That bottom photo you posted is, I believe, from the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia led by Pot Pot.

I encourage you to quit your misleading word games for awhile, and take a look at this political compass where key current and historical world leaders have been circled for ease of reference.

Study the chart closely, as it will help orient you. Though you might not like what it suggests about a certain current U.S. President. Whose dot I believe should actually be moved up a bit.

There are a zillion ways to plot political compasses like these. I've seen a whole lot of intentionally or unintentionally terrible ones. I posted this one above because it strikes me as broadly accurate.

It comes from here and appears to have been made by an average politically-interested Joe like you or me. https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/communism-to-fascism-to-trump-graphing-political-ideology-and-the-futility-of-visualization.3823629/

I've already said I don't fully agree with everything about the chart. Indeed, the chart was made in 2018 and a few things have happened in the world since then that would cause me to revise it:

1. Venezuela continued its descent into chaos and total authoritarianism. So in retrospect, I'd bump Hugo Chavez farther up to the upper-left, closer to Leninism/Maoism/Stalinism.
2. Donald Trump engaged in Ukrainegate, was caught red-handed, and was then acquitted along (mostly) party lines in the GOP-controlled Senate in the most disgustingly cynical and hyperpartisan fashion -- without himself or any of his closest officials being forced to go under oath to answer for their conduct. And then Trump fired two key impeachment witnesses two days after his Senate acquittal in blatant retaliation, suffering no tangible consequences as a result. That would cause me to bump Donald Trump farther up the "Authoritarian" axis, up to about halfway between where his dot sits now and full-blown Nazism.

I also confess I'm not as well-versed as this guy appears to be in the distinctions between Trostskyism and Titoism, for example.

But yeah, if you want to make your own chart go ahead, I'd be curious.

It's refreshing to see a chart like this that isn't completely insane for once, but it still annoys me to see Barack Obama, FDR, Jeremy Corbyn, and Bernie Sanders put on the left wing. These are right-wing verging on centerism; they're only left-wing when standing next to Rush Limbaugh, but that's more to do with who Rush Limbaugh is than on any conscious choice on their parts. If you ran these people for elected offices in Denmark, the Danish would be like "Jesus, things have taken a right-wing turn all of a sudden!"

No! He wants to increase public spending and tighten some Wall Street rules. Voters who are actually left wing see him as the closest this country has ever come to producing a left wing Congressman but no. He's a capitalist, just a very balanced one.

Yeah, I’d like to see a chart that perhaps has a more contemporary/European focus.

This guy appears to be a historian of differences on the Left among say Trotsky, Tito, and the like, and while that’s interesting it’s just not all that relevant to contemporary political discourse because it’s gotten so tremendously out of whack.

These days, most righties consider both Mitt Romney and anyone to his left as a “Leftist.”

Yeah, it's a mess. "Left" and "right" have become buzzwords with no agreed upon definition. I still maintain that it should refer to social hierarchial structures since the concept of a left-right scale came from monarchist and republican factions of the French Revolution, but even that doesn't really hold up through the 20th Century from start to finish.

Still, you don't have to be European to see that Obama et al are still basically capitalists, just tempered with a bit of "but maybe a bit of money set aside for healthcare would be good?"

The part where racist people genocide their way to global destruction.

Which they call the "nationalism" part, so, there you go.

100 million plus dead from socialism says you need to read more, but we already knew that.

That was communism but nevermind

“Socialism“ looks more like this

LOL...shows a picture of Denmark saying "this is what socialism looks like"

Too bad, the Danish people and their leaders disagree with you.
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.

https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

But, don't worry. I expect you to repeat your lie in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Hence the scare quotes around "socialism." The Danish PM is technically correct, the best kind of correct, that Denmark is not a "socialist planned economy."

But!

What is routinely described in the United States as "socialism" (i.e. the types of policies Bernie Sanders favors), is much more equivalent to Denmark than the USSR, Venezuela, etc.

But don't take it from me. Take it from Bernie Sanders himself, as quoted in the Washington Examiner: a conservative source!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bernie-sanders-says-soviet-socialism-is-not-my-thing-but-denmark-and-sweden-do-very-well

Hope this helps

LOL...the Danish PM was responding directly to Bernie's references towards "Nordic socialism"

You are so dumb you don't even realize your posting something that doesn't rebut the Danish PM, rather it explains why he felt compelled to say what he said.

Bernie doesn't favor a "socialist planned economy," and the Danish PM is correct as far as that goes.

False. Bernie is on record advocating for nationalizing entire industries. Do more reading soy boy

You know the drill.

And just like that, Kyliefan deflects to whataboutism. Trump has nothing to do with this discussion, nice try. So you have your citation, Sanders simply realized he can't say these things out loud and expect to gain ground, but he still praises centrally planned economic countries like Cuba.

You're holding Sanders to a standard that you don't apply to Trump, who is actually the President and therefore automatically relevant in just about every discussion of American politics.

That's not whataboutism, that's just exposing your own hypocrisy.

B.U.R.N.

This is your third meme now in this comments thread declaring victory, and all this indicates is evidence of a desperate desire to claim victory.

Not that you've actually won.

We are discussing Sanders politics, not Trump's. It's whataboutism. The reality is Sanders is on record saying he supports centrally planned economies.

Has Trump said that? No. Never.

You simply don't know what to do now, so you are trying to obfuscate the issue.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html

Now f**k off

Oh, you're talking about what he thought back in the 1970s.

From the same article you linked: "Many of the positions he held at the time are more extreme compared to the more tempered democratic socialism the Vermont senator espouses today..."

This supports my analysis of Bernie's positions in 2020, not yours.

People's political views change over time.

For bonus points, check out all the political positions Trump once held and Democratic politicians he used to support before he became a Republican

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/28/426888268/donald-trumps-flipping-political-donations

https://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/28/trump.democrats/index.html

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/donald-trumps-donations-to-democrats/

Now have a nice day

I'm trying to make this as easy as possible for you.

Yep, so the part where they genocided other people racistly - that's in the "national" part because they believed the nation to be an expression of their racial dominance. Socialism for their nationalistic benefits.

Glad we sorted that out! Nothing worse than historical revisionism to benefit cheap trolling tactics.

He's trying to say that famine is an inevitable consequence of socialism. Which a) is it though? and b) the Nazis didn't collectivize farms nor did they want to so what does Holdomor have to do with the line of discussion?

He's suffering badly from a lack of understanding of how the arguments he's been told to make in this situation actually fit together.

Yeah, that's just flat out wrong.

The Nazis threw out most of the socialism m/o. They hated socialists - I really cannot emphasise that hard enough.

Ghenghis Khan was not a socialist. Julius Caesar was absolutely not a socialist. The Ottomans were pretty much being completely nationalistic when they conducted genocide in Armenia, Greece, Assyria. In Indonesia, the slaughter of anyone suspected to be socialists in the 1960's is today regarded as meeting the definition of genocide - the socialists were the victims in that one, not the instigators! Rwanda - that was completely ethnocentric, no socialists there. Circassian genocide in Russia - no socialists there, that was all Make Russia Great Again shit. The Balkans! Many many times over in history, they're no strangers to genocides, and that's about which people have a country with borders and which people don't. Bengal, no socialists there. Algeria, 1830 - 1871 - that was colonial France, no socialists there! That was all "you're French now, salute our flag or die". Genocide of the aboriginals in Australia, indigenous tribes in Brazil, indiginous tribes in OUR COUNTRY! The United States sure wasn't socialist when we wiped out entire nations right here. Thirteenth century Cathars - no socialists there! That was France again. 17th Century Ireland - Oliver Cromwell was not a socialist. The Wu Hu genocide in ancient China - no socialists there. The Battle of Carthage in 146 BC - that was PURELY a grudge match between two nations; doesn't get more nationalist than that - you were Roman or you were Carthaginian and both sides were looking to wipe the other's people off the map. Darfur: no socialists there, that was an ethnic power struggle for control over a nation. Kurdistan, East Timor, Burundi. German South West Africa, 1904 - 1908: Germany was not socialist even a little bit, that was an imperialism thing. The White Terror during the Russian Civil War - in THAT one, Jews were killed by the people who were there to fight against the socialists! Punjab, 1984 - no socialists there. Rohingya; Burma is a military dictatorship, the persecution of ethnoreligious groups there are purely fueled by Make Burma Great Again nonsense. Selk'nams in 19th Century Chile - no socialists there. The Moriori - ethnic war, no socialists there. The Mapuches in Patagonia - Argentina was not socialist, that was some Make Argentina Great Again nonsense.

Boy howdy are you completely wrong!

That's what the Nazis' take on it was, yes

their take on morality was that it was ok to kill people for their religious views, does it mean that it's correct

?????

Just reread the OP until you understand the conversation.

It was your question! "Which part of what they named themselves" remember?

He's disagreeing with his own point.
He has a thing for Hitler killed the Jews memes, but then, um, uh, something something goes duh.

So are we not talking about the question in your OP anymore?

The Nazis defined a nation as an expression of race. That's 101. Back to basics. That's the whole reason they put "national" in their name.

Yeah, folks like these

The way they mix their “heil Hitler” salutes with waving around the American flag: gee, this looks an awful lot like national socialism

Ask them what they think about white supremacy, too

lol.

Then you're dividing your energy and wasting your efforts when we should be united against one common foe.