…were socialists, not “right wingers.” Always a useful reminder.
52 thoughts on “Nazis”
We need to reject completely the definition of “right-wing” that the left wing media propagates. There is no such thing as “right wing totalitarianism”. Totalitarianism is a wholly left wing creation. The true definition of the left-right spectrum is that the farther to the left a system moves the more control it has over the people, with totalitarianism being the farthest left. The farther to the right a system moves the less control it has over the people, with anarchy being the farthest right.
I don’t think the “political spectrum” can reasonably be depicted in less than two dimensions, that is; in social, and in economic terms, the liberal left is usually seen as economically controlling but socially liberal, the conservative right as economically liberal but socially controlling, the far left as socially and economically controlling and the libertarian right as economically and socially liberal.
By that measure fascism is indeed on the far left, but it gets differentiated from the communist left because it’s not egalitarian (it’s elitist), and not for state ownership.
It’s that “not egalitarian” bit that’s the main reason why fascism is seen by the left as being right wing.
When I say “egalitarian” I mean equality in terms of what people supposedly “have” not “opportunity”
“…the liberal left is usually seen as economically controlling but socially liberal…”
Except when it comes to porn, literature, who you can adopt, what religion you follow, what car you drive, where you live, how big your house is, the land you build your house on, what you eat, what you feed your kids, what your kids eat at daycare, what hobbies you enjoy, the words that come out of your mouth, the words in your head, and on and on and on. The contradictions are too great these days.
Back in the 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s the left was big on free speech because they were the ones talking. They wanted tolerance for their extreme views. But when they got into power, tolerance of different beliefs and the ideal of free speech just go out the window.
Except when it comes to porn, literature, who you can adopt, what religion you follow, what car you drive, where you live, how big your house is, the land you build your house on, what you eat, what you feed your kids, what your kids eat at daycare, what hobbies you enjoy, the words that come out of your mouth, the words in your head, and on and on and on. The contradictions are too great these days.
Some of that I agree with, on the left telling us what’s best for our health, or what’s best for the country, but with other things on your list: porn, adoption, religion, who we can marry and lots of “moral” issues, it’s the conservative religious right that’s telling us how we’re supposed to behave.
Restrictions on:
1) Porn: Who on the “right” is advocating restrictions on this? If they are, they’re doing a lousy job. There is no end to what I can call up on my screen right here, if I so desired. In fact, regulations on this are originating from… you guessed it.
2) Adoption: You mean adoption by gay couples, right? Otherwise, I don’t know what you are talking about. Gay adoption is a radically new thing. Is there a reason you believe radical change should be implemented immediately with no deliberation?
3) Religion: WTF? Who is forcing you to choose a religion?
4) Who we can marry: see #2 above. How does this restrict “how [you’re] supposed to behave? Are you being repressed from expressing your view in favor of this? Evidently not.
You’re right, what was I thinking? The religious right has always been at the forefront of social liberalization./sarc.
Andrew, why do you ignore the progressives who are trying to destroy the rights of the religious? Your right to porn and sexual lifestyle, etc. should not be forced on others. I don’t care if it’s a backlash against religious strictures. Equal rights apply to all, not just the underprivileged and minorities.
It seems to me your general premise is that two wrongs DO make a right …
Ah, the religious Right. A subset of the Right. I thought you were expressing an opinion about a significant grouping.
The point is, these days, it is not the Right which is intent on abridging civil liberties, but the Left. With speech codes, useless regulations which funnel spoils to their cronies, unappealable mandates, property seizures, wiretapping, persecution of political enemies via the tax code, and, yes, abrogation of religious freedom, the Left has run amuck. The Left is after power and, with the major media in their hip pocket, they’re not even pretending to play by the rules anymore.
These aren’t your father’s political parties. It’s high time you stopped fighting the last war and opened your eyes to what is going on today.
Left, right, whatever. There are people who want total state, mostly total state, strong state, not much state, and not any state. That’s about it.
Considering that term “right wing” comes from the pro-Establishment, pro-Royalist wing of the old French parliament, if anyone these days is “right wing” it’s the “liberals” (And by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators.”)
This is a losing argument. Keeping the words “..Socialist..Workers’…” in the name of the Nazi party was a cynical decision in the early days to appeal to those for whom socialism was the antidote to the post-WWI ills of Germany. That the Nazis were brutal totalitarians controlling many aspects of daily life for even the “racially acceptable” Germans there is no doubt, but that doesn’t mean they were socialists in the same way that the USSR was.
The “fasces” bundle of sticks with an axe in the middle is hardly proof of socialism either. It was a symbol of state power in ancient Rome, which Mussolini wanted to evoke, the idea that his party was reviving Rome in modern Italy. And because they have been a symbol of authority since Rome, the fasces are also carved into the House chamber in the US Capitol.
The Nazis were Socialist like the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea is a Democratic Republic.
Socialists among other things believe all humans are born equal. How some people equate that with the racist ideology of the Nazis is something I find hard to believe.
Socialists among other things believe all humans are born equal, but that Party officials are more equal than others, and dissenters from the Party line are enemies of The People, appropriately destined for the gulag.
FIFY
“Godzilla
January 22, 2015 at 12:14 pm
Socialists among other things believe all humans are born equal. ”
I disagree. I believe at their core socialists believe that people are born unequal. Hence the need for socialism to regulate our lives to insure equality of results. Classical Liberalism was the ideology that came up with the truly radical idea that people are born equal but don’t necessarily end up that way given varying levels of competency,perseverance, and luck. Otherwise, your free to do as much, or that matter as little with, the gifts you are given by nature (and God if that’s your thing).
In a truly idyllic socialist society a true utopia would be achieved. But invariably a small group of people decide that some people are more equal than others and use the levers that regulate peoples lives in the name of equality as a means to control and subjugate.
Socialists among other things believe all humans are born equal.
Holy stark raving moonbat, man.
The party leaders claim to believe in equality, just like Democrat officeholders in the U.S. claim to believe in the Constitution.
Socialists. Are. Liars.
If you follow the movement from Roussau, to Saint-Simon, to Marx, even Lenin, and Stalin you will find that undercurrent is followed. Sometimes to the extreme. For example Stalin banned eugenics and genetic engineering research.
This is not just talk. This is where ideas like the ‘reeducation’ camps came from. Problems are not innate they are caused by a poor environment or education. Compare that with nazism where things are determined by genes and the solution is ‘death’ camps and sterilization.
I know which extreme I would rather pick. Although I would rather have none.
Guess you never heard of Lysenko?
“Socialists among other things believe all humans are born equal.”
And yet there are many graves filled with minorities by socialists.
Socialists believe that all humans are born equal, but some are more equal than others, as Orwell noted. Those that refuse to be equal are dealt with, hence the graves, the gulags, etc.
(As with all propaganda, redefinitions of terms, in this case, equality, means something it was never meant to…)
socialism [soh-shuh-liz-uh m] noun – a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
“”There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can’t escape…What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings””
– Adolf Hitler
If it walks like a duck…
More propaganda from the masters of propaganda of the Nazi party.
If we are talking about communism in Nazi Germany the fact is the Nazis never nationalized the industries as such. e.g. Ferdinand Porsche. Sure they geared up for a war economy and most production was diverted to weapons manufacturing. Same thing happened in the US and UK. I am talking about companies like Chrysler and Rover. Were those socialist countries as well?
One need not nationalize something in order to control it. Just because Hitler’s view of socialism differed from some other socialists, doesn’t mean he wasn’t one himself.
This kind of reminds me about arguing about the differences between communism and socialism, arguing about differences that are without distinction.
It wasn’t the same thing at all. Read the quote again. It waddles. It quacks. It’s a duck.
Hitler had no interest in micromanaging industry daily operations in the same fashion Communists who would create detailed 5 year plans to dictated when and how many cigarettes would be produced. But rather the Nazis arranged businesses into cartels and the state sat at the head of the table. You can look at the constitution of Mussolini’s fascist regime and there are amendments that say that businesses are “free” to operate as they see fit, but makes it clear, the means of productions are ultimately controlled by and operate directly for the benefit of the state.
It was never stated in my civics class what the “spectrum” was measuring, beside putting things someplace on a line. With democratic fascism in full gallop in the west it was past due for the political spectrum to actually be a spectrum based on individual freedom. My full thanks to Jonah.
Aslan would have torn out Nazis’ throats as well as Communists’.
The Nazi partnered with the political right in Germany to defeat their enemies, the Social Democrats and the German Communist Party. A party that defines itself by its opposition to the political left is naturally considered a party of the right.
It didn’t define itself that way. It was just wiping out its leftist opposition. Stalin did the same thing to the Trots. Was he a right winger?
By Jim’s estimation, the Mensheviks were somewhere to the right of Jinjiss Khan.
According to Jonah Goldberg’s LIBERAL FASCISM, which is copiously footnoted (and even if it weren’t I’d be inclined to give it credence if only because the usual State-f*ckers hate it), it was actually–contrary to what Jim says– the Left that did the defining. Goldberg writes it was the Commies of the Stalinist era who came up with the concept that their enemies were the “right wing.” This led to the ridiculous situation today, where the term “right wing” covers everyone from Nazis to individualist pacifist-anarchists such as Robert LeFevre . . . thus rendering the concept pretty meaningless.
The narcissism of small differences. Stalinists and Trotskyites were former comrades-in-arms who fell out over who’d get to wield power. The Nazis weren’t former Social Democrats or Communists who formed a splinter party — they were violently anti-communist from the start.
A right-left spectrum is too simple to capture all flavors of political ideology, but if that’s the spectrum you’re using, Nazis belong on the right. Like other rightist parties, Nazis were fiercely nationalist, where the left is cosmopolitan and internationalist. They were moral and cultural traditionalists, where the left tolerates and promotes new social mores. Nazis exalted purity and loyalty and martial honor as supreme values, values that the left typically holds in poor regard.
The narcissism of small differences. Stalinists and Trotskyites were former comrades-in-arms who fell out over who’d get to wield power. The Nazis weren’t former Social Democrats or Communists who formed a splinter party — they were violently anti-communist from the start.
But they weren’t anti-totalitarian, and against wanting to run everyone’s life. That’s the only distinction that really matters to the user. Your definitions are academic, and useless to the user.
A right-left spectrum is too simple to capture all flavors of political ideology,
Agreed
but if that’s the spectrum you’re using, Nazis belong on the right. Like other rightist parties, Nazis were fiercely nationalist, where the left is cosmopolitan and internationalist.
You’re claiming that if a political organization is nationalist it must be right wing, that’s just not so, communist and other left wing governments and parties have been nationalistic, even isolationist.
Yes Nationalism is not a good way to measure the difference. The Communist party in Vietnam is nationalist as well for example.
Even the Soviet Union and China used nationalist arguments quite often.
Autocratic and Totalitarian regimes have come from both sides of the spectrum. A lot of people make the left/right split on an economic basis which I think is a better way to classify the difference.
Nationalism can be rather benign. There is nothing inherently wrong with loving the country you live in. In the USA, nationalism is a term used to insult people who like their country. When people use the nationalist insult, what they are really trying to do is delegitimize any support for the country you live in, in this case the USA.
They want to say that the natural affinities that one has for the country they live in are wrong and that they must be replaced by affinities for a system that runs counter to our own, marxism/socialism/communism. Only anti-nationalistic sentiments are permitted. You are not allowed to love your country, only to hate it. Which is rather convenient for a group of people who hate our society and way of life and would like to replace it with a different ideology and power structure.
Then when the leftists take power, suddenly you have to love your country and support everything your leaders do. There is no criticism allowed. There is no deviation from new ideology. Nationalism becomes cool again but it isn’t just having generally positive sentiments but rather a tool to force compliance to a rigid ideology.
Sorry Jim, but the Nazis were extreme socialists. They were also nationalists, believing that the state and the people actually mean something, unlike the international socialists who were an abject failure and abomination to true socialists. If you walked up to a Nazi and accused him of not being devoted to socialism, he would shoot you in the head.
Lately I’ve been reading The Third Reich: A New History, which is reviewed as being one of the most authoritative works ever written on the subject.
He defines the three pillars of Nazism as faith, hope, and charity.
Well, isn’t that inconvenient.
No. Nazism was a reactionary conservative response to International Communism.
No, Naziism was a response to defeat, humiliation, and crushing war reparations.
Envy is at the core of leftist ideology. It’s the driving force that makes equality its overarching purpose. Hitler felt that envy could be stamped out if he could make everyone equally beautiful, smart, and strong. Communists on the other hand, as Ayn Rand put it, view people as a meaningless collection of cells. People were just cogs in a machine who’s purpose was for the progression of the State — everything for the State.
You’re not getting a pass on this either Jim…
Nazis were fiercely nationalist, where the left is cosmopolitan and internationalist.
Yet lefties claim to be loyal patriots (nationalists.)
They were moral and cultural traditionalists, where the left tolerates and promotes new social mores.
With a dictatorial fervor. The right has morals, but does not dictate them on others. Those that do are similar to socialist nazis.
Nazis exalted purity and loyalty and martial honor as supreme values, values that the left typically holds in poor regard
Purity and loyalty? Ask Juan Williams and a multitude of others how that works for lefties.
“They were moral and cultural traditionalists, where the left tolerates and promotes new social mores. Nazis exalted purity and loyalty and martial honor as supreme values, values that the left typically holds in poor regard.”
No, they wanted to introduce new social mores and cultural traditions. They may not all be the same as what leftists today think but they are similar. For instance, the left has it sown view of racial superiority. I don’t see much tolerance from the left these days. They like the things they like but they don’t tolerate the things they don’t.
Our left wants to force people to lead pure lives but the purity is determined by Democrat party dogma. Have to drive certain cars, live in certain areas, eat certain foods, associate with certain people. engage in only approved activities ect ect.
So a centrist democrat is a right winger in your eyes?
These look awefully socialistic. Platform of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party
(1933).
13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.
Some will say the other planks resemble republican ideals, but I argue that they are only thinking of the caricature of the republican party.
Really Jon, I think your post hits the nail on the head. Item 13 has always been to me the simplest definition of a fascist, and item 16 is essentially socialism except it actually uses the root word communal. The argument for a sound middle class still rings to this day.
The Nazis were absolutely socialists and were composed of quite a few people who had been with the socialist or communist parties prior to their affiliation with the Nazis. That said, they weren’t economically doctrinaire–they just wanted to control the economy completely and were perfectly willing to allow companies to remain outside of direct control, provided that they obeyed the central government. Kind of like the way American socialism is evolving.
Also, the Nazis did plenty of social welfare and other wealth redistribution.
” Kind of like the way American socialism is evolving.”
As Whittle says in the interview, “sound familiar?”
To me the most interesting aspect of this discussion–like other internet discussions of this topic I’ve seen–is exercised members of the Hive get when one points out the strong socialist (and if not “socialist,” certainly statist) roots of the Nazi party and European fascism in general. I don’t think you have to be a licensed psychologist to figure out why.
They do squirm and squeal.
“No. Nazism was a reactionary conservative response to International Communism.”
Can you give me some sources on this, Godzilla? My readings in the subject indicate that both ideologies grew about the same time. (And I’m talking about the ideologies, not when the Nazis became an official party. They even had the same socialist roots.
We need to reject completely the definition of “right-wing” that the left wing media propagates. There is no such thing as “right wing totalitarianism”. Totalitarianism is a wholly left wing creation. The true definition of the left-right spectrum is that the farther to the left a system moves the more control it has over the people, with totalitarianism being the farthest left. The farther to the right a system moves the less control it has over the people, with anarchy being the farthest right.
I don’t think the “political spectrum” can reasonably be depicted in less than two dimensions, that is; in social, and in economic terms, the liberal left is usually seen as economically controlling but socially liberal, the conservative right as economically liberal but socially controlling, the far left as socially and economically controlling and the libertarian right as economically and socially liberal.
By that measure fascism is indeed on the far left, but it gets differentiated from the communist left because it’s not egalitarian (it’s elitist), and not for state ownership.
It’s that “not egalitarian” bit that’s the main reason why fascism is seen by the left as being right wing.
When I say “egalitarian” I mean equality in terms of what people supposedly “have” not “opportunity”
“…the liberal left is usually seen as economically controlling but socially liberal…”
Uh–huh.
“socially liberal”
Except when it comes to porn, literature, who you can adopt, what religion you follow, what car you drive, where you live, how big your house is, the land you build your house on, what you eat, what you feed your kids, what your kids eat at daycare, what hobbies you enjoy, the words that come out of your mouth, the words in your head, and on and on and on. The contradictions are too great these days.
Back in the 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s the left was big on free speech because they were the ones talking. They wanted tolerance for their extreme views. But when they got into power, tolerance of different beliefs and the ideal of free speech just go out the window.
Except when it comes to porn, literature, who you can adopt, what religion you follow, what car you drive, where you live, how big your house is, the land you build your house on, what you eat, what you feed your kids, what your kids eat at daycare, what hobbies you enjoy, the words that come out of your mouth, the words in your head, and on and on and on. The contradictions are too great these days.
Some of that I agree with, on the left telling us what’s best for our health, or what’s best for the country, but with other things on your list: porn, adoption, religion, who we can marry and lots of “moral” issues, it’s the conservative religious right that’s telling us how we’re supposed to behave.
Restrictions on:
1) Porn: Who on the “right” is advocating restrictions on this? If they are, they’re doing a lousy job. There is no end to what I can call up on my screen right here, if I so desired. In fact, regulations on this are originating from… you guessed it.
2) Adoption: You mean adoption by gay couples, right? Otherwise, I don’t know what you are talking about. Gay adoption is a radically new thing. Is there a reason you believe radical change should be implemented immediately with no deliberation?
3) Religion: WTF? Who is forcing you to choose a religion?
4) Who we can marry: see #2 above. How does this restrict “how [you’re] supposed to behave? Are you being repressed from expressing your view in favor of this? Evidently not.
You’re right, what was I thinking? The religious right has always been at the forefront of social liberalization./sarc.
Andrew, why do you ignore the progressives who are trying to destroy the rights of the religious? Your right to porn and sexual lifestyle, etc. should not be forced on others. I don’t care if it’s a backlash against religious strictures. Equal rights apply to all, not just the underprivileged and minorities.
It seems to me your general premise is that two wrongs DO make a right …
Ah, the religious Right. A subset of the Right. I thought you were expressing an opinion about a significant grouping.
The point is, these days, it is not the Right which is intent on abridging civil liberties, but the Left. With speech codes, useless regulations which funnel spoils to their cronies, unappealable mandates, property seizures, wiretapping, persecution of political enemies via the tax code, and, yes, abrogation of religious freedom, the Left has run amuck. The Left is after power and, with the major media in their hip pocket, they’re not even pretending to play by the rules anymore.
These aren’t your father’s political parties. It’s high time you stopped fighting the last war and opened your eyes to what is going on today.
Left, right, whatever. There are people who want total state, mostly total state, strong state, not much state, and not any state. That’s about it.
Considering that term “right wing” comes from the pro-Establishment, pro-Royalist wing of the old French parliament, if anyone these days is “right wing” it’s the “liberals” (And by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators.”)
This is a losing argument. Keeping the words “..Socialist..Workers’…” in the name of the Nazi party was a cynical decision in the early days to appeal to those for whom socialism was the antidote to the post-WWI ills of Germany. That the Nazis were brutal totalitarians controlling many aspects of daily life for even the “racially acceptable” Germans there is no doubt, but that doesn’t mean they were socialists in the same way that the USSR was.
The “fasces” bundle of sticks with an axe in the middle is hardly proof of socialism either. It was a symbol of state power in ancient Rome, which Mussolini wanted to evoke, the idea that his party was reviving Rome in modern Italy. And because they have been a symbol of authority since Rome, the fasces are also carved into the House chamber in the US Capitol.
The Nazis were Socialist like the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea is a Democratic Republic.
Socialists among other things believe all humans are born equal. How some people equate that with the racist ideology of the Nazis is something I find hard to believe.
Socialists among other things believe all humans are born equal, but that Party officials are more equal than others, and dissenters from the Party line are enemies of The People, appropriately destined for the gulag.
FIFY
“Godzilla
January 22, 2015 at 12:14 pm
Socialists among other things believe all humans are born equal. ”
I disagree. I believe at their core socialists believe that people are born unequal. Hence the need for socialism to regulate our lives to insure equality of results. Classical Liberalism was the ideology that came up with the truly radical idea that people are born equal but don’t necessarily end up that way given varying levels of competency,perseverance, and luck. Otherwise, your free to do as much, or that matter as little with, the gifts you are given by nature (and God if that’s your thing).
In a truly idyllic socialist society a true utopia would be achieved. But invariably a small group of people decide that some people are more equal than others and use the levers that regulate peoples lives in the name of equality as a means to control and subjugate.
Holy stark raving moonbat, man.
The party leaders claim to believe in equality, just like Democrat officeholders in the U.S. claim to believe in the Constitution.
Socialists. Are. Liars.
If you follow the movement from Roussau, to Saint-Simon, to Marx, even Lenin, and Stalin you will find that undercurrent is followed. Sometimes to the extreme. For example Stalin banned eugenics and genetic engineering research.
This is not just talk. This is where ideas like the ‘reeducation’ camps came from. Problems are not innate they are caused by a poor environment or education. Compare that with nazism where things are determined by genes and the solution is ‘death’ camps and sterilization.
I know which extreme I would rather pick. Although I would rather have none.
Guess you never heard of Lysenko?
“Socialists among other things believe all humans are born equal.”
And yet there are many graves filled with minorities by socialists.
Socialists believe that all humans are born equal, but some are more equal than others, as Orwell noted. Those that refuse to be equal are dealt with, hence the graves, the gulags, etc.
(As with all propaganda, redefinitions of terms, in this case, equality, means something it was never meant to…)
socialism [soh-shuh-liz-uh m] noun – a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
“”There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can’t escape…What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings””
– Adolf Hitler
If it walks like a duck…
More propaganda from the masters of propaganda of the Nazi party.
If we are talking about communism in Nazi Germany the fact is the Nazis never nationalized the industries as such. e.g. Ferdinand Porsche. Sure they geared up for a war economy and most production was diverted to weapons manufacturing. Same thing happened in the US and UK. I am talking about companies like Chrysler and Rover. Were those socialist countries as well?
One need not nationalize something in order to control it. Just because Hitler’s view of socialism differed from some other socialists, doesn’t mean he wasn’t one himself.
This kind of reminds me about arguing about the differences between communism and socialism, arguing about differences that are without distinction.
It wasn’t the same thing at all. Read the quote again. It waddles. It quacks. It’s a duck.
Hitler had no interest in micromanaging industry daily operations in the same fashion Communists who would create detailed 5 year plans to dictated when and how many cigarettes would be produced. But rather the Nazis arranged businesses into cartels and the state sat at the head of the table. You can look at the constitution of Mussolini’s fascist regime and there are amendments that say that businesses are “free” to operate as they see fit, but makes it clear, the means of productions are ultimately controlled by and operate directly for the benefit of the state.
It was never stated in my civics class what the “spectrum” was measuring, beside putting things someplace on a line. With democratic fascism in full gallop in the west it was past due for the political spectrum to actually be a spectrum based on individual freedom. My full thanks to Jonah.
This discussion reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvlRL0u_fBs
Aslan would have torn out Nazis’ throats as well as Communists’.
The Nazi partnered with the political right in Germany to defeat their enemies, the Social Democrats and the German Communist Party. A party that defines itself by its opposition to the political left is naturally considered a party of the right.
It didn’t define itself that way. It was just wiping out its leftist opposition. Stalin did the same thing to the Trots. Was he a right winger?
By Jim’s estimation, the Mensheviks were somewhere to the right of Jinjiss Khan.
According to Jonah Goldberg’s LIBERAL FASCISM, which is copiously footnoted (and even if it weren’t I’d be inclined to give it credence if only because the usual State-f*ckers hate it), it was actually–contrary to what Jim says– the Left that did the defining. Goldberg writes it was the Commies of the Stalinist era who came up with the concept that their enemies were the “right wing.” This led to the ridiculous situation today, where the term “right wing” covers everyone from Nazis to individualist pacifist-anarchists such as Robert LeFevre . . . thus rendering the concept pretty meaningless.
The narcissism of small differences. Stalinists and Trotskyites were former comrades-in-arms who fell out over who’d get to wield power. The Nazis weren’t former Social Democrats or Communists who formed a splinter party — they were violently anti-communist from the start.
A right-left spectrum is too simple to capture all flavors of political ideology, but if that’s the spectrum you’re using, Nazis belong on the right. Like other rightist parties, Nazis were fiercely nationalist, where the left is cosmopolitan and internationalist. They were moral and cultural traditionalists, where the left tolerates and promotes new social mores. Nazis exalted purity and loyalty and martial honor as supreme values, values that the left typically holds in poor regard.
The narcissism of small differences. Stalinists and Trotskyites were former comrades-in-arms who fell out over who’d get to wield power. The Nazis weren’t former Social Democrats or Communists who formed a splinter party — they were violently anti-communist from the start.
But they weren’t anti-totalitarian, and against wanting to run everyone’s life. That’s the only distinction that really matters to the user. Your definitions are academic, and useless to the user.
A right-left spectrum is too simple to capture all flavors of political ideology,
Agreed
but if that’s the spectrum you’re using, Nazis belong on the right. Like other rightist parties, Nazis were fiercely nationalist, where the left is cosmopolitan and internationalist.
You’re claiming that if a political organization is nationalist it must be right wing, that’s just not so, communist and other left wing governments and parties have been nationalistic, even isolationist.
Yes Nationalism is not a good way to measure the difference. The Communist party in Vietnam is nationalist as well for example.
Even the Soviet Union and China used nationalist arguments quite often.
Autocratic and Totalitarian regimes have come from both sides of the spectrum. A lot of people make the left/right split on an economic basis which I think is a better way to classify the difference.
Nationalism can be rather benign. There is nothing inherently wrong with loving the country you live in. In the USA, nationalism is a term used to insult people who like their country. When people use the nationalist insult, what they are really trying to do is delegitimize any support for the country you live in, in this case the USA.
They want to say that the natural affinities that one has for the country they live in are wrong and that they must be replaced by affinities for a system that runs counter to our own, marxism/socialism/communism. Only anti-nationalistic sentiments are permitted. You are not allowed to love your country, only to hate it. Which is rather convenient for a group of people who hate our society and way of life and would like to replace it with a different ideology and power structure.
Then when the leftists take power, suddenly you have to love your country and support everything your leaders do. There is no criticism allowed. There is no deviation from new ideology. Nationalism becomes cool again but it isn’t just having generally positive sentiments but rather a tool to force compliance to a rigid ideology.
Sorry Jim, but the Nazis were extreme socialists. They were also nationalists, believing that the state and the people actually mean something, unlike the international socialists who were an abject failure and abomination to true socialists. If you walked up to a Nazi and accused him of not being devoted to socialism, he would shoot you in the head.
Lately I’ve been reading The Third Reich: A New History, which is reviewed as being one of the most authoritative works ever written on the subject.
He defines the three pillars of Nazism as faith, hope, and charity.
Well, isn’t that inconvenient.
No. Nazism was a reactionary conservative response to International Communism.
No, Naziism was a response to defeat, humiliation, and crushing war reparations.
Envy is at the core of leftist ideology. It’s the driving force that makes equality its overarching purpose. Hitler felt that envy could be stamped out if he could make everyone equally beautiful, smart, and strong. Communists on the other hand, as Ayn Rand put it, view people as a meaningless collection of cells. People were just cogs in a machine who’s purpose was for the progression of the State — everything for the State.
You’re not getting a pass on this either Jim…
Nazis were fiercely nationalist, where the left is cosmopolitan and internationalist.
Yet lefties claim to be loyal patriots (nationalists.)
They were moral and cultural traditionalists, where the left tolerates and promotes new social mores.
With a dictatorial fervor. The right has morals, but does not dictate them on others. Those that do are similar to socialist nazis.
Nazis exalted purity and loyalty and martial honor as supreme values, values that the left typically holds in poor regard
Purity and loyalty? Ask Juan Williams and a multitude of others how that works for lefties.
“They were moral and cultural traditionalists, where the left tolerates and promotes new social mores. Nazis exalted purity and loyalty and martial honor as supreme values, values that the left typically holds in poor regard.”
No, they wanted to introduce new social mores and cultural traditions. They may not all be the same as what leftists today think but they are similar. For instance, the left has it sown view of racial superiority. I don’t see much tolerance from the left these days. They like the things they like but they don’t tolerate the things they don’t.
Our left wants to force people to lead pure lives but the purity is determined by Democrat party dogma. Have to drive certain cars, live in certain areas, eat certain foods, associate with certain people. engage in only approved activities ect ect.
So a centrist democrat is a right winger in your eyes?
These look awefully socialistic. Platform of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party
(1933).
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/naziprog.html
Sources: Das Programm der NSDAP (“The Program of the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party”);
Some will say the other planks resemble republican ideals, but I argue that they are only thinking of the caricature of the republican party.
Really Jon, I think your post hits the nail on the head. Item 13 has always been to me the simplest definition of a fascist, and item 16 is essentially socialism except it actually uses the root word communal. The argument for a sound middle class still rings to this day.
The Nazis were absolutely socialists and were composed of quite a few people who had been with the socialist or communist parties prior to their affiliation with the Nazis. That said, they weren’t economically doctrinaire–they just wanted to control the economy completely and were perfectly willing to allow companies to remain outside of direct control, provided that they obeyed the central government. Kind of like the way American socialism is evolving.
Also, the Nazis did plenty of social welfare and other wealth redistribution.
” Kind of like the way American socialism is evolving.”
As Whittle says in the interview, “sound familiar?”
To me the most interesting aspect of this discussion–like other internet discussions of this topic I’ve seen–is exercised members of the Hive get when one points out the strong socialist (and if not “socialist,” certainly statist) roots of the Nazi party and European fascism in general. I don’t think you have to be a licensed psychologist to figure out why.
They do squirm and squeal.
“No. Nazism was a reactionary conservative response to International Communism.”
Can you give me some sources on this, Godzilla? My readings in the subject indicate that both ideologies grew about the same time. (And I’m talking about the ideologies, not when the Nazis became an official party. They even had the same socialist roots.