Were the Nazis Right or Left Wing?

cpwill said:

interesting claim, that lack of support for 'social equality' = conservativism.


you realize (among others) this would force you to argue that Cuba under Castro is a conservative enterprise..... ?

Click to expand...

Is conservatism even really a concrete political structure? Today many people appear to understand conservatism as a "small government" political structure . . . but that to me is libertarianism. I've always understood conservatism (and someone please correct me if I'm mistaken) as a view that maintaining traditional values and government structure is important. But this doesn't say anything about what those structures and values are. So conservatism, at least as I understand it, doesn't really carry its own unique kind of structure. It can be applied to any existing governmental structure. Rather, there is libertarianism, which is a small-government philosophy based on individual liberty, and something else (I don't think socialism, communism, or facism completely fit the bill) on the other side where government regulates everything. Most societies are some combination of both (IMO, because a society that is completely libertarian or completely big-government won't work). Where the idea of social equality falls seems somewhat vague. If everyone is provided liberty that should provide some types of equality. But left to nature and free markets, etc., I don't think there would be full social equality. I don't know, just musing now.

American said:

In general.

Click to expand...

From what I've read on the subject, Stalin actually put in place some things that generally increased the standard of living for many people (Russia's literacy levels shot way up under Stalin, for example).

During the war, the standards of living plummetted pretty much for everyone (but this is true of Germany as well).

Obviously, for some, the standards of living were attrocious throughout due to persecution. But again, this wa strue of germany as well.

As far as Germany goes, only a certain population saw increases in the standard of living. Generally, there was an overall decline.

It's funny how people on both sides of the spectrum choose to deny their chidlren's identities.

The twentieth century was the most violent blood soaked century in global history. This was not due to religion (to the dismay of athiests everywhere). This was due to the intellectual's idea that he could "perfect" humanity by creating the "perfect" system of organizational control. And yes, it began with the left before the global left became decrepit and before American liberals became confused and bewildered of their world.

Hitler's political party was called the National Socialist German Workers Party. The two key words are "Socialist" and "Workers." Orginially, the workers of the world fought against capitalistic greed and worker abuses (economics). Marx wrote against capitalism and introduced an impractical vision of community called communism. Well, the workers eventually won, formed into unions, and eventually formed governments. In Europe, Hitler rose out of this crowd and turned the worker's plight into a national plight against all of Europe. The very name of his political party identify it him to grass root leftism. He eventually became history's most brutal dictator and defined extreme conservatism on the social level and government level. The word dictator is generally attributed to the right because it involves rules, traditions, and strict guidelines for behaviors (conservatism). Stalin and Mao (also dictators) attempted to create socialist communist governments and were willing to damn entire civilizations through conservative behaviors just to prove the possibility of leftists ideals. Between Hitler's left/right history and Stalin and Mao's leftist/rightest history, they managed to litter the earth with millions of corpses between Berlin and Cambodia. Of course, this is a bit simplified and just hits the key notes but people who seek to detail out the threads of these matters are typically looking for a way to disown something.

And what have the worker's unions done today in America? Sent our coporations over seas. There is more to the "left" than just a simple self-righteous struggle for social utopia. The last century was bloodied out of leftist ideals. Given half a chance, the global left would damn the entire world just to chase impractical dreams while preaching on equality, humanitarianism, and peace.

Tucker Case said:

From what I've read on the subject, Stalin actually put in place some things that generally increased the standard of living for many people (Russia's literacy levels shot way up under Stalin, for example).

During the war, the standards of living plummetted pretty much for everyone (but this is true of Germany as well).

Obviously, for some, the standards of living were attrocious throughout due to persecution. But again, this wa strue of germany as well.

As far as Germany goes, only a certain population saw increases in the standard of living. Generally, there was an overall decline.

Click to expand...

You are describing the difference between the elite and the rest. It's hardly a case to show improvement in a society considering that historically, nobody ever cared to keep track of the under priveledged. Numbers have usually only reflected the distinct crowd (especially when merely attempting to compare to other countries). The elite typically always improve their stations under any government since they make the rules with intellectual support and these numbers are always produced to offer an illusion of national identity. History has shown that when intellectuals and the elite join hands, the grave diggers start getting over time.

??? said:

Is conservatism even really a concrete political structure? Most societies are some combination of both (IMO, because a society that is completely libertarian or completely big-government won't work)..... Where the idea of social equality falls seems somewhat vague. If everyone is provided liberty that should provide some types of equality. But left to nature and free markets, etc., I don't think there would be full social equality. I don't know, just musing now.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not really. Most of the terms we throw around are not concrete political anything Libertarianism is closer than most, it's an abstract that you can measure against. That's why libertarians go so crazy at U.S. public rhetoric, how it is designed to make it Dem or Republican, but entirely misses the actual things of importance.

Also why repub/dems label libertarians as idealists...which in some cases is fair.

As to the idea of social equality, I think you'll find the only ethical position is that a government should not attempt to enforce any sort of social uniformity at the expense of individual liberty. It's doomed to be unethical, and once it becomes up to a minority in political party to do the pie cutting....we're ****ed (i.e. that always happens, so you're always ****ed).

MSgt said:

You are describing the difference between the elite and the rest.

Click to expand...

From what I've read on the subject, in pre-war Russia there were benefits across the board regarding literacy, education, and hopsital access under Stalin.

I'm not making an argument in favor of Stalin by simply stating what I've read about the matter.

rathi said:

If you wanted wealth and power in the Soviet system, you climbed the ranks of the political structure. Operating a factory mostly meant being forced to jump through all kinds of hoops in order to meet the demands of the planning committee. The true power of the soviet system was in divorcing the concept of wealth through ownership. Administration had certain perks, but they came from the party not the factory.

Click to expand...

Whatever profit is made by the factory is immediately deposited into the purse of the party. The party then pays the factory administrator a portion of the profits. Whether the bureaucrat receives profit directly from the factory or from the party is irrelevant. In the Soviet Union, a bureaucrat became a businessman. In Nazi Germany, the businessman became a bureaucrat.

Lol, a funny question, maybe you've forgotten that the name of Nazi's party was "National- Socialist", not "National-Conservative" etc. The Nazis were clearly Left-Wing, it is a stupidity to deny the obviously fact.

Tucker Case said:

From what I've read on the subject, in pre-war Russia there were benefits across the board regarding literacy, education, and hopsital access under Stalin.

Click to expand...

I've read back and forth and the trend seems to be to either applaud Stalin's program or to demonize it depending on the political stance of the individual. But it wasn't "across the board" if the under priveledged or other political party affiliations were not considered. The millions of unfortunate souls were not among the counted. Furthermore, all eduaction was centered around serving the government and it was forced, which produces a severe lack of personal drive to succeed. The numbers are illusive. And what good does education and literacy do if one can't produce and progress the society in which education was provided? Socialism and communism gurantees that no one can rise above another (unless you are among the destined priviledged). It's the modern day system of archaic monarchies and nobility. Historically, these types always produce numbers so as to legitimize the system. Stalin merely introduced a system where one was not before and the numbers imply something untrue.

People seem fond to point out that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was considered to contain the best education system and produced the largest education populace, but they neglect to produce that most Shia and Kurds were not included in the concensus. Today they are and the numbers show differently as they catch up to the Sunni. I don't think Stalin's education system was much to boast on considering the manner in which it evolved. Give Hitler another 15 years and a handy dandy "5-Year Plan" and he could produce numbers where Germans are the most highly educated in the world. But the number hides an ugly reality.

Alfons said:

Lol, a funny question, maybe you've forgotten that the name of Nazi's party was "National- Socialist", not "National-Conservative" etc. The Nazis were clearly Left-Wing, it is a stupidity to deny the obviously fact.

Click to expand...

Yes. Why look at their policies and practices when a narrow and shallow look at their name will tell us all we need to know

rathi said:

That isn't how the Fascist system worked.

Click to expand...

If we're now talking specifically about Fascist Italy, then it is inaccurate to generalize the entire timespan of Italian economic planning in one convenient sentence. The fascist system in Italy worked differently at different times. Historians pretty much agree that Mussolini did not have an economic plan, and literally used the Italian economy as a social experiment.

Most industrialists willingly participated in fascist economics because they personally gained immense wealth (at the war went badly). The government gave them profitable monopolies in return for going along with then national agenda. In Italy, Mussolini was striped of power when his war made the arrangement no longer profitable.

Click to expand...

You make it sound like the businesses had control over Mussolini and not the other way around.

Hitler also allowed considerable autonomy until the war became desperate in '44.

Click to expand...

I think that's a despicable statement that doesn't consider any of the hard facts. To consider that Nazi Germany allowed any autonomy- at all, is ridiculous. The Italian and German governments controlled so much of the aspects of business at various points of their career that it would almost be offensive to consider it a "mixed economy." If the government decides who you may hire, what you may produce and when, how you may operate, and not to mention obliterating unions and any form of bargaining, how is that mixed? How is that autonomous? It may be true that Italy did not fully nationalize its industries and the businessman actually retained his profits. But that's a far cry from claiming that Hitler and Mussolini allowed quite a bit of economic freedom.

The USSR was not corporatist. The best descriptor would be a planned economy, as economic output was determined by a central committee giving orders to state owned factories.

Click to expand...

There is no single definition of corporatism. There are only interpretations of the concept. The base root of corporatism is corpus- body and such meaning can have multiple applications. I, however, take the interpretation of Herman Goering when he infamously stated that fascism should rightly be called corporatism, because "it is the merger of state and corporatist power." I tend to view socialist, fascist, and hardcore Keynesian economies as corporatist. In terms of our comparison, the difference is extremely subtle. Whether the government outright nationalizes the industry or subtly takes it over and controls it (but allows the owners to retain a portion of the capital), it is of little relevance when examining the large picture. Both governments sought to merge the power of state and corporatist bodies. Russia, under Lenin's NEP, was a form of state capitalism, though I realize it did not last long.

I don't understand how anyone could claim that fascist Italy or Nazi Germany were mixed economies. If they were, it was 95% socialist and 5% capitalist. You know how some pundits and critics will claim that Western European countries are "socialist" (even though the Europeans themselves will identify as social democrats)? Well, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were the largest "socialist" states ever to appear in that region.

megaprogman said:

Yes. Why look at their policies and practices when a narrow and shallow look at their name will tell us all we need to know

Click to expand...

Stalin's Concentration Camp



source:Stalin is voted third greatest Russian in TV poll modelled on BBC contest | Mail Online

Hitler's Concentration Camp



source:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Holocaust/jbb1.jpg

North-Korea Concentration Camp



We can continue to other twenty countries suffered by Leftism.

All Lefties are equal, there is no difference between Nazis and Leftists!
Firstly they tell us fairy - tales, after gaining of power they kill and rob us.

The last example, the lefty China which industry has been erected "thanks" leftists "outsourcing" and our destroyed.

Here, the true face of Leftists!

Ten Methods Commonly Used to Torture Falun Gong Practitioners (Illustrations)

Click to expand...

Warning: do not look the pictures about leftists tortures if you have a weak heart.

Ten Methods Commonly Used to Torture Falun Gong Practitioners (Illustrations)

Alfons said:

Stalin's Concentration Camp

source:Stalin is voted third greatest Russian in TV poll modelled on BBC contest | Mail Online

Hitler's Concentration Camp

source:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Holocaust/jbb1.jpg

North-Korea Concentration Camp

We can continue to other twenty countries suffered by Leftism.

All Lefties are equal, there is no difference between Nazis and Leftists!
Firstly they tell us fairy - tales, after gaining of power they kill and rob us.

The last example, the lefty China which industry has been erected "thanks" leftists "outsourcing" and our destroyed.

Ten Methods Commonly Used to Torture Falun Gong Practitioners (Illustrations)

Warning: do not look the pictures about leftists tortures if you have a weak heart.

Ten Methods Commonly Used to Torture Falun Gong Practitioners (Illustrations)

Click to expand...

If shallow looks don't work, then lets use emotional appeasl and absolutely no logic or reasoning with a liberal sprinkling of fallocy! That's so much better!

megaprogman said:

If shallow looks don't work, then lets use emotional appeasl and absolutely no logic or reasoning with a liberal sprinkling of fallocy! That's so much better!

Click to expand...

Some additional information:

LEFTIST RACISM
Documents by John Ray

MSgt said:

I've read back and forth and the trend seems to be to either applaud Stalin's program or to demonize it depending on the political stance of the individual. But it wasn't "across the board" if the under priveledged or other political party affiliations were not considered. The millions of unfortunate souls were not among the counted. Furthermore, all eduaction was centered around serving the government and it was forced, which produces a severe lack of personal drive to succeed. The numbers are illusive. And what good does education and literacy do if one can't produce and progress the society in which education was provided? Socialism and communism gurantees that no one can rise above another (unless you are among the destined priviledged). It's the modern day system of archaic monarchies and nobility. Historically, these types always produce numbers so as to legitimize the system. Stalin merely introduced a system where one was not before and the numbers imply something untrue.

People seem fond to point out that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was considered to contain the best education system and produced the largest education populace, but they neglect to produce that most Shia and Kurds were not included in the concensus. Today they are and the numbers show differently as they catch up to the Sunni. I don't think Stalin's education system was much to boast on considering the manner in which it evolved. Give Hitler another 15 years and a handy dandy "5-Year Plan" and he could produce numbers where Germans are the most highly educated in the world. But the number hides an ugly reality.

Click to expand...

Regardless of one's political persuasion, there are some positive aspects to what Stalin implemented. Nothing is ever universally horrible or universally great. If the trends tend toward a dichotomy between one one extreme or the other, and these extremes align with the authors poitical persuasion, the trend is likely to be clouded by political agendas.

When one looks at the data under Stalin, it's still clear that portions of the population saw benefits under that regime which they did not receive under previous regimes (literacy increases and healthcare for women, specifically, comes to mind). It's also clear that other portions of the population dealt with terrible persecution.

As you said, "Stalin merely introduced a system where one was not before". This implementation of a system led to benefits for a large proportion of the people compared to what existed before, while also leading to horrible declines for another portion of the population..

Does that mean it was a preferable system to, say, democracy? No, it doesn't.

Does it mean it was a preferable system to that which came before it?

Perhaps. One could very easily argue that it was preferable to that since there was a long hstory of major persecution in Russia anyway.

But it would be much like eating gruel is preferable to starvation.

Alfons said:

Stalin's Concentration Camp

source:Stalin is voted third greatest Russian in TV poll modelled on BBC contest | Mail Online

Hitler's Concentration Camp

source:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Holocaust/jbb1.jpg

North-Korea Concentration Camp

We can continue to other twenty countries suffered by Leftism.

Click to expand...

Now you've gone and done it. Some leftist or European is going to produce an Abu-Ghraib picture or a GITMO prisoner to exonerate their decrepit past or to "lighten the burden."

Tucker Case said:

When one looks at the data under Stalin, it's still clear that portions of the population saw benefits under that regime which they did not receive under previous regimes (literacy increases and healthcare for women, specifically, comes to mind).

Click to expand...

So what did we really do here? Flip the numbers and identified a portion? This is hardly across the board and it was a running start into misery. Most things that start out in a gallop lose steam quickly because the measures to correctly sustain the gallop were never there. I still maintain that the numbers are illusive. Put a genius and a retard in a room together and half your population is of superior intellect (if you even consider the retard in the consensus, in which case your entire population proves your greatness.)

Tucker Case said:

But it would be much like eating gruel is preferable to starvation.

Click to expand...

But plenty did starve under these "5-Year Plans" to produce a designed people and notmerely a small fraction. It was like designer clothing for humanity. Not all benefitted and the numbers tend to produce only those that did. And those that did went no where because the society that produced them did not allow for growth. Most of their standards could not compete with the standards of the educational West. I think we are measuring a people who have stepped two rungs above the **** pile, but still remained up to their hips in it.

MSgt said:

I think we are measuring a people who have stepped two rungs above the **** pile, but still remained up to their hips in it.

Click to expand...

I think this describes the situation correctly.

If we're now talking specifically about Fascist Italy, then it is inaccurate to generalize the entire timespan of Italian economic planning in one convenient sentence. The fascist system in Italy worked differently at different times. Historians pretty much agree that Mussolini did not have an economic plan, and literally used the Italian economy as a social experiment.

Click to expand...

Mussolini never exerted a level of control over the Italian economy comparable to USSR during his entire rule.

You make it sound like the businesses had control over Mussolini and not the other way around.

Click to expand...

In 1943, Mussolini was stripped of his power by the grand of council of fascism of which all Italian corporate interests were a part. Nobody had total control over the other, it was a power sharing agreement for mutual benefit.

I think that's a despicable statement that doesn't consider any of the hard facts. To consider that Nazi Germany allowed any autonomy- at all, is ridiculous. The Italian and German governments controlled so much of the aspects of business at various points of their career that it would almost be offensive to consider it a "mixed economy." If the government decides who you may hire, what you may produce and when, how you may operate, and not to mention obliterating unions and any form of bargaining, how is that mixed? How is that autonomous? It may be true that Italy did not fully nationalize its industries and the businessman actually retained his profits. But that's a far cry from claiming that Hitler and Mussolini allowed quite a bit of economic freedom.

Click to expand...

Hitler and Mussolini did not control business directly. They had a mutually beneficial relationship in which they received voluntary cooperation of their political goals in return for granting massive profits. While it certainly was a far cry from a capitalist system, it was even further from the total control of a planned economy.

There is no single definition of corporatism. There are only interpretations of the concept. The base root of corporatism is corpus- body and such meaning can have multiple applications. I, however, take the interpretation of Herman Goering when he infamously stated that fascism should rightly be called corporatism, because "it is the merger of state and corporatist power." I tend to view socialist, fascist, and hardcore Keynesian economies as corporatist. In terms of our comparison, the difference is extremely subtle. Whether the government outright nationalizes the industry or subtly takes it over and controls it (but allows the owners to retain a portion of the capital), it is of little relevance when examining the large picture. Both governments sought to merge the power of state and corporatist bodies. Russia, under Lenin's NEP, was a form of state capitalism, though I realize it did not last long.

Click to expand...

Corporatism is defined as cooperation between private interests and the state. The USSR didn't have a corporatist system because no private interests existed. There are nuances of meaning in the definition, but you need both private ownership and a state to meet the basic definition.

I don't understand how anyone could claim that fascist Italy or Nazi Germany were mixed economies. If they were, it was 95% socialist and 5% capitalist. You know how some pundits and critics will claim that Western European countries are "socialist" (even though the Europeans themselves will identify as social democrats)? Well, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were the largest "socialist" states ever to appear in that region.

Click to expand...

Fascist economies typically had 3 distinct parts. 1) Directly nationalized industry 2) industry allied with the state 3) industry operating on its own. Of those three parts, the majority was 2), following by 1) and 3). I like to label 1) as socialism, 2) as corporatism and 3) as capitalism, but I care more about content than the specific term.

There is also a qualitative difference between a merger and a hostile takeover.

Alfons said:

Lol, a funny question, maybe you've forgotten that the name of Nazi's party was "National- Socialist", not "National-Conservative" etc. The Nazis were clearly Left-Wing, it is a stupidity to deny the obviously fact.

Click to expand...

Well, if you imply that parties or groups can be known by their names, then North Korea would be a very peaceful, democratic nation as its name is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". By following your logic, North Korea is a very peaceful, democratic, people-loving nation. Rofl

rathi said:

Mussolini never exerted a level of control over the Italian economy comparable to USSR during his entire rule.

Click to expand...

I will not disagree.

In 1943, Mussolini was stripped of his power by the grand of council of fascism of which all Italian corporate interests were a part. Nobody had total control over the other, it was a power sharing agreement for mutual benefit.

Click to expand...

It was a mutual benefit, but it seems clear that the fascists at the council representing the corporate interests were, in fact, bureaucrats. Was Dino Grandi any sort of leader in the private industries?

Hitler and Mussolini did not control business directly. They had a mutually beneficial relationship in which they received voluntary cooperation of their political goals in return for granting massive profits. While it certainly was a far cry from a capitalist system, it was even further from the total control of a planned economy.

Click to expand...

I think you may be trying to do a stone-cleaning of fascist economics by insinuating that voluntary cooperation and economic liberty were alive and well in Italy. It's hard to imagine liberty, of any kind, being well received in fascist Italy. As I read about the various controls on private industry by the fascist Italy, it occurs to me that the central authority was trying to plan something. Like I've been repeating, it's not an overt takeover of business. But it's damn near the same thing. It appears that Mussolini left a shell of private enterprise to appease special interest groups and to seduce the general public. It appeared nothing more than a shell.

Do you believe that Keynesian economic practice is lending itself to the powers of corporatist ideology?

Corporatism is defined as cooperation between private interests and the state. The USSR didn't have a corporatist system because no private interests existed. There are nuances of meaning in the definition, but you need both private ownership and a state to meet the basic definition.

Click to expand...

I view your interpretation as very simplistic. I am not yet convinced that property ownership has to be the sole indicator of a corporatist state. Both states, IMHO, attempted to command the economy. Their ends were the same but their means were different. And whether or not you nationalize an industry and place a bureaucrat in charge or hold an industry at ransom and force an alliance, it is all an attempt to merge state and corporate power through force. The only major difference is symbolism and ritual.

Fascist economies typically had 3 distinct parts. 1) Directly nationalized industry 2) industry allied with the state 3) industry operating on its own. Of those three parts, the majority was 2), following by 1) and 3). I like to label 1) as socialism, 2) as corporatism and 3) as capitalism, but I care more about content than the specific term.

Click to expand...

I don't find that simple analysis useful. Sorry.

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...

my friend... in life there is never one clear answer.

I think Nazis used a left wing approach to gain popularity of the Germans who were then less well off than the Jews back then and quickly took a right wing stance when Hitler's party became the majority power in Germany before WW2 came by.

In short - left wing policy to keep their followers and right wing policy to keep their political power

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think what fascist does is to adopt any type of policy disregarding whether left or right as long as it favours them with gaining control over the national and domestic lives of its citizens.

Control Control Control is how they generate their policies in.
Funny enough, they dont favour women working and making a living but would rather them stay at home in a mother role. Isn't that actually a regression back into an agricultural economy?

ElijahGalt said:

Whatever profit is made by the factory is immediately deposited into the purse of the party. The party then pays the factory administrator a portion of the profits. Whether the bureaucrat receives profit directly from the factory or from the party is irrelevant. In the Soviet Union, a bureaucrat became a businessman. In Nazi Germany, the businessman became a bureaucrat.

Click to expand...

Except of course for the fact that the bureaucrat wasn't driven by profit, so this entire argument falls to pieces. This is about as absurd as saying that a feudal lord was a businessman because he appropriated the surplus labour of his serfs.

Tucker Case said:

Regardless of one's political persuasion, there are some positive aspects to what Stalin implemented. Nothing is ever universally horrible or universally great. If the trends tend toward a dichotomy between one one extreme or the other, and these extremes align with the authors poitical persuasion, the trend is likely to be clouded by political agendas.

When one looks at the data under Stalin, it's still clear that portions of the population saw benefits under that regime which they did not receive under previous regimes (literacy increases and healthcare for women, specifically, comes to mind). It's also clear that other portions of the population dealt with terrible persecution.

Click to expand...

Again, as I said in another thread, Stalin was part of an entire bureaucracy and the problems that arose in the USSR were due to much more complicated issues than "Stalin said so".