Funny that this time this started from the right side of the political spectrum.
Authoritarianism is the common denominator; only the details vary.
If you think you have the best idea, the natural next move is to force everyone to follow that best idea, no room for disagreement or alternatives.
This pops up everywhere, everywhere ideology is involved in decisions.
Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hitler- they were all 'idealists.'
They were in it to improve the human (or some subset thereof) condition. And they weren't going to let anyone get in their way of making things better!
The "political compass" has two dimensions: left/right horizontally and authoritarian/libertarian vertically.
Unfortunately "political compass" is also for the quadrant memes: https://en.meming.world/wiki/Political_Compass (which has some good commentary on the compass and great examples).
And there's the Nolan Chart: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart which is even more confusing. The word "liberal" is not used in New Zealand much, although perhaps the US meaning is taking hold. Also centrist here is unclear so the Nolan Chart makes no sense to me.
Good to remember that pretty much all leftist governments had to pivot toward authoritarianism 'for the greater good'.
AfD is objectively far more popular in the former east Germany. Look at a map of votes, it’s clear as day. The borders are exact. They are not a left wing party, not at all. They are a far right party.
It makes sense that the the economically struggling former communist areas would be both more drawn to extreme parties and have a distaste for the left.
East Germany was economically crippled for the latter half of the 20th century under Soviet rule. It's started to recover, a bit, but it's slow going. That makes the people there more willing to listen to anyone who will lie to them about a) who's responsible, and b) how easy it is to solve their problems.
No, fascist consolidation of state and businesses has little to do with communism and "seizing the means of production".
Yeah sure they are very different except for the consolidation of state and business that every fascist and every communist state has attempted :)
The mechanisms behind both ideologies are different, and the outcomes are different too.
One of the first things the Socialist government did was violently put down a communist coup. The communists would have abolished democracy ASAP and purged the socialists if they ever took power.
Fact is that extremist movements will crack down on anyone that tries competing with them for power. Ideological affinity hardly matters.
Ofcourse it was all built on economic quicksand.
Everyone else gets to be exploited, deported, or just plain murdered.
Everything goes fine when you have enough resources.
When you don't, you suddenly always need to create this division between 'real citizens' and 'others' to maintain (1) your hold on power through votes or force, and (2) expected standard of living.
This is why promising free stuff to everyone is a bad idea, not because people shouldn't have stuff, but because once you can not, things get ugly.
Hitler was an O.G. troll, taking over the Workers' Party and renaming it with the word Socialism purely to aggravate his political opponents. He hated socialists, communists, and anarchists.
Government control over transportation, newspapers, and other industries that should ideally not choose profits over quality of service. Communalized non-profit grocery stores. Sounds familiar?
Strict measures to ban or nationalize war profiteering, high interest rates, capital heavy business models allowing rent seeking. Explicit profit sharing required by large companies.
Welfare state with free healthcare and expanded pension funds.
Sometimes 'bad' people have the same 'good' ideas you have. Now sure why this is so difficult to grasp.
