Was Hitler more right-wing or more left-wing?

[Political Junky]

Was Hitler more right-wing or more left-wing?

Discuss if you dare.

Let's speak on the lingua franca of political science instead of partisan jibberish, shall we?

Hitler was an authoritarian socialist, in league with capitalist industrialists.

That's fascism, or as, the leader of the modern Fascist party, Benito Mussolino, liked to call it, it's Corporatism.

Why didn't you offer us a corporate wing, Mani?

True. However Corporatism isn't what most anti-corporate folks think it is.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

Who'd know better than the expert, Mussolini.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

One of the most simple and vAluable concepts a poly-sci prof taught me is that the political spectrum is anything but linear. One can identify with a starting point but must accept that the continuim is circular. By contemporary standArds, within the USA, aversion/acceptance of change is the litmus test of left vs. right, as I see it. Therefore I identify Hitler's starting point as leftist because his agenda was pro change.

 

[paulitician]

This discussion only proves that less Government is the logical way forward for this nation. Big Government often leads to abuse and tyranny. We're beginning to see this in our country. Hitler and the Nazis were all about Big Government domination. You can call them Leftwing or Rightwing but that's not all that important. The end-result is what's most important. Time for smaller Government.

 

[Londoner]

The Road to serfdom chronicles the progression of social democratic thought, and where it leads to National Socialism.

When it comes to the right wing, there is very little there.

Hitler despised Jewish Leftists. Indeed, he used the concept of Judeo-Bolshevism to mobilize Germany against the Soviets & Jews. He merged foreign and domestic enemies much like McCarthy did.

[Remember how the GOP called liberals anti-American for opposing Bush's War on Terror? The Right is always claiming that Liberals hate America. Truth be told: a liberal can love America because of the New Deal, and hate it for its Vietnam policy in much the same way a Republican can love America for its military force but hate it for the New Deal. Nobody owns this country. Nobody has a right to dictate which parts of America they love, and which part they criticize. Only Fascists destroy dissent and free speech for such crude nationalism]

(Research Jewish Bolshevism so you can understand Hitler's contempt for the Left)

Not only was Hitler opposed to left politically, but he was opposed socially and morally.

For instance, Hitler despised the liberal tolerance of the Weimar period, which he thought was responsible for the over-assimilation of jews into national german life. Hitler is the modern archetype of "Borders, Language, Culture", especially if you consider his claim that jews were a threat to the Real Germany. This is pure rightwing nativism, i.e., the belief that one's culture/country/nation/etc is morally superior. Indeed, everything Hitler said about preserving the Real Germany against the corrupting influences of "external" peoples is diametrically opposed to Liberal multiculturalism. Hitler was a nationalist whereas the Left is cosmopolitan or anti-nationalist.

Hitler was deeply influenced by the ultra Conservative Volksich movement which saw Enlightenment Liberalism - specifically its abstract universalism which saw all men as equal - as a deep threat to the organic, "blood & soil" folk culture of the Real Germany. Hitler did not want to live in a world where all men and all cultures were equal BECAUSE He didn't want to lose what was distinctive about German culture, language, history, and tradition. (You realize that Hitler's criticism of the French Revolution is very close to Burke's, right? Hitler thought the French Revolution leveled cultural & social differences in ways that would ultimately destroy German tradition. Remember: the liberal European Enlightenment saw nationalism & tradition as superstitious and anachronistic in comparison to Pure Reason, which transcended space (culture/place) and time (history) for the timeless truths of science)

The problem with Hayek is that he doesn't make a distinction between the New Deal, which saved Ronald Reagan's father, and the Halocaust, which destroyed over 6 million jews. He sees these things as different only by degree, which is paranoid and insane. Reagan was channeling Hayek when he spoke about the trajectory of American medicine in 1961. He predicted that we would see an end to private medicine. Yet, we've seen the opposite - profits and concentrated wealth have increased side by side with medicare. Cold War America was distinctive in its ability to maintain the world's greatest example of freedom side by side with the mixed economy - where government created the infrastructure upon which commerce depends. Hayek completely misses the possibility of a productive partnership between the government and private sector. Where do you think private sector banks go for protection? Big Government FDIC insurance. Where do you think pharmaceutical companies go for protection? Big Government patents. Where do energy companies go for protection of their middle eastern assets? Big Government military protection. Sometimes the slope is slippery. Other times, not so much.

 

[grunt11b]

All you got to do is look at which party now a days supports less government and which one supports more government control in our lives, and there you will have your answer.

 

[grunt11b]

My first three months on the board, that is all I discussed.

Most conservatives who have read "Road to Serfdom" would unequivocally say left wing. He used socialist arguments, was anti religion, vegetarian, and believed in enforced egalitarianism. The Horst Wessel story was an important part of National socialist ideology, the rich guy who discovers that the morals of the volk are higher than those of the rich and lives as an ordinary person and distributes his wealth.

The Road to serfdom chronicles the progression of social democratic thought, and where it leads to National Socialism.

When it comes to the right wing, there is very little there.

He was a devout Catholic, and everybody knows just how anti religion Catholicism is.
And you just can't get any more Left-Wing Socialistic than a VEGETARIAN!!!
CON$ are the most gullible people on Earth!

He was an atheist, not a catholic.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Nazism and the Fedual System: A Comparison on the Nazi Style of Government and Medieval Feudalism | Suite101.com

Interesting article. About jr high school level, but still well written. And it lacked an understanding of the German state under Hitler that is pretty basic.

And there is no way Hitler would have tolerated the concept of mediation which is essential to the medieval concept. In National Socialism, everyone was directly loyal to Germany and to Hitler. The National Socialists made a huge point of eliminating any mediatory levels between the citizen and the state they could, consistant of course with maintaining a large buurocratic system. One of the very early moves they made was to eliminate any independence at all, even in form, for the lander. In the National Socialist state there was not room for the idea of Bavarians, Saxons, Wirtimburgers or Brandenburgers. There was only Germany.

So, a silly article that is pretty much divorced from reality.

Gee, that sounds more like NATIONALISM than Socialism.

Nazis believed in German Exceptionalism. To Nazis there were no hyphenated Germans just like there are no hyphenated Americans to American Exceptionalism believing CON$. That would make Nazis more Right-Wing than "vegetarianism" makes one a Socialist!

This was a very important side discussion that is important to understanding facisim in Italy and Germany as well. With Germany, Hitler just cranked it to 11.

One of the basic concepts that activated all three was high degree of centralization based on the concept that particularism made the country weak. This was especially true in Italian and German history, with exceptional levels of tragedy in Germany from the 1600's onward. Particularism in Germany meant that people cared more about their local patriotism more than they did the German nation, which lead germany to be essentially raped by its neighbors for 300 years. To be Bavarian first meant that Germany was weak.

The US was always seen as a unitary state. Even within the confederacy there was never the feeling of the state was more defining than the union.

To a smaller degree Italy was week because no one saw themselves as Italians. Sardinians, Milanese, Sicilians, Romans, Bolognese or whatever. But not Italians. When Cavour put the state together he is famous for the remark that he had created Italy, but someone else would have to create Italians. Which is one of the goals Mussolini set for himself. He seems to have failed there as well. There is still a lot of particularist feeling there even now.

For Franco, the issue of particularism was for him a tool that he feared could be used against him. During the Civil war there he made a point of chopping up the Republican forces into particularist blocks. Then fighting them in detail and effectively making truce with the other blocks. After his victory, he made a point of supressing particularist movements that he had used during the war. Again Spain, like Germany and Italy has the issue of folks won't talk of themselves as Spaniards, but instead Castilians, Basques, etc.

As to Exceptionalism...I think you are confused what that is about. American Exceptionalism is the idea that the US is a unique country based on ideas, rather than geography and tribalism. We came here for freedom, liberty, dignity individualism. America is not a tribe, it is a compact between citizens for a unique society.

The socialist ideal in Germany saw the Lander as interfering in the concept of German unity, caused weakness and was a tool Germany's enemies used to keep it poor and enslaved. In America everyone has a hypen to them. Usually several. None of which is to have any more authority than any other. I live in Oregon, am protestant, male and have a french sounding name. Jillian lives in NY, is jewish, female and for the sake of argument has a hungarian name. None of my hyphens are more important than hers. The reverse is also true. We are both the same, but our differences just make for interesting conversations. They don't make for battles that make the whole country at risk.

Finally, you really need to check your sources. Hitler was Austrian, which meant Catholic. The Haspburgs made sure of that, no matter what the person thought of it themselves. However, his personal opinons and the ideology of the party was militantly anti clerical of any kind of confession.

 

[Political Junky]

My first three months on the board, that is all I discussed.

Most conservatives who have read "Road to Serfdom" would unequivocally say left wing. He used socialist arguments, was anti religion, vegetarian, and believed in enforced egalitarianism. The Horst Wessel story was an important part of National socialist ideology, the rich guy who discovers that the morals of the volk are higher than those of the rich and lives as an ordinary person and distributes his wealth.

The Road to serfdom chronicles the progression of social democratic thought, and where it leads to National Socialism.

When it comes to the right wing, there is very little there.

He was a devout Catholic, and everybody knows just how anti religion Catholicism is.
And you just can't get any more Left-Wing Socialistic than a VEGETARIAN!!!
CON$ are the most gullible people on Earth!

He was an atheist, not a catholic.

"We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk."

-Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933, addressing the German nation as Chancellor for the first time, Volkischer Beobachter, 5 Aug. 1935, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

 

[CT9]

So let me get this straight, he was using socialism as a front, but was a devout catholic? Seems like you guys like to pick and choose what was really part of his beliefs and what wasn't.

WW2 was going to happen regardless in all honesty. The holocaust was one mans insanity... I think really trying to draw parallels to a right or left wing is nonsensical and you can see where people lie by how they accuse him. He was a vegetarian lefty, or the nationalistic right winger

It's all bs... The man was crazy you can't box in crazy

 

[CT9]

Right wing fascist, the opposite of socialist. This NEW RW USA theory is pure crappe, will get you laughed out of any reputable school of history or poli sci...

Yea when have u been in either of those rooms...

Never, now sit down and shut up

 

[Avatar4321]

The Nazi Party was a Socialist Movement so i would say he was more Left Wing. His past writings expressed a disdain for Capitalism. The idea that Fascism was a Right Wing Movement is a very big error in Historical recording. Fascism was born of Socialism. I'm not sure who decided it was a Right Wing Movement but it was decided by many Historians. The real History of Fascism is quite different than what the history books say. I would compare Hitler to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. They are both Nationalist Socialists. They are not Right Wingers. But in the end Hitler & Chavez are just brutal Dictators who need to control everything. That's it in a nutshell.

It was labeled right wing by those on the left who didnt want Nazism associated with them.

I say the reverse is the case.

Of course you do. But if you actually look at what Hitler advocated, he was for bigger more controlling government. He was for socialism, just a national socialism rather than international.If you look at the positions he took, the are far more aligned with leftist/socialist/communist states than those who believe in limited government and individual liberty.

The far right is anarchy, not totalitarian government.

 

[CT9]

There are two separate axes (that's the plural of "axis", not the plural of "ax") used to quantify a political ideology. Left - Right, and Authoritarian - Libertarian (or whatever you want to call it).

The Nazis were at the far end of the Authoritarian scale. Where they were on the left-right scale is meaningless.

exactly...

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It is an interesting piece of comparison and congruence between both the national socialism of German and the Communism of Russia used the terms "Sacred," "Holy," and so on to refer to secular ideals. The Soviets made a big deal of their "sacred borders." Mostly because of the number of casualties they took in order to establish them.

As I pointed out at the top of the topic, both National Socialsim and Communism have the attitude that they can change the meaning of any word to fit the exigencies of the party's need, and the meaning that had been assigned for generations is co opted and altered for the needs of the state. The Christianity of the National Socialist style would not be recognized by any person who actually believed in Christian salvation.

 

[Avatar4321]

So let me get this straight, he was using socialism as a front, but was a devout catholic? Seems like you guys like to pick and choose what was really part of his beliefs and what wasn't.

WW2 was going to happen regardless in all honesty. The holocaust was one mans insanity... I think really trying to draw parallels to a right or left wing is nonsensical and you can see where people lie by how they accuse him. He was a vegetarian lefty, or the nationalistic right winger

It's all bs... The man was crazy you can't box in crazy

If the Holocaust was the only regime of mass murder in the 20th century, you might have a point. But it's not the only one, and it wasn't even the worst one.

Ive met crazy people, they can't do what Hitler did. He was evil. It's time we start calling it what it is and not excuse the behavior.

 

[Political Junky]

So let me get this straight, he was using socialism as a front, but was a devout catholic? Seems like you guys like to pick and choose what was really part of his beliefs and what wasn't.

WW2 was going to happen regardless in all honesty. The holocaust was one mans insanity... I think really trying to draw parallels to a right or left wing is nonsensical and you can see where people lie by how they accuse him. He was a vegetarian lefty, or the nationalistic right winger

It's all bs... The man was crazy you can't box in crazy

Hardly the first time a politician has pretended to be something he wasn't.

 

[CT9]

So let me get this straight, he was using socialism as a front, but was a devout catholic? Seems like you guys like to pick and choose what was really part of his beliefs and what wasn't.

WW2 was going to happen regardless in all honesty. The holocaust was one mans insanity... I think really trying to draw parallels to a right or left wing is nonsensical and you can see where people lie by how they accuse him. He was a vegetarian lefty, or the nationalistic right winger

It's all bs... The man was crazy you can't box in crazy

If the Holocaust was the only regime of mass murder in the 20th century, you might have a point. But it's not the only one, and it wasn't even the worst one.

Ive met crazy people, they can't do what Hitler did. He was evil. It's time we start calling it what it is and not excuse the behavior.

I think you are misunderstanding my post... You don't or atleast I don't refer to what happened in Rwanda, Russia or Cambodia as "the Holocaust"... therefore Hitler was responsible for the holocaust.... the holocaust is not what started WW2

I'm not even sure what you are trying to say... Crazy is pretty much synonymous with evil in that context.

WW2 was going to happen because the same problems existed as what caused WW1. Most of the nations were nationalistic, not just Germany. Germany once united became a problem for the rest of Europe they saw it as a threat and soon acted together, and aligned against Germany. Germany was encircled so it ramped up on miltarism and also was nervous of an emerging Russia who was projected to overtake them in production in about 1941ish. Russia was nervous of Germany, and Germany was nervous of Russia.Germany never let this go, however, Stalin thought that he was safe once they signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact because they were both alike in authoritarian regimes. France was weary of Germany as well and acted to balance power with England and Poland. This is leaving out the fact that many of the German generals involved in WW1 were still calling shots in WW2. WW2 was happening with or without Hitler, he just made it a lot worse.

So what is your point? It kinda irritates me when someone comes along and says something stupid and tries to word it just to make me look wrong which is what it appears you did. Go split hairs somewhere else if you don't have a point.

 

[WatertheTree]

My first three months on the board, that is all I discussed.

Most conservatives who have read "Road to Serfdom" would unequivocally say left wing. He used socialist arguments, was anti religion, vegetarian, and believed in enforced egalitarianism. The Horst Wessel story was an important part of National socialist ideology, the rich guy who discovers that the morals of the volk are higher than those of the rich and lives as an ordinary person and distributes his wealth.

The Road to serfdom chronicles the progression of social democratic thought, and where it leads to National Socialism.

When it comes to the right wing, there is very little there.

You give words to much credit. Much like our parties the name of the party has little to do with what it represents or what the nazi socialist movement represented. Hitler was a fascist, he wasnt a commie, or a socialist. He outlawed all unions, he demonized the poor, he preached capitalism and business. His economy was a military industrial economy just like ours and it was just as corrupt as ours was. Jews served as cheap labor to drive profits higher and higher.

No, just cause it was called a socialist party doesnt mean shit. The nazi fascist party doesnt have the same ring does it??

 

[Douger]

Hitler stood on top of the aisles fence and watched the rabid sheep slaughter each other.
It's an illuminati thing. You wouldn't understand.
It was a success. It created IsNtReal, just like the script ordered.
It sure is taking a long time for the "Damascus into rubble" part of this movie.
Be patient.

 

[editec]

While some of you who actually are scholarly enough to have read " The Road to Fascism" read that book, I think that perhaps many of you FAILED TO NOTICE that von Hayek also noted that he was not going to discuss how CAPTIALISM could also lead to serfdom?

Do any of you even remember reading that? (wouldn't be surprise if you didn't since he really only mentioned that limitation of this poli-sci paper a few times and only IN PASSING)

FWIW, TRTS, was a good read and one that often found myself in complete agreement with.

von Hayek did a great job of explaining how socialism inevitably leads to authoritarianism.

And since he flat out told the readers that he was not going to ever touch the problems that a flawed capitalist system could lead to, I can credit him with being HONEST enough to at least ACKNOWLEDGE the limitations of his this bit of political science scholarship.

Apparently the thing some of you don't understand (or just refuse to acknowledge) is that there are many roads leading to SERFDOM.

One of the roads to serfdom is certainly socialism, like for example the SOVIET DISTOPIA.

And another road to SERFDOM is obviously corporatism, like for example, in Hitlerian Germany.

Both socialism and corporatism are essentally the same kind of government..brutal, authoritarian oligarchies controlled by a select elite FOR that select group of elites sole benefit.

Here's what I think many don't realize:

EVERY FORM OF GOVERNMENT leads to serfdom if the PEOPLE allow it!


Now why is that?


Because all governments seek to gain social/economic power, and once they have that power they are never ever every going to willingly give it up

 

[Sallow]

My first three months on the board, that is all I discussed.

Most conservatives who have read "Road to Serfdom" would unequivocally say left wing. He used socialist arguments, was anti religion, vegetarian, and believed in enforced egalitarianism. The Horst Wessel story was an important part of National socialist ideology, the rich guy who discovers that the morals of the volk are higher than those of the rich and lives as an ordinary person and distributes his wealth.

The Road to serfdom chronicles the progression of social democratic thought, and where it leads to National Socialism.

When it comes to the right wing, there is very little there.

That's amazingly bereft of any historical reality..to the point of revisionism. While Hitler used populist ideas initially..and for a short time held a coalition that included German Socialists and Unionists, one of the very first things he did when he got into power was to get rid of Unions and Socialists. Hitler was devoutly Roman Catholic and the Nazis signed an agreement with Pope Pius. It was common from him to sprinkle religious references in his speeches. He was also a veteran and a militarist. Far from "enforcing egalitarianism" he did quite the opposite. He provided industry with free labor! And many of the German industries that were active during WWII are still AROUND TODAY! Hitler was a stanch anti-communist. So much so, he attacked one of his biggest allies, Russia. That's were most of the real fighting took place, on the Eastern front. Hitler was also and advocate for One People, One Land, One God. The Genocide should have been a hint to you. He promoted the idea of the Blonde Haired, Blue Eyed German superman. And that the Heartland was superior to the Urban. He promoted the notion of Nordic Traditionalism as a context for German society. He was about as far right as one could be.