Left or Right [Archive]

Rjevan

26th April 2009, 16:14

The most common political spectrum places communism on the far left and fascism on the far right.

I wonder if fascism really belongs on the left (just right of communism). Also how did Mussolini go from being a left wing socialist to being defined as right wing?

Is the far right defined as capitalism or even belief in a monarchy? :confused:
Why do you think that Fascism belongs to the left? :confused: It is far right and not just right of Communism, which is considered to be far left!

Mussolini's first step to Fascism was that he, in contrast to the Socialist party he was member of, argued for WWI and didn't condemn it. After that he was forced to leave the Socialist party and he went more and more reactionary and finally founded his "fascio do combattimento" in 1922.
Maybe read this excerpt from Mussolini's What is Fascism? (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html) and you will see that he absolutely drifted away from left ideas and that Fascism has nothing to do with the left.

And look here on Wikipedia for a definition of right-wing politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics).

STJ

26th April 2009, 16:37

He was first against Italy entering WW1 and then his views changed to pro war.

Daz

26th April 2009, 16:42

[QUOTE=Rjevan;1426414]Why do you think that Fascism belongs to the left? :confused: It is far right and not just right of Communism, which is considered to be far left!

I think of right wing as being in support of the status quo, to support capitalism or monarchy (my country is a constitutional monarchy). I think of left wing as being opposed to the status quo so in a way Hitler for example would have been a revolutionary as he opposed capitalism. His party was called National Socialist.

ZeroNowhere

26th April 2009, 16:47

Maybe something like this will give you a clearer perspective of what it means to 'right' or 'left'

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Trust me, it won't. Well, except for somebody who supports capitalism, in which case I suppose it could come in handy, but otherwise? No.

The most common political spectrum places communism on the far left and fascism on the far right.
To be honest, the main problem with the political spectrum is presenting a continuity between left-reformism and socialism. After all, socialism is just further to the left of left-reformism on the spectrum, but there's not enough continuity between the two to make this make sense. Socialism abolishes capitalism, reformism only changes it.

I wonder if fascism really belongs on the left (just right of communism).
Eh, fascism wouldn't sit anywhere specific on an economic spectrum for capitalism. I would say that socialism has its own bubble, though, while capitalism is completely distinct in its left-right spectrum. Pinochet would probably be further to the right than Hitler, for example.

Also how did Mussolini go from being a left wing socialist to being defined as right wing?
Um, by becoming a fascist? Herve (a guy who was pretty cool back in his socialist days) did it too.

Is the far right defined as capitalism or even belief in a monarchy?
Another problem is that the political spectrum of today doesn't leave any space for advocates of a return to feudalism. However, this isn't that major, seeing as nobody really seems to do that nowadays, except in random boring harem animes with anti-climatic endings.

BobKKKindle$

26th April 2009, 16:48

The left-right political spectrum is very limited in its applicability. The traditional way to define different ideologies along that spectrum has been in terms of their approach to the economy, and in particular whether they are supportive of the free market, and the OP rightly points out that if we use this definition then we could justifiably place fascism alongside communism, because many extreme fascists are actually oppossed to the free market and even capitalism on the grounds that allowing free trade in commodities and people undermines national culture, and turns different sections of the national community against each other. As Marxists, we should approach ideology from a class-based perspective by asking ourselves what class interests an ideology serves. If we adopt this perspective then it will become clear that regardless of any superficial similarities, fascism and communism are entirely oppossed to each other, because the former is a tool that is used by the bourgeoisie during periods of social revolution, or when the threat of social revolution present itself, in order to smash the organizations of the working class, and raise the level of exploitation as a means to preserve the capitalist system.

Rjevan

26th April 2009, 17:02

I think of right wing as being in support of the status quo, to support capitalism or monarchy (my country is a constitutional monarchy). I think of left wing as being opposed to the status quo so in a way Hitler for example would have been a revolutionary as he opposed capitalism. His party was called National Socialist.
Well, he said that he opposed capitalism but the truth is that he was massively supported by Germany's capitalists who trembled in fear of a real revolution. Here's a famous collage, it's called "Millions stand behind me! (The sense of the Hitler salute)"

http://jameswagner.com/images/heartfield2.jpg

This Socialist part of the Nazis is stressed out by the Strasserists and other "left" Nazis but still, they were not socialist by the definition, they had some socialist aspects but main aspects of socialism simply weren't existing.

And Hitler didn't want to change the current system for the sake of the working class and for equality, he just wanted to create an even worse reactionary and opressive state in order to realise his dream of a pure Aryan race ruling over huge parts of the world. This has absolutely nothing to do with the left. Symply wanting to change the current state doesn't make one a leftist.

Daz

26th April 2009, 17:15

I did read somewhere that Hitler did not really like using the word socialist. Seeing as they were competing for some of the same people the communists were then maybe they just found the name useful.

Nulono

26th April 2009, 17:37

To be honest, the main problem with the political spectrum is presenting a continuity between left-reformism and socialism. After all, socialism is just further to the left of left-reformism on the spectrum, but there's not enough continuity between the two to make this make sense. Socialism abolishes capitalism, reformism only changes it.

Reforming something enough eventually abolishes it.

NecroCommie

26th April 2009, 18:34

Come here and say that again. (reference to the reformist and failed nature of nordic countries, not a threath)

Daz

1st May 2009, 02:49

[QUOTE=Rjevan;1426414]Why do you think that Fascism belongs to the left? :confused: It is far right and not just right of Communism, which is considered to be far left!

Mussolini on occasion acknowledged that fascism was perceived as a movement of the "right," but he never failed to make it clear that his inspiration and spiritual home was the socialist left. "You hate me today because you love me still," he told Italian Socialists. "Whatever happens, you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. Socialism is in my blood."

Mussolini's mistress allegedly dove in front of her lover. Bombacci merely shouted, "Long live Mussolini! Long live Socialism!"

Rjevan

1st May 2009, 14:22

Mussolini on occasion acknowledged that fascism was perceived as a movement of the "right," but he never failed to make it clear that his inspiration and spiritual home was the socialist left. "You hate me today because you love me still," he told Italian Socialists. "Whatever happens, you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. Socialism is in my blood."

Mussolini's mistress allegedly dove in front of her lover. Bombacci merely shouted, "Long live Mussolini! Long live Socialism!"
Hm, funny, I didn't know that. But still, Mussolini was a demagogue, he would have said very much just to present himself as the perfect leader and if he saw that socialist ideas still had support in Italy, well, then he's a socialist of course. But that is just lame rhetoric, everybody could lable himself anything if he's in power, charismatic and the opposition is not in position to demonstrate, it's his actions that would define him as a socialist, not his words.

His blackshirts fought the socialists and killed some of their leaders, his state was hierarchic, capitalistic and imperialistic , he supported Franco's fascists during the Spanish Civil War and he stressed several times that the "Internationale and the masters of Bolshevism" are his eternal enemies during visits in Germany. His ideas are contradictionary to socialism, as you can see in the link above so it does not matter how many times he calls himself a socialist and how many of his followers call him like that, an overview over his rule, his state, his actions and his attitude shows that he's everything else but a socialist.

Daz

1st May 2009, 22:23

Hm, funny, I didn't know that. But still, Mussolini was a demagogue, he would have said very much just to present himself as the perfect leader and if he saw that socialist ideas still had support in Italy, well, then he's a socialist of course. But that is just lame rhetoric, everybody could lable himself anything if he's in power, charismatic and the opposition is not in position to demonstrate, it's his actions that would define him as a socialist, not his words.

His blackshirts fought the socialists and killed some of their leaders, his state was hierarchic, capitalistic and imperialistic , he supported Franco's fascists during the Spanish Civil War and he stressed several times that the "Internationale and the masters of Bolshevism" are his eternal enemies during visits in Germany. His ideas are contradictionary to socialism, as you can see in the link above so it does not matter how many times he calls himself a socialist and how many of his followers call him like that, an overview over his rule, his state, his actions and his attitude shows that he's everything else but a socialist.
I find this interesting, Mussolini and Lenin were mutual admirers. Lenin would later say that Mussolini was the only true revolutionary in Italy, and according to Mussolini's first biographer, Margherita Sarfatti (a Jew and Mussolini's lover), Lenin also later said, "Mussolini? A great pity he is lost to us! He is a strong man, who would have led our party to victory."

I believe Mussolini saw that what was called socialism was really just a kind of socialism: international socialism. Mussolini was interested in creating a new socialism, a socialism in one state, a national socialism, which had the added benefit of being achievable.

Rjevan

1st May 2009, 22:34

I find this interesting, Mussolini and Lenin were mutual admirers. Lenin would later say that Mussolini was the only true revolutionary in Italy, and according to Mussolini's first biographer, Margherita Sarfatti (a Jew and Mussolini's lover), Lenin also later said, "Mussolini? A great pity he is lost to us! He is a strong man, who would have led our party to victory."

I believe Mussolini saw that what was called socialism was really just a kind of socialism: international socialism. Mussolini was interested in creating a new socialism, a socialism in one state, a national socialism, which had the added benefit of being achievable.
Nah, I don't think Mussolini wanted "socialism in one country", (which was achieved in e.g. the USSR and China) his fascist state has even less in common with a socialist state than Nazi Germany. The right-wingers who want to built a "true national socialist state" are the Strasserists (the "left" Nazis who follow the line of Hitler's enemies Otto and Gregor Strasser who led the left wing of the NSDAP) and the Russian NazBol. But fascism as defined by Mussolini is 99% contradictionary to even the basics of socialism and he openly condemned socialism/communism in many speeches and writings.

Daz

1st May 2009, 22:40

Nah, I don't think Mussolini wanted "socialism in one country", (which was achieved in e.g. the USSR and China) his fascist state has even less in common with a socialist state than Nazi Germany. The right-wingers who want to built a "true national socialist state" are the Strasserists (the "left" Nazis who follow the line of Hitler's enemies Otto and Gregor Strasser who led the left wing of the NSDAP) and the Russian NazBol. But fascism as defined by Mussolini is 99% contradictionary to even the basics of socialism and he openly condemned socialism/communism in many speeches and writings.
How do you personally define socialism? Socialism in my opinion merely means that which is good for the whole community, not a system designed to benefit a small minority. Are you opposed to any form of leadership?

Rjevan

1st May 2009, 23:03

How do you personally define socialism? Socialism in my opinion merely means that which is good for the whole community, not a system designed to benefit a small minority. Are you opposed to any form of leadership?
Haha, no, I'm not, I'm an Anti-Revisionist. :lol:
But I am opposed to a Fuehrer/Duce who is "always right" and to whom I have to show total loyality and dutifulness no matter how much I disagree with his decissions. And you're absolutely right that socialism should be good for the whole society but this is the point: fascism usually means a strong hierarchy, militarism, imperialism, very conservative values and support of the local religion (Franco and the Spain Catholic church, Mussolini and the Vatican and the Pope). And all these things do benefit only a small minority: the burgeoisie, the military, the capitalists and the clergy. The unions are usually abolished, there's absolutely no workers controll, no equality of genders and no democracy not to speak of any chances of a classless society. The elites stay in power and try to rule over the masses with overreaching patriotism and appeals of "good old values" which are only used to keep the people under control. The governemt claims that other people are inferior to the native borns and that war is a legitimite tool to gain more influence and get back "old provinces". There is no individualism and not much free choice and all these things which fascism lacks are part of a socialist society and most things which fascism stands for are opposed by socialism (and the other way around, too).

Stranger Than Paradise

2nd May 2009, 17:25

There is really two measures of whether someone is Left or Right. The first is economic beliefs, for example your belief on markets. The second is your social beliefs, for example whether you believe the state or not.

fightfortheworkingclass

4th May 2009, 00:46

the way to measure left or right, well you have to think of you're social beliefs and then look at you're views on economics it also helps to know if you stand with you're state and current way you're country is being ruled or you are for a better, fair, and just country? based on that and some other points you will get you're final stance down on being left or right.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

4th May 2009, 12:38

Also how did Mussolini go from being a left wing socialist to being defined as right wing?

How did Hillary Clinton go from being a Goldwater conservative to a left-liberal?

pastradamus

4th May 2009, 12:50

Why do you think that Fascism belongs to the left? :confused: It is far right and not just right of Communism, which is considered to be far left!

Fascism or Indeed Nazism does not nessecarily have to be a far-right concept, economically speaking. Its possible for a party with the social ideals of Hitler to implement a left-leaning economic structure.

ComradeOm

4th May 2009, 12:58

Mussolini on occasion acknowledged that fascism was perceived as a movement of the "right," but he never failed to make it clear that his inspiration and spiritual home was the socialist left. "You hate me today because you love me still," he told Italian Socialists. "Whatever happens, you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. Socialism is in my blood."Mussolini said a lot of things. He also betrayed a lot of ideals... largely because he set very little in store by them. 'Socialism' was just a useful label to him, to be used and discarded whenever it suited. To quote an old 'comrade' (Rossi) from his Socialist days:

"The only cause [Mussolini] recognised was his own and his only use for ideas was to enable him to dispense with ideas... only action counted"

I find this interesting, Mussolini and Lenin were mutual admirersReally? The below shows just how Lenin perceived Mussolini following 1915

"The opportunists (and deserters from the workers’ party such as Mussolini) practised social-chauvinism, lauding (as Plekhanov did) “gallant Belgium”, thereby shielding the policies... of a bourgeois Italy, which would plunder the Ukraine and Galicia . . . I mean, Albania, Tunisia, etc., etc. Meanwhile, the socialists were waging against them a war against war, in preparation of a civil war" (What Next?, 1915)

Edit:

Its possible for a party with the social ideals of Hitler to implement a left-leaning economic structure. Except that neither Hitler's ideals or the Nazi economy were in any way "left-leaning" :huh:

pastradamus

4th May 2009, 13:04

Edit:
Except that neither Hitler's ideals or the Nazi economy were in any way "left-leaning" :huh:

How does that prove that Nazism/Fascism cannot be applied in such a manner? There was actually a lot of Nazi german economic's which could be considered slightly leftist. Obviously im not condoning Fasicsm or indeed Nazi Germany but for example its common for parties such as the BNP to sing from the Leftist economic hymn sheet to increase popular vote numbers.

ComradeOm

4th May 2009, 13:35

How does that prove that Nazism/Fascism cannot be applied in such a manner?How about the fact that every fascist movement that has risen to power has done so with the backing and blessings of the grand bourgeoisie? Show me a fascist state that has ever attempted to "implement a left-leaning economic structure"

Oktyabr

4th May 2009, 13:37

Fascism or Indeed Nazism does not nessecarily have to be a far-right concept, economically speaking. Its possible for a party with the social ideals of Hitler to implement a left-leaning economic structure.

Fascism tends to be more a system of government when compared to Communism and Anarchism, which are economic and social systems. Communism and Anarchism have very little to do with government aside from the fact that it advocates direct democracy. Thus, the two ideologies can't really be measured on the same scale, as has been stated beforehand.

pastradamus

4th May 2009, 13:39

How about the fact that every fascist movement that has risen to power has done so with the backing and blessings of the grand bourgeoisie? Show me a fascist state that has ever attempted to "implement a left-leaning economic structure"

Theoretically, its possible for a fascist state to implement some leftist policies. Ie, Nationalized health Care. I would also like to say that the vast,vast bulk of Hitlers support came from the working class and not property owners. History of the past has nothing to do with this, this is a question of political theory and science.

pastradamus

4th May 2009, 13:42

Fascism tends to be more a system of government when compared to Communism and Anarchism, which are economic and social systems. Communism and Anarchism have very little to do with government aside from the fact that it advocates direct democracy. Thus, the two ideologies can't really be measured on the same scale, as has been stated beforehand.

Im speaking in a purely Economic Context here. Socially speaking and also speaking about it administratively there are seriously opposed differences between leftism and fascism. But economically the two can share or be completely divided on economic ideas.

ComradeOm

4th May 2009, 14:42

Theoretically, its possible for a fascist state to implement some leftist policies. Ie, Nationalized health CareWhich is very different from "implementing a left-leaning economic structure". As an example, health care was first introduced to Germany by Bismarck but no one in their right minds would accuse him of either being a socialist or following left-wing economic policies

I would also like to say that the vast,vast bulk of Hitlers support came from the working class and not property ownersWell you'd be wrong. No more than 30-40% of NSDAP members were of the working class, easily dwarfed by the 40-50% that were of petit-bourgeois backgrounds. More to the point, from the collapse of Weimar democracy in 1930 onwards the Nazis increasingly came to enjoy the confidence and backing of a powerful group of industrialists who dominated German industry. By 1932, with the obvious failure of Hindenburg's authoritarianism, they were providing significant financial and political support to the NSDAP

They did so because German industry wanted nothing less than a dismantling of the 'trade union state', as the labelled Weimar, and a return to the employment practices of the pre-war era. In exchange for their support Hitler promised to decisively use state powers to intervene to tilt the balance of power in the workplace back towards the employers. Wages were frozen, unions broken, and even relics of the Bismarckian era, such as public healthcare, drastically pared back. It was, in short, a determined offensive against organised labour and the working class conducted at the behest of the German bourgeoisie

If Hitler (or Mussolini, for whom the same holds true) had led a party whose membership was overwhelmingly working class and whose economic policies were left-wing... then why on earth would he enjoy the support of the bourgeoisie? :confused:

History of the past has nothing to do with this, this is a question of political theory and science.Any fascist party/policy that directly contradicts fascist Italy or Nazi Germany on a fundamental tenet such as this is probably not fascist. Fascism is non-revolutionary - it cannot obtain state power without the support of the bourgeoisie

Cumannach

4th May 2009, 14:47

How does that prove that Nazism/Fascism cannot be applied in such a manner? There was actually a lot of Nazi german economic's which could be considered slightly leftist. Obviously im not condoning Fasicsm or indeed Nazi Germany but for example its common for parties such as the BNP to sing from the Leftist economic hymn sheet to increase popular vote numbers.

Fascism by definition includes pseudo-leftist rhetoric, often quasi revolutionary sounding programs and appeals but no actual progressive substance or policies- instead the polar opposite.

pastradamus

4th May 2009, 16:57

Fascism by definition includes pseudo-leftist rhetoric, often quasi revolutionary sounding programs and appeals but no actual progressive substance or policies- instead the polar opposite.

I can understand the angle here, but What I was really getting at is that whilst Fascism uses the implement of popular working class ideals to advance its views and support base , It nevertheless perverts these ideals in the end to advance a chauvanistic product of state authoritarianism - history has proven this of course. Also the evident use of corporatism, especially in Italy was obviously something of an opposite to genuine leftist ideals in economic terms. Italy is a more striking example of economic fascism in my opinion as it is far more transparent than that of Nazi Germany. Though one economic & social thing both Fascism/Nazism and Communism has in common is its hard-core tendancy and goal to eliminate unemployment from day 1. Popular Social reforms are also evident in fascism, for example Mussolini's draining of the pontine marshes to create housing for poor people, this is a modus operandi in order to gain popular support, once popular support is secured then the nasty Statist side of social Fascism shows its murky head. its Historically evident that Hitler did a simular thing by creating work groups to build the Autobahn, this almost eliminated unemployment and secured a form of popular support.
Facism rely's on populism initially and then implements its full extent of ideals shortly afterwards - the ideals we are all very much against. So I will argue that throughout history a certain initial phase of socialism was used which was followed by hard-core nationalism and direct Fascism. This in my opinion shows that the hypothetical theory that a Fascist government CAN implement socialist Economic policies holds water - albeit with my own personal and ideological disproval.

pastradamus

4th May 2009, 17:10

Which is very different from "implementing a left-leaning economic structure". As an example, health care was first introduced to Germany by Bismarck but no one in their right minds would accuse him of either being a socialist or following left-wing economic policies

Because his policies were not Socialist to begin with - though had somewhat of a degree of socialism in them, ie Pensions, unemployment benefit -socialist idea's.

Well you'd be wrong. No more than 30-40% of NSDAP members were of the working class, easily dwarfed by the 40-50% that were of petit-bourgeois backgrounds. More to the point, from the collapse of Weimar democracy in 1930 onwards the Nazis increasingly came to enjoy the confidence and backing of a powerful group of industrialists who dominated German industry. By 1932, with the obvious failure of Hindenburg's authoritarianism, they were providing significant financial and political support to the NSDAP

Absolutely, though it took many a working class member to vote for the NS party and for the Nationalist Party also.

They did so because German industry wanted nothing less than a dismantling of the 'trade union state', as the labelled Weimar, and a return to the employment practices of the pre-war era. In exchange for their support Hitler promised to decisively use state powers to intervene to tilt the balance of power in the workplace back towards the employers. Wages were frozen, unions broken, and even relics of the Bismarckian era, such as public healthcare, drastically pared back. It was, in short, a determined offensive against organised labour and the working class conducted at the behest of the German bourgeoisie

Yes, this is indeed true. Now keep in mind I absolutely hate the German Nazi State. I was in no way suggesting it was Socialist - so I think your getting the wrong message here. I am rather applying a theory based on economic possibilities and stances within the fascist movement.

If Hitler (or Mussolini, for whom the same holds true) had led a party whose membership was overwhelmingly working class and whose economic policies were left-wing... then why on earth would he enjoy the support of the bourgeoisie? :confused:

Firstly, The two did enjoy a degree of Working class support - it cannot be disputed.

and second, I was not suggesting that either were left-wing. Though some leftist policies were used to initially gain support.

Any fascist party/policy that directly contradicts fascist Italy or Nazi Germany on a fundamental tenet such as this is probably not fascist. Fascism is non-revolutionary - it cannot obtain state power without the support of the bourgeoisie

Lets inspect the BNP - whom I would describe as being fascist. They claim a lot of leftist policies and jobs and employment is a big issue for them as well as national industry - something they have in common with the left. Though they share more in common with Nazi Germany than anything else really, Though overall they are in no-way a leftist group - its textbook populism. I would also currently argue that the DPRK is a quasi-fascist regime using simular fascist-like strategies except based on a different model.

ComradeOm

4th May 2009, 18:22

Because his policies were not Socialist to begin with - though had somewhat of a degree of socialism in them, ie Pensions, unemployment benefit -socialist idea'sAnd nothing even approaching socialist economic policy. If nothing else Bismarck illustrates the degree to which a generous social platform can be used to cover for an assault on workers' rights. German industry was entirely without collective bargaining agreements until 1918

Absolutely, though it took many a working class member to vote for the NS party and for the Nationalist Party alsoActually no. If you look at the Reichstag election figures you see that the working class milieu remained remarkably consistent at ~40% of the electorate throughout the 1920s. In the 1932 elections the only major change was the increase in the KPD growth at the expense of the SPD. In contrast the NSDAP vote came almost entirely at the expense of the national-liberals (DVP, DNVP) and minor fringe parties

I can see where you're coming from - suggesting that the NSDAP adopted socialist policies to attract a working class base - but that's just not the case

Yes, this is indeed true. Now keep in mind I absolutely hate the German Nazi State. I was in no way suggesting it was Socialist - so I think your getting the wrong message here. I am rather applying a theory based on economic possibilities and stances within the fascist movementTake Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Falangist Spain, or any fascist state. You will find that for all the rhetoric these movements did not enact socialist economic programmes. Indeed, they universally carried out the opposite in crushing unions at the behest of the bourgeoisie. Based on all historical evidence, fascists simply do not, and can not, "implement left-leaning economic structures"

Lets inspect the BNP - whom I would describe as being fascist. They claim a lot of leftist policies and jobs and employment is a big issue for them as well as national industry - something they have in common with the left. Though they share more in common with Nazi Germany than anything else really, Though overall they are in no-way a leftist group - its textbook populismRhetoric designed to attract the petit-bourgeoisie who make up the BNP's natural support base. Fascist parties, including the BNP, scorn the class divisions inherent in industrial relations. Where they insist on control of industry it is in order to channel it towards some greater 'national good'. They do not advocate workers' control, they do not advocate mass nationalisations, they do not advocate a redistribution of wealth, they do not advocate protecting workers' rights, etc etc. I could go on and on but the picture is clear - the economic policies of the BNP are simply not socialist or "left-leaning"

pastradamus

5th May 2009, 11:23

Actually no. If you look at the Reichstag election figures you see that the working class milieu remained remarkably consistent at ~40% of the electorate throughout the 1920s. In the 1932 elections the only major change was the increase in the KPD growth at the expense of the SPD. In contrast the NSDAP vote came almost entirely at the expense of the national-liberals (DVP, DNVP) and minor fringe parties

The fact cannot be ignored that Workers did vote for hitler. now in saying that one must keep in mind Hitler didn't even get half the electorate and eventually formed a coalition.

I can see where you're coming from - suggesting that the NSDAP adopted socialist policies to attract a working class base - but that's just not the caseThey eliminated unemployment almost overnight - thats what builds up support.

Take Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Falangist Spain, or any fascist state. You will find that for all the rhetoric these movements did not enact socialist economic programmes. Indeed, they universally carried out the opposite in crushing unions at the behest of the bourgeoisie. Based on all historical evidence, fascists simply do not, and can not, "implement left-leaning economic structures"I wouldnt use the Falange as an example here. They key difference is the other two won elections and so had to drill up support - Franco had a civil war so it was not nessecary. On the Union issue I would like to mention that Cuba, USSR, China etc,etc under Stalin,Mao and Castro respectively did not allow unions. What I mean on the left-leaning policies is that its a vehicle to drill up support which slowly is perverted by future Fascist policies.

Rhetoric designed to attract the petit-bourgeoisie who make up the BNP's natural support base. Fascist parties, including the BNP, scorn the class divisions inherent in industrial relations. Where they insist on control of industry it is in order to channel it towards some greater 'national good'. They do not advocate workers' control, they do not advocate mass nationalisations, they do not advocate a redistribution of wealth, they do not advocate protecting workers' rights, etc etc. I could go on and on but the picture is clear - the economic policies of the BNP are simply not socialist or "left-leaning"

I very much agree that they advocate none of the above. Though they'll give workers all the support they need in order to win elections. We have recently seen them even divide workers on racial issues which goes to show they have a working-class base. Unfortunetly it does exist and mark my words, should they ever get elected I imagine they'll use the Populist policies we saw in the third reich and then drop their own disgusting issues on the populance.

ComradeOm

5th May 2009, 13:27

The fact cannot be ignored that Workers did vote for hitler. now in saying that one must keep in mind Hitler didn't even get half the electorate and eventually formed a coalitionDid some workers vote for Hitler? Undoubtedly. Did he ever manage mass support from working class areas? No. Did he ever rely on working class votes? No

The reality, as I pointed out above, is that the vast majority of Nazi support came from those who had previously supported other nationalist or centre-right parties. Hitler never amassed "get half the electorate". The most he ever got in pre-Reich elections was ~37% of the vote. Which is consistent with the showing of the pre-1932 rightist parties, whom he almost entirely supplanted

At the end of the day, can you show that Hitler a) trumpeted "left-leaning economic policies" and that b) these policies won him substantial working class support?

They eliminated unemployment almost overnight - thats what builds up supportIn the first place the work creation programmes (obviously) began after Hitler's arrival in power. They have absolutely no bearing on his electoral support. Secondly these were simply continuations (with a new Nazi veneer obviously) of existing policy begun under the preceding authoritarian administration. Finally they did not "eliminate unemployment overnight" - unemployment in 1935 was still running at its 1929 levels (it would only be reduced further through the mobilisation of the war industry) and its decline was less to do with Hitler than the fact that it had peaked, discounting seasonal unemployment, during 1935

What I mean on the left-leaning policies is that its a vehicle to drill up support which slowly is perverted by future Fascist policiesAs above, show me that Hitler ever endorsed "left-leaning policies", that the subsequent support was crucial to his victory, or that they were ever "slowly perverted". I think you'll find that Hitler had no such policies, never made much inroads to the working class vote, and never introduced them in the first place

I very much agree that they advocate none of the aboveBecause they can't. As much as the BNP makes populist noises they cannot adopt a socialist economic platform without alienating their Little England support base. They'll rail against big business and globalisation ('defend British jobs', 'defend the local newsagents') but then these are not in themselves socialist positions and reflect the fears of a petit-bourgeoisie being squeezed at both ends

pastradamus

7th May 2009, 04:41

Did some workers vote for Hitler? Undoubtedly. Did he ever manage mass support from working class areas? No. Did he ever rely on working class votes? No

Of course he did. The Vast Bulk of Germans are working class, he by default had to win some working class areas over. He had some working class support, maybe not the majority of it but its foolish to say Hitlers support Only came from Business' and Middle-class voters exclusively.

[QUOTE]At the end of the day, can you show that Hitler a) trumpeted "left-leaning economic policies" and that b) these policies won him substantial working class support?

I've already gone over this. To do so, he gave them huge tax breaks and introduced social benefits that even today anchor the society. He also ensured that even in the last days of the war not a single German went hungry. Despite near-constant warfare, never once during his 12 years in power did Hitler raise taxes for working class people. He also -- in great contrast to World War I -- particularly pampered soldiers and their families, offering them more than double the salaries and benefits that American and British families received. As such, most Germans saw Nazism as a "warm-hearted" protector, says Aly, author of the new book "Hitler's People's State: Robbery, Racial War and National Socialism". Its again, a vehicle to drive support and ensure his support throughout a war and 10 years of Nazi oppression. and misguidance.

In the first place the work creation programmes (obviously) began after Hitler's arrival in power. They have absolutely no bearing on his electoral support. Secondly these were simply continuations (with a new Nazi veneer obviously) of existing policy begun under the preceding authoritarian administration. Finally they did not "eliminate unemployment overnight" - unemployment in 1935 was still running at its 1929 levels (it would only be reduced further through the mobilisation of the war industry) and its decline was less to do with Hitler than the fact that it had peaked, discounting seasonal unemployment, during 1935

They do have a bearing on his electoral support. He actively manifested these idea's to win support in every class. Not that its important though as securing a new government in Germany at the time of the collapse of the Weimar republic was a difficult task in itself. I disagree with the "continuation" idea. If it was a continuation of policy than why were there 6 million unemployed before he came in? That aside, the rearmament programme was another means of getting people jobs as the average worker who was unemployed was more than willing to work any real job that was secure. Your forgetting the wall street crash here my friend. Of course Unemployment is going to be lower in 1929 than in the early 30's.

Because they can't. As much as the BNP makes populist noises they cannot adopt a socialist economic platform without alienating their Little England support base. They'll rail against big business and globalisation ('defend British jobs', 'defend the local newsagents') but then these are not in themselves socialist positions and reflect the fears of a petit-bourgeoisie being squeezed at both ends

Its basically left sounding populism. I never said they actually adopted it and officially endorsed it. its a veneer of propaganda to gain support. Your basically agreeing with me in different words here. This reactionary belief system is something we must fight against.

ComradeOm

7th May 2009, 12:00

Of course he did. The Vast Bulk of Germans are working class, he by default had to win some working class areas overWhich would be true if Hitler had ever won the support of the "vast bulk" of the German electorate. As I state above, Hitler's support came almost exclusively at the expense of centre-right parties and did not impact on the socialist (ie, working class) vote. This is the fourth time that I've stated this and you've yet to produce any figures that contradict this or support your own theory

I've already gone over this. To do so, he gave them huge tax breaks and introduced social benefits that even today anchor the society. He also ensured that even in the last days of the war not a single German went hungry. Despite near-constant warfare, never once during his 12 years in power did Hitler raise taxes for working class people. He also -- in great contrast to World War I -- particularly pampered soldiers and their families, offering them more than double the salaries and benefits that American and British families received. As such, most Germans saw Nazism as a "warm-hearted" protector, says Aly, author of the new book "Hitler's People's State: Robbery, Racial War and National Socialism". Its again, a vehicle to drive support and ensure his support throughout a war and 10 years of Nazi oppression. and misguidanceAnd what part of this do you believe constitutes a "left-leaning economic structure"?

Not that its important though as securing a new government in Germany at the time of the collapse of the Weimar republic was a difficult task in itself. I disagree with the "continuation" idea. If it was a continuation of policy than why were there 6 million unemployed before he came in?What? It was a continuation because the policies were just being introduced by the Papen administration. As I noted, unemployment peaked at over 6 million in mid 1932 and steadily decreased throughout the rest of the year. That it stood at 6 million when Hitler took power (and has served as a useful figure ever since) is due to seasonal unemployment during the winter months of early 1933. When this peak is excluded, ie the average unemployment taken for the year, it becomes apparent that German unemployment was already decreasing when Hitler took power. For this you can thank the work programmes initiated by the previous government coupled with the slow global recovery

In fact its often overlooked that Hitler actually cut funding to the work programmes. From 1934 onwards these funds were directed to the military and the drive for work became little more than a propaganda slogan

Your forgetting the wall street crash here my friend. Of course Unemployment is going to be lower in 1929 than in the early 30'sMy mistake, that should read "unemployment in 1935 was still running at its 1930 levels"