Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Iceweasel]

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.

Hey retard, I called bullshit on your claim the right doesn't stand for smaller government and you bring up Hitler? Are you stoned?

 

[Saigon]

Iceweasel -

This thread is about fascism - hence I think references to Hitler are fairly on-topic.

Just to explain again - in a 21st century American context, then yes, smaller government is a hallmark of right-wing government. However, Hitler did not exist in a 21st century American context, hence to understand his administration we need to look at a context of 1940's Europe. Anything else is revisionism.

 

[Iceweasel]

Iceweasel -

This thread is about fascism - hence I think references to Hitler are fairly on-topic.

Just to explain again - in a 21st century American context, then yes, smaller government is a hallmark of right-wing government. However, Hitler did not exist in a 21st century American context, hence to understand his administration we need to look at a context of 1940's Europe. Anything else is revisionism.

I responded to:
"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."

You're the revisionist, not me. This country was founded with the concept of a limited government, freedom from tyranny and created a Constitution unlike anywhere on Earth. Sorry if you don't like it but that's your problem.

 

[Saigon]

Iceweasel -

Again, Hitler did not live in the United States. Neither did Franco, Antonescu or any of the other fascist leaders. Applying 21st American terminology to 20th century Germany IS revisionism.

 

[SwimExpert]

....

Good luck trying to get anyone to bother listening. Most people are simply not willing to recognize that true political identification requires a multi axis mapping.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's the issue as I see it.

Left and right wing started to exist in the French Revolution. Before either left or right wing extremism existed. Why left and right wing? Simply because because from one side so on the left and people on the other sat on the right.

Left and right wing are an abstract concept that exists because we as humans exist. We die, the concept dies too.

But it's also a label for us to use. So left wing is what we know as left wing because we feel the need to put a label on it so we can talk about it more easily. The same for right wing.

Far left and far right are also the same. They're labels. In the 20th century we needed to put labels on these new types of extremism. In order to talk about similar forms which Hitler had and Mussolini had, we simply use the term far-right. Sometimes we use neo-Nazi but this has a context with the NSDAP and not just far right in general.

Communism was born out of a concept that is more associated with the left. It's based on the concept of equality.

Fascism, Nazism, whatever you want to call what Mussolini and Hitler became, were born out of the ideas of the hierarchical society, everyone has their place, everyone works for the system, but some do better out of it than others.

There are other things which, over times, have stuck themselves to either side. There are some which have stuck in a national context, and others in more of an international context.

To claim that something which we have labeled is far left when it is generally acknowledged to be far right is kind of ridiculous.

Firstly it's ridiculous because the people doing this are trying to distance themselves from something. It's as if far right and right are the same thing or similar so they want to try and make out the other side is extreme and not themselves. In other words it's like an apple saying an orange is a vegetable because they don't like oranges and don't want people to associate apples with oranges.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's really little more than people investing their ego into their sense of group identification and then protecting their turf. "I am a right winger, right wingers are the good guys, therefore it is imperative that I cast Hitler as a left winger. This sort of Manichaean political outlook is encouraged by our political structure and the themes are hammered home relentlessly by those with a stranglehold on A.M. radio opinion-making.

Now, the left is certainly prone to their own framing devices, and when it comes to their opinions of the Jewish state in particular, many of the left are far more like Hitler than they are unlike, but that doesn't make Hitler a leftist. It just means that many people are extremely confused and are too conformist to ever see the forest for the trees.

One people divorce themselves from this silly need to establish their very identity according to political label, they can gain a bit of objectivity.

 

[Saigon]

Frigid -

Excellent post, and I thank you for it.

I'm reluctant to claim that people are distancing themselves from fascism, because that seems an incredibly shallow and simplistic way to act, but it does seem to be true. There does seem to be a desire to re-write the meaning of words so that our side (whichever side) of the spectrum is pure and white and clean.

In the real world, that can't happen. It doesn't matter how many communists might claim that Pol Pot wasn't a communist (and some have claimed that) - he was, by any standards, a left-wing dictator. It's undeniable, whether one prefers to use the label Year Zeo Nihilist or not. Most administrations fall into a fairly clear place on the political spectrum.

 

[frigidweirdo]

....

Good luck trying to get anyone to bother listening. Most people are simply not willing to recognize that true political identification requires a multi axis mapping.

Most people want something simple.

Al-Qaeda was simple. People knew what it stood for, knew it was bad and could easily get their head around it. Same with Communism.

Problem with far right is that there are connotations they wish to avoid. This is gerrymandering with a dictionary.

 

[SwimExpert]

....

Good luck trying to get anyone to bother listening. Most people are simply not willing to recognize that true political identification requires a multi axis mapping.

Most people want something simple.

Al-Qaeda was simple. People knew what it stood for, knew it was bad and could easily get their head around it. Same with Communism.

Problem with far right is that there are connotations they wish to avoid. This is gerrymandering with a dictionary.

No, the problem is with simple.

 

[Iceweasel]

Iceweasel -

Again, Hitler did not live in the United States. Neither did Franco, Antonescu or any of the other fascist leaders. Applying 21st American terminology to 20th century Germany IS revisionism.

I responded to what you said and you're stuck on stupid.

 

[Iceweasel]

One people divorce themselves from this silly need to establish their very identity according to political label, they can gain a bit of objectivity.

Or you can't understand the issues at hand. I'm a conservative due to life long experiences and observations. Maybe you need a bit of objectivity?

 

[frigidweirdo]

....

Good luck trying to get anyone to bother listening. Most people are simply not willing to recognize that true political identification requires a multi axis mapping.

Most people want something simple.

Al-Qaeda was simple. People knew what it stood for, knew it was bad and could easily get their head around it. Same with Communism.

Problem with far right is that there are connotations they wish to avoid. This is gerrymandering with a dictionary.

No, the problem is with simple.

please do explain....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

China called, they want the Great Wall back

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Crazy Right Wing of today thrives on the BIG LIE, no amount of evidence will ever convince a true convert to stop parroting/promoting the BIG LIES.

The one commonality between Fism and Cism is both are Authoritarian, that is, a form of government characterized by absolute obedience to authority, and against individual freedom of expression.

D's and R's are not Authoritarian if one believes this definition is correct. Of course obedience can be coerced by Gulags and mass murders or by simply taking away campaign donations and supporting candidates who will follow the 'company line".

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The Crazy Right Wing of today thrives on the BIG LIE, no amount of evidence will ever convince a true convert to stop parroting/promoting the BIG LIES.

The one commonality between Fism and Cism is both are Authoritarian, that is, a form of government characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.

The D's and R's are not Authoritarian if one believes this definition is correct. Of course obedience can be coerced by Gulags and mass murders or by simply taking away campaign donations and supporting candidates who will follow the 'company line".

D's and R's are both authoritarian. Even the simplest, smallest governance exudes authoritarianism.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

I don't have the time to reply to all of this right now, but lets just take misconception #2 which I highlighted in red. This is flat out wrong and if your using this for a basis of determining right wing, then I have to question your other points and their accuracy.

Small, limited government IS our very founding. Small and limited government is exactly what the Constitution creates and was, sometimes contentiously, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers.

 

[dcraelin]

Mussolini was actually the guy that came up with the idea of Fascism. It has been pretty well established that he and his paper were for a time funded by a British "intelligence" agency.

Hitler was a deceptive politician who said whatever it took to gain power. He took money from wealthy industrialists and some claim US banks. Many have tied a Bush family ancestor's business to money funding Hitler. The Nazis were known to have fought street battles against the Communists of Germany.

 

[Saigon]

Small, limited government IS our very founding. Small and limited government is exactly what the Constitution creates and was, sometimes contentiously, agreed upon by the Founding Fathers.

I should probably have put in my OP that my emphasis in small government is really about the economic side of government (i.e. deregulation) rather than on limits to the overall power or influence of government, which I would agree are central to the US's founding.

But deregulation of the economy only really developed in the 1970's and with Reagan, Thatcher and later the IMF, and it is this element of economic policy that cannot be applied in hindsight to the Nazi economy.

 

[Saigon]

Mussolini was actually the guy that came up with the idea of Fascism. It has been pretty well established that he and his paper were for a time funded by a British "intelligence" agency.

Hitler was a deceptive politician who said whatever it took to gain power. He took money from wealthy industrialists and some claim US banks. Many have tied a Bush family ancestor's business to money funding Hitler. The Nazis were known to have fought street battles against the Communists of Germany.

Indeed, and those are good points.

Mussolini is definitely the 'founding father' of fascism (even the word fascist comes from Italian) and it is his adminsitration where I think one can argue a stronger left wing influence - hence my leaving him out of my list of right-wing examples of dictaorship. Mussolini did move further to the right as time passed, but back in the 1930's he was perhaps more populist than anything else.