Hitler, left or right? [Archive]

LSD

27th March 2005, 06:16

Well, are leftists typically for larger governments?

No.

True leftists are for the creation of a stateless communist society. There are some differences of oppinion on how we get there :lol:, but there is no doubt that Hitler had no intention of allowing his state to "whither"!

governments that can stop poverty and stuff?

But Hitler's government didn't do that, did it?

It "stepped in" to ensure the dominance of rich businessmen and corporations. German business was never so successful as under NSDAP rule!

Im just wondering im not sure about the whole right wing left wing thing

...right....sure you are... :rolleyes:

RedLenin

27th March 2005, 06:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:11 AM
Well, are leftists typically for larger governments? governments that can stop poverty and stuff? Im just wondering im not sure about the whole right wing left wing thing
No. I am an anarchist and believe in the abolishion of the state. Anarchists are leftists so obviously not all leftists favour the state. It is marxists/leninists that desire the state but only for a time. It is supposed to "wither away". But not all leftists desire a state, as you can see.

rice349

27th March 2005, 06:22

Well, are leftists typically for larger governments? governments that can stop poverty and stuff? Im just wondering im not sure about the whole right wing left wing thing

both leftists and rightists can take varying positions as far as the size and role of government. For instance, anarchists (and other variations of the rather broad ideology) believe in the lack of the presence in a post-revolutionary society. However, i too am a leftist and i believe in a totalitarian workers' state in a post revolutionary society.

Among rightists, you have varying degrees of those who believe in authoriatarianism to instill right-wing policies such as fascism, corporatism, and other characteristics of reaction. As well as conservatives who tend to sometimes be more distrustful of the state and prefer limited involvement that usually means infringing upon gays, homosexuals, and blacks, but allowing a free-market to run rampant and don't see exploitation as a problem.

The presence and role of the state is not exclusive to either left nor right, so when assessing the notion of state presence it's imperative to acknowledge what type of ideology one is making his/her claims on.

Eatthesuccessful

27th March 2005, 06:23

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 06:16 AM

Well, are leftists typically for larger governments?

No.

True leftists are for the creation of a stateless communist society. There are some differences of oppinion on how we get there :lol:, but there is no doubt that Hitler had no intention of allowing his state to "whither"!

governments that can stop poverty and stuff?

But Hitler's government didn't do that, did it?

It "stepped in" to ensure the dominance of rich businessmen and corporations. German business was never so successful as under NSDAP rule!

Im just wondering im not sure about the whole right wing left wing thing

...right....sure you are... :rolleyes:
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/4...rty25points.htm (http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/41004roberty25points.htm)

Those are Hitlers 25 points, some of them sound oddly familiar to the issues that many modern leftists and socialists take the same side of. Hell, nazi germany was pretty damn socialistic if u ask me. And asking a powerful state to "wither" into nothing is like giving a drunk free beer for years, then suddenly stop giving it to him. Hes gonna want more, and more until hes some sort of super drunk.

LSD

27th March 2005, 06:37

Those are Hitlers 25 points, some of them sound oddly familiar to the issues that many modern leftists and socialists take the same side of. Hell, nazi germany was pretty damn socialistic if u ask me. And asking a powerful state to "wither" into nothing is like giving a drunk free beer for years, then suddenly stop giving it to him. Hes gonna want more, and more until hes some sort of super drunk.

Wow, you sound oddly informed on the issues for someone who's "not sure about the whole right wing left wing thing".

:lol:!

As for Hitler's "25 points", propaganda isn't proof. Look at how he actually ran a government and not the spin he put out to get supporters.

Hell, nazi germany was pretty damn socialistic if u ask me.

Ah, but unless you have a degree in history, no one did.

You see many smart people who do have degrees in history have written many a paper on how the German economy ran under the NSAP.

It wasn't socialistic, it was ardently capitalist.

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/4...rty25points.htm

Sorry, buddy, but if you think you're comming up with something "new" by claiming Hitler was a leftist, I've got bad news for you. :(

This argument is so laughable that no serious capitalists even make it anymore.

Sorry... I know you thought it was clever, but its just old.

The Grapes of Wrath

27th March 2005, 06:51

Well, are leftists typically for larger governments? governments that can stop poverty and stuff? Im just wondering im not sure about the whole right wing left wing thing

Well, not necessarily. It varies between positions on the left and right, even from person to person.

Those are Hitlers 25 points, some of them sound oddly familiar to the issues that many modern leftists and socialists take the same side of. Hell, nazi germany was pretty damn socialistic if u ask me. And asking a powerful state to "wither" into nothing is like giving a drunk free beer for years, then suddenly stop giving it to him. Hes gonna want more, and more until hes some sort of super drunk.

Interesting ... you do not know much about these things? Haha, eh, I guess I'll believe you (wink, wink). To be honest, there are parts of socialism and capitalism in fascism. Fascism is basically an attempt to find a happy-medium between chaotic capitalism and all its problems and revolutionary communism. So, why not take parts of both?

The Nazi Party (Nationalistch Sozialinhgagkaghagahukghaqklha ... some damn big German words) stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party. It has the name "socialist" right in there. However, I believe many would see a difference. If the Nazis are socialists, then why do they have factory owners? Why did Krupp continue to own Krupp Steel? Hell, how did Oskar Schindler own a factory that he made Jews work in? I thought this was "socialism?"

Well, it is the socialization of the individual. Get everyone on the same page. Get them to stand in the same lines regardless of wealth, get them to all be subservient to a greater state ... all things that can be argued in some forms of socialism. The question asked was "why socialize industry when you can socialize the worker for half the cost?"

Fascism, in a very watered down explanation, is "you can keep your factory and all the money you make, you can make things however you want, but you must produce what the state tells you to or we'll blow you away and give your factory to one of our cronies."

Left? Center? Right? ... well, he obviously used nationalism, imperialism (can you say "Lebenstraum"), racism, slavery (with the Slavic peoples), conquest and elitism ... all things that most Leftists would argue against. Since the main forms of economics was left the same, the very point of socialism, I would make the argument that he was on the Right, as I'm sure most would.

TGOW

Zingu

27th March 2005, 08:17

Fascism can't really be defined by the left-right scale. Its anti-capitalist (sort of), denouces conservatives and the capitalist class as well as the left wing socialists; but also upholds traditional values; religon, and extreme nationalism. Fascism really has something to offer towards everyone; depending on who you are, and cannot be accurately scaled on the left wing-right wing spectrum.

marxist_socialist_aussie

29th March 2005, 08:16

Hitler, in the creation of what is now seen as old nazism, took elements from many areas on the political spectrum however, all serious historical scholars and even those slightly informed will say he is on the extreme right. Yes, he took elements of the socialists and his party had th word socialist in it but this was mainly for show. He ran an ardently capitalist styled economy with huge amounts of private ownership. Sorry dude, but he is the extreme right.

Saint-Just

29th March 2005, 09:11

Left/Right is not some kind of absolute truth. The idea was developed during the French revolution, those who sat further to the left of the national convention favoured more radical change to those that sat on the right.

There are a number of other factors that determine whether a political ideology is left or right. However, there are also ideas that transcend the left-right strata. You could ignore the spectrum entirely.

RedAnarchist

29th March 2005, 09:15

What would you say Communism was? 100% left-wing?

praxis1966

29th March 2005, 21:10

The problem with all of the arguments here is that the nature of communism and fascism seem fundamentally misunderstood. Fascism as a political ideology is more or less a system of election, i.e. absolutism. Communism is a system of economics. Of course there are certain other ancillary charecteristics that communists of all stripes share with one another, the same with fascists.

In any event, I believe most of you are confusing fascism with Aryanism. The two are not one in the same. Aryanism was the root cause of and excuse for the Third Reich's racist, anti-semetic, homophobic, etc. attitudes. Fascism really only uses brutality against political dissidents. To charecterize it another way, fascism in Germany was merely a means to an Aryanistic end. It had all sorts of rationalizations, guises, and spins put on it at the time, but that's essentially what it was.

There are, however, different forms of fascism just as there are different forms of communism, republics, democracies, or theocracies for that matter. If it's any indication, take a look at how fascism manifested itself in Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain. They were far and away very different from Hitler's Germany.

Cokane

29th March 2005, 21:17

Lysergic is there any need to be so insulting to people who who don't know much about politics are political ideologies? At least he/she wants to learn about the stuff, unlike many others who are too ignorant or lazy to even care about the difference between left and right wing, just because you have over 1000 posts you can insult people who know less than you? I find the tone of some of your posts very offensive.

RedFlagOverTrenton

29th March 2005, 21:18

Right.

The 25 points have alot of bullshitty populist rhetoric, much of which was never implemented. Nationalizing industries, for example; never happened. Except for the railroads. Everything else remained in private hands, and Hitler's biggest supporters were the big German bourgeoise and a number of Western capitalists.

There WAS a sector of the Nazi party, mostly based among the SA, who wanted a larger "state capitalist" sector. Ernst Rohm, for one. Most of these were killed in the Night of the Long Knives. However, state ownership doesn't necessarily socialism make; it matters how these state-owned industries are run, by whom, and for what purpose. Iran and Saddam's Iraq for example, had very large state-owned, state-capitalist sectors and only the most deluded far-right individuals would hold that they are in fact leftist states.

MKS

29th March 2005, 23:28

Almost all the factories in Nazi Germany were funded by the state. They paid men like Schindler to run their industry. All industry benifited the state. All production went to the cause of the German war effort and sustaining their power. All products of the state were at the dispose of the state (even people). Mechanical, systematic loyalty to the state. Thats not socialism, it is orwellian totaltarianism.

Was Hitler a leftist, if course not. Was he a right winger, absoltuely not. He was simply put, a maniac. Whose political idealogies stemmed from rascism and nationalism. Germany's economic polices in that era had little to do with Hitler and were sytems created by much smarter men (other Nazis). Hitler was simply a symbol and a leader.

We cannot define Hitler using conventional poltical terms, or even define him as a person.

Elect Marx

30th March 2005, 00:39

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 29 2005, 03:11 AM
Left/Right is not some kind of absolute truth. The idea was developed during the French revolution, those who sat further to the left of the national convention favoured more radical change to those that sat on the right.
Uh... left-right is an absolute idea; it is used to express a spectrum off political veiw. Perhapas it may be a little abstract and Imposible to show concrete placement but that is because it is absolute (not based on the scale of specifc ideologies).

There are a number of other factors that determine whether a political ideology is left or right. However, there are also ideas that transcend the left-right strata. You could ignore the spectrum entirely.

Like what? People say this about economics and other social interaction but they ARE political, so I don't really know other than the particular members of certain groups, who they apply to and where they act; what else could realty set them apart?

Fascism can't really be defined by the left-right scale. Its anti-capitalist (sort of), denouces conservatives and the capitalist class as well as the left wing socialists; but also upholds traditional values; religon, and extreme nationalism. Fascism really has something to offer towards everyone; depending on who you are, and cannot be accurately scaled on the left wing-right wing spectrum.

I would say fascism, communism, anarchism and centrism are a few positions that actually can be defined by the left-right span. It all comes down to the (anti)authoritarianism of the system.

What would you say Communism was? 100% left-wing?

I would think so, as no other ideology is more anti-authoritarian and fascism would be 100% to the right; though you might make the case that anarchism is farther to the left because of the people that practice it, I would say they are both 100% and there is no real difference other than the people picking the titles.

Don't Change Your Name

30th March 2005, 01:07

Let's get this straight: the "left = government control over the economy and right = economical freedom" is just another rethorical tool the conservative assholes use. That way they can put anarchists, stalinists, "liberals", "hippies", leninists and socialists of all kinds into the same bag, together with fascists (since supposedly they are against what they consider "freedom", although a simple look will show that even if some fascist policies can be considered "centrists", most of them seem to be to keep the capitalist economical structure but with different state mechanisms to create a "corporatist" economy, and get rid of the "evil people", which are usually leftists, oppositors, jews, foreigners, etc.), so that they can blame the anarchists of supporting Hitler, the stalinists of being "tree hugging hippies", the "liberals" of being "atheistic stalinist totalitarians", and thus they can pretend to be the "champions of freedom".

If you consider "leftist" ideologies to be "state control", you've been "sold" a wrong spectrum.

LSD

30th March 2005, 04:44

Lysergic is there any need to be so insulting to people who who don't know much about politics are political ideologies?

In this case, yes.

Because you see he did know about political ideologies, he was just feigning ignorance to make some kind of "point" on how us lefties are all "like Hitler". Look how quickly he went from "I don't know much.." to spouting off the 25 points and lecturing on National Socialist ideology!

At least he/she wants to learn about the stuff, unlike many others who are too ignorant or lazy to even care about the difference between left and right wing

If only he was. But you notice that he hasn't responded to any of the responses to his "question"?

Because he didn't care about the answer, he was just trying to "knock us down". I assure you, he was neither ignorant nor naive.

He knew what he was doing!

just because you have over 1000 posts you can insult people who know less than you?

:lol:

I take no liscense from my post count!

I assure you, I would have been equally rude had it been my first post.

Hiero

30th March 2005, 08:45

If you consider "leftist" ideologies to be "state control", you've been "sold" a wrong spectrum.

What do you call a government that controls prices, wages and nationalises major industry?

Leftist, its obvious. It may not extermly leftist, but moderate leftist.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

30th March 2005, 09:16

Or fascist.

Guest1

30th March 2005, 10:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 02:23 AM
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/4...rty25points.htm (http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/41004roberty25points.htm)

Those are Hitlers 25 points, some of them sound oddly familiar to the issues that many modern leftists and socialists take the same side of. Hell, nazi germany was pretty damn socialistic if u ask me. And asking a powerful state to "wither" into nothing is like giving a drunk free beer for years, then suddenly stop giving it to him. Hes gonna want more, and more until hes some sort of super drunk.
As you have admitted being a supporter of Capitalism, I will make you acquainted with the Revolutionary Left guidelines:

What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behavior that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.
Thus, you are now restricted.

Enjoy.

Guest1

30th March 2005, 10:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:45 AM

If you consider "leftist" ideologies to be "state control", you've been "sold" a wrong spectrum.

What do you call a government that controls prices, wages and nationalises major industry?

Leftist, its obvious. It may not extermly leftist, but moderate leftist.
Wrong. We don't care which sector of the bourgeosie takes power over the others, what internal war happens within that class.

So long as that class is in charge, it is right wing. Fascism is the response to crisis in Capitalism, arising to break the backs of the workers' movements, consolidate the ruling class by force and jumpstart the economy out of its stagnation and the danger of workers' revolution.

The very fact that they need to bring the full power of the state to achieve this proves just how right-wing it is.

Hiero

30th March 2005, 11:13

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+Mar 30 2005, 09:43 PM--> (Che y Marijuana @ Mar 30 2005, 09:43 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 04:45 AM

If you consider "leftist" ideologies to be "state control", you've been "sold" a wrong spectrum.

What do you call a government that controls prices, wages and nationalises major industry?

Leftist, its obvious. It may not extermly leftist, but moderate leftist.
Wrong. We don't care which sector of the bourgeosie takes power over the others, what internal war happens within that class.

So long as that class is in charge, it is right wing. Fascism is the response to crisis in Capitalism, arising to break the backs of the workers' movements, consolidate the ruling class by force and jumpstart the economy out of its stagnation and the danger of workers' revolution.

The very fact that they need to bring the full power of the state to achieve this proves just how right-wing it is. [/b]

From an Anarchist perspective more left wing means less government. From a lazzis faire point of view less government involement means more right wing.

If industries are nationalised that means they are not in private hands, that means profits go to the government to fund public services. So you are saying this is right wing?

That would mean Chavez is right wing? That would mean Social Democrats are right wing?

Im amazed you would apply Left and Right as if they don't have any shades.

Or fascist.

I will use CYM's explantion

Fascism is the response to crisis in Capitalism, arising to break the backs of the workers' movements, consolidate the ruling class by force and jumpstart the economy out of its stagnation and the danger of workers' revolution.

Hiero

30th March 2005, 11:19

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 30 2005, 09:39 PM
As you have admitted being a supporter of Capitalism, I will make you acquainted with the Revolutionary Left guidelines:
Great work!!!!!!!

Im glad you restrict thoose people showing lack of understanding, i bet it really helps them grow into good socialist.

Guest1

30th March 2005, 11:29

Very well, I'll temporarily unrestrict him, I hope you are correct that he is merely a misguided leftist.

1936

30th March 2005, 11:31

Hitler was fascist so yes. Extremely right. Very, very, very, very, very right wing. He was a right wing extremist. The exact opposite of us leftists.

So stalin was "Extremely right"?.

Because of your economic status, it does not mean your authartarian status HAS TO be anything.

Right wing means no government intervention in economic affairs, therfor the free market. How was hitler right wing?

Guest1

30th March 2005, 11:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:13 AM
From an Anarchist perspective more left wing means less government. From a lazzis faire point of view less government involement means more right wing.
This has nothing to do with the "anarchist perspective". This is the reality that if the state owns the means of production, but the state is still a tool of the bourgeoisie, then the bourgeoisie still own the means of production. So it is actually more right-wing because it is a declared tool of the bourgeoisie to coordinate production under their command openly.

If industries are nationalised that means they are not in private hands, that means profits go to the government to fund public services. So you are saying this is right wing?
But Fascism doesn't fund public services. Fascism uses the government control to increase profits for the class as a whole and fund war efforts.

That would mean Chavez is right wing? That would mean Social Democrats are right wing?
Well, I have my own personal reasons for considering many Social Democrats to be right-wing, but no, generally I consider both to be left-wing. They generally believe they are wielding state power for the benefit of the working class, and to a certain extent they are. Though not much, and in Chavez's case only because the working class has setup its own seperate authority that threatens the state if it veers away from its control.

Fascism does the opposite. Uses the state to threaten the working class if it gets too rowdy.

Many Social Democrats, and Chavistas, are right-wing by the way.

Im amazed you would apply Left and Right as if they don't have any shades.
They do, but when you get to the extremes it falls to this: how is collective power being wielded and who is wielding it? Whether collective power is represented through a state or not, how and who is the real measure of the far class ideologies.

Whether by bureaucracy or anarchic militias, collective power being wielded by the working class to suppress the bourgeoisie is left-wing in nature. I may have my own views about the bureaucrats, but generally they're still our bastards.

And again, whether by bureaucracy, or small militias, collective power being wielded by the bourgeoisie to break the working class is right-wing in nature.

t_wolves_fan

30th March 2005, 12:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:06 AM
Would hitler be classified as left-wing or right-wing?
I used to ponder this question, then someone gave me the idea that the political spectrum isn't a line, it's a circle. The top is the moderates, the bottom is the radical authoritarians.

Hitler and Stalin are both at the bottom. It makes sense because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't much matter if you're killing 20 million out of ethnic hatred or killing 20 million in the process of collectivizing the agricultural system.

Or, as Clint Eastwood says,

"Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."

The man's brilliance knows no bounds.

praxis1966

30th March 2005, 20:15

That has to be the worst disguised argument for no-idea moderatism (if that's even a word) I've ever heard. I resent the implication that I don't have fully functioning brain cells because a psuedo-intellectual confused moderate thinks that socialism/communism is for idiots. I used to have respect for Clint Eastwood. Apparently I'm going to have to reconsider that position.

I've long held moderates in nearly as much contempt as the far right, simply because all too often they suffer from decision making disorders so profound that they never seem to be able to take a side on any argument. Moderate is another way of saying learning disability.

workersunity

30th March 2005, 22:27

yes hitler was very right wing extremist

1936

30th March 2005, 23:00

Dude, he was left wing! GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WITHIN ECONOMIC AFFAIRS OF SOCITETY IS LEFT WING! THERFOR HE IS LEFT WING! BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IN NAZI GERMANY CONTROLLED OR CORPORATIONS!

NovelGentry

30th March 2005, 23:25

Dude, he was left wing! GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WITHIN ECONOMIC AFFAIRS OF SOCITETY IS LEFT WING! THERFOR HE IS LEFT WING! BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IN NAZI GERMANY CONTROLLED OR CORPORATIONS!

I think that's a piss poor definition of left-wing -- and while I'm sure we're all fans of Political Compass and the work they do, their test and measures are surely lacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

LSD

30th March 2005, 23:39

Dude, he was left wing! GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WITHIN ECONOMIC AFFAIRS OF SOCITETY IS LEFT WING! THERFOR HE IS LEFT WING! BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IN NAZI GERMANY CONTROLLED OR CORPORATIONS!

But what you're forgeting is that Hitler expanded corporate control, smashed labour unions, and enlarged capitalism in Germany.

National Socialism is an interesting mix of left and right. In some ways, it was the first "third way" movement. Because while it does contain obvious socialistic elements, thhose policies only applied to the select, and, even then, they were severly tempered by the expansino of capitalism and corporatism.

Yes, Hitler intervened in the economy ...but in many ways he did it to the betterment of the bourgeois and he never helped the workers.

So if you have to place Hitler on the left-right scale (which is a deeply flawed scale in many ways) then I'd say his leftist policies are overshadowed by his rightest policies and I'd put him squarely on the right.

1936

31st March 2005, 12:34

I do not use or listen to "political compass". The question is of 2 choices, left or right.

Hitler was left.

Im sure if the question was define hitlers as left/right wing, we could all make up an interesting combination.

But the question is, left....or right.

LEFT!

Invader Zim

31st March 2005, 13:10

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 31 2005, 01:34 PM
I do not use or listen to "political compass". The question is of 2 choices, left or right.

Hitler was left.

Im sure if the question was define hitlers as left/right wing, we could all make up an interesting combination.

But the question is, left....or right.

LEFT!
It depends on what subject you are talking about. Economically Hitler did have some marginally leftwing policies, as did FDR, however there is a lot more to the left than a few token leftwing economic policies. His political position was extremely far right.

However, on numerous occasions real historians as well as ardent fascists have debunked the idea that fascism is remotely left wing.

A couple of books, I think you may find enlightening, on the subject of fascism: -

Mussolini, B., My Autobiography, Translated by Richard Washburn Child, (Plymouth, 1936).

De Felice, R., Fascism: An Informal Introduction to its Theory and Practise, (New Jersey, 1976).

I read them as research for an essay, so do forgive the bibliography style layout.

t_wolves_fan

31st March 2005, 14:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:15 PM
That has to be the worst disguised argument for no-idea moderatism (if that's even a word) I've ever heard. I resent the implication that I don't have fully functioning brain cells because a psuedo-intellectual confused moderate thinks that socialism/communism is for idiots. I used to have respect for Clint Eastwood. Apparently I'm going to have to reconsider that position.

I've long held moderates in nearly as much contempt as the far right, simply because all too often they suffer from decision making disorders so profound that they never seem to be able to take a side on any argument. Moderate is another way of saying learning disability.
That's a closed-minded approach.

Your way is right, no ifs ands or buts about it right?

George W. Bush felt the same way about WMD in Iraq. That sure worked out well.

I think it's better to be able to see all sides of the issue and understand the arguments of all sides than it is to simply dismiss arguments that run counter to your position. The fact is, radicals of all stripe have the same problem in that regard - they're right, everyone else is wrong, and they're not going to listen to any other options.

In other words, you're no better than religious fundamentalists when you boil it down. Let me say that again: as a closed-minded radical, you are NO DIFFERENT than the right-wing bible-thumping capitalists you despise.

Solid policy analysis is not a decision-making inadequacy. It's no different than a genuine scientific experiment, in that you go into an issue with no pre-determined, pre-desired outcome. You look at the facts, listen to the arguments, learn the values, and pick the alternative that both works best and (since it works best) satisfies the greatest number of people.

I believe that's what democracy is all about, don't you?

LSD

31st March 2005, 17:49

Hitler was left.

Im sure if the question was define hitlers as left/right wing, we could all make up an interesting combination.

But the question is, left....or right.

LEFT!

um...do you want to provide any evidence for this claim?

1936

31st March 2005, 18:03

To be honest, although i would hate to sound counter productive.

Its alot easier for me to do the square root of buggar all, and let you carry on beliving he was right wing just because your not partial to hes teachings.

Have fun.

Guest1

31st March 2005, 18:04

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 30 2005, 07:00 PM
Dude, he was left wing! GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WITHIN ECONOMIC AFFAIRS OF SOCITETY IS LEFT WING! THERFOR HE IS LEFT WING! BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IN NAZI GERMANY CONTROLLED OR CORPORATIONS!
George Bush interferes in the economy all the time, to break unions and decrease the minimum wage. Is he left wing?

Guerrilla22

31st March 2005, 18:20

I'm just wondering why this is even a debate.

Black Dagger

31st March 2005, 18:28

I fucking despise the left-right dichotomy, it's so simplistic, it's useless. Is authoritarian 'left' or 'right'? Is libertarian 'left' or 'right'? There are authoritarians on the 'left' and 'right', ditto with libertarians, and there's plently of orthdox/conservative 'old' (but even young) leftists around, radicalism is not inherently 'left'-wing.

The whole concept, at least the way i see it, is riddled with so many contradictions that it renders the binary pretty irrelevant. That said! IF IF IF IF, i had to use this damn left/right thing, i would say right. Why? His preferred economic system aside, hitler was rabidly anti-communist/socialist! And moreover he's very big on two concepts that are generally associated with the 'right', nationalism (and his was very aggresive nationalism), and racism. There's way too much in the 'right' column for him to be considered 'left-wing', because he rail-roaded a 'workers' or 'socialist' party into a racist-hate-machine doesnt make his party legitimately socialist, in the same that there's nothing 'revolutionary' about any of the marxist or anarchist parties/groups that get involved in the elecotral rituals of the bourgeoise.

I'm just wondering why this is even a debate.

:lol: good point!

1936

31st March 2005, 18:32

K, my mistake :unsure:

I had the wrong idea of what left/right wing entailed

Severian

18th April 2005, 04:57

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 29 2005, 03:11 AM
Left/Right is not some kind of absolute truth. The idea was developed during the French revolution, those who sat further to the left of the national convention favoured more radical change to those that sat on the right.
Not exactly. The commons sat on the left, the nobles on the right. At least at first, and that's where the left-right political terminology comes from.

I think that's still relevant today: those who side with the exploited are left, with the exploiters are right. For equality is left, for privilege is right.

If the words mean anything at all. "Left" and "right" are often used in a pretty vague and meaningless way, but you still gotta have 'em for some things....like describing fascist-like groups as ultra-right.

This is not the same as "radical change": one can have a radically reactionary change. Business nowadays is always advocating radical changes that'll help them make more money.

Aspects of Nazi propaganda, and other fascist and radical right propaganda, sound left, anticapitalist. They plagiarize aspects of socialist and communist propaganda, basically. In an attempt to appeal to working people, and (more successfully) middle-class people fallen on hard times during an economic crisis. That's true of people like Buchanan and LePen today, as well.

But they served (and serve) the ruling rich. Were financed by 'em, even. Smashed the workers' movement, made it possible for Krupp and I.G. Farben to make sky-high profits. The "National Socialist German Workers Party" was set up at the direction of members of the elite Thule Society for the explicit purpose of trying to win workers away from Marxism. It wasn't too successful at this, either, mostly recruiting middle-class people who'd previously supported mainstream liberal and conservative parties. See the vote totals for 1933 and previous years.

And they may be (verbally) against capitalism, but they ain't for any of the same things that the working-class movement is. And that's what decides political commonality: what you're for, not what you're against.

Clearly Hitler was of the far right. Nobody in Germany at the time had any doubt about this. He praised and allied with other right groups, described various right demagogues as his political predecessors. In Mein Kampf, when he attacks anyone other than "Marxists", it's for not being effective in fighting against "Marxists". (By which he means the social-democratic and "Communist" parties.)

There's also a good bit near the beginning where he has to quit a job in construction because his coworkers were threatening to push him off the scaffold...tells ya what actual workers thought of the "National Socialist German Workers Party."

bolshevik butcher

29th April 2005, 17:15

We demand an exclusive homeland for all EURO-AMERICANS -- EURO WHITE MEN OF AMERICA in AMERICA on the basis of the principle of racial self-determination of all peoples.

eh yeh just look at it, completley left wing, and communist.

Totalitarian Militant

30th April 2005, 02:00

Whoever said something about Germany being socialist, is as stupid as a 1930s German citizen.

They only included socialist in the title 'NAZI' to gain more support.

They had no ties to socialism whatsoever.

Jersey Devil

30th April 2005, 02:34

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 29 2005, 04:15 PM
We demand an exclusive homeland for all EURO-AMERICANS -- EURO WHITE MEN OF AMERICA in AMERICA on the basis of the principle of racial self-determination of all peoples.

eh yeh just look at it, completley left wing, and communist.
Yet when Marcus Garvey advocates that blacks move Liberia to 'be with their own people' he is regarded as a hero.

Black Dagger

30th April 2005, 13:15

... is as stupid as a 1930s German citizen.

Like all the people in the KPD (and others) who opposed hitler?

Shevek

1st May 2005, 18:57

Hitler. Economically: mixed. Socially: Racist Totalitarian. So I would say a right-winger somewhat influenced by socialism.

Xvall

2nd May 2005, 02:22

I think this is pretty dumb.

It would probably be a good idea to say that hitler was extremely right-wing, because the majority of his beliefs and actions were more towards conservative than liberal, but bunching Hitler in the same category as, say republicans, would probably just make non-nazi rightists angry. The same applys the other way around.

So the simple answer to the question would probably be, "Hitler was extremely right-wing." However, that wouldn't be a very good argument against conservatism, of which there are countless and varying degrees.

t_wolves_fan

2nd May 2005, 13:40

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 2 2005, 01:22 AM
I think this is pretty dumb.

It would probably be a good idea to say that hitler was extremely right-wing, because the majority of his beliefs and actions were more towards conservative than liberal, but bunching Hitler in the same category as, say republicans, would probably just make non-nazi rightists angry. The same applys the other way around.

So the simple answer to the question would probably be, "Hitler was extremely right-wing." However, that wouldn't be a very good argument against conservatism, of which there are countless and varying degrees.
That was shockingly reasonable coming from you.

:o

Xvall

2nd May 2005, 21:39

Yeah, I'm a nice and reasonable guy - when I care to be.

CheJoni

8th May 2005, 19:21

:angry: :angry: :angry:
:wacko: :blink:

how stupid can you be?????

was hitler left or right???????? :angry:
idiot^^
Are Nazis left or right????
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
HITLER WAS A NAZI!!!!
HE WAS RIGHT . I am from Germany and I think it is a stupid to ask this :lol:

OleMarxco

8th May 2005, 19:25

But he still CLAIMED to be a national socialist (i.e. left), so the question are still open to some controversy, so calm down! Even if I 'tho, still agree, that in practical-speaking, he was very far right - but whom can still lie, 'tho? And national and a TRUE socialist do not mix. You can't be both, that's an oxymoron in fact, but did Hitler care? NO! So they can heil Hitler in hell :che:

Hitler was center-right, with some left-leanings, but clearly with a very right-like approach in technical reality :)

ComradeRed

8th May 2005, 19:43

Nazi = National Socialism
National Socialism has the word "socialism" so it must be socialistic! Just like how Sodium Chloride has the poisonous gas Chlorine, so it must be deadly!

Good logic. :lol: :rolleyes:

Xvall

8th May 2005, 22:53

HITLER WAS A NAZI!!!!
HE WAS RIGHT .

You should be banned for supporting Hitler!

(I love taking things out of context.)

OleMarxco

9th May 2005, 00:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:43 PM
Nazi = National Socialism
National Socialism has the word "socialism" so it must be socialistic! Just like how Sodium Chloride has the poisonous gas Chlorine, so it must be deadly!

Good logic. :lol: :rolleyes:
I never said I thought he was socialistic, but I pointed out he SAID he was but also that his regime weren't practically socialism, so learn to read the full post, will ya, fuckin' doughnut? :rolleyes:

ComradeRed

9th May 2005, 04:55

I never said I thought he was socialistic, but I pointed out he SAID he was but also that his regime weren't practically socialism... I never pointed my criticism to you, I was referring to the cliché argument that lacks any sign of logic. Of course, if you want to argue the point, go ahead; although I doubt that you were or are going to do so.

...so learn to read the full post, will ya, fuckin' doughnut? rolleyes.gif Ahh fine words! Tell me, where did you steal them?

Invader Zim

9th May 2005, 13:49

The whole 'left right' spectrum is deaply misunderstood by most people. Many consider the right wing to be protection of the individual, and leftwing to be the support of state centralisation.

They are wrong, utterly wrong. Anarchists are leftwing, yet they favour the complete opposite of state centralisation.

In reality the right left divide splits those who wish to protect property from the majority and those who wish the opposite.

That is the true 'right-left' divide, and any one who disagree's with me, can try and explain the flaws in the commonly held view, and know that they will always fail, because they are wrong. in other words if you disagree with me, you can go to a library and start educating your self.

t_wolves_fan

9th May 2005, 14:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:49 PM
The whole 'left right' spectrum is deaply misunderstood by most people. Many consider the right wing to be protection of the individual, and leftwing to be the support of state centralisation.

They are wrong, utterly wrong. Anarchists are leftwing, yet they favour the complete opposite of state centralisation.

In reality the right left divide splits those who wish to protect property from the majority and those who wish the opposite.

That is the true 'right-left' divide, and any one who disagree's with me, can try and explain the flaws in the commonly held view, and know that they will always fail, because they are wrong. in other words if you disagree with me, you can go to a library and start educating your self.
Wow God, you've pretty much decided you have a monopoly on the truth so what's the point of arguing with you?

People like you are amusing.

:lol: