Was Hitler a "right wing" socialist or is the left in denial of one of their own?

[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]

Socialism--Collectivism

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!"

 

[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. -- MV

By 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? -- JoeSF

Yes!

 

[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... -- Tamara

I'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.-- 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.

 

[Khornet]

The name says it all

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]

Zander,

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

'Scuse heck out of me for telling a joke.

(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.