How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Bfgrn]

2nd Amendment -

Any model that has Lenin equal and opposite to Nixon is unlikely to be of much value here, particularly as it is so American in nature, when we are discussing leaders who Re not American.

The political horseshoe has been in use for generations - and with some reason.

Instead of left/right let's consider personality traits.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Describe what tenets, traditions, documents and orthodoxy a conservative in Russia would adhere to and want to 'conserve'...free market capitalism? The US Constitution??

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
Combat Liberalism

So Bloomberg's Nanny State is Conservative now? He is a Statist Progressive.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's speech at the Republican National Convention, August 30, 2004, New York City.

I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism.

(APPLAUSE)

The president deserves our support.

(APPLAUSE)

We are here to support him.

(APPLAUSE)

And I am here to support him.

(APPLAUSE)

We all must recognize that homeland security funds should be allocated by threat and no other reason.

And I will repeat this message to my fellow Republicans, Democrats and independents as many times as it takes so we can keep New York safe and secure.

 

[Intense]

Instead of left/right let's consider personality traits.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Describe what tenets, traditions, documents and orthodoxy a conservative in Russia would adhere to and want to 'conserve'...free market capitalism? The US Constitution??

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
Combat Liberalism

So Bloomberg's Nanny State is Conservative now? He is a Statist Progressive.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's speech at the Republican National Convention, August 30, 2004, New York City.

I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism.

(APPLAUSE)

The president deserves our support.

(APPLAUSE)

We are here to support him.

(APPLAUSE)

And I am here to support him.

(APPLAUSE)

We all must recognize that homeland security funds should be allocated by threat and no other reason.

And I will repeat this message to my fellow Republicans, Democrats and independents as many times as it takes so we can keep New York safe and secure.

Bloomberg, as good as his word. ..... Who are you trying to kid. ???

 

[Saigon]

If a history leans left or right up or down it is NOT a history, it is a political diatribe.

REAL history does not judge, it informs.

Absolutely, absolutely - and well said.

I have to say, it really disturbs me to see posters dismissing books written by Oxford and Cambridge history professors as being "leftist" without a shred of evidence or common sense.

Learning about a subject means reading as much as possible and from as reliable sources as possible - it does not mean avoiding history books like the plague, lest they be infected by some kind of bias.

The funny thing is, it is the most jaundiced and poorly informed posters who are the ones most concerned about reading biased material.

 

[Saigon]

Yeah it was old Otto von Bismarck that introduced socialism to Germany back in the 1890's, and we know Otto was a liberal. And worse, some historians (all historians are communists) claim Otto gave Germany socialism to reduce the appeal of communism.
That single act of giving Germany medical care made all the other leaders that followed Otto, including Hitler, socialists.

This comment says everything about your own ludicrous bias - and nothing at all about historians.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yeah it was old Otto von Bismarck that introduced socialism to Germany back in the 1890's, and we know Otto was a liberal. And worse, some historians (all historians are communists) claim Otto gave Germany socialism to reduce the appeal of communism.
That single act of giving Germany medical care made all the other leaders that followed Otto, including Hitler, socialists.

The The Forgotten Churchill

In 1908, when Asquith became prime minister, there were almost no models of state welfare anywhere on earth. The exception was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

By the new century Prussia was setting an example. Lloyd George and Churchill, as members of Asquith’s cabinet, went there to watch state welfare in action; Churchill, the more studious of the two, read published reports. In 1909 he collected his speeches in Liberalism and the Social Problem, where he made a case for seeing state welfare as an essential prop to a free economy. The Left had good reason to fear it, as he knew. Welfare promotes initiative, initiative promotes growth, and “where there is no hope, be sure there will be no thrift.”

Welfare, what is more, had an imperial dimension. The Boer War had been won with a volunteer army, and the nation had been shocked to hear of the high incidence of ill health among recruits. An empire needs troops. There was nothing socialist about state welfare, and socialists were right to fear the specter of a national health service. They continued to fear it, and when years later the Beveridge report appeared, in December 1942, it proved a bestseller but was roundly condemned in a letter by Beatrice Webb, an old Fabian, as a disastrous idea—though fortunately, as she added, very unlikely to be acted on. In the event, Labour was the last of the three British parties to accept a National Health Service, and William Beveridge, whom I knew as a neighbor in his last years, was endlessly bitter about the derision that Labour leaders had once heaped on his ideas.

The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. Nobody doubts that California is capitalistic, and its public debt is notorious; the People’s Republic of China, by contrast, is a major creditor in international finance. When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast. Talk of socialized medicine was always misleading if socialized implies socialist, and the very word probably guarantees that confusion. The British National Health Service of 1948, like the Canadian version that followed it 20 years later, always allowed for a flourishing private sector—a sector that has tended to grow with the years. It neither banned private medical care nor discouraged it. Only a competitive economy, what is more, is likely to generate a tax base big enough to maintain public hospitals, pensions, and schools. In short, a free economy needs state welfare, and state welfare needs a free economy.

 

[SSDD]

If a history leans left or right up or down it is NOT a history, it is a political diatribe.

REAL history does not judge, it informs.

Absolutely, absolutely - and well said.

Informative history tells us that hitler said:

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state... Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people."

Revisionist history tells us that hitler didn't really mean that he was a socialist or had socialist goals or instituted socialist programs. Revisionist history rejects what hitler said and what hitler did and instead tries to make him something other than what he acknowledged that he was.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I posted a dozen quotes from Hitler in the OP about socialism, which you have now systematically ignored for a week.

I'll also add this quote from the historian Bullock:

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism."

I also explained to you in some detail exactly why the word 'socialism' was used. I can explain it again if you like. Constantly posting the same quote again and again and again, whilst refusing to read or listen to explanations is simply infantile.

btw. You are the person on this thread rejecting history - that makes you the 'revisionist'. Please try and post with a little honesty.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I'll try and explain this to you again - PLEASE try to make some effort to understand it this time.

The German Nazi Führer Adolf Hitler had objected to the party's previous leader's decision to use the word "Socialist" in its name, as Hitler at the time preferred to use "Social Revolutionary". Upon taking over the leadership, Hitler kept the term but defined socialism as being based upon a commitment of an individual to a community. Hitler did not want the ideology's socialism to be conflated with Marxian socialism.

Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hitler, still a State > People Leftist

 

[editec]

If a history leans left or right up or down it is NOT a history, it is a political diatribe.

REAL history does not judge, it informs.

Absolutely, absolutely - and well said.

Informative history tells us that hitler said:

"Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things, it orders solely the relationship of man to the state... Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people."

Revisionist history tells us that hitler didn't really mean that he was a socialist or had socialist goals or instituted socialist programs. Revisionist history rejects what hitler said and what hitler did and instead tries to make him something other than what he acknowledged that he was.

Hitler4ian Germany had EVERY ASPECT OF A SOCIALIST DICTAORSHIP except for the MOST CRITICAL part of what it takes to TRULY be socialism.

Do you know what that one lack was, Lad?

Ownership of the means of production.

Hitler's Germany did not take possession (nationalize is the PoliSci word) of the nations productive industries.

So yes, it was a kind of socialism, EXCEPT for the ONE thing that makes any government socialist...PROPERTY RIGHTS.

There, kiddo, your political science lesson of the day.

No need to thank me, it was my pleasure to help you learn something important.

 

[eflatminor]

I had never heard anyone suggest Hitler was anything but right wing.

Either way, recently I've noticed two posters recently insist Hitler was left wing....and even liberal.

Doesn't really matter if you label him right or left, what we KNOW is that he was a central planner and like all such animals, his assurance that he knew what was best for everyone was proven wrong.

But I'm just sure your guy knows best...

 

[editec]

Agitr -

Stalin may not have murdered everyone in the Ukraine, but he did his best it remains. The famine remains one of the most shockinf and callous acts of the 20th century.

.

I'm just noting that it was typical of the poor administration that has always gone with large-scale collectivist undertakings. The object of his plan wasn't ethnic cleansing.

Well, I know manu Ukrainians think differently. I couldn't say if the famin was more the result of hapless mismanagement or malice, but I suspect both were involved!

EVerything I ever read leads me to think Stalin hated Ukranians.

He said they were ALL Kulacks.

He shipped about 20,000,000 Ukranians to Siberia, didn't he?

The man was truly one of the most evil people of the 20th century.

I think he was a high level fuctioning parnoid schizphrenic.

 

[bripat9643]

If a history leans left or right up or down it is NOT a history, it is a political diatribe.

REAL history does not judge, it informs.

True, which means most of the "history" written since the New Deal is in reality propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

That's because authoritarianism is not intrinsically linked with communism.

Really? Which great socialist leader didn't institute an authoritarian government?

Olof Palme in Sweden, Gro Haarlem Brundtland in Norway or Nelson Mandela in South Africa spring to mind. I would also think Ortega might qualify, and perhaps Allende?

ROFL! If they didn't institute socialism, it was only because they weren't able to. Sweden is a welfare state, as is Norway. They aren't any more "socialist" than the United States. South Africa is quickly moving in the direction of the socialist command economy, which means it's swirling down the sewer, and the Sandinistas certainly did implement socialism in Nicaragua. You're delusional if you think the state Allende was imposing on Chile wasn't authoritarian. What could be more authoritarian than expropriating people's property?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Marxism is not left wing, it just look left wing if you refuse to accept that the political spectrum is not two dimensional.

I can't for the life of me imagine how anycone can be so baffled by political terminology that they place one of the grandfathers of left-wing thinking on the right!

I can only suggest you do some research with sources you trust. All and any source will explain how and why Marxism is left wing.

Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess the phrase "not two dimensional" overloaded your intellectual capacity, my apologies.

To be clear, Marxism is not left, nor is it right, wing. You are just confused by the simplistic graphing of political ideology on linear graphs. The planar graphs are slightly better, but even they are deceptive. There are multiple axis that must be considered when mapping ideology, freedom v tyranny, religion v atheism, communism v capitalism, and democracy v socialism are the more common ones. Right v Left is the most simplistic, and least accurate, way to describe them because no political ideology is 100% left v right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hitler4ian Germany had EVERY ASPECT OF A SOCIALIST DICTAORSHIP except for the MOST CRITICAL part of what it takes to TRULY be socialism.

Do you know what that one lack was, Lad?

Ownership of the means of production.

Hitler's Germany did not take possession (nationalize is the PoliSci word) of the nations productive industries.

So yes, it was a kind of socialism, EXCEPT for the ONE thing that makes any government socialist...PROPERTY RIGHTS.

There, kiddo, your political science lesson of the day.

No need to thank me, it was my pleasure to help you learn something important.

You are incredibly ignorant.

That your ignorance is agenda driven, is no excuse.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

2nd Amendment -

Any model that has Lenin equal and opposite to Nixon is unlikely to be of much value here, particularly as it is so American in nature, when we are discussing leaders who Re not American.

The political horseshoe has been in use for generations - and with some reason.

That is actually the most accurate two dimensional representation I have ever seen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It would be wiser to consult this:

Rothbard was right-wing? I'm sure he would be pissed off to see that.

Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

Only if he saw that graph as left v right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

2nd Amendment -

Any model that has Lenin equal and opposite to Nixon is unlikely to be of much value here, particularly as it is so American in nature, when we are discussing leaders who Re not American.

The political horseshoe has been in use for generations - and with some reason.

Instead of left/right let's consider personality traits.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Describe what tenets, traditions, documents and orthodoxy a conservative in Russia would adhere to and want to 'conserve'...free market capitalism? The US Constitution??

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.
Combat Liberalism

Tell me something, does your statement that all authoritarians are conservative mean that you think Bloomberg is conservative, or does it mean that you do not consider him authoritarian? What about Castro, Chavez, and Stalin? Are they really conservatives in disguise, or are they not realy authoritarians?

Alternatively, you could just admit you were talking out of your ass.

 

[francoHFW]

The rest of the world knows what socialism is (democratic, justice for the nonrich, capitalist with some nationalized industry of necessity, or VERY well regulated) and that Hitler was the opposite. The ignorance and loudmouth arrogance of the dupes is scary and a laughingstock. Quiet, don't rile the violent Ugly American MORONS.