The Nazi Party was not Right-Wing

there was no communal ownership of anything in the USSR.

 

If you dont see the hypocritical sense of these two statements then there is probably little help for you

 

Does this look "Highly suspect" to you? I'm bringing History to you, right at your face. You're just denying it. That doesn't mean History doesn't exist. You can of course choose to deny it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.(And in fact, others who did acknowledge the events would go onto say it was an economic warfare as if the two are any different )

Tell me, is Cuba a Democratic Country? Venezuela? No. Is a country where we believe more and more that other people's property belongs to the State a Republic? The Leftist Revolution of the 70's has largely succeeded. Leftism has long existed as a danger, even the Founders were anti-Leftism to a large degree.

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/icebreaker.pdf

This is a transliterated version of the book I talked about, I just found the link myself so I'll give it a read. If you're going to say that I don't know history or that I'm denying it, you owe it to yourself(and this debate if you wish to continue it) to actually look into it.

 

Not really, Germany went within an election of having a communist government. France was not all the far behind them. In Spain the civil war was between the communists and the nationalists

 

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the communists and nazis were the same, but Hitler himself and the nazi party were not pro-captialist, they were anti captialist

They didn't believe in a free markets, their markets were run through the state. They didn't abolish the private sector, but instead formed something of a coalition in some instances, in Hitler's mind certain private companies could be used by the state... Wages and work hours were not determined by companies, but instead branches of the state. The nazi economy ran on public programming and government spending, and with that was strict pricing control as well as strict tariffs/trade restrictions. The economy was strongly monitored/controlled by branches of the state, many employers had their businesses confiscated by the state, certain business were restricted from growing before being seized by the state

Where the nazi party stood "right wing" was in their social order, but economically speaking they were far from it

 

Sorry, you are flat out wrong.

The political left describes a set of ideas that promote, with increasing extremism as you go farther left, equality among people: of rights, of opportunity, of wealth, of power.
The political right promotes inequality among people in the same areas.

That is left and right.

 

It called itself one. That's enough for Hitler.

It's also worth noting the USSR (theoretically - Stalin didn't much care) subscribed to Leninist Marxism: as Lenin realized Marxist theory flies very much in the face of human nature, certain deviations from its philosophy are necessary for it to be possible in any respect at all.

 

Nazi thought was highly authoritarian. It strictly abolished contrary thought, and attacked minority views. To the point of throwing critics into concentration camps or executing them outright. Any political party that sees that as an appropriate way to deal with dissenters is similar to nazism.

The political structure was socialist as you say, but all authority was aimed at keeping those who had power in power and in defending their right to use or abuse people as they saw fit. They were above judgement.

So, when people see a system that favors the strong and belittles the weak they think of nazis.

 

However Hitler never looked to nationalize the industries or small businesses. As long as companies towed the line, the got to keep their profits and expand their operations. Something not seen in most communist constructed economies

 

WTF are you talking about? That's a picture of an American store owned by someone who obviously opposed the Nazis before they declared war.

You are providing absolutely no credible evidence to back up what you're saying. That book is conspiracy theory bull(*)(*)(*)(*) - we know what Hitler's intentions were, and we know Stalin was oblivious to them because he let Hitler walk right in like a dumbass. Stalin cared about himself above everything else, he wasn't trying to conquer the world, he was on a power trip.

And I don't even know why you're going on about Latin American communist countries, that's not what we were talking about.

Are you even reading what I say?

 

The difference between Hitler and Stalin on the rich was little more than the fact that Hitler and Mussolini thought the rich benefited the state more as slaves than as fertilizer. Under both if you did not do what you were told by the state you were replaced promptly. What FDR was doing in the US at the time was not markedly different than what Mussolini was doing in Italy and Mussolini was better at it if for no other reason than the fact that Mussolini had a freer hand.

 

The Nazi Party was the ultimate far right political party.

Look at how they treated homosexuals.

 

Uh, was it a communist state? No? Did all the communists get thrown in concentration camps once it became fascist? Yes?

Then it's not a communist state.

 

Sorry, again you are wrong. Where would you put members of a political movement that rebelled against tyranny and then sought to limit government, or to limit THEIR own power after they won the revolution? What you describe is LEFTIST propaganda if it is supposed to describe Constitutional Conservatives. If you are only describing STATISTS, sure one group of STATISTS can be to the LEFT or to the RIGHT of another, but when you compare the lot of STATISTS they are FAR to the LEFT of Constitutional Conservatives. Ahm, like an entire OCEAN to the LEFT... That is that basis of the American Revolution, to distance ourselves from THEM...

 

Herewith the comments of the founder of Fascism, Benito Mussolini;

" . . .Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade-unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State . . ." [1]

" . . .Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class-struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else. That the vicissitudes of economic life -- discoveries of raw materials, new technical processes, scientific inventions -- have their importance, no one denies; but that they suffice to explain human history to the exclusion of other factors is absurd. Fascism believes now and always in sanctity and heroism, that is to say in acts in which no economic motive -- remote or immediate -- is at work.

Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work, Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration -- old as humanity itself -- toward social relations in which the sufferings and sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated. But here again Fascism rejects the economic interpretation of felicity as something to be secured socialistically, almost automatically, at a given stage of economic evolution when all will be assured a maximum of material comfort. . . . [2]

[1] and [2] Mussolini, Benito in Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Ardita, 1933.

 

Maybe so but that's more of a reflection of how clueless so called Constitutional Conservatives are than anything to do with liberals. Those of us living in the REAL world recognize that conservatives are primarily interested in CONTROLLING individuals with ALL freedom going to corporations.

 

You really need to look up the definitions of the political left and right.

There is what you want the definition to be, and then there's the actual definition.

There is no arguing with the dictionary, stop trying. You are wrong.

 

Rule #10: Provide evidence of your statements. I consistently have, your denials aren't even worthy of approaching this rule. You have official statements made in various speeches, a newspaper and you have pictures identifying what occurred. You have the former leader of a country speaking about what he dealt with and a book concurring to such.(I bet you didn't even read it)

As such, since you've miserably failed to do much of anything you're discredited. Don't bother replying, a reply from you is a waste of collective breath and internet space.

Or, if you are going to reply you might want to try with something to prove "your side" of history. Prove that Stalin had *no idea* that Hitler was planning Operation Barbarossa. Or more specifically that the Russians were chum-chum buddies up until 1940. Or that Stalin didn't envision a new map with Sovietism ruling over Central Europe.

Since you seemingly won't(or can't) there's no need for this discussion.

 

Mussolini said "Fascism should more properly be called "corporatism" because it is the combining of government powers with the powers of the corporations."

Now here is a mathematical fact: A + B = B + A.

My question of you is, how is letting government dominate the corporations any worse than letting corporations dominate the government?

And, btw, isn't that the Republican Party's platform?

 

This is the 8,000th thread on this subject in the history of this forum. The same nonsense every time. Socialism is in the name!! And North Korea is a Democratic Republic (it is in the name). It is nonsense. The Nazis considered themselves right wing. They were elected in a parliamentary system in 1932 and made a coalition government with a right wing conservative party. The first groups of people imprisoned by the nazis were not jews. They were leftists and homosexuals. They imprisoned socialists, communists, etc.

Ideologically, they were at their most fundamental an extreme nationalist party. That was the fundamental element of Nazism. They rejected the class based politics of Marxism. They saw agency residing in nations not classes. They didn't care much about economics. They were essentially pragmatists when it came to the issue. They were militaristic to an extreme.

And on top of all that, what it meant to be right wing in 1932, is not the same as what it means to be right wing in 2013. Right vs left is an enlightenment era invention. It essentially denoted liberals on the left who supported individual rights, representative government (or democracy), opposed the traditional order, opposed entrenched hierarchies and opposed the power of the monarchies of their country. On the right were the conservatives, who supported the traditional order, opposed the idea of representative government (or democracy), didn't believe in concepts like natural rights, supported entrenched hierarchies, and supported the power of the monarchical state. It is in that paradigm where we see Marxism and socialism emerge. They were placed on the left because they were opposed to monarchy, supported democracy (theoretically, I understand the socialist states of the 20th century were never democratic, but they were placed on the left before socialism was ever tried in practice), believed in peoples rights, opposed entrenched hierarchies, etc.

Again, fascism was placed into this spectrum. They didn't believe in individual rights, didn't believe in representative government, etc. They were also promoters of capitalism and had no interest in promoting a worker takeover of the means of production.

However, even at the beginning of the 20th century the paradigm began to shift. The old monarchies had fallen and conservative and right wing began to mean something else. The old spectrum was already crumbling. The old spectrum broke down entirely following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and even earlier in the US, where a meaningful socialist movement never really existed as it did in many other places. So the modern spectrum became one where classical liberalism was on the right and social liberalism on the left. There are differences surely, but they are both essentially liberal. Both sides believe in representative government, political rights, etc. In a spectrum where their is no opposition to liberalism, nazis don't really fit in neatly. Fascism was an illiberal movement. So there are similarities to be found between both parties and Nazis. However, the Nazis wouldn't be modern liberals and they wouldn't be modern conservatives either. They would fall entirely outside the modern American spectrum (at least as we imagine it).

Last of all, this always comes down to the same fallacy (beyond all the other misconceptions I already pointed out), and that is that the right is the side of small government (this is of course untrue), so their is then a simple notion that therefore any ideology which supported big government is on the left. Of course that is wholly untrue. It shows an incredible lack of historical understanding and even of modern understanding. The right believes no more in small government than the left. The difference between the left and the right is about what they want government to do, not whether they want government. What Nazis wanted government to do, was antithetical to social liberalism in almost every way. It was similarly antithetical to Marxism in every way. Which is why Nazis set themselves up as a third way. Opposed to the classical liberalism and social liberalism of Western Europe, but also opposed to the Marxist and socialist movements of the time.

 

and here I thought we were talking about the nazis

 

All American LEFTISTS (mostly Democrats) do In the US is "argue" with the definition. LEFTISTS often call themselves "patriots."

pa•tri•ot [pey-tree-uht, -ot or, esp. British, pa-tree-uht] Show IPA


noun

1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.


2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriots?o=100084&qsrc=2894&l=dir​

No American LEFTIST can possibly be a "patriot" as they seek to destroy individual rights.

Where would George Washington and Thomas Jefferson not to mention James Madison fall on "your" scale, right or left? See, the definitions you are referring to are for EUROPEAN (and probably most of the rest of the world) politics, but not the American politics of the political philosophy of Individual Liberty. Again, YOU are confused.

 

You can cherry-pick one quote to support an inaccurate analysis if you want, but the truth is Hitler only opposed Liberal capitalism. He was very much in favor of capitalism, just not the way it was practiced in places like the UK and the US. Which is exactly like I pointed out, Hitler and Nazis were both anti-socialist and anti-liberal. Which is why people today have such a hard time conceptualizing Nazis within a modern epistemological framework, quite simply because they don't fit neatly anywhere.

 

The Nazis were radical fascists. Progressivism in the era (Wilson, Both Roosevelts) was a mix of the European politics of the time, with an American "pro-freedom" tinge added.

The Nazis, it seems to me, can be separated pretty evenly into two categories: their political and ethnic policies. Their ethnic policies have died out in most facsism around the world, but their political policies (which aren't as violent as most people think) were part of a trend that has shaped society as we see it today. The economy is basically run by state-industry collusion. 40% of the US economy is straight-up government:



By rabidly focusing on the ethnic violence component, we forgot to guard against fascism as a political system. Consequently, most of the world's financial system has been cartelized. Multinationals have the full force of government behind them. Most private action is regulated into conformity.

 

To the conservative mind liberals cannot be patriots. But conservatives idea of patriotism is to gather arms to fight against the government troops they also claim to love. They believe Lincoln was on their side even though he sent men with guns to kill their ancestors.

Read this and then you can tell me.

As for Jefferson:

As for Madison: