Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[2aguy]

"unlawful enemy combatants", you mean, they're POWs? No, wait, the US refuses to treat them as POWs.

Actually, the Geneva convention defines very specifically what a POW is and what an unlawful enemy combatant is...a POW fights for a nation, wears a uniform and obeys the laws of war....which then provides him with protection if he ever becomes a POW....

Unlawful enemy combatants do not fight for a nation, do not where a uniform and do not obey the laws of war....and in the old days they would be killed on the spot....

it is covered in the Geneva conventions....we are essentially going above and beyond our duty to the unlawful enemy combatants in the way we extend the rights of military combatants covered by the convention to these terrorists....

 

[frigidweirdo]

People could and did profit from the Nazi era. It wasn't totally free market, then again the US isn't totally free market either, most companies have to pay tax (though some seem to get money from the govt and pay nothing) and have to abide by laws and regulations.
In Nazi Germany this was MORE EXTREME (hence why it's called FAR-right) however it wasn't much different except the extremity.

I thought the TEA party was the far right because they wanted more free markets and less government. Now, it's big government and crony capitalism that is far right. What does that make the TEA party? Leftists?

To say that corporations in Nazi Germany weren't totally free is a bit breath taking. They were free to serve the Fatherland and not a hell of a lot more. Those that played ball did very well but that is hardly capitalism or right wing or conservative.

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"unlawful enemy combatants", you mean, they're POWs? No, wait, the US refuses to treat them as POWs.

Actually, the Geneva convention defines very specifically what a POW is and what an unlawful enemy combatant is...a POW fights for a nation, wears a uniform and obeys the laws of war....which then provides him with protection if he ever becomes a POW....

Unlawful enemy combatants do not fight for a nation, do not where a uniform and do not obey the laws of war....and in the old days they would be killed on the spot....

it is covered in the Geneva conventions....we are essentially going above and beyond our duty to the unlawful enemy combatants in the way we extend the rights of military combatants covered by the convention to these terrorists....

So the US obeyed the rules of law? They didn't even DECLARE WAR.

 

[2aguy]

A look at unlawful enemy combatants...

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

These terms thus divide combatants in a war zone into two classes: those in armies and organised militias and the like (lawful combatants), and those who are not. The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for violations of civilian laws that are permissible under the laws and customs of war; and if captured, a lawful combatant must be treated as a prisoner of war by the enemy under the conditions laid down in the Third Geneva Convention.

 

[2aguy]

They didn't even DECLARE WAR.

Yes we did....what you lefties always try to fixate on is the exact wording We Declare WAr...when the U.S. constitution give no such thing....it simply states that only the congress can declare war on another nation but the form of that declaration is up to them....

 

[frigidweirdo]

You say Hitler didn't oppose Marxists because of the international agenda of Socialists (when it was actually Communists, not Socialists who wanted to do away with nation states), yet, the quote actually points to Hitler not liking these people and their views because they would do away with ethnic Nationalism, Germanic Nationalism etc.

No, I said he opposed the communists, that brand of socialism because of it's international desires and the Jews that belonged to it...he wanted socialism for Germans....and Germans alone.......as did the Italians under the former communist mussolini who started his own brand of socialism....since they kicked him out of their communist party....

Yeah, and it doesn't make any sense what you're saying.

He opposed Communsim. Woopie.

You say he wanted Socialism for Germany. Really? This is why he privatised industry right? Because he wanted industry to be nationalised. Are you joking me? Who the hell tries to do something by doing the EXACT OPPOSITE? Kind of like a man who wants to be a woman growing an extra penis or something.

You're trying to claim Mussolini was a Socialist when he was leader of a Fascist Party, as if just because he used to be part of the Socialist Party must mean he always was a Socialist for the whole of his life. Makes no sense.


So, when you have a decent argument, you can make it, in the mean time........

 

[2aguy]

This is why he privatised industry right?

You have a funny idea of privatizing industry...when the nazis controlled every aspect of the economy....

 

[Iceweasel]

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

So Hitler wasn't right wing by US standards. That's what we've been saying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They didn't even DECLARE WAR.

Yes we did....what you lefties always try to fixate on is the exact wording We Declare WAr...when the U.S. constitution give no such thing....it simply states that only the congress can declare war on another nation but the form of that declaration is up to them....

Balls. You find me where the US declared war on Iraq.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Last formal declaration of war by the USA was WW2.

Iraq was a "military engagement authorised by Congress"

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

NOT a declaration of war.

Fixated on the "exact wording", you know, there's a big difference between declaring war and not declaring war.

The form of declaration. Is there more than one way to declare war?

"Bush to Saddam: Here's a cake
Saddam to Bush: What?
Bush to Saddam: Now I send my planes and tanks to kill you"

Declaration of war 2003 style??????

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

So Hitler wasn't right wing by US standards. That's what we've been saying.

No, we're talking about big govt/small govt.

Also, by US standards is also by BS standards too.

The Republican Party CLAIM to be small govt. Bush took the Federal Budget from $1.7 trillion to $3.5 trillion in 8 years. Small govt? If that's small govt I'd hate to see Republican big govt. Jeez, it's be fatter than all the obesity in the US combined.

So, the rest of the world is supposed to accept that Hitler is Left wing because the Republican Party goes around lying to its sheep that it's interested in small govt and sniggers behind their backs?

Oh great.

 

[bripat9643]

People could and did profit from the Nazi era. It wasn't totally free market, then again the US isn't totally free market either, most companies have to pay tax (though some seem to get money from the govt and pay nothing) and have to abide by laws and regulations.
In Nazi Germany this was MORE EXTREME (hence why it's called FAR-right) however it wasn't much different except the extremity.

I thought the TEA party was the far right because they wanted more free markets and less government. Now, it's big government and crony capitalism that is far right. What does that make the TEA party? Leftists?

To say that corporations in Nazi Germany weren't totally free is a bit breath taking. They were free to serve the Fatherland and not a hell of a lot more. Those that played ball did very well but that is hardly capitalism or right wing or conservative.

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

What does it matter what other people do? All you're saying is that their definition of left/right is idiotic and contradictory. If it doesn't mean government control of the economy vs. economic freedom, then what doesn't mean? Whenever leftists are asked to define the term, they give no answer or they give a muddled mass of contradictions. Racism doesn't make an ideology "right-wing." Neither does nationalism. The only criteria that makes any sense is the economic spectrum of government control vs. economic freedom.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

So Hitler wasn't right wing by US standards. That's what we've been saying.

Hitler was Hitler, how long before you morons figure that out?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is why he privatised industry right?

You have a funny idea of privatizing industry...when the nazis controlled every aspect of the economy....

You have a funny idea of proving things. I'm sorry, I can't see your links, I can't see where you posted the relevant part of the sources and I can't see the logic, nor the argument as it's set out. I think there might be something wrong with my computer.

Nah, we know you didn't bother.

 

[thanatos144]

They didn't even DECLARE WAR.

Yes we did....what you lefties always try to fixate on is the exact wording We Declare WAr...when the U.S. constitution give no such thing....it simply states that only the congress can declare war on another nation but the form of that declaration is up to them....

Balls. You find me where the US declared war on Iraq.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Last formal declaration of war by the USA was WW2.

Iraq was a "military engagement authorised by Congress"

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

NOT a declaration of war.

Fixated on the "exact wording", you know, there's a big difference between declaring war and not declaring war.

The form of declaration. Is there more than one way to declare war?

"Bush to Saddam: Here's a cake
Saddam to Bush: What?
Bush to Saddam: Now I send my planes and tanks to kill you"

Declaration of war 2003 style??????

Congress approved action including military so we declared war.... I dont know whats more disturbing. that you use obvious faulty taking points or that you actually are so stupid that you believe the talking points.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

People could and did profit from the Nazi era. It wasn't totally free market, then again the US isn't totally free market either, most companies have to pay tax (though some seem to get money from the govt and pay nothing) and have to abide by laws and regulations.
In Nazi Germany this was MORE EXTREME (hence why it's called FAR-right) however it wasn't much different except the extremity.

I thought the TEA party was the far right because they wanted more free markets and less government. Now, it's big government and crony capitalism that is far right. What does that make the TEA party? Leftists?

To say that corporations in Nazi Germany weren't totally free is a bit breath taking. They were free to serve the Fatherland and not a hell of a lot more. Those that played ball did very well but that is hardly capitalism or right wing or conservative.

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

What does it matter what other people do? All you're saying is that their definition of left/right is idiotic and contradictory. If it doesn't mean government control of the economy vs. economic freedom, then what doesn't mean? Whenever leftists are asked to define the term, they give no answer or they give a muddled mass of contradictions. Racism doesn't make an ideology "right-wing." Neither does nationalism. The only criteria that makes any sense is the economic spectrum of government control vs. economic freedom.

Capitalism always requires both regulation and good government. Overt racism and nationalism, in a political ideology, are always right-wing.

 

[bripat9643]

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

So Hitler wasn't right wing by US standards. That's what we've been saying.

No, we're talking about big govt/small govt.

Also, by US standards is also by BS standards too.

The Republican Party CLAIM to be small govt. Bush took the Federal Budget from $1.7 trillion to $3.5 trillion in 8 years. Small govt? If that's small govt I'd hate to see Republican big govt. Jeez, it's be fatter than all the obesity in the US combined.

So, the rest of the world is supposed to accept that Hitler is Left wing because the Republican Party goes around lying to its sheep that it's interested in small govt and sniggers behind their backs?

Oh great.

Please spare us the usual left-wing crap blaming Republicans for the growth of government. The idea that Democrats want to cut government spending is too absurd for words to describe. Only morons are fooled.

 

[bripat9643]

People could and did profit from the Nazi era. It wasn't totally free market, then again the US isn't totally free market either, most companies have to pay tax (though some seem to get money from the govt and pay nothing) and have to abide by laws and regulations.
In Nazi Germany this was MORE EXTREME (hence why it's called FAR-right) however it wasn't much different except the extremity.

I thought the TEA party was the far right because they wanted more free markets and less government. Now, it's big government and crony capitalism that is far right. What does that make the TEA party? Leftists?

To say that corporations in Nazi Germany weren't totally free is a bit breath taking. They were free to serve the Fatherland and not a hell of a lot more. Those that played ball did very well but that is hardly capitalism or right wing or conservative.

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

What does it matter what other people do? All you're saying is that their definition of left/right is idiotic and contradictory. If it doesn't mean government control of the economy vs. economic freedom, then what doesn't mean? Whenever leftists are asked to define the term, they give no answer or they give a muddled mass of contradictions. Racism doesn't make an ideology "right-wing." Neither does nationalism. The only criteria that makes any sense is the economic spectrum of government control vs. economic freedom.

Capitalism always requires both regulation and good government. Overt racism and nationalism, in a political ideology, are always right-wing.

Horseshit. That's just a sleazy commie smear. There is no objective evidence to support it.

 

[bripat9643]

You say Hitler didn't oppose Marxists because of the international agenda of Socialists (when it was actually Communists, not Socialists who wanted to do away with nation states), yet, the quote actually points to Hitler not liking these people and their views because they would do away with ethnic Nationalism, Germanic Nationalism etc.

No, I said he opposed the communists, that brand of socialism because of it's international desires and the Jews that belonged to it...he wanted socialism for Germans....and Germans alone.......as did the Italians under the former communist mussolini who started his own brand of socialism....since they kicked him out of their communist party....

Yeah, and it doesn't make any sense what you're saying.

He opposed Communsim. Woopie.

You say he wanted Socialism for Germany. Really? This is why he privatised industry right? Because he wanted industry to be nationalised. Are you joking me? Who the hell tries to do something by doing the EXACT OPPOSITE? Kind of like a man who wants to be a woman growing an extra penis or something.

You're trying to claim Mussolini was a Socialist when he was leader of a Fascist Party, as if just because he used to be part of the Socialist Party must mean he always was a Socialist for the whole of his life. Makes no sense.


So, when you have a decent argument, you can make it, in the mean time........

Hitler didn't "privatize" anything. He nationalized some industries and regulated others to the point where the owners no longer had any control and were demoted to little more than factory managers.

Where do you get this shit? You're just making up facts as you go along. You obviously don't know jack about Nazi Germany and don't even belong in this discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

No, big govt/small govt is a US interpretation of left and right. No one else actually bothers with this interpretation.

So Hitler wasn't right wing by US standards. That's what we've been saying.

He wasn't right-wing by any standard. The standard used by the European leftwing press is just pure bullshit.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you actually bothered to read properly what was written, it says Hitler rejected Socialism and Communism because it destroyed the natural unity of the people. ie, this is NATIONALISM.

Marxism doesn't destroy nationalism, far from it.

Marx Engels and Lenin on the national question Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal
Nations and history
In his introduction to the Penguin collection of Marx's writings, The Revolutions of 1848, David Fernbach accuses Marx and Engels—Engels in particular—of a "general great-nation chauvinism" based, he claims, on "the major miscalculation that the smaller peoples of Europe were doomed by the logic of history, and had irrevocably lost their autonomy".

Is this the case? Marx and Engels supported the national struggles of the German, Italian, Polish and Hungarian peoples—the so-called "great historic nations"—because each had developed to the stage where their struggle for national unity and independence from the reactionary powers was politically viable and progressive. Their victory would hasten the demise of feudalism and speed the arrival of socialism.



Hitler and the socialist dream - Arts and Entertainment - The Independent
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources.

His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.

His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history!

His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.

This is besides the point really. It's not what Marx or Engels would have wanted, it's how their view of what could happen with Communism was taken on by others and utilised.

The point (i think, I don't really think it makes any sense) is that Hitler hated Communism because they were Jews, and therefore he was left wing and not anti-left wing as people seem to be saying.
I don't know, anyway, Marxism was utilised by people like Lenin, then devoured and turned into something else by Stalin and there was a desire for Communism to become nationless, beyond nations (which it was, the USSR was made up of many nations) kind of like Islam is seen by Muslims.

If you actually bothered to read properly what was written, it says Hitler rejected Socialism and Communism because it destroyed the natural unity of the people. ie, this is NATIONALISM.

Marxism doesn't destroy nationalism, far from it.

Marx Engels and Lenin on the national question Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal
Nations and history
In his introduction to the Penguin collection of Marx's writings, The Revolutions of 1848, David Fernbach accuses Marx and Engels—Engels in particular—of a "general great-nation chauvinism" based, he claims, on "the major miscalculation that the smaller peoples of Europe were doomed by the logic of history, and had irrevocably lost their autonomy".

Is this the case? Marx and Engels supported the national struggles of the German, Italian, Polish and Hungarian peoples—the so-called "great historic nations"—because each had developed to the stage where their struggle for national unity and independence from the reactionary powers was politically viable and progressive. Their victory would hasten the demise of feudalism and speed the arrival of socialism.



Hitler and the socialist dream - Arts and Entertainment - The Independent
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself. In public Hitler was always anti-Marxist, and in an age in which the Soviet Union was the only socialist state on earth, and with anti-Bolshevism a large part of his popular appeal, he may have been understandably reluctant to speak openly of his sources.

His megalomania, in any case, would have prevented him from calling himself anyone's disciple. That led to an odd and paradoxical alliance between modern historians and the mind of a dead dictator. Many recent analysts have fastidiously refused to study the mind of Hitler; and they accept, as unquestioningly as many Nazis did in the 1930s, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism has become a term of abuse is unlikely to analyse it profoundly.

His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history!

His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx.

This is besides the point really. It's not what Marx or Engels would have wanted, it's how their view of what could happen with Communism was taken on by others and utilised.

The point (i think, I don't really think it makes any sense) is that Hitler hated Communism because they were Jews, and therefore he was left wing and not anti-left wing as people seem to be saying.
I don't know, anyway, Marxism was utilised by people like Lenin, then devoured and turned into something else by Stalin and there was a desire for Communism to become nationless, beyond nations (which it was, the USSR was made up of many nations) kind of like Islam is seen by Muslims.

The real problem is that Marxism is contradictory on the issue of nationalism. The worker cannot rise up without a nation.


Marx and Engels and the National Question
The difficulties surrounding the reception of the phenomenon of modern nationalism by the founders of historical materialism are evident in even the most cursory examination of the basic texts. First, it is useful to take note of the celebrated references to the nation in the Communist Manifesto. [4] In the substantive section of the text, noting that the Communists ‘have been [...] reproached for wanting to abolish the nation and nationalities’, Marx and Engels go on to assert that:

'Workers have no nation of their own. We cannot take from them what they do not have. [...] National divisions and conflicts between peoples increasingly disappear with the development of the bourgeoisie, with free trade and the world market, with the uniform character of industrial production and the corresponding circumstances of modern life.' [5] The weight of evidence of subsequent history rather appears to discredit this statement: far from mitigating national divisions, the extended development of global capitalism in the century since these words were written would on the contrary seem to have intensified the political divisions between states and peoples along national lines; and, in addition, the twentieth century has certainly seen ever greater numbers of proletarians seemingly increasingly inclined to sacrifice their lives in wars fought against other proletarians for national ends. Nationalism, it would seem, contrary to the best intentions of the authors of the Manifesto, has continued to preponderate in the sphere of politics.
Yet in terms of how the authors of the ‘Manifesto’ seek to map out the necessary parameters for working class advance we encounter something of a paradox: for, in the ellipsis in the excerpt offered above, Marx and Engels argue – almost, it would seem, to the contrary of the rest of the passage – that:

'Since the proletariat must first of all take political control, raise itself up to be the class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is still nationalistic, even if not at all in the bourgeois sense of the term.' [6] This message is repeated elsewhere in the ‘Manifesto’:
'All previous movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the independent movement of the vast majority in the interests of the vast majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of present-day society, cannot lift itself up, cannot raise itself up, without the flinging into the air the whole superstructure of social strata which form the establishment.
'The struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is at the outset a national one in form, although not in content. Naturally, the proletariat of each country must finish off its own bourgeoisie.' [7]

It is formulations of this kind that have been wrestled with by subsequent commentators – Marxist or otherwise – for generations: for while our first quotation seems to offer blandishments of at least an internationalist, if not actually nationally nihilistic, character, then the second set of references clearly seem to suggest that, to the contrary, the road to proletarian advance in fact lies along precisely nationally delimited lines: indeed, it is exactly to this end – to justify the notion that the proletariat’s advance to socialism is principally a national one – that this passage has been deployed. Thus, the right-revisionist German social-democrat Heinrich Cunow could write in 1921:
'Today (1848) the worker has no country, he does not take part in the life of the nation, has no share in its material and spiritual wealth. But one of these days the workers will win political power and take a dominant position in state and nation and then, when so to speak they will have constituted themselves the nation, they will also be national and feel national [...].' [8] While along much the same lines is the later interpretation offered by Ronaldo Munck: '[W]orkers must become the ‘leading class’ [...] in a particular nation-state, so that they become ‘national’; but not in a bourgeois or chauvinist sense. Once in power the proletariat can work to diminish national antagonisms. [...] Workers of any country must ‘of course’ settle things with their own bourgeoisie (not international capitalism), which means that the form of the struggle is a national one; workers will achieve power only with a national strategy.' [9] And even Lenin – quite the opposite of a ‘national-chauvinist’—could draw out the following conclusion, writing in 1913: 'The working class could not grow strong, become mature and take shape without ‘constituting itself the nation’, without being ‘national’ (‘though not in the bourgeois sense of the word’).' [10] Thus we can find a contradictory and conflicting message in the ‘Manifesto’: the clear and obvious question, which remains unanswered, is sharply put by Rosdolsky: ‘In what sense do the workers have “no country”, and how is it that, nonetheless, even after acquiring supremacy, they will still remain “so far, national”?’ [11]