Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Wry Catcher]

Why does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?

Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.

 

[thanatos144]

Why does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?

Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.

Like Obama and all democrats

Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

I always love this argument.

Perhaps the biggest piece of crap created on the subject is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascists"

Ann Coulter has her own delusional take on the subject as well.

IMO, Democrats ala "the 60's revolution" took on SOME attributes of 20th century European Fascism, and evangelical/Tea Party "conservatives" also resemble that movement in about as many ways.

But the Hitler Card is apples to oranges, and the atrocities committed by Hitler/Mussolini were infinitely worse than anything happening in America now.

You love the argument, but you are unable to refute it. All you can do is spout a few random ad hominems.

 

[bripat9643]

Why does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?

Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.

Yep, demagoguery about how you are poor because the "1 %" are rich. Demagoguery that you are entitled to free healthcare and government can give it to you.

 

[toxicmedia]

I always love this argument.

Perhaps the biggest piece of crap created on the subject is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascists"

Ann Coulter has her own delusional take on the subject as well.

IMO, Democrats ala "the 60's revolution" took on SOME attributes of 20th century European Fascism, and evangelical/Tea Party "conservatives" also resemble that movement in about as many ways.

But the Hitler Card is apples to oranges, and the atrocities committed by Hitler/Mussolini were infinitely worse than anything happening in America now.

Tea party conservatives want the government to spend less money and to lower taxes and to be less intrusive, not more.....and to live under the U.S. constitution and the Bill of Rights, how does any intelligent person equate that with the socialist nazis.....

The democrats have really destroyed American education and rational thought....

could you possibly try to think past democrat propaganda and try to see the truth?

had you read Goldberg's book or Ann Coulter's,works you would see that they are both right....

I've read Goldberg and heard enough from Coulter to know that if you read one of her books, you've read them all.

I always love this argument.

Perhaps the biggest piece of crap created on the subject is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascists"

Ann Coulter has her own delusional take on the subject as well.

IMO, Democrats ala "the 60's revolution" took on SOME attributes of 20th century European Fascism, and evangelical/Tea Party "conservatives" also resemble that movement in about as many ways.

But the Hitler Card is apples to oranges, and the atrocities committed by Hitler/Mussolini were infinitely worse than anything happening in America now.

Tea party conservatives want the government to spend less money and to lower taxes and to be less intrusive, not more.....and to live under the U.S. constitution and the Bill of Rights, how does any intelligent person equate that with the socialist nazis.....

The democrats have really destroyed American education and rational thought....

could you possibly try to think past democrat propaganda and try to see the truth?

had you read Goldberg's book or Ann Coulter's,works you would see that they are both right....

I've read Goldberg and heard enough from Coulter to know that if you read one of her books, you've read them all.

in other words you enjoy being ignorant


Tapatalk

Can you read?....I've read Liberal Fascists, and I've read Demonic. I started on Never Trust a Liberal Over 3...but it was the same old crap simply restated.

Now I wonder if you've read Liberal Fascists or any of Coulter's books.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I always love this argument.

Perhaps the biggest piece of crap created on the subject is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascists"

Ann Coulter has her own delusional take on the subject as well.

IMO, Democrats ala "the 60's revolution" took on SOME attributes of 20th century European Fascism, and evangelical/Tea Party "conservatives" also resemble that movement in about as many ways.

But the Hitler Card is apples to oranges, and the atrocities committed by Hitler/Mussolini were infinitely worse than anything happening in America now.

Tea party conservatives want the government to spend less money and to lower taxes and to be less intrusive, not more.....and to live under the U.S. constitution and the Bill of Rights, how does any intelligent person equate that with the socialist nazis.....

The democrats have really destroyed American education and rational thought....

could you possibly try to think past democrat propaganda and try to see the truth?

had you read Goldberg's book or Ann Coulter's,works you would see that they are both right....

I've read Goldberg and heard enough from Coulter to know that if you read one of her books, you've read them all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html?_r=0

Worth reading ^^^, and an excellent example of the use of the logical fallacy "appeal to authority" and its impact on the posts of those I told to **** off & whose use of labels as pejoratives is their idea of an argument.

 

[toxicmedia]

I always love this argument.

Perhaps the biggest piece of crap created on the subject is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascists"

Ann Coulter has her own delusional take on the subject as well.

IMO, Democrats ala "the 60's revolution" took on SOME attributes of 20th century European Fascism, and evangelical/Tea Party "conservatives" also resemble that movement in about as many ways.

But the Hitler Card is apples to oranges, and the atrocities committed by Hitler/Mussolini were infinitely worse than anything happening in America now.

You love the argument, but you are unable to refute it. All you can do is spout a few random ad hominems.

Okay Einstein...

First of all...I made my own points.

Second...Tapababble has done nothing but call me ignorant and make incorrect assumptions about my "ideology"

Third...As a result...Tapababble has not made any points to refute.

Lastly...I love hearing both sides of this argument. People who think Liberals, and Tea Partiers/Evangelicals, are either more or less like Hitler, do not know history.

Moreover, do you have any original thoughts to share?

 

[thanatos144]

Dishonest democrats make me ill

Tapatalk

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?

Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.

Yep, demagoguery about how you are poor because the "1 %" are rich. Demagoguery that you are entitled to free healthcare and government can give it to you.

I'm not poor, thus your strawman is all wet. BTW moron, no one that I know of has claimed health care is free or should be - that you don't have a clue about the PPACA and rant against it is laughable. Anyone who followed the 'debate' knows the mandate to purchase or be fined was a talking point against the bill by demagogues & reactionaries and fools.

 

[toxicmedia]

Dishonest democrats make me ill

Tapatalk

I'm not a Democrat.

Keep those assumptions coming.

What I find amusing is how your partner in crime, bripat, has voiced his view that I'm not refuting any points you've made.

But you haven't made any points to refute, while spewing nothing but inaccurate assumptions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?

Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.

Coming from an Obama Fluffer that's comedic gold!

 

[toxicmedia]

Why does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?

Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.

Yep, demagoguery about how you are poor because the "1 %" are rich. Demagoguery that you are entitled to free healthcare and government can give it to you.

I'm not poor, thus your strawman is all wet. BTW moron, no one that I know of has claimed health care is free or should be - that you don't have a clue about the PPACA and rant against it is laughable. Anyone who followed the 'debate' knows the mandate to purchase or be fined was a talking point against the bill by demagogues & reactionaries and fools.

The sad fact is that political strategists know a narrative must be simple.

The people using the term "conservative" to describe themselves these days, who are really just socially conservative evangelicals, closet segregationists, militia types, and Tea Partiers, do not do well with things that are not black and white. They're no less intelligent than their liberal counterparts, but that's the Achilles heal of the modern GOP.

 

[toxicmedia]

Why does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?

Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.

Coming from an Obama Fluffer that's comedic gold!

You, Tapababble, and bripat, should all run along and go read Goldberg's book so you know what you're talking about.

It's probably what they are both doing now, since I reminded them of that

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dishonest democrats make me ill

Tapatalk

I'm not a Democrat.

Keep those assumptions coming.

What I find amusing is how your partner in crime, bripat, has voiced his view that I'm not refuting any points you've made.

But you haven't made any points to refute, while spewing nothing but inaccurate assumptions.

You're not???????

Tell us more!

Are you an Eisenhower Republican?

 

[bripat9643]

Why does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?

Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.

Coming from an Obama Fluffer that's comedic gold!

You, Tapababble, and bripat, should all run along and go read Goldberg's book so you know what you're talking about.

It's probably what they are both doing now, since I reminded them of that

I already read the book, you ******* moron.

 

[turzovka]

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.

"...fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance."

Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."

Yes, there may have reasons for churches (catholic or protestant) to acquiesce to the demands of the state, but more for the sake of avoiding total obliteration. IOW, they had little choice. But to suggest they had "common ground" implies their values or ideologies often coincided. That is a very demagogic and unjust. (imo)

 

[Saigon]

Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."

Not at all - think of Antonescu's relationship with the church. The same relationship existed with Stroessner, and to a lesser extent with Franco.

Again - Hitler is only one example of fascism.

 

[francoHFW]

Welcome to the modern world, cold war dinosaur dupes. Socialism is recognized as always democratic, communism NEVER- and always put in by violent revolution, and just about dead, since capitalism is everywhere..

Hitler was a RW fascist, since he loved capitalists and aristocrats, even if of course it was directed toward a war footing.Kinda like Reagan lol...Goldberg is total, bought off "drivel"- the Economist, and everyone else, for hater dupes only. later

 

[turzovka]

Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."

Not at all - think of Antonescu's relationship with the church. The same relationship existed with Stroessner, and to a lesser extent with Franco.

Again - Hitler is only one example of fascism.

I already admitted there may have been certain examples of compliance, but your comment implied much more. (imo)

Based on limited knowledge, I believe the Russian Orthodox church was at times controlled by corrupt hierarchy, and did not reflect the sentiments or beliefs of their many constituents.

 

[Pogo]

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.

"...fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance."

Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."

Yes, there may have reasons for churches (catholic or protestant) to acquiesce to the demands of the state, but more for the sake of avoiding total obliteration. IOW, they had little choice. But to suggest they had "common ground" implies their values or ideologies often coincided. That is a very demagogic and unjust. (imo)

The Church after all represents Power. As the "First Estate" it was a major part of the power structure that Liberalism rose up against in its desire to assign power to the consent of the goverened. Fascism, taking the opposite, top-down approach, loves any avenue to consolidate power, as it loves appeals to nationalistic tradition and militaristic strength. Fascist Germany called the former "Kinder, Küche, Kirche -- children, kithen, church". Obviously it was interested in keeping the citizenry tied to the Church, as being under the psychological thumb of the Church gets the masses used to being subjugated, and given a working relationship serves as a non-governmental PR front.

These are all avenues to its own control dynamic. An organised Church has the same top-down desire for influence, even using a figurehead it purports to be omnipowerful. So yes there is much affinity there, so it would be unexpected for a fascist movement to NOT see such an institution as a useful ally -- unless it got to the point of competing with it.