How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Saigon]

Buckeye -

Stalin also wore a military uniform, as did a number of other keft-wing dictators.

There is some info on Antonescu's economic policies online if you are interested. It is largely what we would expect of a fascist leader, but with a few twists.

 

[yidnar]

didn't the state have control over businesses in Nazi Germany ??

 

[Saigon]

1. We want Hitler to be a right-winger
2. Hitler is a right-winger

Nothing could be less relevant to history than what anyone wants.

BriPat -

Do you accept that the following leaders were right wing:

1) Antonescu

2) Pinochet

3) Argentina's Dirty Generals

4) Franco

Nope. Pinochet is the only one I know of that actually believed in the free market. He had to fight a civil war against communist traitors, and some of them got killed. But he won and Chile thrived as a result. That's why the commies hate him so profoundly.

Ok, so we agree Pinochet was a right-wing dictator - on what basis were the others NOT right wing?

Also, can you explain what you see as the specific policy differences you see between Hitler and Pinochet?

 

[Saigon]

didn't the state have control over businesses in Nazi Germany ??

To some extent yes, but that the state did not own the businesses - investors did. The state did deals with private businesses, buying their products and driving up dividends and share prices. In return businesses produced what the state needed.

It's an extreme form of capitalism, but it is undeniably capitalism.

 

[editec]

Why does it matter what hitler was?

To stop it happening again. Forewarned is forearmed....

You cannot stop HITLERIANISM simply by tagging it with a word.

You can only truly know a tree by the fruit it bears, not by the name it is has been given.

We can call Hitler a muffin but that does not make him a delightful breakfast treat.

Hitlerianism was what it was...no single word can truly capture the event.

So too it is with every nation and societal event in history.

Each is unique, athough they might share similar characteristics.

But the words right or left, cannot truly describe them EXCEPT by comparison to some other nation or national event.

Right, as is so often used by we Americans today, basically has no universally recognized meaning.

Neither does the term "left"

Until we can agree what those terms means specifically, using them to describe reality is largely a semantics debate leading us to no truth.

 

[P@triot]

The complete opposite of "right wing" which is anarchy.

Is the Tea Party right wing?

Does the Tea Party support anarchy?

You clearly don't comprehend the scale (shocking). The Tea Party (by American standards) are neither right-wing or left-wing. They are Constitutional supporters! IE "ground zero". They support adhering to the LAW! Nothing more, nothing less.

Furthermore, just because anyone or any group is left-wing doesn't make them communists or Nazi's. That is the far left, radical fringe. The same is true with the right - anarchists are the furthest right, radical fringe.

The fact that you're now trying to pretend that anyone on one side of the scale is automatically the radical fringe of that side shows just how thoroughly defeated you have been in this argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Buckeye -

Stalin also wore a military uniform, as did a number of other keft-wing dictators.

There is some info on Antonescu's economic policies online if you are interested. It is largely what we would expect of a fascist leader, but with a few twists.

I haven't seen anything about his economic policies. Of course, I don't define "capital" to mean "money and business and stuff."

 

[bripat9643]

didn't the state have control over businesses in Nazi Germany ??

To some extent yes, but that the state did not own the businesses - investors did. The state did deals with private businesses, buying their products and driving up dividends and share prices. In return businesses produced what the state needed.

It's an extreme form of capitalism, but it is undeniably capitalism.

There was no true ownership in Nazi Germany. The so-called "owners" had a scrap of paper that gave them no control whatsoever. The government decided what the company produced, what price it charged, what inputs it used, who it hired, how much it paid, etc., etc., etc.. The Nazi government made all the decisions that an "owner" would normally make in a true market economy. The government always placed a stooge in the company to ensure that it did what the government wanted. Nazi Germany also had 4-year plans that were identical to the 5-year-plans conceived of by Stalin.

 

[P@triot]

The other thing that comes to mind: The KKK, being an übernationalist, racist, communist-hating bunch

Really? No shit? And here I thought the KKK went around hanging "*******". I had no idea they were hanging communists (who all just happened to be black, I guess?!?).

Game. Set. Match. Stupid....

 

[P@triot]

Uh... we don't have Congressional elections in odd numbered years, so no this wasn't an election year ploy

Soooo in your mind Congressmen and Senators don't have to worry about what they say and do until an election year? Wow... just....wow

 

[Jroc]

didn't the state have control over businesses in Nazi Germany ??

To some extent yes, but that the state did not own the businesses - investors did. The state did deals with private businesses, buying their products and driving up dividends and share prices. In return businesses produced what the state needed.

It's an extreme form of capitalism, but it is undeniably capitalism.

You're delusional..it's a form of socialism

National Socialist Germany



Walter Eucken was a professor of economics at the University of Freiburg, Germany and an architect of the economic reforms that led to the Economic Miracle. In this article Eucken wanted to explain the problems and weaknesses of centrally administered economies such as that of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany and the Soviet Union.

The Nazi economic system developed unintentionally. The initial objective in 1932-33 of its economic policy was just to reduce the high unemployment associated with the Great Depression. This involved public works, expansion of credit, easy monetary policy and manipulation of exchange rates. Generally Centrally Administered Economies (CAE's) have little trouble eliminating unemployment because they can create large public works projects and people are put to work regardless of whether or not their productivity exceeds their wage cost. Nazi Germany was successful in solving the unemployment problem, but after a few years the expansion of the money supply was threatening to create inflation.

The Nazi Government reacted to the threat of inflation by declaring a general price freeze in 1936. From that action the Nazi Government was driven to expand the role of the government in directing the economy and reducing the role played by market forces. Although private property was not nationalized, its use was more and more determined by the government rather than the owners.

Eucken uses the case of the leather industry. An individual leather factory produces at the direction of the Leather Control Office. This Control Office arranged for the factory to get the hides and other supplies it needed to produce leather. The output of leather was disposed of according to the dictates of the Leather Control Office. The Control Offices set their directives through a process involving four stages


1. The collection of statistical information by a Statistical Section. The Statistical Section tried to assemble all the important data on past production, equipment, storage facilities and raw material requirements.
•2. The planning of production taking into account the requirements of leather by other industries in their plans; e.g. the needs of the Shoe Control Office for supplies of leather. The available supply of hides limited the production of leather. There had to be a balancing of supply and demand. The result of the planning of all the control offices was a Balance Sheet. There was some effort at creating some system for solving the planning, such as production being limited by the narrowest bottleneck, but in practice the planning ended up being simply scaling up past production and planning figures.
•3. The issuing of production orders to the individual factories.
•4. Checking up on compliance with the planning orders.

THE ECONOMIC HISTORY OF GERMANY

"Capitalism" is conventionally defined along economic terms such as the following:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Source: Dictionary.com

This is an example of a definition by non-essentials. An essential definition of capitalism is a political definition:
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.
Source: Capitalism.org


In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights. The only way to have an economic system fitting the first definition is to have a political system fitting the second definition. The first is an implication of the second. Because the second, political, definition is fundamental and the cause of the first, it is the more useful definition and is preferable.

Definition of Capitalism

 

[P@triot]

But two points come to mind here.

You just barked in an earlier post that the KKK membership was part of "racists" electing Byrd. Now how would that work, with him having left the Klan fifty years before this interview?

The other thing that comes to mind: The KKK, being an übernationalist, racist, communist-hating bunch, is a far right fringe group. The same elements that make Hitler a far right fringe lunatic. I thought you wanted Byrd as a "liberal", and yet there he is in a far-right fringe group.

Which way you wanna go here?

Actually, two better points come to mind here:

1.) Was Senator Byrd a Dumbocrat (Yes)

2.) Was Senator Byrd a proud member of the KKK? (Yes)

So let me get this straight - in your mind, the KKK is (and I quote) "a far right fringe group" which hard core left-wing Democrat Byrd joined?!? What's next, are you going to claim that Obama is a member of the Tea Party?

Which way do you wanna go here?

 

[P@triot]

Why does it matter what hitler was?

To stop it happening again. Forewarned is forearmed....

For once you are dead-on! Very well said and 100% accurate.

 

[P@triot]

Well DUH!!! By 1993, getting elected as a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan was just a little tricky! Cable news, cell phones, and even internet (dial-up style of course) was in full swing by 1993. And from a cultural perspective, racism was frowned upon by that time.

He wasn't denouncing his hatred, he was trying to win re-election. What next - you believe that Bill Clinton "did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

Pogo has managed to derail this thread from the subject of whether Nazis were leftists to whether Republicans are racists. It's just another sleazy left-wing propaganda technique.

Uh-- that was Rot Whiner, post 1227. I've been constantly noting that this is all off topic.

Don't take my word for it-- have a look.

Again I agree it is a derailment. One wonders why Rott needs to derail it so badly. Probably because he's going down in flames.

Hey stupid - that was in RESPONSE to the pictures posted by G5000 of racists while claiming they were "right-wing" (and that is very clear since my post is a response which includes G-strings comments and pictures). So, as usual, it was you libtards derailing the thread after facts started kicking your ass.

You're so stupid, you actually add a link as evidence which actually absolves me of what you wrongfully accused me of!!!

 

[editec]

didn't the state have control over businesses in Nazi Germany ??

To some extent yes, but that the state did not own the businesses - investors did. The state did deals with private businesses, buying their products and driving up dividends and share prices. In return businesses produced what the state needed.

It's an extreme form of capitalism, but it is undeniably capitalism.

There was no true ownership in Nazi Germany. The so-called "owners" had a scrap of paper that gave them no control whatsoever. The government decided what the company produced, what price it charged, what inputs it used, who it hired, how much it paid, etc., etc., etc.. The Nazi government made all the decisions that an "owner" would normally make in a true market economy. The government always placed a stooge in the company to ensure that it did what the government wanted. Nazi Germany also had 4-year plans that were identical to the 5-year-plans conceived of by Stalin.

That IS a partially valid complaint, I think, BriPat.

Take KRUPT industries as one good example to partially confirm what you are saying.

Krupt started out owned by the Krupt family, it was still owed AND OPERATED by the Krupt family during the war, and AFTER the war the Krupt family continued to own it.

But had the Krupt family REFUSED to use slave labor to produce the munitions the Fascists demanded?

I have no doubt they'd have ended up in the ovens right along side the socialists, communists, anarchists, Jews, Romas, protesting christians etc.

Totalitarianism is neither OR BOTH a LEFTIST OR RIGHTEST approach to governing.

But as to socialism?

That DEMANDS that the means of production are nationalized and the profits from those industies do NOT accrue to private owners.

Ergo, I can only conclude that HITLERIAN Gemany was not socialist.

But given how frequently the Germans fascists STOLE PROPERTY from their enemies?

NEITHER was Hitlerian GERMANY a truly capitalist society.

It WAS a totalitarian society with aspects of a welfare state, and aspects of a kleptocracy and aspects of a capitalist society, too.

 

[Saigon]

didn't the state have control over businesses in Nazi Germany ??

To some extent yes, but that the state did not own the businesses - investors did. The state did deals with private businesses, buying their products and driving up dividends and share prices. In return businesses produced what the state needed.

It's an extreme form of capitalism, but it is undeniably capitalism.

There was no true ownership in Nazi Germany. The so-called "owners" had a scrap of paper that gave them no control whatsoever. The government decided what the company produced, what price it charged, what inputs it used, who it hired, how much it paid, etc., etc., etc.. The Nazi government made all the decisions that an "owner" would normally make in a true market economy. The government always placed a stooge in the company to ensure that it did what the government wanted. Nazi Germany also had 4-year plans that were identical to the 5-year-plans conceived of by Stalin.

With very large corporations, you are quite correct.

It is a very extreme and twisted take on capitalism, but it is a system in which capital flowed from factories and offices to the owners and shareholders, in which goods were bought, sold and paid for - and that is capitalism. In both the US and Finland the state buys products and services from private companies - so that in itself is not unusual. What is unusual is the sense of duress under which corporations were placed, of course.

This is obviously quite the opposite of the Soviet system, in which goods were produced by the state and for the state, with no flow of capital, no shareholders, no board members and no private ownership at all.

The other key factor is that small and medium enterprises in Germany ran as any small and medium businesses do anywhere in a capitalist society. Shops, small factories and offices offering everything from insurance to photography operated as privately owned businesses without undue government intereference beyond the collection of taxes etc.

Keep in mind - German companies were NOT the only ones to trade with Nazi Germany - Coca Cola, Kodak, Hugo Boss, IBM, Chase Bank and Ford are all alleged to have done business with the Nazis. Most left-wing dictatorships have eschewed trade with evil capitalists!

btw. Don't forget to respond to #1269 - it is crucial here.

 

[Saigon]

. The Tea Party (by American standards) are neither right-wing or left-wing.

And you wonder why people think you are a left-wing troll?

The Tea Party is very obviously a right wing movement - by any standard or defintion. It is not ultra-extremist nor fascist, but it is unquestionably right wing. You might have noticed BriPat insisted they were right wing immediately before you claimed they were not, troll.

 

[Pogo]

The other thing that comes to mind: The KKK, being an übernationalist, racist, communist-hating bunch, is a far right fringe group. The same elements that make Hitler a far right fringe lunatic. I thought you wanted Byrd as a "liberal", and yet there he is in a far-right fringe group.

Which way you wanna go here?

Really? No shit? And here I thought the KKK went around hanging "*******". I had no idea they were hanging communists (who all just happened to be black, I guess?!?).

Game. Set. Match. Stupid....

Indeed. So now that you've admitted you "have no idea" what you're talking about, you'll be leaving this thread to the grownups.

About time.

 

[mamooth]

Apparently, we've all just imagined seeing the sea of Tea Party signs about god, guns, abortion, muslim-hating and all the other standard far-right dogma.

Nothing extreme-right about them at all. Despite the signs and the rants, they really just hate taxes, which explains why they sputter their rage at President Obama for cutting their taxes.

 

[Saigon]

Jroc -

NO truly socialist society allows either private ownership of businesses, private investment in businesses, a share market nor entrepreneurialism.

Nazi Germany - like the other four or five examples if right wing dictatorship mentioned - all did allow it, but with an obvious layer of threat if businesses did not trade as the state demanded.

Hitler said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative."

As mentioned above in #1283, right-wing dictatorships often trade with western countries too, whereas most left-wing dictatorships have avoided such trade.

It is important to note that fascism is far more extreme than conservatism, so bears little resemblance to it, just as communism bears little resemblance to the policies of Social Democrats. That a totalitarian government would use elements of force to compel private businesses to operate as the state wished strikes me as being quite typical of right-wing extremism. Pinochet, Sese and Daniel arap Moi all used elements of force against private companies.