• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were the Nazis Right or Left Wing?

Were the Nazis...

  • Predominantly Right Wing

    Votes: 66 51.2%
  • Predominantly Left Wing

    Votes: 27 20.9%
  • Largely in the center

    Votes: 10 7.8%
  • Don't know/unsure/no opinion/none of the above

    Votes: 26 20.2%

  • Total voters
    129

SirPwn4lot

Banned
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
523
Reaction score
148
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
Last edited:
The Nazis were fascists. Fascism is an odd mix of extreme right-wing and extreme left wing ideologies. There's no denying that the Nazi Party's roots are left-wing as it emerged from the German Worker's Party. What it morphed into, however, is something altogether different. For once the Wikipedia article on it is really quite good:

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I'll repost my post from the other thread.

Someone may have already, but I doubt it had any success, so I'll do it too, lets have a political maths lesson.

Communism (a political ideology advocating a stateless, classless society in which everyone is equal and the means of production are distributed equally)=/= National Socialism (a political party in which Hitler rose to prominence, which, once Hitler controlled it, advocated a patriarchal society, rigid social classes, absolute obedience to the state, and and a government controlled economy, which was directed to xenophobic and racist ends).

No matter how you try to spin it, Communism and Nazism are completely incompatible.

That's dealing with people trying to draw equivalence between the two doctrines, now I'll extrapolate my argument.

Nazism, as the party, originated in post WW1 Germany, it was started by a fellow that believed in the purity of the German volk (or people, think Volkswagen:)), his idea of national socialism was a racially pure society, with the socialist aspect of it being "profit-sharing"(offering businesses incentives to look after their employees), thus setting it apart from the socialism of the time (which advocated government). Then everyone's favourite fuehrer came along, acting a spy for the German military (back when he was a corporal), and he, with his great oratory skills (fellatio may have been involved too:mrgreen:) slowly took over the party and became the leader (fuehrer, in that fine language) and used that party as a stepping stone to power, advocating, as mentioned above, a patriarchal society, rigid social classes, absolute obedience to the state, anti-communism, anti-liberalism, anti-socialism, anti-semitism etc. Now, if we look at liberalism back in the early 1900's, it advocated individuality, freedom, liberty etc. So to contrast the two, we have a reactionary, xenophobic, and very conservative party, vs. those qualities mentioned before.

So in conclusion, Nazism is an extreme right wing ideology. :)
 
Lets see.

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.

I don't see this as representing either the right or left in the modern US.

hey claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism. Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety. They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[17] Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[18] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality

I don't see any of this as reflecting the right or left very well.

Fascism rejects the concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favor of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will.[20

This tilts conservative

They oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements.[21] Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity. They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly governing a nation, and that a merit-based elite of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence. Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.[24]

I don't see a reflection of modern ideology there either.

Fascists tend to support a "third position" in economic policy, which they believe superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[25][26] Italian Fascism and most other fascist movements promote a corporatist economy whereby, in theory, representatives of capital and labour interest groups work together within sectoral corporations to create both harmonious labour relations and maximization of production that would serve the national interest.[27] However, other fascist movements and ideologies, such as Nazism, did not use this form of economy.


Not here either.

I guess looking at it. Fascism does have some minor things in common with how some extreme conservatives view society (but I don't think this view is representative of a majority of conservatives), but otherwise it seems pretty alien to either ideology. I don't see how anyone can call this right or left.

Also, this means the poll is inadequate since there is no option for this conclusion.
 
I don't believe in the left/right line of traditional politics. I think the 3D graph is closer, but still too simplistic.

The Nazi's were statists, of this there is no doubt. Statism is commonly associated with both the FAR left and the FAR right on the "traditional line".... another indicator of that left/right line's flaws.

They referred to themselves as "national socialists", and have also been called "fascist"... one term suggests the left, the other suggests the right.

Frankly, the Nazi's were statist thugs, expansionist imperialists, and mass-murderers, and that's good enough definition for me. I don't think trying to claim they were tied to modern liberalism or modern conservatism is productive or accurate.
 
They referred to themselves as "national socialists", and have also been called "fascist"... one term suggests the left, the other suggests the right.

I have never found the name argument to be adequate. For example The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is not exactly democratic. Evil people will always attempt to use propaganda and basically lie to get what they want.

Frankly, the Nazi's were statist thugs, expansionist imperialists, and mass-murderers, and that's good enough definition for me. I don't think trying to claim they were tied to modern liberalism or modern conservatism is productive or accurate.

Spot on.
 
The Nazis had the same political philosophy as the Safeway shooter: scumbagulism.
 
I have never found the name argument to be adequate. For example The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is not exactly democratic. Evil people will always attempt to use propaganda and basically lie to get what they want.

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.
 
Last edited:
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. 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.

I think this crucial element is where the concepts diverge. One of the major points and goals of socialism is to promote society while fascists want to promote the state instead. While there is government intervention into the economy it is not socialist.
 
Last edited:
I think this crucial element is where the concepts diverge. One of the major points and goals of socialism is to promote society while fascists want to promote the state instead. While there is government intervention into the economy it is not socialist.

Yeah, there's certainly a divergence. But remember that they had the people convinced that the well-ordered and powerful state would lead to the well-being of the German people. So you do point out a distinction, but it is a distinction that was not recognized by the nazis or the german people (well, not all of them, but you know what I mean)-- hence they called themselves national socialists.

A typical socialist wants the benefits of collective production to be equally available to all workers who invest labor. A national socialist filtered the benefit through the state under the pretext that the people would equally benefit by living in a powerful and strong German empire that was superior to all other nations.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe in the left/right line of traditional politics. I think the 3D graph is closer, but still too simplistic.

The Nazi's were statists, of this there is no doubt. Statism is commonly associated with both the FAR left and the FAR right on the "traditional line".... another indicator of that left/right line's flaws.

They referred to themselves as "national socialists", and have also been called "fascist"... one term suggests the left, the other suggests the right.

Frankly, the Nazi's were statist thugs, expansionist imperialists, and mass-murderers, and that's good enough definition for me. I don't think trying to claim they were tied to modern liberalism or modern conservatism is productive or accurate.

That about sums it up.
 
I would have to say that the Nazi's were the extreme of both parties wrapped into one. Regardless, as has been mentioned in this thread, statism/nationalism was the largest part of the Nazis machine. The people of course thrived under their rule due to the theft of property and wealth from those conquered.
 
For an extreme left wing socialist party they sure have a funny way of putting the means of production into the hands of the workers: by creating a corporatist state and crushing all worker opposition.
 
Yeah, there's certainly a divergence. But remember that they had the people convinced that the well-ordered and powerful state would lead to the well-being of the German people. So you do point out a distinction, but it is a distinction that was not recognized by the nazis or the german people (well, not all of them, but you know what I mean)-- hence they called themselves national socialists.

A typical socialist wants the benefits of collective production to be equally available to all workers who invest labor. A national socialist filtered the benefit through the state under the pretext that the people would equally benefit by living in a powerful and strong German empire that was superior to all other nations.

Perhaps. I am not familiar with the specific propaganda of that time. However, in general principal and philosophy, they are VERY different and I see it as dishonest to equate the two. Whether or not the Nazis were dishonest is not really relevent.
 
When the Nazis first rose to prominence in the twenties, much of their appeal was one of a return to order, this as a reaction to the Weimar era social upheaval. Their demagoguery targeted Jews, of course, but beyond that, the perceived decadence of the time as evidenced by Bauhaus Modernism, Cabarets and other non traditional expressions which were assailed as "Un German", "decadent art", and whatnot.

How anybody could characterize this as left wing is beyond me.
 
crushing individual rights for the "good" of the state is quintissential collectivist philosophy--in other words left wing
 
crushing individual rights for the "good" of the state is quintissential collectivist philosophy--in other words left wing

There is always an interplay between what an individual should be able to do and the needs of society. For example, we could be very permissive about things such as murder or theft, but that would hardly serve the needs of society.
 
Left-wing contrary to idiots.
 
crushing individual rights for the "good" of the state is quintissential collectivist philosophy--in other words left wing

But that is not what they did.. they crushed individual rights for the good of the party and its leaders.

And you forget that it was the right wing that crushed individual rights for centuries and only gave it up when the left came around :)
 
Perhaps. I am not familiar with the specific propaganda of that time. However, in general principal and philosophy, they are VERY different and I see it as dishonest to equate the two. Whether or not the Nazis were dishonest is not really relevent.

Socialism comes in many variants, why is it dishonest to call their policies what they were? Socialism is only a means to an end, and has been used to suit many philosophical principles. 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?
 
Last edited:
But that is not what they did.. they crushed individual rights for the good of the party and its leaders.

And you forget that it was the right wing that crushed individual rights for centuries and only gave it up when the left came around :)

that makes no sense
 
AKA "My identity is so wrapped up in being a right winger that I have to describe them as left".

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