Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1) fascism is not right wing it is left wing (even in Europe where they always claim fascism is "right" it is actually far, far left wing...since if you look at the "right wing" in Europe, they tend to support as much if not more government control of the people...but they are distinguished by their racism and wanting the socialism for their own national group)
Jesus wept....
Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy in the immediate aftermath of World War I, combining more typically right-wing positions with elements of left-wing politics,[3] in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and traditional conservatism. Although fascism is usually placed on the far-right on the traditional left–right spectrum, a number of academics have said that the description is inadequate.
Fascism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Fascist theory is a difficult and complex issue, but no one in his right mind thinks it is left-wing. It borrows some left wing elements, but then most authoritarian regimes (Stroessner, Cristiani, Rios Montte) do, and no one is calling them left wing.
The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National “Socialism” is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to “socialism of the chair” and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.
One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. [/QUOTE]But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.
A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas.But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”
I can get past some of your obvious eXtreme Right sourcing. Its your zany (made-up) formatting that is an insult to the intelligence of everyone w/ an education above the 7th-grade-level:yawn: PoilHack sinks to a new low (every new thread she *cough* 'creates") just to score cheap political points w/ n00bs who aren't aware of here predictable, child-like M.O.
Gee.....hard for you to say that, as I document and link and source everything.
You must be a liar, huh?
and its a recipe for a snoozefest of a thread AKA tl;dr
I know right?
Other examples of Hitler's LeftismFurther, as a good socialist does, Hitler justified everything he did in the name of "the people" (Das Volk). The Nazi State was, like the Soviet State, all-powerful, and the Nazi party, in good socialist fashion, instituted pervasive supervision of German industry.
And of course Hitler and Stalin were initially allies. It was only the Nazi-Soviet pact that enabled Hitler's conquest of Western Europe. The fuel in the tanks of Hitler'sPanzernas they stormed through France was Soviet fuel.And a book that was very fashionable worldwide in the '60s was the 1958 book "The Affluent Society" by influential "liberal" Canadian economist J.K. Galbraith -- in which he fulminated about what he saw as our "Private affluence and public squalor". But Hitler preceded him. Hitler shared with the German Left of his day the slogan: "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz" (Common use before private use).
And we all know how evil Nazi eugenics were, don't we? How crazy were their efforts to build up the "master race" through selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the "Lebensborn" project? Good Leftists recoil in horror from all that of course. But who were the great supporters of eugenics in Hitler's day? In the USA, the great eugenicists of the first half of the 20th century were the "Progressives".
And who were the Progressives? Here is one summary of them:"Originally, progressive reformers sought to regulate irresponsible corporate monopoly, safeguarding consumers and labor from the excesses of the profit motive. Furthermore, they desired to correct the evils and inequities created by rapid and uncontrolled urbanization. Progressivism ..... asserted that the social order could and must be improved.....
Some historians, like Richard Hofstadter and George Mowry, have argued that the progressive movement attempted to return America to an older, more simple, agrarian lifestyle. For a few progressives, this certainly was true. But for most, a humanitarian doctrine of social progress motivated the reforming spirit"Sound familiar?The Red/Green alliance of today is obviously not new.
So Hitler's eugenics were yet another part of Hitler's LEFTISM! He got his eugenic theories from the Leftists of his day. He was simply being a good Leftist intellectual in subscribing to such theories.
In the person of Margaret Sanger and others, they were very active in the USA in first half of the 20th century, advocating (for instance) abortion. And Margaret Sanger was warmly praised by Hitler for her energetic championship of eugenics. And the American eugenicists were very racist. They shared Hitler's view that Jews were genetically inferior and opposed moves to allow into the USA Jews fleeing from Hitler (Richmond, 1998). So if Hitler's eugenics and racial theories were loathsome, it should be acknowledged that his vigorous supporters in the matter at that time were Leftists and feminists, rather than conservatives.
So what are Rightists?
The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length (See Ray, 1972b, 1973, 1974, 1979 & 1981).
Military Dictators?
In the late 20th century, it was a common rhetorical ploy of the more "revolutionary" Left in the "Western" world simply to ignore democracy as an alternative to Communism. Instead they would excuse the brutalities of Communism by pointing to the brutalities of the then numerous military dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America and pretend that such regimes were the only alternative to Communism. These regimes were led by generals who might in various ways be seen as conservative (though Peron was clearly Leftist) so do they tell us anything about conservatism?
rld is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were.Historically, most of the world has been ruled by military men and their successors (Sargon II of Assyria, Alexander of Macedon, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Frederick II of Prussia etc.) so it seems unlikely but perhaps the main point to note here is that the Hispanic dictatorships of the 20th century were very often created as a response to a perceived threat of a Communist takeover. This is particularly clear in the case of Spain, Chile and Argentina. They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active — blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the wo
They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries. They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative.
The Nazis knew what they had done was indefensible, and knowledge of same would cost them any possible leverage when they lost the war....so, they tried to wipe out the evidence of their crimes.
a. " “It seems that rumors of our activities in the east have started to reach the ears of our enemies. We’ve also got a problem with one of the sites in the Warthegau region. Complaints about contamination of some kind.”
“If I may ask the obvious question, Herr Gruppenführer, what difference does it make if rumors reach the West? Who would believe that such a thing was truly possible?”
“Rumors are one thing, Erich. Evidence is quite another.”
From the novel "A Death in Vienna," by Daniel Silva
They do that in economics tooSeriously, a novel being used as a source?
Fascism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Fascist theory is a difficult and complex issue, but no one in his right mind thinks it is left-wing. It borrows some left wing elements, but then most authoritarian regimes (Stroessner, Cristiani, Rios Montte) do, and no one is calling them left wing.
One common definition of fascism focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership.[26][27][28] According to many scholars, fascism — especially once in power — has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.[29]
nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations
a positive view of violence,
The Nazis knew what they had done was indefensible, and knowledge of same would cost them any possible leverage when they lost the war....so, they tried to wipe out the evidence of their crimes.
a. " “It seems that rumors of our activities in the east have started to reach the ears of our enemies. We’ve also got a problem with one of the sites in the Warthegau region. Complaints about contamination of some kind.”
“If I may ask the obvious question, Herr Gruppenführer, what difference does it make if rumors reach the West? Who would believe that such a thing was truly possible?”
“Rumors are one thing, Erich. Evidence is quite another.”
From the novel "A Death in Vienna," by Daniel Silva
Seriously, a novel being used as a source?
P. Chic -
I don't see what the point is in your asking questions when you must realise yourself that you couldn't possibly understand the reply.
Given I sometimes work with exactly this topic, I have actually explained on threads in the past exactly why fascism is considered to be essentially right wing, and I'd be more than happy to do so again, but only if I think it is likely to result in intelligent and reasonable discourse.
Alternatively, I'd be happy to recommend two or three of the better books on fascist theory, and you can read those. I think we both know you won't.
Well, show us a source from somewhere besides a ultra conservative blog site or net magazine such as Front Page that defines fascist theory the way you are trying to define it.Fascism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Fascist theory is a difficult and complex issue, but no one in his right mind thinks it is left-wing. It borrows some left wing elements, but then most authoritarian regimes (Stroessner, Cristiani, Rios Montte) do, and no one is calling them left wing.
You do realize why they consider fascist theory "difficult and complex?" Because they are trying to find a way to hide the fact that it is a left wing socialist system...they have to work really hard to hide this fact and if you read what you posted from wikipedia...they give superficial differences to hide the left wing socialism in order to hide the very real left wing socialism...
Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism. Emile Lorimer, in his 1939 book, What Hitler Wants, writes about Hitler during these Vienna years that Hitler already had felt great sympathy for the trade unions and antipathy toward employers. He attended sessions of the Austrian Parliament. Hitler was not, as many have portrayed him, a political neophyte in 1914.
Consider these remarks of Nazi leaders. Hitler on May 1, 1927:
"We are socialists. We are enemies of today's capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
"The worker in a capitalist state - that is his greatest misfortune - no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things. He has become a machine."
That image sounds almost identical to what Charlie Chaplin, a Marxist, was portraying in his caricature of industrial society, Modern Times. In 1930, Hitler tasked Hans Buchner to clarify what Nazi economic policies were. What did Buchner elect to call the economic policies of the Nazis? "State socialism."
As the Nazis began to become a serious political party, in the 1930s, the Nazi deputies introduced a flurry of proposals:
(1) to ban trading in stocks and bonds;
(2) to nationalize all large banks;
(3) to require registration of stock ownership with a state agency;
(4) to limit interest by law to five percent;
(5) to confiscate all profits acquired by inflation.
These measures were not hidden; they were trumpeted on the front pages of Nazi periodicals to ensure that party members knew what the Nazi Party in the Reichstag was doing. Some Nazi proposals sound eerily modern. The Nazis, for example, proposed that old age and disability benefits (Social Security) be paid out of general revenue, rather than from the contributions of the individual recipient, and that the benefits be indexed to the cost of living.
Damn, what a sick thread.
