They are not spineless. They are in on it and part of the deep state. They are not dumb.
Youre not wrong unfortunately.
They are not spineless. They are in on it and part of the deep state. They are not dumb.
The political spectrum is a circle, not a straight line. 1996slowbra should know this, as he was taught it in college as a Poli Sci major (as was I).
If you take both to their ultimate extremes, they meet each other and both end in despotic tyranny/communism/fascism--insert whatever name you want.
Was there really much of a difference between Stalin and Hitler?
How long ago did you go to school? Horseshoe theory hasn't been taught since like the 90's. Most professors see it as far too reductionist.
Its very reductionist and misses a TON of nuance, but for folks who havent studied the subject matter it is a great way to illustrate the bulk of right/left thoery although again, admittedly on a broad scale.
I graduated in 2000 so youre right there....
They are both the same in my eyes. They both wanted full power and control and killed millions to get and keep this power.The political spectrum is a circle, not a straight line. 1996slowbra should know this, as he was taught it in college as a Poli Sci major (as was I).
If you take both to their ultimate extremes, they meet each other and both end in despotic tyranny/communism/fascism--insert whatever name you want.
Was there really much of a difference between Stalin and Hitler?
Not to polandThe political spectrum is a circle, not a straight line. 1996slowbra should know this, as he was taught it in college as a Poli Sci major (as was I).
If you take both to their ultimate extremes, they meet each other and both end in despotic tyranny/communism/fascism--insert whatever name you want.
Was there really much of a difference between Stalin and Hitler?
It also promotes the mistaken notion that hard right and hard left governments will always devolve into authoritarian regimes, which is emphatically untrue, more often they just collapse.
Symantics. You just spoke out of both sides of your mouth. I'd argue that regimes which are NOT despotic tend to survive and/or thrive.
Those that are fail. So what's the difference and does it even matter?
No.
I see this conversation is drowning into a debate of specific term definitions in 3, 2, 1......
They are both the same in my eyes. They both wanted full power and control and killed millions to get and keep this power.
Semantics, with an E.
And despotic regimes were the norm until about 200 years ago and they were fairly stable, clear lines of succession and an uneducated populace can do wonders.
Republics are likewise quite fragile and prone to a strong man taking control, just look at all the failed states in Africa, also without a strong successor they will devolve into infighting every time one of their leaders dies.
.