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

[editec]

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

Discuss if you dare.

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

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

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

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

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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

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

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

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

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

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

 

[Charles_Main]

Discuss if you dare.

He was a national Socialist. Traditionally thought of as Right wing. However it does have many Parallels to Socialism. Both require Totalitarian Government to Maintain there hold over the people. One is openly about everything being for the Greater Glory of the state, when it truth it about the Greater Gloria of the People in Power. The Other is supposed to be about the Betterment of the People, however it also is really only about the Betterment of the People in power.

Simply put, It does not matter if it's right wing crazies, or Left wing Wack Jobs. When you let them get in power, they do not want to give it up, and their Policies require Iron Fisted Rule to be fully Implemented because Frankly if people have a choice, they don't want what their selling. They may have thought they did in Theory, but they find the actually practice much less desirable.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

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

Very well put. The Fact is whether it be Far Left Communists, or Far Right Nationalists In order to stay in power they will have to become Authoritarian.

 

[midcan5]

Words cannot define Hitler nor his evil. This is a topic I have changed my mind on, I don't think because of the use of common words nor even a few ideological leanings one can nail down dictators who are mad as simply right or left. The thing about evil is that it can exist side by side with more normal behaviors. Consider the psychotic who kill for pleasure while the neighbors or even family think them upright.

Philip Zimbardo shows how people become monsters ... or heroes | Video on TED.com

"The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbors as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant of others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves." Eric Hoffer

Check this out sometime. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Evil-Ordinary-Genocide-Killing/dp/0195189493/ref=pd_cp_b_2]Amazon.com: Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing (9780195189490): James Waller: Books[/ame]


"The main hypothesis concerning group-think is this: the more amiability and espirt de corps among the members of an in-group of policymakers the greater the danger that independent critical thinking will be replaced by groupthink, which is likely to result in irrational and the dehumanizing actions directed at out-groups." Irving L. Janis 'Sanctions for Evil'

"We first kill people with our minds, before we kill them with weapons. Whatever the conflict, the enemy is always the destroyer. We're on God's side; they're barbaric. We're good, they're evil. War gives us a feeling of moral clarity that we lack at other times." Sam Keen
FORA.tv - Sam Keen: In The Absence of God

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

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

Very well put. The Fact is whether it be Far Left Communists, or Far Right Nationalists In order to stay in power they will have to become Authoritarian.

Or, to put it another way, any economic ideology can be made tyrannical - be it left wing, or right wing.

 

[francoHFW]

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

 

[CT9]

Nazism should not be considered a socialist movement. It's true that the Nazis used socialist talking points, but those were only an electoral ploy.

In reality, fascism (including its Nazi subset) was not an economic philosophy at all, like socialism or capitalism, but rather a political philosophy like democracy or monarchy, concerned with the expression of political power not with the production and distribution of wealth. The sole Nazi concerns with respect to the economy was that it 1) keep the people's support; 2) maintain the military machine effectively; and 3) serve the consolidation of national power in the hands of the Fuhrer.

Economically, therefore, Nazism was neither left-wing nor right-wing; it was whatever-works-wing. Politically, as an anti-democratic philosophy that pursued extreme concentration of power into few hands, it must be considered right-wing -- indeed, WAY right-wing, much more so than any significant American right-wing movement, as none of those would support literal abolition of elections and an overt dictatorship.

However, while no significant part of the American right would go anywhere near as far as Hitler, the general distrust of democracy on the right remains to show the similarity.

This is why I knew it would be a bad thread?

First of all show me that bolded part...

Secondly, if you are talking a genuine democracy would you say our founders show the similarity to Hitler in a distrust of elections.

Thirdly, do you think Hitler distrusted elections or it was more of a power move. He only "distrusted" elections, which is certainly not the way I would phrase it, because he wouldn't keep power.

Did Saddam distrust elections? Did Stalin distrust elections? Mao?

The point is they didn't care about election not distrust them they just wanted to keep power. No you could say it is distrust because they didn't have faith in being re-elected but that is a big reach and twisting reality.

Finally, to say that any anti-democratic philosophy that centralizes power is again a ridiculous statement and I can't help but feel all you are doing in this is belittling anybody to the right. I know you said far far right wing away from any American, however, it still comes across that way.

 

[ladyliberal]

This is of course a very complicated topic, but here's my two cents worth (most of my impressions are from Conot's "Justice at Nuremberg"):

-- Nazism had three essential aspects:
1) highly centralized government
2) highly expansionary military aims
3) homogenization of society through elimination of minorities, especially Jews

Both sides of the contemporary US political scene explicitly reject the gross excesses of Nazism and neither deserves to be slandered by any suggestion otherwise. However, there are some comparisons to be made between the goals of Nazism and of the left and the right today in the US. The left favors a more centralized (IE, federal rather than state) government. Both the left and the right are strong on protecting different individual liberties from the government. The right is somewhat more expansionary militarily. The left is somewhat more willing to support minorities, ethnic and otherwise, than the right, although both reject de jure discrimination against minorities.

There are other relatively superficial features which defined Nazism. Their jingoism, traditionalism (especially traditional gender roles), anti-homosexuality and anti-intellectualism all point to the right. Their anti-Catholicism, and nominal socialism point to the left.

The actual use of the word "socialism" in the party name is quite a misnomer. The Nazis got their start battling Communists, and allied with the conservative party to take power. Nazi Germany's relationship with the USSR was also primarily negative, although this may have had little to do with ideology.

Anyway, Nazism tells us very little about Democrats and Republicans. It is an important historical topic in and of itself, though.

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[edthecynic]

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

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

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

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

Gee, that sounds more like NATIONALISM than Socialism.

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

 

[Avatar4321]

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

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

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What kind of moronic pointless question is that?

All this childish nonsense to distract Americans from real issues.

Stupid

 

[Political Junky]

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

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

I say the reverse is the case.

 

[edthecynic]

Read up on some of Hitler's writings. It will shock many who have this pre-conceived notion he was a "Right Winger." He actually wrote about how much he despised Capitalism. It's very interesting reading.

The Decider's speeches sound more like your basic Reagan CON$ervative than any Socialist.

"The Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich." has become a reality for the peoples of Germany. We have entered into a brighter future. A future of restoring the old ways to our great land. A future of protecting our Homeland from terrors and the terrorist of the outside world. A future of rising ourselves to greater highs and into a greater glory for all.

I am a Decider. I have decided, we must bring ourselves to a new order of protecting our great land from the outside influences, which threaten the very fabric of our lives.

I am a Decider and I have decided. We as a people. Chosen by God. Chosen for resplendence. Chosen for the greater good of all. Chosen for a destiny. We are the chosen people. We must live by our own rules and our own laws. by this: nevertheless.
We Must Stay The Course!

I am the Decider. This is my vision and my decision, as your great Decider to will the Divine into existence. Define the goals and the path of our future, to the will of the masses. Who have decided, by their own free will. That I, The Decider, To be the leader, and a leader of the peoples of The New Reich.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.
To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows.
For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe
I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922


National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a volkic political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men. -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938.

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

 

[paulitician]

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

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

Yes you're right. I've always believed that myself. I'm called a Right Winger but i prefer to be called a Conservative. I don't think the term Right Wing can be associated with Conservatism. With true Conservatism it is impossible to get to Dictatorship/Totalitarianism. True Conservatives support smaller Government and less intrusion in Citizens' lives. Hitler and the Nazis were all about huge Government and complete control of their Citizens. I associate that more with Socialism/Communism. And Fascism was actually born of Socialism. But in the end brutal Dictatorships are all the same. But i still say the Nazis were above all a Socialist Movement.

 

[RodISHI]

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

Discuss if you dare.

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

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

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

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

A lot of people cannot see that aspect of it.

 

[asterism]

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

Discuss if you dare.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[paulitician]

Only over-sized Big Government can lead to Dictatorship/Totalitarianism. The term 'Right Wing' shouldn't be associated with Conservatism. I know the Left likes to lump them together so they can make Nazi comparisons but they really aren't the same thing. True Conservatism is about less Government intrusion in Citizen's lives. It's the Big Government advocates people should worry about. Because it's their philosophy that often leads to Dictatorship/Totalitarianism. Most current brutal Dictatorships in this world are Left Socialist/Communist regimes. Just my observations anyway.