First off, the 1956 Republican party is not the same as the modern GOP. You conveniently chose the time immediately before the schism that essentially reversed the two parties.
If anyone wants to argue about this, I suggest you read about Strom Thurmond. Perhaps the most vile, openly racist politician of the 20th century US. Thurmond was a lifelong Democrat, until the party started supporting civil rights.
That’s when he and his fellow Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats) moved to the Republican party. You’re highlighting their platform from immediately before the influx of racist shit heads.
Second, nobody classifies North Korea as that, except for North Korea. That doesn’t mean that we cannot label it accurately.
Third, Hitler never claimed to be a Marxist, nor have I ever seen anyone make that claim. I’ve seen the “hurr durr Nazis are socialist because it’s in the name,” but there’s a distinction between socialism and Marxism.
Fourth, the logic of the Bloomberg thing isn’t sound. “Almost as if he were a green” as if wanting less cars is completely unique to the Green party. Not how logic works.
He only described himself as a socialist to other socialists. In front of other nationalists, he called himself a nationalist.
His party was called the “Nationalist Socialist” party. When he addressed nationalists, he would capitalize the N and call it the “Nationalist social” party like we’re all just a bunch of nationalists socializing. But, when he spoke to socialists, he would capitalize the S and call it the “national Socialist” party.
Hitler didn’t care about nationalism or socialism. He only cared about saying whatever he thought he needed to say to obtain as much power as possible.
Also, the actual members of the Party hated to be called "Nazis’ because Nazi is a nickname for Ignatz. It was a bit like calling an american ‘Homer’ or ‘Jethro,’
Yeah, but he only emphasized the “Socialist” part of the name in front of socialists. In front of nationalists, he called it the “Nationalist social” party like we’re all just socializing with each other.
The truth is, Hitler supported the ideology of whoever he was addressing. He didn’t care about implementing any specific system, as long as he had absolute power over it.
Here’s the reality.
All political labels fall apart in the real world.
Think North Korea is a ‘democratic republic?’ Or that Hitler was a Marxist?
Look at the 1956 Republican Party platform.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/oct/28/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-1956-republican-platform-was-prett/
Heck, billionaire GOP Mayor Mike Bloomberg pushed to lower the number of cars coming into New York, almost as if he were a Green.
My advice is to look at the actual candidates and leave the theory in the classroom
First off, the 1956 Republican party is not the same as the modern GOP. You conveniently chose the time immediately before the schism that essentially reversed the two parties.
If anyone wants to argue about this, I suggest you read about Strom Thurmond. Perhaps the most vile, openly racist politician of the 20th century US. Thurmond was a lifelong Democrat, until the party started supporting civil rights.
That’s when he and his fellow Dixiecrats (racist Southern Democrats) moved to the Republican party. You’re highlighting their platform from immediately before the influx of racist shit heads.
Second, nobody classifies North Korea as that, except for North Korea. That doesn’t mean that we cannot label it accurately.
Third, Hitler never claimed to be a Marxist, nor have I ever seen anyone make that claim. I’ve seen the “hurr durr Nazis are socialist because it’s in the name,” but there’s a distinction between socialism and Marxism.
Fourth, the logic of the Bloomberg thing isn’t sound. “Almost as if he were a green” as if wanting less cars is completely unique to the Green party. Not how logic works.
It’s funny.
My point was that political labels fall apart in the real world.
As far as I can see, everything you wrote proves my point.
You agree with me, but seem angry that I’m right.
Hitler described himself as a socialist, but certainly not Marxist.
He only described himself as a socialist to other socialists. In front of other nationalists, he called himself a nationalist.
His party was called the “Nationalist Socialist” party. When he addressed nationalists, he would capitalize the N and call it the “Nationalist social” party like we’re all just a bunch of nationalists socializing. But, when he spoke to socialists, he would capitalize the S and call it the “national Socialist” party.
Hitler didn’t care about nationalism or socialism. He only cared about saying whatever he thought he needed to say to obtain as much power as possible.
Literally, ‘Socialism’ was in the name.
Also, the actual members of the Party hated to be called "Nazis’ because Nazi is a nickname for Ignatz. It was a bit like calling an american ‘Homer’ or ‘Jethro,’
Yeah, but he only emphasized the “Socialist” part of the name in front of socialists. In front of nationalists, he called it the “Nationalist social” party like we’re all just socializing with each other.
The truth is, Hitler supported the ideology of whoever he was addressing. He didn’t care about implementing any specific system, as long as he had absolute power over it.
Which gets us back to the original point; that there’s no reason to discuss political labels anywhere but a classroom.