Were the Nazis Right or Left Wing?

TurtleDude said:

if right wing is a trend to less government than he is correct

Click to expand...

Right wing isn't necessarily a trend to less government, though.

Tucker Case said:

Right wing isn't necessarily a trend to less government, though.

Click to expand...

Again... the flaws in the traditional "left/right line" of political philosophy are strongly on display in this debate.

The American right/left political spectrum cannot properly classify Nazis. They were nationalist socialists.

Goshin said:

Again... the flaws in the traditional "left/right line" of political philosophy is strongly on display in this debate.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

It's use stems from the French revolution, and made sense pretty much only in reference to the positions held during that time in that locale.

Goshin said:

Again... the flaws in the traditional "left/right line" of political philosophy is strongly on display in this debate.

Click to expand...

the left/right spectrum varies according to time, place, and historical background of the place/time in question. It's practically worthless unless all people involved in the debate are operating under the same understanding of context -- a rare thing in political debates i'd say. More often than not, I see the left/right paradigm used by one faction to smear the other side, nearly always making comparisons out of context and hoping their audience will just accept the criticism without a second look.

Tucker Case said:

Absolutely.

It's use stems from the French revolution, and made sense pretty much only in reference to the positions held during that time in that locale.

Click to expand...

Very true. If they needed any clarification of who was left or right, they only had to look where they were seated.

digsbe said:

The American right/left political spectrum cannot properly classify Nazis.

Click to expand...

That spectrum cannot properly classify anything.

other said:

Very true. If they needed any clarification of who was left or right, they only had to look where they were seated.

Click to expand...

Yep. Back then only the blind people were confused, but then they just had to ask somebody who was near them to tell them who was sitting where.

It matters not to me what party anyone belongs. But I do become scared of those who put "very" anything infront of their political slant. Those who think that only they hold all of the truths are dangerous and for the most part, ignorant people. If there was one thing to learn from Nazism, it is that political extremism is a very dangerous thing and can never lead to good.

niftydrifty said:

That spectrum cannot properly classify anything.

Click to expand...

Sure it can...

Obama|----Communists------Republicans---|Center|------REAL AMERICANS-----|THE FOUNDERS (ie: Jesus, some other guys)

Not listed on this spectrum: the government and people of every other developed nation for the past hundred years.

other said:

Socialism comes in many variants, why is it dishonest to call their policies what they were?

Click to expand...

I disagree. Socialism has a very specific meaning and any government intervention into the economy is it as it depends entirely on intent.

other said:

Socialism is only a means to an end, and has been used to suit many philosophical principles.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this too. I see socialism as an end to itself. Also, there are degrees, one can be very socialist and approaching communist or one could be mostly capitalist and only with to use this type of intervention in limited circumstances.

other said:

Like any means, socialism can be used for purposes that are good and honest or dishonest and evil. No one ever said they were strict socialists out to create a worker's paradise--most states that implement socialist policies don't go that far either.

Do you honestly believe they valued free-enterprise over a state-controlled economy?

Click to expand...

This is the problem. You automatically think of state intervention as socialist when that is only one of the possible types of state intervention. The spectrum is not either or, nor is it necessarily two dimensional.

Their primary threat was from the Communists, just the opposite as ours is.
Extremism is the danger, knowledge is the answer.

other said:

They did employ socialist policies, subordinating manufacturing and other industries to state control in order to ensure that competing elements did not lead to internal divisions in society and to create strength through national solidarity and central planning. Unlike other socialists, however, they made no illusion that such policy was intended to promote the people's interest (other than the line that the state's well-being was the people's well-being). They made no distinction between the state's interest and the people's well-being--to the degree that individuals or even corporate entities (such as unions) were incidental and disposable if they were at odds with the state.

Click to expand...

Disagree...
If the people were really an intregal part of the state - then true.
But they were not. The state was an evil NAZI controlled entity...
So no socialism nor communism( a little similar)
The people had to be obediant, a natural inclination of the Germans.

megaprogman said:

I disagree. Socialism has a very specific meaning and any government intervention into the economy is it as it depends entirely on intent.

Click to expand...

You may disagree, but there are indeed many different forms of socialism.

I disagree with this too. I see socialism as an end to itself. Also, there are degrees, one can be very socialist and approaching communist or one could be mostly capitalist and only with to use this type of intervention in limited circumstances.

Click to expand...

Of course you can, because it is a means to an end. Socialism is not an end itself, it is a means by which people seek a more egalitarian society (which is the end), ie. equal return on equal investment of labor, and so on. Socialism, because it involves control and redistribution of the means of production and the products of labor can also, however, be used for different ends-- such as the confiscation of a nation's wealth and productive capacity to fight a world war.

This is the problem. You automatically think of state intervention as socialist when that is only one of the possible types of state intervention. The spectrum is not either or, nor is it necessarily two dimensional.

Click to expand...

When did I say that socialism was the only type of intervention? There are certainly other ways a government can intervene, and the nazi's did intervene through other means as well. They used slave labor, they exploited and confiscated the resources of conquered regions, etc. They used massive keynesian spending programs as well as socialist policies and regulation internally in Germany. Fact is, they used whatever economic policy they could to gain control of whatever resources they could to advance the state.

earthworm said:

Disagree...
If the people were really an intregal part of the state - then true.
But they were not. The state was an evil NAZI controlled entity...
So no socialism nor communism( a little similar)
The people had to be obediant, a natural inclination of the Germans.

Click to expand...

I'm not understanding what you're saying here, at least not with regard to what I was saying in the previous post. Nice stereotype there though. Fact is, even though you say that obedience is a "natural inclination" of the Germans, Hitler disliked communism in large part because he feared communist-style internal revolutions.

other said:

You may disagree, but there are indeed many different forms of socialism.

Click to expand...

Can you document this? As far as I can tell, it is basically government intervention into the economy to achieve certain social goals with both the goals and intervention being aspects of the ideology itself.

other said:

Of course you can, because it is a means to an end. Socialism is not an end itself, it is a means by which people seek a more egalitarian society (which is the end), ie. equal return on equal investment of labor, and so on. Socialism, because it involves control and redistribution of the means of production and the products of labor can also, however, be used for different ends-- such as the confiscation of a nation's wealth and productive capacity to fight a world war.

Click to expand...

A more egalitarian society is an aspect of socialism, not its end goal separated from the process.

other said:

When did I say that socialism was the only type of intervention? There are certainly other ways a government can intervene, and the nazi's did intervene through other means as well. They used slave labor, they exploited and confiscated the resources of conquered regions, etc. They used massive keynesian spending programs as well as socialist policies and regulation internally in Germany. Fact is, they used whatever economic policy they could to gain control of whatever resources they could to advance the state.

Click to expand...

You are implying it by naming intervention as socialist and opposing it to capitalism as if was necessarily one or the other. However, the latter half of your statement is somewhat correct. In fact, fascists are willing to use what they can to advance their productive goals, which is fundamentally opposed to socialism which has a moral aspect to it (the egalitarianism you mentioned). Without that morality, you cannot call them socialist and be accurate. And even if you want to argue it, because they used whatever they could, economic intervention, capitalism (they did promote corportations did they not), slave labor whatever, you can attach any phrase to them and be just as accurate, rendering the distinction meaningless.

megaprogman said:

Can you document this? As far as I can tell, it is basically government intervention into the economy to achieve certain social goals with both the goals and intervention being aspects of the ideology itself.

Click to expand...

You know economists, with each dissertation a new variant is detailed. State-socialism, syndicalism (unions), so-called libertarian marxism, etcetc.

A more egalitarian society is an aspect of socialism, not its end goal separated from the process.

Click to expand...

Not in the real world it isn't. But that is what it seeks to achieve--the maintenance of an equitqble economic system in which people are paid a sum equal to the value of their labor investment. If you disagree, then what exactly do you think socialism hopes to achieve?

You are implying it by naming intervention as socialist and opposing it to capitalism as if was necessarily one or the other.

Click to expand...

You got the wrong implication, my fault. I really just wanted to know if you thought they valued free-enterprise over state intervention-- I didn't mention socialism in the question. They used many types of intervention, some of which I mentioned above, including socialist policies.

However, the latter half of your statement is somewhat correct. In fact, fascists are willing to use what they can to advance their productive goals, which is fundamentally opposed to socialism which has a moral aspect to it (the egalitarianism you mentioned).

Click to expand...

So, you don't think it's impossible for a government to use socialist policies to enrich an elite minority at the expense of a destitute population? Look at Zimbabwe.

Without that morality, you cannot call them socialist and be accurate. And even if you want to argue it, because they used whatever they could, economic intervention, capitalism (they did promote corportations did they not), slave labor whatever, you can attach any phrase to them and be just as accurate, rendering the distinction meaningless.

Click to expand...

1) Socialist policies can be implemented without the fulfillment of the "moral obligation" to reimburse the people for their labor equitably. First and foremost because large scale socialism never does so, and as I mentioned before, the nazi's did attach moral qualification to the people's well-being but they did so via the well-being of the state. The difference is simply one of method of redistribution, in effect. That doesn't alter the substance, or necessarily the intent, of the policies--and certainly not the application.

2) If you are defining capitalism as the promotion of corporations by the nazi government, then your idea of capitalism has very little to do with "free-enterprise."

3) So you are saying the distinction is meaningless because they used certain other means as well? No, I don't think its meaningless. As has been mentioned earlier, the party grew out of a socialist workers party that became ultra-nationalized and later turned to barbaric practices such as slavery in addition to their other means. Regardless, not like I have a personal stake in the matter anyway, it is historical fact that they implemented socialist policies, disagree if you like, or look it up.

I could not give an answer from this poll because it is not about what is predominant. People who identify the Nazis with the right prove their own ignorance of National Socialism just like when people suggest the Nazis were not hostile to Christianity. The fact is the structure of the state as envisioned by Nazism was without question of a left-wing orientation and its origins are in left-wing ideology. The main difference is that, like other brands of Fascism, it rejected the internationalist aspiration of other left-wing ideologies and pursued a strictly nationalist end. When you look at Nazi economic policy and Nazi economic theory you begin to see that it was clearly not oriented towards the ideas of the right. Nazi economic policy and theory was comparable to Lenin's New Economic Policy. What changed is again, the introduction of strong nationalism into the ideology. So Nazism would be best described as a form of left-wing nationalism.

other said:

You know economists, with each dissertation a new variant is detailed. State-socialism, syndicalism (unions), so-called libertarian marxism, etcetc.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

other said:

Not in the real world it isn't. But that is what it seeks to achieve--the maintenance of an equitqble economic system in which people are paid a sum equal to the value of their labor investment.

Click to expand...

In the real world, people have morals and ideals. So yes, even in the real world.

other said:

You got the wrong implication, my fault. I really just wanted to know if you thought they valued free-enterprise over state intervention-- I didn't mention socialism in the question. They used many types of intervention, some of which I mentioned above, including socialist policies.

Click to expand...

Ok. I misunderstood.

other said:

So, you don't think it's possible for a government to use socialist policies to enrich an elite minority at the expense of a destitute population? Look at Zimbabwe.

Click to expand...

I think its possible to use socialist policies, but that doesn't necessarily make someone socialist. It is more than just an economic philosophy, it is a political one which contains morality and world views.

other said:

1) Socialist policies can be implemented without the fulfillment of the "moral obligation" to reimburse the people for their labor equitably. First and foremost because large scale socialism never does so, and as I mentioned before, the nazi's did attach moral welfare to the people's well-being but they did so via the sell-being of the state. The difference is simply one of method of redistribution, in effect. That doesn't alter the substance of the policies.

Click to expand...

The Nazis did not seek equitability. They were very much inclined to treat groups of people differently, which betrays their intentions and is therefore not socialist.

other said:

2) If you are defining capitalism as the promotion of corporations by the nazi government, then your idea of capitalism has very little to do with "free-enterprise."

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, the nazis were certainly willing to let businesses be businesses when it suited them.

other said:

3) So you are saying the distinction is meaningless because they used certain other means as well? No, I don't think its meaningless. As has been mentioned earlier, the party grew out of a socialist-style party that became ultra-nationalized and later turned to barbaric practices such as slavery. Regardless, not like I have a personal stake in the matter anyway, it is historical fact that they implemented socialist policies, disagree if you like, or look it up.

Click to expand...

I think if we are going to bring up all sorts of methods, we should either include all of those methods into a long list of prefixes or not include any. That was my point.

My complaint is twofold
1. Socialism has a moral dimension and if a society simply uses methods without including all of it, its not really the same thing. I certainly wouldn't call someone a libertarian if their goals were different from libertarians but they happen to have commonality between issues.
2. To bring up one aspect of the ideology in isolation of everything else and pretend that all that other stuff doesn't exist just to demonize another ideology is dishonest. Nazis were nazis and part of nazism is government intervention, but it does not follow that government intervention is necessarily socialism.

The Nazis were a true big-government party. Neither the American "right" nor the American "left" is a true big-government party. One believes in basically unlimited economic rights and the other believes in basically unlimited social rights. The Nazis believed in neither, or at least were highly discriminatory in who they awarded them to.

I'd say the more dangerous parts of Naziism - in other words, the racism, militarism, and zealous nationalism - are found more commonly amongst the right, however.

The ironic part is that the Nazi's rose to power with the sort of "four legs good, two legs bad" mentality that pervades this thread.

megaprogman said:

Fair enough.

In the real world, people have morals and ideals. So yes, even in the real world.

Ok. I misunderstood.

I think its possible to use socialist policies, but that doesn't necessarily make someone socialist. It is more than just an economic philosophy, it is a political one which contains morality and world views.

The Nazis did not seek equitability. They were very much inclined to treat groups of people differently, which betrays their intentions and is therefore not socialist.

Not necessarily, the nazis were certainly willing to let businesses be businesses when it suited them.

I think if we are going to bring up all sorts of methods, we should either include all of those methods into a long list of prefixes or not include any. That was my point.

Click to expand...

I understand your point of view. Please note that I wasn't trying to argue that the nazis were primarily socialist, or good socialists, or whatever. I only stated that they did implement many socialist policies, especially early on; take from that what you will.

My complaint is twofold
1. Socialism has a moral dimension and if a society simply uses methods without including all of it, its not really the same thing. I certainly wouldn't call someone a libertarian if their goals were different from libertarians but they happen to have commonality between issues.

Click to expand...

True enough. And as I said, I wouldn't really say the nazis were socialist and leave it at that, only that they did use socialism--both to win favor with the masses and to gain control over private industries. They were more than just simple, run of the mill socialists.

2. To bring up one aspect of the ideology in isolation of everything else and pretend that all that other stuff doesn't exist just to demonize another ideology is dishonest. Nazis were nazis and part of nazism is government intervention, but it does not follow that government intervention is necessarily socialism.

Click to expand...

Notice that I never pretended that the other interventions were non-existant... I even listed some of them earlier as a clarification.

I would just say, that being said, it is also folly to ignore or downplay certain aspects that did at times play a central role in their rise to power in Germany and their iron-fisted control over German industry. Not to leave out other methods as well. And their use of socialism early on, starting as early as 1920 (the "25 points"), makes it a little easier to understand the "national socialist" moniker.

None of the above -- our current definition of Right Wing doesn't fit the political spectrum model under which the Nazi's would be on the FAR RIGHT.

SirPwn4lot said:

Were the Nazi Party of Germany a right wing or left wing establishment?

I figure this is a better place to discuss than on someone else's thread like we were

Opinions?

Click to expand...

Culturally conservative, economically centrist, socially progressive.

One of the most dangerous combinations imaginable under one-party rule.

Morality Games said:

Culturally conservative, economically centrist, socially progressive.

One of the most dangerous combinations imaginable under one-party rule.

Click to expand...

So what's the best/least dangerous?

Okay, I officially no longer care whether the Nazi's were left-wing, right-wing, or in the middle of a four-dimensional Klein bottle. :coffeepap: