Conservatism is inherently a retrograde ideology--it's right there in the name. It is about preserving an illusory status quo and/or returning to a romanticized past. "Classical liberal" is another way of saying you'd like to ignore the last century or so of economics--we tried "classical liberal" economics. It didn't work. Emphasis mine. This is not true--do you realize how much essential pure research is publicly funded? Meanwhile, capitalism gives us... boutique mattress delivery services and an iPhone where they just moved the fingerprint sensor around. Capitalism doesn't drive innovation for its own sake, it pursues innovation only in avenues where investors believe there is profit to be made. This is inherently short-sighted and is why a robust public sector is necessary to fuel research and development that the private sector doesn't value. (Then the private sector ends up benefiting from it.) And letting people go homeless, letting them starve, letting them die from treatable medical conditions... that's moral? Because that's capitalism. The government takes a share of what you earn to help ensure you live in a functioning society where you won't get knifed just for walking out your front door. Americans are all about "freedom." Well, freedom isn't free. You agree to pay your taxes by living here. You benefit from being surrounded by a stable society. If you don't want to pay for that, you are welcome to leave. Charitable giving is insufficient to meet existing needs; people who tout charitable giving as a solution always ignore this. Yes, even if we just didn't make people pay any taxes, charity wouldn't be enough. Please. Conservatives are all about "individuality" up until someone challenges existing norms. If someone is gay, transgender, not white, not Christian (or one of the other "good" religions), or a woman decides how to live her own life, all of a sudden conservatives turn a blind eye, or even charge in with the torches and pitchforks. What if I told you it's possible to favor an equitable society that is also truly individualistic? That's weird since the Nazis routinely imprisoned and killed socialists and communists. Oh, right. Nazis weren't actually socialists. That's why. And yet the Reich also decided who got to be the "true Germans" and who didn't, and set about wasting tremendous amounts of resources (to say nothing of the moral cost) going around mass murdering people. Counterargument: the Nazis adopted whatever socialist language suited their agenda while nationalizing as much of the country as possible to support an expansive war of conquest. People love to play "no true Scotsman" with socialism/communism, but when it comes to the Nazis it's completely apt. They hated socialists and saw them as enemies--Nazis weren't socialists. They represent the dangers of fascism, which is what so-called "National Socialism" is. For what it's worth, too many conservatives are comfortable with exalting state power in fascist fashion when that power is being exerted against demographics they don't like. All true. Not an issue since no "pure socialism" has ever existed. Then again, neither has "pure capitalism," because that would require a state that somehow maintains individual property rights while not collecting taxes and not regulating worker/capitalist agreements whatsoever. Would be a strange beast, to be sure, and hardly a utopia. Probably the most sensible thing in your whole post. I mean, it's basically right in their name...
Of course, for us, as a species, to disrupt the current semi-global economic model right now would be borderline suicidal. Which makes the rise of Libertarianism and Socialism all the more alarming.
I hate to break it to you, but the model's being disrupted pretty hardcore all over the place right now, and that's only going to increase. The current status quo is gonna make the planet unfit for human survival, and that's only the absolute worst part.
Right now we have a slight danger of disruption from the likes of Trump, Putin and other accidental idiots in power. As awful as they are, all key indicators of the law of accelerating returns are on track and accelerating, just follow cost efficiency of photovoltaic energy production. You can keep hiding behind patronizing idioms, but you can't alter reality. Also, judging by your arguments presented to another poster as per National Socialism, you're not very good at this
Welp, spanking incoming... Seriously, unironically suggesting that the Nazis were actual socialists? Just might be the quickest way to earn a one-way ticket to the Idiot Box. Again, a thing that resembles another thing the way I resemble... well, forget Batman, try Galvatron.
I don't see how we'll ever have a Singularity at the rate your posts murder brain cells. And I'm way better at this than you. Everybody needs a hobby. Now go make that Singularity happen. You might want to hook up with @RAMA.
I don't know how I'll recover from insults made by a stranger on the internet... and such clever ones at that. What's next, people are going to start race wars in the YouTube comments section?
Ouch, another clever one. A few more and my ego is going to be destroyed and you shall come out victorious! Nazis were socialists, it's not a matter of opinion - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. They had state sponsored programs that benefited the working class, established regulations for the safety and protection of workers, created the same arbeitsbucher that other socialist countries had all the way through the collapse of the USSR. Workers went on lavish vacations at the state's expense, had all kinds of subsidized living arrangements and more.
Nazis were far from being socialists, the use of the the word and the programs you describe were a fob to the militant left elements Hitler knew he needed to win round and unite the country. Once they were in a strong enough position those elements were scourged.
I don't like your avatar! I hope that clinched it. Well shit, the US must be fully socialist with criteria like that. But no, sorry. Hitler and the Nazis weren't socialists. Try this on for size. This is why, if Nazism is to be compared to anything, its closest kin lie in fascism, which is inherently made up of mishmashed political ideas and half-baked policies.
Yes, very good, United States is also socialist to some extent. There's a spectrum of socialism and virtually every country in the world is socialism to a different extent today. In 1930's Germany was on the more extreme side of socialism, today United States is less socialist than some northern European countries and more socialist than most countries. It's an evolving, fluctuating spectrum. Fascism has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism, it can co-exist with either, although since capitalism is inherently less authoritarian, it's harder for fascism to flourish under capitalism, but not impossible, as witnessed in modern Russia and China. Although one could argue how capitalist those countries are.
Sound familiar? A political opportunist riding a populist wave regardless of the ideological alliances he must make in order to reach power...
"Everything is socialist!" is a fun way of making "socialist" not mean anything at all beyond serving as a marker to indicate something you don't like. Which is fair enough, but impossible to take seriously. Doesn't sound like you know what fascism is--or even what capitalism is, for that matter. Or socialism. I'm sensing a pattern. It's fine if you don't believe words mean things, and they can just be slotted in every which way. But it certainly forbids meaningful communication with other human beings, so good luck on that one.
Nazism is a hodgepodge of ideas and alliances. Hitler hated communism and capitalism. His objection to both seems to be rooted in Antisemitism. He saw Nazism as a third way. Like many politicians he tailored his message to his audience. The "socialism" aspects played well with the working class. Though eventually he purged most of the "left-wing" of the party in the Night of the Long Knives when they started going after conservatives and capitalists. Others, like Goebbels, he turned to full supporters after he made them "see the light". Many major industrialists gave him their support in exchange for the Nazis cracking down on trade unions, Social Democrats and communists. Plus they gained slave labor and Jewish owned properties. If their businesses benefited the Reich, the Nazis were okay with them. I've even read an group of German Industrialist financially bailed out the Nazis in the early 30's. The Nazi's were also social conservatives with an anti-Jewish, anti-woman and anti-gay agenda. Which of course is at the core of their totalitarian, nationalistic and racist ideology. Hitler actually regretted using "socialism" in the party's name.
"National Socialism" is Socialism in exactly the same way that "People's Republics" are Republics run by the People. Why this is so hard for Tesophius, I do not understand. Just because something CALLS itself something, does not mean that it IS something. PROTIP: I am not a shepherd.
Read beyond that first sentence and all shall be revealed to you. I assume the lot of you are socialists, because you seem to take personal offense to this obvious truth. Fear not, to be a socialist does not mean to sympathize with the Nazis or the Soviets, you can always argue "that wasn't the right kind of socialism" and be within your rights.