The Nazi Party was not Right-Wing

Well as I already said, Hitler was definitely NOT leftist. Like, at all.

I don't care how bad communists are, trying to pass off Hitler as a leftist so that contemporary American conservatism can been shown as on the "morally pure" side of the spectrum is just shameless, and yet people keep trying to do it and if I"m not mistaken that's what you're doing too.

 

What does hitler have to do with America?

Nazism is a leftist ideology. How many industries does economic liberty call for to be nationalized?

Hitler is one man. No one man can run a nation. The NAZI party was decidedly socialist/fascist etc.. They are all the same in or rice and that is why your argument lacks specifics. Did you see the clip I posted? Did you hear the speeches? If that is what you think right wing is you are mistaken.

 

Opinions? My opinion is that you don't have a clue. You can call a fascist party anything you like. Its actions speak louder than words. I see this all the time; some genius spots the word 'socialist' and decides that this translates in 'communist'.

 

Again, as I said to other people before, leftism is the promotion of equality, rightism is the promotion of inequality. Fascism is a rightist ideology by that definition, which is the definition.

 

If you are going with that standard, then you must put anarchists as far Right. Are you willing to let the Rightwing be associated with the anarchists who riot every time the G8 meet?

 

no it wasn't. It was a hostile take over by a totalitarian regime.

 

I'm describing the ideology, you are describing it's style of governance.

Seriously it's like nobody wants to admit that there are extremist on their side of the political spectrum. Suck it up, they exist. This goes to everyone in this thread who keeps insisting either Hitler or Stalin isn't a far left/right psychopath.

 

if it was it's ideology it would have governed that way.

 

Well Lenin tried to. Stalin made it all about him. After that they kind of went back to trying to follow Lenin although they kept Stalin's secret police and his various avenues of control to exploit for themselves.

What you have to understand is that Marxist-Leninism is not classic Marxism, as actual Marxism is impossible, even Lenin knew that, so their way of practicing communism is, by necessity, not what we think of as Marxism. It requires authoritarian rule by a ruling oligarchy, by design. Obviously this is a great set up for a power play, but there was an ideological theory to it, just as there is an ideological theory for autocratic government in fascism.

 

Nonsense, it was genocide inspired by Hitler's pathological hatred of Jews whom he blamed for all Germany's problems. It really isn't much more complicated than that, and you need to understand Hitler's early life in order to understand where his insanity originated.

 

the old, "Stalin made me do it" excuse.

 

No that isn't the definition. Fascism and communism and socialism are not about equality at all. Have you ever heard of a socialist that wanted to allow people to do what they want? If not, how can they achieve that with equal power? Ever hear of a socialist that wanted to live like the working class they pander too? If not, how can they believe in equality?
Etc...

The definition of a leftist is they want better life through government.
The definition of the right is they want better life through individual freedom.

One you accept that as true, then you realize why the left always spins messages like "social equality" when what they mean is "economic control". It sounds better. If they wanted equality they would start with themselves. Isn't that what they want? Then why not do it? But that is not what they want. They want control.

Far right = anarchy
Far left = dictatorship

NAZIs were far more left then right. Again, I await for my specifics between Stalin and hitler in practice not in theory.

 

but nazi Germany was hardly a private run economy, the private sector that remained was dictated by the state.. the state decided wages and work hours, not to mention the portion of their economy that ran on forced labor. It wouldn't even qualify as a mixed market considering there really was no sector of free/private enterprise, because the state ran the private sector as well

The nazi party did two things. A increased government owned companies, and B. put stricter orders on the private owned companies

they didn't abolish the private sector entirely.. but if that's how you choose to define socialism, then the only form of socialism there is to exist is communism

 

Ok, since you are so convinced that both Hitler and Stalin practised "lefterist" policies, perhaps you can give us your definition of what constitutes far-right social policy. While you're at it you might like to help us with how Hitler encouraged freedom of speech.

 

Squidward, the problem with communist revolutions is that the never get beyond the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which is never run by working folks, never mind the name. It is the paradox of communism this idiotic belief that a government big enough and intrusive enough to do from each according to his means to each according to his needs also never goes anywhere of it's own volition.

 

There is a basic mistake there , regimes are about politics not economics .
To clarify what is the accepted version in political science :

Far left = absence of a state entity and free association between people
Far right = autocracy , state entities define what types of associations between people are allowed and what are not.

This opens some interesting questions : was USSR far right?
Yes it was
Why?
Because the state defined the type of associations between people
Wasn't USSR communist?
No , replacing capitalist bosses with state/party bosses is not communism it is state capitalism.
Were nazi Germany and fascist Italy autocracies ?
Yes they were for the reason i stated above , the state intruded in each and every human activity

I can get into economic characteristics if you like but judging a political regime by looking at their economic policies is false.

 

Thomas Jefferson was one of the founders of the Democratic-Republican Party, which evolved into the Democratic Party, so yes he was a Democrat. And that party was the Conservative Party until its progressive wing got powerful in the 1930's.

 

Like leftist Euro laws today you could get locked up for speech in the reich. No 1 st amendment because no freedom loving right wing founders.

Anarchy is extreme right wing. Any rand is about next to them. Them Hayek. Moving more to the left we have Ron Paul then Friedman. Then as we continue going left we have rand Paul and then Paul Ryan. More to the left we have Reagan and then governors like Rick perry and them you get into bushes who are pretty much dead center economically. Then the descent to Lefterism begins in earnest. You have your Harry Truman types center left, then Corey booker, then bill Clinton, and then you get into the Obama Reid pelosi Hilary cohort which is slightly better then the Maxine waters cohort which is less inatively wrist then FDR or Hoover, but more do then goebbels or Mussolini who were slightly right of Stalin who was to the right of Mao.

 

Andrew Jackson is the founding father of the democratic party. Not Jefferson. Jefferson would spin in his grave if he thought the government would control and tax more then 40% away from the people.

The progressives took power here in 1913. Are you American?

 

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party wasn't that strong until after 1929.

And like I said, Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party, which became the Democratic Party. He was a Democrat. Period. End of story.

 

You are UTTERLY deluded about the goals of the tea party. Perhaps you are unaware of the Koch brothers connection to same. And their ultimate goal to destroy the uppity middle class and turn the US into a 3rd world nation. Yes, the story certainly sounds better when spun by those foolish enough to think billionaires have their best interests in mind.

Not everyone who wore a Nazi uniform was evil. Oskar Schindler to name one. At least the Nazis put the good of their nation (misguided as they were about it) ahead of a dollar. Or a mark.



And speaking about rocket science you must be completely unaware that NASA and the Soviet space programs were based on the work of the Nazi rocket scientists.

[video=youtube;4Ch0OgkkJKI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ch0OgkkJKI[/video]

You know if you Google "conservatives scientists in America" all you get is stories about how conservatives have set science back by decades. And how their delusions may end up making the entire planet uninhabitable! And you want to talk to me about something as stupid as the money wasted on "Star Wars", the F22, and nuclear energy?

I bet you didn't know that the Nazis developed stealth aircraft technology towards the end of the war did you? All the tea party has managed to do is damage the US and world economies.

[video=youtube;weFQ2FfbMfc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weFQ2FfbMfc[/video]

 

In todays lingo as you move left you become increasingly totalitarian and less tolerant of other's views. Conservatives are less interested in micromanaging how you than your average leftist.

The Koch brothers are no more interested in dismatling the middle class than is Obama, and Obama has done them far more damage.

 

By "today's lingo" you're obviously referring to the conservative lingo of "up is down", "good is evil", and "war is peace". Only in that context does your statement make any sense.

Many conservatives say that until they are free to use the word "n***** " and force their religious views on others then they are treated as less than blacks and that liberals are intolerant.

 

Yes and many liberals assert that they cannot be free if someone else has more than they. And half the prople you call cnservatives aren't. Your party sir is the one that wants to place legal limits on every sort of human behavior except sex and drugs and it has done both in the past. And will almost certainly find reason under the auspices of Obama care and population control to do both again.

 

He would agree with nothing you stand for today. Literally end of story.