Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Political Junky]

Idiot....why don't you see who are the ones in this country attacking Israel/the Jews in speeches, marches, protests, etc.

It's not right-wingers doing it, it is YOU scum.

Uh....the Nazis share many views of liberals.

Hatred of the Jews is one, communal living conditions, taking over companies for the common good, socialized medicine, etc.

That is patent nonsense. Really man, you can do better than that.

You might want to ask yourself why Stormfront, the modern home of fascism, spends most of its time attacking Jews if to do so is a liberal idea.

Explain why most American Jews vote Democratic.

 

[jasonnfree]

"Liberals believe in the government taking over companies for the "common good", you have in your post. This is what the original tea party was about, rejection of a corporation dominating a certain sector of an economy.

They were in cahoots with the government of England. Crony capitalism. Modern day TEA party types are against it as well. It's the left that loves government to pick the winners and losers in the marketplace. You guys live in denial. Remember Nov. 4th? That should have been a wake up call.

I'm waiting to see the modern day tea party types do anything daring like in the days of old. I'll stand by what I say, both parties pro big government or there wouldn't be thousands of lobbyists in D.C. influencing our representatives in both parties.

 

[Saigon]

Progressives you cant change reality. Nazi were socialist thus left. You can try like you guys try to ignore that leftists made the kkk and celebrate killing babies and treating women as nothing but walking vaginas.

Tapatalk

So the North Koreans are Democrats then?

Indeed - and this is a point I've made often; the historical (or simply downright dishonest) use of words is not straightforward. The usage of the word socialist changed markedly through the first two decades of the 20th century, and it is in that time that the Nazi party was formed. Had it been formed in 1935, the name would likely have been different.

None of this influences the fact - acknolwedged in every decent history book on the topic - that Hitler's ideology on class and capitalism define the administration as being right wing.

 

[Saigon]

Hitler was not a Socialist, Stalin was not a Socialist and Mao wasn't either.

They were in fact all socialist. They were self-righteous assholes who presumed to now what was best for everyone, not unlike yourself.

What do you know about Mao? Come on. Because I can't see one thing in what Mao did that suggests he was a socialist. I choose Mao because he is the easiest. There is absolutely NO WAY Mao was a Socialist.

I would call Mao a socialist and communist myself.

 

[Saigon]

.You live in an exceedingly simple world borne of ignorance. Nationalist Socialism simply does not fit into the predigested mold you have adopted and there is no amount of evidence that can change that dogma. I've often seen this, usually by those, who in their own self-righteousness and stupidity are completely unreceptive to any contradiction. In other words, intellectual pipsqueaks.

That's fine providing you also realise that most major biographers of Hitler agree with me - I'd cite Overy, Kershaw, Marris, Montefiore and Browning off the top of my head.

Most major dictionaries are also 'intellectual pipsueaks' apparently.

Also - so far you have not responded to my pointing out a half dozen other fascist dictators, such as Franco, Antonescu and Stroessner - all of which were obviously right wing. Do you agree, and if so - how is it that some fascists were right wing and some left?

It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Speaking of ignorance, I'd be more than happy to compare our credentials on this topic. Shall I go first, or will you?

If there is a more self-righteous poster on this forum, I've not come across them.

 

[Saigon]

Explain why most American Jews vote Democratic.

It's also interesting that early Israeli politics were extremely liberal and often clearly socialist as a reaction against fascism.

My kibbutz had a photo of every Soviet leader on the wall of the dining room until Stalin.

Jews fled right wing oppression, and it showed very clearly in the politics of Israel, really through into the late sixties.

 

[Saigon]

]LOL, you are tying yourself into knots here to try to avoid the inevitable. Would you say those above principles are more closely aligned with the right or left? I think the honest folks know.

Hitler's principles are definitely and quite clearly right wing, which is why every major history book and dictionary describes Hitler as being right wing.

The fact that Hitler needed the support of workers and made passionate appeals to them hardly makes him left wing. Every politician works as hard as they can to appeal to every major demographic. Every politician is going to buy off the working class going into a major war and the commensurate need for massive industrial production if they can. It's not as if Hitler hated the working class in the way that Stalin loathed the aristocracy - it's just that Hitler's major support base was (as it is with any right-wing govt) the upper classes first and foremost.

Try and actually step back from this and give it some thought - it may start to all make sense soon.

I'm also curious as to how you view the governments of Stroessner, Franco and Antonescu - all obviously fascist, all clearly and openly right wing.

Are you really going to claim that some fascists are right wing and some left wing?

 

[Political Junky]

]LOL, you are tying yourself into knots here to try to avoid the inevitable. Would you say those above principles are more closely aligned with the right or left? I think the honest folks know.

Hitler's principles are definitely and quite clearly right wing, which is why every major history book and dictionary describes Hitler as being right wing.

The fact that Hitler needed the support of workers and made passionate appeals to them hardly makes him left wing. Every politician works as hard as they can to appeal to every major demographic. Every politician is going to buy off the working class going into a major war and the commensurate need for massive industrial production if they can. It's not as if Hitler hated the working class in the way that Stalin loathed the aristocracy - it's just that Hitler's major support base was (as it is with any right-wing govt) the upper classes first and foremost.

Try and actually step back from this and give it some thought - it may start to all make sense soon.

I'm also curious as to how you view the governments of Stroessner, Franco and Antonescu - all obviously fascist, all clearly and openly right wing.

Are you really going to claim that some fascists are right wing and some left wing?

I've seen some on the Right argue that Franco and Pinochet were Socialists. Of course they were both Fascists.

 

[Saigon]

I've seen some on the Right argue that Franco and Pinochet were Socialists. Of course they were both Fascists.

Really?!

I'd like to see someone argue that one socialist overthrough another socialist, and then executed most of his support base because he was......umm.....socialist!!

And as for Franco....well, it would be the first time a socialist had taken up arms against a leftist government to protect a country from socialism!!

Franco, Pinochet, Antonescu and Stroessner are also such perfect examples of right-wing dictatorship because their policies are so clearly capitalist, and so clearly based on class. Pinochet, while not a fascist, also provides a link between conservatism and fascism, with strong right-wing principles that most Americans would recognise as having a lot in common with modern American conservatism.

 

[Political Junky]

I've seen some on the Right argue that Franco and Pinochet were Socialists. Of course they were both Fascists.

Really?!

I'd like to see someone argue that one socialist overthrough another socialist, and then executed most of his support base because he was......umm.....socialist!!

And as for Franco....well, it would be the first time a socialist had taken up arms against a leftist government to protect a country from socialism!!

Franco, Pinochet, Antonescu and Stroessner are also such perfect examples of right-wing dictatorship because their policies are so clearly capitalist, and so clearly based on class. Pinochet, while not a fascist, also provides a link between conservatism and fascism, with strong right-wing principles that most Americans would recognise as having a lot in common with modern American conservatism.

The US, under Nixon, played a role in the coup that overthrew the elected President Allende of Chile and installed Pinochet.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So he was interested in the GERMAN WORKERS (note, this is ethnically German, not Jews, not blacks, not Slavs, but ethnically German, hence the National in National Socialist).

You're basically saying if you do anything for the workers of society, you're a socialist? Is this the Republican view of things? Screw the workers, give them nothing, absolutely nothing, take all for the business people?[/QUOTE]LOL, you are tying yourself into knots here to try to avoid the inevitable. Would you say those above principles are more closely aligned with the right or left? I think the honest folks know.[/QUOTE]

Again, you're saying because they're at workers, that means they're on the left?

You make no attempt at looking at the era this was in. You make no attempt to see that National Socialism was far more about the nationalism.

Again, the point being that the extremes of the 20th century needed labels. The far left was not seen as nationalistic. In fact they were pushing for an end to nation states.
The far right were looking to make nation states based on ethnic lines, Germanic nationalism was a reason for Hitler to invade the Sudetenland, annex Austria and so on.

"honest folk" I guess is what you call Republican voters. Sure they "know". I have no doubt they "know" a lot of stuff that simply isn't true. I could give 100 examples of things that aren't true but which do the rounds in right wing magazines, internet sites etc and are considered true. It's the modern equivalent of the sun revolves around the earth even though scientists knew this not to be the case centuries beforehand.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What do you know about Mao? Come on. Because I can't see one thing in what Mao did that suggests he was a socialist. I choose Mao because he is the easiest. There is absolutely NO WAY Mao was a Socialist.

You're probably right. Mao took socialist doctrine to its inevitable extreme, as did Pol Pot . They were self-righteous assholes who make American socialists look like pikers. The entire Cultural Revolution was part and parcel of socialism unchecked as were Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR.[/QUOTE]

Actually the Cultural Revolution was the need of Mao. He wasn't very intelligent but he realised that to remain important, to be able to control things in the way he knew, he needed another revolution. He had spent a long time in revolutions and war, and it's where he felt comfortable.
He would make a policy, have his cronies attack those who were doing things before the policy came in that went against the policy and have them removed or killed, then he'd go back on the policy a few years later and have everyone connected with the new policy removed or killed. Whenever anyone got anywhere near the top who was a threat to his power, he'd make sure their power base simply disappeared.

This wasn't Socialism. The people didn't benefit from any of this, China was still stuck in rural nothingness for the most part.

Also, you can see what happened when Deng XiaoPing managed to rest control from the leaders who took over from Mao, that the leadership in no way supported Socialism or Communism, they because capitalists with the small c from communism stuck at the front. Power to the party.

I've know various people who joined the Party in order to make more money, because you can get a better job as a Party member, even today.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I would call Mao a socialist and communist myself.

Why?

Sure, he gained his power in the Communist Party and hung around with Communists. But the reality is he implemented a system that wasn't Communist or Socialist, it was Maoist, ie, it was all about Mao.

 

[Saigon]

I would call Mao a socialist and communist myself.

Why?

Sure, he gained his power in the Communist Party and hung around with Communists. But the reality is he implemented a system that wasn't Communist or Socialist, it was Maoist, ie, it was all about Mao.

Well, my feeling is that just as Nazism is a form of fascism, which is a form of extreme right-wing dictatorship; so Maoism is a form of communism, which is a form of extreme left-wing dictatorship.

Some governments, such as that of Pol Pot, are completely unique and quite unlike anything else that has come before or after. But I don't think that should mean that it cannot be considered as a form of left-wing dictatorship, and I feel the same way about Maoism.

These days, of course, China is a different beast entirely, as is Viet Nam. It's very hard to determine exactly what we could call either these days.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, my feeling is that just as Nazism is a form of fascism, which is a form of extreme right-wing dictatorship; so Maoism is a form of communism, which is a form of extreme left-wing dictatorship.

Some governments, such as that of Pol Pot, are completely unique and quite unlike anything else that has come before or after. But I don't think that should mean that it cannot be considered as a form of left-wing dictatorship, and I feel the same way about Maoism.

These days, of course, China is a different beast entirely, as is Viet Nam. It's very hard to determine exactly what we could call either these days.

Just because Maoism was born out of Communism, does that make it Communism or Socialism?

Also, it's not necessarily whether Mao was left wing or right wing, I'm not sure he was any wing in particular. He did what he wanted to do.

Easy labels are for people who don't understand. They cause problems and confusion, and in the case of many on this board they allow them to try and attack their opponents by claiming they're similar to this that or the other.

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL, you are tying yourself into knots here to try to avoid the inevitable. Would you say those above principles are more closely aligned with the right or left? I think the honest folks know.

Again, you're saying because they're at workers, that means they're on the left?

No, I didn't say anything even close to that. I posted some of the socialist articles of doing business in Nazi Germany. That's leftist. Try to just read the word instead of letting them spin around in your head and arriving at a false meaning you can respond to.

You make no attempt at looking at the era this was in. You make no attempt to see that National Socialism was far more about the nationalism.

All for the collective good. That's socialism. All socialist, capitalist and any combination in between are different. Your position is that it somehow wasn't socialism. That's demonstrably wrong.

Again, the point being that the extremes of the 20th century needed labels. The far left was not seen as nationalistic. In fact they were pushing for an end to nation states.
The far right were looking to make nation states based on ethnic lines, Germanic nationalism was a reason for Hitler to invade the Sudetenland, annex Austria and so on.

So Hitler was looking to bring others into the fold. Like Poland, Russia, etc. Not just Germans. Your theory is without merit.

"honest folk" I guess is what you call Republican voters. Sure they "know". I have no doubt they "know" a lot of stuff that simply isn't true. I could give 100 examples of things that aren't true but which do the rounds in right wing magazines, internet sites etc and are considered true. It's the modern equivalent of the sun revolves around the earth even though scientists knew this not to be the case centuries beforehand.

Your smokescreen won't disguise the fact that you're full of shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The right stands for limited government. How could a totalitarian regime ever be extremely right? By definition it would be anarchy

No, not at all.

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.

But in the United States, American conservatives are in no way advocates of 'limited government,' and tend to be intrusive and authoritarian, seeking instead to expand the size and power of government by forcing government into most every aspect of life, such as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, denying a woman her right to privacy, and creating laws making it more difficult for American citizens to vote.

'Limited government' clearly has little to do with 'right-wing.'

 

[Iceweasel]

But in the United States, American conservatives are in no way advocates of 'limited government,' and tend to be intrusive and authoritarian, seeking instead to expand the size and power of government by forcing government into most every aspect of life, such as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, denying a woman her right to privacy, and creating laws making it more difficult for American citizens to vote.

'Limited government' clearly has little to do with 'right-wing.'

LOL. If you support traditional marriage you aren't for limited government. You really are a retard. Literally.

 

[Saigon]

Ice Weasel -

Two points you seem to be dodging -

1) Other fascist governments were very obviously right wing, such as Franco, Antonescu and Stroessner. Do you agree, and if so, how do you explain the fact that most fascists governments were right wing?

2) How do you explain the fact that every major book on this topic (I cited 6 earlier) all confirm Hitler as being right wing?

 

[Iceweasel]

Ice Weasel -

Two points you seem to be dodging -

1) Other fascist governments were very obviously right wing, such as Franco, Antonescu and Stroessner. Do you agree, and if so, how do you explain the fact that most fascists governments were right wing?

2) How do you explain the fact that every major book on this topic (I cited 6 earlier) all confirm Hitler as being right wing?

I said, I think in my first post, it was days ago...that when you talk about left and right you have to find out what left and right means. I said that the right here isn't the same as the right in Iran. Maybe it can't make it past your filters but I answered that numerous times.

I am well aware of how it's being massaged by academia. The Nazi's were socialists, that isn't right wing.

Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right

Taking over business and creating a collective for the common good isn't conservative. That's a progressive agenda. Those same books probably don't even have the words 'left wing' in them.