Hitler. Leftist?

[manicexpressive]

I'm sure at some point in the history of these forums this has been discussed. But, I can't seem to find it. The question is...was Hitler a leftist. I argue that he wasn't, but many right wing thinkers I talk to insist that he was.

Where in the political spectrum did this guy fall, exactly?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

was Hitler a leftist

No, he was a fascist.

[manicexpressive]

So, neither left nor right....fascism is it's own...errr...wing? Or is fascism as a seperate deal altogether...as in you can be from the left, center OR right, but it is your actions that deem whether or not you are a fascist?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Right wing.

A

[leninpuncher]

So, neither left nor right....fascism is it's own...errr...wing? Or is fascism as a seperate deal altogether...as in you can be from the left, center OR right, but it is your actions that deem whether or not you are a fascist?
The simplest definition of right-wing, is politics that defend privilege. So all dictatorships are inherently right-wing.

[Dimentio]

Mussolini began as a left-wing nationalist populist.

Hitler was just another generic German nationalist with social-darwinist viewpoints. The only thing original about him was his artistic dreams of creating some sort of stylistic Wagnerian world. But he always remained just twelve year old. I guess that was what was original about him. That he really didn't live in a normal reality.

Italian fascism was originally a left-wing nationalist movement which was the most lethal threat to the serious socialists and communists because of its populist character.

German nazism, and especially Hitlerian nazism, was rather originating from the bizarre, gnomeish world of that time's conspiracy theories.

There are two similarities between nazism and fascism.

1. Both were utilised by the bourgeoisie to stomp out the worker movement.

2. Both used the same aesthetics which they stole from the worker movement.

But ideologically speaking, Italian fascism and German nazism cannot be analysed as the same ideology, because they have different roots.

Fascism was rooted in Sorel's ideology and in the populist fasci movement of the early 20th century (a sort of Italian narodnik movement).

Nazism was rooted in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", German right-wing ultranationalism, social darwinism and Hitler's interpretation of wagnerian music.

Fascism is just reactionary and opportunistic.

Nazism is insane* and lethal.

Modern European fascism is mostly an expression for the petite bourgeoisie to try to stop the development of the internationalisation of Europe and roll back the clock. It is thus more akin to conservative populism than to Mussolini's fascism.

The same tendencies could be seen in USA.

*= Nazism doesn't have any class analysis but believes that the world is controlled by Jews who want to exterminate the Aryan race and that there is a struggle between races where the "stronger" must exterminate the "weaker". Fascism wants to utilise and create a total state to create "class harmony" and do away with the class struggle to the benefit of the bosses. Nazism wants to create "class harmony" in order to exterminate all Non-aryans and create an "Aryan empire" based on chattel slavery of conquered nations and genocidal policies.

[FSL]

The simplest definition of right-wing, is politics that defend privilege. So all dictatorships are inherently right-wing.


Dictatorships are regimes that defend the interests of the rulling class relying more on force and less on concession due to an increased threat to the status quo. The rulling class is what makes you say some state is on the left or right. Napoleon was an emperor and he was on the left of his monarchist opponents.

NSDAP and Hitler defended and ensured the profits of german industry while standing against the workers. Therefore, he's rightwing.

[rednordman]

Hitler was the greatest communist ever!!!:rolleyes: Ironically, wasnt it Hitler who came out with the quote 'When you repeat a lie so many times, it becomes true'. This is what the new liberal democratic establishments are doing all the time with the left.

Let them dream up their own version of history, where Hitler as actually a leftist. It only helps to show how fragile there own ideologies are when the try and make kids believe that fascism and communism are the same thing, to waver support and consent.

Yes, this is actually a good topic to discuss, and alot of people on this thread done exactly that, but when the capitalists and conservatives pose this question, all they simply want is for people to believe that Hitler was a leftist (no debate even intended). And thus in the same pot as everyone who opposes western liberal capitalist democracy.

[narcomprom]

After the German Patriot act of Feb. 1933 all communist publishings were banned. Hitler's ascent in March of the same years resulted in a general strike that was bloodily beaten at it's beginnings. On the 22th March concentration camp in Dachau was established, with it's first inmates being leftist academics, activists and journalists and active members of trade unions and of the communist party. Trade unions were finally banned on May, 2nd of the same year.

Decide for yourself wether he was a leftist.

Adenauer and American concervatives would point to the fact Hitler called his party national socialist. Karl Marx would have agreed.
He had addressed reactionary socialism throughoutly in the manifesto:


Reactionary Socialism

A. Feudal Socialism

Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation[A] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm#e1), these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.(1) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm#a1)
In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming catastrophe.
In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.
The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.
One section of the French Legitimists (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/l/e.htm#legitimists) and “Young England (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/y/o.htm#young-england)” exhibited this spectacle.
In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.
For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeois amounts to this, that under the bourgeois régime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society.
What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat as that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.
In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high-falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour, for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.(2) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm#a2)
As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.
Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism

The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The medieval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.
In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm#petty-bourgeois) has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.
In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois régime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes, should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England.
This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.
In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.
Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture; patriarchal relations in agriculture.
Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended in a miserable hangover.

C. German or “True” Socialism

The Socialist and Communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expressions of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.
German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits (men of letters), eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting, that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical significance and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the Eighteenth Century, the demands of the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of “Practical Reason” in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie signified, in their eyes, the laws of pure Will, of Will as it was bound to be, of true human Will generally.
The work of the German literati consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.
This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.
It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literati reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote “Alienation of Humanity”, and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois state they wrote “Dethronement of the Category of the General”, and so forth.
The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms, they dubbed “Philosophy of Action”, “True Socialism”, “German Science of Socialism”, “Philosophical Foundation of Socialism”, and so on.
The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome “French one-sidedness” and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.
This German socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such a mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.
The fight of the Germans, and especially of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.
By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things those attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.
To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires, and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.
It was a sweet finish, after the bitter pills of flogging and bullets, with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.
While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.
To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction — on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.
The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry “eternal truths”, all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public.
And on its part German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine.
It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.

1930s' German fascists DNVP and NSDAP were financed by the heavy industries. It's prime donors were Krupps Stahlwerke, the Bergbau Verband (=the Mining Conglomerate), IG Farben and what now is Siemens, all suffering greatly under the restrictions imposed in the treaty of versailles.

[bailey_187]

Didnt the NAZI party enter into coalitions with Conservative Parties?

Also, wages and living standards for workers in NAZI Germany fell, minimum wage and factory regulations abolished, while profits went up.

[eyedrop]

Didnt the NAZI party enter into coalitions with Conservative Parties?

Yep, it's also worth noting that Quisling (the guy with the expression named after him) was a minister in a right wing coalition for Fædrelandspartiet (FatherCountryParty) in the thirties.

[narcomprom]

Yep, it's also worth noting that Quisling (the guy with the expression named after him) was a minister in a right wing coalition for Fædrelandspartiet (FatherCountryParty) in the thirties.
Moreover without the support of the conservatives the enabling law, giving Hitler's cabinett dictatorial powers, could not have been established.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The term "right-wing thinker" is an oxymoron.

Hitler was a reactionary. A "regressive" if you will. He wanted massive social conservatism -- kill gays etc --, followed economics of capitalism and corporatism, was militaristic, racist, imperialistic, and a complete retard...like todays reactionaries. GODWIN.

[Dimentio]

The term "right-wing thinker" is an oxymoron.

Hitler was a reactionary. A "regressive" if you will. He wanted massive social conservatism -- kill gays etc --, followed economics of capitalism and corporatism, was militaristic, racist, imperialistic, and a complete retard...like todays reactionaries. GODWIN.

There were actually some nazi thinkers.

Ernst Junger and Julius Evola for example. Their ideology is even more insane than Hitler's though. But they were quite educated.

[narcomprom]

There were actually some nazi thinkers.

Ernst Junger and Julius Evola for example. Their ideology is even more insane than Hitler's though. But they were quite educated.
Huntington would be another example.

[Tatarin]

No, Hitler was no leftist, and for that matter, politics is often very much simplified to a mere "left-right" scale. For example, where would you put Joseph Stalin?

Thus the incomprehensibility of the Fork News network - those lefties want homosexuality, do not believe in god, want anarchy and at the same time a state to control everything! Aaah! :lol:

[RadioRaheem84]

OK, the history of Fascism is thus:

1.) Crisis of Marxism during the early twentieth century spurned a slew of Marxian heretics; social democrats, syndicalists, etc.

2.) World Wat I split the leftist camps into nationalist and internationalist

3.) This split the syndicalist camp the most as huge factions left the anarchist camp to the nationalist camp and formed national syndicalist/corporatist branches.

4.) This spurned Italian Fascism as the first Fascist theotricians were syndicalists and nationalists.

5.) Enter National Socialism; a hybrid of corporate fascism and self described non-Marxian style socialism. It was a really weird and outlandish ideology that did not adhere to any tenets of the past socialists; rationalism, progress, social unity. None of that. It was a violent reaction to the tenets of democracy, socialism, the Enlightenment, reason, brotherhood. Everything that the left stands for.

It was a ridiculously laughable ideology that I really don't see how the German intellectual community supported.

[manicexpressive]

Wow...incredible posts. Tons of information. Thanks folks! You really know your stuff!

[Dimentio]

It was a ridiculously laughable ideology that I really don't see how the German intellectual community supported.

The tenets of national socialism (which despite the name doesn't have anything to do with socialism, at all) was already vibrant and existent in 19th century German establishment conservatism.

Pan-germanism, social-darwinism, revanschism, militarism and racism were already the lifeblood of the German Kaiserreich of 1871-1918. Treischke, Fichte, Hegel and Nietzsche all provided the ideological and stylistical foundations for national socialism.

[Dimentio]

Huntington would be another example.

Huntington is more like an ideologue for modern paleo-conservatives and (in Sweden) Swedish democrats.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Leftists, in the broadest sense of the term, are people who support the interests of the exploited classes (such as the working class, and in some places the peasantry) and advocate greater equality in society (economic equality, social equality, racial equality, and so on).

Right-wingers, in the broadest sense of the term, are people who support the interests of the ruling classes (such as the capitalist class, and in some places the landowners) and advocate a society based on hierarchy and inequality. Different right-wingers have different excuses for inequality, but the thing that brings them together is that they all advocate inequality.

Hitler and the Nazis were huge advocates of inequality - especially racial inequality, of course - and therefore they were right-wing.

Also, the Nazis violently opposed communism because communism argues that the workers of all countries should unite against the capitalists. The Nazis (and the Italian fascists, for that matter) wanted the workers of their country to unite with the capitalists instead, and fight against the workers of other countries.

[Kayser_Soso]

The ruling class is doing all it can in this crisis to equate socialism with Nazism to keep it "off the table" in Europe. They do this by comparing superficial details, of which there can be many, but ignoring the class content and fundamental differences.

[ComradeMan]

Hitler a leftist? Interesting, I think some people may get confused because of the weasel-like nomenclature "National Socialists". It is true that both Hitler and Stalin were authoritarians but I think that's about where it stops in many ways. It is also true to note that the left-right dichotomy is not very helpful in any serious political analysis and also that Italian Fascism and German National Socialism are not easily compared.

[narcomprom]

Huntington is more like an ideologue for modern paleo-conservatives and (in Sweden) Swedish democrats.
He didn't even forget point out how all liberals and progressives (that is, those who don't seem to belong to his so called "western christian culture") are either misled or are being conscious culture-traitors nurturing cultural civil wars. Another cause of conflict, according to Mr.Huntington, are inner culture-enemies.

His theory is a modern fascism for the NATO while Evola is just a loon.

[Dimentio]

He didn't even forget point out how all liberals and progressives (that is, those who don't seem to belong to his so called "western christian culture") are either misled or are being conscious culture-traitors nurturing cultural civil wars. Another cause of conflict, according to Mr.Huntington, are inner culture-enemies.

His theory is a modern fascism for the NATO while Evola is just a loon.

Yes, I am in agreement. Huntington's ideology is also very prevalent in modern euro-fascism and amongst neo-conservatives. The idea that "cultures" are fighting between each-other.

[Rjevan]

Considring that the percentage of workers who voted for the Nazis was nothing compared to the percentage of bourgeois, it is excluded that the NSDAP was a workers party from the very beginning. If you then consider the definitions of left-wing and right-wing, the policies and political allies of the NSDAP and take a look at the people who donated heavily to the Nazi Party it should be very clear that Hitler was anything else but a leftist. Those people in the NSDAP who were "left Nazis", like the brothers Strasser and Ernst Röhm were killed by Hitler or had to leave the country, like Otto Strasser.

A caricature called "Millions stand behind me!", quoting Hitler. The text says "the meaning of the Hitler salute - little man asks for big donations"
http://www.grg23-alterlaa.ac.at/menschenrechte/heartfield/AIZ42_1932.jpg

[RadioRaheem84]

The tenets of national socialism (which despite the name doesn't have anything to do with socialism, at all) was already vibrant and existent in 19th century German establishment conservatism.

Pan-germanism, social-darwinism, revanschism, militarism and racism were already the lifeblood of the German Kaiserreich of 1871-1918. Treischke, Fichte, Hegel and Nietzsche all provided the ideological and stylistical foundations for national socialism.

Agreed. I just wonder how it all came together through the rantings of Hitler though? Mein Kampf is a mad man's diary! I was at least expecting some sort of thought provoking examination of history and events during that time (considering it attracted so many) but it was utterly vile. It didn't even really have a point. It was pure rant.

[RedSonRising]

Agreed. I just wonder how it all came together through the rantings of Hitler though? Mein Kampf is a mad man's diary! I was at least expecting some sort of thought provoking examination of history and events during that time (considering it attracted so many) but it was utterly vile. It didn't even really have a point. It was pure rant.

I see what you mean, but the rant is probably a well-written published version of the rant going on inside of many a German's head at the time.

Half of the text's prompting of "I KNOW RIGHT?!" among the population made it a convenient accompaniment to the rationalization of - "Oh so it's the Jews and liberals and pompous Western nations stealing my money and ruining my life" - that went along with it.

[RadioRaheem84]

I see what you mean, but the rant is probably a well-written published version of the rant going on inside of many a German's head at the time.

Half of the text's prompting of "I KNOW RIGHT?!" among the population made it conveniently accompany the rationalization of - "Oh so it's the Jews and liberals and pompous Western nations stealing my money and ruining my life" - that went along with it.

Sounds like the "common sense" rationalizations coming from the right wing in this country.

[Dimentio]

Agreed. I just wonder how it all came together through the rantings of Hitler though? Mein Kampf is a mad man's diary! I was at least expecting some sort of thought provoking examination of history and events during that time (considering it attracted so many) but it was utterly vile. It didn't even really have a point. It was pure rant.

Yes, I am myself baffled that the most extreme and insane faction in this particular case managed to build a mass following. But I think the reason for the success of national socialism was partially that the national socialists enjoyed support from local elites in Bavaria, from parts of the military intelligence and that they understood how to utilise mass media and copy the structural organisation of successful communist parties as well as the fascist party of Italy.

But the prospects of Hitler winning power in Germany judging by Mein Kampf is like the idea that David Icke would be prime minister of Britain!

I have read Mein Kampf as well. And yes, its a rant. Its like timecube.com.

[Kayser_Soso]

Agreed. I just wonder how it all came together through the rantings of Hitler though? Mein Kampf is a mad man's diary! I was at least expecting some sort of thought provoking examination of history and events during that time (considering it attracted so many) but it was utterly vile. It didn't even really have a point. It was pure rant.

You have to remember that many of the ideas Hitler wrote in that book had roots in that country. Anti-Semitism was so widespread that even the writings of famous historical Zionists actually contained Jewish stereotypes. Eugenics were popular around the world at that time in many industrialized countries, and Hitler got some of his ideas for practical application from race and eugenic laws which existed in the US at the time.

It is indeed similar to the crap peddled by conservative pundits today- "common sense" and emotional appeals instead of reason.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Nazis (and the Italian fascists, for that matter) wanted the workers of their country to unite with the capitalists instead, and fight against the workers of other countries.Exactly. Fascism and Nazism in general promoted the idea of "class co-operation". The Party itself would serve as the 'Union' that united everyone and the State would be the means keep that unity in tact. "Corporations" would be set up to meet the needs of both worker and owner.

I mean during that time nearly all nations went Fascist in their economic planning, did they not? I mean FDR himself used some legislative means to enact compromises with the owner of industry. Obviously these concessions benefited the worker, but didn't change their relationship with the owners of industry. The authoritarian aspect of Fascism was just a means to eliminate the democratic rights of workers to keep wanting more (breaking "class harmony") or to seek another way, i.e. Communism.

[Glenn Beck]

Fascism is basically defined by the belief that society can be made to function as an organic whole and class conflict is not a necessary reality but rather due to the degeneration of social morality.

This short speech by Franco explains it pretty concisely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZunyDi3ypw

Edit: here's a version without all the propaganda stuff

[RadioRaheem84]

Franco wasn't really a fascist though. He was a caudillo along the lines of Latin American and Middle Eastern style strongmen. No more than another Shah or Pinochet.

The only thing Fascist about his movement was that he aligned himself with the Falange, which were the real Fascists organized by a man named Jose Antonio De Primo de Rivera.

Take note though that while conservatives in the US denounce Hitler and Mussolini, some of them have positive things to say about Pinochet, Franco and the Shah.

[Dimentio]

Fascism is basically defined by the belief that society can be made to function as an organic whole and class conflict is not a necessary reality but rather due to the degeneration of social morality.

This short speech by Franco explains it pretty concisely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZunyDi3ypw

Edit: here's a version without all the propaganda stuff

Well. Then most social democrats would be considered "democratic fascists". I think it is necessary to distinct between different varieties of right-wing authoritarians when the roots of their thinking and their *cough cough* ideas are vastly different.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well. Then most social democrats would be considered "democratic fascists". I think it is necessary to distinct between different varieties of right-wing authoritarians when the roots of their thinking and their *cough cough* ideas are vastly different.

In some sense Fascism was like a Social Democratic model minus the democratic part. :huh:

All economies back then adopted the Keynesian/Social Democratic model as classical economics fell out of favor with the establishments. The only difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany was that Sweden is Democratic.

[The Red Next Door]

How can someone who enjoy choping off the heads of leftists, when you think about just like him being a self hating jew i guess was a self hating lefty.

[Kayser_Soso]

Fascists and Nazis usually claim that class conflict is something caused by outside agitators to divide the nation, which they insist as a whole. They will claim that all social classes in the nation have reciprocal responsibility to one another(like feudalism), but in reality it isn't hard to see who gets the short end of the stick.

[RadioRaheem84]

Weren't they against everything that came out of the Enlightenment anyways? This included ideas of popular democracy, republicanism, egalitarianism, socialism and liberalism. Their movement was a supposed worship of the past to move forward. It was are rejection of socialism. They favored feudal proto-fascist states like Sparta.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Hitler came to power through the ballot box, on a platform of nationalism, racism, homophobia and a wide range of other prejudices.

Due to his ascent to power, the Bourgeoisie negotiated with him - Von Papen agreed to become his VC in the Reichstag. If Hitler was a leftist, you can bet that the Capitalists would have resorted to Civil War before they formed a coalition with a true Socialist movement.

Besides, if you really want proof of his anti-leftist credentials - ask the executives of the likes of Siemens, Daimler and IG Farben whether the 1930s was a fruitful period for them.;)

[Kayser_Soso]

Hitler came to power through the ballot box, on a platform of nationalism, racism, homophobia and a wide range of other prejudices.

Due to his ascent to power, the Bourgeoisie negotiated with him - Von Papen agreed to become his VC in the Reichstag. If Hitler was a leftist, you can bet that the Capitalists would have resorted to Civil War before they formed a coalition with a true Socialist movement.

Besides, if you really want proof of his anti-leftist credentials - ask the executives of the likes of Siemens, Daimler and IG Farben whether the 1930s was a fruitful period for them.;)



You got part of this backwards. First of all, they didn't really come to power via the ballot box. They actually lost seats in 1932. Von Papen convinced Hindenburg to make Hitler chancellor. This was basically the only way he was going to get power.

Hitler more or less took power via manipulation of German law, but not "democratically" as the myth goes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I should have articulated better. I was merely trying to make the connection between Hitler and counter-revolutionary tactics, in that the NSDAP came to power through, as you evidence, a mixture of a significant minority of votes and political intrigue. Neither of these constitute anything vaguely leftist or revolutionary, something which I hope is imprinted in the OPs memory.

[RadioRaheem84]

If Hitler was a leftist, you can bet that the Capitalists would have resorted to Civil War before they formed a coalition with a true Socialist movement.

Exactly. The capitalists only had two viable options in Germany at the time after the humiliation of liberalism; Fascism or Communism. They chose Fascism.

[Glenn Beck]

Well. Then most social democrats would be considered "democratic fascists". I think it is necessary to distinct between different varieties of right-wing authoritarians when the roots of their thinking and their *cough cough* ideas are vastly different.

This is wrong. Social-democrats believe in class compromise, fascists believe in total class conciliation, a society functioning as a harmonious machine, every person a cog who knows their place. Even if they have certain superficial similarities the ideals behind them are completely distinct and I don't think anything I said suggests otherwise.

Fascism shares much in common and was influenced by 19th century Catholic social teaching (particularly Rerum Novarum), including an organic metaphor of society as a living body whose parts must be in harmony and who are all interdependent. The workers are the hands, the ruling classes are the brains, the clergy are the heart, and so on. Any disruption in the body is akin to a disease, the result of foreign elements that must be purged, and the body as a whole must be disciplined in order to be able to work as a whole and avoid vices like softness, laziness, and greed (like workers asking for raises :rolleyes:). This is the reason for the aggressive nationalism of fascist societies and their mobilization against internal enemies who are scapegoated not only for subversion against the state but for being literally foreign bodies, "outsiders" who have infiltrated the social body itself. The fascist revulsion for their chosen victims Jews, Gypsies, Socialists, etc. is the revulsion one feels towards a leech or some other parasite that violates the sanctity of one's own body. These ideas are foreign to social democracy, which merely thinks its possible to reach a compromise between workers and capitalism for the shared prosperity of everyone. Though they both attempt to assuage class conflict, ideologically they are completely different.