[JoeSF]

Adolph Hitler was the head of the National Socailist Party otherwise known as the Nazis. He was a socialist So how come he is called right wing? All the other socialists are left wing. Why is the left in denial of the fact that he is one of their own? Here is a nice little article from the world net daily which sheds some light on the subject.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/socialist_origins_of_neonazism.htm

here is an excerpt...
Socialist origins of Neo-Nazism

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


It was no accident that the Nazi flag was a red banner; it was taken from the flag of socialism. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn showed in his book, "Leftism" (1974 and 1990), Hitler and all his top lieutenants were hard-core socialists who hated everything about the old Europe, including small states, the monarchs, the Church, the landed aristocracy, peace, and the free economy of the 19th century. They imagined themselves running a centralized, protectionist, and statist Germany under the executive-branch "leadership principle." They talked constantly of a proletarian revolution that would destroy the bourgeois class.

Furthermore, as Robert Proctor showed in "Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis" (1988), the Nazis were health fanatics who banned cigarette smoking, promoted vegetarianism and organic gardening, engaged in abortion and euthanasia, frowned on all capitalist excess, and even promoted animal rights. They were environmentalists who locked up land from development to promote paganism.

The Nazi government introduced socialized medicine and government-mandated vacations at government spas, imposed handgun control, and expanded unemployment "insurance" and Social Security. The Nazis opposed the traditional calendar and wanted to replace it with one centered on race and nation rather than faith and family.

from...
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/socialist_origins_of_neonazism.htm

another interesting paper on the subject can be found at
http://jonjayray.batcave.net/hitler.html

[Standing Wolf]

Hitler was a socialist and statist through and through. Contemporary American leftist extremists continue to attempt to distance Hitler from themselves; all they succeed in doing, however, is to betray their ignorance of history.

[BigG]

As it was explained to us recently on this site I believe, right and left were originally terms used by communism to describe itself. We coopted the terms, possibly in ignorance, to describe western politics.

[Cal4D4]

Doesn't this just point out the weakness in "right" and "left" as defining semantics? Conservative and liberal are suspect also. Maybe we should stick with socialist/capitalist and other more more clearly defined descriptors.

[Monkeyleg]

Hitler was a statist. He allowed businesses to run, earn profits, and to pay and employ laborers. Of course, the businesses had to serve the interests of the Reich.

When you micro-examine regimes like this, the line between socialist and statist becomes blurred.

[JoeSF]

Another intersting paper on Hitler and leftism can be found at
http://jonjayray.batcave.net/hitler.html

[bad_dad_brad]

Interesting question. Nazi Germany was both left and right, but that is an over simplification and the article misses the point.

Nazi Germany at first was a fascist state (Hitler came to power only with the approval of the current ruling upper class) with a socialist agenda. After the war started, all of this became instead, an abomination. Nazi Germany became a total cultist dictatorship, a malefic creation of Hitler's will, and executed by those who would follow that will (Himmler and company). Pretty scary stuff when you have Das Heer, the Wehrmacht, to back you up.

Hitler planned on wiping out 50 million eastern Europeans (had a pretty good start at 20 million), much like western European based civilization wiped out indigenous populations during the colonial conquest of the Americas, especially North America. In fact, Hitler based his plan on this particular chapter of history. He was a big fan of the mythology of the American wild west (cowboys and indians). But he was much more heartless, deliberate, and far more efficient in his genocide to be sure.

There is a political wheel that basically starts with centrism at the bottom, go left on the wheel and you have liberalism, go right and you have conservative. Meet at the top and you have totalitarianism. Left or right now has no meaning.

Governments like Hitler's Nazi Germany during World War II, Stalin's Soviet Union, and Mao's Communist China are all on the the top of the wheel. Standard Poli-Sci.

[Kaylee]

economically, I'd certainly call him a left-wing socialist.

BUT.. his hyper-nationalistic* stance is traditionally more what we in the early 21st century would call right-wing. Further, self-righteous lefties assume "racism==right wing" and so lump him on that side of the fence for that reason.

Personally, I'm less and less enthralled with this whole "left-right" business. There's folks who for "good" reasons or bad want to control you. There's folks who could care less what you do as long as leave others alone.

You'll find folks of both persuasions on both sides of the aisle.


-K



*just making a point here folks, I'm NOT saying saluting the flag and crying when you say the pledge puts you in the same ballpark with Hitler, okay?

[JoeSF]

I think an analysis of mein kampf shows hitlers leftism doesnt it?

here is yet another page you might like to visit. really imteresting reading.
excerpt below..
from

http://psychleft.blogspot.com/

by jonh ray
Anti-Racist Hypocrisy
Modern-day Leftists have an obsession with racism and fiercely attribute all racism to their political opponents and deny it in themselves. This is however utter nonsense. Take this description of a political programme: A "declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists". You could hardly get a more change-oriented or revolutionary programme than that. So whose programme was it? Marx? Lenin? Stalin? Trotsky? Mao? No. It was how Hitler described his programme towards the end of "Mein Kampf". And the Left pretend that Hitler was some sort of conservative!

But in all cases, bitter experience has shown that Leftists in power are very dangerous and destructive people. Where their power is effectively unchecked, they generally seems to resort sooner or later to mass murder (as in the case of the French revolutionaries, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and many Communist regimes and movements worldwide) and where they are partially thwarted by strong democratic traditions and institutions, they at least bring about large-scale impoverishment (as in post-independence India and pre-Thatcher Britain). By contrast, conservatives just muddle along with piecemeal reforms that don't require them to murder anybody. So giving any power to Leftists is a most dangerous thing to do and working to prevent that happening is a matter of no small importance.

[bad_dad_brad]

JoeSF,

Interesting web site posting. But Nazi Germany after World War II started was more about malefic criminal behavior than politics. I don't think you can label Hitler's regime as left or right. It was much more a type of aberration, very rare in nation states.

My opinion is that it was the worst of both worlds. It was a radical leftist socialist revolution supported by a right wing conservative fascist oligarchy. And then Hitler took total control. Totalitarianism.

He duped the people, and the ruling class, and in doing so, gained total power. Then he did what he wanted with the most powerful army in the world at the time backing him up.

[Malone LaVeigh]

The Soviet Union was a repressive, brutal dictatorship, run by and for a small elite oligharchy. So it could easily be described as a right-wing system. Hitler used the word "socialist" because it was popular with workers at the time. In what sense were the means of production owned by the workers? Were Krup, Bayer, etc, collectives? I don't think so.

[Ledbetter]

We might think of distribution of capital and assets to the workers as Socialism

and

distribution of capital and assets to the state as Collectivism.

More than ever the world is seen to be composed of various shades of gray rather than black and white.

[JoeSF]

Brad,
What has always puzzled me is why Hitler is portrayed as being right wing in the first place? He made his anti establishment agenda well known early on. Is it because we are educated by people who lean predominatly to the left that the idea of right wing values spawning Hitler was hatched?

I think of the right as being for free enterprise, smaller government, and things like the right to bear arms. Hitler respected none of these values.
Given the severity of the depression on Germany in particular one can see how anyone and everyone would have embraced ideas of socialism and the remaining rich would have bargained with anyone to retain their wealth.
However, Hitler was a lefty and we are taught otherwise.

This quote of Hitlers was mentioned in one of the articles I shared with you.

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions
"

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

[Billll]

I had always seen Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt as three of a kind, with FDR being the "kinder, gentler" version of statist socialism. It's easy to imagine the three of them, in 1938, sizing each other up, and thinking to themselves; "There can be only one!":scrutiny:

[JoeSF]

Malone,
Controlling production as you call it is what the communists do, Socialists allow private ownership of business but tax it to death to fund the social agenda. They also do things like outlaw guns,,,

[bad_dad_brad]

JoeSF,

It was because the right supported Hitler on his pursuit and rise to power. That is the association. I don't really think you can label Hitler as right or left. He used both ideologies to further his own personal agenda. He was an opportunist. A very scary person indeed.

Hitler would have been a nobody if Germany at the time would not have been so downtrodden. They had just lost a world war, endured harsh reparations, and felt difficult economic times. Hitler was an evil child of the times. This is not about right or left, it is about Hitler and the time of his ascension.

Hitler was an opportunist and populist. He was a revolutionary because his country was in such a mess and he offered a way out. Not necessarily a leftist or rightist, Hitler's revolution was evil and can not be categorized into specific political dogma.

The phenom was all about Hitler, his beliefs, and having a nation state at his direction.

[Zander]

So it could easily be described as a right-wing system. -- MVBy whom? We had the assertion by one of our more prominent moderators that Hitler's "system" was clearly "right-wing" because one of his college professors had defined it as such. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hitler used the word "socialist" because it was popular with workers at the time. In what sense were the means of production owned by the workers? Were Krup, Bayer, etc, collectives? I don't think so.Incredible! There isn't a hint that the major industrial powers in Nazi Germany were controlled by anything other than the will of Adolf Hitler. Fascists don't *care* what the "workers" think or want...and history shows that they are willing to exterminate those who think otherwise.

What has always puzzled me is why Hitler is portrayed as being right wing in the first place? He made his anti establishment agenda well known early on. Is it because we are educated by people who lean predominatly to the left that the idea of right wing values spawning Hitler was hatched? -- JoeSFYes!

[Tamara]

"This guy belongs to y'alls philosophy!"
"We don't want him, he must belong to y'all's philosophy!"


I ain't real fond of control-freak statists of any wing: left, right, up, down, charmed, strange... ;)

[JoeSF]

Brad,
I appreciate your view on Hitler being neither right or left, but I humbly disagree. As long as the people had their social programs they were willing to tolerate anything. I believe the next Hitler is most likely to generate himself or herself from left wing values just like the first.
Can you tell me though why we are told over and over by the media and the schools that the Nazis were right wing? Whenever there is a hate group, that group is right wing. Is hate racism and a lust for power what makes a person on the "right"? The press tells us so and Hitler is the paradigm.

[Minute_Of_Torso]

If you use the definition of "leftwing" and "rightwing" by the amount of government control in a society, Nazism is definitely pretty far to the left on the political spectrum. This definition is not universally accepted so it's a good idea to be very careful in your word selection and to then define the words we use.

I think the term "rightwing Nazi" was another term artificially created to further demonize those who are actually on the right side of the spectrum. Of course a strong sense of nationalism is associated with Nazism (not so much politically motivated as it was a religious or at least transcendental motiviation) so there is a false association with Nazism and nationalism.

I personally consider constitutional republicanism as being "middle of the road" since it's pretty much exact center between total left: communism and total right: anarchy.

[Croyance]

bad_dad_brad said pretty much what I was going to, so thank-you for saving me a lot of typing.
Quantum physics put God back into science, not altruism into politics and power? (Reply to Tamara's reference, if you are scratching your heads)
In that Hitler's ultimate goal was power, you cannot take all his public statements at face value. Riding a wave of public resentment and discontent took him far. Many leaders of the French Revolution did not believe in the stated goals, but used the public appeal of the Revolution to sway the masses.

I think of the right as being for free enterprise, smaller government, and things like the right to bear arms. Hitler respected none of these values. Now you are injecting an American political spin on this. Far right has nothing against taking state control of free enterprise. As far as RKBA goes, it is not always conservative. In feudal Japan, the conservatives always mandated & enforced a disarmed populace. Only the ruling classes, the kuge and buge, could own, carry, and use arms in times of peace. In times of war the peasants were armed only to fight for their lord's interests.
In fact, at the time of the writing of the US Constitution (and really, in the history of humanity), the idea that the individual had rights above and beyond that of the state was a liberal thought. Some conservatives of the time wanted to make Washington king.
Don't let political parties, who twist terms fit their agenda, make you forget what words really mean.

[Zander]

I ain't real fond of control-freak statists of any wing: left, right, up, down, charmed, strange... -- TamaraI'll grant you that.

Doesn't say doodly-squat about the issue, though, does it?

In feudal Japan, the conservatives [sic] always mandated & enforced a disarmed populace. Only the ruling classes, the kuge and buge, could own, carry, and use arms in times of peace. In times of war the peasants were armed only to fight for their lord's interests.-- CroyanceSo Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro were/are "conservatives"? Let's add Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Waters, Conyers, Jackson, Jackson-Lee and other "conservatives" to make it more current, 'kay? :rolleyes:

Continue to ignore history...it's so much more convenient for your argument.

[Khornet]

National


Socialism

It was a statist, collectivist, anti-capitalist movement fueled by nationalist (as in race/cultural superiority delusions) hatred, or, if you prefer, socialism and nationalism harnessed together for exploitation by a sick mind as a toll to gain power.

[Sean Smith]

left, right, up, down, charmed, strange...

You don't see much quantum humor.

I think a major reason why Hitler is considered on the right instead of the left is that he co-opted all the traditionally right-wing parties in Germany and killed or imprisoned everyone on the traditional left (Communists and Social Democrats).

[Tamara]

Doesn't say doodly-squat about the issue, though, does it?

'Scuse heck out of me for telling a joke. :rolleyes:

(You may want to abandon, for the sake of this discussion, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" and go back to "left" and "right". Conservative and liberal are highly situational labels: in Russia, circa 1990, the left-wing socialist hardliner who longed for the days of Brezhnev was "conservative", while the guy trying to raise venture capital to buy the Lada plant from the government was "liberal".)

Anyhow, it's apparently very important to many here to get history's various villains firmly on the Other Guy's Team, so I'll let you get back to it, Zander.

[BigG]

Hitler also had a pathological hatred for the Slavs which he considered "untermenschen" (subhumans). Any system like Russian Communism embraced by them would be verboten to him by pride.

[Zander]

Anyhow, it's apparently very important to many here to get history's various villains firmly on the Other Guy's Team, so I'll let you get back to it, Zander.It's certainly important if you believe in being factual.

Not all of history's villains are on the Other Guy's Team (I'm sure you can come up with some exceptions if you try hard enough)...just the most despicable, murderous tyrants and totalitarians the world has ever known.

The Soviet Union was a repressive, brutal dictatorship, run by and for a small elite oligharchy. -- MLAnd everyone knows that ol' Joe the right-winger was, deep down in his black heart, a die-hard conservative. :rolleyes:

Fer cryin' out loud, this doesn't even "rise" to the level of sophistry...why the desperation?

[Tom C.]

Right wing and left wing are artifacts of the French Revolution. The National Assembly was a bunch of crazies, but Robspiere and his crowd were, I believe, sat in the left wing of the assembly hall, and the anti crowd sat on the right.
If we want to take a political spectrum now, left wing being statists, and right wing being total freedom, we can now more accurately label pols and the governments they run.
That said, Hitler, in my opinion was a leftist. Lenin was a leftist. The only operational difference I have seen is that Lenin wanted to own the means of production, and Hitler was content to let Krupp and his buddies maintain ownership, while he, Hitler, directed what they produced.
That means that the rest of the stuff, like Arian supremacy, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc., was just eyewash for the masses.
That means that Clinton, while he is a Marxist, ruled as a Natzi.

[Tamara]

It's certainly important if you believe in being factual.

And that has "doodly-squat" (I believe the term was) to do with the issue of my post.

Care to expound on how, exactly, "right wing" and "left wing" interact with "liberal" and "conservative" outside of late 20th Century America?

Lemme guess: In your universe Hitler and Stalin were "Liberals", right?

[Silver Bullet]

"Left" and "right" are meaningless to me. I see a spectrum with anarchy at one end and totalitarianism at the other. Communism, socialism, fascism, and capitalism are economic terms.

[Zander]

And that has "doodly-squat" (I believe the term was) to do with the issue of my post.The issue of your post was to define the mission of all us right-wingers...we can't rest until all the truly evil characters of world history are buried on the other side of the political fence from us.

I simply pointed out that most of them are already buried there, even though you should be capable of providing an exception or two. Perhaps it's too much trouble.

Care to expound on how, exactly, "right wing" and "left wing" interact with "liberal" and "conservative" outside of late 20th Century America?Which is it? Do I follow your earlier suggestion..."(You may want to abandon, for the sake of this discussion, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" and go back to "left" and "right". )"...or this one? Before this post, I've used the word 'conservative' exactly twice in this discussion; in quotes, in response to someone's labelling of feudal Japanese warlords. I reckon that'd get us out of the late 20th Century without much problem.

Lemme guess: In your universe Hitler and Stalin were "Liberals", right?In my "universe"? LOL!

They were leftists. Both of them on the Other Guy's Team.

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

I see it like this.

On the various "lefty" forums that occaisonally get linked here for the purposes of ridicule and subsequent attack/anihilation, a common insult used by the liberal contributors is to call Bush 'Hitler' and the Repubs 'Nazi'. Typically, these types of posting don't bother with any sort of analysis of the ACTUAL political orientation of the party targeted. They are more concerned with delivering a hateful insult.

So let us not read rationality into "leftist" labeling. Statist, or socialistic, leanings on the part of our current Demos are closer to the Nazi political orientation than are the current "conservative" Repubs. However, accuracy of labeling has never been an important point to the current "lefty" movement. Accuracy of ANYTHING is unimportant to them. What matters to them is the EMOTIONAL response to a given subject. For most of our recent history, our culture has held Hitler and the Nazis up as examples of ultimate revulsion. "Freely hate these institutions of the past, as they are truly despicable and do not bear repeating."

For people who live on emotional responses to guide their thinking, one of the most powerful objects of disgust and revulsion they can point at is the Nazi regime. The technicalities of the politics involved don't even enter the equasion. It's just a "big red button" of disgust.

Therefore, when referring to our current administration that they cannot stand, and lacking the the technical wherewithal or understanding of the actual politics involved, "lefties" simply call it the most repulsive name they can think of. Bush becomes Hitler, Repubs become Nazis, and right-wing supporters become death-camp-proponents.

So, NEVER MIND correctly defining era-dependent contexts for labels like right- or left-wing. Realize that labels are just that: labels. Conveniences. Insults from the "left" side are particularly exempt from any sort of factual accuraccy, and are chosen by the relative power of the emotional response they evoke. That has always been the problem when fighting off rhetoric from the liberals. THEY DON'T BOTHER WITH FACTS. Pointing out factual innaccuracies to flaming liberals just makes 'em madder, as they aren't trying to convey real information, they're just trying to inflame an emotional response that's akin to their own.

[Croyance]

So Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro were/are "conservatives"? Let's add Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Waters, Conyers, Jackson, Jackson-Lee and other "conservatives" to make it more current, 'kay? Continue to ignore history...it's so much more convenient for your argument. Why debate on your terms alone? I may as well concede that anything you say is automatically correct. My arguement does include history. Feudal Japan was merely a convenient example because it is sufficiently far removed from European influences to throw historical influences in.
I don't say that Hitler et. al. were conservatives, I just state that in the long run conservatives will disarm the population also. Limiting the scope to only American "conservatives" and "liberals" is meaningless, as that is simply one issue that is used to garner votes. Over the greater course of human history, the idea of individual rights and therefore the individual RKBA is a liberal thought (true meaning of liberal vs. current political meaning).
As far as the politics of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, when complete control is the goal, the usual political terms lack meaning. The state serves an individual, and the individual will do what it takes to stay in power. As Tamara pointed our right and left (and liberal and conservative) are situational labels, not absolutes.
There is a weird human tendancy to split into pairs of opposing factions. People seem to have this need to make it an us and them situation. Why does it really matter if "all the truly evil characters of world history are buried on the other side of the political fence from us."? They were - they were out for themselves. Besides, what was done historically has no bearing on me personally. I can still choose to do right and wrong. I am honorable or dishonorable on my own merit. I do not inherit the sins of my father, nor do those who follow me inherit my sins.

Tamara, I did like the humor. Keep throwing them from left field.

[Silver Bullet]

As far as the politics of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, when complete control is the goal, the usual political terms lack meaning.
Yup, which is why I said left and right are meaningless. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are all at the extreme totalitarian end of my anarchy-totalitarianism spectrum.

[Zander]

I don't say that Hitler et. al. were conservatives, I just state that in the long run conservatives will disarm the population also.Do you mean in theory or do you have examples? If roughly 5% of a society was allowed arms and the remaining 95% of the society was barred the ownership, carrying and usage of arms under penalty of summary execution, in what sense is the ruling class "conservative"?

What label do you apply to the remainder of that society other than 'peasants' serving the "state"?

Something is discordant...and asking for expansion of your point is not forcing you to debate on "my" terms alone.

As far as the politics of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, when complete control is the goal, the usual political terms lack meaning. The state serves an individual, and the individual will do what it takes to stay in power.Clearly, in all three of those instances, individuals were forced to serve the state. In two of your three examples, the regimes continued on after the death of their initiators. In fact, their ideology was exported in the most brutal fashion. That's the nature of totalitarianism...and totalitarianism is overwhelming associated with leftists.

I do freely admit that my view, given here and on TFL before, is that the left-right continuum isn't a straight line but a circle. Where a regime such as Stalin's or Hitler's is placed on that circumference is still a matter of some dispute. ;)

As Tamara pointed our right and left (and liberal and conservative) are situational labels, not absolutes.But are they useful in the context of the discussion? Of course they are. Should we not use them because some find them inconvenient? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand why this seems to be such a point of contention.

Why does it really matter if "all the truly evil characters of world history are buried on the other side of the political fence from us."?Perhaps Tamara will tell us...it was, after all, her charge that "some of us" view it as our main mission in this discussion.

We are obligated to learn from history. Labels are useful tools because, in the words of one of the authors of the linked articles, we ought to be capable of recognizing when that sort of ugliness raises its head again...as we know it has and will.

[MeekandMild]

Right wing and left wing are artifacts of the French Revolution. The National Assembly was a bunch of crazies, but Robspiere and his crowd were, I believe, sat in the left wing of the assembly hall, and the anti crowd sat on the right.

That was the best brief answer I've seen here or at TFL on the classic derivation of the words.

Modern day, since the 1930's the difference between rightwing and leftwing socialists has been the rightwing believed in a joint corporate-government ownership of the capital and the leftwing believed in pure government capitalism.

Both wings have as their solid belief the concept that the people who used to run things (in this case the US citizenry) need to be run out of power and socialism is to replace them. Both firmly believe in the government right to confiscate anything it wants at the point of a gun.

[Joe Gunns]

Tom C basically has it about the origin of "right" and "left" as political labels.

To paraphrase the textbook definitions through the filter of my aging memory: "socialism" is about government REGULATION of private enterprise for the benefit of society; "communism" is about government OWNERSHIP of resources and means of production, for the collective benefit of the workers; "National socialism" is about government CONTROL of business for the benefit of the state. These all describe economic relationships.

As someone (sorry, I forgot who and couldn't find it again doing a quick scroll) pointed out, Left and Right can be seen as lines running on out from each side of "moderate" and ultimately forming a circle by meeting at totalitarianism. It doesn't make much difference to the oppressed which side the oppressor feels politically aligned with.

Another way of thinking about it is that labels like right, left, conservative, liberal, apply to political philosophies, while terms such as democratic, totalitarian, monarchist, apply to forms of government, . Obviously, in common usage the lines are not so neatly drawn. And, again as many have already averred, terms such as Nazi or commie have taken on additional meaning derived from actions such as the Holocaust. Thus they are used in a perjorative sense for their emotional impact rather descriptors of an economic system.

As others have observed, the problem with labels of left/right, conservative/liberal, even of Republican/Democrat as used in popular debate is that their practical definitions tend to shift over time. Today's conservative was yesterday's liberal not soley because he/she has gotten older and wiser.

Well. gotta email my two liberal demo senators and remind them that the filibuster they are supporting against Bush court appointees is same reactionary tactic used by segregationist Dixie-crats (Southern democrats) to thwart the liberal policy of integration and civil rights, and commend them for living up to the true heritage of their party.:D
Joe

[pax]

Anyhow, it's apparently very important to many here to get history's various villains firmly on the Other Guy's Team, ...
Good shot, Tamara. That is the main point of most arguments over nomenclature.

As for "right-wingers" who are also history's villains, I think it is safe to say that much of the chaos in the Islamic world is "liberals" (left) vs "conservatives" (right) -- and that the guys on the right are the dangerous ones.

Oh, Hitler? He was for home and family, family values, law and order, more military spending, increased patriotism, and return to the traditional values that made the country great. What's that make him?

pax

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms. – Robert Heinlein

[bad_dad_brad]

I really don't think you can categorize Nazi Germany as envisioned by Adolf Hitler as anything akin to classical "right or left" politics. That is the point I am trying to make.

Hitler and his perverse form of government were a total product of the times and his personality. It is not about liberalism or conservatism. It is all about Adolf Hitler.

The circumstances in history were unique. A downtrodden once proud country. A powerfull right wing class of industrialists. A beaten down army with a Prussion professional heritage.

Then on the scene, comes a brilliant political animal, a child of the times, a perverse populist, and you have the creation of Nazi Germany.

This phenom is not right or left, liberal or conservative. Oh no. It is all about a persona. A zealot full of hatred with absolute power named Adolf Hitler. Study the man, and you will understand the movement. Very simple.

[Tamara]

The issue of your post was to define the mission of all us right-wingers...

I ain't talkin' just to hear my head roar: Go back and read it again.

You have thus far (in this thread) used the terms "liberal" and "left", "right" and "conservative" pretty interchangeably.

I questioned that.

Elucidate, please.

[Croyance]

and asking for expansion of your point is not forcing you to debate on "my" terms alone. You asked me to limit the time period of my references, not expand my point.
If roughly 5% of a society was allowed arms and the remaining 95% of the society was barred the ownership, carrying and usage of arms under penalty of summary execution, in what sense is the ruling class "conservative"? Conservative hardly means serving in the interests of the citizenry, or looking out for their rights. Slave owing societies, even the "democracies" have roughly that ratio of armed to unarmed.
As MeekandMild pointed out, modern politics is about control, one party versus the other. As time has gone on, the idea that the power of the government rises from the people has been forgotten, changing to the idea that people getting their rights from government. "Conservatives" merely use the RKBA issue to garner more votes to increase their individual and party power. If it were really about beliefs, why did the Democrats back off so fast when they saw that the issue lost votes? Why did Republicans not capitalize by loosening restrictions? Why volunteer to sign any renewal assault weapon ban before the bill is even presented?

[LiquidTension]

Hey Tamara, I just wanted to add to the quantum humor.

In my polysci class the teacher drew the political spectrum on the board. Naturally there was left and right, but he put libertarians (with whom I most closely relate to) at the TOP. If I can remember what was at the BOTTOM, we've got 'em all covered. STRANGE would encompass the system of government that I had to create for a paper in the class, and CHARMED...well, haven't figured that one out yet.

Back to topic, I can't say as I've ever heard anyone claim that Hitler was right wing (or left wing, for that matter). Where are you guys reading this? Was it in a publication or was this something that someone said?

[Bahadur]

In context of Hitlerite Germany, "conservatives" were made up of an alliance of pro-monarchy, land-owning nobles, large business owners and army & navy (Heer and Kriegsmarine) officers, particularly the "Prussian" officer corps. They were hierarchical oligarchs.

"Liberals" in the same context were generally Social Democrats, who wanted greater participation of workers and commoners in the exercise of political and economic power.

An equivalent of today's Free Democrats (FDP) - advocates of a small government and free market - did not exist in any organized force at the time in Germany.

Communists and Marxists were considered "radicals" and revolutionaries (like Rosa Luxembourg of the Spartacist fame).

The National Socialists were unique in that they borrowed popular themes of each group and amalgamated them into often mutually contradicting whole. For example, they espoused the staunch nationalism and mercantilism (as well as anti-communism) of the conservatives, advocated anti-conservative populism (anti-hierarchical establishment) of the liberals while organizing like Marxist revolutionaries.

I saw a funny German cartoon once, which had Hitler pitching his Party to two groups with different signs:

To Conservatives and Army Officers -
NATIONAL socialistische DEUTSCHE arbeiter PARTEI
(NATIONAL socialist GERMAN workers PARTY)

To Commoners and Union members -
national SOCIALISTISCHE deutsche ARBEITER PARTEI
(national SOCIALIST german WORKERS PARTY)

So, as others stated already, the Nazis did not fall neatly into the left-right, liberal-conservative line. To the extent their most mortal enemy was the international communist (radical left), they were considered the radical nationalist right.

BTW, we in the US tend to view the "liberal" as socialist/statist and "conservative" as small government/free market, but the classical (European) sense of the terms, a "liberal" was equivalent to America's libertarian while a "conservative" was a Tory (pro-monarchy, Peerage-pushing hierarchical types). I suppose we Americans would call such people "reactionaries," instead of "conservatives."

[Zander]

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler, May 1st, 1927

socialists: progressives

enemies: the working people's representatives

exploitation: the growing gap between rich and poor

economically weak: the unlucky in life

unfair salaries: it's outrageous what those CEO's [baseball players, et al.] get paid!

wealth and property: nobody needs that much money!

responsibility and performance: we can't afford those tax cuts

destroy this system: "undocumented workers", "hate crime", "if it saves just one child", "Americans have a right to feel safe", ad nauseum, ad infinitum

Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.

As for "right-wingers" who are also history's villains, I think it is safe to say that much of the chaos in the Islamic world is "liberals" (left) vs "conservatives" (right) -- and that the guys on the right are the dangerous ones. -- paxThat's the way Peter Jennings explains it.

I ain't talkin' just to hear my head roar: Go back and read it again.Not necessary...I understood your thinly-veiled insult the first time.

You have thus far (in this thread) used the terms "liberal" and "left", "right" and "conservative" pretty interchangeably.That's simply inaccurate. In fact, I haven't even used the 'L' word. Remember this question? ...

"Lemme guess: In your universe Hitler and Stalin were "Liberals", right?"

Remember my answer? Do you remember this? ...

"And everyone knows that ol' Joe the right-winger was, deep down in his black heart, a die-hard conservative. :rolleyes:"

I questioned that.Then you question a figment of your imagination.

Elucidate, please.Beyond the explanation that you insist on making incorrect observations? 'Scuse me, I'm going to concentrate on the folks who want a real discussion.

[Zander]

Conservative hardly means serving in the interests of the citizenry, or looking out for their rights. -- CroyanceI suppose that depends on which definition of 'conservative' you used in your initial remarks. Since this was a discussion about political labels, I concluded that your reference was political in nature. Was it? If you meant that the feudal lords were simply interested in maintaining the status quo, that casts a whole new light on it.

By the way, you still haven't given me any other examples. :)

Why volunteer to sign any renewal assault weapon ban before the bill is even presented?Because it was politically expedient. Just as it's politically expedient to suggest [ref: Ashcroft's recent remarks] that the administration's support for renewal of the ban isn't firm anymore.

Bahadur...

Excellent context and analysis. Seems I always end up learning something from your posts. Thanks...

[Croyance]

Zander, your reply about Bush wasBecause it was politically expedient. Doesn't that apply to what Hitler said also? His words were a politically expedient way to get the support of the German people.
As for examples of conservative disarmament, how about every dictator that the United States supported in its war against communism? They didn't want an armed population.
Every one in power wants to maintain the statues quo. All other changes are relatively meaningless except remaining in power. In that sense all power groups are conservative.

[Zander]

Zander, your reply about Bush was...My reply was a statement of fact, not of support.

Doesn't that apply to what Hitler said also? His words were a politically expedient way to get the support of the German people.Ergo?

...how about every dictator that the United States supported in its war against communism? Do you have a specific example, please?

They didn't want an armed population.Didn't want an armed population or didn't want communist insurgents armed? We really do need a specific example here.

In that sense all power groups are conservative.Then Hitler, Stalin and Mao really were conservatives?

LOL! We seem to have come full circle. Nice chattin' with you.

[Croyance]

Ergo you cannot take Hitler's statements at face value any more than you can with another politician. Statements are issued for the consumption of the public, not as a record of true belief.
Pinochet, Marcos, the Shah, the Duvaliers, etc. They did not want any dissent, and didn't really care if the people against them were merely for human rights, democracy, communism, or a free market.
Also, killing to eliminate any political belief is repugnant. The fact that civilians were commmunists really doesn't justify killing them. Many were also communists in name only, since the United States was a democracy, and supporting a dictator, communism was, at the time, the opposing force.
And it is a half circle.

[GinSlinger]

socialism--an ECONOMIC theory
communism--a political theory

conservative--wishes to maintain the status quo
liberal--wishes to upset the status quo

left-wing/right-wing--typically used to illustrate liberal/conservative.

A Communist hardliner under a communist regime is a conservative. A Communist hardliner under a socialist economic system is generally refered to as conservative because they wish to further the ideals of the status quo. A communist hardliner in a capitalist economy would be considered a liberal for wishing to overthrow the status quo.

Left wing/right wing and liberal/conservative are subjective terms, and vary in meaning from one ecomic-political situation to another. Lenin was a liberal, Stalin a conservative. Hitler was a liberal when he wanted to change the German system, and a conservative when he wished to maintain his power. Those two terms are ambiguous at best.

A Classical Liberal (notice the capitol letters) and a Classic Conservative are different. Those terms were defined by Burke on his Reflections on the Revolution in France where he identified Liberal with greater individual freedoms, limitations on the excesses of the Church, and a freer economy. Classical Conservatives were the landed aristocracy, the clergy, and the various buergouise who wished to maintain the special privileges they enjoyed under the monarchy. These terms (Liberal and Conservative) have an objective definition in terms of the French Revolution, and can be extended to other situations where Burke's definition fits.

There is much more to this, but I suspect I should wait for the flames....

GinSlinger

[Tamara]

There is much more to this, but I suspect I should wait for the flames....

Nah, you'll just be told that you're being ignored in favor of "folks who want a real discussion." (That's ZanderSpeak for "Folks who agree with me." ;) )

[rock jock]

bahadur,

Great analysis. I lost you on this, though:
advocated anti-conservative populism (anti-hierarchical establishment) of the liberals
Can you explain how Hitler did that?

[bad_dad_brad]

One more time!

Hitler was neither left or right. He was a parasitic populist seeking to further his agenda, which was two fold. Conquer and dominate Europe out of revenge for for the loss of World War I, and more significant, the destruction of Jews in Europe. Why Hitler hated Jews so much is a much debated issue. No matter, he did.

Hitler USED right wing politics to placate the elite and the army, hence fascism. Hitler USED left wing politics to placate the masses, hence socialism. But Hitler was all about himself and his power, his will, and his agenda. This man was a very dangerous malefic politician placed in history during a very desperate time, and the result was a catastrophe that the world is still reverberating from.

Hopefully we shall learn from this hard lesson of history and pray God that this never happens again (but I fear it will - for on a small scale it did in Bosnia just a few scant years ago.)

I just finished a horrific but important new work by the Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Richard Rhodes, entitled "Masters of Death." This sobering account recants the 1.5 million people that special SS killing squads murdered, mostly by shooting (men, women, children), upon direct orders of Hitler via his rodent toady Himmler, before mass killings were done via concentration camp gas chambers. This book is not for the faint of heart, but it is a must read to understand how terrible things were back then, and who was responsible for that ultimate horror.

I had to force myself to read it, but the author asked me to have the courage to do so, for he forced himself to write it, to remember the victims who have been largely forgotten, so that perhaps this tragedy would not be repeated. If you can read this book without weeping at certain passages, then you are harder than I am.

[Zander]

This book is not for the faint of heart, but it is a must read to understand how terrible things were back then, and who was responsible for that ultimate horror.I do thank you for your review. Personally, I don't need any more convincing nor am I in any sense confused as to the ID of the perpetrator. However, there is the undeniable fact that Hitler could not have imposed his will without willing accomplices. His "charisma" with the population cannot explain those who carried out his obscene and despicable plan for the extermination of those who opposed him, either in fact or in his bizarre imagination.

Hitler was neither left or right.Ah...back to the basic question. His remarks, recorded for history's sake, place him as a leftist. Perhaps an argument can be made that his remarks and pandering to the "right" have not been sufficiently recorded. Given that he is one of history's most researched figures, that's doubtful.

If you can read this book without weeping at certain passages, then you are harder than I am.

Two points:

1. Weeping is not my primary reaction;

2. I'm not sure "harder" is an appropriate adjective.

There is no oxymoron implied in the concurrency of passionate reaction and dispassionate analysis.

[Zander]

A Communist hardliner under a communist regime is a conservative. Under one definition [non-political] of 'conservative'.

A Communist hardliner under a socialist economic system is generally refered to as conservative because they wish to further the ideals of the status quo.A distinction without a difference. See above...

A communist hardliner in a capitalist economy would be considered a liberal for wishing to overthrow the status quo. More accurately, a 'revolutionary' in the context of our discussion. Think Che Guevara as opposed to Gus Hall.

There is much more to this, but I suspect I should wait for the flames....No flames from me. Obviously, you've given your opinion and your remarks more than casual interest and thought.

[bad_dad_brad]

Zander,

Read the book. Then make judgement.

[Zander]

Read the book. Then make judgement.Perhaps you didn't understand my remarks; I don't need to read another book to "render judgement".

I'm not confused by my remarks; apparently you are.

Lest you be further confused, I offer two words:

Total condemnation.

I trust this is clear...

[GinSlinger]

Zander,

To pull the terms "liberal" and "conservative" out of context is impossible. Liberal and Conservative were defined by Burke as per my original post. Lower case these words can be thrown before the swine, upper case the terms have historical meaning.

GinSlinger