Is this true?

Is this true?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/the-anglin-triangle-618x450.png
academia.edu/4736105/Economic_Policy_in_Nazi_Germany_1933-1945
library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1940110100
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No, but it's more correct.

no

>using a line instead of a graph

>right-wing = anarchy

Evry tiem

Weren't nazis closer to economic centrists?

There's no "reality" when it comes to the definition of a word.

Who's on the "left" and who's on the "right" varies by country and is just a shorthand for the two main political ideologies that are active in a country.

>what your teacher told you
pretty much
>reality
swap the nazi and anarchism stuff and it becomes marginally more accurate. anarchists really want socialism to take place for some reason, so they align themselves with commies quite often. remember, anarcho-socialism is a thing, its more prevalent than anarchism is general.

It's true though, given that anarchy is the oldest form of government.

No, it's not.

>no government = government
no mate, survival of the fittest is the oldest for of government. the strong survive, the weak serve or die.

Only nazis say that. They were socialists.

This is like saying atheism is a religion

Anarcho socialists aren't anarchists, they just are edgy and don't like cops.

No, I'd say the Anglin Triangle he posted on Daily Stormer is more correct for the contemporary age.

dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/the-anglin-triangle-618x450.png

Here's a pic so you don't have to click on the link.

Do you realize that the only difference between anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists is what they believe human nature is.

Also they're both retarded. Thnaks

>Anarchism
>right-wing

Yeah no, it has always been left-wing.

They relied heavily on support from the middle and upper classes. They slaughtered the SA and excluded the Strasser Brothers to get Krupp and the other industrialists on board.

i thought the hypocrisy was rather blatant. that's why i pointed it out. besides, i havent seen an pure anarchist ANYTHING for the better part of 2 years, at this point i think they are dead.

I would have to agree with the chart. If you viewed this purely as a math problem, with most government on the left and least on the right, then it's correct. It just happens that most right-wingers don't want anarchy. We're generally okay with government highways and military.

FTFY

The left-right description is all over the fucking place.

>be centrist
>decide to get more authoritarian in confiscating more of people's money and banning offensive speech that might upset racial/religious harmony
>now I'm a liberal

>be conservative
>liberalise the markets, liberalise free speech
>now I'm an even more extreme conservative
>if I go any further to the right now I'm a fascist

Why haven't we abandoned this shit already? The only thing that begins to explain the situation is the political compass-based approach.

Except Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. were there long before anyone ever conceived of "anarcho"-capitalism.

No. They were socialists. They were very far to the left. For example, the interplay between the WWII German government and Krupp and I.G. Farben was amorphous.

That was a dumb statement

>"national socialism is left"
>"national socialism is right"


why do faggots who know nothing about politics come to a formerly political board

No

I don't know who any of those people are, but redistribution of wealth isn't anarchy

the graph is stupid, the green quadrant is a contradiction, it can't exist

Being this dumb,
Anarchy is an absence of government and is not a system of government. Direct democracy is as close as you can get to anarchy before it stops being a form of government.

>I don't know who any of those people are

Then you don't know what anarchism is, which doesn't surprise me since you're a burger

Welcome to Sup Forums it's been this way for 5 years now

There's a difference between social and cultural conservatism and economic conservatism.

Libertarians and neocons are only right wing in an economic sense.

i thought they were authoritarian right, but i guess Sup Forums was wrong on that one. i see it now. time to off myself for believing the bad jew-jew. i shall donate my shekels to the closest Jewish ash dispensary as my final act, thank you based gentile, you truly are my greatest ally.

Anarchy is far left. Monarchy is far right.

>I own the definitions

typical marxist

No, I don't need to know who your commie talking points are to know what anarchism is.

>National socialism is left because there is the word "socialism" in it meaning it's must be the same thing as the marxist ideology

Why are newfags so dumb?

Yes

>No. They were socialists.
Only the strasserists and they were purged early on.

The only way to own a business was to be a member of the party. The Nazis nationalized over 500 businesses during their rule, controlled prices, and the state directed major parts of industry.

>freedom = unlimited decadence

really says a lot about the retards who say this

>implying that's bad

Progressive-ism is Totalitarian.
It just has to be to actually work.

It's in the human nature to sin.

tyranny can occur on the left and the right

2 axis graph is most accurate

fixed that shit for you

Nazis are left wing, no matter how you look at it. Any form of collectivism and strong state can only be left wing.

You got any sauce for that pal because I read that the nazis actually privatized alot of government functions from the Weimar era.

Redistribution of wealth is an economic reform generally associated with socialism with the end goal of communism, it has nothing to do with how a government is run as it could be implemented by by both a direct democracy right through to a single authoritarian dictator. Anarchists don't have any form of government to enforce wealth redistribution.

same with the purple one

I'm going to shill Andrew Anglin's Triangle a bit more.

Only idiots would take someone who wants to ban things like porn and put them on the Left because it would involve government then take someone who wants "anything goes" and put them on the Right because of less government.

There is no spectrum. The spectrum is a lie. There is no horseshoe. The horseshoe is a lie.

There is only.....the Triangle. Alt-Left on it being the "Alt-Lite" essentially. The top being the Mainstream con/lib/far left, and the Alt-Right being the collectivist right (as opposed to the individualist Alt-Left).

Looking at things from purely economic and big to small government ignores all the social politics of both right wingers and left wingers.

The left is on the right
The right is on the left
This kikery triggers my autism!

At least the scum floated to the top.

...

Wrong monarchy comes In Different flavours. You were looking for totaltyrantarism the opposite of which is direct democracy. Anarchy is an absence of all of the above.

NatSoc Germany was not collectivist

Out of all people u frogs should know that's bullshit as the right-left wing spectrum originated from your country. Left-wingers were liberals, right-wingers were conservative and reactionary royalists. Size and scope of government and collectivism didn't really factor into it.

>socialist means of production
>socialist schooling
>socialist welfare
>socialist redistribution of wealth
>socialist healthcare
>socialist unions
>socialist price controls
>socialist wage controls

>not socialist?

Completely wrong, libertarians, ancaps are leftist progressives at odds with other leftist progressives (socialists/communists).

national socialism is explicitly in the middle through ideology and doctrine, it's national socialism not marxist socialism

"ommon good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State" is literally in their laws.

>not collectivist

It is more correct but still flawed, in reality it is simply Collectivism vs Individualism with multiple ideologies being on both sides

This is so fucking full of shit, Gnosticism is derived from the same base Enochian mystic religion which Satanism is derived from except that they claim to be Christians without any of the critical aspects which define Christianity.

You either join God or join the rebellion against Him and His Kingdom. The choice is in every man, woman, and child to make.

Now that's a rare Hitler. Also checked.

In America, yes. The American spectrum is different because it's much more deeply rooted in classical liberalism.

Totaltitarianism and Statism aren't political ideologies, they are simply a feature of a specific government. National Socialism being closer to Social Democracy, Liberalism and Democratic Socialism than Fascism is completely retarded.

>liberal
>closer to total government

Just look at the damn word.

Yes, it's true.

The myth of 'the parties have flipped' is bullshit.

The left - which was once anti-government, has been slid from one end of the spectrum to the other - just to be contrary to the GOP.

Now they'e unwittingly aligned themselves with Socialists, Communists, Despots.

>more definition of right is better than your definition reee

Really makes you think.

CAN YOU STUPID FUCKS STOP POSTING SHITTY ARTIFACTED JPGS!

>6. The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

>Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images

There axis graph is most accurate a globe perse, economic on the latitude, social on the longitude, elevation and distance from centre representing style of government, at centre would be direct democracy as it it the most volition form and subject to radical shifts in all policies and authoritarian at the furthest extreme as it is most likely to be the most consistent with its own policies. Anarch is the void that surrounds this political sphere.

The word comes from the government using its power liberally, rather than only when necessary which would be conservatively.

>Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality, and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

It's also basically what the libertarians of the current year have turned into.

>Wikipedia

Oh yeah that totally wasn't edited

Stop posting this, it's fucking retarded.

>statism
>natsoc and fascism on two opposing sides
>activism
>progressivism
>national communism
>nationalism

Except liberals don't particularly care for most of those, and the ones they do like require a liberal interpretation of the constitution in order to give the fed enough power to enforce their views.

Left and Right are economic

Yes, the people who identify as liberals are no longer "classical liberals," but the origin of the word is that.

Damn, Sven. Relax

Hitler state in Mein Kampf that the economy must serve the state. Upon gaining power the Nazis froze wages in Germany and industry was put under state run cartels, not to mention the "Aryanization" of Jewish businesses. The "re-privatization" of businesses was given to Nazi supporters, cronyism.

academia.edu/4736105/Economic_Policy_in_Nazi_Germany_1933-1945
library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1940110100

Oddly enough, no one talks about economics when people talk about nazis, liberals and conservatives only talk about the moral/values (for a lack of a better word) spectrum.

Left = progresive or liberalism and right = conservativism or order.

this

and saying that atheism is not a religion is just like all the communists who say all communism as it was implemented in the world was never true communism. Atheism as implemented IRL is just the religion of saying "there is no god."

Not even remotely, but it's good propaganda.

OP is a faggot conflating social and economic leanings in the same measure. you intellectually bankrupt and dishonest kike.

natsoc is a shortening of national socialist. nationalism being the social aspect and socialism being the economic. however this is not socialism borne of the kike marx. this is socialism where you have personal property, you can own your own business, all that kind of stuff, but it's an economy for the people, not for globalist corps.

natsoc is about as left as my right foot as it connects a communists face with a curb.

If monarchism is left wing, home come the right wing in the french revolutiion (hint, thats where the right left spectrum came from) were monarchists?

Nazis weren't as far left as the chart shows

...

It's 100% correct. US is "moderate", Europe is socialist and is ready to go full natsoc because of dirty muslim invaders.

The purple square is also nonsensical because you can't have capitalism without a stable, central government.

>trying to explain an 8 dimensionsional problem using only 2.
jesus christ