emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Saigon: How about this explanation
religiously Hitler was "anti-christ"
believed he was doing God's work but instead abused authority and law in the opposite spirit, by retributive justice (instead of restorative justice which is the spirit of Christ Jesus)
politically Hitler was "anti-socialist"
claiming to defend the workers and the interests of the people from oppression,
but doing so in the opposite way that violates the spirit of that movement also.
so in both cases, he claimed to be doing one thing, for which the labels apply historically,
but in spirit he defied the meaning of both, and did the opposite instead.
[this same problem still happens today, with people blamed for abusing Christianity to do conflicting things unfairly blamed on Christianity not the abuse of it. And people doing the same with politics, blaming parties by label, instead of correcting the abuses that contradict their true goals which are actually good and should be the focus of what they stand for.]
the irony I find is that for socialism or communism to be fulfilled, where all things are publicly owned collectively by the govt so there is no ownership of one class over any other, if the people ARE the government, then the people own and manage everything themselves which aligns with govt responsibility shared among the people. so if this is done right, then liberals who want inclusion and equal protection of minority interests, and conservatives who want to limit govt and localize sovereignty per state with more freedom by the people (defined as the private sector, not as the public sector through govt), would both be right.
the REAL issue is people don't want to be governed or controlled by an outside party/group.
they just have different ways of expressing the same thing, one using the public sector to represent the people and the other using hte private sector; but they both want consent of the governed and no taxation without representation. they don't want the other party in charge, so why not let people govern themselves by their own party leaders and programs.
wouldn't that solve the problems? and let them fund their own policies without interference?
religiously Hitler was "anti-christ"
believed he was doing God's work but instead abused authority and law in the opposite spirit, by retributive justice (instead of restorative justice which is the spirit of Christ Jesus)
politically Hitler was "anti-socialist"
claiming to defend the workers and the interests of the people from oppression,
but doing so in the opposite way that violates the spirit of that movement also.
so in both cases, he claimed to be doing one thing, for which the labels apply historically,
but in spirit he defied the meaning of both, and did the opposite instead.
[this same problem still happens today, with people blamed for abusing Christianity to do conflicting things unfairly blamed on Christianity not the abuse of it. And people doing the same with politics, blaming parties by label, instead of correcting the abuses that contradict their true goals which are actually good and should be the focus of what they stand for.]
Prior coming to this board, I had never heard anyone suggest Hitler was anything but right wing. This may be something to do with living in Europe where the awareness of fascism is so very high because it occured here, or maybe it's something our education system focuses on. Or maybe coincidence.
Either way, recently I've noticed two posters recently insist Hitler was left wing....and even liberal.
Here is SSDD:
Hitler's government was called right wing by communists and socialists of the time, but his governemnt was still socialist. It consisted of a large and powerful central authority which is, by definition, not a conservative, or classically lberal government
Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.
In cases like this, I am not sure facts have a great deal of impact, but maybe it is interesting to discuss some of the features of Fascism anyway.
Let's start with some quotes from Hitler:
"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."
"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."
"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."
"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."
"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."
"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."
"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."
Myth: Hitler was a leftist
the irony I find is that for socialism or communism to be fulfilled, where all things are publicly owned collectively by the govt so there is no ownership of one class over any other, if the people ARE the government, then the people own and manage everything themselves which aligns with govt responsibility shared among the people. so if this is done right, then liberals who want inclusion and equal protection of minority interests, and conservatives who want to limit govt and localize sovereignty per state with more freedom by the people (defined as the private sector, not as the public sector through govt), would both be right.
the REAL issue is people don't want to be governed or controlled by an outside party/group.
they just have different ways of expressing the same thing, one using the public sector to represent the people and the other using hte private sector; but they both want consent of the governed and no taxation without representation. they don't want the other party in charge, so why not let people govern themselves by their own party leaders and programs.
wouldn't that solve the problems? and let them fund their own policies without interference?