Is it possible to be right wing while being progressive? And is it possible to be Labour while being right wing?
yes and yes
What would be the mid point between totalitarian fascism and totalitarian communism?
>>70417538
Anarchism?
Yes, this stupid left-right stuff is dumb.
I used to be very left, at least "progressive". And I'm still more progressive than most of my friends that only look at the cause of the day.
Yet I think strong borders are a good idea. I'm lolbertarian when it comes to drugs. I think religious tolerance is dumb; it should have the same freedom of speech and assembly as any dumb idea, but other than that get nothing special.
This can't be that hard. I haven't studied politics, so perhaps there's already a model beyond a 1D simplistic left-right.
>>70417538
china
>>70417700
Wow first post in a long time that I actually agree with on /pol/. I'm fairly similar in ideas but I'm curious about your thoughts on controlled borders. How do you respond to the arguments of us being open to immigration is what America what it is to begin with
>>70417375
Yes, it's called Tony Blair / Third Way / Most Labour parties since the mid 70s
>>70417375
Fascism does not support capitalism in the first place,so that graph is dumb.
Look up was progressive, reactionary and conservative mean.
Conservative is status quo.
Reactionary and progressive are both moving away from the status quo.
One back to old values/ideals, the other to new values/ideals
Fascism is a mix of of all three.
>>70418178
Mussolini had free market economic advisors before the great depression.
Only later did his fascism become closer to "socialism"
Hitler isn't a founder of fascim, he doesn't represent all fascism.
National socialism is a specific sort of branch of fasicsm
Portugal pre 1974 is a good example of fascism.
>>70418066
It's a non argument! Before EU came to the Americas, it was just indians running around being savage. Blood sacrifies. Etc.
They had no concept of owning land. They didn't have borders. You _couldn't_ illegally immigrate even if you wanted to.
As far as _LEGAL_ immigration, hey, go for it! The main problems with that is the lack of assimilation. My grandparents came over, they learned English. They made their kids speak English. They didn't go around waving German flags. They integrated and became part of their new country.
This is what is lacking today.
The US does some of this, but then does dumb things like sends back the top students after their study visa is up. There's something to be said for getting intelligent, US-indoctrinated people back in their homeland. Maybe the US has enough local talent it's no longer needed.
>>70418066
Also, the US open borders -- it might be OK wit Canada. But Mexico is flatout not as good. Mexicans (and Guatemalans and more) would LOVE to come to the US.
Why? Because it doesn't suck. Why do their countries suck? They have natural resources. Yeah OK, they've had war and the CIA has fucked with their governments. But for the most part, THEY DON'T DO THINGS WELL. They aren't as bad as Chinese, but you can't trust them to get things right. They've got cultural deficiencies.
So having an open border for them is going to result in tons of Mexicans and others flooding in. Then what? They aren't gonna help. They're gonna bring things down. It sounds un-PC to say Mexico's a shithole, but it is, it's true. I've been traveling in Central America for two decades. I used to think people like me were bigots, racists, misinformed, etc. Heh. After being here you see how deep the cancer goes.
And from personal experience, talented people aren't gonna run over. Good engineers, real doctors, etc.- the US isn't gonna get those folks. The US will end up with uneducated, unskilled labour. And at one point that may have been what the US needed (someone had to do construction, build railways, etc.) but now? That's mainly limited to harvesting and such.
And will the US be BETTER by having Mexicans doing that work (then sending 50%+ of their paycheck back to Mexico)? Compared to hiring Americans? Oh, American's won't do that work? So those companies have to pay higher wages to citizens that will keep the money in the US economy? I don't see the real problem there.
>>70418756
Mussolini acted diferently than he preached. You can see what he proposed was totally different that what he ended up doing.
>>70417687
I would agree with that.
It is impossible. Eat a bag of dicks.
>>70419153
The US government pays farmers to not grow food and harvest it. I think it's ridiculous that the narrative being pushed is that Mexicans do farm work that white people won't do, and I think that's part of what your post was getting at.
>>70417375
>Is it possible to be right wing while being progressive?
Yes but depends of what you mean by progressive. Economically? Socially?
Though you can be 'right wing' and 'support' homosexuality (but obviously not the homosexual culture we see today) for example.
>And is it possible to be Labour while being right wing?
This is National Socialism in a nut shell, mixed-economy et al.
