What would you rather? Far left or right?

[britishboy]

What is worst communists or nazis. I find this quite thought provoking of couse just like most I hate both but who is worse?

[HistoricWrath]

They are both equally horrible. I guess the Nazis are more outwardly evil, but the evilness of Communism is within the system itself not necessarily its outward very apparent actions.

[Vlerchan]

Define 'communism', BritishBoy. I want to see what I'm getting myself into before I decide on anything. It'll probably go something like this, though: Libertarian Communism > National Socialism > Authoritarian 'Communism'.

[Yonkers]

abcd

[ksdnfkfr]

Nazis are worse

[Cygnus]

I'd rather immerse myself in dreams of a utopian yet stoic world than strive for "purity" and be racist.

[Canadian Dream]

Depends if you're talking economy of government. Since you mentioned Nazis, I'm going to suppose you are talking of the governement. If we suppose the government isn't corrupt, communism would probably be better. But because since both extremes both have a bad reputation as a government, I say they are fairly equal. Both have provided an exellent example of bad quality of life and discrimination.

[Harry Smith]

Communism is an extremely broad ideology... where as Nazism is very very specific- there isn't really any comparison between the two. Communism has so many different branches- maybe if you defined which one then it would be easier to tell

I thought all this anti-communism crap ended in the 1990's?

[BlueIsTheColour]

What is worst communists or nazis. I find this quite thought provoking of couse just like most I hate both but who is worse?

Thank god I never lived under either.

Seems to me under communism nobody but the ruling class had any chance of a decent life. Under Nazis some people outside the ruling class had a chance of a decent life.

On that simplistic basis Nazi is the least evil.

[sqishy]

Both are way too unbalanced, but I prefer left wing over right wing.

[Jean Poutine]

Communism as described in Marx's work, with a transitional socialist phase between capitalism and communism, is an utopia. There really is no comparison between the two.

I assume that what you mean by "communism" are the Eastern European regimes, Communist China and other states of that nature. They have quite little to do with communism as Marx envisioned it.

For example, about the political process :

As an instrument of working class rule, the state in this period is labeled, in what has proven to be an unfortunate turn of phrase, the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Hal Draper has demonstrated that "dictatorship" meant something very different to Marx and his contemporaries than it does to most of us. Marx did not use this concept to refer to the extra-legal and generally violent rule of one man or a small group of men. Before Hitler and Mussolini, the meaning of "dictatorship" was strongly influenced by its use in ancient Rome, where the constitution provided for the election of a dictator to carry out certain specified tasks for a limited period, generally in times of crisis. It was in opposition to Blanqui's elitist views on the organization of the coming workers' state that Marx first introduced the expression "dictatorship of the proletariat," and by it he meant the democratic rule of the entire working class (including farm laborers), which made up the large majority of the population in all advanced countries.

Marx's defense of the Commune's vision of frequent elections for all government functionaries, mandated instructions from their constituents, and their recall reflect his belief that people of all classes recognize, or can be made to recognize where their interests lay and to act upon them. But is it really obvious that people usually know or can come to know who will represent their best interests in Parliament? Marx thought it was, and that to open up the channels for popular control, in the absence of capitalist brain-washing techniques, is enough to insure that these interests would be properly represented.

[...]

Two significant conclusions emerge from this exchange: first, Marx believed people in the government do not have important interests which conflict wit those of the class from which they come. Consequently, the elected leaders of the proletarian dictatorship will want to represent the workers correctly. Should the electors make a "mistake," which in this context would only refer to the faulty character of an individual office holder, it will be quickly rectified through the instrument of the recall. Second, to believe that workers elected to government will use their authority to advance personal ends is to have a "nightmare," which I understand in this context as a foolish and impossible dream. Marx is asserting, in effect, "The workers are not like that," or, to be more precise, "will not be like that when they come to power." Evidence that this is what has happened in present day communist countries cannot really be used to settle this dispute since the social, economic and political pre-conditions which Marx thought necessary have never existed in these countries.


Ever wonder why in the United States so many people vote against their interests? For example, why is it that poor people vote Republican? It's propaganda, like Faux News. There is no propaganda in a communist society, only a government of workers, for workers, and the constituents have a direct check on the government's power by being able to "fire" at will any who fucks up.

About the widespread usage of violence in Communist states :

Where, remnants of the old order remain, they are to be removed, the state using all the force necessary for this purpose. Marx's comments elsewhere on the abolition of inheritance, the confiscation of the property of rebels, etc., give an indication of the kind of measures he favored to do away with capitalists as a class. Should individual members of this class prove incorrigible, his statement on the role of the proletarian dictatorship seems to provide a justification for using more extreme means. Marx, however, apparently believed that the economic and social measures introduced by the new regime would be sufficient to transform most capitalists, and that physical violence would only be used against those who resorted to violence themselves.

About working conditions :

Hand in hand with the "amelioration" of working conditions goes the shortening of the working day.37 This is accomplished without any decrease in the total social product. In the only instance where figures are given, it appears that the working day will be cut in half. Marx explains how this is possible: "If everybody must work, if the opposition between those who do work and those who don't disappears...and moreover, one takes count of the development of the productive forces engendered by capital, society will produce forces engendered by capital, society will produce in 6 hours the necessary surplus, even more than now in 12 hours; at the same time everybody will have 6 hours of 'time at his disposition,' the true richness..."38 In communism, it is not material objects but free time that is the substance of wealth. Another basis for Marx's optimism is seen in his claim that shorter work days will mean greater intensity of labor for the time actually at work.

The very enormity of the cut in hours Marx proposes indicates how great, he believes, is the number of people not working or engaged in useless activity, (9/10 of the labor in the circulation process, for example, is said to be necessary only under conditions of capitalism), and also the extent to which capitalism has not taken advantage of its opportunities for technical progress.

Marx envisioned a much healthier working environment that we have now. We sell our time to be able to live, but we never get to actually "live". As a future lawyer, I will work anywhere from 60 to 80 hours a week. That leaves very little time for a healthy balance.

About administrating government :

Marx's belief that the costs of administration will diminish does not necessarily imply that there will be less government in the short-run, though his claim that these costs diminish "in proportion as the new society develops" does imply just this for the long-run. The transformation of the professional army into a people's army and the low wages paid to all government functionaries (the example for this was set by the Commune) offer sufficient reason for the immediate drop in expenses of running a government.

Marx does not campaign for a pervasive, heavy central government : he does just the opposite. In the United States, roughly 30% of health care expenditures is spent on administration - and that is a private system. In Canada, with a public system, the figure is half that. I'm willing to bet it's because processing one of the zillions of insurance policies floating around the free market is a humongous expenditure for the state - so is insurers evaluating each and every customer seeking coverage. In Canada, it's a single policy and no one is denied. The administrative system is much smoother.

About free handouts and the devalorization of labour (also known as "who will work if the State nannies everybody") :

Despite all these inroads into the social product, the portion which goes to each individual is still larger than a worker's portion under capitalism. Besides rapid economic growth, this new prosperity is explained by the fact that the outsized shares of the product which went to capitalists, landlords, army officers, bureaucrats, and many industries now considered wasteful are divided among everyone. What each person receives directly as his/her share in the total product plus the welfare, etc. he/she gets as a citizen gives him/her a material existence that is both secure and comfortable.

So far we have spoken as if all the people living in the first stage of communism receive equal shares of the social product. But this is only true if they work the same amount of time, since the measure guiding distribution for most of this period—it is introduced as soon as it is feasible—is labor-time. Marx claims that each person "receives back from society—after the deductions have been made—exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor... He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such and such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds), and with this certificate he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as constitutes the same amount of labor. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form he receives back in another." The Commune's practice of paying everyone in government service, from members of the Commune downwards, the same worker's wages is declared to be a practical expression of the principle, "equal pay for equal labor-time."

But he points out, "one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right." The ideal system of distribution, which is foreshadowed in these remarks would neither punish nor reward people for their personal characteristics.

I underlined the "or intensity" because in communism, people who do harder jobs are not supposed to be "paid" the same amount as someone who executes a less demanding job. Usually people think of communism as "everyone gets paid the same" and wonder why anyone would work, or achieve a high standard of education to have a better job. The truth is, the profit motive is still there. If you don't work, you earn less. Those who can work longer or harder and earn more are able to. Those that are smarter and want to become doctors, not janitors, are able to and could earn a higher percentage of society's labor time. The difference would be heavily flattened, but it would still be there. Besides, it's not like the prestige assigned to one job or another will disappear.

I took all the quotes from here : http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php. It's a good read if you want to know something else about communism than McCarthy era false propaganda and western lies.

And so on and so forth. Obviously, communism is miles and miles ahead of nazism on anything and everything. As I said, communism is an utopia ; nazism is the single most detestable regime to have existed in the last century. Only somebody uneducated would refer to Cuba, North Korea, USSR and so on as "communist countries". This is not a case of "no true Scotsman" ; they never fulfilled Marx's criteria for the transition from capitalism to socialism. It was doomed to fail from the start.

The red scare is over.

[BlueIsTheColour]

Ever wonder why in the United States so many people vote against their interests? For example, why is it that poor people vote Republican?

Probably because not every poor person wants to stay poor for the rest of their life. As you may have noticed many rich people started poor. Being able to better your life is something that communism doesn't allow for

If every poor person voted for the government that would give them the biggest handout what do you think would happen?

[Stronk Serb]

Why is everyone bashing on Communism? It's a very good idea, opposed to Nazism where millions get discriminated.

[BlueIsTheColour]

Why is everyone bashing on Communism? It's a very good idea, opposed to Nazism where millions get discriminated.

People bash communism because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea that's been totally discredited.

If you really can't see that you should go back to school

[Stronk Serb]

People bash communism because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea that's been totally discredited.

If you really can't see that you should go back to school


I think you should go to the library and read Marx's books. It makes much sense because when we hit the Utpoian Society, we will be at our evolutionary peak.

[britishboy]

I think you should go to the library and read Marx's books. It makes much sense because when we hit the Utpoian Society, we will be at our evolutionary peak.

Yeah we have learned from that mistake, thats not happening again. When do you say 'when'? you do realise neo nazis are more popular in britain communists?

[Vlerchan]

Great post, Jean. I created a thread a few weeks ago addressing the common misconception people have with communism; I'm going to start counting now for repeats of those previously-addressed misconceptions.

People bash communism because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea that's been totally discredited.
How can a system of economic governance that has never been implemented be discredited? The problem with communism isn't its theory - the theory is actually pretty solid if you ever bother reading it - but rather its manner of implementation. Though I'm assuming you're trying to rope communism in with authoritarian state-capitalism as usual in which case I'll have have to remind everyone again: state-capitalism =/= communism; communism is not simply transferring your labour from the control of employer to state.

Yeah we have learned from that mistake, thats not happening again. When do you say 'when'? you do realise neo nazis are more popular in britain communists?
Communism is an inevitability. I'm not a communist myself and I've long since realised that. We'll either a) realise en-masse that we're largely only being employed for the sake of keeping up consumption or b) reduce our resources to such a level that capitalism becomes unsustainable or most likely c) reach a level of technological development where most input from labour is entirely unneeded.

[Jean Poutine]

Probably because not every poor person wants to stay poor for the rest of their life. As you may have noticed many rich people started poor. Being able to better your life is something that communism doesn't allow for

I directly proved the contrary in my post.

Keep peddling the "American dream", where the poor sell themselves to provide sustenance for the rich. But hey, they can make it big too, if only they work hard enough!

I'm sure that woman who must hold 3 fry cook jobs to make ends meet will strike it big one day, if only she keeps working and working. LOL.

Also, assuming communism = poor people = incredible fail. Standards of living would rise, working conditions would get better, productivity would increase and economic growth would be robust according to Marx.

You know, all things I've quoted, if you had bothered to read.

If every poor person voted for the government that would give them the biggest handout what do you think would happen?

Nothing in particular. What happened in Scandinavia?

[BlueIsTheColour]

How can a system of economic governance that has never been implemented be discredited? The problem with communism isn't its theory - the theory is actually pretty solid if you ever bother reading it - but rather its manner of implementation.

That's the problem with every theory - it sounds great on paper but does it work in the real world.

We have had communism, it had a fair chance but it failed. Move on.

[Jean Poutine]

That's the problem with every theory - it sounds great on paper but does it work in the real world.

We have had communism, it had a fair chance but it failed. Move on.

We have never had communism.

[Cygnus]

That's the problem with every theory - it sounds great on paper but does it work in the real world.

We have had communism, it had a fair chance but it failed. Move on.

It hasn't happened yet, all those people who want communism have no idea on how to execute it, no country has pure communism. But please, lets not turn this into a debate on wether communism is good or bad, and lets go back to saying why communism would be better than nazism as the examples were set.

[Vlerchan]

If anyone wants to respond to this post they can do so in the Communism thread which I created a few weeks back. Cygnus is right: debating the effectiveness of communism isn't what the topic is about.

That's the problem with every theory - it sounds great on paper but does it work in the real world.
They used to say this about capitalism and democracy, too.

We have had communism, it had a fair chance but it failed. Move on.
We've never had communism.

Though the active suppression of attempts at communism over the past sixty years by the worlds largest superpower certainly wasn't giving the theory a 'fair chance'.

[...] and lets go back to saying why communism would be better than nazism as the examples were set.
There was no examples set, really. We were simply expected to assume the worst of both theories and compare them.

[BlueIsTheColour]

Though the active suppression of attempts at communism over the past sixty years by the worlds largest superpower certainly wasn't giving the theory a 'fair chance'.

Wasn't USSR a superpower and a communist country?

[Stronk Serb]

Yeah we have learned from that mistake, thats not happening again. When do you say 'when'? you do realise neo nazis are more popular in britain communists?

Yes they are. The media like a good story, that's why everyone knows about neo-nazism, while a minority knows what Communism is, you excluded.

[Vlerchan]

Wasn't USSR a superpower and a communist country?
The USSR was state-capitalist. The key distinction between communism and state-capitalism is that communism is inherently anarchic or, at the very least, the power is decentralised down to local level. The actual Soviet Union was originally supposed to be 'ruled' by soviets - local workers councils - though this idea was quickly disbanded as Lenin felt the need to form a huge state bureaucracy to engage with the threat of counter-revolutionaries and unfriendly border nations. Had the Soviet Union been left under the rule of independent soviets then history as we know it might have been hugely different - though, my bet is that his experiment would've failed. Had it not constantly been engaged in deterring potential aggressors over the next seventy years the state might have withered away and these soviets reformed - or given their powers back; they were always there - though that obviously didn't happen. (I haven't much looked into Marxist-Leninism or the Soviet Union's history so that's a very underdetailed outline of events, unfortunately)

The closest to large-scale communism - well, actually it was anarcho-syndicalist; but close enough - that has ever existed was the Spanish Republican 'state' set up during the the Spanish civil war to combat the Republican Fascists. It was crushed by Franco's Republican forces, though.

[BlueIsTheColour]

So if USSR had decentralised power to a local level communism might have worked?

[Vlerchan]

So if USSR had decentralised power to a local level communism might have worked?
They would've had something resembling communism. I'm not sure if it would've worked.

In Yugoslavia power was slowly decentralised and as such it's usually considered the best of the long-lived attempts at communism. Then nationalism happened in the nineties and it all went down hill.

[TheBigUnit]

national socialist was more effective but

[Walter Powers]

Communists and Nazis are BOTH far left politically. I don't see Hitler, a member of the National German SOCIALIST party, championing the wonders of free market economics. He also limited the practice of Christianity. He certainly shared far more traits with communists then with, say, the GOP.

[Stronk Serb]

Communists and Nazis are BOTH far left politically. I don't see Hitler, a member of the National German SOCIALIST party, championing the wonders of free market economics. He also limited the practice of Christianity. He certainly shared far more traits with communists then with, say, the GOP.

So just because his party's name had the word Socialist, it means that he is far left? He was a nationalist and had anti-semitic thoughts, just those two alone put him far right, because in a leftist state discrimination and racism is untolerable. In Nazi Germany, there was no unified industry, you had mega-corporations, kinda like in the United States.

[Vlerchan]

Nazis are [...] far left politically.
They're not. I'd personally label the Nazi's Authoritarian Centre, but on a purely left-right scale the Nazis were certainly far-right: anti-semitism; ultra-nationalism; and anti-communism being the platform they ran on.

I don't see Hitler, a member of the National German SOCIALIST party, championing the wonders of free market economics.
I could spend a page outlining the difference between National Socialism and International Socialism but I'll keep it short. Both ideologies are radically different and entirely opposed to each other though both similarily believed their system would bring an end to class struggle - National Socialism through the implementation of corporatism - and as such labelled themselves Socialist.

Hitler's Finance minister, Hjalmar Schacht, was an ardent capatalist though and corporatism was soon abandoned in favour of Capatalism.

He also limited the practice of Christianity.
He didn't limit Christianity as far as I'm aware. I'd love some links here.

He certainly shared far more traits with communists then with, say, the GOP.
I assume you've not seen the GOP's proposed social policies?

[tovaris]

I think we should condome all wiolence and discrimination of any sort.

Why is everyone bashing on Communism? It's a very good idea, opposed to Nazism where millions get discriminated.
..................,............................................

People bash communism because it's an absolutely ridiculous idea that's been totally discredited.

If you really can't see that you should go back to school

What kond of a school did you go to? My god....... You do realise that educated people favour left for a reason.

[Sugaree]

You do realise that educated people favour left for a reason.

Because they haven't been taught to think for themselves; that's why they favor the left.

[tovaris]

Because they haven't been taught to think for themselves; that's why they favor the left.

Actual that is why EDUCATED people favor the left, because they think for themselves....

[Sugaree]

Actual that is why EDUCATED people favor the left, because they think for themselves....

Then tell me why so many leftist thinkers are so much in favor of supporting things like a singular mindset (read: where there is only one train of thought, nothing else is allowed) and why many right wing thinkers often express the importance of thinking for yourself and taking all trains of thought into consideration for your decision?

The left, in the last twenty or so years, has been bogged down by so called "thinkers" who only want ONE continuous thought process. They don't want any other thought process invading their own little space. And if something DOES invade that little space, they send out cries of racism, sexism, homophobia, and every other type of negative connotation you can label a person.

If you were truly educated, you should be taught, first and foremost, to consider all schools of thought, not just your own. This is where many left wing thinkers fail.

[tovaris]

Then tell me why so many leftist thinkers are so much in favor of supporting things like a singular mindset (read: where there is only one train of thought, nothing else is allowed) and why many right wing thinkers often express the importance of thinking for yourself and taking all trains of thought into consideration for your decision?

The left, in the last twenty or so years, has been bogged down by so called "thinkers" who only want ONE continuous thought process. They don't want any other thought process invading their own little space. And if something DOES invade that little space, they send out cries of racism, sexism, homophobia, and every other type of negative connotation you can label a person.

If you were truly educated, you should be taught, first and foremost, to consider all schools of thought, not just your own. This is where many left wing thinkers fail.

You dont know much about the subject do you.... Do you have any idea how deverse the left side is (dont get me wrong so is the right)? You have the greens, the social democrats, the socialists, communists, anarchists.... and so many others, and those are yustthe main streem ones. Far from one single trail of rigetught.
While you have the backward right side that would have us leaving in fewdalism it it was possible...
A, as you putis singular mindset as you put it is tipical of onestreem parties (republicans, SDS...) and cults _f personalety (khm khm Hitler, khm khm). Think about that.

Why educated people from diferent backgrounds do go leftis BECAUSE they consider all posabileties, and look at diferent ideas and decide objactevely which side to choose.

Ever heard of a filosofer called Žižek? Find him on youtube (sorta strange he is, and has a strange aproche now and there but makes you think)

[Harry Smith]

Communists and Nazis are BOTH far left politically. I don't see Hitler, a member of the National German SOCIALIST party, championing the wonders of free market economics. He also limited the practice of Christianity. He certainly shared far more traits with communists then with, say, the GOP.

Nazis are far left? What school of thinking have you been to? The cold war is over bro.

The Nazis are not left wing in the slightest- nationalistic antisemitism is socialism at all. As pointed out Hjalmar Schacht was head of Hitler's four year plan and in turn head of the Reich-bank. That's not socialist on any planet.

Hitler was elected on the platform of not being close to communism in any form, that's why he got support of the conservatives and big business- they were scared shitless of their workers revolting and Hitler promised to stop this.

He didn't limit Christianity at all, if anything he supported it within Germany for the first 10 years

[Walter Powers]

They're not. I'd personally label the Nazi's Authoritarian Centre, but on a purely left-right scale the Nazis were certainly far-right: anti-semitism; ultra-nationalism; and anti-communism being the platform they ran on.

They may be opposed, but that sounds an awful lot like communism to me. Ultra nationalism? Communist. Executing political adversairies? Communist.

I could spend a page outlining the difference between National Socialism and International Socialism but I'll keep it short. Both ideologies are radically different and entirely opposed to each other though both similarily believed their system would bring an end to class struggle - National Socialism through the implementation of corporatism - and as such labelled themselves Socialist.

Either way, it's socialism, which is a leftist idea.

Hitler's Finance minister, Hjalmar Schacht, was an ardent capatalist though and corporatism was soon abandoned in favour of Capatalism.

Your really trying to make the argument the free market was allowed to prosper in Nazi Germany?

He didn't limit Christianity as far as I'm aware. I'd love some links here.

Sure he did. He wanted to eliminate it. http://usminc.org/hitler.html

I assume you've not seen the GOP's proposed social policies?

AM I REALLY GETTING THE NAZI TREATMENT FROM SOMEBODY WHO QUOTES MARX IN THEIR SIGNATURE?

I assume you haven't seen Marxist social policies?

Now your just spewing garbage.

[Vlerchan]

They may be opposed, but that sounds an awful lot like communism to me. Ultra nationalism? Communist. Executing political adversaries? Communist.
You're mixing up communist ideas with acts committed by communists. It's not the same. By your logic Catholicism promotes paedophilia.

Nationalism: Communism is an internationalist ideology - as already stated. It doesn't recognise culture or race; only class-group. I'd actually argue that Communism is entirely opposed to Nationalism or any similar fractures of the proletariat.

Executions: Communism doesn't promote this. Actually, no ideology that I'm aware of promotes this.

Either way, it's socialism, which is a leftist idea.
It's National Socialism - a Right-Wing idea. The only idea the pair - International and National - have in common is the incredibly abstract concept of class warfare. You're clutching at straws with the name - is the Democratic Republic of North Korea democratic, too?

Your really trying to make the argument the free market was allowed to prosper in Nazi Germany?I'm trying to make the argument that Nazi Germany had a Capatalist economy as opposed to a Corporatist or Socialist one - which it undeniably did.

Sure he did. He wanted to eliminate it. http://usminc.org/hitler.html
Hitler may have planned to eliminate Christianity but Hitler never actually did eliminate - or limit, even - Christianity as you suggested prior.

Though, it's possible to be Right-Wing and not Religious - as I believe you are - so I don't see where this is supposed to go.

AM I REALLY GETTING THE NAZI TREATMENT FROM SOMEBODY WHO QUOTES MARX IN THEIR SIGNATURE?
Does it really matter? I'm no less incorrect regardless of which political ideology I prescribe to.

I assume you haven't seen Marxist social policies?
He didn't write much on Social Policies. He was a Feminist and believed religion was a coping mechanism - and that's all I know.

Though I assume this is the point where you'll make an attempt to equate Marx's social policies with those implemented by authoritarian state-capatalist regimes during the twentieth century by individuals who weren't Karl Marx. That's to be expected.

Now your just spewing garbage.
More Ad Hominem. Great. If my argument is 'garbage' feel free to refute it then.

[Harry Smith]

They may be opposed, but that sounds an awful lot like communism to me. Ultra nationalism? Communist. Executing political adversairies? Communist..

Yeah because the United States has never executed someone opposed to their political beliefs- just as Che Guevara or Patrice Lumumbra who were both killed by the CIA in the 60's.

Executing someone doesn't make you a communist, in the same way that rabid nationalism and the banning of Trade unionism doesn't make you a socialist/communist.

If Hitler was such a strong socialist as you argue why did he ban trade unions and get elected as being extremely anti-communist.

If you look at the History of the party the more left wing part was killed off in the early 30's before they had power when figures such as Strasser and Rohm became marginalized

[Miserabilia]

communism>national-socialism
equality>racism+dictatorship

[Loca]

I'd rather immerse myself in dreams of a utopian yet stoic world than strive for "purity" and be racist.

Wow ur a mod! Um, idk. What is far left and right? Can someone explain this to me

[AgentHomo]

Technically it can get more radical. Left (Anarchy) vs Right (Totalitarianism). While the far right stands for homophobia, hate, and ignorance, the far left supports full equality of everyone. So technically I support anarchy to a point.