Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Meathead]

The greatest murderers of the 20th century, all socialists:

Mao 60 million
Stalin 40 million
Hitler 30 million

Can you explain why Stormfront embraces Hitler and not the others?

What's your take on the other fascist leaders like Franco and Antonescu - were they also socialist who fought against socialism?

As far as I know, Stormfront is neo-Nazi. Do you seriously expect an explanation why they embrace Hitler?

In your simplistic world,being anti-communist and being socialist are mutually exclusive. Where Nazism and socialism come together is they both claim to champion the greater good of the "volk" and their disdain for capitalists. They both argue that the "collective good" must take precedence over the individuals aspirations for wealth and liberty. Scratch a Nazi and you've got a socialist and visa verse.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So it comes down to believing Hitler or the political scientists? Most university bookstores carry small booklets on political ideologies, booklets used in political science classes that explain the various ideologies. Of course, some Americans would rather believe Hitler.

Hmm... what to do?

Believe Hitler ... OR Socialist Academics seeking to hide the results of Hitler's experiment in setting Socialist Ideas into play?

... which way to go? Believe the practical application of political science or the scientists who can't rise above their own subjective need and simply admit that socialism is a perversion of human reasoning and as such SOCIALISM CANNOT PRODUCE WHAT THEY REQUIRE THAT IT MUST! ??

Oh! I gotta say, THAT is a toughy!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The greatest murderers of the 20th century, all socialists:

Mao 60 million
Stalin 40 million
Hitler 30 million

Can you explain why Stormfront embraces Hitler and not the others?

What's your take on the other fascist leaders like Franco and Antonescu - were they also socialist who fought against socialism?

As far as I now, Stormfront is neo-Nazi. Do you seriously expect an explanation why they embrace Hitler?

In your simplistic world,being anti-communist and being socialist are mutually exclusive. Where Nazism and socialism come together is they both claim to champion the greater good of the "volk" and their disdain for capitalists. They both argue that the "collective good" must take precedence over the individuals aspirations for wealth and liberty. Scratch a Nazi and you've got a socialist and visa verse.

OOps!

 

[regent]

So it comes down to believing Hitler or the political scientists? Most university bookstores carry small booklets on political ideologies, booklets used in political science classes that explain the various ideologies. Of course, some Americans would rather believe Hitler.

Hmm... what to do?

Believe Hitler ... OR Socialist Academics seeking to hide the results of Hitler's experiment in setting Socialist Ideas into play?

... which way to go? Believe the practical application of political science or the scientists who can't rise above their own subjective need and simply admit that socialism is a perversion of human reasoning and as such SOCIALISM CANNOT PRODUCE WHAT THEY REQUIRE THAT IT MUST! ??

Oh! I gotta say, THAT is a toughy!

Of course, all those universities and their professors lying to the American people and only Hitler telling the truth.

 

[1776]

Shitstain......NAZI = National Socialist.

One claim that I'veseen quite often made on this board is that Hitler was left-wing, and not right-wing as almost every book on the subject states.

This is a complex topic, and I can certainly understand some of the confusion. Both Hitler and Stalin were dictators with a lot in common, and the origins of Nazism do lie on both the left and right wings, and yet generally speaking there is very little controversy or disagreement about this topic amongst historians and experts.

Prior coming to this board I don’t think that I had ever heard the theory before – and certainly not on Stormfront, where the extreme right idolizes the man and is proud to do so. History has recorded fascism as being right wing since the late-1930’s, and most dictionaries confirm the standard definition.

I think there are three misconceptions and four overlooked factors that explain why people have become confused about this, and I’ll run through those seven points here. This IS complex, so do read the points carefully before making knee-jerk comments.

Misconception #1: Hitler attacked conservatives and capitalism

At some stage in his career, Hitler attacked almost everyone. He was a master of playing to the crowd, and prior to the age of the internet, he could attack capitalism in one crowd on one day, and attack socialism in another crowd on another day without a powerful media to point out the often obvious contradictions.

When he first joined the Nazi party it was very much a populist party that combined left and right wing themes, and in early speeches, Hitler tended to follow the party line of trying to draw on working class support. Attacking traditional conservatism both achieved this goal and helped differentiate the Nazis from potential right-wing rivals. Most of the quotes of Hitler criticizing capitalism come from this early era, prior to his refocusing of the party during the mid- to late 1930’s.Even so, he continued to attack conservatism to differentiate Nazis from other, earlier conservative parties, establishing Nazism as an entirely new concept well to the right of existing conservatism.

Misconception #2: Hitler backed big government, hence was left wing.

The myth here is not that Hitler backed big government – of course, he did – but that there were other parties in Europe in 1939 who did not. The whole concept of small government is both relatively recent and relatively American. Prior to Reagan and Thatcher’s administrations, it was rarely used to differentiate left from right, because in 1939 every government in the world was big and state controlled. As late as the 1970’s a lot of strong right wing governments backed massive bureaucracy and state control. What made them right wing were positions on economic and social factors that were considered far more crucial than the idea of a streamlined administration. In short, only recently has small government been seen as a key ideological issue.

Misconception #3: Stalin and Hitler’s regimes were both dictators – so must have been left wing.

Yes, they were both dictators, and all dictators will control the press, the prisons and judiciary. However, dictatorships can occur on the left wing (Mao, Castro, Pol Pot) and on the extreme right wing (Cristiani, Franco, Rios Montte) both within fascism and in slightly more moderate forms such as Pinochet. People often post Hitler’s famous 25 Points as being evidence of left-wing policy, whereas actually they are more evidence of extremism and tyranny. Most politicians do ‘borrow’ policies when it makes sense to do so, but without compromising their ideological core. Hitler did this often and more than other fascists.

Right wing factors #1: Capital

This is one topic I think most of us can agree on: communism is about removing capital from the equation. In a perfect communist system, there is no money. All production is of, by and for the state. Fascism, on the other hand, is all about capital. Private investors pour money into shares, and earn huge dividends. Thus the middle and upper classes are bought off, their loyalty established, and the economy functions on a cycle of strong investments and the free flow of money through the domestic economy. The middle class blossoms. Under Communism, the middle class is crushed. In this, fascism and communism are polar opposites.

This alone clearly defines a right-wing capitalist society in opposition to a left-wing, anti-capitalist regime.

Right wing factor #2: Class

Communism looks to smash the middle and upper classes, and create a society in which workers rule. The perfect communist system is without class. Fascism is based on class distinctions and in particular in the loyalty of the middle and upper classes. The aristocracy were the key people in Hitler’s world view. While he played to the workers and gave them rousing speeches, in fact they were intended to work hard and remain quiet. It was the upper classes who would benefit from the surging economy and expansion into neighbouring countries.

Right wing factor #3: Other fascist leaders

Hitler is only one example of fascism. There are several others. Franco’s Spain, Paraguay’s Stroessner and particularly Romania’s Antonescu all provide a portrait of fascism that are often less confused that Hitler. All of these states were fiercely anti-Communist, all enjoyed some support from the aristocracy (or even royalty) and all were fundamentally capitalist. Antonescu, in particular, is often seen the as link between Fascism and Conservatism.

Right wing factor #4: Minorities & religion

For all Lenin’s faults, he was not a racist. Communists have always opposed racism, with the Soviet ‘One nation, many peoples’ ideal the polar opposite of fascist racism. Under Lenin and Stalin, the Politburo favoured Azeris, Armenians, Kazaks and even the occasional Jew! Under fascism, minorities were more often rounded up and slaughtered, and all fascist regimes have been fiercely anti-Semitic and antizigaist.

Likewise with religion, where Communism sought to dismantle and crush all religious activity, fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance. This is particularly clear in Romania, with Antonescu enjoying strong links with the Orthodox Church.

I would also add in that all of the major academic biographies and histories of the regime that I am aware of discuss Hitler's right-wing ideology in detail. No doubt there are a few partisan attempts to say otherwise, but I doubt there are many written by genuine historians.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So it comes down to believing Hitler or the political scientists? Most university bookstores carry small booklets on political ideologies, booklets used in political science classes that explain the various ideologies. Of course, some Americans would rather believe Hitler.

Hmm... what to do?

Believe Hitler ... OR Socialist Academics seeking to hide the results of Hitler's experiment in setting Socialist Ideas into play?

... which way to go? Believe the practical application of political science or the scientists who can't rise above their own subjective need and simply admit that socialism is a perversion of human reasoning and as such SOCIALISM CANNOT PRODUCE WHAT THEY REQUIRE THAT IT MUST! ??

Oh! I gotta say, THAT is a toughy!

Of course, all those universities and their professors lying to the American people and only Hitler telling the truth.

Hitler didn't "TELL" the truth, he DEMONSTRATED THE: TRUTH. Like those professors, Hitler was an inveterate liar... and a socialists of the first order.

"You will know them by their fruit..."

 

[1776]

Just because skinheads/KKK in this country mistakenly grabbed the Nazi symbols for their beliefs doesn't make the original Nazis like bumpkins in the US. They both share a hatred of Jews and non-Aryans, but the Nazis were a social/culture/economic revolution in Germany where they made everyone in society conform for the "common good."

Conservatives don't believe in a centralized government forcing everyone to conform and blindly follow a leader bloviating from a podium.....uh that would be liberals. Liberals are the ones that want to socialize medical care in this country like the Nazis. Liberals believe in communal groups working together as a collective like the Nazis. Liberals believe in the government taking over companies for the "common good" while letting a few elites control those companies....like the Nazis.

When someone goes out of their way to point their finger at conservatives and claim we are like the Nazis....they are doing it to cover their own ass, their own Nazi ass.

 

[Saigon]

1776 -

Fascists are NOT like conservatives. No one said that.

 

[Saigon]

Keys -

Please stop trolling and spamming the thread. Really. Let people discuss the topic.

 

[1776]

Uh....the Nazis share many views of liberals.

Hatred of the Jews is one, communal living conditions, taking over companies for the common good, socialized medicine, etc.

Just because Hitler hated the "slavs" aka Russians and their far left-wing ideas, doesn't mean he was right-wing. He was right-wing compared to the Russians....

1776 -

Fascists are NOT like conservatives. No one said that.

 

[Saigon]

As far as I know, Stormfront is neo-Nazi. Do you seriously expect an explanation why they embrace Hitler?

No, I don't. I understand it perfectly.

Stormfront embraces fascism because both are extreme rightwing movements.

I have no idea why you are struggling to understand that.

Socialism and communism are very, very closely linked. So yes, being anti-socialist is without question incompatable with communism and visa versa.


btw, My world view doesn't come into this. We know from 60+ years of recorded history that fascism is right wing, and most dictionaries will confirm as much.

 

[Saigon]

Uh....the Nazis share many views of liberals.

Hatred of the Jews is one, communal living conditions, taking over companies for the common good, socialized medicine, etc.

That is patent nonsense. Really man, you can do better than that.

You might want to ask yourself why Stormfront, the modern home of fascism, spends most of its time attacking Jews if to do so is a liberal idea.

 

[Iceweasel]

. LOL. Mighty weak shit there professor. Your poly-sci bullshit classes don't mean anything to me. Chances are you are programed by socialists and are far from being objective.

Yeah -- I criticized the left as well as the right, therefor I was "programmed by socialists".

I'm starting to think that middle school represents your ceiling.

That describes you exactly, genius. The right or left isn't an ideology. Those on the right and left have ideologies, conservative, liberal, in between, depending on the issue. Someone on the right or left can and do differ with their respective majority on some things, so how can they be ideologies. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

You need to get your money back. Assuming you actually did go to school.

 

[1776]

Idiot....why don't you see who are the ones in this country attacking Israel/the Jews in speeches, marches, protests, etc.

It's not right-wingers doing it, it is YOU scum.

Uh....the Nazis share many views of liberals.

Hatred of the Jews is one, communal living conditions, taking over companies for the common good, socialized medicine, etc.

That is patent nonsense. Really man, you can do better than that.

You might want to ask yourself why Stormfront, the modern home of fascism, spends most of its time attacking Jews if to do so is a liberal idea.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So you criticize both good and evil?

Well my goodness, aren't you the Hallmark of contributors... EVER so moderate, thus reasonable. Because, one presumes you feel that "Good" is not always right and "EVIL" is not always wrong?

Break it down for me Professor. Inquiring minds... and all.

Actually, I am intelligent enough to realize the world isn't a child's game of Cowboys and Indians with "conservatives" being the good guys and "liberals" the bad, and all based upon nothing more substantial than the self-applied labeling involved.

Both the left and right are capable of evil.

I would suggest you get ahold of a little book called "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer which gets at the heart of the matter better than I could explain to you in just a few words.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keys -

Please stop trolling and spamming the thread. Really. Let people discuss the topic.

ROFLMNAO!

So the Supreme Leader of the Thread calls for the stopping of opposing points of view?

Now, just to be clear, you're a socialist, right?

Dictating policy which in every way, reflects an authoritarian and nationalistic system of government, or social organization, which represents authoritarian, intolerant views and practice... .

Folks, you can NOT make this crap UP!

 

[Saigon]

So it comes down to believing Hitler or the political scientists? Most university bookstores carry small booklets on political ideologies, booklets used in political science classes that explain the various ideologies. Of course, some Americans would rather believe Hitler.

This seems to be it, yes. Which would make sense if Hitler hadn't made even more speeches attacking communism, liberalism and everything possible about the left wing.

He did make some staggeringly contradictory statements, though.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you criticize both good and evil?

Well my goodness, aren't you the Hallmark of contributors... EVER so moderate, thus reasonable. Because, one presumes you feel that "Good" is not always right and "EVIL" is not always wrong?

Break it down for me Professor. Inquiring minds... and all.

Actually, I am intelligent enough to realize the world isn't a child's game of Cowboys and Indians with "conservatives" being the good guys and "liberals" the bad, and all based upon nothing more substantial than the self-applied labeling involved.

Both the left and right are capable of evil.

I would suggest you get ahold of a little book called "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer which gets at the heart of the matter better than I could explain to you in just a few words.

So the pursuit of good, or that which recognizes, respects, defends and adheres TO the natural laws which govern human behavior is CAPABLE of evil?

And this you want to set against the capacity for evil in those who REJECT THOSE LAWS?

If you were an intelligent person, you'd realize that your speech represents a perversion of human reasoning, advancing disorder as order; which for those keeping score, serves as a function of evil.

Now HOW COOL is THAT?

 

[Iceweasel]

So you criticize both good and evil?

Well my goodness, aren't you the Hallmark of contributors... EVER so moderate, thus reasonable. Because, one presumes you feel that "Good" is not always right and "EVIL" is not always wrong?

Break it down for me Professor. Inquiring minds... and all.

Actually, I am intelligent enough to realize the world isn't a child's game of Cowboys and Indians with "conservatives" being the good guys and "liberals" the bad, and all based upon nothing more substantial than the self-applied labeling involved.

Both the left and right are capable of evil.

I would suggest you get ahold of a little book called "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer which gets at the heart of the matter better than I could explain to you in just a few words.

LOL. Those on the left or right are not ideologies. Critiquing the ideologies has nothing to do with individuals doing wrong. Idiot.

 

[SwimExpert]

....

Good luck trying to get anyone to bother listening. Most people are simply not willing to recognize that true political identification requires a multi axis mapping.

Most people want something simple.

Al-Qaeda was simple. People knew what it stood for, knew it was bad and could easily get their head around it. Same with Communism.

Problem with far right is that there are connotations they wish to avoid. This is gerrymandering with a dictionary.

No, the problem is with simple.

please do explain....

As you say yourself, most people want something simple. Reduction of politics to a one dimensional single axis is simple. But that does not make it accurate. If anything, it forsakes and abandons accuracy on the premise that simple albeit flawed conclusions are superior.

Your own assertions demonstrate this phenomenon in action. Instead of addressing the more accurate and more complex landscape of political identification for things like Nazism, Al Qaeda, Communism, etc, you eagerly reduce it to a one dimensional single axis, and then lay the "problem" at the feet of one side of that single axis.

The "right" as well as the "left" will easily have connotations that both sides wish to avoid, when political views and ideas are reduced to a single axis. The problem is neither the far right, nor far left. The true problem is the simplification. Your partisan focus on only one side of that problem is a demonstration of the flaws inherent to such simplification.