Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Saigon]

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....

You forgot concentration camps. FDR had a few of those.

Where were they, again?

 

[turzovka]

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.

Well since you seem to believe the pope and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church's main focus is power and not the salvation of souls and charity to their fellow man, there is no point in going further into greater details or differences of opinions. I totally reject your premise.

And for you further to suggest what the Bible teaches about being sharing wealth with the poor or the village has some strong resemblance to what ANY communist nation has done to its own subjects or its neigbors in the last 100 years, again, forget it. This is nonsense to me.

 

[Saigon]

The Democrat party is also authoritarian, nimrod.

I can't believe that two weeks into this thread you are still posting mindless swipes at nothing in particular.

In the time you have spent wailing at the clouds you could have read every book cited on this thread and been much, much, much wiser for the experience.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

You, Tapababble, and bripat, should all run along and go read Goldberg's book so you know what you're talking about.

It's probably what they are both doing now, since I reminded them of that

I already read the book, you fucking moron.

Oh great...let's get started.

One of Goldberg's points is that Liberals wouldn't support the type of action Hitler did. He really just makes comparisons, many of them quite weak, about the cultivation of support for liberalism in the US now, with similar political strategies practiced by the Fascists back then.

Let's begin with Goldberg's completely flawed attempt to portray FDR as an advocate for Italian Fascism. Liberals and Communists in Italy at the time favored wealth redistribution, and the Fascists were intensely nationalistic and militaristic. His only concrete comparison is that FDR had big parades.

Your turn Einstein.

Hmmmmm . . . . . FDR raised the marginal rate to 95%, and he created all kinds of income redistribution programs like Social Security. FDR was also militiristic. He did everything in his power to get us involved in the war, and before the war he pursued a vast expansion in our military. Did you know that Congress approved the funding for 40 aircraft carriers before the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor? Most of the weapons we used during the war were already in the pipeline before the war even started.

If you don't think FDR was nationalistic, then you haven't ever seen some of the propaganda published during the war.

Again, your claims fail.

 

[toxicmedia]

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....

But he doesn't support that assertion. Communists and liberals in France and Italy supported government ownership of the means of production, which without capitalism, cannot include taxes, social security, or pensions.

As for control o the courts...everybody proposed that, on all sides of the spectrum

 

[toxicmedia]

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!

You, Tapababble, and bripat, should all run along and go read Goldberg's book so you know what you're talking about.

It's probably what they are both doing now, since I reminded them of that

I already read the book, you fucking moron.

Oh great...let's get started.

One of Goldberg's points is that Liberals wouldn't support the type of action Hitler did. He really just makes comparisons, many of them quite weak, about the cultivation of support for liberalism in the US now, with similar political strategies practiced by the Fascists back then.

Let's begin with Goldberg's completely flawed attempt to portray FDR as an advocate for Italian Fascism. Liberals and Communists in Italy at the time favored wealth redistribution, and the Fascists were intensely nationalistic and militaristic. His only concrete comparison is that FDR had big parades.

Your turn Einstein.

Hmmmmm . . . . . FDR raised the marginal rate to 95%, and he created all kinds of income redistribution programs like Social Security. FDR was also militiristic. He did everything in his power to get us involved in the war, and before the war he pursued a vast expansion in our military. Did you know that Congress approved the funding for 40 aircraft carriers before the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor? Most of the weapons we used during the war were already in the pipeline before the war even started.

If you don't think FDR was nationalistic, then you haven't ever seen some of the propaganda published during the war.

Again, your claims fail.

Read post 1865 Einstein.

You brought a dull butter knife to a gun fight.

You also obviously haven't read the book

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why don't we just look at some quotes from Jonah Goldbergs book...rather than guess at what he said...

The Best Quotes From Jonah Goldberg 8217 s 8220 Liberal Fascism 8221 John Hawkins Right Wing News

These are nice starting points....

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

and the nazis and religion...

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html?_r=0

 

[bripat9643]

The Democrat party is also authoritarian, nimrod.

I can't believe that two weeks into this thread you are still posting mindless swipes at nothing in particular.

In the time you have spent wailing at the clouds you could have read every book cited on this thread and been much, much, much wiser for the experience.

I don't take homework assignments from commies. Your books don't prove a damn thing accept that history professors have an agenda.

 

[bripat9643]

Coming from an Obama Fluffer that's comedic gold!

You, Tapababble, and bripat, should all run along and go read Goldberg's book so you know what you're talking about.

It's probably what they are both doing now, since I reminded them of that

I already read the book, you fucking moron.

Oh great...let's get started.

One of Goldberg's points is that Liberals wouldn't support the type of action Hitler did. He really just makes comparisons, many of them quite weak, about the cultivation of support for liberalism in the US now, with similar political strategies practiced by the Fascists back then.

Let's begin with Goldberg's completely flawed attempt to portray FDR as an advocate for Italian Fascism. Liberals and Communists in Italy at the time favored wealth redistribution, and the Fascists were intensely nationalistic and militaristic. His only concrete comparison is that FDR had big parades.

Your turn Einstein.

Hmmmmm . . . . . FDR raised the marginal rate to 95%, and he created all kinds of income redistribution programs like Social Security. FDR was also militiristic. He did everything in his power to get us involved in the war, and before the war he pursued a vast expansion in our military. Did you know that Congress approved the funding for 40 aircraft carriers before the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor? Most of the weapons we used during the war were already in the pipeline before the war even started.

If you don't think FDR was nationalistic, then you haven't ever seen some of the propaganda published during the war.

Again, your claims fail.

Read post 1865 Einstein.

You brought a dull butter knife to a gun fight.

You also obviously haven't read the book

I posted #1865, numskull.

 

[Saigon]

The Democrat party is also authoritarian, nimrod.

I can't believe that two weeks into this thread you are still posting mindless swipes at nothing in particular.

In the time you have spent wailing at the clouds you could have read every book cited on this thread and been much, much, much wiser for the experience.

I don't take homework assignments from commies. Your books don't prove a damn thing accept that history professors have an agenda.

And no one has asked you to.

What you have been asked to do is to read and learn - something you flat out refuse to do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Democrat party is also authoritarian, nimrod.

I can't believe that two weeks into this thread you are still posting mindless swipes at nothing in particular.

In the time you have spent wailing at the clouds you could have read every book cited on this thread and been much, much, much wiser for the experience.

I don't take homework assignments from commies. Your books don't prove a damn thing accept that history professors have an agenda.

Pat doesn't read actual books, it interferes with his propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

Why don't we just look at some quotes from Jonah Goldbergs book...rather than guess at what he said...

The Best Quotes From Jonah Goldberg 8217 s 8220 Liberal Fascism 8221 John Hawkins Right Wing News

These are nice starting points....

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

and the nazis and religion...

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html?_r=0

The New York Times - enough said.

 

[bripat9643]

The Democrat party is also authoritarian, nimrod.

I can't believe that two weeks into this thread you are still posting mindless swipes at nothing in particular.

In the time you have spent wailing at the clouds you could have read every book cited on this thread and been much, much, much wiser for the experience.

I don't take homework assignments from commies. Your books don't prove a damn thing accept that history professors have an agenda.

Pat doesn't read actual books, it interferes with his propaganda.

I've read stack of books, probably more than you'll ever read. Every time you post all you do is display your ignorance. You have yet to post an actual fact in this forum.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Well, I listed 20 or so books on this thread, and none by communists. How many of them have you read?

Would I be right in guessing 0?

So again - research. Read. Learn.

 

[bripat9643]

The Democrat party is also authoritarian, nimrod.

I can't believe that two weeks into this thread you are still posting mindless swipes at nothing in particular.

In the time you have spent wailing at the clouds you could have read every book cited on this thread and been much, much, much wiser for the experience.

I don't take homework assignments from commies. Your books don't prove a damn thing accept that history professors have an agenda.

And no one has asked you to.

What you have been asked to do is to read and learn - something you flat out refuse to do.

ROFL! You have asked me at least a dozen times. No, you have insisted on it. I suggest you read and learn. To get started, I recommend the books "Socialism" and "Omnipotent Government" by Ludwig von Mises. However, you don't want to learn. You simply want to spout your ignorance.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

Well, I listed 20 or so books on this thread, and none by communists. How many of them have you read?

Would I be right in guessing 0?

So again - research. Read. Learn.

Listing a book proves only that you managed to find an author who reinforces your prejudices. None of the authors admitted they were communists. That's not surprising since none of the commies in this forum will admit it either.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

I don't read according to prejudice. I read according to quality. I also read from right across the political spectrum, providing the books are good enough.

The books listed on this thread includes authors I know to be conservatives, just as they include books by Germans, Jews, Brits and Americans.

You won't read any of them.

And that is why this topic is simply so far over your head.

 

[regent]

America had an extremely limited government, so limited the government could do almost nothing. The framers then decided to increase both the size and power of our government, and with the new size and power we became the greatest nation on earth. We are certainly not going back to the limited government some conservatives envision. Those days of weak limited government, like so many Republican ideas, are history.

LOL. We became great because of government!
Horseshit dude. We became great because of American ingenuity, resources and the pursuit of making a better life for yourself and your family. You stupid commie asshole.

So would we have fared as well, with fifty independent state governments, each deciding how it wanted to progress?

We would have faired better. We also wouldn't have gotten involved in any of the following wars:

Civil War
Mexican American War
Spanish American War
WW I
WW II
Korean War
Vietnam War
Gulf War I
Gulf War II

Also wonder if you can name one Marxian-communist government?

SOviet Union
China
Vietnam
Cambodia
North Korea
Laos
Mozambique
Angola
Cuba
East Germany
Czechoslovakia
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Romania

No nation has ever practiced Marxist communism. The Soviet's dropped it pretty quick as unworkable and developed a new system. Some very small groups, if tied to a religion, may have made it work, but a nation, no way.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To understand the people in their time, requires an understanding of history. Not history written today, unless the author cites numerous primary sources from the era (Primary sources are journals, letters, newspapers, official documents, etc.). Since few of us can spend days going through archives the best sources are biographies well annotated. The worst sources are those written decades latter and judging actors by facts unknowable to the actor at the time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look at all the Progressive Big Lies: Hitler was a Conservative, McCarthy started a "Red Scare", FDR saved the country from capitalism, LBJ was a Civil Right Hero

They thrive on Big Lies