Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."
Not at all - think of Antonescu's relationship with the church. The same relationship existed with Stroessner, and to a lesser extent with Franco.
Again - Hitler is only one example of fascism.
I already admitted there may have been certain examples of compliance, but your comment implied much more. (imo)
Based on limited knowledge, I believe the Russian Orthodox church was at times controlled by corrupt hierarchy, and did not reflect the sentiments or beliefs of their many constituents.
Like Obama and all democratsWhy does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?
Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.
Tapatalk
Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."
Not at all - think of Antonescu's relationship with the church. The same relationship existed with Stroessner, and to a lesser extent with Franco.
Again - Hitler is only one example of fascism.
I already admitted there may have been certain examples of compliance, but your comment implied much more. (imo)
Based on limited knowledge, I believe the Russian Orthodox church was at times controlled by corrupt hierarchy, and did not reflect the sentiments or beliefs of their many constituents.
I totally agree with you about the church not always representing the views of adherents - in these cases the church may simply have placed pragmatism over integrity - plus I think the churches across Europe were quite genuinely and rightly terrified by the threat of communism.
The are all dishonest. You proved me correct with how you lied about what i posted to falsely accuse me of being like you.Like Obama and all democratsWhy does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?
Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.
Tapatalk
So, you consider President Obama and all democrats (small 'd') despots. This is another really dumb (ignorant?) post.
Why do fools post such nonsense? Are they truly this ignorant? Desperate for attention and thus need to lie (for some it is better to be laughed at then ignored) or brainwashed by too much Limbaugh?
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.
"...fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance."
Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."
Yes, there may have reasons for churches (catholic or protestant) to acquiesce to the demands of the state, but more for the sake of avoiding total obliteration. IOW, they had little choice. But to suggest they had "common ground" implies their values or ideologies often coincided. That is a very demagogic and unjust. (imo)
The Church after all represents Power. As the "First Estate" it was a major part of the power structure that Liberalism rose up against in its desire to assign power to the consent of the goverened. Fascism, taking the opposite, top-down approach, loves any avenue to consolidate power, as it loves appeals to nationalistic tradition and militaristic strength. Fascist Germany called the former "Kinder, Küche, Kirche -- children, kithen, church". Obviously it was interested in keeping the citizenry tied to the Church, as being under the psychological thumb of the Church gets the masses used to being subjugated, and given a working relationship serves as a non-governmental PR front.
These are all avenues to its own control dynamic. An organised Church has the same top-down desire for influence, even using a figurehead it purports to be omnipowerful. So yes there is much affinity there, so it would be unexpected for a fascist movement to NOT see such an institution as a useful ally -- unless it got to the point of competing with it.
Such roots as Marx wishing his fellow Jews to be killed. Go try that lie on the brain deadHighly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."
Not at all - think of Antonescu's relationship with the church. The same relationship existed with Stroessner, and to a lesser extent with Franco.
Again - Hitler is only one example of fascism.
I already admitted there may have been certain examples of compliance, but your comment implied much more. (imo)
Based on limited knowledge, I believe the Russian Orthodox church was at times controlled by corrupt hierarchy, and did not reflect the sentiments or beliefs of their many constituents.
I totally agree with you about the church not always representing the views of adherents - in these cases the church may simply have placed pragmatism over integrity - plus I think the churches across Europe were quite genuinely and rightly terrified by the threat of communism.
Hard to see why they would be since communism has roots in religion.
Unless you mean terrified by the threat of Sovietism.
I see we've met. I don't remember you though.I'm not a Democrat.Dishonest democrats make me ill
Tapatalk
Keep those assumptions coming.
What I find amusing is how your partner in crime, bripat, has voiced his view that I'm not refuting any points you've made.
But you haven't made any points to refute, while spewing nothing but inaccurate assumptions.
You're not???????
Tell us more!
Are you an Eisenhower Republican?
Welcome to the modern world, cold war dinosaur dupes. Socialism is recognized as always democratic, communism NEVER- and always put in by violent revolution, and just about dead, since capitalism is everywhere..
Hitler was a RW fascist, since he loved capitalists and aristocrats, even if of course it was directed toward a war footing.Kinda like Reagan lol...Goldberg is total, bought off "drivel"- the Economist, and everyone else, for hater dupes only. later
Like Obama and all democratsWhy does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?
Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.
Tapatalk
So, you consider President Obama and all democrats (small 'd') despots. This is another really dumb (ignorant?) post.
Why do fools post such nonsense? Are they truly this ignorant? Desperate for attention and thus need to lie (for some it is better to be laughed at then ignored) or brainwashed by too much Limbaugh?
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.
"...fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance."
Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."
Yes, there may have reasons for churches (catholic or protestant) to acquiesce to the demands of the state, but more for the sake of avoiding total obliteration. IOW, they had little choice. But to suggest they had "common ground" implies their values or ideologies often coincided. That is a very demagogic and unjust. (imo)
The Church after all represents Power. As the "First Estate" it was a major part of the power structure that Liberalism rose up against in its desire to assign power to the consent of the goverened. Fascism, taking the opposite, top-down approach, loves any avenue to consolidate power, as it loves appeals to nationalistic tradition and militaristic strength. Fascist Germany called the former "Kinder, Küche, Kirche -- children, kithen, church". Obviously it was interested in keeping the citizenry tied to the Church, as being under the psychological thumb of the Church gets the masses used to being subjugated, and given a working relationship serves as a non-governmental PR front.
These are all avenues to its own control dynamic. An organised Church has the same top-down desire for influence, even using a figurehead it purports to be omnipowerful. So yes there is much affinity there, so it would be unexpected for a fascist movement to NOT see such an institution as a useful ally -- unless it got to the point of competing with it.
Christianity by and large, and the Catholic Church and all its teachings, are in total opposition to what Fascism imposes on those they rule. Your example of Fascist Germany fails. I get their motivations, but their actions and beliefs are totally anti-God.
And where is communism and ally of religion?
Oh great...let's get started.You, Tapababble, and bripat, should all run along and go read Goldberg's book so you know what you're talking about.Why does socialism/communism so often have to murder its way into power? What's up with that?
Demagoguery is the way despots secure power. It is always best to watch the feet of pols and not their lips.
Coming from an Obama Fluffer that's comedic gold!
It's probably what they are both doing now, since I reminded them of that
I already read the book, you fucking moron.
His only concrete comparison is that FDR had big parades.
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.
"...fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance."
Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."
Yes, there may have reasons for churches (catholic or protestant) to acquiesce to the demands of the state, but more for the sake of avoiding total obliteration. IOW, they had little choice. But to suggest they had "common ground" implies their values or ideologies often coincided. That is a very demagogic and unjust. (imo)
Such roots as Marx wishing his fellow Jews to be killed. Go try that lie on the brain deadHighly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."
Not at all - think of Antonescu's relationship with the church. The same relationship existed with Stroessner, and to a lesser extent with Franco.
Again - Hitler is only one example of fascism.
I already admitted there may have been certain examples of compliance, but your comment implied much more. (imo)
Based on limited knowledge, I believe the Russian Orthodox church was at times controlled by corrupt hierarchy, and did not reflect the sentiments or beliefs of their many constituents.
I totally agree with you about the church not always representing the views of adherents - in these cases the church may simply have placed pragmatism over integrity - plus I think the churches across Europe were quite genuinely and rightly terrified by the threat of communism.
Hard to see why they would be since communism has roots in religion.
Unless you mean terrified by the threat of Sovietism.
Tapatalk
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.
"...fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance."
Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."
Yes, there may have reasons for churches (catholic or protestant) to acquiesce to the demands of the state, but more for the sake of avoiding total obliteration. IOW, they had little choice. But to suggest they had "common ground" implies their values or ideologies often coincided. That is a very demagogic and unjust. (imo)
Both the Nazi Party & the Church are Authoritarian, of course the Nazi's would put the 'sinners' in death camps, and the clergy simply condemned them to hell.
His only concrete comparison is that FDR had big parades.
and the New Deal, and the tax rates, and his attempts to control the courts, and social security, or as the nazis said, pensions..........and on and on....
The major flaw in all of this is that fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left. This fact — an inconvenient truth if there ever was one — is obscured in our time by the equally mistaken belief that fascism and communism are opposites. In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents. — P.7
Before the war, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States… — P.9
The introduction of a novel term like “liberal fascism” obviously requires an explanation. Many critics will undoubtedly regard it as a crass oxymoron. Actually, however, I am not the first to use the term. That honor falls to H.G. Wells, one of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the inspiration for Huxley’s Brave New World). Wells didn’t coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis,” he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932. — P.21
During his rise to power Hitler — in many respects the heir of Bismarckian progressives — could hardly launch an all-out attack on Christianity. National Socialism, after all, was supposed to unite all Germans. It’s “not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death,” Hitler explained to his aides. — P.363
In 1935 mandatory prayer in (German) school was abolished, and in 1938 carols and nativity plays were banned entirely. By 1941 religious instruction for children fourteen years and up had been abolished altogether and Jacobinism reigned supreme. A Hitler Youth song rang out from the campfires:
We are the happy Hitler Youth;
We have no need for Christian virtue;
For Adolf Hitler is our intercessor
And our redeemer.
No priest, no evil one
Can keep us
From feeling like Hitler’s children.
No Christ do we follow, but Horst Wessel!
Away with incense and holy water pots.
The Nazis played the same games against Jews that today’s left plays against “Eurocentrism,” “whiteness,” and “logocentrism.” When you hear a campus radical denounce “white logic” or “male logic,” she is standing on the shoulders of a Nazi who denounced “Jewish logic” and the “Hebrew disease.” — P.368
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.
"...fascists often found common ground with the church; or at least managed to organize a degree of compliance."
Highly misleading and unfair to sneak that in there as though an example here or there allows one to use such a phrase as "often."
Yes, there may have reasons for churches (catholic or protestant) to acquiesce to the demands of the state, but more for the sake of avoiding total obliteration. IOW, they had little choice. But to suggest they had "common ground" implies their values or ideologies often coincided. That is a very demagogic and unjust. (imo)
The Church after all represents Power. As the "First Estate" it was a major part of the power structure that Liberalism rose up against in its desire to assign power to the consent of the goverened. Fascism, taking the opposite, top-down approach, loves any avenue to consolidate power, as it loves appeals to nationalistic tradition and militaristic strength. Fascist Germany called the former "Kinder, Küche, Kirche -- children, kithen, church". Obviously it was interested in keeping the citizenry tied to the Church, as being under the psychological thumb of the Church gets the masses used to being subjugated, and given a working relationship serves as a non-governmental PR front.
These are all avenues to its own control dynamic. An organised Church has the same top-down desire for influence, even using a figurehead it purports to be omnipowerful. So yes there is much affinity there, so it would be unexpected for a fascist movement to NOT see such an institution as a useful ally -- unless it got to the point of competing with it.
Christianity by and large, and the Catholic Church and all its teachings, are in total opposition to what Fascism imposes on those they rule. Your example of Fascist Germany fails. I get their motivations, but their actions and beliefs are totally anti-God.
Irrelevant. We're not talking about Christianity or religion -- we're talking about the Church. Significant difference. The way I see it, religion is about spirituality, while organized religion is about power. Religion is a concept; it exists in the mind. "The Church" is an institution. It exists in buildings and structures and hierarchies, and like any institution, has its own power channels and inevitably, corruption.
And where is communism and ally of religion?
That goes all the way back to the biblical Book of Acts and other allusions to wealth hierarchy peppered throughout the New Testament. There's a vibrant and prolific community of Hutterites still practicing Acts-based communism to this day; they've been doing it for five hundred years. Then there were numerous movements especially in the 19th century some of which (e.g. Amana colonies) were pointedly religion-based. By the time Marx and Engels came along with their version it was not at all a new idea.
Christian communism
Herein perhaps lies the obvious contrast: Christian-based communism is not at all interested in amassing authoritarian power; the Church, as an institution, always is. Again, one of the obvious ways Nazi Fascism opposed communism. The former is all about centralised power; the latter is the polar opposite.
