Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Political Junky]

So, not a lot to add here -

I do think it is extremely difficult for Billc and Iceweasel to get this topic; largely because of extremely, staggeringly poor general knowledge, but also because of their willnigness to lie and their assumption that everyone else does to. When you dismiss 60+ years of recorded history as lies, you have nothing left to learn from - except extremist blogs.

For BriPat I think the issue is more sheer extremism - as someone only two steps removed from Hitler politically, it is very hard to see the man as anything but a lot further away from Military Conservatvism than he really is. And yet - BriPat has praised Pinochet in the past....a man only one step removed from Hitler.

Pinochet died a war criminal.

 

[westwall]

The three famous examples are a small portion of the world's dictators.

We're discussing Fascism, not dictatorships. Hitler is the top of this list, which is fascism, and right-wing.

The point being made is there is no difference between a "communist" dictator (who everyone says is leftist), and a "fascist" dictator (who everyone claims is rightist), so if there is no difference, why call them different?

Because they are different...

Really? How? Be specific.

That is the whole point of the game. You can't scream Fascism and it actually means something bad, and you can't scream Democracy and it actually means something good. What's required is to look at the actions and the results, not the labels. Even a Dictatorship has its good qualities, at least shit usually gets done.

When millions die, it is not a game. You claimed the two were different. Demonstrate their differences.

 

[Saigon]

Pinochet is such a great example here, because the right wing cannot deny that is right wing, and yet the links too Fascism are SO obvious.

The only problem on this thread has been that Bill and Weasel appear never to have heard of the man...

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Back up or withdraw you claim. Commit to posting honestly. Then I'll answer your question. Claro?

 

[francoHFW]

They're not stupid or evil, just highly misinformed...fine people otherwise. Happy Thanksgiving! You're welcome.

 

[francoHFW]

But the dead socialists of 30's Germany will not be amused...lol.

 

[Saigon]

But the dead socialists of 30's Germany will not be amused...lol.

Indeed. I am sure the socialists who died in Auschwitz would be surprised to hear that they were living in a socialist country - especially given socialism was banned at the time.

Can anyone think of a single occassion in history when a government has banned its own ideology?

 

[frigidweirdo]

A look at unlawful enemy combatants...

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

These terms thus divide combatants in a war zone into two classes: those in armies and organised militias and the like (lawful combatants), and those who are not. The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws and customs of war; and if captured, a lawful combatant must be treated as a prisoner of war by the enemy under the conditions laid down in the Third Geneva Convention.

So..... Those fighting for the Taliban were in an army, they were therefore LAWFUL.

But here's the thing.

Unlawful combatant is someone who commits acts of violence and is tried under the laws of the land as a civilian. Ie, someone fighting unlawfully as a civilian in Afghanistan is subject to civilian laws of Afghanistan.

A law combatant is someone who is fight in an army, the Taliban was an army, and if captured they are POWs.

In the case of what Bush did, he went against the US Constitution if they were unlawful, he had no jurisdiction to try them for anything anyway.
If they were lawful then they should be POWs.

Instead Bush kept them without trial, without POW status, without anything. He was the unlawful one, going against international law, the US constitution and just about anything else you'd choose to mention.

 

[frigidweirdo]

People could and did profit from the Nazi era. It wasn't totally free market, then again the US isn't totally free market either, most companies have to pay tax (though some seem to get money from the govt and pay nothing) and have to abide by laws and regulations.
In Nazi Germany this was MORE EXTREME (hence why it's called FAR-right) however it wasn't much different except the extremity.

I thought the TEA party was the far right because they wanted more free markets and less government. Now, it's big government and crony capitalism that is far right. What does that make the TEA party? Leftists?

To say that corporations in Nazi Germany weren't totally free is a bit breath taking. They were free to serve the Fatherland and not a hell of a lot more. Those that played ball did very well but that is hardly capitalism or right wing or conservative.

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

What does it matter what other people do? All you're saying is that their definition of left/right is idiotic and contradictory. If it doesn't mean government control of the economy vs. economic freedom, then what doesn't mean? Whenever leftists are asked to define the term, they give no answer or they give a muddled mass of contradictions. Racism doesn't make an ideology "right-wing." Neither does nationalism. The only criteria that makes any sense is the economic spectrum of government control vs. economic freedom.

Yes, the definitions of left and right are loose, very loose. They started as something which defined two groups and where they sat. However we need labels for things and far left and far right have become labels for some kind of extreme government that does certain things.

We could explain Nazism and Communism in Germany and Russia in full every time we want to describe it, but it's easier to use a simple label.

But the fact is, it is a simple form. We know Nazism was more complex. Like I've said it was mostly Extreme and Mostly right.

I'm left wing, but i support things that are on the right, hence why I'm more center left than anything else. I'm also closer to Libertarianism than whatever is on the other side of that spectrum.

There problem here is the debate has changed from being what is far left and far right to "Hitler was a Socialist" when he clearly wasn't.

Often one thing doesn't make something left wing or right wing, as I said, I support some traditionally right wing policies. Does that make me right wing? No it doesn't.

So you have to put things into perspective.

 

[frigidweirdo]

People could and did profit from the Nazi era. It wasn't totally free market, then again the US isn't totally free market either, most companies have to pay tax (though some seem to get money from the govt and pay nothing) and have to abide by laws and regulations.
In Nazi Germany this was MORE EXTREME (hence why it's called FAR-right) however it wasn't much different except the extremity.

I thought the TEA party was the far right because they wanted more free markets and less government. Now, it's big government and crony capitalism that is far right. What does that make the TEA party? Leftists?

To say that corporations in Nazi Germany weren't totally free is a bit breath taking. They were free to serve the Fatherland and not a hell of a lot more. Those that played ball did very well but that is hardly capitalism or right wing or conservative.

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

It's actually a world-wide standard, only the leftwing professors in Europe do everything they can to muddy up the issue by brining in all sorts of irrelevancies like nationalism and racism. American pinko professors do the same thing, but they haven't polluted the waters as much.

Only we're being told that the American Big govt/small govt is an essential issue here, when the rest of the world doesn't bother with these terms much.

Nationalism and Racism are a part of what can make something extreme. You can have left wing Nationalism and left wing racism. The point being that a definition of left or right is going to come down to lots of factors coming together.

The KKK is not necessarily right wing because of its racism, however many far right groups are inherently racist.

You have to have an open mind to be able to see this sort of thing. If you want it black and white on a piece of paper what is exactly far left or far right then you'll be disappointed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hitler faced the choice between conflicting recommendations. On one side a "free market" technocratic faction within the government, centered around Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht, Minister of Economics Walther Funk and Price Commissioner Dr. Carl Friedrich Goerdeler calling for decreased military spending, free trade, and a moderation in state intervention in the economy.

This faction was supported by some of Germany's leading business executives, most notably Hermann Duecher of AEG, Robert Bosch of Robert Bosch GmbH, and Albert Voegeler of Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG.[45] On the other side the more politicized faction favored autarkic policies and sustained military spending.[46]

Characteristically, Hitler hesitated before siding with the latter, and in August issued the "Four-Year Plan Memorandum" ordering Hermann Göring to have the German economy ready for war within four years.[47][48] The “Four-Year Plan” increased state intervention in the economy and siphoned off resources from the private sector for rearmament. Rearmament fell short of Goering’s goals, and the plan resulted in shortages and rationing for most German citizens.

Now all I need is your input here and we can talk.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Making war on your neighbours is a leftwing thing.

See, the left ends up invading other countries because their economic policies are so stupid and destructive they have to steal from other people to keep their home economies going....l

As if Bush were left wing!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bripat9643 and Iceweasal...and all the rest who have posted against the silliness of these lefties...thanks....when I was over on martialtalk I would debate this all by myself with these guys....it got tiring...it is nice to know there are others out there who won't let the left re write history....one of their favorite activities....

Sounds like your mind is closed to this debate. You believe you know the answer and you're not looking for the truth.

It has been an interesting debate and I've learnt some stuff from it. But I am not going to come out with pure arrogance. There's no point. I'm here to debate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

So Hitler wasn't right wing by US standards. That's what we've been saying.

No, we're talking about big govt/small govt.

Also, by US standards is also by BS standards too.

The Republican Party CLAIM to be small govt. Bush took the Federal Budget from $1.7 trillion to $3.5 trillion in 8 years. Small govt? If that's small govt I'd hate to see Republican big govt. Jeez, it's be fatter than all the obesity in the US combined.

So, the rest of the world is supposed to accept that Hitler is Left wing because the Republican Party goes around lying to its sheep that it's interested in small govt and sniggers behind their backs?

Oh great.

Again with Bush. What the ****? He wasn't a fiscal conservative, no one has ever stepped forward and accused him of it either. He alone does not represent all things right wing. You are employing obfuscation here, if you are now saying there is no real such thing as the right wing then why even bother?

But he is right wing.

Claiming small govt is right wing is wrong. Yes, there are some on the right who would like smaller govt, but there are many on the right who want more control, more govt, more telling people what to do.

Again, it's about putting lots of things together.

But saying "Hitler was left wing because he liked bigger govt" is complete BULL.

 

[Saigon]

I very much sgree with Frigidweirdo in the left/right issues.

I run a small business, support nuclear power and think the death penalty has a role in crininal justice. I think our VAT rate is too high, and I think capitalism is the best solution to world poverty.

I also consider myself left wing, because my basic ideology is based on social justice and equal opportunity. Everything else stems from that.

Likewise with Hitler, everything stemmed from the class system and the use of private capital, along with racial superiority, nationalism and a very conservative view of Germany's past and traditions. That was the core of his thinking.

I think a lot of posters have fallen into the trap of thinking that Hitler's form of capitalism was not 'pure' thus was not capitalism at all. That isn't the case at all - even a jaundiced, imperfect use of capital is still capitalism by definition.

 

[Contumacious]

I very much sgree with Frigidweirdo in the left/right issues.

I run a small business, support nuclear power and think the death penalty has a role in crininal justice. I think our VAT rate is too high, and I think capitalism is the best solution to world poverty.

I also consider myself left wing, because my basic ideology is based on social justice and equal opportunity. Everything else stems from that.

Likewise with Hitler, everything stemmed from the class system and the use of private capital, along with racial superiority, nationalism and a very conservative view of Germany's past and traditions. That was the core of his thinking.

I think a lot of posters have fallen into the trap of thinking that Hitler's form of capitalism was not 'pure' thus was not capitalism at all. That isn't the case at all - even a jaundiced, imperfect use of capital is still capitalism by definition.

Explain clearly and succinctly WHY the imperfect use of socialism isn't still socialism by definition?!?!?!?!?!?!!?


251. Right-Fascism vs. Left-Fascism
excellent interview.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

I could have worded my statement better. Correction: Fascism is SIMILAR to Capitalism in that it defines a type of means of a government's purchasing goods and services. I retract the words "Fascism is actually a type of capitalism"

OK, thanks for that. People with an ax to grind tend to latch onto words and there is an effort to make capitalism the scourge of mankind and equate it with oppression. I think it's just the opposite.

So do I actually.....I'm curious - who here was describing capitalism as 'the scourge of mankind'?

It is funny - as I said to Bill yesterday, you guys do tend to assume everyone is lying, because you lie. That is a very poor way of looking at politics. Most people can be honest, if not 100% objective. But most people do try and stick to facts.

You've lied repeatedly, it's right there for anyone to say. I've posted comments from historians and you say I didn't. I've posted comments from the Nazis, including Hitler and you say I am clueless, uneducated, ill informed, etc. You've done nothing but talk down to anyone you disagree with.

Equating Nazi Germany with capitalism and the right wing is an attempt to degenerate capitalism and the right wing in my book. And you've never answered what the purpose of your thread is.

You don't have an honest bone in your body.

 

[Iceweasel]

There problem here is the debate has changed from being what is far left and far right to "Hitler was a Socialist" when he clearly wasn't.

The problem is that he clearly was and the left can't admit it for some reason. The debate hasn't changed at all, liberal hypocrisy and double talk is still par for the course.

 

[Iceweasel]

As if Bush were left wing!

He was fiscally.

 

[2aguy]

As to Pinochet and the other "rightist" dictators....this is a nice explanation....as well as explaining why the left is so nutty....

FrontPage Magazine - The Psychology Underlying Liberalism

So what are Rightists?

The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length (See Ray, 1972b, 1973, 1974, 1979 & 1981).

Military Dictators?

In the late 20th century, it was a common rhetorical ploy of the more "revolutionary" Left in the "Western" world simply to ignore democracy as an alternative to Communism. Instead they would excuse the brutalities of Communism by pointing to the brutalities of the then numerous military dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America and pretend that such regimes were the only alternative to Communism. These regimes were led by generals who might in various ways be seen as conservative (though Peron was clearly Leftist) so do they tell us anything about conservatism?

Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover.

This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active — blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were.

They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative.