Fascism

[Coyote]

Hayek on nazism....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

Is this some sort of competition?

 

[danielpalos]

We also had, 1929. Capitalism died and socialism has been picking up the slack, ever since.

Where? In Russia? China? Is that why both have resorted to capitalist ventures?

your point? true AnCaps Only exist in the third world. We zoomed past the second world on our way to the first world, with FDR.

I was asking questions. Second world were commie nations.

AnCaps Only exist in the third world. We zoomed past the second world on our way to the first world, with FDR.

 

[2aguy]

Hayek on nazism....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

Is this some sort of competition?

Nope....just showing you that fascism is in fact a type of socialism.....and two famous economists...the ones who study economics, and who were alive at the time the nazis were coming to power....and had to flee Germany because of it.....know what they are talking about.....and no matter how the left wing revisionists try to hide the fact that the socialist movements after 1917 murdered close to 100 million men, women and children, the truth is the truth.

 

[danielpalos]

What you call "lies and deceit" I call disagreeing.

Then why can't you answer the question asked

1) Where did Hitler say he was against socialISM. He said he was for it repeatedly

2) How does killing socialists prove he wasn't one? Practically everyone in Europe was socialist by then and they still are

I have answered that. When he refused to collectivize or impose the socialist political agenda - then don't you think that indicates he is turning against socialism?

Or, how about these quotes (which I've posted before):

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”​

Socialism is AT IT'S HEART - about elevating the working class - not instilling a new elite ruling class. (even though in reality, it did not work out that way). Hitlers ideology above absolutely opposes any sort of idea of class equality.

Of course he collectivized, what do you think government control is? All collectivization at the national level is government. The only collectivization that has ever worked are voluntary associations where the people can leave any time and those are not national governments, just communities. How does that makes sense? All industry was under his control, it was entirely collectivized.

And you need to be more specific what you mean by "social agenda." He was a socialist, the economy was government controlled, again, what does that mean?

And seriously, you think in socialist systems that unions can overrule government? You actually believe that? Really?

"Social Agenda" - pretty much what is defined here: What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

It's more than just an economic program. According to Marx, it was a transitional stage to communism.

The ONLY thing Nazi's had in common with it was a degree of government control over the econony but there was no pretense at "people's control".

Of all the types of socialism that had been created before Marx, only Marx's Scientific Socialism led to communism, Most socialists did not like Marx nor his communism nor his socialism. Marx's Scientific Socialism was supposed to prepare the people for communism but Russia dropped it soon after the revolution and then Russia dropped communism.
Politically, Scientific Socialism was a God-send to the Republican party, it was soon made into just plain socialism and socialism always led to communism, it scared the bejabbers out of Americans.
Can anyone name a country that has practiced Marxian communism or Scientific
Socialism for any length of time.




















































































































/

All first world economies are mixed market economies and being studied by academia, all the time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Please review the following two links on fascism and what we have observed since the election of Donald Trump to the office of POTUS.


Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

Donald Trump and the 14 signs of Fascism • /r/politics

Consider the promises made by Mr. Trump during the time before he received the nomination of the Republican Party, his rhetoric before his election after being nominated, and his rhetoric since being elected to POTUS?

The choices in your poll are pretty rigid here. I'm sure there's a lot of feelings in between your talking points.

I suppose so, but there is room to debate and offer one's own opinion on the issue. Many have, some simply lack the ability to do so.

One thing of interest worth noting: A misspeak by Obama ("57 states", "you can keep your doctor") are echoed ad nausea by those who deprecate him, and they chose to ignore all of the walking back by Trump on promises he made ("believe me!" has become incredulous).

 

[2aguy]

Please review the following two links on fascism and what we have observed since the election of Donald Trump to the office of POTUS.


Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

Donald Trump and the 14 signs of Fascism • /r/politics

Consider the promises made by Mr. Trump during the time before he received the nomination of the Republican Party, his rhetoric before his election after being nominated, and his rhetoric since being elected to POTUS?

The choices in your poll are pretty rigid here. I'm sure there's a lot of feelings in between your talking points.

I suppose so, but there is room to debate and offer one's own opinion on the issue. Many have, some simply lack the ability to do so.

One thing of interest worth noting: A misspeak by Obama ("57 states", "you can keep your doctor") are echoed ad nausea by those who deprecate him, and they chose to ignore all of the walking back by Trump on promises he made ("believe me!" has become incredulous).

what promises has he walked back on...? He has taken no actions as President yet.....

 

[bripat9643]

Making fun of American symbols of freedom, why am I not surprised?

And bam, that's what I'm talking about. There can be no truer admission you have nothing than repeating my own lines back to me

Wrong. I'm making fun of your ridiculous points of view. Dude, you are cracked. Maybe we'll see you in the news one day along with Pizza man and Santiago?

People who can read know I didn't repeat your own lines back to you. I was ridiculing both your "debate" technique and your sanity all at the same time.

You're a dumbass, DV. Kaz has already gutted and filleted you. You're just too stupid to know it.

 

[bripat9643]

What have I said that is a lie or deceit?

What you call "lies and deceit" I call disagreeing.

Then why can't you answer the question asked

1) Where did Hitler say he was against socialISM. He said he was for it repeatedly

2) How does killing socialists prove he wasn't one? Practically everyone in Europe was socialist by then and they still are

I have answered that. When he refused to collectivize or impose the socialist political agenda - then don't you think that indicates he is turning against socialism?

Or, how about these quotes (which I've posted before):

“The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count on being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who – unlike you – are not troubled with humanitarian feelings, but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses.”

As for class relations, Hitler asserted that workers had no right to have a say in their own management as it was a perversion of that eternal natural order of the survival of the fittest. The industrialists: “have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead.” And on the subject of reforming the economic system, Hitler offered this not very Left-wing observation: “Socialism is in itself a bad word [if it is used literally]. But it is certainly not to be taken as meaning that industry must be socialised.” So long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. Indeed, “it would be little short of a crime to destroy the existing economic system.”​

Socialism is AT IT'S HEART - about elevating the working class - not instilling a new elite ruling class. (even though in reality, it did not work out that way). Hitlers ideology above absolutely opposes any sort of idea of class equality.

Of course he collectivized, what do you think government control is? All collectivization at the national level is government. The only collectivization that has ever worked are voluntary associations where the people can leave any time and those are not national governments, just communities. How does that makes sense? All industry was under his control, it was entirely collectivized.

And you need to be more specific what you mean by "social agenda." He was a socialist, the economy was government controlled, again, what does that mean?

And seriously, you think in socialist systems that unions can overrule government? You actually believe that? Really?

"Social Agenda" - pretty much what is defined here: What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

It's more than just an economic program. According to Marx, it was a transitional stage to communism.

The ONLY thing Nazi's had in common with it was a degree of government control over the econony but there was no pretense at "people's control".

You're regurgitating propaganda. Economists define socialism as government control of the economy. Your feel-good propaganda doesn't mean jack shit.

 

[bripat9643]

Again this is why I'm just tired of you. Your own quotes said he killed socialists WHO OPPOSED HIM. And you keep ignoring that and repeating your canard he killed them because they were socialists, not because they opposed him.

Never have you presented a quote from him saying he hates socialism.

It's irrelevant anyway since he controlled the economy and was by definition a socialist

Did you miss the part where he also refused to go along with socialism and collectivism? Did you miss that? And, after he killed those who opposed them - he tossed the rest in concentration camps - did you miss that as well? I posted a quote where he specifically did not want to go full socialism and at that point - parted ways with the socialists and formed his own ideology? Did you miss that as well?

The question was where did he say he was against "socialism."

Explain your assertion that he can't be a socialist because he kills socialist. He wants to be king of the hill

That wasn't the only evidence I offered as to why he wasn't a socialist. He also did not want to go "full socialist" and that caused a critical break.

No...he didn't believe in "International Socialism" because he didn't care about any other country...he cared about Germany...that is why he was a National Socialist...Socialism for Germany....there was no break.....he controlled the economy.

He was a national socialist in the same way North Korea was a democratic republic.

By the way - Stalin didn't care about any other country either.

So you don't think we're supposed to listen to what NAZIs actually said they believe, but we are supposed to accept the claims of "socialists" as gospel?

 

[bripat9643]

Here...this explains it nicely...

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

11/11/2005George Reisman


My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

I've pointed this out many times, but the left wingers just ignore it and keep insisting that private property still existed in NAZI germany. They aren't interested in truth. They will keep regurgitating their propaganda until doomsday, no matter how many times they are proven wrong.

 

[Divine Wind]

You're a dumbass, DV. Kaz has already gutted and filleted you. You're just too stupid to know it.

Awesome. Why don't you and Kaz goose each other to celebrate?

 

[Coyote]

Hayek on nazism....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

Is this some sort of competition?

Nope....just showing you that fascism is in fact a type of socialism.....and two famous economists...the ones who study economics, and who were alive at the time the nazis were coming to power....and had to flee Germany because of it.....know what they are talking about.....and no matter how the left wing revisionists try to hide the fact that the socialist movements after 1917 murdered close to 100 million men, women and children, the truth is the truth.

I provided sources from knowledgeable historians. The only revisionism going on is from the right. Fascism and Nazism has always been placed on the right of the political spectrum. It's only been since Goldberg's book that you've tried to revise that. And the only reason I can think of for that is you guys can't man up and own the fact that your ideology when taken to extremes has been responsible for millions of deaths. At least the left has the integrity to own it's own extremes.

 

[bripat9643]

Hayek on nazism....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

Is this some sort of competition?

Nope....just showing you that fascism is in fact a type of socialism.....and two famous economists...the ones who study economics, and who were alive at the time the nazis were coming to power....and had to flee Germany because of it.....know what they are talking about.....and no matter how the left wing revisionists try to hide the fact that the socialist movements after 1917 murdered close to 100 million men, women and children, the truth is the truth.

I provided sources from knowledgeable historians. The only revisionism going on is from the right. Fascism and Nazism has always been placed on the right of the political spectrum. It's only been since Goldberg's book that you've tried to revise that. And the only reason I can think of for that is you guys can't man up and own the fact that your ideology when taken to extremes has been responsible for millions of deaths. At least the left has the integrity to own it's own extremes.

You provided propaganda.

Economists have been pointing out the facts about fascism since before WW II.

 

[2aguy]

Hayek on nazism....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

Is this some sort of competition?

Nope....just showing you that fascism is in fact a type of socialism.....and two famous economists...the ones who study economics, and who were alive at the time the nazis were coming to power....and had to flee Germany because of it.....know what they are talking about.....and no matter how the left wing revisionists try to hide the fact that the socialist movements after 1917 murdered close to 100 million men, women and children, the truth is the truth.

I provided sources from knowledgeable historians. The only revisionism going on is from the right. Fascism and Nazism has always been placed on the right of the political spectrum. It's only been since Goldberg's book that you've tried to revise that. And the only reason I can think of for that is you guys can't man up and own the fact that your ideology when taken to extremes has been responsible for millions of deaths. At least the left has the integrity to own it's own extremes.

I have provided sources from actual Economists.......Nobel Prize winning economists who actually lived at the time the nazis came to power and had to flee Europe to escape them.......Hayek and Mises and lots of other economists say you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about...

And left wing historians are lying....because they have to hide the fact that from 1917 going forward, socialism and it's supporters have murdered 100 million men, women and children......and the nazis are a great way to deflect the blame.....they just have to lie about them being socialists and accuse them of being amorphous "Right wingers."

 

[Coyote]

Hayek on nazism....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

Is this some sort of competition?

Nope....just showing you that fascism is in fact a type of socialism.....and two famous economists...the ones who study economics, and who were alive at the time the nazis were coming to power....and had to flee Germany because of it.....know what they are talking about.....and no matter how the left wing revisionists try to hide the fact that the socialist movements after 1917 murdered close to 100 million men, women and children, the truth is the truth.

I provided sources from knowledgeable historians. The only revisionism going on is from the right. Fascism and Nazism has always been placed on the right of the political spectrum. It's only been since Goldberg's book that you've tried to revise that. And the only reason I can think of for that is you guys can't man up and own the fact that your ideology when taken to extremes has been responsible for millions of deaths. At least the left has the integrity to own it's own extremes.

I have provided sources from actual Economists.......Nobel Prize winning economists who actually lived at the time the nazis came to power and had to flee Europe to escape them.......Hayek and Mises and lots of other economists say you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about...

And left wing historians are lying....because they have to hide the fact that from 1917 going forward, socialism and it's supporters have murdered 100 million men, women and children......and the nazis are a great way to deflect the blame.....they just have to lie about them being socialists and accuse them of being amorphous "Right wingers."

Oh. The "left wing" historians are lying. Everyone prior to Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" is now a liar because they stated Fascism is a rightwing ideology. That's so convenient for the right!



A good article, again quoting reputable sources and authors as sources to it's claims: Fascism was not left-wing !!!. Like socialism, fascism isn't just an economic doctrine like you try to make it out to be and that is something economists aren't likely to see.

To say that fascism is an extremism of the political right, as defined in historical terms, is reasonable for the following reasons :

• All actually-existed fascist states practised business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — this was after all the 1930s, the heyday and apogee of socialism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.

• All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists. Despite the worker-friendly rhetoric of fascists, they in actual power regimented labour in such a way as to please any strike-breaking capitalist of the 19th century. The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration. Businesses (some, not even most), by contrast, were given incentives to consolidate into Morgan-style industrial trusts as shareholders and engage in contractual relations as monopolists or near-monopolists with other trusts and with the state.

• Communists have a demonstrated record of erasing traditional society root and branch — exterminating aristocrats, industrialists, landowners, priests, kulaks, etc. Fascists in actual power, despite their modernist reputation, seem almost traditional in comparison. In Mussolini’s Italy, the king, the titled nobility, the church, the industrialists, the landholders, and the mafia slept soundly at night. The chief innovation of fascism was not really in political economy, but in political community.

• Self-proclaimed fascist parties in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s pinched their votes from the middle-class and conservative parties, not primarily from the socialists and the communists to whom their traditional constituencies (urban workers) mostly remained loyal. In Germany’s election of 1932, the Social Democrats and the Communists maintained their usual proportion of the combined vote (~35%), but the other traditional parties were substantially weakened, even hollowed out, with only the Catholic Zentrum maintaining double-digit strength (~12%).

• Big business interests either were strong supporters of the fascists once in power, or (in some countries) had backed them well before their seizure of power.

• Fascists fetishised law & order, and made a cult out of the armed forces.

• Amongst observers in non-fascist countries, it was conservatives and businessmen, not progressives, who were the most numerous to express admiration for the fascists. There were a few prominent socialists like H G Wells who applauded some aspects of Mussolini’s regime, but these were mostly amongst intellectual kooks, and their significance pales in comparison to the conservative reaction which varied from enthusiastic approval of a bulwark against communism to benign indifference.

• Other self-proclaimed fascists — those who took their inspiration from Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s — were unambiguously conservative in the unambiguously traditional sense, without the “modernist” touches which set Hitler and Mussolini apart. If I had to use three words to describe Franco, the best ones would be “God, Country, Property”.

• The Nazis were sui generis and idiosyncratic, an outlier amongst fascists, and perhaps they really shouldn’t be pegged into the left-right spectrum. But if they had to be, their political economy was clearly capitalist and therefore clearly distant from revolutionary or egalitarian socialism.

Actual fascists who came to power behaved in a similarly labour-repressive, business-friendly, violently antisocialist way, albeit with national variations. Why were they so unanimous in their hysterical hatred of communists and socialists ? Could it have been that there was some “ideological space” for property and capitalism amongst fascists, albeit not well articulated theoretically ?


In the 1920s British conservatives generally approved of Mussolini, and liberals and socialists generally criticised him. I don’t mean that conservatives wanted fascism in Britain, but they thought it was an effective antidote to communism, admired fascist law & order, and found in it a healthy example of national pride. Of course Churchill was an early admirer of Mussolini and remained one until the early 1930s, and he took the nationalist side in the Spanish civil war.


There were ambivalences and exceptions on both left and right, but the general trend is of disapproval on the left and approval on the right. Moreover, appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s was, at root, motivated by conservative fears of Bolshevism and the feeling that the Nazis were the lesser of two evils.


You can find some positive things uttered about Mussolini by the left-wing British press until 1924 or so, because the nature of Italian fascism was not yet clear and some people still believed fascism was a working-class phenomenon. But 1924 is a clear dividing line, because in that year a famous Italian socialist by the name of Matteotti was murdered by Mussolini’s regime and the destruction of the Italian left was in full swing.


...And I reiterate what I’ve said before : since there is not 150 years’ worth of fascist doctrinal literature as there is for Marxist writings, we can judge what is fascism primarily from practise. And, in practise, we have : nationalism, militarism, law-and-orderism, Church patronage, and business mercantilism. These are not practises historically associated with the left, but with the right.​

 

[bripat9643]

Hayek on nazism....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.

A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”

It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

Is this some sort of competition?

Nope....just showing you that fascism is in fact a type of socialism.....and two famous economists...the ones who study economics, and who were alive at the time the nazis were coming to power....and had to flee Germany because of it.....know what they are talking about.....and no matter how the left wing revisionists try to hide the fact that the socialist movements after 1917 murdered close to 100 million men, women and children, the truth is the truth.

I provided sources from knowledgeable historians. The only revisionism going on is from the right. Fascism and Nazism has always been placed on the right of the political spectrum. It's only been since Goldberg's book that you've tried to revise that. And the only reason I can think of for that is you guys can't man up and own the fact that your ideology when taken to extremes has been responsible for millions of deaths. At least the left has the integrity to own it's own extremes.

I have provided sources from actual Economists.......Nobel Prize winning economists who actually lived at the time the nazis came to power and had to flee Europe to escape them.......Hayek and Mises and lots of other economists say you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about...

And left wing historians are lying....because they have to hide the fact that from 1917 going forward, socialism and it's supporters have murdered 100 million men, women and children......and the nazis are a great way to deflect the blame.....they just have to lie about them being socialists and accuse them of being amorphous "Right wingers."

Oh. The "left wing" historians are lying. Everyone prior to Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" is now a liar because they stated Fascism is a rightwing ideology. That's so convenient for the right!



A good article, again quoting reputable sources and authors as sources to it's claims: Fascism was not left-wing !!!. Like socialism, fascism isn't just an economic doctrine like you try to make it out to be and that is something economists aren't likely to see.

To say that fascism is an extremism of the political right, as defined in historical terms, is reasonable for the following reasons :

• All actually-existed fascist states practised business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — this was after all the 1930s, the heyday and apogee of socialism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.

• All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists. Despite the worker-friendly rhetoric of fascists, they in actual power regimented labour in such a way as to please any strike-breaking capitalist of the 19th century. The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration. Businesses (some, not even most), by contrast, were given incentives to consolidate into Morgan-style industrial trusts as shareholders and engage in contractual relations as monopolists or near-monopolists with other trusts and with the state.

• Communists have a demonstrated record of erasing traditional society root and branch — exterminating aristocrats, industrialists, landowners, priests, kulaks, etc. Fascists in actual power, despite their modernist reputation, seem almost traditional in comparison. In Mussolini’s Italy, the king, the titled nobility, the church, the industrialists, the landholders, and the mafia slept soundly at night. The chief innovation of fascism was not really in political economy, but in political community.

• Self-proclaimed fascist parties in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s pinched their votes from the middle-class and conservative parties, not primarily from the socialists and the communists to whom their traditional constituencies (urban workers) mostly remained loyal. In Germany’s election of 1932, the Social Democrats and the Communists maintained their usual proportion of the combined vote (~35%), but the other traditional parties were substantially weakened, even hollowed out, with only the Catholic Zentrum maintaining double-digit strength (~12%).

• Big business interests either were strong supporters of the fascists once in power, or (in some countries) had backed them well before their seizure of power.

• Fascists fetishised law & order, and made a cult out of the armed forces.

• Amongst observers in non-fascist countries, it was conservatives and businessmen, not progressives, who were the most numerous to express admiration for the fascists. There were a few prominent socialists like H G Wells who applauded some aspects of Mussolini’s regime, but these were mostly amongst intellectual kooks, and their significance pales in comparison to the conservative reaction which varied from enthusiastic approval of a bulwark against communism to benign indifference.

• Other self-proclaimed fascists — those who took their inspiration from Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s — were unambiguously conservative in the unambiguously traditional sense, without the “modernist” touches which set Hitler and Mussolini apart. If I had to use three words to describe Franco, the best ones would be “God, Country, Property”.

• The Nazis were sui generis and idiosyncratic, an outlier amongst fascists, and perhaps they really shouldn’t be pegged into the left-right spectrum. But if they had to be, their political economy was clearly capitalist and therefore clearly distant from revolutionary or egalitarian socialism.

Actual fascists who came to power behaved in a similarly labour-repressive, business-friendly, violently antisocialist way, albeit with national variations. Why were they so unanimous in their hysterical hatred of communists and socialists ? Could it have been that there was some “ideological space” for property and capitalism amongst fascists, albeit not well articulated theoretically ?


In the 1920s British conservatives generally approved of Mussolini, and liberals and socialists generally criticised him. I don’t mean that conservatives wanted fascism in Britain, but they thought it was an effective antidote to communism, admired fascist law & order, and found in it a healthy example of national pride. Of course Churchill was an early admirer of Mussolini and remained one until the early 1930s, and he took the nationalist side in the Spanish civil war.


There were ambivalences and exceptions on both left and right, but the general trend is of disapproval on the left and approval on the right. Moreover, appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s was, at root, motivated by conservative fears of Bolshevism and the feeling that the Nazis were the lesser of two evils.


You can find some positive things uttered about Mussolini by the left-wing British press until 1924 or so, because the nature of Italian fascism was not yet clear and some people still believed fascism was a working-class phenomenon. But 1924 is a clear dividing line, because in that year a famous Italian socialist by the name of Matteotti was murdered by Mussolini’s regime and the destruction of the Italian left was in full swing.


...And I reiterate what I’ve said before : since there is not 150 years’ worth of fascist doctrinal literature as there is for Marxist writings, we can judge what is fascism primarily from practise. And, in practise, we have : nationalism, militarism, law-and-orderism, Church patronage, and business mercantilism. These are not practises historically associated with the left, but with the right.​

Posting ever more massive volumes of leftwing propaganda doesn't prove a thing. it's still nothing more than a pack of lies. The opinions of marxist history professors doesn't mean jack shit.

 

[Coyote]

Is this some sort of competition?

Nope....just showing you that fascism is in fact a type of socialism.....and two famous economists...the ones who study economics, and who were alive at the time the nazis were coming to power....and had to flee Germany because of it.....know what they are talking about.....and no matter how the left wing revisionists try to hide the fact that the socialist movements after 1917 murdered close to 100 million men, women and children, the truth is the truth.

I provided sources from knowledgeable historians. The only revisionism going on is from the right. Fascism and Nazism has always been placed on the right of the political spectrum. It's only been since Goldberg's book that you've tried to revise that. And the only reason I can think of for that is you guys can't man up and own the fact that your ideology when taken to extremes has been responsible for millions of deaths. At least the left has the integrity to own it's own extremes.

I have provided sources from actual Economists.......Nobel Prize winning economists who actually lived at the time the nazis came to power and had to flee Europe to escape them.......Hayek and Mises and lots of other economists say you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about...

And left wing historians are lying....because they have to hide the fact that from 1917 going forward, socialism and it's supporters have murdered 100 million men, women and children......and the nazis are a great way to deflect the blame.....they just have to lie about them being socialists and accuse them of being amorphous "Right wingers."

Oh. The "left wing" historians are lying. Everyone prior to Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" is now a liar because they stated Fascism is a rightwing ideology. That's so convenient for the right!



A good article, again quoting reputable sources and authors as sources to it's claims: Fascism was not left-wing !!!. Like socialism, fascism isn't just an economic doctrine like you try to make it out to be and that is something economists aren't likely to see.

To say that fascism is an extremism of the political right, as defined in historical terms, is reasonable for the following reasons :

• All actually-existed fascist states practised business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — this was after all the 1930s, the heyday and apogee of socialism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.

• All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists. Despite the worker-friendly rhetoric of fascists, they in actual power regimented labour in such a way as to please any strike-breaking capitalist of the 19th century. The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration. Businesses (some, not even most), by contrast, were given incentives to consolidate into Morgan-style industrial trusts as shareholders and engage in contractual relations as monopolists or near-monopolists with other trusts and with the state.

• Communists have a demonstrated record of erasing traditional society root and branch — exterminating aristocrats, industrialists, landowners, priests, kulaks, etc. Fascists in actual power, despite their modernist reputation, seem almost traditional in comparison. In Mussolini’s Italy, the king, the titled nobility, the church, the industrialists, the landholders, and the mafia slept soundly at night. The chief innovation of fascism was not really in political economy, but in political community.

• Self-proclaimed fascist parties in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s pinched their votes from the middle-class and conservative parties, not primarily from the socialists and the communists to whom their traditional constituencies (urban workers) mostly remained loyal. In Germany’s election of 1932, the Social Democrats and the Communists maintained their usual proportion of the combined vote (~35%), but the other traditional parties were substantially weakened, even hollowed out, with only the Catholic Zentrum maintaining double-digit strength (~12%).

• Big business interests either were strong supporters of the fascists once in power, or (in some countries) had backed them well before their seizure of power.

• Fascists fetishised law & order, and made a cult out of the armed forces.

• Amongst observers in non-fascist countries, it was conservatives and businessmen, not progressives, who were the most numerous to express admiration for the fascists. There were a few prominent socialists like H G Wells who applauded some aspects of Mussolini’s regime, but these were mostly amongst intellectual kooks, and their significance pales in comparison to the conservative reaction which varied from enthusiastic approval of a bulwark against communism to benign indifference.

• Other self-proclaimed fascists — those who took their inspiration from Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s — were unambiguously conservative in the unambiguously traditional sense, without the “modernist” touches which set Hitler and Mussolini apart. If I had to use three words to describe Franco, the best ones would be “God, Country, Property”.

• The Nazis were sui generis and idiosyncratic, an outlier amongst fascists, and perhaps they really shouldn’t be pegged into the left-right spectrum. But if they had to be, their political economy was clearly capitalist and therefore clearly distant from revolutionary or egalitarian socialism.

Actual fascists who came to power behaved in a similarly labour-repressive, business-friendly, violently antisocialist way, albeit with national variations. Why were they so unanimous in their hysterical hatred of communists and socialists ? Could it have been that there was some “ideological space” for property and capitalism amongst fascists, albeit not well articulated theoretically ?


In the 1920s British conservatives generally approved of Mussolini, and liberals and socialists generally criticised him. I don’t mean that conservatives wanted fascism in Britain, but they thought it was an effective antidote to communism, admired fascist law & order, and found in it a healthy example of national pride. Of course Churchill was an early admirer of Mussolini and remained one until the early 1930s, and he took the nationalist side in the Spanish civil war.


There were ambivalences and exceptions on both left and right, but the general trend is of disapproval on the left and approval on the right. Moreover, appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s was, at root, motivated by conservative fears of Bolshevism and the feeling that the Nazis were the lesser of two evils.


You can find some positive things uttered about Mussolini by the left-wing British press until 1924 or so, because the nature of Italian fascism was not yet clear and some people still believed fascism was a working-class phenomenon. But 1924 is a clear dividing line, because in that year a famous Italian socialist by the name of Matteotti was murdered by Mussolini’s regime and the destruction of the Italian left was in full swing.


...And I reiterate what I’ve said before : since there is not 150 years’ worth of fascist doctrinal literature as there is for Marxist writings, we can judge what is fascism primarily from practise. And, in practise, we have : nationalism, militarism, law-and-orderism, Church patronage, and business mercantilism. These are not practises historically associated with the left, but with the right.​

Posting ever more massive volumes of leftwing propaganda doesn't prove a thing. it's still nothing more than a pack of lies. The opinions of marxist history professors doesn't mean jack shit.

Blah blah blah from the one who endorses massive walls of rightwing propoganda.

Which ones are Marxist?

 

[bripat9643]

Nope....just showing you that fascism is in fact a type of socialism.....and two famous economists...the ones who study economics, and who were alive at the time the nazis were coming to power....and had to flee Germany because of it.....know what they are talking about.....and no matter how the left wing revisionists try to hide the fact that the socialist movements after 1917 murdered close to 100 million men, women and children, the truth is the truth.

I provided sources from knowledgeable historians. The only revisionism going on is from the right. Fascism and Nazism has always been placed on the right of the political spectrum. It's only been since Goldberg's book that you've tried to revise that. And the only reason I can think of for that is you guys can't man up and own the fact that your ideology when taken to extremes has been responsible for millions of deaths. At least the left has the integrity to own it's own extremes.

I have provided sources from actual Economists.......Nobel Prize winning economists who actually lived at the time the nazis came to power and had to flee Europe to escape them.......Hayek and Mises and lots of other economists say you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about...

And left wing historians are lying....because they have to hide the fact that from 1917 going forward, socialism and it's supporters have murdered 100 million men, women and children......and the nazis are a great way to deflect the blame.....they just have to lie about them being socialists and accuse them of being amorphous "Right wingers."

Oh. The "left wing" historians are lying. Everyone prior to Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" is now a liar because they stated Fascism is a rightwing ideology. That's so convenient for the right!



A good article, again quoting reputable sources and authors as sources to it's claims: Fascism was not left-wing !!!. Like socialism, fascism isn't just an economic doctrine like you try to make it out to be and that is something economists aren't likely to see.

To say that fascism is an extremism of the political right, as defined in historical terms, is reasonable for the following reasons :

• All actually-existed fascist states practised business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — this was after all the 1930s, the heyday and apogee of socialism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.

• All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists. Despite the worker-friendly rhetoric of fascists, they in actual power regimented labour in such a way as to please any strike-breaking capitalist of the 19th century. The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration. Businesses (some, not even most), by contrast, were given incentives to consolidate into Morgan-style industrial trusts as shareholders and engage in contractual relations as monopolists or near-monopolists with other trusts and with the state.

• Communists have a demonstrated record of erasing traditional society root and branch — exterminating aristocrats, industrialists, landowners, priests, kulaks, etc. Fascists in actual power, despite their modernist reputation, seem almost traditional in comparison. In Mussolini’s Italy, the king, the titled nobility, the church, the industrialists, the landholders, and the mafia slept soundly at night. The chief innovation of fascism was not really in political economy, but in political community.

• Self-proclaimed fascist parties in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s pinched their votes from the middle-class and conservative parties, not primarily from the socialists and the communists to whom their traditional constituencies (urban workers) mostly remained loyal. In Germany’s election of 1932, the Social Democrats and the Communists maintained their usual proportion of the combined vote (~35%), but the other traditional parties were substantially weakened, even hollowed out, with only the Catholic Zentrum maintaining double-digit strength (~12%).

• Big business interests either were strong supporters of the fascists once in power, or (in some countries) had backed them well before their seizure of power.

• Fascists fetishised law & order, and made a cult out of the armed forces.

• Amongst observers in non-fascist countries, it was conservatives and businessmen, not progressives, who were the most numerous to express admiration for the fascists. There were a few prominent socialists like H G Wells who applauded some aspects of Mussolini’s regime, but these were mostly amongst intellectual kooks, and their significance pales in comparison to the conservative reaction which varied from enthusiastic approval of a bulwark against communism to benign indifference.

• Other self-proclaimed fascists — those who took their inspiration from Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s — were unambiguously conservative in the unambiguously traditional sense, without the “modernist” touches which set Hitler and Mussolini apart. If I had to use three words to describe Franco, the best ones would be “God, Country, Property”.

• The Nazis were sui generis and idiosyncratic, an outlier amongst fascists, and perhaps they really shouldn’t be pegged into the left-right spectrum. But if they had to be, their political economy was clearly capitalist and therefore clearly distant from revolutionary or egalitarian socialism.

Actual fascists who came to power behaved in a similarly labour-repressive, business-friendly, violently antisocialist way, albeit with national variations. Why were they so unanimous in their hysterical hatred of communists and socialists ? Could it have been that there was some “ideological space” for property and capitalism amongst fascists, albeit not well articulated theoretically ?


In the 1920s British conservatives generally approved of Mussolini, and liberals and socialists generally criticised him. I don’t mean that conservatives wanted fascism in Britain, but they thought it was an effective antidote to communism, admired fascist law & order, and found in it a healthy example of national pride. Of course Churchill was an early admirer of Mussolini and remained one until the early 1930s, and he took the nationalist side in the Spanish civil war.


There were ambivalences and exceptions on both left and right, but the general trend is of disapproval on the left and approval on the right. Moreover, appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s was, at root, motivated by conservative fears of Bolshevism and the feeling that the Nazis were the lesser of two evils.


You can find some positive things uttered about Mussolini by the left-wing British press until 1924 or so, because the nature of Italian fascism was not yet clear and some people still believed fascism was a working-class phenomenon. But 1924 is a clear dividing line, because in that year a famous Italian socialist by the name of Matteotti was murdered by Mussolini’s regime and the destruction of the Italian left was in full swing.


...And I reiterate what I’ve said before : since there is not 150 years’ worth of fascist doctrinal literature as there is for Marxist writings, we can judge what is fascism primarily from practise. And, in practise, we have : nationalism, militarism, law-and-orderism, Church patronage, and business mercantilism. These are not practises historically associated with the left, but with the right.​

Posting ever more massive volumes of leftwing propaganda doesn't prove a thing. it's still nothing more than a pack of lies. The opinions of marxist history professors doesn't mean jack shit.

Blah blah blah from the one who endorses massive walls of rightwing propoganda.

Which ones are Marxist?

Howard Zinn, to name the most famous one. The chances are 90% that any history professor you name is a marxist. The rest are "liberal." There are no conservative history professors.

 

[regent]

Then why do people study history? Should history be removed from the schools?
Do conservatives avoid history because they don't like historical facts? Do conservatives avoid other college disciplines?

 

[Coyote]

I provided sources from knowledgeable historians. The only revisionism going on is from the right. Fascism and Nazism has always been placed on the right of the political spectrum. It's only been since Goldberg's book that you've tried to revise that. And the only reason I can think of for that is you guys can't man up and own the fact that your ideology when taken to extremes has been responsible for millions of deaths. At least the left has the integrity to own it's own extremes.

I have provided sources from actual Economists.......Nobel Prize winning economists who actually lived at the time the nazis came to power and had to flee Europe to escape them.......Hayek and Mises and lots of other economists say you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about...

And left wing historians are lying....because they have to hide the fact that from 1917 going forward, socialism and it's supporters have murdered 100 million men, women and children......and the nazis are a great way to deflect the blame.....they just have to lie about them being socialists and accuse them of being amorphous "Right wingers."

Oh. The "left wing" historians are lying. Everyone prior to Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" is now a liar because they stated Fascism is a rightwing ideology. That's so convenient for the right!



A good article, again quoting reputable sources and authors as sources to it's claims: Fascism was not left-wing !!!. Like socialism, fascism isn't just an economic doctrine like you try to make it out to be and that is something economists aren't likely to see.

To say that fascism is an extremism of the political right, as defined in historical terms, is reasonable for the following reasons :

• All actually-existed fascist states practised business-friendly economic policies, even if they were not ideologically laissez-faire. They could have easily done otherwise — this was after all the 1930s, the heyday and apogee of socialism as an ideology. But no fascist in power even contemplated taking the Soviet route of destroying the capital- and land-owning classes.

• All actually-existed fascist states repressed labour unions, socialists, and communists. Despite the worker-friendly rhetoric of fascists, they in actual power regimented labour in such a way as to please any strike-breaking capitalist of the 19th century. The Nazis, for example, forced workers into a single state-controlled trades union (DAF), which controlled wage growth and prevented striking and wage arbitration. Businesses (some, not even most), by contrast, were given incentives to consolidate into Morgan-style industrial trusts as shareholders and engage in contractual relations as monopolists or near-monopolists with other trusts and with the state.

• Communists have a demonstrated record of erasing traditional society root and branch — exterminating aristocrats, industrialists, landowners, priests, kulaks, etc. Fascists in actual power, despite their modernist reputation, seem almost traditional in comparison. In Mussolini’s Italy, the king, the titled nobility, the church, the industrialists, the landholders, and the mafia slept soundly at night. The chief innovation of fascism was not really in political economy, but in political community.

• Self-proclaimed fascist parties in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s pinched their votes from the middle-class and conservative parties, not primarily from the socialists and the communists to whom their traditional constituencies (urban workers) mostly remained loyal. In Germany’s election of 1932, the Social Democrats and the Communists maintained their usual proportion of the combined vote (~35%), but the other traditional parties were substantially weakened, even hollowed out, with only the Catholic Zentrum maintaining double-digit strength (~12%).

• Big business interests either were strong supporters of the fascists once in power, or (in some countries) had backed them well before their seizure of power.

• Fascists fetishised law & order, and made a cult out of the armed forces.

• Amongst observers in non-fascist countries, it was conservatives and businessmen, not progressives, who were the most numerous to express admiration for the fascists. There were a few prominent socialists like H G Wells who applauded some aspects of Mussolini’s regime, but these were mostly amongst intellectual kooks, and their significance pales in comparison to the conservative reaction which varied from enthusiastic approval of a bulwark against communism to benign indifference.

• Other self-proclaimed fascists — those who took their inspiration from Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s — were unambiguously conservative in the unambiguously traditional sense, without the “modernist” touches which set Hitler and Mussolini apart. If I had to use three words to describe Franco, the best ones would be “God, Country, Property”.

• The Nazis were sui generis and idiosyncratic, an outlier amongst fascists, and perhaps they really shouldn’t be pegged into the left-right spectrum. But if they had to be, their political economy was clearly capitalist and therefore clearly distant from revolutionary or egalitarian socialism.

Actual fascists who came to power behaved in a similarly labour-repressive, business-friendly, violently antisocialist way, albeit with national variations. Why were they so unanimous in their hysterical hatred of communists and socialists ? Could it have been that there was some “ideological space” for property and capitalism amongst fascists, albeit not well articulated theoretically ?


In the 1920s British conservatives generally approved of Mussolini, and liberals and socialists generally criticised him. I don’t mean that conservatives wanted fascism in Britain, but they thought it was an effective antidote to communism, admired fascist law & order, and found in it a healthy example of national pride. Of course Churchill was an early admirer of Mussolini and remained one until the early 1930s, and he took the nationalist side in the Spanish civil war.


There were ambivalences and exceptions on both left and right, but the general trend is of disapproval on the left and approval on the right. Moreover, appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s was, at root, motivated by conservative fears of Bolshevism and the feeling that the Nazis were the lesser of two evils.


You can find some positive things uttered about Mussolini by the left-wing British press until 1924 or so, because the nature of Italian fascism was not yet clear and some people still believed fascism was a working-class phenomenon. But 1924 is a clear dividing line, because in that year a famous Italian socialist by the name of Matteotti was murdered by Mussolini’s regime and the destruction of the Italian left was in full swing.


...And I reiterate what I’ve said before : since there is not 150 years’ worth of fascist doctrinal literature as there is for Marxist writings, we can judge what is fascism primarily from practise. And, in practise, we have : nationalism, militarism, law-and-orderism, Church patronage, and business mercantilism. These are not practises historically associated with the left, but with the right.​

Posting ever more massive volumes of leftwing propaganda doesn't prove a thing. it's still nothing more than a pack of lies. The opinions of marxist history professors doesn't mean jack shit.

Blah blah blah from the one who endorses massive walls of rightwing propoganda.

Which ones are Marxist?

Howard Zinn, to name the most famous one. The chances are 90% that any history professor you name is a marxist. The rest are "liberal." There are no conservative history professors.

Zinn wasn't a source in - the sources quoted in the article included:

Lawrence Squeri
Albert Szymanski
Christoph Bucheim
Jonas Scherner

Are they Marxists?