Would anyone disagree that all political ideologies are doomed to fail because of the inherent selfishness of man?

would anyone disagree that all political ideologies are doomed to fail because of the inherent selfishness of man?

Yes

Can't say that I would. Your picture is misleading though. Nazism is a left wing political philosophy.

Ask me how I know you're retarded

Nazism and fascism are not "right wing." They are species of socialism.

"National socialists." Duh.

>We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system... - Gregor Strasser, Nazi officer

No. Quit eating from the trashcan.

It's right wing but has used leftist policies before

your pic is shit

use the biaxial one

i just grabed a random pic off google images.

I can't tell if these people are for real anymore

Lmao in between the two American parties is freedom... op is a normal fag

stop throwing out half eaten/ rotten food.

Fascism is not leftist ideology. Fascism operates by co-opting left terms and symbols to attract support. Hitler himself admits this when describing why the Nazi's used red so prominently on their flags.

A four quadrant graph covers the possible ideologies best, but even this one isn't very accurate

Maybe you should go grab a random book instead...

>anarcism is left-wing
>National Socialism is right-wing
>freedom i right where the two major american parties are

holy shit, I think your pic gave me an aneurysm

see fair enough. but

>retard obese americans actually believe this

>Fascism is not leftist ideology.

Forced unionization? Political domination of civil society? Mandatory wage minimums? Generous pensions and benefits? An authoritarian state? It literally is.

>Hitler himself admits this when describing why the Nazi's used red so prominently on their flags.

"The Nazis' principal symbol was the swastika flag. The black-white-red colour scheme is based upon the colours of the flag of the German Empire. The colour scheme was commonly associated with anti-Weimar Republic German nationalists following the fall of the German Empire.[9] "

Huh.

that's a whole hell of a lot of isms

...

I think everyone agrees with OP. Now that we're all here we're just shooting the shit.

Socialism, and by extension, communsim and anarchism, are all based on advancing the power of the working class. That is leftism.

National 'socialism' is about advancing the power of one race over the others.

Political compass thread maybe?

your pic is shit

>free markets
>national socialism
pick one you fucking cockgoblin

awww someone made the alty mad :'[

>implying fascism is anything but capitlaism in decay

>Communism is about empowering the working class

Pic related.

Nazism was about advancing the working class, too. They just focused on Germans. Hence, the "nationalist." There was also leftist fascist governments in Italy and Bulgaria.

No. We anarcho-capitalist build our ideology upon the said selfishness!

The fundamental goal of communsim (the endpoint of leftist movements) is to do away with classes, nationalities, states, and money, this was not a part of the Reich's aims.

Right wing and anarchism aren't mutually exclusive

>right wing "anarchism"

Your scale is completely wrong, retard.

Size of government, from large to small:

totalitarian, communist, socialist, liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, anarchist

Left = larger central government, right = smaller.

theory vs. actuality. Even Communist Russia still had classes and money.

Exactly why it was not communist.

Saying that the Nazi's were socialist because they called themselves national socialists, is like saying the DRPK is a democratic republic because they vall themselves that.

Tell me: Would you rather dance naked on stage, or go to war?
I know my pick.

>The fundamental goal of communsim (the endpoint of leftist movements) is to do away with classes

No, it isn't.

This is what they tell the morons. But what it really does is elevate the political masters into a new class that rules with more arbitrary power and oppression than the old ruling class did. A sort of new class. Maybe you could call it a Nomenklatura.

See China, Cambodia, Laos, USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea.

You wanna know what they do to people caught trying to leave "classless" North Korea without permission? They cut a metal cable at an angle, so it's sharp. They shove the cable under the prisoner's collar bone, and back out around it, hooking them. Then they move onto the next person, and so on until they bind up the end, creating a human chain of maimed, bleeding prisoners all stuck together. Then they drag them away.

Burn the rich. Eat their flesh. Class war now.

Just like they tell morons that capitalism is the fair exchange of goods and services between informed and consenting parties, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

I dont know, man, why do you want to burn the rich? Dont you think that by cooperation we can both achieve more than by violence?

There can be no cooperation while a ruling class exploits and coerces a lower class.

yes but some will fail faster than others take communism for instance

Is it?

If your're a communist, you're not an Anarchist. Not sure why people think the two are compatible with each other. Communism is an ideological form of government. Government being the key word here. Anarchism is the lack of a government. Capitalism is an economic system and not a system of government.

Hence.
You cannot be a communist that truly supports Anarchist values.
If you are an anarchist then you DO support a 100% free and open market, if you don't and instead think a government should regulate the market then you're not an Anarchist, you're a Statist.

Someone would, yes. I would disagree.

Ultimately Fascism leads to freedom

...

Really? Because I engage in the fair exchange of goods and services (using the medium of currency) every week.

I agree. But for some reason i think "ruling class" more as police and government than millionaires.

MIllionaries gives me work. Government takes my money and freedom.

Yes, capitalism can only function so long as there is a class that does not own private property and capital. The boirgeoisie are dependant on the workers to work and mantian the factories they own. If the workers resist they are supressed by state sanctioned violence.


Anarchists have the same goal as communists, destruction of class, state and money.

...

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? If voluntary exchange doesn't benefit both parties involved then it wouldn't happen in the first place.

You just want to be the new ruling class. Stalin and Mao murdered more people than the Tzar and Qing emperors ever dreamed of.

...

...

...

...

...

Millonaires employ the police that are attack you. The state is the instrument they use to express their will.

And they do not provide work, all they do is move the capital produced by other workers into the hands of their workers to create a product to be sold for profit.

...

i'm slave to food i can't stop eating from trashcan that is impossible task.

...

I once arguesdwith left-side anarchist and he told me anarchism isnt about an-archy (statelessness), but rather it have certain traditions that made it what it is today. Reducing anarchism to forght for statelessness is ignoring large part of it.

...

You're arguing off of the ideal definition of communism. Communist Russia was indeed communist. The bread lines and the proletariat rhetoric were real.

The difference is DRPK may call themselves democratic, but rhetoric and actions speak louder than titles.

Nazis still promoted the uplifting of the working class and socialistic ideals

>tfw I don't a qt Bund Deutscher Mädel gf

...

That is NOT what anarchism is. Anarchy is simply a lack of a governing body. it advocates that people should to be free to make their own choices and keep all of what they earn and produce for themselves, to do with as they see fit, as is their moral right.

Communism attempts to force everyone to be the same by abolishing private property in the name of 'the common good'.

They actually couldn't be any different.

>1428 ▶
>File: 1469189112977.jpg (154 KB, 313x507)

Turn to the truth of True Roman Gods!

Because the study of capitalist evonomics only examines exchange to a serious degree. If you are to understand the explotation at hand, you must examine the sphere of production. Captialists can only generate a profit off of selling products developed from the raw materials that is refined by their workers. The workers are not given the full compensation for the value of their labor, otherwise the profit of the product would directly to him, not to the capitalist who did not spend his time to generate the product.

nazi on the right and not the left? What a joke. whoever made that is retarded

Far left should be nazi,liberalism should be classical liberal and moved to the first step right, with its place being taken by progressives

...

...

>Millonaires employ the police that are attack you.

You misspelled "cities." Which are run by officers elected by the masses.

If I create a fuedalistic state without any barons, knights, kings, or lords of any sort, all while calliblng myself a fuedalist, can it truly be called a fuedal state?

I'm afraid that's exactly what it is though. The good news is that in an anarchist society if you and your buddies want to form your own communist commune them you can go right ahead. So long as you don't impose on the rights of others, no one should give a shit.

...

Anarchy is true freedom

Government is literally the giving up of freedoms for security

NO GODS, NO MASTERS

The legislators are lobbied and bought by the ruling claas to protect their interests. It is very rare that the working class organize and demand referendum to serve their interests.

In fact, when they did back in the 1920's and 30's they recived many of their demands like 8 hour work days, minnimum wage, and safer working conditions.

>Left = larger central government, right = smaller.
Because the Nazis were know to show fiscal restraint and to let free enterprise flourish. Oh wait, no there weren't.

Thanks!

>Yes, capitalism can only function so long as there is a class that does not own private property and capital.
What kind of non-sense is this? Capitalism can and will work for society where everyone has equal capital at the begining as well. People will always trade their stuff, since different people have better conditions to make different stuff.

>The boirgeoisie are dependant on the workers to work and mantian the factories they own.
fair enough, but i dont see it as a bad thing. I mean - i work in their factory, they give me money. Sounds like fair deal. And its not like selling all those automobile parts i make is NOT work. Its work as well.

>If the workers resist they are supressed by state sanctioned violence
I dont really follow. Why would i resist, since the trade with those is good for me? How would i resist?

>If your're a communist, you're not an Anarchist
A stable, anarchic state was the end goal of communism.

>Ultimately Fascism leads to freedom
Fascism leads to the freedom of a small ruling elite only.

The workers aren't fucking slaves... They're not handcuffed to the production line with guns to their heads. They can stop working and leave whenever they want. The owner of the factory owns the factory because he payed for it to be built. He bought the materials from someone who took the time to take them out of the ground and put them together into something useful. Not only dose this benefit him but it benefits the local population by providing job opportunities that they can choose to take part in if they so wish. Stop acting like a fucking victim because you didn't try in school.

You won't be 16 for ever, though.

I agree it's retarded, but the Nazis were a far right fascist party, period. They suspended the german constitution every four years declaring a State of Emergency in order to control production to finance war. They had no interest outside of war of controlling the means of production. Most people confuse them with socialists because they called themselves National Socialists, but all that meant to them was that any German no mater how poor was worth more than any foreigner.

>They can stop working and leave whenever they want.
You've obviously don't have much experience with the real world.

>Millonaires employ the police that are attack you
Should i agree (which i am not sure i do), i would reiterate that problem is state - not the millionaires.
State is hurtful by its very exxistence, since it need taxes to exist. Rich people? They dont hurt me inherently.

>And they do not provide work, all they do is move the capital produced by other workers into the hands of their workers to create a product to be sold for profit.
Dotn forget addin selling the said products on the list. And it DOES sound like work to me. Maybe not physical work - but mental work can be just as taxing.

Captialism does not function on the equal ownership of captial. If the land and capital used for profit were equally divided, then it would be impossible for a capitalist to generate a profit. He has no position to leverage others into working for him.

The trade may seem beneficial for you, the individual, but your class remains subservient to your bosses.

But see. Calling yourself an anarchist, they saying you want a government to regulate the free market and control private property is like saying the sky is blue only to imminently state that the sky is in fact red, but still blue. I.e, a logical black hole of nonsense.

All of which were enacted by legislators. You know, the people you claim to be slaves to entrenched interests?

>anarchic state

That's fucking hilarious. I can't believe people buy into that garbage.

I'm sorry is that not a fact? Are you voluntarily working for the or not? If you're not then you're being force to, i.e you're a slave. So which is it?

But the state arises first as a means to ease class disparites and then is repurposed over time to protect the wealthy classes interests. If we look at the foundations of civilization, only when a small part of the population owns productive land, does he begin to have power over those without land.

And the capitalists do not personally sell their products, it is the salespeople, yet more workers who negotiate the trade and movement of capital and products.

This

Oh fuck you. Every capitalistic worker is free to quit. Any time, for no reason. At WORST, you may be limited by a contract that you, personally, negotiated and signed. And even then, American courts have repeatedly uphold that violating a contract is a fundamental right. Everyone can always do it.

You're implication that people voluntarily working at a job for wages is analogous to the quasi or actual slave labor enforced by authoritarian regimes is a fucking lie.

Exactly, because the condtions were so terrible during the great depression, that the workers were forced to take action as a class. They proved that a class concious and organized movement is capable of attaining their goals.

This is equally true of the bourgeoisie. When they are aware of their class' role in society, they will work in their interest to protect themselves from the working class. It is in each classes economic interests to oppose one another.

> Anarchism is a logical progression from communism

Are you daft or just being intentionally dense?
Your diagram is rubbish.