<< Then the system propaganda has worked fully. You police your own speech.
I will expand a little on the why so as not to look like I am being difficult. I am actively avoiding the conversation I mentioned not because of propaganda, fear thereof, its impact or even because I police my own speech. I avoid it because it is largely pointless. For better or worse, both major parties in US noted that you can make anything work well if you compare the other team to nazis. For that reason and that reason alone, you will see constant bickering whether fascism is a left or right wing ideology, which manages to completely miss the point, because it does not rely on two poles of US politics ( that likes to keep things simple for people ) for its origin. It is like trying to put a square in a round box. It can be done, but nuance will be lost.
<< Why not? Cause the current ruling class frowns up it?
No. Because it is a bad idea. It is difficult to put in words how bad an idea it is, but I will say this. For all my beef with current system, at least it has a degree of predictability and stability to it, which is more than most periods that came before it. It is pretty selfish, but I would like that state to continue for as long as possible. Proposed solutions will not make for a stable society.
> For better or worse, both major parties in US noted that you can make anything work well if you compare the other team to nazis.
Agreed, I think this serves a common purpose as other generalized propaganda on the subject. The idea is to poison the well concerning any good-faith discussion of national socialism such that people self-moderate and dismiss the idea prima facie. In this very thread, I pointed to the economic recovery in pre-WW2 Germany which was undeniably facilitated by a shift to nationalist, socialist policies. When I did, you dismissed the idea immediately due to "facism" - announcing you'd withdraw from the conversation if indeed national socialism was the topic.
> No. Because it is a bad idea. It is difficult to put in words how bad an idea it is.
Precisely, I've seen this pattern time and time again. It is prima facie a bad idea, but proof cannot be articulated. In such cases, the fallback is often (not accusing you of this) to attack the person suggesting the idea rather than the idea itself (ad hominem). I agree predictability and stability are ideal characteristics, but only in scenarios where there are other positive characteristics. Predictable and stable misery is a pretty bad state to be in. I think we can agree that the current system has many faults. One of these faults, I think, is that the system has optimized the wealth and opportunity for a very few in number. I believe the nation requires a shift in philosophy away from globalist, hyper individualism, and towards an inward looking (nationalist) stance that optimizes the wellbeing of the people (socialism). Such a shift in national philosophy, as was seen in pre-WW2 Germany, has shown an ability to correct for the excesses and decay of a globalist and individual culture, improving the outlook dramatically for the citizens. By many measures (num of children, unemployment, inflation, wealth, life expectancy) national socialism improved Germany dramatically.
Why not? Cause the current ruling class frowns up it?
> I am going to bow out should it happen here.
Then the system propaganda has worked fully. You police your own speech.