Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Saigon]

Avatar -

Please try to understand what I posted earlier - this has nothing whasoever to do with what I or anyone else wants. History does not work that way. It is not for each of us to decide for ouselves what we think fascism is. History had determined what fascism is from about 1945.

As I explained in the thread, and which it seems you did not actually read, small government as a concept did not exist in 1939. Hence, we cannot say that X had a large state apparatus and was thus left wing, because ALL governments in that era were massive, bureaucratic structures.

This does not ignore the political spectrum - this IS the political spectrum.

 

[Meathead]

Mearthead -

By all means read the thread. I do explain why Hitler so often critiised capitalism.

I do not need to read the thread. I am very familiar with Hitler's socialist beliefs. I am also aware that Hitler realized that he could not possibly achieve his ambitions without capitalists and their ability to produce and thus he never acted on them. He was essentially on par with America's left on economic issues, and like the American left, could not really bring himself to realize his own dogma.

A presumptuous pipsqueak cannot teach me anything.

 

[Iceweasel]

As I explained in the thread, there are dozens of examples of totalitarian right-wing government - the trap you are falling into is assuming that 'limited govt' = 'right wing', which it may do in 2014 in the US, but did not in Europe in the 1940's, because the concept of limited government had not really been implemented anywhere in the world at that point.

It's like saying that a liberal government must have a strong environmental policy - today it is true, in 1940 it wasn't the case.

So, the left wing is to be judged on a sliding scale of relativism but the right wing is to be grouped with every right wing form of government no matter how extreme it is? You're a joke.

When we talk about left wing and right wing, honest people need to know what the left and right is. The right wing in this country is not similar to the right wing in Iran.

Try a little intellectual honesty for a change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives lie about everything especially who and what they are. They lied about McCarthy, the lied about FDR, they lie about their Founding Fathers Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's funny how Progressives love and accept Stalin and Mao as their leaders, but they don't like Hitler. I guess he didn't murder enough of his fellow countrymen to make the Club

 

[AvgGuyIA]

One claim that I'veseen quite often made on this board is that Hitler was left-wing, and not right-wing as almost every book on the subject states.

This is a complex topic, and I can certainly understand some of the confusion. Both Hitler and Stalin were dictators with a lot in common, and the origins of Nazism do lie on both the left and right wings, and yet generally speaking there is very little controversy or disagreement about this topic amongst historians and experts.

Prior coming to this board I don’t think that I had ever heard the theory before – and certainly not on Stormfront, where the extreme right idolizes the man and is proud to do so. History has recorded fascism as being right wing since the late-1930’s, and most dictionaries confirm the standard definition.

I think there are three misconceptions and four overlooked factors that explain why people have become confused about this, and I’ll run through those seven points here. This IS complex, so do read the points carefully before making knee-jerk comments.

Misconception #1: Hitler attacked conservatives and capitalism

At some stage in his career, Hitler attacked almost everyone. He was a master of playing to the crowd, and prior to the age of the internet, he could attack capitalism in one crowd on one day, and attack socialism in another crowd on another day without a powerful media to point out the often obvious contradictions.

When he first joined the Nazi party it was very much a populist party that combined left and right wing themes, and in early speeches, Hitler tended to follow the party line of trying to draw on working class support. Attacking traditional conservatism both achieved this goal and helped differentiate the Nazis from potential right-wing rivals. Most of the quotes of Hitler criticizing capitalism come from this early era, prior to his refocusing of the party during the mid- to late 1930’s.Even so, he continued to attack conservatism to differentiate Nazis from other, earlier conservative parties, establishing Nazism as an entirely new concept well to the right of existing conservatism.

Misconception #2: Hitler backed big government, hence was left wing.

The myth here is not that Hitler backed big government – of course, he did – but that there were other parties in Europe in 1939 who did not. The whole concept of small government is both relatively recent and relatively American. Prior to Reagan and Thatcher’s administrations, it was rarely used to differentiate left from right, because in 1939 every government in the world was big and state controlled. As late as the 1970’s a lot of strong right wing governments backed massive bureaucracy and state control. What made them right wing were positions on economic and social factors that were considered far more crucial than the idea of a streamlined administration. In short, only recently has small government been seen as a key ideological issue.

Misconception #3: Stalin and Hitler’s regimes were both dictators – so must have been left wing.

Yes, they were both dictators, and all dictators will control the press, the prisons and judiciary. However, dictatorships can occur on the left wing (Mao, Castro, Pol Pot) and on the extreme right wing (Cristiani, Franco, Rios Montte) both within fascism and in slightly more moderate forms such as Pinochet. People often post Hitler’s famous 25 Points as being evidence of left-wing policy, whereas actually they are more evidence of extremism and tyranny. Most politicians do ‘borrow’ policies when it makes sense to do so, but without compromising their ideological core. Hitler did this often and more than other fascists.

Right wing factors #1: Capital

This is one topic I think most of us can agree on: communism is about removing capital from the equation. In a perfect communist system, there is no money. All production is of, by and for the state. Fascism, on the other hand, is all about capital. Private investors pour money into shares, and earn huge dividends. Thus the middle and upper classes are bought off, their loyalty established, and the economy functions on a cycle of strong investments and the free flow of money through the domestic economy. The middle class blossoms. Under Communism, the middle class is crushed. In this, fascism and communism are polar opposites.

This alone clearly defines a right-wing capitalist society in opposition to a left-wing, anti-capitalist regime.

Right wing factor #2: Class

Communism looks to smash the middle and upper classes, and create a society in which workers rule. The perfect communist system is without class. Fascism is based on class distinctions and in particular in the loyalty of the middle and upper classes. The aristocracy were the key people in Hitler’s world view. While he played to the workers and gave them rousing speeches, in fact they were intended to work hard and remain quiet. It was the upper classes who would benefit from the surging economy and expansion into neighbouring countries.

Right wing factor #3: Other fascist leaders

Hitler is only one example of fascism. There are several others. Franco’s Spain, Paraguay’s Stroessner and particularly Romania’s Antonescu all provide a portrait of fascism that are often less confused that Hitler. All of these states were fiercely anti-Communist, all enjoyed some support from the aristocracy (or even royalty) and all were fundamentally capitalist. Antonescu, in particular, is often seen the as link between Fascism and Conservatism.

Right wing factor #4: Minorities & religion

For all Lenin’s faults, he was not a racist. Communists have always opposed racism, with the Soviet ‘One nation, many peoples’ ideal the polar opposite of fascist racism. Under Lenin and Stalin, the Politburo favoured Azeris, Armenians, Kazaks and even the occasional Jew! Under fascism, minorities were more often rounded up and slaughtered, and all fascist regimes have been fiercely anti-Semitic and antizigaist.

Likewise with religion, where Communism sought to dismantle and crush all religious activity, fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance. This is particularly clear in Romania, with Antonescu enjoying strong links with the Orthodox Church.

I would also add in that all of the major academic biographies and histories of the regime that I am aware of discuss Hitler's right-wing ideology in detail. No doubt there are a few partisan attempts to say otherwise, but I doubt there are many written by genuine historians.

When you prove Fascism espouses the principles of individual freedom and small government, then you will win the argument it is right wing. The fact is Nazis like Hitler don't believe in individual freedom and are more aligned with the left wing philosophy of communism. The two are just the flipped sides of the same coin and share a common philosophy espoused by today's Democrat Party.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The same books that say McCarthy started a "Red Scare" also say that Hitler was a "right winger"

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This shit again!

Yes, it's been done before, I know. I started a thread on it myself a year or so back.

But the funny thing is that I've seen 3 or 4 posters making the same claim in the past couple of weeks, and I don't know why that is.

The point is, and you should know if you started this thread before, is this will turn into partisans bickering back and forth, accusing each other of being Nazis.

Let's just cut to the chase and declare Saigon an idiot.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I suggest you look at some of these 2 million PLUS links to Liberal Fascism, perhaps it will be your WAKE UP call!

I don't need a "wake up call", dude - I've been working with this topic on and off for the best part of 30 years.

The thing to understand is that we can place ideologies fairly accurately along a spectrum from left to right. Most often this is portrayed as a horseshoe, in which left and right wing extremism are closer to each other than they are to the centre.

Conservatism is usually moderate. Hence, there is a huge gulf between moderate conservatives and right-wing extremism. Hence, there is a huge gulf also between moderate liberals and left-wing extremism.

I simpy don't buy 'conservative fascism' as a descriptor, any more than I but 'liberal fascism'. It's just meaningless, generic abuse.

You can place anything on a linear expression. And all ya do when ya do that is to establish yourself as an imbecile.

There is no possibility for 'right wing' extremism. Just as there is no hard soft, or wet dry and FTR: light dark is also not possible.

In charge of the ?Country again?
The Constitution has boundaries. We seen extreme focus on both sides. For you to think there can be no "Right Wing Extremism" shows you know little about politics. The Country was born on taxation. If you don't like it, then voice it. This movement of Large Corporations to avoid taxations and brainwashing the smallest and least educated brains in America to fight for their own poverty makes me want to lose my cool. WHY FIGHT FOR YOUR OWN POVERTY?!

Who's in charge of the Country, again?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Avatar -... Snip ...As I explained in the thread, and which it seems you did not actually read, small government as a concept did not exist in 1939. Hence, we cannot say that X had a large state apparatus and was thus left wing, because ALL governments in that era were massive, bureaucratic structures.

This does not ignore the political spectrum - this IS the political spectrum.

Nowhere? really? LOL

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I suggest you look at some of these 2 million PLUS links to Liberal Fascism, perhaps it will be your WAKE UP call!

I don't need a "wake up call", dude - I've been working with this topic on and off for the best part of 30 years.

The thing to understand is that we can place ideologies fairly accurately along a spectrum from left to right. Most often this is portrayed as a horseshoe, in which left and right wing extremism are closer to each other than they are to the centre.

Conservatism is usually moderate. Hence, there is a huge gulf between moderate conservatives and right-wing extremism. Hence, there is a huge gulf also between moderate liberals and left-wing extremism.

I simpy don't buy 'conservative fascism' as a descriptor, any more than I but 'liberal fascism'. It's just meaningless, generic abuse.

That is your opinion, others probably disagree.

Once again, you have no clue and instead let your party dictate what you would otherwise use your brain for.

Fascism has components of both the far right and the far left.

This is a well known fact.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

This shit again!

Yes, it's been done before, I know. I started a thread on it myself a year or so back.

But the funny thing is that I've seen 3 or 4 posters making the same claim in the past couple of weeks, and I don't know why that is.

The point is, and you should know if you started this thread before, is this will turn into partisans bickering back and forth, accusing each other of being Nazis.

Let's just cut to the chase and declare Saigon an idiot.

Let's stop trying to derail a decent thread and actually contribute.

 

[Saigon]

So, the left wing is to be judged on a sliding scale of relativism but the right wing is to be grouped with every right wing form of government no matter how extreme it is?

No, not at all. I have absolutely no idea where you got that from.

Any political spectrum is going to position ideologies along a kind of sliding scale, obviously.

 

[Saigon]

AvgGuy -

I'm not trying to win an argument. If you want to believe that fascism is left wing, go right ahead. However, it is worth noting that any history book of note will say precisely the opposite.

As explained, the concept of small government = right wing is both relatively new and particularly American. Prior to around 1970 you won't find many examples of it - if any.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

One claim that I'veseen quite often made on this board is that Hitler was left-wing, and not right-wing as almost every book on the subject states.

This is a complex topic, and I can certainly understand some of the confusion. Both Hitler and Stalin were dictators with a lot in common, and the origins of Nazism do lie on both the left and right wings, and yet generally speaking there is very little controversy or disagreement about this topic amongst historians and experts.

Prior coming to this board I don’t think that I had ever heard the theory before – and certainly not on Stormfront, where the extreme right idolizes the man and is proud to do so. History has recorded fascism as being right wing since the late-1930’s, and most dictionaries confirm the standard definition.

I think there are three misconceptions and four overlooked factors that explain why people have become confused about this, and I’ll run through those seven points here. This IS complex, so do read the points carefully before making knee-jerk comments.

Misconception #1: Hitler attacked conservatives and capitalism

At some stage in his career, Hitler attacked almost everyone. He was a master of playing to the crowd, and prior to the age of the internet, he could attack capitalism in one crowd on one day, and attack socialism in another crowd on another day without a powerful media to point out the often obvious contradictions.

When he first joined the Nazi party it was very much a populist party that combined left and right wing themes, and in early speeches, Hitler tended to follow the party line of trying to draw on working class support. Attacking traditional conservatism both achieved this goal and helped differentiate the Nazis from potential right-wing rivals. Most of the quotes of Hitler criticizing capitalism come from this early era, prior to his refocusing of the party during the mid- to late 1930’s.Even so, he continued to attack conservatism to differentiate Nazis from other, earlier conservative parties, establishing Nazism as an entirely new concept well to the right of existing conservatism.

Misconception #2: Hitler backed big government, hence was left wing.

The myth here is not that Hitler backed big government – of course, he did – but that there were other parties in Europe in 1939 who did not. The whole concept of small government is both relatively recent and relatively American. Prior to Reagan and Thatcher’s administrations, it was rarely used to differentiate left from right, because in 1939 every government in the world was big and state controlled. As late as the 1970’s a lot of strong right wing governments backed massive bureaucracy and state control. What made them right wing were positions on economic and social factors that were considered far more crucial than the idea of a streamlined administration. In short, only recently has small government been seen as a key ideological issue.

Misconception #3: Stalin and Hitler’s regimes were both dictators – so must have been left wing.

Yes, they were both dictators, and all dictators will control the press, the prisons and judiciary. However, dictatorships can occur on the left wing (Mao, Castro, Pol Pot) and on the extreme right wing (Cristiani, Franco, Rios Montte) both within fascism and in slightly more moderate forms such as Pinochet. People often post Hitler’s famous 25 Points as being evidence of left-wing policy, whereas actually they are more evidence of extremism and tyranny. Most politicians do ‘borrow’ policies when it makes sense to do so, but without compromising their ideological core. Hitler did this often and more than other fascists.

Right wing factors #1: Capital

This is one topic I think most of us can agree on: communism is about removing capital from the equation. In a perfect communist system, there is no money. All production is of, by and for the state. Fascism, on the other hand, is all about capital. Private investors pour money into shares, and earn huge dividends. Thus the middle and upper classes are bought off, their loyalty established, and the economy functions on a cycle of strong investments and the free flow of money through the domestic economy. The middle class blossoms. Under Communism, the middle class is crushed. In this, fascism and communism are polar opposites.

This alone clearly defines a right-wing capitalist society in opposition to a left-wing, anti-capitalist regime.

Right wing factor #2: Class

Communism looks to smash the middle and upper classes, and create a society in which workers rule. The perfect communist system is without class. Fascism is based on class distinctions and in particular in the loyalty of the middle and upper classes. The aristocracy were the key people in Hitler’s world view. While he played to the workers and gave them rousing speeches, in fact they were intended to work hard and remain quiet. It was the upper classes who would benefit from the surging economy and expansion into neighbouring countries.

Right wing factor #3: Other fascist leaders

Hitler is only one example of fascism. There are several others. Franco’s Spain, Paraguay’s Stroessner and particularly Romania’s Antonescu all provide a portrait of fascism that are often less confused that Hitler. All of these states were fiercely anti-Communist, all enjoyed some support from the aristocracy (or even royalty) and all were fundamentally capitalist. Antonescu, in particular, is often seen the as link between Fascism and Conservatism.

Right wing factor #4: Minorities & religion

For all Lenin’s faults, he was not a racist. Communists have always opposed racism, with the Soviet ‘One nation, many peoples’ ideal the polar opposite of fascist racism. Under Lenin and Stalin, the Politburo favoured Azeris, Armenians, Kazaks and even the occasional Jew! Under fascism, minorities were more often rounded up and slaughtered, and all fascist regimes have been fiercely anti-Semitic and antizigaist.

Likewise with religion, where Communism sought to dismantle and crush all religious activity, fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance. This is particularly clear in Romania, with Antonescu enjoying strong links with the Orthodox Church.

I would also add in that all of the major academic biographies and histories of the regime that I am aware of discuss Hitler's right-wing ideology in detail. No doubt there are a few partisan attempts to say otherwise, but I doubt there are many written by genuine historians.

Had things in common to both sides of our current political spectrum. Have looked into it prior hoping to bah conservatives over the head with old Nuremberg speeches. Alas, he had things in common with modern left-wing positions as well as right-wing.

 

[Saigon]

I do not need to read the thread. I am very familiar with Hitler's socialist beliefs.

Apparently you aren't very aware of this topic at all.

Why anyone posts on a thread they refuse to read Ihave no idea. I also wonder how someone can disagree with a common dicttionary definition and still not question their own assumption.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I guess the only thing to do is wait to see which party starts gassing folks. Theyve already done it through their policies.

 

[Iceweasel]

So, the left wing is to be judged on a sliding scale of relativism but the right wing is to be grouped with every right wing form of government no matter how extreme it is?

No, not at all. I have absolutely no idea where you got that from.

Any political spectrum is going to position ideologies along a kind of sliding scale, obviously.

"the trap you are falling into is assuming that 'limited govt' = 'right wing',"

What trap? That is what it means here and now. Not what you want it to mean.

 

[Iceweasel]

I guess the only thing to do is wait to see which party starts gassing folks. Theyve already done it through their policies.

Well, the left HAS been passing a lot of gas...so...

 

[Saigon]

Any political spectrum is going to position ideologies along a kind of sliding scale, obviously."the trap you are falling into is assuming that 'limited govt' = 'right wing',"

What trap? That is what it means here and now. Not what you want it to mean.

If Hitler existed in 2014 USA you would have a point. However, he didn't.

We can only understand anayze governments from 1939 by using concepts that existed in 1939. To do otherwise is to claim that Stalin could not be left winf because he did not have strong environmental policies.

History does not work according to revisionist eye glasses.