>>17974448
>Italy
Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti (a liberal) included Mussolini’s Fascists in his electoral coalition in 1921. The church & the monarchy both tacitly preferred mussolini to the alternatives.
>Germany
Papen, Hugenburg both allied with the nazis despite being liberal/conservatives. The president Hinderburg then named Hitler chancelor & the NSDAP allied with long-standing industrials.
>Spain
Not true. The only liberals who helped the republicans did it in ideals for democracy and saw it as a fight against dictatorships, not communism.
>Brittain
Again, the liberals only fought Mosley because the alternative was sufficient and didn't advocate for communism.
>Peru & other third world
These were literally anti-communist conservative movements
I don't understand why you want to deny it. Historically speaking, conservatives and liberals hated communists because they threatened their dearest things; capital & tradition. On the other hand, fascists were this blend of conservatives with social elements and they seemed appealing to many voters.
>>17976222
That men are created equal and have a right to happiness and freedom of life.
This entails that work on god-given land can mean ownership, that people should live like they want to even if they're wrong, and that the state should only be used for collective responsibilities.
>Fascists told me communism is a result of liberalism.
Ideologically, given that the economy implies shared-consequences, it can be argued that the state should plan the economy to fulfill the liberal dream.
Historically, it's the opposite. Liberals don't want to give up their property and side with whoever protects that property the best (often fascists).
>>17978788
Anon the soviets literally attacked them...
>>17974045
Kinda. Stalin preferred sacrificing the popular masses in germany/europe to have socialism in one country than fighting for his ideals. It was the same logic, sacrificing others to preserve what you have
4chan Search
4 results for "8bb4cd08a91ed15deef8010c46b7e636"
>>24576308
>She coped by convincing herself that this is due to socialism repressing the healthy and natural instincts (to rape Ayn Rand) in men, and men should act as selfish as possible (i.e. finally rape her). In her books, tall selfish men with big arms are constantly raping her self-insert character. She completely misunderstood men, as it always happens with women.
This is surprisingly true in all seriousness
>If Ayn Rand ever met me, I would rape the Objectivism out of her to absolutely no benefit of my own
If there was truly no benefit you wouldn't do it. People have a hard time understanding that benefit can also encompass subjective emotions. For instance, if you help your mom, you are indeed "selfish" because, albeit you help her, the core reason you do so is to make yourself feel better about helping her. Ayn Rand's critic of altruism was more the plebs bringing down the elite and forcing them to help them because of their "humanity" by using the coercive power of the state/mob
>>24576293
I've read atlas shrugged and it was genuinely badly written, even as someone who generally doesn't care about prose and isn't sensitive to it.
>She coped by convincing herself that this is due to socialism repressing the healthy and natural instincts (to rape Ayn Rand) in men, and men should act as selfish as possible (i.e. finally rape her). In her books, tall selfish men with big arms are constantly raping her self-insert character. She completely misunderstood men, as it always happens with women.
This is surprisingly true in all seriousness
>If Ayn Rand ever met me, I would rape the Objectivism out of her to absolutely no benefit of my own
If there was truly no benefit you wouldn't do it. People have a hard time understanding that benefit can also encompass subjective emotions. For instance, if you help your mom, you are indeed "selfish" because, albeit you help her, the core reason you do so is to make yourself feel better about helping her. Ayn Rand's critic of altruism was more the plebs bringing down the elite and forcing them to help them because of their "humanity" by using the coercive power of the state/mob
>>24576293
I've read atlas shrugged and it was genuinely badly written, even as someone who generally doesn't care about prose and isn't sensitive to it.
>>17854380
>do you understand the social contract?
People consenting on a moral authority to live together.
>Hobbes
Hobbes's idea that the social contract must be 'absolute' (in the sense that you either uphold it and forsake completely your sovereignty or don't adhere to it) and that injustice can only come from conventions is retarded. In Hobbes' view, if your father signed a social contract with others to guarantee his own benefit, he can't suffer from an injustice because he's agreed to sign the contract and forsake his sovereignty. This repeats until one of his descendants voluntarily breaks the social contract.
>Locke
God created man and granted him property of his own things. The issue of the state of nature is that it doesn't allow for an effective justice. Therefore people get together to ensure some common laws to ensure that they enjoy their natural rights granted by god.
It's not the worst social contract philosophy but it's too reductive of the state and his natural laws (like property) don't have proper justification.
>Rawls
Makes the most sense desu. It recognizes that the social contract isn't purely some descriptive event that happens when people bond but something greater that enables for the creation of justice, something beneficial for all. His notion of rights of the commons in The Law of Peoples is imo a bit shaky at times but other than that he's definitely one of the more superior liberals.
>Rousseau
Rousseau is somewhat like the polar opposite of Hobbes. The latter argues that the state of nature is so bad that the only thing you can do is forfeit your sovereignty to the people's representatives (whether king or assembly). The former argues that everything bad comes from the civil state, and that people should bond together to mimic the state of nature. That ultimately leads him to hardcore republicanism. Like Hobbes, his personal conception of the state influences him too much.
>do you understand the social contract?
People consenting on a moral authority to live together.
>Hobbes
Hobbes's idea that the social contract must be 'absolute' (in the sense that you either uphold it and forsake completely your sovereignty or don't adhere to it) and that injustice can only come from conventions is retarded. In Hobbes' view, if your father signed a social contract with others to guarantee his own benefit, he can't suffer from an injustice because he's agreed to sign the contract and forsake his sovereignty. This repeats until one of his descendants voluntarily breaks the social contract.
>Locke
God created man and granted him property of his own things. The issue of the state of nature is that it doesn't allow for an effective justice. Therefore people get together to ensure some common laws to ensure that they enjoy their natural rights granted by god.
It's not the worst social contract philosophy but it's too reductive of the state and his natural laws (like property) don't have proper justification.
>Rawls
Makes the most sense desu. It recognizes that the social contract isn't purely some descriptive event that happens when people bond but something greater that enables for the creation of justice, something beneficial for all. His notion of rights of the commons in The Law of Peoples is imo a bit shaky at times but other than that he's definitely one of the more superior liberals.
>Rousseau
Rousseau is somewhat like the polar opposite of Hobbes. The latter argues that the state of nature is so bad that the only thing you can do is forfeit your sovereignty to the people's representatives (whether king or assembly). The former argues that everything bad comes from the civil state, and that people should bond together to mimic the state of nature. That ultimately leads him to hardcore republicanism. Like Hobbes, his personal conception of the state influences him too much.
>>17830935
You could've attacked the idea of marxism, the notion of historicism or the premise of "humanity = rational freedom" being used as a common denominator for man.
But you chose the most retarded thing to debate on : that groups have a trait which suppose consequences and that contradictions can be used as a description of the real. It's disappointing desu, it's kinda retarded to debate evidence.
The whole
>"dude hegel is le wrong because ideas don't have their opposite... like a cat doesn't have an opposite man"
and
>"bro marx is so dumb because like, different proles have different lives man... so like, you can't group them man"
is the dumbest and most uninformed take you could actually make.
It's grim but true; the word "marxism" as a trigger really does manifest the most unsound stupidity in man.
You could've attacked the idea of marxism, the notion of historicism or the premise of "humanity = rational freedom" being used as a common denominator for man.
But you chose the most retarded thing to debate on : that groups have a trait which suppose consequences and that contradictions can be used as a description of the real. It's disappointing desu, it's kinda retarded to debate evidence.
The whole
>"dude hegel is le wrong because ideas don't have their opposite... like a cat doesn't have an opposite man"
and
>"bro marx is so dumb because like, different proles have different lives man... so like, you can't group them man"
is the dumbest and most uninformed take you could actually make.
It's grim but true; the word "marxism" as a trigger really does manifest the most unsound stupidity in man.