Social democratic authoritarianism isn’t the same as Nazism, as it aims to protect democracy and the republic by force if necessary, unlike Nazis which establishes a totalitarian genocidal fascist one-party state. One is necessary evil and the other is pure evil
Viewing post in Social Democracy: An Alternate History comments
The notion that democracy is what you favour and an undemocratic policy/government/decision is one that you disfavour is a dangerous notion.
Funny enough, hilarious even, The Nazis used the same argument. That they were the party of democracy and freedom. Because they favoured a government that came out via certain referendums than the November revolution.
One is something you favour, thus is "NECESSSARY" (might be evil, who cares).
One is something you disfavour, thus is EVIL!! (nothing more needs to be said).
This is a very dangerous line of thinking.
Anyone can argue that THEIR brand of authoritarianism is actually the one that is in favour of the people or a term they use without substance like liberty or democracy. Like I said, funny enough, the Nazis did exactly that. A socialist party that wasn't socialist, a democratic government that wasn't democratic. The same thing you semi-support?
I guess the big difference is the hatred of the Jews. Good that there is some discerning distinguishing difference between yourself and Hitler. Haha.
"National Socialist Authoritarianism isn't the same as Bolshevism, as it aims to protect the people's will/nation's will, thus democracy, even by force if necessary. Unlike Bolshevists which seek to establish a totalitarian genocidal communist one-party state. One is necessary evil and the other is pure evil."
Change the "ism" with whatever "ism" you like and copy paste.