Were the Nazis Right or Left Wing?

The religious right exists as much as the radical left exists.

Thunder said:

i got no problem with that.

Mao, Stalin, Hirohito, Franco, Mussolini, Tito, Hitler,....they were all the devil.

Click to expand...

Surprising. So do you agree that both Naziism and communism have been blights on our world? Iirc, communists took many Jews to suffer and die in the gulags, as well.

Wake said:

Surprising. So do you agree that both Naziism and communism have been blights on our world?....

Click to expand...

have I ever said anything to the contrary???????????????

Thunder said:

have I ever said anything to the contrary???????????????

Click to expand...

At times it'd seem you supported communism, or at least defended it.

Question: What do you think about socialism, which is a watered-down version of communism?

Wake said:

Question: What do you think about socialism, which is a watered-down version of communism?

Click to expand...

Please, enough with this 'watered-down' stuff. By watered-down, do you mean...not as extreme? In today's world, it seems as if you have to pick either anarchism, fascism, neoliberalism, or communism. Anything in between is 'watered-down.'

JustinS said:

Please, enough with this 'watered-down' stuff. By watered-down, do you mean...not as extreme? In today's world, it seems as if you have to pick either anarchism, fascism, neoliberalism, or communism. Anything in between is 'watered-down.'

Click to expand...

Do you have anything of relevance to add? Socialism is a watered-down version of communism. Under communism you get killed for defying authority.

Wake said:

Do you have anything of relevance to add? Socialism is a watered-down version of communism. Under communism you get killed for defying authority.

Click to expand...

No, only in the authoritarian versions of communism. Communist thinkers, such as Marx, were not authoritarian people.

Wake said:

At times it'd seem you supported communism, or at least defended it.

Question: What do you think about socialism, which is a watered-down version of communism?

Click to expand...

which Socialism? there is more than one kind, ya know.

JustinS said:

No, only in the authoritarian versions of communism. Communist thinkers, such as Marx, were not authoritarian people.

Click to expand...

What version of communism isn't authoritarian? You need the government to enforce the communistic lifestyle, and communistic nations tend to have at least one dictator. Mao, Stalin, etc. Let me guess, you're going to tell me there's peaceful versions of communism that don't regulate/order people?

No. I am not going to tell you that. What I am going to say, is that Marxism is not authoritarian in theory. Hypothetically, there exist forms of communism with highly varying degrees of authoritarianism. This is not to say that this is also true in practice.

Thunder said:

which Socialism? there is more than one kind, ya know.

Click to expand...

There are over 12 types, yes, because different people come up with different versions. If you think communism in general is bad, how about socialism? I am not well-versed in socialism, and I realize there are some good concepts of socialism (I think), but sometimes socialism is used in terrible ways, as in Naziism.

There are also philosophical reason I disagree with socialism. One being that it tries to create a utopia, which is impossible.

JustinS said:

No. I am not going to tell you that. What I am going to say, is that Marxism is not authoritarian in theory. Hypothetically, there exist forms of communism with highly varying degrees of authoritarianism. This is not to say that this is also true in practice.

Click to expand...

Marxism may not be authoritarian in theory, yet it becomes so when people actually use the theory and enforce its citizens t live under it. Communism is supposedly good in theory, yet people keep dying or are subjugated/oppressed when it's finally applied in the real world.

Wake said:

Marxism may not be authoritarian in theory, yet it becomes so when people actually use the theory and enforce its citizens t live under it. Communism is supposedly good in theory, yet people keep dying or are subjugated/oppressed when it's finally applied in the real world.

Click to expand...

Yes, many radical leftists, claiming to be socially liberal, suddenly become authoritarian when in political office. This is also true for socially liberal right-wingers, and all other social liberals. This authoritarianism occurs at various levels, depending on how radical the politician's ideology actually is. It is easier to be socially liberal in opposition than in office.

Wake said:

There are over 12 types, yes, because different people come up with different versions. If you think communism in general is bad, how about socialism? I am not well-versed in socialism, and I realize there are some good concepts of socialism (I think), but sometimes socialism is used in terrible ways, as in Naziism.

There are also philosophical reason I disagree with socialism. One being that it tries to create a utopia, which is impossible.

Click to expand...

this one ain't bad

Democratic Socialism.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thunder said:

this one ain't bad

Democratic Socialism.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

I already added that article to my forum. Haven't read it in-depth yet since there's quite a few articles/quotes I'm still gathering.

Thanks, though.

If you read the points of the National Socialists early political platform, they were clearly socialist. Some of their demands:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.


14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.


15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.


16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

Click to expand...

These demands were moderated after leftists like Otto Strasser left the party and most of the socialist wing was purged in the Night of The Long Knives. Regardless of whether Hitler was a leftist at heart, he had to appease the industrialists who supported his party. The Third Reich could be described as a moderate socialist state with a fiercely nationalist stance. No doubt the N.S government intervened in the economy; unemployment was reduced by public works projects and Göring's four year plan.

But militarism, nationalism, and reactionary social policies are not normally associated with left-wing governments, which is why it makes no sense to call Hitler a leftist. Take away all of that and Hitler is just a left of center moderate with a gift for inspiring the masses. Hitler makes it clear in this speech that his "volksgemeinschaft" involves government intervention to help Germany's poorest, but that he does not support communistic redistribution of wealth.

Graffias said:

But militarism, nationalism, and reactionary social policies are not normally associated with left-wing governments, which is why it makes no sense to call Hitler a leftist.

Click to expand...

you were doing great until you got to this point

1. we aren't talking about Hitler in particular, but Nazi's in general. Though Hitler himself was definitely a man of the left.
2. the Nazis did not push reactionary social policy - in fact, they were quite "new age". they attacked the notion of the family as the fundamental unit of society, they supported childbirth out of wedlock, they opposed the traditional role of the Christian Church, were often pagan-oriented themselves, and so on and so forth.
3. militarism was absolutely part and parcel of the political left. In particular, militarism attracted them because it gave them carte blanche to reorganize society as they saw fit. In this nation, for example, War Socialism became the model for an active peacetime role for the state in the economy.
4. Nationalism, similarly, was solidly ensconced in the political left, as was its' political cousin, the science of racism.

1. we aren't talking about Hitler in particular, but Nazi's in general. Though Hitler himself was definitely a man of the left.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's clear Hitler was a man of the left. In the early days, yes. But we don't know what Hitler's true ideological convictions were after he came to power, because they were so different from that of his early political career.

2. the Nazis did not push reactionary social policy - in fact, they were quite "new age". they attacked the notion of the family as the fundamental unit of society, they supported childbirth out of wedlock, they opposed the traditional role of the Christian Church, were often pagan-oriented themselves, and so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

They attacked the family as the fundamental unit of society? I don't see this at all. They wanted women to have as many children as possible, but none of the propaganda of that time that I've read shows that they had antipathy towards families. There was a special breeding program for Aryan couples that did involve having children out of wedlock, but that was just a program of the SS. The SS as a whole did not represent the Nazi party, but it did represent it's more radical elements. When I say "radical", I mean from the standpoint of trying to ensure the most "racially pure" Aryans were born in the greatest number. Paganism was just Himmler's idea of replacing Christianity with a more Germanic, and less Jewish, religion. It certainly was not a policy that the National Socialists were trying to pursue as a whole. The reason that the churches were persecuted during the war is because people like Martin Niemöller openly criticized the regime. The National Socialists tolerated religion as long as it didn't question their policies.

3. militarism was absolutely part and parcel of the political left. In particular, militarism attracted them because it gave them carte blanche to reorganize society as they saw fit. In this nation, for example, War Socialism became the model for an active peacetime role for the state in the economy.

Click to expand...

You're going to have to do better than that to show that militarism is a common feature of leftist governments. In Germany, the militarists were the most conservative elements, such as the military and industrialists. These people were not leftists by any stretch of the imagination.

4. Nationalism, similarly, was solidly ensconced in the political left, as was its' political cousin, the science of racism.

Click to expand...

So the Social Democrats and communists in Germany had significant racist and nationalist elements among them when compared to the right wing parties? How about the Liberal and Labour parties in Britain? The Democrats in the U.S? These were all leftist parties. I know as a extreme conservative, you have every incentive to demonize liberalism in any way possible, but the assertions you're making are just ridiculous.

Graffias said:

I don't think it's clear Hitler was a man of the left. In the early days, yes. But we don't know what Hitler's true ideological convictions were after he came to power, because they were so different from that of his early political career.

Click to expand...

so your argument is that Hitler had a conversion experience after getting into power that he never mentioned and which has eluded his biographers?

If you could please point me in the direction of Hitler's later advocation of a free market?

They attacked the family as the fundamental unit of society?

Click to expand...

yes. for the Fascist, the State was the fundamental unit of society, and everyone's primary relationship was with it. As Mussolini put it, "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".

I don't see this at all. They wanted women to have as many children as possible

Click to expand...

that's true, and gave medals awards and all manner of benefits to those who had more than their share of genetically desirable children. What they didn't really care about was whether or not the woman was married to the father, as exampled by your next point:

There was a special breeding program for Aryan couples that did involve having children out of wedlock, but that was just a program of the SS.

Click to expand...

The SS as a whole did not represent the Nazi party, but it did represent it's more radical elements.

Click to expand...

not really. the SS existed as a parrallel organization to the Abwehr and the Wermacht. It's common for ideological dictatorships to do this - witness the KGB in the USSR, and the GRB and IRGC in North Korea and Iran today. The SS was there specifically to swear allegiance to the Nazi Party and Hitler in particular due to Party distrust of the traditional military leadership (as they were largely made up of old-school Prussian nobility).

When I say "radical", I mean from the standpoint of trying to ensure the most "racially pure" Aryans were born in the greatest number.

Click to expand...

well, yeah, that was also generally the policy of the Party and the Policy of the State.

Paganism was just Himmler's idea of replacing Christianity with a more Germanic, and less Jewish, religion.

Click to expand...

It was hardly restricted to just Himmler. Hess, for example, was a member of the Thule Society, and that is where Nazis' drew the Swastika from.

It certainly was not a policy that the National Socialists were trying to pursue as a whole. The reason that the churches were persecuted during the war is because people like Martin Niemöller openly criticized the regime. The National Socialists tolerated religion as long as it didn't question their policies.

Click to expand...

eh, dependent. Nazi's also accepted the argument (drawing from both Gibbons and Kant) that Christianity had weakened the Teutonic peoples, and was therefore a long-term threat to their taking their rightful place in history. Nazis' accepted what they called "Positive Christianity", by which they meant Christianity without the Old Testament, the Pauline Letters, the doctrine of Original Sin, the existence of Hell and the doctrine of Grace... Christianity was either to serve the state (all within the state), or it was an alternate power center, and was then to be destroyed.

You're going to have to do better than that to show that militarism is a common feature of leftist governments. In Germany, the militarists were the most conservative elements, such as the military and industrialists. These people were not leftists by any stretch of the imagination.

Click to expand...

you are very incorrect. In Germany between the wars, militant nationalism and expansionism was the belief system of the wide majority of the populace, who saw themselves as having been brutally cheated and humiliated to a place below their natural station. If anything, it was the Prussian nobility who thought that Hitler was pushing too far, and would destroy the nation through unsustainable expansionism. That, after all, is why they eventually repented of their deal with the devil, and turned on him. It was the Ivory Tower academic types like Haushofer who were urging that the German people naturally take control of the Euroafrican "pan region".

in the meantime, if you want to know about the commonality of militarism as a left-wing impulse of the time, you may wish to research the Wilson and FDR administrations. organizing society along militant lines was considered good for the state (who found its' job much easier), good for society (who would now be better organized) and good for the individual (who would now be better disciplined). The CCC was overtly military in its' organization, FDR's cabinet urged him to deputize the American Legion as an "extraconstitutional" private Army answerable only to him in the 30's, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) head Hugh Johnson suggested that FDR should dismiss Congress and the Supreme Court (temporarily) in order to fully exercise Mussolini-like powers, while Walter Lippman urged FDR to assume "dictatorial like powers". Woodrow Wilson did assume dictatorial like powers; running a brownshirt-like thug force known as the "American Protective League", having people arrested for criticizing his administration (a man was arrested, for example, for explaining in his own house that he did not wish to buy war bonds), and seeking to control the entirety of the American economy through War Socialism, which was later to become the model from which the New Deal drew.

So the Social Democrats and communists in Germany had significant racist and nationalist elements among them when compared to the right wing parties? How about the Liberal and Labour parties in Britain? The Democrats in the U.S? These were all leftist parties. I know as a extreme conservative, you have every incentive to demonize liberalism in any way possible, but the assertions you're making are just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I'm not out here to demonize anyone - certainly no one is suggesting that modern liberals are racists just because Nazi's were lefties. However, yes, indeed, in fact, racism and nationalism were very much a part of the left-wing movements of the day in the West. You may wish to do some reading on the history of Eugenics in this country (hint: some of our progressive "racial scientists" were working with their counterparts from a particular German political party).

apdst said:

You think Communism isn't?

Click to expand...

There is a difference , but not that much ,between "intellectualism" and "thinking for ones-self"..But extremism accepts neither..except its own sick agenda...

apdst said:

This is from your source,




:lamo

Like I said, there's no such thing as the, "religious right".

Click to expand...

But there is "one so blind that he cannot see."
And there is an infinite number of shades of gray...until one crosses over and becomes an extremeist....either religious, communist or Nazi.

JustinS said:

No, only in the authoritarian versions of communism. Communist thinkers, such as Marx, were not authoritarian people.

Click to expand...

Its too difficult for a true/deep thinker to be authoritarian...Which is why I am an independent....as much as I support liberalism.

Wake said:

What version of communism isn't authoritarian? You need the government to enforce the communistic lifestyle, and communistic nations tend to have at least one dictator. Mao, Stalin, etc. Let me guess, you're going to tell me there's peaceful versions of communism that don't regulate/order people?

Click to expand...

Yes there is, even in out own nation, there are some communist communities, also in India, as I recall....Our own Amish have many communist traits...
But as true communism is voluntary, it will never grow, particularly in our conservative nation.

10% of the industrial output of Israel comes from Kibbutz/communes. They are entirely voluntary in a country not famed for it's leftwing persona.

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...

They were facsist.