Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Iceweasel]

Wikipedia is a lot of things. It IS a dictionary. It's also a great translation tool. I wouldn't expect you to understand this though.

No, it's not a dictionary. It's an online open source encyclopedia that is only as good as the last anonymous editor. It can't be used in any serious discussion.

I'm only slightly left wing. I agree. I do not think people are inherently equal. What I do believe is that people should have equality under the law.

They do here in the US. It's in the Constitution and conservatives are typically more pro-Constitution than the left.

For example. Center to moderate left wing often believe that education needs to be equal, as in no private schools, all kids of the same age are in the same class receiving the same education.
Center to moderate right wing believe that education should be equal but based on ability, so those with more ability will be in a different class as those with less ability.

That's wrong. Many conservatives believe public ed is in the toilet and they have their younguns to prove it. They want the ability to send them to charter schools if they can't afford private schools, like some can, including liberals. They want to be able to do so with the tax money they spend on what they see as a terrible system. And academic results support it. We spend more and get dismal results. We are way down in global rankings and it is not for a lack of funding. So something has gone horribly wrong.

What is conservative? Is it keeping things the same? No, not always. It's conserving things. Not necessarily everything, but the things they think are important.
Why was Hitler conservative? Because he wanted to conserve Germanic things. In doing this he wanted to change things.

and that's key to a big problem here. Conservative means one thing here and it means something else elsewhere. I started out saying the right wing here is not the same as right wing Iran.

Conservative typically means keeping things the same unless there's a need to change. Hitler wanted to preserve the race but used a socialist way to do it. How else could you? You can't ask people to democratically stay away from other races. People intermingle, it's part of man's history.

Again, the change, the radical change was extremism, not left or right wing. You're right, it's not right wing as you know it, because it was a different era, a different country, different culture and it reacted differently to things. However it was right and extreme in more ways than it was anything else.

Right in that it kept a hierarchical society, extreme in that the hierarchy wasn't the traditional hierarchy.
Right in that production was mostly private, extreme in that the govt controlled things and the businesses had to do what Hitler wanted.
Right in that it was Nationalism, extreme in that it was attempting to gain this through emphasizing mythology, Germanic nationalism, taking the Aryan thing and promoting this too.

Even things like antisemitism were traditional right wing policies in Europe at the time, similar to slavery/segregation in the US at the same time. This is about equality again.

No, I have over looked the "socialism", there wasn't "socialism" there was "national socialism", it's a term, they go together.

Socialism is the state owning the means of production, ie, NATIONALIZATION.

What did Hitler do? He PRIVATIZED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So how is this Socialism?

Were the companies free to produce weapons for the allies? I think not.

You're trying to tell me that because the US is obsessed with big govt, and the Republicans harp on about smaller govt (which isn't smaller govt at all, it's lower taxes for the rich, it's saying one thing meaning something else)

Republican and right (or conservative) unfortunately do not always mean the same thing. Many Republicans, like Bush, are big spenders and are not fiscal conservatives. Smaller government means just that, not just less tax for some. Although the wealthy do pay a wildly disproportionate amount of taxes collected. Conservatives generally do not want to bankrupt them for the sake of "fairness or income equality". There's nothing fair about it.

I'll show you.

1) Smaller govt would also work better with more say for the people. ie, the system in place now isn't one for small govt, it's big govt and it's getting bigger and the voice of the people is getting smaller. The Republicans aren't going to change the system to make it more about the people. None of them talk about Proportional Representation.

I don't know what you mean. Sounds like one of those terms to sucker people into something. We all have a vote in a republic. Republicans don't want to change that. Generally Republicans are for stronger state control and less central control. Liberals are the opposite. So liberals should bare the brunt of your criticism.

2) They have many policies which impose themselves on the people. Abortion (this isn't a debate on abortion, Libertarians would leave it up to the woman's conscience, the non-(or pretend) Libertarians want to tell people what to do. Drugs, Alcohol, Jay walking

Roe v Wade imposed itself on the nation. It was bad constitutional law. As far as I know, most Republicans want the decision to go back to the states, where most of these kinds of decisions should be made. Then the people do have a more direct influence.

3) Using war to keep people in their place. Nothing worse than having draconian policies introduced because they started a war and the dangers to the public from such a war mean they can easily get through these draconian policies because everyone believes they're necessary now, to combat the unnecessary war. Like locking people up in Guantanamo without status, the patriot act and so on.

Democrats have voted for all that and Gitmo is still in full swing. obama ran on closing it, people bought it since it was demonized effectively in the press, but then reality set in post election. What do we do with enemies determined to kill us? This is the result of taking prisoners on the battlefield. The alternative is to kill them. What would you do?

4) Spying on people, which links to number 3

obama has done what about it? The fact is that Democrats support it too but give lip service otherwise.

5) Using crime to keep people down, as in Louisiana with their private state prisons which encourage prisons to not help prisoners because they WANT them to come back to prison soon. Also puts fear into people for more draconian measures. See 3 and 4.

The right wing uses crime to keep the people down? I'm speechless.

This isn't smaller government. Nor is this:

Government Spending in United States Federal State Local for 2000 - Charts Tables History

Fed Govt spending

1999 $1.7 trillion
2001 $1.9 trillion

2004 $2.3 trillion
2005 $2.5 trillion
2006 $2.7 trillion

2008 $3 trillion
2009 $3.5 trillion

Okay, under "small govt Bush" spending went from $1.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion. SMALL GOVT, my ass.

Bush isn't 'the right wing' or as said earlier, a fiscal conservative. And he had the Democrat congress to help a whole bunch. obama spent a bunch more though and the only brakes obama has had on spending is the Republican held House so I don't get your selective outrage.

 

[2aguy]

More from the linked article on communisms anti semitism....

And by Hitler's time, antisemitism in particular, as well as racism in general, already had a long history on the Left. August Bebel was the founder of Germany's Social Democratic party (mainstream Leftists) and his best-known saying is that antisemitism is der Sozialismus des bloeden Mannes (usually translated as "the socialism of fools") -- which implicitly recognized the antisemitism then prevalent on the Left. And Lenin himself alluded to the same phenomenon in saying that "it is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people" but "the capitalists of all countries." For more on the socialist roots of antisemitism see Tyler Cowen's detailed survey here

It should be borne in mind, however, that antisemitism was pervasive in Europe of the 19th and early 20th century. Many conservatives were antisemitic too. Leftists were merely the most enthusistic practitioners of it. We have seen how virulent it was in Marx. Antisemitism among conservatives, by contrast, was usually not seen by them as a major concern. British Conservatives made the outspokenly Jewish Benjamin Disraeli their Prime Minister in the 19th century and the man who actually declared war on Hitler -- Neville Chamberlain -- himself had antisemitic views.

And Leftism is notoriously prone to "splits" so there were no doubt some Leftists who disavowed antisemitism on principled grounds. Lenin clearly criticized antisemitism on strategic grounds: It distracted from his class-war objectives. So were there also disinterested objections from Leftists? Such objectors are rather hard to find. The opposition to the persecution of the unfortunate Captain Alfred Dreyfus (who was Jewish) by Emile Zola in France is sometimes quoted but Zola was primarily an advocate of French naturalism, which was a form of physical determinism -- rather at odds with the usual Leftist view of man as a "blank slate".

And the man who published Zola's famous challenge to the persecution of Dreyfus was Georges Clemenceau, who is these days most famous for his remark: "If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 30 he has no head"

But, however you cut it, Hitler's antisemitism was of a piece with his Leftism, not a sign of "Rightism".

 

[2aguy]

They do here in the US. It's in the Constitution and conservatives are typically more pro-Constitution than the left.

IceWeasel....you are underselling this point...conservatives revere the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because it limits the power of the government and creates checks and balances on that power...it also guarantees individual liberties, that all men are created equal, and ensures religious freedom from persecution...not exactly a hallmark of the left (nazis and communists in particular)....not group rights (as is was the focus of the communists and their lefty cousins the nazis)....which is always funny when a left wing big government nutter calls an American conservative a nazi....it just isn't possible

I know you understand these things...I post them for those who don't....you are being polite when you use the word "typically" when you know as well as I do that the left can't stand the Constitution because it limits the power of the central government to "make our lives better"....

Government power is like the "Ring of Power," in the Lord of the Rings....it has massive power and a good person would wield it with the intention of doing good...as Gandalf points out....but in the end...that very power poisons and corrupts the one who wields the ring.....exactly what happens when you concentrate power in the hands of a central government....

It makes me smile when I think about the movie version and the Council of Elrond when the ring is on the table....if the ring were there with the likes of ted kennedy, bill clinton and hillary and obama....they would be clawing each others eyes out to get their hands on it....even after they were told they would eventually turn into Nazgul and slaves of Saruman...

The left never understands that when you centralize the power of government...as they claim in order to do good for people....you are simply making it one step easier for bad people when they eventually take over....once the power is centralized...when the bad guys take charge they have fewer levers they have to manipulate to implement their evil...that is why government power must always be separated and weakened...even against those with good intentions...but no common sense....

 

[2aguy]

And yes...the communists believed in genocide...especially for those people who were to far behind the historical curve to catch up to the communist utopia...

EUGENICS AND THE LEFT

Hitler's Marxist inspiration

It may be objected, however, that comparing Hitler with the fashionable eugenicists among Western Leftists of the 20s and 30s is rather beside the point. Western Leftists surely did not contemplate anything as extreme as Hitler's genocide.

Given some of the pitiless utterances of Western Leftists already mentioned, that is a fairly feeble protest but it should be noted that Hitler did not get ALL his ideas from the West of his time. He got some of them from none other than Marx and Engels. And if it can be argued that Western Leftists did not condone genocide, the same cannot be said of Marx and Engels. They in fact vociferously ADVOCATED genocide. Note this quote:

"In January 1849, months before he migrated to London, Karl Marx published an article by Friedrich Engels inDie Neue Rheinische Zeitung announcing that in Central Europe only Germans, Hungarians and Poles counted as bearers of progress. The rest must go. "The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust."

Genocide arose out of Marx's master-theory of history -- feudalism giving place inevitably to capitalism, capitalism to socialism. The lesser races of Europe -- Basques, Serbs, Bretons and others -- being sunk in feudalism, were counter-revolutionary; having failed to develop a bourgeoisie, they would be two steps behind in the historical process. Engels dismissed them as left-overs and ethnic trash (Voelkerabfall), and called for their extinction.

So genocide was born as a doctrine in the German Rhineland in January 1849, in a Europe still reeling from the revolutions of 1848. It was to become the beacon light of socialism, proudly held and proudly proclaimed."

The above is a quote from an article by George Watson -- a literary historian specializing in the early history of socialism (I have an earlier article of his posted here and there is a review of his major book here). The quote is taken from an article in the December 2004 issue of Quadrant, Australia's premier intellectual conservative magazine.

The fact that Hitler's genocidal ideas largely originated with Marx and Engels themselves has of course been hidden from public awareness with almost total success by a Left-dominated media and academe. It would be too embarrassing to admit. But if we look at all the historical materials available to us, there can be no doubt of the Leftist origins of Hitler's genocidal "eugenics".

This is one of the reasons the left want to get rid of hitler as a lefty and a socialist....his crimes were open for the world to see at the end of World War 2 when the death camps were liberated by the allies....the mass murder by the other socialists, the russians, cambodians the Chinese and the other communists were hidden from the world, and western intellectuals....helped the communists hide their atrocities...because they believed in socialism....look up Walter Duranty and the idiots who gave stalin the atomic bomb....

So getting rid of hitler helps to hide the fact that genocide has been a part of leftism and socialism for over 100 years....

 

[Saigon]

Weasel -

Do let us know when you are ready to srop dodging and answer those questions, won't you?

 

[Saigon]

Bill --

If th left were, as you so laughably claim, seeking to whitewash the left by dumping Hitler - why do they not dump Stalin, who was arguably worse?

Have you ever seen anyone claim Ceaucescu, Husak or Honnecker were not left wing? Or Xoxha?

Are you seriously suggesting that, of these despots, only Hitler was an embarassment?

Or could it be that Hitler, Stroessner, Antonescu and Franco simply were right wing all along?

 

[Saigon]

Bill -

No one has ever denied left-wing genocide. There are several examples - most of which you won't have heard about, I suspect. I may do a thread on those later.

That is NOT the issue here, though.

Antizigaism is such a dominant feature of right-wing fascism that we could discuss that here if you wish. It's useful in that it links Antonescu's purer form of capitlist fascism with Hitler.

 

[2aguy]

If th left were, as you so laughably claim, seeking to whitewash the left by dumping Hitler - why do they not dump Stalin, who was arguably worse?

Because for some reason people still believe that communism is a harmless idea....you have idiots who wear che t-shirts, you have celebrities who visit and vomit out praise of castro....

The communists did not have their mass murder shown to the world the way the nazis did...we have historical sites that keep the nazi genocide from being hidden....you don't have the same with communism....

You also have western intellectuals who still support communism...and downplay and ignore the fact that communism killed more people in more countries than the nazis did...and yet you have communists with store fronts in the U.S., who openly march in public...as they recently did in ferguson, and at teacher union rally's...

The left wants socialism...and they have done their best to hide the crimes of leftists...but hitlers crimes were too open and obvious to hide....so they deal with the nazi crimes...by putting them on their enemies.....

 

[Iceweasel]

The left never understands that when you centralize the power of government...as they claim in order to do good for people....you are simply making it one step easier for bad people when they eventually take over....once the power is centralized...when the bad guys take charge they have fewer levers they have to manipulate to implement their evil...that is why government power must always be separated and weakened...even against those with good intentions...but no common sense....

I think leftists are the type that are willing to trade freedom for security. And as history shows, end up with neither.

 

[Iceweasel]

Weasel -

Do let us know when you are ready to srop dodging and answer those questions, won't you?

How about you srop dodging and answer. I answered, you stonewalled and ignored.

The purpose of this thread was_________________ (fill in the blank).

 

[bripat9643]

Bill -

No one has ever denied left-wing genocide. There are several examples - most of which you won't have heard about, I suspect. I may do a thread on those later.

That is NOT the issue here, though.

Antizigaism is such a dominant feature of right-wing fascism that we could discuss that here if you wish. It's useful in that it links Antonescu's purer form of capitlist fascism with Hitler.

The left often tries to deny left-wing crimes by claiming the Soviet Union wasn't socialist and that Stalin was a right-winger. I see it all the time in this forum. They call the Russian system "state capitalism." Any time you see that you're watching a left-winger who's trying to excuse the crimes of communism.

 

[dcraelin]

They seem not to understand that history doesn't care about their superficial interpretations.

see, that is where you fail because the truth...and facts...."doesn't care about (your) superficial interpretations..."

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would concur with your alleged view. Fascism and Nazism were right wing, ultra conservative, bottom up, populist movements. End of story. There never was any actual controversy on this point.....never could have been.

I largely agree with you in these posts Discom, but then you say "bottom up" and "populist"...WTF.....do you not agree that Hitler got his start as an agent for German military intelligence? Hardly bottom-up,.....Now I can see why you could say he appealed to the populace but that defines almost all politicians to a certain extent, and would be a misuse of the word populist.

To a certain extent political definitions will always be distorted.
Communism for example at its base seems to indicate rule by the commune, i.e. small, limited government.

So to pull a Jonah Goldberg, Communism = Conservatism

 

[Meathead]

Antizigaism is such a dominant feature of right-wing fascism that we could discuss that here if you wish. It's useful in that it links Antonescu's purer form of capitlist fascism with Hitler.

That would be a valid argument only if you ignored the forced sterilization of Romani women during communism in Eastern Europe. You might stop being such a disingenuous hack.

Between 1971 and 1991 in Czechoslovakia, now Czech Republic and Slovakia, the “reduction of the Roma population” through surgical sterilization, performed without the knowledge of the women themselves, was a widespread governmental practice. The sterilization would be performed on Romani women without their knowledge during Caesarean sections or abortions. Some of the victims claim that they were made to sign documents without understanding their content. By signing these documents, they involuntarily authorized the hospital to sterilize them. In exchange, they sometimes were offered financial compensation or material benefits like furniture from Social Services – though it was not explicitly stated what this compensation was for. The justification for sterilization practices according to the stakeholders was “high, unhealthy” reproduction.

Forced sterilization of Romani women a persisting human rights violation ROMEDIA FOUNDATION

 

[2aguy]

I don't understand why anti communism means that they are anti socialist to you guys....that seems to be a hang up for you....you need to understand that international socialism isn't the only kind of socialism and that the national socialists are socialists...they just hated the nationals socialists....one, because they didn't care about the people of other countries being a part of their socialism, unlike the internationalists, and two, hitler didn't like the international socialists because many of them were jews...in name only and not belief or practice and for some reason he hated Jews....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They seem not to understand that history doesn't care about their superficial interpretations.

see, that is where you fail because the truth...and facts...."doesn't care about (your) superficial interpretations..."

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would concur with your alleged view. Fascism and Nazism were right wing, ultra conservative, bottom up, populist movements. End of story. There never was any actual controversy on this point.....never could have been.

I largely agree with you in these posts Discom, but then you say "bottom up" and "populist"...WTF.....do you not agree that Hitler got his start as an agent for German military intelligence? Hardly bottom-up,.....Now I can see why you could say he appealed to the populace but that defines almost all politicians to a certain extent, and would be a misuse of the word populist.

To a certain extent political definitions will always be distorted.
Communism for example at its base seems to indicate rule by the commune, i.e. small, limited government.

So Communism = Conservatism

Wear a helmet, falling off your tricycle left you concussed

 

[Iceweasel]

Communism for example at its base seems to indicate rule by the commune, i.e. small, limited government.

So Communism = Conservatism

Does. Not. Compute.

 

[2aguy]

Communism doesn't seek to preserve anything....they want to change the order of the world....once they have actually achieved true Communism.....and then someone tries to change back from that particular nightmare....then they will be trying to "conserve" their communist silliness....

 

[Contumacious]

And the whole misdirection with the term Fascism.....it just means socialism....stalin used the word to separate his enemies from his brand of socialism....mussolini used the term to separate his brand of socialism from the communists who kicked him out of their gang....

Really?

So the fact that fascism was capitalist and communism does not use capital makes no difference?

The fact that fascism is of and for the upper class and communism smashed the upper class makes no difference?

The fact that fascism attacked minorities and communism supported minorities makes no difference?

And why do you think Hitler sent socialists to Auschwitz?

All of this is in the OP, which you obviously did not read, but my god man - any 11 year old at high school knows this stuff. How can you not know this??!!

 

[2aguy]

Wear a helmet, falling off your tricycle left you concussed

It doesn't take an accident...they seem to be born that way....

 

[Contumacious]

And the whole misdirection with the term Fascism.....it just means socialism....stalin used the word to separate his enemies from his brand of socialism....mussolini used the term to separate his brand of socialism from the communists who kicked him out of their gang....

Really?

So the fact that fascism was capitalist and communism does not use capital makes no difference?
!!

[/QUOTE


Excuse me "genius"

How the fuck is fascism capitalistic?

Oh, wait, you are using an Orwellian Dictionary?

Or are you an ignorass?

Fascism is fascism, capitalism is capitalism, socialism/communism is socialism/communism.


.