The Nazi Party was not Right-Wing

Actually, I believe Australians do have guaranteed living wages in a manner of speaking... "Minimum wage" in Aus is far more complex than in the US, and is dependant on industry and employee age. In Aus, you don't pay a 35 year old working full time the same wage as a 16 year old who lives with his parents and only works saturdays.

And the fact that foreigners actually have a point of reference, because they've experienced alternative systems that actually work, makes them MORE qualified to join the discussion - not less (or un) qualified.

 

Australia does not have a guaranteed right to work or a controlled wage system. The NAzis were to the left.

Let me know of you have a specific policy that was a move to the right economically.

 

See, there are times when a consensus among historians-those who are authorities on their subject-are in a far better position to educate me than an anonymous guy on an internet forum-that would be you. That's when I appeal to authority. Revisionists tend to be the likes of David Irving; holocaust denialists and the like who have had their lunatic assertions debunked almost ritually. Revisionists also tend to admire Hitler; we have a few of those geniuses on this forum.

 

And Hitler was planning a new war from day one.

 

To be honest I think this entire issue is just semantics. Always has been, always will be. Define what left and right actually mean.

• Traditional definition: during the French Revolution, those who took the right side of the caucus were for the monarchy, those on the left for the rebellion. Left = radical, right = conservative.
• Modern definition: right = establishment conservatives, left = establishment liberals.

Personally I think the former definitions are much more useful, because they're not necessarily saying what you want to conserve or change. Syndicalists can be on the left by this definition, but so can Agorist Libertarians. However, which set of definitions you use doesn't really matter, so long as we all know what we're talking about. This is why I usually use the latter definitions in typical conversation. If I referred to myself as a leftist, people would think I support change in the direction of socialism.

[hr][/hr]

Anyway, this is all very important when it comes to deciding what side of the fence Fascism lies on. If you take the former definitions, Facsism is a rightist ideology. Most often Fascism arises through the system, rather than through a revolutionary process. Where it doesn't, it quickly devolves into establishment totalitarianism.

If you take the modern definitions, it could lie on either side. This is because the modern definitions are non-exhaustive - they only list two of the many ideologies. Fascism is not one of these two, so we're basically asking the question "which of these two ideologies does Fascism more closely resemble". The answer will be split straight down party lines.

In my view, Wilsonian Progressivism was an adaptation of European ideologies floating around at the time, with an American tinge. Add one part early-Fascism to one part-early Collectivism, sprinkle on some American personal liberty protections, and you basically have the Progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Modern Progressivism is a completely different beast. They're much less socially authoritarian. In many ways modern Progressivism has become partly a traditionally right ideology - they're longing for a return to Wilson-era economic policy.

 

I bet the Jews, Homosexuals, Communists and Gypsies just loved Goebbels' "social security" behind barbed wire fences. Yep, lots of socialist love going on there. As long as you weren't proscribed by the party as undesirable or untermensch.

 

I bet the Jews, Homosexuals and Gypsers, just loved Stalins "workers paradise" behind barbed fences 100s of miles into Siberia. Yep. Lots of socialists and defectors love going there. As long as you weren't described by the party as undesirable. Same with Mao, Mugabe etc..

You are making authoritarian arguments. Not left v right.

 

Kind of like Nazi Germany which called its military the Werhmacht (loosely translated to Defence Force or Make Defence).

 

What was the major opposition party to the Nazi Party in the 1930 elections?
Was it to the right or the left of the Nazi Party? (Hint: it was called the Social Democratic Party of Germany)

The Nazis weren't Socialists, they were Fascists. (Hint: the founding Fascist party, the party of Mussolini, was called The Republican Fascist Party )
Fascists are the right, they believe in the power of corporations, they don't nationalize industries.

 

What was the greatest threat to the red shirts in Russia? The commie white shirts?

Specific. Policy. Post when you got one. I listed more then 20 in this thread.

Hint, the nazis called themselves socialists. Goebbrls goering, himmler, daxton all big time socialists. Republic means a republic, it doesn't mean Republican Party of the United States. It means a representative government. Republics can be left or right wing, they just tend towards anti authoritarianism if properly constructed.

Mussolini was a lifelong member of the socialist party. He only got kicked out because he wanted war 1. That was no change on his other beliefs and many socialists and other lefties wanted that war.

 

"The Right" is not what it used to be. It's no longer just conservative. It's becoming more anti-science and wants to impose its morality on others. In other words, it's encourages big government, more laws and tough enforcement of those laws. This is far closer to fascism than any kind of socialism. We have to keep in mind that the North American concept of "the right" has changed greatly since 1980.

Ask a leftist if they want more prisons, more cops or tougher laws. I find that people on the left are far less likely to desire strong social control. I can't help think of Spain or France today: they're fairly socialist but their governments fear the people -- who are known to take to the streets and show their disdain for policies en mass.

 

The concept of what currently makes up the left and the right changes everywhere, which is why left is seen as progressive and right is seen as conservative. With that simple definition you can easily fit things into either side. If something is a tradition, or a return to former ways, it's a conservative view. If it's about change then it's a progressive view. For some reason the right wingers on this forum have decided to make the definition rigid and unchangeable and thus have made it useless. You can see this with all the tripping over themselves they have to do to fit the Nazis on the left wing even though a lot of what the Nazis did was the same as American right wingers now. Obviously not saying US right wingers are literally Nazis, afaik they're not calling for minority groups to be rounded up and killed, but they're arbitrarily placing the Nazis on the left, in opposition to their (the US right wingers') own definition of right wing because they don't want to be associated with the Nazis.

 

Face it, you lost the argument, because you don't understand it.
You want a specific policy? The Republican Party of the United States supports Medicare, Social Security and a host of Social entitlements, I guess that makes them Communists in your imagination.
What was the party to the right of the Nazi Party in 1930?
Or is it your theory that German politics of the 1930's had no right, it was all left, more left and less left.....

 

I find it interesting that those from the far right are the ones who are the most likely to want tougher laws, capital punishment, longer prison sentences, harsher punishments, more arrests, tougher judges, stop and frisks, stand-your-ground laws, and many other things that bring them close to a police state. The political "tough on crime" rhetoric from American Republican politicians reflects this ideology from the right.

Hitler gained power with rhetoric and kept it with strong policing.

Of course, assassinating his arch rival helped too.

 

Same Republican Party that tried privatization under GWB just a few years back? Same one that tried to stop it when started? The republican party's tolerance of social security is political. The seniors unaffected by change are scared their kids may not have the burden. Goebbels lived FDR's policy but thought it didn't go far enough. I can try to find that youtube video if its procurement will make you cede the point.


Supports Medicare reform and reduction not expansion. To the right of the democrats who are to the right of the nationalized and government run healthcare of the nazis.

The German Centre Party.

Yes. Germany was very far left at the time. The commies got big votes there and were a real threat to the majority socialist party as well. Karl Marx was being read all over Germany and a radical leftist movement had been stirring long before ww1.

 

How is stand your ground laws bringing you closer to the police state?

The rest, yes those are more authoritarian. But left wingers can pass Jessica's law too and have. (Just not in Hawaii or Colorado the best states for child rapists). It isn't a left v right issue. Both can be evil. Both can be authoritarian. Get it yet? Left wingers can execute people as fast as they do in china and still be communist. Right wingers can do the same thing and reject collectivism.

 

Specific policy.

I guess the NAzis were progressives then. They wanted to change the current government and did and even started a brand new employment, health, and retirement program as well as a new military paradigm and a brand new never before seem holocaust project. Progressive by your definition. They even wanted to expand Germany to places it had never gone before geographically.

See why your scale sucks?

I wait my specific policy from you. You can dodge all day. It makes me happy. But I have to remind you in each and every post until you get that you are talking about feelings and not facts.

 

Well, at least, you correctly characterized Pinochet.

If you fancy that pre-1913 America, before humanitarian reforms and its rise to global eminence, was rightist, many emigrants who were fleeing real rightist regimes for democracy would not have known how to account for such ideological derangement.

If Hong Kong's taxation system - 60% of earners pay no income tax at all whilst the top 100,000 taxpayers pay 57% of all taxes - is to your liking, you are entirely welcome to promote it.

... and its universal healthcare coverage is admirable, indeed:

I have no idea if you would wish that the US would model itself after Singapore but, again, their heavily-subsidized universal health coverage is certainly intriguing:

If you like to pretend that "all of Western Europe and North America is right of center" with all those social welfare programmes (including what rightists decry as "socialized medicine"), where, pray tell, is your eccentric "center"?

 

They are so ideologically hidebound, they need to recast reality to accommodate their dogma.

.......................
Their imaginary "Liberals!" fester in their heads and distort reality.

 

This is typical of leftist ideology: Its adherents view mainstream conservatism as merely a watered-down form of Nazism; so they simply cannot understand why conservatives do not "embrace Hitler"...

 

Does Cuba suffer "mass starvation"?

 

They don't have to , conservatism and fascism draw from the same pool to achieve the same results

Nationalism - same for conservatives and nazis
Religious fundamentalism - same for conservatives and nazis
Ancestor's worship - same for conservatives and nazis
Exceptionalism - same for conservatives and nazis
Cultural purity - same for conservatives and nazis
Respect for hierarchy - same for conservatives and nazis
Refuse or ban any sign of social evolution - same for conservatives and nazis

The goal is to create a subservient population that will do as they say and never ever question their authority .

 

Which one of those countries sets wages and prices by government?

These are mixed systems. There are left Einstein elements in them, but they are largely capitalist free markets. They do have some leftist tendencies, but nothing as extreme as what hitler did to get employment down to nothing. Assigned work? Never.

 

You are just listing authoritarianism and then conflating NAZI nationalism with conservative nationalism despite a vast difference in what that means and the prescribing it to the right. Get to specifics. What right wing nationalists are calling for the unquestioned dedication to the mechanics of the government?

Religious fundamentalism? How did you get that from the nazis? Their ties to Lutheranism were mostly to kill Jews. The right in this country and most Western European nations support Israel and freedom of religion not persecution of it. Like the lefty commies do, and how the left gates the faithful today.

 

If you need to cherry pick specific policies to enable you to pronounce upon the prevailing ideological bent of various societies, fine. If you believe that rightist regimes heavily subsidize universal medical care, that's fine, too. And if you wish to cast the systems of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark as "right of center", that is your prerogative. That's certainly the sort of "right of center" I heartily endorse as demonstrably affording the highest quality of life for the citizenry.