What do you mean you're part of the Ctrl-Left, that anti-freedom movement? Go away, loser!

>what do you mean you're part of the Ctrl-Left, that anti-freedom movement? Go away, loser!

I'm NatSoc. Prepare for some quality tolerance time

God I love that QT blond in the right corner.

>Leftism
>Anti freedom
Leftism is literally ABOUT freedom; it defined the side of the freedom loving faggots.

>tfw no natsoc qt3.14 gf

If you believe that freedom is slavery :^)

>jacobins supported freedom
when will this meme end? Pioneers in dissent suppression.

im Insert-Up

>Slav
>NatSoc
I'm hoping that you mean some form of Slav NatSoc and not Nazi NatSoc.

Ideologies evolve m80. The anti-slav posture was probably rooted in circumstance, with Russia being one of the most dangerous enemies at the time.

You're confusing liberalism with leftism.

These days most political terms are so overloaded as to be completely useless

Tu eres parte del movimiento "ctrl-left," Uruguay?

Russian NatSoc. NatSoc belongs to any European country as a way to struggle for decency, purity, prosperity and progress.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The country itself probably is, I'm not.
At the very least they fall for leftist and globalist shilling, for example pot was legalized after a massive campaign financed by Soros. He also financed a campaign against lowering the age of criminal responsibility for violent crimes to 16. We're talking rape, armed robbery, homicide, assault and battery, kidnapping, among others. The cucks fell for the shills and voted against the reform.

He's probably sperging about how the terms originated. In that case, the left were the Jacobins, who paraded around speaking of freedom, fraternity and equality with the heads of their fellow countrymen on the tip of spears.

Liberals literally defined what leftism was though. Historically, in the french courts, the loyalists sat on the right and the liberals sat on the left.
The liberals, people who believed in rights and freedom, wanted free trade, right to bear arms and protection equality. The rightwing were loyal to the king. The initial reason why liberals today are even called "liberals" at all is because the early capitalists eventually got upset over the merchant class dominating society, so they wanted to end the inequalities by getting rid of any form of hierarchy, hence "Communism" which Marx predicted.
Marx's beliefs are equally as corrupt, because communism is just capitalism 3.0. Liberals don't realize that they're still fighting for self-interests. But you can hear it in their rhetoric "My body, my choice"

lel, I fucking knew it. Leftism was never about freedom m80, that's the tale they told the masses.

>be Sup Forums
>subtly trying to "redpill" people by bringing up certain topics for a year
>Hillary gives speech
>everyone recognizes the themes you've been bringing up
>it clicks
>"Are you alt right user? Some weird guy was on the radio talking about all that stuff you talk about."
>"He kept pronouncing it hwhite"
>"Is this why you wanted to look at skull shapes during the museum field trip?"
>"Does this mean you're a white supremist?"

lol Sup Forums pwned by a literal female cuck

>Sup Forums is one person
alt rights is for plebs who worship a faggot

>Ctrl-Left

I don't know if you intended that, but I cannot think of a better name for the SJWs.

>alt rights
meant to say alt right
my point stands tho, natsoc master race

I love it. They want to control the thoughts of the people. They want to control the dissenters. Hence Ctrl-Left.

I didn't invent it though, some other user did. I'm just trying to meme it.

This times a million

>Leftism is literally ABOUT freedom
Since fucking when?
>Left is Social-based
>Right is Individual-based

The left-right political spectrum has nothing to do with the Libertarian-Authoritarian spectrum.

Communism is just capitalism 3.0

What country has ever been successful on freedom? I'm not talking about progress (That's a leftist idea), I'm talking about genuine happiness. If someone can be happy without materialsm, then capitalism isn't needed; the pursuit of happiness in a capitalist context is just socially justified self-interest, and that's what modern liberalism is.

If you were given a living wage and told to work for the rest of your life, you'd be happier.

>worship

That would be the guys who look up to a massive military failure who ended up doing a barrel roll and causing the backlash that led to global government and an end to the pursuit of even the most humane eugenics, sir.

>military failure
I don't see how this is relevant to the usefulness of an ideology.
What if I told you that socialism is a lot more materialistic than capitalism? Also happiness won't be handed by an economic system, you're asking the wrong question. However, socialism seems to believe that it can grant happiness through granting a minimum of material goods, while it oppresses the people because draconian coercion is the only way it can work. Capitalism creates a framework that allows men self-ownership, without being tied to whatever the state wishes. On a economic level, national socialism is basically capitalism guided by the state with an alternative monetary and trade system.

Left and right was only appropriate to use in French politics, I agree. It's illiterate yank journalist who decided to bring that flawed classification to the Anglosphere and then it's spread to continental Europe.
>Communism is capitalism 3.0
Capitalism is capitalism. What are you talking about?

>Left is Social-based
>Right is Individual-based
>The left-right political spectrum has nothing to do with the Libertarian-Authoritarian spectrum.
My fucking sides..

I'll give you the benefit of modern context. Okay; the left is social, and the right is individual.
So what would that make feudalism? Or monarchy? Or the several other ideologies of the last 1000 years? I'm pretty sure that rightwing would imply traditionalism as well. This is why the political spectrum is flawed. National socialism, by right, should be classified as "leftist" but they're considered "radical rightwing". There is nothing "social" about leftism in essence, because the modern left is a byproduct of capitalism.

All the liberals say is "I want muh gibsmedats" and "my body my choice" and "Progress". Everything they say mirrors individualistic attitudes. You know why that is? The modern left is driven by material-anxiety. The standards of society such as beauty (body shaming) , relationships (slut shaming), religious (Islamiphobic), etc, are SOCIAL standards which are being dismantled by the leftwing because the leftists are products of material anxiety, and they want to get rid of society and replace it with a Demos, a democratic socialist country where citizenship and marriage is a paper, and borders are imaginary; it's a reflection of the capitalist society we live in right now.

>National socialism, by right, should be classified as "leftist"
top kek
Third position m8, third position. Transversal if you want to go with Peronist lingo. We take what we see as good from both sides and discard what we see as bad. I agree that we're not far right though, that would be anarcho capitalism.

There's a lot of left left in the modern left.
Almost everything they do is based on "muh equality" and its sister "muh oppression". Progressivism was already defended by Marx. What is ironic about the leftist is that they use actual oppression to fight perceived oppression.

Damn, I mixed plurals and singulars again, gotta get some sleep. Godspeed anons.

>What if I told you that socialism is a lot more materialistic than capitalism?
I know that.
Marxian socialism, or even democratic socialism, is a capitalist society that has evolved to legitimize an even greedier attitude on the basis of "humanitarianism".

>while it (socialism) oppresses the people because draconian coercion is the only way it can work.
Capitalism only works because the interest on capital is the only way to make someone work more than they have to, to produce more than they should. In the agricultural revolution, this principle is what progressed tribalism into civilization, except capital was held by feudal lords; the lords gave the people an appropriate living wage to prevent them from having the material-anxiety caused by interest.

>What are you talking about?
As I said to the other guy, socialism justifies individualistic attitudes on the basis of "humanitarianism". To further iterate, they want equality of liberty, that way they can conform, and they do so by stealing from the rich. Capitalism justifies its individualistic attitude by likewise appealing to the naturally altruistic side of humanity; the catch is that interest on people's labor causes people to want more and more money. This is why people think they are "individualists" when they're really altruistic people who are tricked by capitalism to think capitalism benefits everyone.

>Actual oppression
>Perceived oppression
Both are subjective forms of oppression; they're both subjective. Socialists think that the patriarchy is oppressing them; this is because they want to be slutty fatties and social standards wont let them; this individualistic attitude is also in the other side, where the capitalists think that social programs are a form of oppression against people, because they want the right to private property.

The left and "right" are diseases.

Capitalism benefits everyone until a greedy exploiter, usually a loaner, starts profiting at the expense of everyone else. The industrialist who gives money in exchange for work is doing no harm. Financial capitalism was what ended up poisoning everything, although even with that happening, the average person is richer that the average person was in pre-capitalist times.
>Socialists think that the patriarchy is oppressing them; this is because they want to be slutty fatties and social standards wont let them; this individualistic attitude is also in the other side, where the capitalists think that social programs are a form of oppression against people, because they want the right to private property.
there's a crucial difference between positive and negative rights m8

Also, I was talking about examples like in the pic I posted. You're forced to do stuff by the government, like bake a wedding cake for two fags or dykes. They force you to participate in something against your own will in the name of rights.

Honestly man,I don't think Marx had gender equality, gay rights, etc. in mind. The old left is farther right than the modern right.

Everyone likes to say that the ussr was some liberal paradise where there was race mixing and open borders and degenerate behavior when in reality it was a pretty conservative Russian empire, there were no gay pride parades, no gender neutrality, the countries that were absorbed by the ussr were washed away, forced to be Russian. Similar to how rome, "romanized" the territory they conquered.

>NatSoc belongs to any European
NatSoc is not limited by a country or race. Of course if we are talking about real NatSoc and not nazism wich was a mix of things

>Honestly man,I don't think Marx had gender equality, gay rights, etc. in mind. The old left is farther right than the modern right.
I agree, it's just how it mutated. "Analytical marxism" and stuff like that.
>Everyone likes to say that the ussr was some liberal paradise where there was race mixing and open borders and degenerate behavior when in reality it was a pretty conservative Russian empire, there were no gay pride parades, no gender neutrality, the countries that were absorbed by the ussr were washed away, forced to be Russian. Similar to how rome, "romanized" the territory they conquered.
It was conservative to some extent, but it also had a period where it was lenient with gays. The thing is, they quickly noticed it wasn't a very good idea. And some of their worst stuff still exists today, such as widespread abortion.
Nazism was literally natsoc. Blood and soil is essential to national socialism.

> the average person is richer that the average person was in pre-capitalist times.
There you go again.
You simply don't understand.
What benefit is there to be richer?
If one can be content without all the material wealth of modern society, then one doesn't need modern society to be content. You mimic exactly what the liberals are saying; "Stop living in the stoneage" or "We need to progress". Idealism is cancer. There is nothing that makes a man, not money, not food, not sex; nothing, except the identity of the man himself which society supports. The active campaign against patriarchy is proof that identity is being disparaged for the sake of self-interest.

>You're forced to do stuff by the government, like bake a wedding cake for two fags or dykes.
>They force you to participate in something against your own will in the name of rights.
In principle, that's the same as socialized healthcare, forcing a doctor to heal someone against their will. But in that case, I'd like to think he has a moral obligation to do so.

>If one can be content without all the material wealth of modern society, then one doesn't need modern society to be content. You mimic exactly what the liberals are saying; "Stop living in the stoneage" or "We need to progress". Idealism is cancer. There is nothing that makes a man, not money, not food, not sex; nothing, except the identity of the man himself which society supports. The active campaign against patriarchy is proof that identity is being disparaged for the sake of self-interest.
I'm just saying we pulled ourselves from poverty. Capitalism isn't about happiness, it's about setting a framework for prosperity where you're free to seek what you wish because you own yourself, and because you can afford to think beyond survival.
>In principle, that's the same as socialized healthcare, forcing a doctor to heal someone against their will. But in that case, I'd like to think he has a moral obligation to do so.
That's not socialized healthcare though, socialized healthcare is forcing the taxpayer to pay for it. A doctor being forced to heal someone is just a moral and legal obligation under most frameworks. Omission of assistance is a crime even in capitalist countries.