? Seriously? Ahhahaaaha, that is very amusing, considering how often conservatives or Republicans are generalized here in a very negative light. Meh, not that I'm saying it should stop (I don't like censorship), but it is a hilarious double standard to have.
---

"Right wing" and "left wing" are kind of garbage terms because the political spectrum isn't 1 dimensional.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

where they're making generalizations about Republicans and conservatives?

Wait, is a moderator upset because the left was being generalized? Seriously? Ahhahaaaha, that is very amusing, considering how often conservatives or Republicans are generalized here in a very negative light. Meh, not that I'm saying it should stop (I don't like censorship), but it is a hilarious double standard to have.

That's not what happened at all
---

Mal_Fet posted...

pegusus123456 posted...

Isn't that just what the word means? The extreme of right-wing is fascism, the extreme of left-wing is anarchy. That's what I seeeeeem to remember from my civics class years and years ago.

That's if you believe right = authoritarian and left = liberal

If that's the case, was Stalin therefore a right-winger? Is Ron Paul therefore a left-winger?

Actually, yes.
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Libertarians believe taxation is theft, and are right wing.

Anarcho-marxists believe taxation is theft. Does that mean they're also right wing, because they agree with Libertarians?

Depends on structure of society and who controls the money. Libertarians believe in a free market, which inevitably leads to monopoly. Taxes would be one of the few things allowing for the redistribution of money. Not all taxes are created equal, however. Robin Hood is clearly a left-winger, but he fought against taxes, why? Because the taxes were put into place solely to further enrich the rich.

It's simple. The right wing works for the rich, the left wing works for everyone else. That's how the terms originally came into being and they still work that way (authoritarianism benefits the rich virtually every time, racism is to divide and conquer the masses, etc). The problem is that the rich want to divide us, so they've successfully morphed the discussion so that even the average person can think of themselves as right wing so the masses can stay divided.
---

Topic title should be "Why isn't fascism a left-wing form of government?" That is the intent here.
---

Very few people actually know what the terms left and right-wing mean.

Economic systems and size of government have next to nothing to do with it, it's about your views on society. The left believes in egalitarianism while the right believes social hierarchies are either inevitable or even preferable. We get the terms from the French Revolution when liberals sat on the left side of the Estates General and the monarchist on the right.

This is why two very different nations, a capitalist liberal democracy like the US and an authoritarian communist state like the USSR are both considered left-wing. Authoritarianism itself is not left or right-wing, it could be equality by force (communism) or social hierarchy by force (fascism).

I was gonna type a detailed post for why I think fascism is more right wing than left wing, but given the response well thought out posts have gotten in this shit post-o-rama, I think I'll pass.
---

CW_McGraw posted...

I was gonna type a detailed post for why I think fascism is more right wing than left wing, but given the response well thought out posts have gotten in this shit post-o-rama, I think I'll pass.

Exactly. =P
---

BlanketPI posted...

Compared to communism and socialism, fascism focuses more on military strength, has a somewhat free market (allowing people to "win" and "lose"), lacks an apparent focus on supporting minority groups (not that either side is nice to them; see also: Holodomor), and is much more nationalist. It does not pretend to be a benevolent force. (Not that communism is a benevolent force, but it pretends to be.) That being said, it's kind of a weird point where it's awfully close to communism. I mean, China largely switched over to fascism years ago, even if most people still call it communism (in part because it still itself that). Per consequence, there is a huge overlap.

Though it may be difficult to conceptualize today, "totalitarian" didn't always have a negative connotation. Mussolini envisioned a government that would take care of all aspects of your life. Any leeway Mussolini gave to the "free" market was a result of the fact that he could be deposed at any time by King Victor Emmanuel III. To see Mussolini's true intent in action, just look at the "socialist paradise" he created in Salo after he was deposed. Fascism today is generally understood to mean "evil racists", but at the time it was considered to be an evolution of Marxism. Fascists "pretended" to be benevolent like Lenin did; but of course neither were. As for treading on minority groups and heavy nationalism, those are also not exclusively-right policies. If they were, you'd have to accept that Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot were all right-wingers.

I will note that properly speaking, Liberalism is more about new ideas and Conservatism is about keeping the old ones in place. Fascism is closer to the old standard than communism in this regard, even if both are quite different.

For the time, fascism was absolutely a revolutionary concept. It is certainly no less revolutionary today than Communism is, which enjoys the "liberal" connotation despite being older than and having exactly as evil a history of fascism.

BlanketPI posted...

In American and British politics, Conservatism is based around smaller government, a more proactive military (as seen with North Korea), and a greater economic focus (which hangs on the tenet that inequality encourages people to work harder rather than resting on their laurels), whereas Liberalism is more about using a larger government to protect its members (both in terms of how others react toward them and in terms of things like food), shying away from the military and using it abroad, and keeping things more equally distributed (though that is at the expense of economic growth and stability). The stuff about freedom is a difficult one to attribute to either side. I guess Liberals generally focus on increasing civil rights, so as to protect civil liberties, whereas the Conservatives generally focus on decreasing civil rights, so as to prevent those from paradoxically infringing on civil liberties (which generally happens much more than Liberals think, and much less than Conservatives think).

The way you're defining "Liberal" and "Conservative" here I would argue is more akin to "Left" and "Right", respectively. But your definitions are how the terms are used in modern discourse.

All except, of course, for the issue of civil rights. Both sides share a history of poor civil rights policy, but I would argue it's the right that has a better track record. Countries founded on western Enlightenment principles and with heavily Capitalist economies are today the freest and most equal countries on the planet. Those founded on Marxism and post-modernism are among the most destitute and unequal. If you agree that Capitalism is of the right and Communism is of the left, then you have your answer there. (continued)
---

BlanketPI posted...

And before anyone talks about the Republicans being against civil liberties and all that, I've got a question for y'all: So y'all often say that Jim Crow Democrats were akin to modern Republicans, right? So does that mean FDR was also a modern Republican (despite the New Deal being a backbone of modern Democratic policy), and that Calvin Coolidge was a modern Democrat (despite trying to cut back on governmental growth like Buckley Conservatives, even if not like the minority of Republicans that are the Trump supporters)? And by the way, the Democrats were still appealing to minorities back then. They generally took New York City because of the Irish, Jewish, &c. vote (it's just that upstate was more populous than the City back then).

Indeed, the myth of the "big switch" is a lie. Minorities switched parties long before Goldwater came around, and it was Republican lawmakers who enforced Civil Rights before the Civil Rights movement even began. The south has been getting less racist as it became more Republican.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420321/democratic-party-racist-history-mona-charen

Democrats only became the party of minorities after they realized they were a major voting block for them, but otherwise the DNC is filled with the heirs to the Dixiecrats. Hillary Clinton's first job in politics for example was working for a guy who voted against the Civil Rights Act.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Wait, is a moderator upset because the left was being generalized? Seriously? Ahhahaaaha, that is very amusing, considering how often conservatives or Republicans are generalized here in a very negative light. Meh, not that I'm saying it should stop (I don't like censorship), but it is a hilarious double standard to have.

I know, right? There was literally a topic that said Republicans are everything wrong with the country and Error didn't give a shit!

1337toothbrush posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

pegusus123456 posted...

Isn't that just what the word means? The extreme of right-wing is fascism, the extreme of left-wing is anarchy. That's what I seeeeeem to remember from my civics class years and years ago.

That's if you believe right = authoritarian and left = liberal

If that's the case, was Stalin therefore a right-winger? Is Ron Paul therefore a left-winger?

Actually, yes.

Well that's a...unique interpretation of left and right.

Error1355 posted...

CW_McGraw posted...

I was gonna type a detailed post for why I think fascism is more right wing than left wing, but given the response well thought out posts have gotten in this shit post-o-rama, I think I'll pass.

Exactly. =P

Yeah ok guys. Whatever you need to tell yourselves.
---

Literally saying that because of the South becoming more Republican after the CRA was signed, that being Republican is responsible for the South becoming less racist with no metric to actually measure that with.


And denies Dixiecrats abandoning their former party and whlie showing abyssmal election rates, clearly showed their interest in the Confederacy either symbolically or specifically so. The party may have changed, but the type of person to support the Confederacy, especially during the time when the flag was being used as a banner against Civil Rights, it's simply ignorance to pretend that the Republican party is like it once was or that the Democrat party is like it once was. Not saying there aren't similarities, but they fly in the face of the sheer amount of differences to ignore.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R0NvVr164

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU
---

Kineth posted...

Literally saying that because of the South becoming more Republican after the CRA was signed, that being Republican is responsible for the South becoming less racist with no metric to actually measure that with.


And denies Dixiecrats abandoning their former party and whlie showing abyssmal election rates, clearly showed their interest in the Confederacy either symbolically or specifically so. The party may have changed, but the type of person to support the Confederacy, especially during the time when the flag was being used as a banner against Civil Rights, it's simply ignorance to pretend that the Republican party is like it once was or that the Democrat party is like it once was. Not saying there aren't similarities, but they fly in the face of the sheer amount of differences to ignore.

What does the CRA have to do with racism
---

literal_garbage posted...

Kineth posted...

Literally saying that because of the South becoming more Republican after the CRA was signed, that being Republican is responsible for the South becoming less racist with no metric to actually measure that with.


And denies Dixiecrats abandoning their former party and whlie showing abyssmal election rates, clearly showed their interest in the Confederacy either symbolically or specifically so. The party may have changed, but the type of person to support the Confederacy, especially during the time when the flag was being used as a banner against Civil Rights, it's simply ignorance to pretend that the Republican party is like it once was or that the Democrat party is like it once was. Not saying there aren't similarities, but they fly in the face of the sheer amount of differences to ignore.

What does the CRA have to do with racism

Just to be sure. You realize I mean Civil Rights Act, right? Well, people were fucking opposed to the CRA as well as any sort of measures for equality so that's what it has to do with racism.
---

All this talk is making me want to play Red Alert again!!

Kineth posted...

Literally saying that because of the South becoming more Republican after the CRA was signed, that being Republican is responsible for the South becoming less racist with no metric to actually measure that with.

It's a correlation, but a telling one obviously.

Kineth posted...

And denies Dixiecrats abandoning their former party and whlie showing abyssmal election rates, clearly showed their interest in the Confederacy either symbolically or specifically so. The party may have changed, but the type of person to support the Confederacy, especially during the time when the flag was being used as a banner against Civil Rights, it's simply ignorance to pretend that the Republican party is like it once was or that the Democrat party is like it once was. Not saying there aren't similarities, but they fly in the face of the sheer amount of differences to ignore.

1. More Republicans voted for the CRA than Democrats

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/

2. The only Dixiecrat politicians to switch to Republican were Strom Thurmand and Mills Godwin. The other 16 remained in the Democratic party, including Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr.


The Deadpool posted...

[Vox propaganda]

"Democrats = Good and Republicans = Evil Racists"

No wonder they gloss over how FDR blocked anti-lynching laws in order to get enough support to pass the New Deal, lmao. And people wonder why no one takes Vox seriously.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

No wonder they gloss over how FDR blocked anti-lynching laws in order to get enough support to pass the New Deal,

How does that change the order of events that happened?

Progressivism caused a schism within the Democratic Party, and they large lost the southern, racist states. As blacks moved out of the more racist south to the more accepting states, they ended up largely joining the Democrats.

Nixon's Southern Strategy isn't a secret. Seeing the large number of racists now without a home the Republicans courted their vote for numbers.

There's a reason the white supremacists consider themselves Republicans...
---

The Deadpool posted...

How does that change the order of events that happened?

It shows Vox's clear attempt to paint Democrats as the good guys after the New Deal when they clearly were not. And it begins the Republican video by saying it stands for helping white people. Vox is a useless partisan mess.

The Deadpool posted...

Progressivism caused a schism within the Democratic Party, and they large lost the southern, racist states. As blacks moved out of the more racist south to the more accepting states, they ended up largely joining the Democrats.

Once again, the south was Democrat until the late 60's, but blacks switched to voting 70% Democrat 30 years before.

And no significant amount of black people "moved out" of the south. The densest minority populations on the east side of the US are in the south.

The Deadpool posted...

Nixon's Southern Strategy isn't a secret. Seeing the large number of racists now without a home the Republicans courted their vote for numbers.

Nixon supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968. When he came into office 10% of southern schools were unsegregated, and when he left 70% were unsegregated. He had no racist southern strategy.
---

Fascism being right wing makes no sense when you think even a little about it.
---

UncleBourbon33 posted...

Fascism being right wing makes no sense when you think even a little about it.

The left began using "Nazi" and "fascist" as a beatstick after it became too easy to use their last beatstick of "racist" back on them.

What they didn't realize is that "Nazi" and "fascist" are even more applicable to the left than even "racist" is.
---

Because it's a four point system. It's authoritarian socially, and economically interested in capitalism and private industry. Also, you know, the whole "let's kill all communists, socialist, and left wing supporters" thing the Nazis did.

UncleBourbon33 posted...

Fascism being right wing makes no sense when you think even a little about it.

That's entirely dependent on what you define as right wing.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Because it's a four point system. It's authoritarian socially, and economically interested in capitalism and private industry.

Fascist states were only interested in private business insofar as they wanted to merge them with the state. Fascism is not a free-market form of government at all.

Dash_Harber posted...

Also, you know, the whole "let's kill all communists, socialist, and left wing supporters" thing the Nazis did.

Saying the fascists couldn't be leftists because they hated other socialists is like saying Shi'ites can't be muslims because they hate other muslim groups.
---

Kineth posted...

UncleBourbon33 posted...

Fascism being right wing makes no sense when you think even a little about it.

That's entirely dependent on what you define as right wing.

If you define right-wing as being pro-Capitalism, low govt intervention in the private sector, and supporting equality under the law rather than equality of outcome, then fascism is not a right-wing ideology.

A lot of people ITT seem to think that right-wing = hateful nationalist militaristic assholes, which would place every Communist dictator that ever lived on the right.
---

Mal created this topic at 5:58 am central time
Consistently posted in it until 10:50 am central time
Came back at 2:43 pm and left at 2:50
Came back at 9:32 pm
And is now back again as of 2:13 am the next day

What the fuck
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Fascist states were only interested in private business insofar as they wanted to merge them with the state. Fascism is not a free-market form of government at all.

I mean, there are a ton of businesses that rose to prominence in WW2 era fascist governments.

Mal_Fet posted...

Saying the fascists couldn't be leftists because they hated other socialists is like saying Shi'ites can't be muslims because they hate other muslim groups.

No it's really not. The Nazis were very clear about how they felt about all left wing ideology. They believed it was a Jewish conspiracy and that it needed to be exterminated.

Bio1590 posted...

Mal created this topic at 5:58 am central time
Consistently posted in it until 10:50 am central time
Came back at 2:43 pm and left at 2:50
Came back at 9:32 pm
And is now back again as of 2:13 am the next day

What the fuck

I bartend. Chaotic sleep schedules are part of the job.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Kineth posted...

UncleBourbon33 posted...

Fascism being right wing makes no sense when you think even a little about it.

That's entirely dependent on what you define as right wing.

If you define right-wing as being pro-Capitalism, low govt intervention in the private sector, and supporting equality under the law rather than equality of outcome, then fascism is not a right-wing ideology.

Yeah, that's not what right wing stuff is. On the political spectrum, liberalism/libertarianism (freedom from the government) is the opposite of authoritarianism. That is not to say that the ideas you put forth aren't opposite of fascism, it's just that the ideas you put forth aren't right wing unless you're willing to call yourself a liberal.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

I mean, there are a ton of businesses that rose to prominence in WW2 era fascist governments.

And all were heavily controlled by those governments. Wage and price controls were incredibly strict. Seizing the means of production is one of the cornerstones of Marxism, after all.

Dash_Harber posted...

No it's really not. The Nazis were very clear about how they felt about all left wing ideology. They believed it was a Jewish conspiracy and that it needed to be exterminated.

No, they did not hate all left-wing ideology. Remember that almost every major fascist thinker was a Marxist beforehand.

What Hitler and Mussolini hated were the Bolsheviks, a different offshoot of Marxism.
---

Kineth posted...

Yeah, that's not what right wing stuff is. On the political spectrum, liberalism/libertarianism (freedom from the government) is the opposite of authoritarianism. That is not to say that the ideas you put forth aren't opposite of fascism, it's just that the ideas you put forth aren't right wing unless you're willing to call yourself a liberal.

I am a liberal (in the classic sense of the word)

But ok then, how about you just define what you consider right-wing so we're on the same page
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Fascist states were only interested in private business insofar as they wanted to merge them with the state. Fascism is not a free-market form of government at all.

I mean, there are a ton of businesses that rose to prominence in WW2 era fascist governments.

Mal_Fet posted...

Saying the fascists couldn't be leftists because they hated other socialists is like saying Shi'ites can't be muslims because they hate other muslim groups.

No it's really not. The Nazis were very clear about how they felt about all left wing ideology. They believed it was a Jewish conspiracy and that it needed to be exterminated.

I don't know why you're acting like the nazis went around killing socialists with long knifes or something. Seems very dishonest of you.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

It shows Vox's clear attempt to paint Democrats as the good guys

The story is about major shifts in the nature of the parties... You think they're supposed to go through every year and go "yup, still racist?"

Also, they painted the Democrats as the party of progressivism, big government and minorities. If you think that makes them the good guys then why are you Republican?

Mal_Fet posted...

And it begins the Republican video by saying it stands for helping white people.

No. It says it is the party OF white people. Their voters are mostly white. Do you disagree?

Mal_Fet posted...

but blacks switched to voting 70% Democrat 30 years before.

Black REPUBLICANS voted for Roosevelt in droves, yes. But they didn't flip from Republican to Democrat until the 50s.

TDR was popular, but the Democrats were still super racist in the south.

Mal_Fet posted...

And no significant amount of black people "moved out" of the south.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)

Mal_Fet posted...

He had no racist southern strategy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Man, when you have to change history to excuse your political views, that's when you KNOW you're doing something right...

And I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying the Republicans aren't the party of choice for racists, white supremacists, KKK and Nazis? Are you saying the Republican Party is popular with non-whites? How exactly is the "great shift" as you put it a "myth"?
---

Mal, you do realize that nationalism in most every sense of the word is defined by most every historical source as a right wing ideology, correct? There's examples of left nationalism of course, but in terms of most facisism it's inherently right.

Seriously man, go read up on the history of Germany and it's political parties, the state of the Weimar Republic and what led to the rise of Nazism in the country because I really don't think you understand. 'The Third Reich Trilogy' by Richard Evans, specifically 'The Coming of the Third Reich' explains it really well if you're seriously interested.
---

literal_garbage posted...

I don't know why you're acting like the nazis went around killing socialists with long knifes or something. Seems very dishonest of you.

Again, the Shi'ites and Sunnis are still both muslims even though they keep trying to kill each other. It's no different between the different factions of Marxism.

The Deadpool posted...

The story is about major shifts in the nature of the parties... You think they're supposed to go through every year and go "yup, still racist?"

Also, they painted the Democrats as the party of progressivism, big government and minorities. If you think that makes them the good guys then why are you Republican?

I didn't say they were the good guys. I said Vox was trying to paint them as the good guys. Biiiig difference.

The fact is, there was no point when the Democrats said "Ok let's stop being racist". They coerced much of the minority vote away from Republicans in 1936 with social welfare programs, and after that realized if they lost the minority voting block, they would never win another election again. So they did start pretending like they were the party for minorities, even though Democrat politicians never actually cared about minorities to begin with, and many still don't. Just look at the state of minorities in Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland, etc and ask yourself why Democrats aren't helping anyone despite controlling these places for decades. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and all the people under them are heirs to the Dixiecrats.

The Deadpool posted...

No. It says it is the party OF white people. Their voters are mostly white. Do you disagree?

So the Democrats are also the party of white people since most of their voters are also white, correct?

The Deadpool posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)

Fair enough, I should have said most never left the south.

The Deadpool posted...

Man, when you have to change history to excuse your political views, that's when you KNOW you're doing something right...

A wikipedia page that can be edited by anybody is not proof. Nixon voted for all three civil rights acts, correct? And he also was heavily in favor of desegregating schools, correct? So correct me if I'm wrong, but the southern strategy was all about being against civil rights for blacks, right? So how do you figure Nixon had a southern strategy?

Do you just believe everything you read on Wikipedia?
---

Also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kID3n3_CJ0

(relax, it's less than 2 minutes long)
---

Mal_Fet posted...

So the Democrats are also the party of white people since most of their voters are also white, correct

I'm pretty sure, without looking but from memory, the breakdown is actually almost 50/50 between whites and other ethnic minorities. Might be like 55/45 or so
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

I'm pretty sure, without looking but from memory, the breakdown is actually almost 50/50 between whites and other ethnic minorities. Might be like 55/45 or so

60% of Democrat voters are non-Hispanic white

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

So they're the party of white people too then, correct?
---

I don't know how the world operated before Mal was born. All this truth he is spitting that those so-called leftist fake news historians and political scholars never thought about before him. What an eye opener.

He needs to write some textbooks so we can save future children from more left-wing indoctrination.
---