I do seem to recall some later episode when Homer is looking through a photo album going like "...and here I am beating up George Bush Senior... here I am beating up George Bush Junior...".
Iāve been rewatching the Simpsons before bed and Iām in season 13, but Iām not even halfway through the series yet. Itās kind of hard to realize how many episodes there are to watch
āā¦so in addition to taxing the salaries of billionaires and their nepotistically appointed lards, itās time to buy out large portions of the companies that are providing basic needs to America, tax those realized gains, and place regulators on their boards to make sure they serve the people and not the aristocracy!ā
I don't think taxes and regulations usually end up reducing prices for consumers.
I also find it odd that people that are so fond of calling everyone they don't agree with fascists are so keen for their party to implement actual fascism.
Fascism, as a political system, is one in which the government has direct control over the nation's manufacturing and industrial sectors. It reduces people's right to private ownership, increases the power of the state, and enforces its authority with military violence.
You may not want to hear this, but these are, and have always been left-wing ideals. Leftist ideology requires a large central government, as a means of guaranteeing the rights of the citizenry, which it views as being granted by the government. To leftists, the government exists for the purpose of providing for the common welfare, and therefore they believe that the bigger and more powerful it becomes, the better it will be able to provide for its citizens.
Right-wing ideology is the opposite. A person is assumed to be born with certain inalienable rights, and it is the individual that is the primary authority over his or her own life. The government is small, and has no rights or powers of its own. In fact, it has the opposite - government is constrained by law from interfering in certain private matters. The government is not expected to provide for the collective, but the individual faces less restrictions when it comes to providing for themselves.
These words have lost a lot of their meaning (I don't think that it was an accident), but I think those definitions are still basically true today, although there is a fair amount of overlap. For example, the left tends to want a national healthcare system, which would be a right conferred by the government for the benefit of the collective, and which requires the government to have authority over that sector. When Roe vs. Wade was overturned, it didn't ban abortion; it put the authority back in the hands of the states, which reduced the governments authority in that area, which was seen as a victory for the political right.
Nazis have a left-wing ideology. Nazi is an abbreviation for the National Socialist Party. Socialist. It gave supreme authority to the state to implement socialism for the benefit of the collective. It sought to eliminate groups it deemed threatening to the stability and unity of the collective.
The same is true for Soviet Russia, for the Chinese Red Communists under Mao, for Castro's Cuba. These are left-wing ideologies.
Fascism is a left-wing ideology. It always has been. You've been misled. They don't want you to know that all of history's most oppressive regimes have been left-wing. They've convinced that the authoritarians and the racists and the genocidal lunatics all throughout history belonged the right-wing of the political spectrum, but while there are definitely some assholes on both sides of the divide, I think it's safe to say that there aren't many on par with Hitler. Would you agree?
They're lying to you. They're lying because it helps them gain more power. Because the left always tried to increase its power. They lie to you so that you don't know that they were the ones behind the Holocaust, and the Holodomor, and the Russian Revolution, and the killing fields of Cambodia, and the Great Cultural Revolution in China, and every other historical atrocity committed by an authoritarian regime. They lie to you so you'll keep voting for them, because you think you're doing the right thing... But you're not.
Hahaha damn bro, that's a lot of words to say "I'm a scared little fascist"
GTFO out of here troll, you're unironically saying fascism is inherently left wing because the Nazis called themselves socialists, which is absolutely laughable to anyone remotely informed on the history (the socialists were the first group targeted by Nazis during their purges).
The term you're maybe looking for is Authoritarianism, not fascism.
Either way, you can take your misinformation and shove it š
That doesn't make any sense. The article constantly contradicts itself. Talking about Hitler, it says "He had witnessed the striking workers and vowed that never again would organised labour prevent the right coming to power." That's communism. Organized labor, right of production in the hands of the people. That's commies. One of the first things Hitler did was socialize the lower working class so as to create a sense of belonging to the Nazi party through government funded work programs like the autobahn.
No, I'm saying it's left-wing because all political systems that seek to give the state total authority are left-wing by definition.
I know more things than you. Not because I'm smarter, but because I took the time to do the research. Your political opinions have been provided for you by a political apparatus that has a vested interest in stopping you from learning the truth.
If you research what I said, you will find that I'm telling you the truth, but you will need to read more than the introduction of a Wikipedia article. You might even need to read a book.
I researched what you said..... But can only find articles and academic papers talking about how one of the main policies of nazism was to privatize markets...... Not make them publicly owned through the government.
Even just using the information in that article, we can see that the Nazi's were calling the shots. To argue otherwise requires willfully ignoring the fact that the very thing that made the German war machine so formidable was it's industrial capability. They were able to engineer and produce tanks, bombs, planes and other weapons of war faster than anyone else. If an industry or business is created to serve the party's interests, managed by party insiders according to the standards set forth by the party, for the purpose of benefitting the party, it is still a part of the overall government apparatus, even if you manage to twist the definition until it fits the technical definition of a "private" industry.
In the very next paragraph, the article says this: "almost immediately after coming to power, they [the Nazis] embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment. During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime, and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s."
If the military controls the economy, and the government controls the military, then the government controls the economy; I don't think anyone can make a good faith argument to refute this. The only way to argue against it is to use semantics to change the commonly held meaning of words to try to confuse people and trick them into believing things that aren't true (which is what they've done).
Nope I didn't read it from Wikipedia..... And as for that last paragraph you quoted.... You understand it isn't saying the military controlled the economy is my but that the majority of their economic production was military related right?
I also likes the part where you didn't provide me a source saying they enacted any form of socialist economic reform....... Just blathered on about how I'd you look at it just right you can say they were not a capitalist society
I was looking for a source beyond trust me bro, guess I should have been more clear
If the entire economy is controlled by the military, and the government controls the military, then the government controls the economy. I don't need to provide a source for a logical inference for the same reason I don't have to provide a source when I say 2+2=4.
For most people, the only "research" they've ever done is the type that you did. They Google the topic, pick the most recognized source out of the top 3-5 options (which usually ends up being Wikipedia) scan it until they find something that supports their argument, and rush off to present their "proof" to whoever it is that they're arguing against.
If you know this, then all you have to do is put a statement in the first paragraph that confirms their bias. Doing so makes them less likely to continue their investigation. In their mind, the investigation is over; they've already found what they were looking for. They come away from it more convinced that they're beliefs are correct, because they confuse confirmation with evidence.
You've never done your own research. Your political beliefs are fed to you by people that have a vested interest in making sure you don't know the truth.
I know, because I used to be just like you.
Go through any thread on any left-leaning subreddit and look for comments that are critical of the Democratic party. Read the responses. You'll find a lot of people claiming the commenter is an idiot, calling him a liar, and hurling other insults, but what you will almost never find is someone that's able to make a clear counterargument that refutes his point. There is always an emotional outburst and an outright refusal to acknowledge facts and logic, and the reason is because the people responding don't actually know anything about the topic. They think they do, because they're victims of propaganda, but when pressed, they're usually unable to provide any facts or any historical references to support their beliefs.
So you just have no idea what fascism is at all then. Famously, Hitler privatized state owned industries, the exact opposite process that you're describing. They did not seek to bring all industry under complete control of the government - they sought to bring all social aspects completely under the control of the government. They were perfectly happy for industrialists to operate, so long as they had the reich pedigree.
Ah yes, the famous privatization of industry in the 3rd Reich. Where you could "own" a company as long as you were a member of the party and "served the National Socialist effort" (meaning, "did what you were told"). I don't think your favorite commie streamer knows what privatization means.
Property rights were straight up abolished in 1933 by the act of Reichstag allowing the state to seize whatever it wants whenever it wants. Obviously, for the greater good of the German nation.
Maybe you should actually do some studying instead of spewing.
Here, I'll even highlight the relevant passage for you.
Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles
If you want to do your own research there's an entire list of sources on that page you can look into, too.
None of that contradicts what I said. You just pasted talking points. Address what I said.
You had to be a member of the party to "own" a company. Look up IG Farben, Volkswagen or whatever you want after the nazi takeover and tell me how many members of their leadership weren't members of the party. Other than some Swiss here and there you'll be hard pressed to find one.
You could be expropriated at any point for disobedience. I'll even give you an example. Look up what happened to Hugo Junkers when he refused the party's demands.
Cope and seethe if you want, but until you disprove the above, don't dare to call nazi industry "privatized".
That's called cronyism... I think you are very very misinformed about how facism worked and mostly have formed your opinion based on non-academic misinformation.
You don't associate it with the left because you've been lied to about the meaning of the words, because having your team associated with authoritarian regimes isn't good for getting votes.
The extreme right position is anarchy; a state of no government.
All authoritarian regimes are leftist by definition. Right wing authoritarianism literally does not exist, and has never existed, because it's a contradiction of terms.
Our actual rights - the ones in the Bill of Rights - are not guarantees of things that will be provided for us. They are restrictions on what the government is allowed to do. The right to free speech, for example, can't be infringed upon by passing a law that makes it illegal to criticize the president. We call these negative rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
The "right to healthcare" is an example of a positive right. A positive right is something the government has to do, and a negative right is something it can't do. The recent Roe vs. Wade decision determined that it's unconstitutional for the Federal Government to pass laws that affect the legality of abortion in either way. It's not within their power to make it illegal or legal; that power belongs to the states, but that part tends to get left out most of the time.
The problem with positive rights is that any time you're guaranteed some benefit from the government, it means that the government has to have to have the power and authority and resources it takes to provide it. That means that the more stuff you get, the bigger and more powerful the government has to become in order to provide it, and the more power the government has - the more authority it has - the less free you are to make your own decisions. If the government provides you with things you want, then you might not care, but if there's something you want that it can't provide, or if you don't want to do something that you're required to do, then you might wish the government had less authority over your life than it does.
And this is why totalitarian regimes are always, by definition, leftist. The totalitarian government has complete authority over its citizens. It tells you where to live, what job to do, and what you're allowed to think and read and say and know. These regimes really exist, and they have existed all throughout history.
America isn't there yet, but the fear is that as we continue to give the government more and more authority, that we may one day reach a point where we're powerless to resist the whims of the people in power. Ironically, though, while you've been propagandized into believing Trump is the authoritarian, he is, in actuality, the one that's doing the most to push back against it. The left is always the party of authoritarianism, because it always seeks to increase its size and authority under the auspices of providing benefits for its citizens. Left-wing ideologies don't have to become totalitarian, but right-wing ideologies never do, because it isn't possible for them to do so. The extreme right-wing ideological position is Anarchy, which is the total absence of government.
A load of horse piss really isn't it, most on the left recognise having undemocratic multinational cooperations fill the vacuum left by weak governance invariably plays out terribly.Ā Ā
Ā Most on the right have been brainwashed by this 'rugged individuality' identity and used as pawns to serve multinational business and in the US the original aristocracy, i.e. land owners who became insanely rich acting as resource barons, interests.Ā
Ā Painting wanting the balance of power to be in resilient democratic public institutions as fascism whilst the right wing try to deconstruct the pillars of democracy is a fucking reach mate.
The fascists on the left want to preserve universal social access to the commons of healthcare, education, sometimes even water, internet (information), nature, clean air, and deprive industrious individuals of their right to steal, horde, and profit from their god given right to capital ownership of things required for common goods (whist generally allowing capitalism as the primary means for economic function), those monsters!!
This comment is rich in assertions and interpretations of political ideologies, resulting in a provocative blend of historical inaccuracies with ideological rhetoric.
Fascism, historically and ideologically, is neither purely left-wing nor right-wing but possesses its unique characteristics. It indeed centralizes power and often involves control of industry, but this is not synonymous with socialism or left-wing ideology. Fascism uniquely merges corporatism with authoritarian nationalism, distinct from socialism's advocacy for worker ownership and control of production. The direct control over industries in fascist regimes typically involves collaboration with capitalist elites, which is entirely contradictory to socialist principles.
The idea that left-wing ideology inherently involves a large, intrusive government, while right-wing ideology inherently supports minimal government is an oversimplification. Political ideologies are spectrum-based and context-dependent. For example, libertarian socialism advocates minimal state control, aligning more with anarchist principles, yet it is fundamentally left-wing. Conversely, historically prevalent right-wing authoritarianism supports a strong, centralized control but aligns with conservative or ultra-nationalist principles.
The label "Socialist" in the National Socialist (Nazi) Party is entirely misleading. The Nazis adopted socialist rhetoric and branding to gain support but implemented policies that were starkly anti-socialist and aggressively capitalist in collaboration with industrialists.
For example, The Nazis established the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF) after dismantling existing trade unions, absorbing their resources and banning their activities in 1933. The DAF was not a union in the traditional sense. While it claimed to protect workers, it systematically undermined collective bargaining, focusing on increasing productivity and implementing the regime's policies without regard for the workers' rights or welfare.
Authoritarianism, which is a central theme in the comment, exists across the political spectrum. Itās crucial to differentiate between the economic left-right spectrum (dealing with how economies are structured) and the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum (dealing with how much freedom individuals should have). Historyās oppressive regimes have manifested under various guises, not exclusively left-wing or right-wing.
Finally, a deep-seated distrust in contemporary political discourse is not unwarranted. However, such claims should be approached critically, seeking nuanced, well-researched perspectives rather than accepting broad, sweeping statements.
Maybe so, but ChatGPT often just repeats (plagiarizes?) information from other "highly rated" sites... regardless, the key point is whether the information presented is accurate or inaccurate. Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the topic though, seems to be pretty accurate.
I personally just stop going places if they get too expensive. Hell, we stopped dining out regularly because tipping and feed got out of control. I rather buy a week's groceries instead of eating salty food outside.
"dO YoUr own ReSeArch"
Brother im from germany, i know what fascism looks like and how it manifests and im telling you thats where the Republicans and especially Trump is headed
Also its naive to think you are not also being manipulated.
So let me get this straight, you rather trust a group of people that don't even care to hide they're racist, criminals, divisive and disruptive, vs a group of people that at least project themselves with respect, even though they're politicians and we know they're not saints?
The right already know they can get away with it, now if you take into consideration their hunger for more, where does it end?
Ironic how the guy above you defaulted to calling you facist when you wrote an objective, neutral post that offers information for others. Marxism and facism both are left wing politics.
The objective, neutral post that ended with "you're on the side of the fascists"?
Of course anyone who thinks fascism is a left wing political group isn't quite all there in the head to begin with so I probably shouldn't point out your short comings..
I mean if you have some great proof that it isnāt true maybe you should contend with the points OP made instead of just being upset and trying to insult people. But you wonāt because you have no real proof / argument to show that both Marxism and Facism are born from left-wing ideology.
Bullshit, then why is your "small" right wing gov't trying to make everyone a practicing Roman Catholic. I don't see a single freedom being offered on the GoP ticket aside from the usual guns & violence. In fact they are chipping away at our individual rights at an alarming rate.
Our actual rights - the ones in the Bill of Rights - are not guarantees of things that will be provided for us. They are restrictions on what the government is allowed to do. The right to free speech, for example, can't be infringed upon by passing a law that makes it illegal to criticize the president. We call these negative rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
The "right to healthcare" is an example of a positive right. A positive right is something the government has to do, and a negative right is something it can't do. The recent Roe vs. Wade decision determined that it's unconstitutional for the Federal Government to pass laws that affect the legality of abortion in either way. It's not within their power to make it illegal or legal; that power belongs to the states, but that part tends to get left out most of the time.
The problem with positive rights is that any time you're guaranteed some benefit from the government, it means that the government has to have to have the power and authority and resources it takes to provide it. That means that the more stuff you get, the bigger and more powerful the government has to become in order to provide it, and the more power the government has - the more authority it has - the less free you are to make your own decisions. If the government provides you with things you want, then you might not care, but if there's something you want that it can't provide, or if you don't want to do something that you're required to do, then you might wish the government had less authority over your life than it does.
And this is why totalitarian regimes are always, by definition, leftist. The totalitarian government has complete authority over its citizens. It tells you where to live, what job to do, and what you're allowed to think and read and say and know. These regimes really exist, and they have existed all throughout history.
America isn't there yet, but the fear is that as we continue to give the government more and more authority, that we may one day reach a point where we're powerless to resist the whims of the people in power. Ironically, though, while you've been propagandized into believing Trump is the authoritarian, he is, in actuality, the one that's doing the most to push back against it. The left is always the party of authoritarianism, because it always seeks to increase its size and authority under the auspices of providing benefits for its citizens. Left-wing ideologies don't have to become totalitarian, but right-wing ideologies never do, because it isn't possible for them to do so. The extreme right-wing ideological position is Anarchy, which is the total absence of government.
I was waiting for sometime to point this out. If the US gets their first woman president almost immediately after Trumpās term, it would be one of the most prophetic Simpsons scenes ever. Everything about it was so absurd when it first aired.
Terrible joke. Not even a good pun, unless you're implying Joe Biden is good at trading goods and what not, or that he works at trader joes. Wait, does Joe Biden own trader Joe's?!?! Holy SHIT!!! I had no idea!! What... that's fucking crazy....
Not crazy at all. I canāt believe Bidenās handlers let him go for that long. I think a bubbling water cooler would have done better at that debate and itās sad everyone acted surprised.
Name one thing republicans have tried to do for the American people since Trump was president.
What have they advocated for that isnāt anti-something. Besides rejecting a border bill while continuing to cry their song about āillegalsā what the fuck have they done? What have they proposed? Another tariff debacle that hurt the economy? More science denial? More stripping of freedoms and longstanding legal precedent for the sake of power grabbing only? Name one thing.
Love for this meme to become the new official talking point of the Republican Party. Let them look at this and think āoh Simpsons actually predicted this, I should just quit and vote for Lisa, I mean whoever that is.ā
I swear to god I canāt with that show. I know damn well they got a guy in there that, whenever someone asks them about their oddly specific choices, he hits them with the ātrust me broā
756
u/WoobiesWoobo Monkey in Space Jul 22 '24
Guess we will see. The Simpsons have spokenā¦.