What is it that ideas and people are 'left' or 'right' of?

[Freiheit]

Your figure is wrong the National Socialist German Workers Party should be placed very close to the International Socialists the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. National Socialism is definately not rightist (conservative) it is the epitome of a command economy, socialist/communist. You failed to show Classic Liberalism on your figure which is right of conservatism. The whole is figure nothing more than propaganda.

Appeals to national identity is a right wing concept.

/——/ And your point is???

The Nazis were first and foremost, nationalists. A right wing ideology.

Wasn't it obvious?

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

Too bad for you then Hitler was anti capitalist and admired Marx philosophy he and the upper echelon of the National Socialists German Workers Party considered themselves socialists and ran the econnomy as a socialist command economy. You may be butt hurt
to think the National Socialist German Workers Party were socialist but those are the facts. If I were a socialist I would be far more ashamed to associate myself with Stalin or Mao. Compared to the them Hitler was a piker.

 

[Freiheit]

Your figure is wrong the National Socialist German Workers Party should be placed very close to the International Socialists the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. National Socialism is definately not rightist (conservative) it is the epitome of a command economy, socialist/communist. You failed to show Classic Liberalism on your figure which is right of conservatism. The whole is figure nothing more than propaganda.

Appeals to national identity is a right wing concept.

/——/ And your point is???

The Nazis were first and foremost, nationalists. A right wing ideology.

Wasn't it obvious?

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

The Enabling Acts quelled the social unrest make no misstake about that.

 

[Tehon]

Appeals to national identity is a right wing concept.

/——/ And your point is???

The Nazis were first and foremost, nationalists. A right wing ideology.

Wasn't it obvious?

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

Too bad for you then Hitler was anti capitalist and admired Marx philosophy he and the upper echelon of the National Socialists German Workers Party considered themselves socialists and ran the econnomy as a socialist command economy. You may be butt hurt
to think the National Socialist German Workers Party were socialist but those are the facts. If I were a socialist I would be far more ashamed to associate myself with Stalin or Mao. Compared to the them Hitler was a piker.

I don't associate myself with any of them.

And Hitler did not admire Marxist philosophy. You discredit yourself. The Jews in Germany paid a terrible price for their perceived connection to Marx in the eyes of Hitler.

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear. Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago."
Adolf Hitler

 

[Freiheit]

Promoting the general welfare would require a standard.
Still, both sides support the center, the Constitution. The difference is interpretation. The problem is partly that, as I've seen, some people are immediately upset by the very use of the term 'interpretation' when associated with the Constitution.
Could we say that the 'right' is really the center and that the 'left' wants to liberalize Constitutional authority/central power? 'Right' supports central power and 'left' supports eccentric power?

The Constitution is no more the center than was the monarchy. They are the authority.
Social evolution is the center.
The left seeks it by challenging the authority.
The right suppresses it by appealing to the authority.

Classic Liberalism is far right by current left right definition and it actively limits authority.

I don't know how you define classic liberalism. The Constitution is that which limits the authority of the central government.

Classic Liberalism is nothing new I am surprised you don't have a solid grasp of its' concepts. A few of those concepts are governments function is to insure the liberty of the individual, rule of law, free markets, private property, a civil society, limited government among others. That by the way is not my definition it is part of the widely accepted definition of classic liberalism.

The authority that I was specifically speaking of is the Constitution. Why did you take exception to my statement if you essentially agree with the premise? "Classic liberalism" (conservatism), limits authority by appealing to the Constitution (the authority).

That is not what i said. Classic Liberalism limits government because it is the right of the governed to demand governmemt maximize
liberty for the individual. The constitution is not an authority it is a limiting document listing what government is allowed to do. The People are the Authority, That is perhaps the most radical political theory yet espoused. Classic Liberalism is right wing only because it is the antithesis of collectivism which the left wing has defined itself as.

 

[Tehon]

Your figure is wrong the National Socialist German Workers Party should be placed very close to the International Socialists the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. National Socialism is definately not rightist (conservative) it is the epitome of a command economy, socialist/communist. You failed to show Classic Liberalism on your figure which is right of conservatism. The whole is figure nothing more than propaganda.

Appeals to national identity is a right wing concept.

/——/ And your point is???

The Nazis were first and foremost, nationalists. A right wing ideology.

Wasn't it obvious?

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

"I then came to understand, quickly and thoroughly, what I had never been aware of before. It was the following: The question of ‘nationalizing’ a people is first and foremost one of establishing healthy social conditions which will furnish the grounds that are necessary for the education of the individual. For only when family upbringing and school education have inculcated in the individual a knowledge of the cultural and economic and, above all, the political greatness of his own country - then, and then only, will it be possible for him to feel proud of being a citizen of such a country. I can fight only for something that I love. I can love only what I respect. And in order to respect a thing I must at least have some knowledge of it."
Adolf Hitler

 

[danielpalos]

the left believes in raising the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue not tax cut economics.

 

[Tehon]

The Constitution is no more the center than was the monarchy. They are the authority.
Social evolution is the center.
The left seeks it by challenging the authority.
The right suppresses it by appealing to the authority.

Classic Liberalism is far right by current left right definition and it actively limits authority.

I don't know how you define classic liberalism. The Constitution is that which limits the authority of the central government.

Classic Liberalism is nothing new I am surprised you don't have a solid grasp of its' concepts. A few of those concepts are governments function is to insure the liberty of the individual, rule of law, free markets, private property, a civil society, limited government among others. That by the way is not my definition it is part of the widely accepted definition of classic liberalism.

The authority that I was specifically speaking of is the Constitution. Why did you take exception to my statement if you essentially agree with the premise? "Classic liberalism" (conservatism), limits authority by appealing to the Constitution (the authority).

That is not what i said. Classic Liberalism limits government because it is the right of the governed to demand governmemt maximize
liberty for the individual. The constitution is not an authority it is a limiting document listing what government is allowed to do. The People are the Authority, That is perhaps the most radical political theory yet espoused. Classic Liberalism is right wing only because it is the antithesis of collectivism which the left wing has defined itself as.

You seem confused. If the people are the authority and not the Constitution, then how is it that the Constitution limits government. If the people were the authority would they not have the right to extend government to whatever purpose served their needs?

 

[Oddball]

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear. Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago."
Adolf Hitler

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism, as opposed to the brand practiced by Hitler and the National Socialists...He's separating himself from the Jewish socialists, not socialism itself.

 

[danielpalos]

Classic Liberalism is far right by current left right definition and it actively limits authority.

I don't know how you define classic liberalism. The Constitution is that which limits the authority of the central government.

Classic Liberalism is nothing new I am surprised you don't have a solid grasp of its' concepts. A few of those concepts are governments function is to insure the liberty of the individual, rule of law, free markets, private property, a civil society, limited government among others. That by the way is not my definition it is part of the widely accepted definition of classic liberalism.

The authority that I was specifically speaking of is the Constitution. Why did you take exception to my statement if you essentially agree with the premise? "Classic liberalism" (conservatism), limits authority by appealing to the Constitution (the authority).

That is not what i said. Classic Liberalism limits government because it is the right of the governed to demand governmemt maximize
liberty for the individual. The constitution is not an authority it is a limiting document listing what government is allowed to do. The People are the Authority, That is perhaps the most radical political theory yet espoused. Classic Liberalism is right wing only because it is the antithesis of collectivism which the left wing has defined itself as.

You seem confused. If the people are the authority and not the Constitution, then how is it that the Constitution limits government. If the people were the authority would they not have the right to extend government to whatever purpose served their needs?

it is what politics is for; the People delegate our representatives their social Powers of Office. we have a Constitution that defines our form of social-ism.

 

[Tehon]

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear. Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago."
Adolf Hitler

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism, as opposed to the brand practiced by Hitler and the National Socialists...He's separating himself from the Jewish socialists, not socialism itself.

View attachment 221145

I agree, but I don't recognize the "Nazi brand" of socialism as being socialism. It was antithetical to Marxist thought.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Appeals to national identity is a right wing concept.

/——/ And your point is???

The Nazis were first and foremost, nationalists. A right wing ideology.

Wasn't it obvious?

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

The Enabling Acts quelled the social unrest make no misstake about that.

/—-/ Actually the SS quelled the unrest

 

[Freiheit]

/——/ And your point is???

The Nazis were first and foremost, nationalists. A right wing ideology.

Wasn't it obvious?

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

Too bad for you then Hitler was anti capitalist and admired Marx philosophy he and the upper echelon of the National Socialists German Workers Party considered themselves socialists and ran the econnomy as a socialist command economy. You may be butt hurt
to think the National Socialist German Workers Party were socialist but those are the facts. If I were a socialist I would be far more ashamed to associate myself with Stalin or Mao. Compared to the them Hitler was a piker.

I don't associate myself with any of them.

And Hitler did not admire Marxist philosophy. You discredit yourself. The Jews in Germany paid a terrible price for their perceived connection to Marx in the eyes of Hitler.

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear. Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago."
Adolf Hitler[/QUOTe

The journals and diaries of some of Mr. Hitlers friends and associates are being analyed and we are getting a clearer picture of a very complex man. As for Mr. Hitlers view of Marx here are some quotes from conversations with his friends and associates.
"Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. "I have learned a great deal from Marxism" he once remarked, "as I do not hesitate to admit". He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch.
The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that "they had never even read Marx", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on Marx."
The Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson

The leftist establishment has tried to disassociate itself from the National Socialism of the Germans by every hook or crook it could
devise but it is failing and as more and more information is made available a clearer understanding of that dark time will be had.
I understand why you don't wish to be associated with Mr. Stalin or Mr. they were however the longest lived leaders of the longes lived socialist nations so their influence must be recognized.

 

[Tehon]

/——/ And your point is???

The Nazis were first and foremost, nationalists. A right wing ideology.

Wasn't it obvious?

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

The Enabling Acts quelled the social unrest make no misstake about that.

/—-/ Actually the SS quelled the unrest

Neither quelled the social unrest. They just helped Hitler consolidate power.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The Nazis were first and foremost, nationalists. A right wing ideology.

Wasn't it obvious?

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

The Enabling Acts quelled the social unrest make no misstake about that.

/—-/ Actually the SS quelled the unrest

Neither quelled the social unrest. They just helped Hitler consolidate power.

/——/ The dissidents were consolidated into the gas chambers.

 

[Freiheit]

/——/ And your point is???

The Nazis were first and foremost, nationalists. A right wing ideology.

Wasn't it obvious?

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

The Enabling Acts quelled the social unrest make no misstake about that.

/—-/ Actually the SS quelled the unrest

If you want to be technical the SS at that time was too small. The SA (Brown Shirts) did a good job of it though so good in fact it scared the top dogs. They killed the leadership of the SA and disbanded the rank and file.

 

[Tehon]

/——/ Since when are right wingers Socialists as in National Socialist?

Since it created the conditions for a unified and prosperous nation. It quelled social unrest.

It also wasn't socialism by any standard I recognize.

The Enabling Acts quelled the social unrest make no misstake about that.

/—-/ Actually the SS quelled the unrest

Neither quelled the social unrest. They just helped Hitler consolidate power.

/——/ The dissidents were consolidated into the gas chambers.

They were the scapegoats.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

Center is more or less the middle of the political spectrum. It's relative to the people who make up the normal left and right positions. So center in the US is more to the right in British terms whereas the center in the UK is more to the left in US terms.

 

[there4eyeM]

'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center.

Incorrect.

link?

Do you have one?

The seating arrangement was for supporters of the monarchy to sit on the right, while supporters of the revolution to sit on the left. This was effectively a division between aristocracy on the right and peasantry on the left, and was supposedly inspired by the aristocracy wanting to isolate themselves from the uncooth public behavior of the peasantry. After the French monarchy was abolished and a new legislative body was established seating arrangements often reflected similar comparisons, with those favoring a return to monarchy seated on the right most wing, while different quasi-factions were seated in the central or the left most wing areas.

Calling something incorrect and then affirming it is somewhat confusing. Is that what was intended?

 

[there4eyeM]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

Center is more or less the middle of the political spectrum. It's relative to the people who make up the normal left and right positions. So center in the US is more to the right in British terms whereas the center in the UK is more to the left in US terms.

This is equally true for most of Europe, especially France and Germany.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

Center is more or less the middle of the political spectrum. It's relative to the people who make up the normal left and right positions. So center in the US is more to the right in British terms whereas the center in the UK is more to the left in US terms.

This is equally true for most of Europe, especially France and Germany.

Well the US, with it's election system which is tilted towards the right, is the most right wing country in the first world.