How we know Hitler was right wing.

[westwall]

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. As a matter of fact he sounds a lot like an Ayn Rand social Darwinist disciple. And in Hitler's eyes, the Jews were the '47%'...


In Mein Kampf, Hitler states: "...it [Nazi philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe."

Hitler describes the struggle for world domination as an ongoing racial, cultural, and political battle between Aryans and Jews. He outlines his thoughts in detail, accusing the Jews of conducting an international conspiracy to control world finances, controlling the press, inventing liberal democracy as well as Marxism, promoting prostitution and vice, and using culture to spread disharmony.

Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to Jews as parasites, liars, dirty, crafty, sly, wily, clever, without any true culture, a sponger, a middleman, a maggot, eternal blood suckers, repulsive, unscrupulous, monsters, foreign, menace, bloodthirsty, avaricious, the destroyer of Aryan humanity, and the mortal enemy of Aryan humanity...

Sure thing Herr Gauleiter... Funny how you guys all run from the fact that there is no difference between the "leftist" Stalin and the "rightist" Hitler. The reason of course is there was NO DIFFERENCE. That means they were the same, so whether you choose to use the term leftist or rightist to define the two dictators is immaterial, they were THE SAME in every respect but name.


Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.



Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative) | DemocraticPeace Blog

Neither Hitler or Stalin were liberal. They had conservative upbringings and conservative beliefs. Both were believers in Darwinism...survival of the fittest. Just like today's Ayn Rand conservatives in America.

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

So. Define a political conservative.

 

[crussmith2]

Hitler was a Socialist? But he was also a self professed Nationalist! Had you been observing politics in the 1920's you would have noted no one could be both. Nationalists put their nations interest first - socialists wanted the workers put first.
In fact Hitler was neither Socialist nor Nationalist - he was a poser. He was exactly as ideological as Ghenghis Khan. He killed millions for his twisted, myopic revenge over his own 'Struggle' in WWI and in his subsequent rejection by Germany's elite.

 

[Rocko]

Hyperbole aside, Democrats more closely resemble Nazi's than Republicans do. That's what matters to me.

 

[westwall]

Hitler was a Socialist? But he was also a self professed Nationalist! Had you been observing politics in the 1920's you would have noted no one could be both. Nationalists put their nations interest first - socialists wanted the workers put first.
In fact Hitler was neither Socialist nor Nationalist - he was a poser. He was exactly as ideological as Ghenghis Khan. He killed millions for his twisted, myopic revenge over his own 'Struggle' in WWI and in his subsequent rejection by Germany's elite.

Socialists care about workers? Then why do the workers never seem to get ahead? If you wish to buy a home in Italy, or Germany or any of those places you have to take out a 100 year mortgage because after the government has taken all the tax money from you there is little left.

Socialist governments just drag everyone but the elite to the same low level. No middle class, just a ultra rich ruling class and the rest of the bland masses.

 

[crussmith2]

Hitler was a Socialist? But he was also a self professed Nationalist! Had you been observing politics in the 1920's you would have noted no one could be both. Nationalists put their nations interest first - socialists wanted the workers put first.
In fact Hitler was neither Socialist nor Nationalist - he was a poser. He was exactly as ideological as Ghenghis Khan. He killed millions for his twisted, myopic revenge over his own 'Struggle' in WWI and in his subsequent rejection by Germany's elite.

Socialists care about workers? Then why do the workers never seem to get ahead? If you wish to buy a home in Italy, or Germany or any of those places you have to take out a 100 year mortgage because after the government has taken all the tax money from you there is little left.

Socialist governments just drag everyone but the elite to the same low level. No middle class, just a ultra rich ruling class and the rest of the bland masses.

It's obvious you hate 'socialism' . A similar screed would be quite possible to develop against 'Nationalism'. Neither has any bearing on my claim - that Hitler was not an ideologue. In the 1920's the political spectrum had two poles - Nationalist and Socialist. People were one or the other, usually, but never both. Regardless of the fact that there is no socialist paradise anywhere and likely never will be - Hitler was no socialist. He didn't give two figs about workers - and regardless of your claims many who have labored for a Socialist program have mightily believed they were working to improve the lot of workers. Maybe they strove in vain but they truly intended some good for particular groups. Hitler never had such an ambition. Neither was he a Nationalist - those folks venerated tradition while Hitler did not. Hitler claimed to be both a Nationalist and a Socialist. If someone ever comes claiming to be a Liberal Conservative beware - that's exactly what the NAZI's got away with once. They were, in fact, neither socialists nor nationalists.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hyperbole aside, Democrats more closely resemble Nazi's than Republicans do. That's what matters to me.

Really? So those neo Nazis who set up booths at gun shows, populate the private militia in America and profess social Darwinism are Democrats...

 

[Rocko]

Hyperbole aside, Democrats more closely resemble Nazi's than Republicans do. That's what matters to me.

Really? So those neo Nazis who set up booths at gun shows, populate the private militia in America and profess social Darwinism are Democrats...

Didn't the Nazi's go after guns?

What about this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s]Obama Civilian Security - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

Hyperbole aside, Democrats more closely resemble Nazi's than Republicans do. That's what matters to me.

Really? So those neo Nazis who set up booths at gun shows, populate the private militia in America and profess social Darwinism are Democrats...

Didn't the Nazi's go after guns?

What about this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s]Obama Civilian Security - YouTube[/ame]

Oh, you're a paranoid fear infested pea brain. Why didn't you tell me in the beginning?

 

[Rocko]

Really? So those neo Nazis who set up booths at gun shows, populate the private militia in America and profess social Darwinism are Democrats...

Didn't the Nazi's go after guns?

What about this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s]Obama Civilian Security - YouTube[/ame]

Oh, you're a paranoid fear infested pea brain. Why didn't you tell me in the beginning?

That's you're opinion.

 

[crussmith2]

That's nonsense - in fact Hitler made guns easier to own. He made access to hunting rifles a right and for the millions who joined his party the right to a handgun was guaranteed
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

In the interests of good faith I will pick up a couple of your points.

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (Hitler)

Well, I think to most people the meaning of Hitler's statement is clear - he had been intent of destroying Marxism for many years.

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (Hitler)

It means that he was anti-Democracy. Hitler did away with elections, insisting that only the Nazi Party was fit to rule the country, at least until such time as Marxism had been destroyed.

This is very clear in Hitler's writing:

The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (Hitler)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man." (Hitler)

Are these the quotes you classify as enraged ranting? Do you understand the difference between contempt and rage? Let me help you by putting them in context.

Another idiot that think nationalizing resources is a right wing policy.



Before coming to this board you thought that Barney Frank was right wing.



This should be entertaining.



Feel free to point out which political leader in the US today thinks that community trumps the individual. Would that sound more like, a "center right" moderate community organizer, or a right wing radical like Rand Paul?



And?



Still not seeing it.



Does that mean he was anti-democracy or pro- communism?



I get it now, this, combined with his previous quote, proves he was pro communism.

No wonder you thought he was right wing.



Now I am confused. Given that the right wing wants to hand the world over to the Jews, and the left wing wants to end their control of the world's financial market, why on Earth would you think he is right wing?



Yep, that is conclusive, Hitler was left wing. Was that your point?

When I said "Still not seeing it I was reinforcing this point. "Feel free to point out which political leader in the US today thinks that community trumps the individual. Would that sound more like, a "center right" moderate community organizer, or a right wing radical like Rand Paul?"

Despite all your blather, I am still not seeing anything that paints Hitler as anything modern day American politics would call right wing. Unless, that is, you actually think Obama is center-right.

What was that other quote again?

Oy yes, "Does that mean he was anti-democracy or pro- communism?" I wonder why anyone with a brain would, after reading all the snarking in my post, think that was a serious question. Is it because you cannot discern the difference between contempt and anger?

I think it is obvious that Rand Paul is nothing like Hitler. Now Rick Santorum is another matter...

Obama is more similar to old-school centrists like Gerald Ford or George Romney than he is to radicals of either the left of right.

I agree about Santorum and, believe it or not, Obama.I would probably put Obama further to the left than you do, but he is more central than most give him credit for. My biggest problem with him is that, being a narcissistic, he doesn't have any principles guiding him, and tends to overreact to criticism, especially if it comes from the people he tends to admire.

The real problem is that, despite the rhetoric from the press, the base of both parties has moved since those days. I know the Democrats like to pretend that the Republicans are the big shifters, but I actually think that, socially, they have just become entrenched while the country, as a whole, moved away from them.

I actually think that is a good thing, except that I see that the left is now becoming puritanical in its own way. If the puritan elements of both wings ever figure out how much they have in common we will see a dramatic shift in power towards a more repressive society.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do understand that "every dictionary" means every single dictionary ever, don't you? Not just the easiest one to find that actually agrees with you?

No, every major dictionary either lists fascism as being right wing, or doesn't mention the words "left" or right" at all.

YOUR OWN LINK EXPLAINS:

"it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems"

I imagine they probably think anyone not involved in some mindless feud could figure out for themselves which side of the spectrum that puts Hitler on.

No dictionaries at all describe it as left wing, and actually Wiki is also fairly clear about it being right wing, here.

"fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left-right spectrum..."

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I said that all historians confirm that Hitler was right wing, I meant all major, published peer-review historians. If you have been searching, you will know as well as I do that 99% of the do confirm this.

Merriam-Webster isn't a major dictionary anymore? When did that happen?

You said every dictionary, you were wrong. You don't get to move the goal posts now.

You lose.

End of conversation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then stop thinking about modern day American politics, and focus on Hitler within the context of 1930's Europe.

When I actually focus on the politics in Europe in the second quarter of the 20th century I see a struggle between two major groups of people. There were the Fascists who fought for the elite, and the Marxists who fought for the working class. The Fascists saw the struggle as being about nationality, and the Marxist thought the struggle was about class. They were both wrong, but it never came down to left vs right, because right vs left only exist if you only think in one dimension, and politics is not even limited the four dimensions most primates can track.

Because I thought you may have been capable of adult discussion. I was wrong.

I do actually make some effort to address the points raised even by weaker posters on threads like these - I'm not greatly concerned if that bothers you.

Yet, amazingly, you are the one that is reduced to blubbering pile, while I keep making intelligent posts.

Did you ever consider the possibility that I am not the problem here?

 

[Agit8r]

Are these the quotes you classify as enraged ranting? Do you understand the difference between contempt and rage? Let me help you by putting them in context.

When I said "Still not seeing it I was reinforcing this point. "Feel free to point out which political leader in the US today thinks that community trumps the individual. Would that sound more like, a "center right" moderate community organizer, or a right wing radical like Rand Paul?"

Despite all your blather, I am still not seeing anything that paints Hitler as anything modern day American politics would call right wing. Unless, that is, you actually think Obama is center-right.

What was that other quote again?

Oy yes, "Does that mean he was anti-democracy or pro- communism?" I wonder why anyone with a brain would, after reading all the snarking in my post, think that was a serious question. Is it because you cannot discern the difference between contempt and anger?

I think it is obvious that Rand Paul is nothing like Hitler. Now Rick Santorum is another matter...

Obama is more similar to old-school centrists like Gerald Ford or George Romney than he is to radicals of either the left of right.

I agree about Santorum and, believe it or not, Obama.I would probably put Obama further to the left than you do, but he is more central than most give him credit for. My biggest problem with him is that, being a narcissistic, he doesn't have any principles guiding him, and tends to overreact to criticism, especially if it comes from the people he tends to admire.

The real problem is that, despite the rhetoric from the press, the base of both parties has moved since those days. I know the Democrats like to pretend that the Republicans are the big shifters, but I actually think that, socially, they have just become entrenched while the country, as a whole, moved away from them.

I actually think that is a good thing, except that I see that the left is now becoming puritanical in its own way. If the puritan elements of both wings ever figure out how much they have in common we will see a dramatic shift in power towards a more repressive society.

I suspect it takes a bit of an ego to aspire to be in that gilded cage for 4-8 years.

It seems to me that the party hierarchies are most concerned about economic matters, and particularly in pleasing the monied interests that fund them, while the party bases are more mobilized by social issues :[

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberalism is authoritarian by nature. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.

Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.

The liberal state will necessarily be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.

Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. (hate crime law) In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.

Liberalism, by nature, is anti authoritarian. The only thing that is authoritarian by nature is people who think that the best way to accomplish their goals is by use of force.

Perhaps the ideal is anti authoritarian. When the ideal meets human nature, however, authoritarianism is necessary because human nature simply doesn't subject itself to the will of the state. If you can't look and see how far liberalism intrudes into your life, then you need to remove your blinders.

Do you live in the US? I have lived here for my whole life which has been quite a while. I have seen liberalism at first creep into the nation and then become a tidal wave. Tell you what, prove to me that liberalism doesn't become authoritarian by naming 3 things.....just 3 things that you can do today that involve no government interference at the federal, state, or local level without getting into the most mundane aspects of your life.

When I was young, I would have had a more difficult time naming things that the government did interfere in than things that it didn't. So go ahead...prove how liberalism doesn't creep into and take over every important aspect of your life.

I consider myself a classical liberal, and argue with progressives every day. You need to educate yourself on the difference between them so that I, and others like me, don't need to waste time dealing with the drivel you post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He hated Marxism, not socialism. You keep trying to ignore that fact no matter how many times someone informs you of it.

I do ignore it, because it is has no basis in reality.

Marxism (and/or Marxism-Leninism) is not only the predominant form of socialism, but Marx was the author of what we understand Socialism to be. There would likely be no Socialism witout Marx (and Engels) and the difference between the two terms is paper thin, if there is a difference at all. Many sources use the terms interchangeably when discussing movements such as the FSLN, Russian Bolsheviks or other peasant rebellions.

You might as well claim that someone hated Maoism, but loved Chinese Communism.

I thought you said you made your living doing this. Marxism-Leninism is usually classified as communism, not socialism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a good reason to tie Hitler to Obama, Obama is a fascist.

Let's try and keep this thread on the level of common sense, shall we?

Surely there are enough threads of the "Obama is a (insert adjective at random)" threads for the children to play on already?

Wouldn't that require that the thread actually started with a level of common sense?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hitler did not ascribe to American capitalism or Russian communism/socialism. He thought U.S. and Russia both got it wrong and Fascism is it's own separate animal. Fascism is not geared towards capitalism or socialism, it's geared to the state, but without the 'sharing' or collectivism. Facism doesn't want corporations or workers to have much power, it wants corporations and workers to succeed only as it benefits the government. Fascism dictates that government controls BOTH businesses and workers to benefit the state, not that the government supports either businesses or workers.

I agree with most political scientists that it is more rightwing than leftwing, but it's a strange rightwing that borrows some of the authortarian tactics/elements from communism, which is one reason why I find it ironic that Hitler hated communism so much.

That's because authoritarianism is not intrinsically linked with communism. We see examples in the world that embody both traits and assume those states bought those two ideas as a package -- rather than two separate ideas that arrived on different trains and just happened to wind up in the same place.

Otherwise, good analysis.

Pure communism is not instrinsically linked with authortarianism, but pure communism has never existed in the real world, only in theory or on paper. You look at any communist regime in history and there is an element of authortarianism. True, if you pick Stalin he is probably the most authortarian dictator in the history of communist regimes, but he is not the only one. Mao was a authortarian dictator, no doubt about it. More recent Communist regimes are typically authortarian oligarchies that exert a great amount of control over the populace (for their own good?). If you can come up with an example of a communist regime that wasn't/isn't authortarian in nature, I'd be interested in discussing that.

I think pure communism would work on a small scale.

 

[bripat9643]

Hitler was a Socialist? But he was also a self professed Nationalist! Had you been observing politics in the 1920's you would have noted no one could be both.

Duh . . . . Wrong!

Nationalists put their nations interest first - socialists wanted the workers put first.

so putting the workers first requires you to harm your country?

In fact Hitler was neither Socialist nor Nationalist - he was a poser. He was exactly as ideological as Ghenghis Khan. He killed millions for his twisted, myopic revenge over his own 'Struggle' in WWI and in his subsequent rejection by Germany's elite.

You're a poser. What you know about politics and economics could fit in a thimble with plenty of room to spare.

 

[bripat9643]

It's obvious you hate 'socialism' . A similar screed would be quite possible to develop against 'Nationalism'. Neither has any bearing on my claim - that Hitler was not an ideologue. In the 1920's the political spectrum had two poles - Nationalist and Socialist. People were one or the other, usually, but never both. Regardless of the fact that there is no socialist paradise anywhere and likely never will be - Hitler was no socialist. He didn't give two figs about workers - and regardless of your claims many who have labored for a Socialist program have mightily believed they were working to improve the lot of workers. Maybe they strove in vain but they truly intended some good for particular groups. Hitler never had such an ambition. Neither was he a Nationalist - those folks venerated tradition while Hitler did not. Hitler claimed to be both a Nationalist and a Socialist. If someone ever comes claiming to be a Liberal Conservative beware - that's exactly what the NAZI's got away with once. They were, in fact, neither socialists nor nationalists.

That's just a huge heap of horse squeeze. You haven't got a smidgeon of evidence to back it up. The claim that Nationalism is the opposite of socialism is baseless. Why would anyone believe it, because you say so? You have engaged in the ultimate appeal to authority by posting yourself as the authority.