Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Discombobulated]

Looks like the dummies are no closer to making their alleged argument than they were 1700 posts ago.

 

[Discombobulated]

Weren't Nazis a left-wing thing?

And Marxists are right wing.

Makes as much sense.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Weren't Nazis a left-wing thing?

And Marxists are right wing.

Makes as much sense.

..... but everybody can see by your avatar that you are a Marx-ist.

 

[francoHFW]

3 trillion at least for assistance to victims, shyttehead. Very funny.

 

[Iceweasel]

3 trillion at least for assistance to victims, shyttehead. Very funny.

You mean 3 trillion at least to prop up unions and states due to their gross overspending.

 

[Discombobulated]

Weren't Nazis a left-wing thing?

And Marxists are right wing.

Makes as much sense.

..... but everybody can see by your avatar that you are a Marx-ist.

Indeed, a dedicated Marxist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

....just exactly how incredibly stupid are Republicans? .

dear, Jefferson and Madison were not stupid for understanding that big liberal govt had been the source of evil in human history. Imagine, they had not seen Hitler, Stalin, and Mao and yet they knew they were coming. Modern liberals have seen them and are still too stupid to understand.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."--- CS Lewis

 

[frigidweirdo]

You've thought about it for 40 years and just assume that they like spending money. So Bush is a lib because he spends money?

Spent too much money. And I said fiscal liberal, social conservative. You have demonstrated a marked inability to receive anything that you don't already believe.

What is true is that many on the left want the govt to step into some/many/all situations where the govt can. Some would spend badly, there are a lot of politicians who seem to fail to see the bigger picture and will spend wildly without thinking at all about the real consequences. I'm not going to deny this. But to say they're all on the left is not true.

I didn't. Many Republicans are big government big spenders too. Conservatives all them RINOs.

Oh, Bush was better because no only did he raise federal spending by more than 100% he also managed to get thousands of Americans killed and potentially 1 million people killed in general. Well done to him.

But the defence of Bush, the defence of his wars, the defence of his policies and then to attack him for these very same policies seems absurd. Yes, Democrats helped, which also brings me back to the point I've made a lot that the two main parties are generally controlled by big money and do their bidding without too much regard for anything else.

I'm not defending Obama for spending. What does this have to do with Obama? We're talking here about whether big spending govt is left wing or not just left wing. We're not talking about Obama. Is this really all you have to try and deflect the argument away from what we're talking about?

The thread is about Hitler, fascism and the right. I didn't bring up Bush and it isn't a deflection to point out the fact that most of the Democrats in office were on the same page, until it became politically expedient to oppose the wars.
Left wingers are for big government which means big spending. I don't see how you can massage it out of plain sight.

Or maybe I just disagree with you. Just because I disagree it doesn't mean I can't take on things I didn't believe before. It means right now I don't have any reason to believe you.

What do you think Bush knows about economics? I'd say he knows almost nothing to nothing. By saying he is socially liberal, you're implying he actually thinks and makes a stand on an issue when the reality is he was just REACTING to events and being the puppet of others.

That is not someone who is fiscally liberal, that's someone who is fiscally unaware.

It's like saying someone who has maxed out their credit cards, bank loans and everything else because they hugely overspend is fiscally liberal when all they are is irresponsible with their money.

You say left wingers are for big govt. I'm left wing and not for big govt. I'm for sensible govt.

But I brought up Bush because the argument has gone that way. It's gone very simplistic.

It's "Large govt is left wing, Hitler was large govt, therefore Hitler is left wing" which is sort of saying that moon looks like cheese therefore it is cheese.

I've had similar points come up all over the place that work on primary school logic.

Like with the 2A where they say that because "bear" can mean carry therefore it DOES mean carry, therefore "bear arms" MUST mean "carry arms". It's frustrating to deal with people who will put forward such ludicrously simple statements that they will then hold as true because they want to believe it. They won't budge from this position, they'll be so stubborn, and throw the "fact" at you once in a while to "prove" they are right.

There are people who are open to the truth, and people who pretend everything they believe is the truth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They're so desperate to not be associated with Fascism, that they tried to change the meaning.

why not read "Liberal Fascism" for 450 pages on the liberal association with fascism??

Congrats- the only "history" book ever to say Hitler was a socialist. Recognized universally as absolute drivel, outside of Beckbots or whatever...

1) how could it be drivel if not one of the quotes from liberals praising Hitler was retracted
2) to a total illilterate like Franco Stalin was a socialist but not Hitler or Mao!
3) only history book???? Total illiteracy as always!! Franco is the supreme illiterate! Sorry but its time to grow up.
Hitler Socialist-Party Germany German French Print 1931
by old-print
$24.75$32.50
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Product Description
... Hitler Socialist-Party Germany German French Print 1931 Page Only Taken ...
Home & Kitchen:See all 2 items

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bush is a liberal Republican, not a conservative.

So why did the conservatives LOVE him then?

Is he left wing or right wing?

Seems everyone was so confident about Bush being left wing, yet no one wanted to explain how he was loved by the right.....

anyone care to explain?

He wasn't loved by the right. Conservatives deplored a lot of what Bush did in office, especially when it came to growing government. The only thing they supported him on was cutting taxes and the Iraq war.

Doesn't look like that on this board. You say anything about Bush and you get a load. Then Obama comes along and they shout abuse at him regardless of what happens.

Bush Approval Rating Down to 60 Among Republicans

"Bush Approval Rating Down to 60% Among Republicans

At a time when George W. Bush's job approval rating has fallen to 28%, just 6 in 10 Republicans approve of the job he is doing, the lowest of his administration."

Spot the difference.

Until 2006 his approval rating was at 80%+ for Republicans. With the whole country it was down to 40%.

Republicans were, at times, twice as likely to think Bush was doing a good job as the general populace in general. Which probably means like 3 times more likely to think he was doing a good job.

At ALL TIMES 60% of Republicans thought Bush was doing a good job, a majority. I'd hardly say that is Republicans not loving him.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At ALL TIMES 60% of Republicans thought Bush was doing a good job, a majority. I'd hardly say that is Republicans not loving him.

so what, Bush was not conservative! The battle in human history is between liberals and conservatives.

Do you understand now?

 

[frigidweirdo]

At ALL TIMES 60% of Republicans thought Bush was doing a good job, a majority. I'd hardly say that is Republicans not loving him.

so what, Bush was not conservative! The battle in human history is between liberals and conservatives.

Do you understand now?

I don't think I've ever understood anything you've ever said.

Bush wasn't a conservative then you talk about battles between liberals and conservatives?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't think I've ever understood anything you've ever said.

to be expected given that liberals are liberals because they are are very very slow. NOt everyone can do calculus and not everyone can do politics,

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bush wasn't a conservative then you talk about battles between liberals and conservatives?

dear, please try to but in words what you dont understand.

1) yes Bush was not a conservative
2) yes the battle in history was/is between liberals and conservatives

so what don't you understand??

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't think I've ever understood anything you've ever said.

to be expected given that liberals are liberals because they are are very very slow. NOt everyone can do calculus and not everyone can do politics,

And some just can't do gibberish, what's your point?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bush wasn't a conservative then you talk about battles between liberals and conservatives?

dear, please try to but in words what you dont understand.

1) yes Bush was not a conservative
2) yes the battle in history was/is between liberals and conservatives

so what don't you understand??

What your point is, why you put them together one sentence after the next and why Bush isn't a conservative when he had massive support from conservatives and much, MUCH less support from liberals. 60%+ support at all times from Republicans, mostly 80+ and mostly under 50% from liberals.

Sounds like a liberal?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't think I've ever understood anything you've ever said.

to be expected given that liberals are liberals because they are are very very slow. NOt everyone can do calculus and not everyone can do politics,

And some just can't do gibberish, what's your point?

point is that liberals are liberals because they can't understand much. THey see China ending poverty with capitalism and they want to switch to socialism. See why we say stupid?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why Bush isn't a conservative when he had massive support from conservatives

too stupid as always. Bush had tactical support from conservatives, not philosophical support. Rove believed they could preempt liberals with Prescription Drug Bill for example. Republicans then wanted to establish their own programs and then quietly convert them to capitalism. That was what donut holes was all about.

Now the strategy is to keep tactics and pholosophy the same.

you have no where near the IQ as a liberal to understand the above.

 

[frigidweirdo]

why Bush isn't a conservative when he had massive support from conservatives

too stupid as always. Bush had tactical support from conservatives, not philosophical support. Rove believed they could preempt liberals with Prescription Drug Bill for example. Republicans then wanted to establish their own programs and then quietly convert them to capitalism. That was what donut holes was all about.

Now the strategy is to keep tactics and pholosophy the same.

you have no where near the IQ as a liberal to understand the above.

Tactical support and more than 80% of them thinking he was doing a good job for most of his presidency. Does that not count as them loving him? Does to me.

And then you go off on to an insult. And if not to add too much irony, it's about IQ levels. What is the IQ level required to insult someone?

 

[sarahgop]

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.

hitler was a left winger, like hugo chavez. right wingers love the individual, left wingers like stalin and hitler exterminate them.