How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Saigon]

I get what you're trying to say, but economic policies play a huge role in politics. We can't just ignore them.

I also don't buy for a second that Hitler had no economic plan. He may have said it, along with countless other things he said that didn't turn out to be true.

But you're right; placing the Nazis on the political spectrum is a little tricky, as they don't represent modern liberal or conservative beliefs.

He had a very clear, very well known, and very obviously right-wing economic plan.

The best resource on this is Richard Overy's books on Nazi economics, which I linked earlier.

It is not at all tricky to place Nazis on the political spectrum, nor is it controversial or disputed. These are plain, simple facts that anyone can check and confirm in a few minutes really, although to understand all of the reasons why fascim is right wing, it's worth reading a couple of the better books on the topic.

 

[Saigon]

When I started this thread I had figured we'd get a dozen replies from posters from understand a bit of history, and probably just the two posters (SSDD and BriPat) who I had seen claimin earler that Hitler was not right wing continuing to deny it.

I am amazed it is now about to pass 1,000 comments.

Much of the debate has been excellent and some even well-informed, but I do think it is both a frightening sign of the future and a damning indictment of the education system that people can graduate from college and not understand the difference between left and right wing. Even for people who are not interested in politics or economics, a certain amount of basic knowledge should be held by everyone in a developed society.

I have never seen a left-wing person deny that Stalin, Mao or Cecasecu were left wing. We know they were. So why is it that the extreme right wing have recently started to deny that Hitler, Antonescu and Franco were right wing?

That should worry genuine conservatives.

 

[tooAlive]

I get what you're trying to say, but economic policies play a huge role in politics. We can't just ignore them.

I also don't buy for a second that Hitler had no economic plan. He may have said it, along with countless other things he said that didn't turn out to be true.

But you're right; placing the Nazis on the political spectrum is a little tricky, as they don't represent modern liberal or conservative beliefs.

The best resource on this is Richard Overy's books on Nazi economics, which I linked earlier.

It is not at all tricky to place Nazis on the political spectrum, nor is it controversial or disputed. These are plain, simple facts that anyone can check and confirm in a few minutes really, although to understand all of the reasons why fascim is right wing, it's worth reading a couple of the better books on the topic.

Why didn't you quote my other post where I linked to Hitler's quotes where he declared he was a socialist, and wanted to destroy capitalism?

That doesn't sound very characteristic of a right-winger to me.

He had a very clear, very well known, and very obviously right-wing economic plan.

I'd love to hear why you think Nazi Germany's centrally-planned economy is synonymous with right-wing conservative ideology.

 

[Saigon]

Too Alive -

Do keep in mind quite how long this thread is - a lot of points have been covered multiple times.

Hitler defnitely declared that he was a socialist, however, what he meant by that is not what you think he meant. Likewise his quote on desroying capitalism - if you look at where and when he said it, the reason he said it becomes clearer.

Within this thread there must be 30 quotes from Hitler attacking (Marxian) socialism and backing capitalism.

 

[tooAlive]

Too Alive -

Do keep in mind quite how long this thread is - a lot of points have been covered multiple times.

Hitler defnitely declared that he was a socialist, however, what he meant by that is not what you think he meant. Likewise his quote on desroying capitalism - if you look at where and when he said it, the reason he said it becomes clearer.

Within this thread there must be 30 quotes from Hitler attacking (Marxian) socialism and backing capitalism.

Okay, so we know that Hitler contradicted himself many times. He vowed to destroy capitalism, and then went on to praise it.

So lets put his quotes aside for a minute and focus on what he actually did with Nazi Germany.

Was it a capitalistic, free-market economy, with very little to no government meddling in industries, and strong private property rights for the people? Those are essential conservative (right-wing) fundamentals.

Nazi Germany had none of those things. Instead, it emulated most of the things present in all the other socialist dictatorships throughout history.

 

[tooAlive]

Also, I see you're from Finland, so we may have different meanings for some political ideologies. So let me clear things up a bit in regards to right-wing conservatism in the US.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."[108] Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963.[109]

Major movements within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[110] Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and homosexuality.[111] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.

In the US, that's what right-wing conservatism stands for. Pretty far from Hitler's Nazi Germany if you asked me.

 

[Saigon]

Was it a capitalistic, free-market economy, with very little to no government meddling in industries, and strong private property rights for the people? Those are essential conservative (right-wing) fundamentals.

Nazi Germany had none of those things. Instead, it emulated most of the things present in all the other socialist dictatorships throughout history.

Firtly, yes, it was very capitalist, without question. Hitler's key supporters were the 'old money', the aristrocracy, the bankers, the investors. Share capital and dividends were essential to Hitler's view of rewarding his benefactors.

Secondly, like many posters here you assume right wing = small government. It does not. Small government is a core policy of modern American conservatives, but is not a feature of conservatism in any other part of the world. Most conservative governments are not small, and not intended to be small.

Thirdly, stronger right wing governments generally oppose civil rights, while the left wing promotes civil rights. Start with the Patriot Act and go back through history and consider the amount of times the right wing calls on the security of the state to justify limiting rights. We see this with Pinochet, Cristiani and even Margaret Thatcher, who clamped down on press freedoms during the Falklands War.

 

[Saigon]

In the US, that's what right-wing conservatism stands for. Pretty far from Hitler's Nazi Germany if you asked me.

Yes, but Hitler was not an American politician - hence how Americans understand the terms is scacrely relevent here.

I do agree that this may be one reason why some posters have really struggled to come to terms with the basic facts here.

 

[tooAlive]

Firtly, yes, it was very capitalist, without question. Hitler's key supporters were the 'old money', the aristrocracy, the bankers, the investors. Share capital and dividends were essential to Hitler's view of rewarding his benefactors.

And that's exactly why Hitler's Nazi Germany wasn't capitalistic at all.

You see, under capitalism (free markets), corporations and businesses don't get help from the state. So by Hitler "rewarding his benefactors," he was essentially going completely against conservative/classical liberal/capitalist ideology.

Again, in free markets there is no government benefits or handouts to special interest groups.

Secondly, like many posters here you assume right wing = small government. It does not. Small government is a core policy of modern American conservatives, but is not a feature of conservatism in any other part of the world. Most conservative governments are not small, and not intended to be small.

Ahh, well that's probably why we disagree. I'm an American Conservative and I support a smaller government with low taxes and free markets.

That's what most American Conservatives are in favor of. With the exception of social policies, our economic ideology is similar to that of Classical Liberalism. I'm sure you're more familiar with that term.

Thirdly, stronger right wing governments generally oppose civil rights, while the left wing promotes civil rights. Start with the Patriot Act and go back through history and consider the amount of times the right wing calls on the security of the state to justify limiting rights. We see this with Pinochet, Cristiani and even Margaret Thatcher, who clamped down on press freedoms during the Falklands War.

I'd say you're right on this one.

American Conservatives do have pretty traditional social values. That still doesn't prove that Hitler was a right-wing conservative. At least not by American standards.

 

[Pogo]

Also, I see you're from Finland, so we may have different meanings for some political ideologies. So let me clear things up a bit in regards to right-wing conservatism in the US.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."[108] Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963.[109]

Major movements within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[110] Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and homosexuality.[111] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.

In the US, that's what right-wing conservatism stands for. Pretty far from Hitler's Nazi Germany if you asked me.

Oh come on 2Al, your position is regressing.

First of all on what basis do you propose to compare 1930s Germany with contemporary US conservatism? Wrong time, wrong place, wrong continent, wrong context -- and no one ever suggested that "Hitler = 2013 US conservatives". You're way off here; the question was putting Hitler on the left or right of the scale, or more correctly, off the scale. It's not a comparison with anyone living today. In fact the instigating factor was the presence of latter-day revisionism trying to put Hitler on the opposite side of the spectrum from where he's always lived. Trust me, if Hitler's contemporaries who saw and had to deal with his actions had the slightest inking that he was a leftist, we would have heard this theory looooong before enough time had passed that some wag thought he could get away with manipulating a fading memory.

Second -- "support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments", except for the last two words, very much applied to the NSDAP; that's part of the whole "social conservative" value system the Nazis hammered constantly that I mentioned before. It goes right in with hypernationalism/hyperpatriotism, the Fatherland, Kinder/Kirche/Kuche, a longing for past glory, and the strong military-- all right-wing and conservative ideals. You can't keep ignoring that; it's what defined the NSDAP. It's what they lived and breathed.

And third, this idea that there's some kind of cosmic scale on which we can place a given government to see how "big" it is, and if it's over a certain median it's left, and under, it's right -- is absurd. "Size of government" is a concept Ronald Reagan started selling in 1980. It has no meaning. And in the 1930s it had even less. Size, in this case, doesn't matter. I don't care what illusions are sold on the media in 2013, it's got nothing to do with a place on the left or right.

The political spectrum doesn't live in two dimensions; any government may be more or less authoritarian and simultaneously more or less left or right. They're in no way linked.

As Saigon noted, we've done these same points over, and over, and over, and over. It's like talking to a wall.

 

[Saigon]

I'm an American Conservative and I support a smaller government with low taxes and free markets.

I totally respect this, and don't much disagree myself, but the way historians analyse right wing governments around the world and going back a century or more obviously can not rely on what Conservatism is today and in one country, but has to use a more global and perhaps 'timeless' definition.

You see, under capitalism (free markets), corporations and businesses don't get help from the state. So by Hitler "rewarding his benefactors," he was essentially going completely against conservative/classical liberal/capitalist ideology.

Capitalism does not = free market.

In many, many capialist socities, deals depend on who you know, on families and clans and alliances and particularly in a 'you rub my back' system. In Finland we call this 'sauna politics', where all of the major decisions in an economy are made between close friends and associates, without any input from the public.

This is corrupt - but it is very much capitalism.

Remember that socialism does not accept the role of money or capital as a concept; whereas Hitler loved being able to manipulate the flow of capital in order to maintain social order.

 

[Esmeralda]

When I started this thread I had figured we'd get a dozen replies from posters from understand a bit of history, and probably just the two posters (SSDD and BriPat) who I had seen claimin earler that Hitler was not right wing continuing to deny it.

I am amazed it is now about to pass 1,000 comments.

Much of the debate has been excellent and some even well-informed, but I do think it is both a frightening sign of the future and a damning indictment of the education system that people can graduate from college and not understand the difference between left and right wing. Even for people who are not interested in politics or economics, a certain amount of basic knowledge should be held by everyone in a developed society.

I have never seen a left-wing person deny that Stalin, Mao or Cecasecu were left wing. We know they were. So why is it that the extreme right wing have recently started to deny that Hitler, Antonescu and Franco were right wing?

That should worry genuine conservatives.

Is it right wing people all over the world, in Europe, for example, or is it only American right wing people who are denying that Hitler/Antonescu/Franco were right wing?

 

[tooAlive]

Also, I see you're from Finland, so we may have different meanings for some political ideologies. So let me clear things up a bit in regards to right-wing conservatism in the US.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."[108] Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963.[109]

Major movements within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[110] Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and homosexuality.[111] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.

In the US, that's what right-wing conservatism stands for. Pretty far from Hitler's Nazi Germany if you asked me.

Oh come on 2Al, your position is regressing.

First of all on what basis do you propose to compare 1930s Germany with contemporary US conservatism? Wrong time, wrong place, wrong continent, wrong context -- and no one ever suggested that "Hitler = 2013 US conservatives". You're way off here; the question was putting Hitler on the left or right of the scale, or more correctly, off the scale. It's not a comparison with anyone living today. In fact the instigating factor was the presence of latter-day revisionism trying to put Hitler on the opposite side of the spectrum from where he's always lived. Trust me, if Hitler's contemporaries who saw and had to deal with his actions had the slightest inking that he was a leftist, we would have heard this theory looooong before enough time had passed that some wag thought he could get away with manipulating a fading memory.

Second -- "support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments", except for the last two words, very much applied to the NSDAP; that's part of the whole "social conservative" value system the Nazis hammered constantly that I mentioned before. It goes right in with hypernationalism/hyperpatriotism, the Fatherland, Kinder/Kirche/Kuche, a longing for past glory, and the strong military-- all right-wing and conservative ideals. You can't keep ignoring that; it's what defined the NSDAP. It's what they lived and breathed.

And third, this idea that there's some kind of cosmic scale on which we can place a given government to see how "big" it is, and if it's over a certain median it's left, and under, it's right -- is absurd. "Size of government" is a concept Ronald Reagan started selling in 1980. It has no meaning. And in the 1930s it had even less. Size, in this case, doesn't matter. I don't care what illusions are sold on the media in 2013, it's got nothing to do with a place on the left or right.

The political spectrum doesn't live in two dimensions; any government may be more or less authoritarian and simultaneously more or less left or right. They're in no way linked.

As Saigon noted, we've done these same points over, and over, and over, and over. It's like talking to a wall.

Well, that's exactly why we haven't been able to agree on anything so far.

All I've been arguing is that Hitler's Nazi Germany is not synonymous or the extreme of modern American right-wing political ideology. Which many liberals here (and elsewhere) commonly imply.

I didn't specify it as I just assumed everyone was talking about the same thing.

 

[tooAlive]

I totally respect this, and don't much disagree myself, but the way historians analyse right wing governments around the world and going back a century or more obviously can not rely on what Conservatism is today and in one country, but has to use a more global and perhaps 'timeless' definition.

Thank you. Looks like I'll have to garner a better understanding of world politics, as it looks like although we have similar beliefs, our terminologies are quite a bit different.

Capitalism does not = free market.

In many, many capialist socities, deals depend on who you know, on families and clans and alliances and particularly in a 'you rub my back' system. In Finland we call this 'sauna politics', where all of the major decisions in an economy are made between close friends and associates, without any input from the public.

This is corrupt - but it is very much capitalism.

Again, I believe this is where the terminology thing comes into play.

If you ask any American conservative or classical liberal what they would describe capitalism as, a free market would be the number one answer.

What you're describing to me sounds like what we would call crony capitalism or corporatism, where large entities use their power to buy special treatment and perks from the government, essentially gaining an unfair advantage over others.

Remember that socialism does not accept the role of money or capital as a concept; whereas Hitler loved being able to manipulate the flow of capital in order to maintain social order.

And what other socialist dictators haven't done the same thing themselves? By that token they'd all be capitalists as well.

 

[Saigon]

Is it right wing people all over the world, in Europe, for example, or is it only American right wing people who are denying that Hitler/Antonescu/Franco were right wing?

I thought about this for a while when I first saw the claim made on this board, and I can honestly say that I have never seen or heard the claim made in Europe or by anyone other than an American.

I think there are two reasons for this, one innocent, and one less so!

I do think that because so many Conservative Americans believe in small government as a cornerstone of modern American politics, it is difficult to understand that conservative governments in other western countries do not really hold the same values. At least, they are not as vocal about it. Even landmark Conservative leaders like Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl or Jacques Chirac did not really talk about small government as such.

But I also think there is a slightly disturbing trend for the extreme right wing in America to simply dismiss facts. I don't think it is a coincidence that the same half-dozen posters who most vocally reject climate change science are the same posters who reject what history teaches us.

There seems to be a belief that anything that comes out a university, the mouth of a PhD scientist or historian or even out of a book is somehow suspect, and can be dismissed out of hand. We actually have posters here who refuse to use dictionaries for political reasons. On this thread we've seen a couple of posters refuse to read history books by some of the most established historians of our era because they are "pinkos", despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is true.

I do think we should all be concerned by any move to simply re-write any science or history that is not poltically convenient.

 

[Esmeralda]

Is it right wing people all over the world, in Europe, for example, or is it only American right wing people who are denying that Hitler/Antonescu/Franco were right wing?

I thought about this for a while when I first saw the claim made on this board, and I can honestly say that I have never seen or heard the claim made in Europe or by anyone other than an American.

I think there are two reasons for this, one innocent, and one less so!

I do think that because so many Conservative Americans believe in small government as a cornerstone of modern American politics, it is difficult to understand that conservative governments in other western countries do not really hold the same values. At least, they are not as vocal about it. Even landmark Conservative leaders like Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl or Jacques Chirac did not really talk about small government as such.

But I also think there is a slightly disturbing trend for the extreme right wing in America to simply dismiss facts. I don't think it is a coincidence that the same half-dozen posters who most vocally reject climate change science are the same posters who reject what history teaches us.

There seems to be a belief that anything that comes out a university, the mouth of a PhD scientist or historian or even out of a book is somehow suspect, and can be dismissed out of hand. We actually have posters here who refuse to use dictionaries for political reasons. On this thread we've seen a couple of posters refuse to read history books by some of the most established historians of our era because they are "pinkos", despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is true.

I do think we should all be concerned by any move to simply re-write any science or history that is not poltically convenient.

I think you are right.

And I am still waiting for them to answer my question: Do they think the Neo-Nazis are left wing or right wing?

 

[tooAlive]

I do think that because so many Conservative Americans believe in small government as a cornerstone of modern American politics, it is difficult to understand that conservative governments in other western countries do not really hold the same values. At least, they are not as vocal about it.

That's the main reason why I've been so focused on arguing about Hitler being a leftist.

I just looked at Nazi Germany and couldn't understand how it could be associated with the right-wing conservative ideology I subscribe to. They're polar opposites to me.

Here in America, what is further to the right of a conservative is a libertarian. And libertarians are synonymous to classical liberals in both economic and social policies. And Hitler was far from being a classical liberal. So it made no sense to me that he would be an even more extreme rightist, as the only thing further to the right of a libertarian would be an anarchist.

 

[tooAlive]

I think you are right.

And I am still waiting for them to answer my question: Do they think the Neo-Nazis are left wing or right wing?

I'd say they're a mixture of both.

Again, this is by Modern American left/right standards.

Their hatred of homosexuals for example could be associated with extreme social conservatism. But then again, they also hate anyone why doesn't belong to their race, and that's not something I would attribute to either the right or the left.

Now, in regards to their economy, their central-planning tendencies would put them on the left in the same category as socialists. As again, in modern American politics, a centrally-planned economy is a polar opposite to right conservative ideals.

But to be fair, like Pogo said earlier, they probably don't belong on the spectrum at all.

 

[Saigon]

Their hatred of homosexuals for example could be associated with extreme social conservatism. But then again, they also hate anyone why doesn't belong to their race, and that's not something I would attribute to either the right or the left.

At a personal level, I don't think there is much difference in racism from left wing to right wing, but at a political level the left wing traditionally favours immigration, international development aid, civil rights for racial minorities and so forth. Even many communist movements were very ethnically diverse.

The right wing is more linked with a singular dominant ethnic group, opposes immigation and development aid, and often opposes civil rights movements as it seeks to maintain the status quo.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Also, I see you're from Finland, so we may have different meanings for some political ideologies. So let me clear things up a bit in regards to right-wing conservatism in the US.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."[108] Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963.[109]

Major movements within American conservatism include support for tradition, law-and-order, Christianity, anti-communism, and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[110] Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism, so they support school prayer and oppose abortion and homosexuality.[111] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel.

In the US, that's what right-wing conservatism stands for. Pretty far from Hitler's Nazi Germany if you asked me.

Hmmmmmm.........................maybe you've just explained the rise of the tea party.

Conservatives weren't conservative enough, so you had to go farther to the right, resulting in the tea party.

Good talk.