This was shared unironically.

I actually will.

Uhhhh, you know most dictators have been left leaning?

Condescending and false. Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Salazar (Protugal), Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Putin, Erdogan, Somoza (Nicaragua), Batista (Cuba), Juan and Evita Peron (Argentina), Pinochet (Chile), Deby (Chad), and Duvalier (Haiti) were all right-leaning dictators, and I missed most Central American and Carribean dictators in that list, as well as right-leaning African dictators. Most dictators are not leftists, it's probably closer to a 50/50 right/left split when it comes to historical dictators.

Can you think of which political party is suggesting the entire election was compromised and want to invalidate it? The same party who is seriously talking about impeaching the president for nothing important?

Fuck off it's not about invalidation of an election. Why did Hillary concede the election so readily if Democrats are really anti-democracy? If anything it's Republicans with their gerrymandered to hell districts, restrictive voter ID laws, and hard-on for the electoral college which gave them a majority in Congress and the Presidency despite losing popular votes nationwide for both sections of government that are anti-democratic. In before "the US is a republic," that's no excuse. France is a republic too but they also have a working democracy.

The 20th century was full of horrible atrocities committed by socialists trying to enact their ideology all over the world. It isn't just the Soviets with their gulags, Mao's China, the Khmer Rouge, and a few million more from the smaller governments all contributed to a death toll that dwarfs the Holocaust.

No one here is trying to push Mao or Khmer Rouge apologia, I think everyone here bar the most extreme tankies agree that communism in China and Cambodia failed. Also other than the Khmer Rouge you've failed to list actually genocidal regimes (which is obviously the implication you're trying to establish). You could mention how the Soviets treated Poles, Romanians, and Czechs as examples of genocidal policy, but instead you chose Mao (whose programs failed more through spectacular incompetence rather than direct malice), and gulags (which were awful but not death camps) as evidence of leftists' genocidal tendencies? You can't even argue your own point as well as you could, because you can find examples of racist policy in communist countries, but instead you're attempting to equate deaths by famine to the deliberate slaughter of the untermensch. Both tragic but not comparable.

The idea that fascism and socialism are somehow opposites is patently false. The same people who push that are the same ones who try to argue that National Socialism had nothing to do with socialism, when their policies clearly were socialist.

But they weren't their policy was right-leaning as fuck. "National Socialism" was a term Hitler created to include actual leftists in his Nazi coalition, which he then reneged on with the Night of the Long Knives. This is an earlier comment I wrote in an entirely different thread but I'm recycling it because its points are valid: A planned economy is not the only indicator of socialism. When private individuals own the means of production and profit off it, especially when such practices are being encouraged while a government is actively rounding up leftists like in Nazi Germany, that's not socialism. When the best interests of you company is to serve the best interests of its state, that's not indicative of leftism. Otherwise companies like Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas are leftist institutions, because the success of those companies hinges on contracts from the US military and therefore the government. Not only that, but similar as to how a capitalist country would run, fascists more often than not would not intervene in the private sector. If you were to read Mussolini's Labour Charter of 1927, which stated that "The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation," as well as "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management." Similarly Nazis opposed leftists, especially communists due to the perceived threat on Europe's class system and dissolution of private property, both of which are integral to a fascist society but not a communist one.

Nazism has always just been socialism with a twist of eugenics

lol

the Nazis hated capitalism

correct

and would seize the means of productions from private citizens.

Partially correct, they would seize the means of production if your goals didn't align with the state's. If they company was servicing the state will in the hands of the private sector it would stay in the private sector.

They also dramatically increased public spending on education and government assistance programs.

That's not socialism, I can't believe I'm saying this because it's going to sound like I'm defending the Nazis, but dramatically increasing spending on public programs is the standard operating procedure of governments in industrialized countries. It's not socialism it's just responsible governing, although the Nazis unfortunately transformed Germany's education system into a propaganda dispenser.

The ideological war between capitalism and socialism was already fought, and capitalism won. The only countries that do well as "socialist" now are much closer to free market capitalism economically.

Yes the Cold War happened. Your point?

Be grateful because capitalism means freedom.

lol, no. There's nothing inherently "free" about capitalism, if you've lived under any one of the dictators I mentioned at the start of my post you'd know that.

/r/forwardsfromgrandma Thread Parent Link - i.imgur.com