But, Aren't Nazis and Fascists Really Left-Wingers?

[Pogo]

Communism is an extreme form of socialism, in practice ALWAYS totalitarian. .

Oh that ain't true. Any kind of gummint or social philosophy can be taken to the extreme of totalitarianism but that's got nothing to do with the philosophy itself, unless the philosophy is nothing more than power-hungry dictatorship.

There's a religious sect called the Hutterites (Hutterian Bretheren) settled in western Canada, the Dakotas and Montana. They run their colonies under a near-totally communist system; no private property, all work and assets belong to the collective, etc. But at the same time they are the antithesis of authoritarian, with a Minister and elected Council heading the operation and votes on community decisions. A communistic democracy.

Communism and authoritarianism are like fish and bicycles: unrelated to each other. We tend to look at historical examples of the USSR or Cuba and confuse the underlying social philosophy with the way they went about implementing it, but they're two different things.

You're right about that. True communism is described as being class-less, state-less, and money-less. Without a state there would be no authoritarianism. I suppose you could look at it as a form of money-less anarchy.

The reason communism is regarded as being totalitarian is because there's absolutely no way to implement it without having an oppressive, authoritarian state to enforce "equality" and "collectivism."

Of course there is. I just gave an example in the quote above. Trust me, there's nothing oppressive or authoritarian about that sect. In almost five hundred years living this way they have had I think one murder and two suicides. It doesn't need to be "enforced" because the people believe in it. And because they're entirely self-sufficient and disengaged from the affairs of the countries, provinces and states they live in, it can be considered a "state" in and of itself.

 

[Pogo]

Who is the ignorant ape here? Who is the historically inept? Who is the person who doesn't seem to know a single god damn thing about fascism and socialism? I'm telling you how the two greatest fascist figureheads felt about socialism, and how they chose to lead their national socialist in opposition of it... and yet you say there's no difference?

Are you fucking kidding me?

We've been over that very same point; it's a strawman argument.

All I'm asking is that you answer a very simple question.

How is what Hitler did any different from the principles of socialism as outlined by Karl Marx?

The Nazis controlled the corporations, what the corporations produced, who ran the corporations, the wages paid by corporations, the prices charged by corporations, and even dictated who got to have "private property." Which also happened to be controlled by the state, since they could seize it at any time.

Again, I understand that they killed "socialists" left and right, along with communists, capitalists, Jews, homosexuals, and any other individual deemed undesirable. However, their own actions put them in the same category as the very people they were persecuting.

What you're trying to equate is the totalitarian methods of two different types of historical governments, and then pretend that the methods equal the philosophies. That's like saying the police force has a hierarchy and a strong chain of command, and the street gang has a hierarchy and a strong chain of command, therefore they're the same thing. Doesn't work.

 

[francoHFW]

Communism is ALWAYS totalitarian in real life.

Fascism is RW totalitarianism because it's a partnership with corporations and companies. Fer chrissake.

Socialism is gov't regulation of business with a safety net, and possibly gov't takeovers of some industries. Communism is gov't takeover of everything- so always totalitarian and put in by violent revolution. Fact.

 

[tooAlive]

Oh that ain't true. Any kind of gummint or social philosophy can be taken to the extreme of totalitarianism but that's got nothing to do with the philosophy itself, unless the philosophy is nothing more than power-hungry dictatorship.

There's a religious sect called the Hutterites (Hutterian Bretheren) settled in western Canada, the Dakotas and Montana. They run their colonies under a near-totally communist system; no private property, all work and assets belong to the collective, etc. But at the same time they are the antithesis of authoritarian, with a Minister and elected Council heading the operation and votes on community decisions. A communistic democracy.

Communism and authoritarianism are like fish and bicycles: unrelated to each other. We tend to look at historical examples of the USSR or Cuba and confuse the underlying social philosophy with the way they went about implementing it, but they're two different things.

You're right about that. True communism is described as being class-less, state-less, and money-less. Without a state there would be no authoritarianism. I suppose you could look at it as a form of money-less anarchy.

The reason communism is regarded as being totalitarian is because there's absolutely no way to implement it without having an oppressive, authoritarian state to enforce "equality" and "collectivism."

Of course there is. I just gave an example in the quote above. Trust me, there's nothing oppressive or authoritarian about that sect. In almost five hundred years living this way they have had I think one murder and two suicides. It doesn't need to be "enforced" because the people believe in it. And because they're entirely self-sufficient and disengaged from the affairs of the countries, provinces and states they live in, it can be considered a "state" in and of itself.

You missed my last edit.

The people in that sect are living that way voluntarily. So communism would work on a very small scale such as the one you mentioned, with people that actually believe in that sort of system.

Communism is defined as a world-order. And in the world there will inevitably be people that don't want to live that way. Communist ideals can't be imposed on those people unless there is a state. Otherwise it's anarchy.

 

[tooAlive]

Who is the ignorant ape here? Who is the historically inept? Who is the person who doesn't seem to know a single god damn thing about fascism and socialism? I'm telling you how the two greatest fascist figureheads felt about socialism, and how they chose to lead their national socialist in opposition of it... and yet you say there's no difference?

Are you fucking kidding me?

We've been over that very same point; it's a strawman argument.

All I'm asking is that you answer a very simple question.

How is what Hitler did any different from the principles of socialism as outlined by Karl Marx?

The Nazis controlled the corporations, what the corporations produced, who ran the corporations, the wages paid by corporations, the prices charged by corporations, and even dictated who got to have "private property." Which also happened to be controlled by the state, since they could seize it at any time.

Again, I understand that they killed "socialists" left and right, along with communists, capitalists, Jews, homosexuals, and any other individual deemed undesirable. However, their own actions put them in the same category as the very people they were persecuting.

What you're trying to equate is the totalitarian methods of two different types of historical governments, and then pretend that the methods equal the philosophies. That's like saying the police force has a hierarchy and a strong chain of command, and the street gang has a hierarchy and a strong chain of command, therefore they're the same thing. Doesn't work.

What I'm arguing is that fascists ultimately believed in the same thing the socialists believed in. Which is state control of private property and means of production.

They both accomplished the same thing. How were their ideals any different?

If you have libertarianism on the right for example, fascism is in no way an extreme version of that; in fact they're incompatible. Complete polar opposites. So how can they exist on the same side of the spectrum?

Anarchy would be the only form of government (or no government) that I can see existing on the right after libertarianism. Fascism simply makes no sense there.

And a police force is very different from a street gang. The same can't be said about communism and fascism (in practice).

 

[Pogo]

Communism is ALWAYS totalitarian in real life.

Fascism is RW totalitarianism because it's a partnership with corporations and companies. Fer chrissake.

Socialism is gov't regulation of business with a safety net, and possibly gov't takeovers of some industries. Communism is gov't takeover of everything- so always totalitarian and put in by violent revolution. Fact.

No, not a fact. I just gave an example that disproves it. Either communism or fascism can be the "government takeover of everything" when taken to extreme but that's totalitarianism, not a political position. But when the people/community are in charge of the same philosophical system, the theory fails. Any political style can be adopted by authoritarians. That doesn't make them essential to it.

 

[Darkwind]

------------------------------------------------------------------




By Bruce Walker
November 25, 2007


The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe. Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists -- all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move "too far" in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater.

**snip**

Continue reading ---->
Archived-Articles: The Nazis Were Marxists

Another fantastic post that hits the nail on the head.

Uh - not exactly. Something hit this Bruce Walker on the head. The Nazis fought against Communists, both inside and outside Germany. Right from the beginning.

After the Reichstag Fire on 27th February, 1933, the Nazi Party launched a wave of violence against members of the German Communist Party and other left-wing opponents of the regime. This included Thälmann (the Communist Party Presidential candidate the previous year) who was arrested and imprisoned on 3rd March 1933

(link)

Only in Bruce Walker's perverted fantasy world where everything that is socially unacceptable moves over there on the other guy's side, even philosophies diametrically opposed, do such false equivalencies exist.. Bruce Walker has his head up his ass. To pretend that only one's opponent side has extremists is proof enough of that. Apparently there are some still walking around trying the theory that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Doesn't work. You have convinced only yourself, and wishful thinking still does not trump reality.

The Nazis were indeed the extreme right. If that truth is inconvenient, do something about it. But do something more honest --this is pathetic.

Wow, really?

I suppose it never occurred to you that they fought each other because they wanted to be in charge, not out of some ideological opposition.

Both forms are dictatorial and authoritarian. This means they brook no one having power but themselves.

 

[Pogo]

You're right about that. True communism is described as being class-less, state-less, and money-less. Without a state there would be no authoritarianism. I suppose you could look at it as a form of money-less anarchy.

The reason communism is regarded as being totalitarian is because there's absolutely no way to implement it without having an oppressive, authoritarian state to enforce "equality" and "collectivism."

Of course there is. I just gave an example in the quote above. Trust me, there's nothing oppressive or authoritarian about that sect. In almost five hundred years living this way they have had I think one murder and two suicides. It doesn't need to be "enforced" because the people believe in it. And because they're entirely self-sufficient and disengaged from the affairs of the countries, provinces and states they live in, it can be considered a "state" in and of itself.

You missed my last edit.

The people in that sect are living that way voluntarily. So communism would work on a very small scale such as the one you mentioned, with people that actually believe in that sort of system.

Communism is defined as a world-order. And in the world there will inevitably be people that don't want to live that way. Communist ideals can't be imposed on those people unless there is a state. Otherwise it's anarchy.

I don't think you know whereof you speak (though the thread itself indicated that) -- you're still conflating authoritarianism with political philosophies. They're not related. You're confusing the political isms (ways of running a government/social order) with power isms (ways of maintaining the power to run the government/social order).

"Anarchy" does not mean people being communists because they believe in it; it means the absence of authority altogether. That's got nothing to do with the two isms in play here. And communism has nothing to do with "a world order". Like any other system it could be used to run the world, or a village, or anything in between. In this case, size doesn't matter.

 

[Pogo]

Another fantastic post that hits the nail on the head.

Uh - not exactly. Something hit this Bruce Walker on the head. The Nazis fought against Communists, both inside and outside Germany. Right from the beginning.

After the Reichstag Fire on 27th February, 1933, the Nazi Party launched a wave of violence against members of the German Communist Party and other left-wing opponents of the regime. This included Thälmann (the Communist Party Presidential candidate the previous year) who was arrested and imprisoned on 3rd March 1933

(link)

Only in Bruce Walker's perverted fantasy world where everything that is socially unacceptable moves over there on the other guy's side, even philosophies diametrically opposed, do such false equivalencies exist.. Bruce Walker has his head up his ass. To pretend that only one's opponent side has extremists is proof enough of that. Apparently there are some still walking around trying the theory that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Doesn't work. You have convinced only yourself, and wishful thinking still does not trump reality.

The Nazis were indeed the extreme right. If that truth is inconvenient, do something about it. But do something more honest --this is pathetic.

Wow, really?

I suppose it never occurred to you that they fought each other because they wanted to be in charge, not out of some ideological opposition.

Both forms are dictatorial and authoritarian. This means they brook no one having power but themselves.

Any extremist power is dictatorial and authoritarian. That still has nothing to do with what political framework it uses. The two are independent of each other.

 

[Darkwind]

Uh - not exactly. Something hit this Bruce Walker on the head. The Nazis fought against Communists, both inside and outside Germany. Right from the beginning.

(link)

Only in Bruce Walker's perverted fantasy world where everything that is socially unacceptable moves over there on the other guy's side, even philosophies diametrically opposed, do such false equivalencies exist.. Bruce Walker has his head up his ass. To pretend that only one's opponent side has extremists is proof enough of that. Apparently there are some still walking around trying the theory that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Doesn't work. You have convinced only yourself, and wishful thinking still does not trump reality.

The Nazis were indeed the extreme right. If that truth is inconvenient, do something about it. But do something more honest --this is pathetic.

Wow, really?

I suppose it never occurred to you that they fought each other because they wanted to be in charge, not out of some ideological opposition.

Both forms are dictatorial and authoritarian. This means they brook no one having power but themselves.

Any extremist power is dictatorial and authoritarian. That still has nothing to do with what political framework it uses. The two are independent of each other.

Independant does not equate to being in separate political spectrum. The point is, it is a logical fallacy to say they are not similar simply because they fought on opposite sides in a war.

 

[Pogo]

We've been over that very same point; it's a strawman argument.

All I'm asking is that you answer a very simple question.

How is what Hitler did any different from the principles of socialism as outlined by Karl Marx?

The Nazis controlled the corporations, what the corporations produced, who ran the corporations, the wages paid by corporations, the prices charged by corporations, and even dictated who got to have "private property." Which also happened to be controlled by the state, since they could seize it at any time.

Again, I understand that they killed "socialists" left and right, along with communists, capitalists, Jews, homosexuals, and any other individual deemed undesirable. However, their own actions put them in the same category as the very people they were persecuting.

What you're trying to equate is the totalitarian methods of two different types of historical governments, and then pretend that the methods equal the philosophies. That's like saying the police force has a hierarchy and a strong chain of command, and the street gang has a hierarchy and a strong chain of command, therefore they're the same thing. Doesn't work.

What I'm arguing is that fascists ultimately believed in the same thing the socialists believed in. Which is state control of private property and means of production.

They both accomplished the same thing. How were their ideals any different?

If you have libertarianism on the right for example, fascism is in no way an extreme version of that; in fact they're incompatible. Complete polar opposites. So how can they exist on the same side of the spectrum?

Anarchy would be the only form of government (or no government) that I can see existing on the right after libertarianism. Fascism simply makes no sense there.

And a police force is very different from a street gang. The same can't be said about communism and fascism (in practice).

You start with a false premise. Where do you get the idea libertarianism is on the right?

 

[tooAlive]

What you're trying to equate is the totalitarian methods of two different types of historical governments, and then pretend that the methods equal the philosophies. That's like saying the police force has a hierarchy and a strong chain of command, and the street gang has a hierarchy and a strong chain of command, therefore they're the same thing. Doesn't work.

What I'm arguing is that fascists ultimately believed in the same thing the socialists believed in. Which is state control of private property and means of production.

They both accomplished the same thing. How were their ideals any different?

If you have libertarianism on the right for example, fascism is in no way an extreme version of that; in fact they're incompatible. Complete polar opposites. So how can they exist on the same side of the spectrum?

Anarchy would be the only form of government (or no government) that I can see existing on the right after libertarianism. Fascism simply makes no sense there.

And a police force is very different from a street gang. The same can't be said about communism and fascism (in practice).

You start with a false premise. Where do you get the idea libertarianism is on the right?

At least here in the US, the major difference between the left and the right is more government intervention vs. less. Libertarianism would fall under the category of smaller government, so I wouldn't think to put it on the left.

Also, nobody on the left seems to want to be associated with libertarianism. Libertarians are usually referred to as "right-wing loonies."

 

[Pogo]

Wow, really?

I suppose it never occurred to you that they fought each other because they wanted to be in charge, not out of some ideological opposition.

Both forms are dictatorial and authoritarian. This means they brook no one having power but themselves.

Any extremist power is dictatorial and authoritarian. That still has nothing to do with what political framework it uses. The two are independent of each other.

Independant does not equate to being in separate political spectrum. The point is, it is a logical fallacy to say they are not similar simply because they fought on opposite sides in a war.

It would be, yeah. ...So?

What I'm saying above is that whether the state is authoritarian or not has nothing to do with whether it's right or left or socialist or fascist. Authoritarian has to do with power, regardless what that power is used for. All the rest have to do with sociopolitical philosophies, regardless what power source runs that philosophy. One apple and bunch of oranges.

The fallacy that's laughingly attempted here is that, because the Nazis were authoritarian, and the Soviet Union was also authoritarian, that makes Nazis and Soviets the same thing. A fallacy of association that doesn't take into account the stark contrasts between the two.

Adolf Hitler was a dictator;
Adolf Hitler had a mustache;
Wilfred Brimley has a mustache;
Therefore Wilfred Brimley is a dictator.

 

[Pogo]

What I'm arguing is that fascists ultimately believed in the same thing the socialists believed in. Which is state control of private property and means of production.

They both accomplished the same thing. How were their ideals any different?

If you have libertarianism on the right for example, fascism is in no way an extreme version of that; in fact they're incompatible. Complete polar opposites. So how can they exist on the same side of the spectrum?

Anarchy would be the only form of government (or no government) that I can see existing on the right after libertarianism. Fascism simply makes no sense there.

And a police force is very different from a street gang. The same can't be said about communism and fascism (in practice).

You start with a false premise. Where do you get the idea libertarianism is on the right?

At least here in the US, the major difference between the left and the right is more government intervention vs. less. Libertarianism would fall under the category of smaller government, so I wouldn't think to put it on the left.

Also, nobody on the left seems to want to be associated with libertarianism. Libertarians are usually referred to as "right-wing loonies."

OK well now you're just making stuff up. When I hear aimless blanket statements like "nobody on the left does this", everybody on the right says that", it's becoming a waste of bandwidth. Once again you're drawing a conclusion from nothing but loose associations, and even then from associations of your own impressions.

This silly idea of "smaller government" was simply Reagan's sales pitch. There is no particular big or small government penchant on either left or right. That's a snake oil that political hucksters like to sell, but it's not reality. Libertarianism by contrast does indeed mean smaller government, but for reasons just stated, that doesn't put it on the right or left. It puts it on the top in the other chart that left this part out:

-- or this one's more colourful:

Libertarianism then is the opposite of authoritarianism, but these are philosophies on the power of the government, not on how that power runs the state, ergo they're on the north-south axis rather than the east-west one.

 

[Pogo]

Strictly as a map of left-right philosophies (excluding the power trip aspect), this chart may explain more - unfortunately they have the usual colours reversed: