Economics, Education, History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Nazis

33 Comments

Yes, sorry, but they really were socialists, and there is nothing “right wing” about them.

Related: Dinesh D’Souza apparently has a new book out:

Dinesh D’Souza explodes the Left’s big lie. He expertly exonerates President Trump and his supporters, then uncovers the Democratic Left’s long, cozy relationship with Nazism: how the racist and genocidal acts of early Democrats inspired Adolf Hitler’s campaign of death; how fascist philosophers influenced the great 20th century lions of the American Left; and how today’s anti-free speech, anti-capitalist, anti-religious liberty, pro-violence Democratic Party is a frightening simulacrum of the Nazi Party.

Yup.

33 thoughts on “Nazis”

  2. Since the international flavor of socialists (that would be the communists of Soviet Union “fame”) consider their version of socialism – inclusive of everyone, everywhere – to be the most progressive, leftist socio-economic model possible, by that metric the National Socialists (nazis) and corporatist socialists (fascists) would logically fall to the right of the communal universalists. As a result of assiduous effort by Soviet propaganda and the New York Times (some degree of overlap there) over the course of much of the 20th century, I’m afraid the rest of us are largely stuck with the widespread perception of nazi/fascist right-wingedness.

    Here in the real world, of course, Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” is equally viable as a socio-economic and historic model, and a good deal more entertaining as well, so not a completely unhappy circumstance.

    1. By that standard: fill a room with socialists. Add Obama. Everyone else is right wing.

  3. The modern use of the term “right wing” is odd to begin with. As I’m sure most if not all of you know, the term was derived from the French Parliament, where the right-wing seats were occupied by the Royalists and pro-Church-and-State crowd. In other words, the authoritarians. If there is any authoritarian crowd in the US today, it’s the so-called “Left.”

    For the “left wing” roots of the Nazis and Italian Fascists, a good place to start is Erik von Kuehnnelt-Leddhin’s classic LEFTISM.

  4. Oh really? Then why was Hitler allied with the German National People’s Party who wanted to restore the monarchy? Why was he helped by Franz von Pappen’s Center Party? Why did Paul von Hindenburg not resign as President and in fact helped with Hitler’s rise to power? Why did Hitler talk the regime being the Third Reich and their emphasis on Norse Mythology?

    Hitler’s regime was conservative and it put an emphasis on racial supremacy. This goes against against any socialist regime I can remember. Economically it was a Fascist (corporativist) regime.

    1. Of course it is easier for you people to forget that the SPD was the only party in the Reichstag who voted against Hitler’s Enabling Act while the conservative and right-wing parties all supported his imposition of a dictatorship in Germany.

        1. An Austrian talking about Germans? The Austrian regime back then had been fascist more akin to Mussolini and they were invaded and removed from power by Hitler against the desires of Mussolini, sure. But then so what. I might try looking into this but I could also propose you read what Trotsky wrote about fascism as well. He claimed the power base was not the same and hence the structure was not the same as communism.

      2. I’m not sure about the SPD, were they International Socialists? If so, it would explain the antagonism with Hitler. International vs National Socialism was a Big Deal back then.

        1. No. The SPD are social democrats not aligned with the communists. The communists couldn’t even vote because Hitler imprisoned them claiming they were involved in the Reichstag fire.

          But for you Americans all the left parties are same so I don’t know why I even bother trying to explain the differences… There are anarcho-syndicalists and marxist-leninists at both extremes of the spectrum and then there are market socialists somewhere around the middle. European socialist parties like the SPD, or Labor, or the French Socialists believe in multi-partidary elections, a market economy, separation of church and state, unions, freedom of speech, etc.

          1. Also separation of powers (judiciary, legislative, executive).

            Also at one time they actually defended that the State should control all natural monopolies (like the public water supply, public roads, electricity, telephone lines, basically all public right-of-ways in general). While the rest should be left for the market to decide. However it seems they have been too corrupted by libertarian ideology to remember this and it’s hard to resist the allure of selling these sectors. And it will come back to bite us in the ass. In fact it already has with Chinese companies muscling in all over Europe in these natural monopoly sectors ever since they put these up in the stock market. I wonder how much you Americans would feel like if the Chinese owned mail, power, electric, and water companies over there like they do here in some places in Europe? Would you be able to sleep easily in the night? I know I don’t.

          2. Godzilla, you act as if leftist attacking leftist is something unusual. Read a front page some time. A socialist takes capital from the person that earned it for a socialist agenda. By force if you’re confused on that point.

          3. The left attacking itself is not unusual no, but do you think it was normal that *all* the major right wing and conservative parties supported Hitler’s Enabling Act, while the only left wing party remaining was the only one that voted against it? The Enabling Act basically turned Germany into a consumed de facto dictatorship. As for your other comment *all* states have a basis on coercion by force and taxes. I think even the Bible mentions this. It’s the Philistine’s lesson. Claiming taxation is a left exclusive trait is disingenuous at best.

          4. *all* states have a basis on coercion by force and taxes.

            Exactly right and that’s socialism no matter how right wing they are otherwise.

            The enabling act is neither socialist or not. It’s just a bad procedure. We have never Trumpers today that make the same mistake.

      1. ” And I wouldn’t call a return to paganism right wing.”

        Yeah, I thought that was the weirdest part of the King of Monsters’ post.

      2. “And I wouldn’t call a return to paganism right wing.”

        I would. Because all true communists are atheists to the core.

        2. I thought we stupid Americans were getting skooled on the nuances of leftist European political parties. Now you’re telling us that paganism must be right wing because communists are atheists. What happened to the anarcho-crypto-fascist, etc socialists?

  5. This might be my British side coming out. Oh — both sides of my family are British. A few on my father’s side could be somewhat famous today. Mom’s side was English working class. All that I knew were remarkably fine people. They were (or in the case those still living still are) committed to free, open, democratic societies.

    The British Labor Party clearly endorsed some socialist policy. Think National Health Care for example. But they were also committed to free, democratic societies. The National Health System, for example, still allowed doctors to work independently and people to go to them rather than the NHS.

    The NAZIs were truly terrible. It wasn’t just their “socialist” policies but also their commitment to not just tyranny but totalitarianism.

    For me politics is multidimensional. I am thoroughly committed to free, open, democratic societies. I try to listen to people all across the free, democratic dimensions. Do I listen to totalitarians whether they be “left” or “right?” Yes — to respond democratically to their awful policies.

    Enough for now.

    1. Good to hear from you Chuck. It’s been a while. Yes, it’s multifaceted but doesn’t have to be unclear.

      National defense itself is a form of socialism (and the only kind justified for a govt. IMHO.) Taking from the earner by force, for any reason, is socialism. A very simple definition that removes the mud.

      We really have no examples that are not in part socialist because most people can’t imagine it (and protest for it on emotional rather than reasoned argument.)

      Tyranny and authoritarianism are just some other potential facets.

    2. In what way was Hitler more “totalitarian” than Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

      For that matter, why isn’t today’s American Left who insist that every personal decision (e.g., whom you choose to decorate a wedding cake for) is political not totalitarian?

      1. They’re all totalitarianist, sure. In degrees though since you can’t compare Pol Pot with either of the other three. But I think Hitler’s was the most dangerous because it was both racist and had a vision of conquest. The communists had “reeducation camps” where lots of people died but could be rehabilitated later as full members of society (like what happened to Korolev), and Hitler had “death camps” pure and simple. Does this justify them? Not really.
        I don’t know about the Democratic Party in the USA but you know my opinion on wedding cakes and mixed gender toilets… I think a shop owner has the right to refuse to conduct business with someone. As for the blanket enforcement of mixed gender toilets it make no sense whatever. I’m against gay marriage and gay child adoption as well. But then again other left-wing people around here think I’m nuts as well even when I explain my arguments so its not like I care.

  6. I also think the (universal) postal service, electric grid (not necessarily generators), road system (not necessarily cars and buses), railways (not necessarily trains), and the water supply (necessarily lakes and rivers) should be controlled by the State and same thing goes for health insurance (although private doctors and clinics would also be allowed). This does not make me much popular with libertarians. They also refuse to listen to my arguments but it’s not like I care either.

  7. The first duty of the State is self-preservation. All things follow from this. That’s my perspective at least. This is why I oppose retarded celebrations of homosexuality and childless families in general.

    1. The first duty of the State is self-preservation.

      That removes any moral justification. The ONLY duty of the state is to protect its citizens from other states while they are within its territory and to some degree outside (if you choose to visit other states you are subject to their laws.)

      They should also protect their citizens from over reach by the state which happens when they forget their ONLY duty.

      States within the state are the correct place for more invasive involvement because citizens can mitigate that with their feet.

  8. Whenever someone in the pro-freedom camp points out the socialist side of National Socialism, it’s always amusing to me how much “liberals” squawk about it. I think they’re in denial, out of embarrassment, how they and the goose-steppers share a similar philosophical background, chiefly the collectivism and the statism. “EvKL” in LEFTISM also points out how Hitler and his confreres also shared with the Communists a hatred of the bourgeoisie. In fact, in many ways–including the neo-primitivism (of which the return to Nordic paganism was a symptom)–they were like proto-hippies, if hippies had guns and bludgeons. (Which, in a way, the hippies eventually got, when they became the New Left, whose influence is still being felt in the modern Democratic Party.)

    Of course, the anti-bourgeois thing is now sort of passé, since apparently the once-hated Middle Class is now a beloved Victim Group: https://www.amazon.com/This-Fight-Our-Battle-Americas/dp/1250120616/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

    The key, Godzilla, is to learn to distinguish between “accidentia” and “essentia.”

    1. I wouldn’t call Nazism’s basis on racial theory “an accident”. The whole Nazi concept was based on so called Social Darwinism. That was their justification for the invasion of Europe and their ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe. They described the world as a racial struggle. This is fundamentally different from the notion of class struggle. People like Theodore Roosevelt were also proponents of Social Darwinism but in a “lite” fashion. At that time Eugenics were much in favor. The Marxists-Leninists stood so diametrically opposed to theories like that, that in the Soviet Union *all* genetics investigation was stifled for decades, and theories like Lysenkoism became supported by the State, while genetic theory was supressed. A lot of people back in the XIXth century, around the time Darwin’s theory came out, claimed that common folk were of inferior stock and that nobles were genetically superior. Remember Lamarkism? So of course Communism was diametrically opposed to such a concept. All left-winged theory treats citizens as equals among the state. How you can consider this to be the same as Nazism is something that completely makes no sense to me.
      You focus on the economic aspects alone but even here the corporate state of Nazism was cloned from Italian Fascism and is fundamentally different in character from a Marxist-Leninist “worker-state”. Take the Five Year Plans and the control of all production outputs by the State in Communism. The Nazis never did any such thing that I am aware of. In fact production was so decentralized and there were so many competing companies working on products that they had trouble having enough production of things like tanks until much later in the war when the economy was reorganized and Albert Speer was made the Minister of Armaments and War Production. You should try reading about the Tiger tank design process and how Ferdinand von Porsche designed his prototype and started manufacturing it even before production was approved someday. Had that happened in the Soviet Union he would have likely ended in the Gulag.

Comments are closed.