Was Hitler really right wing?
Discussion
Kermit power said:
Given that the Pope isn't a Catholic - the bloke in the Vatican might be referred to as such, but doesn't have it in his official title, whereas the head of the Coptic church in Alexandria does - I'd say that justifies a continuation of the discussion regarding whether or not Hitler is right wing! 
I share that view that there's really no such thing as all encompassing left or right.
Certainly Hitler wasn't economically right wing as I understand it, and surely his social policies "exterminate anyone I don't like" are linked more by being bat s
t mental than by being on the same part of the left/right spectrum as someone else?
Hitler believed industries were to be privately owned whenever possible. Banks, railways, shipyards and many other industries which fell into public ownership in the depression were privatized under the Nazis. The state built and acquired factories in industrial sectors which were crucial to rearmament and later the war effort. These factories were state owned but were actually managed by private businesses. Many privately owned companies in Germany actively supported this approach.I share that view that there's really no such thing as all encompassing left or right.
Certainly Hitler wasn't economically right wing as I understand it, and surely his social policies "exterminate anyone I don't like" are linked more by being bat s
t mental than by being on the same part of the left/right spectrum as someone else?I really fail to see how a regime that undertook privatisation en masse could be considered left wing.
The Political Compass is just that, a compass, the clue is in the name. The left/right axis is primarily one of economic management, there are another 359 axis available to measure a whole raft of other political and social characteristics. The problem is, for some reason, pretty much everyone attempts to put everything onto that left/right economic axis, when it doesn't go on there at all, things like Nationalism and eugenics through to racism and football violence, wherever you put them in terms of left/right is going to be wrong, because they don't go on that axis, they go on one of the others.
Hitler was an authoritarian fascist, there's an axis (no pun intended) for that and he's on it, not unsurprisingly at the extreme end of it along with Stalin, but Stalin comes on the far left, so presumably Hitler comes at the other end on the far right? Well the folks at the political compass have run the numbers and worked it all out, so go and have a look (or scroll back, it's already been posted), and it's not like the folks at the political compass are apologists for Hitler.
Hitler was an authoritarian fascist, there's an axis (no pun intended) for that and he's on it, not unsurprisingly at the extreme end of it along with Stalin, but Stalin comes on the far left, so presumably Hitler comes at the other end on the far right? Well the folks at the political compass have run the numbers and worked it all out, so go and have a look (or scroll back, it's already been posted), and it's not like the folks at the political compass are apologists for Hitler.
plasticpig said:
Kermit power said:
Given that the Pope isn't a Catholic - the bloke in the Vatican might be referred to as such, but doesn't have it in his official title, whereas the head of the Coptic church in Alexandria does - I'd say that justifies a continuation of the discussion regarding whether or not Hitler is right wing!
I share that view that there's really no such thing as all encompassing left or right.
Certainly Hitler wasn't economically right wing as I understand it, and surely his social policies "exterminate anyone I don't like" are linked more by being bat st mental than by being on the same part of the left/right spectrum as someone else?
Hitler believed industries were to be privately owned whenever possible. Banks, railways, shipyards and many other industries which fell into public ownership in the depression were privatized under the Nazis. The state built and acquired factories in industrial sectors which were crucial to rearmament and later the war effort. These factories were state owned but were actually managed by private businesses. Many privately owned companies in Germany actively supported this approach.I share that view that there's really no such thing as all encompassing left or right.
Certainly Hitler wasn't economically right wing as I understand it, and surely his social policies "exterminate anyone I don't like" are linked more by being bat s
t mental than by being on the same part of the left/right spectrum as someone else?I really fail to see how a regime that undertook privatisation en masse could be considered left wing.
plasticpig said:
Hitler believed industries were to be privately owned whenever possible. Banks, railways, shipyards and many other industries which fell into public ownership in the depression were privatized under the Nazis. The state built and acquired factories in industrial sectors which were crucial to rearmament and later the war effort. These factories were state owned but were actually managed by private businesses. Many privately owned companies in Germany actively supported this approach.
I really fail to see how a regime that undertook privatisation en masse could be considered left wing.
yeah, I posted some good links earlier showing the privatisation side and the cooperation with businesses.I really fail to see how a regime that undertook privatisation en masse could be considered left wing.
Hitler has never bene considered left wing (wanting a master race is not left wing), but there's a certain group these days that want to paint Hitler as a leftie because the left is considered the heart of all evil, and any twisting of logic will be used to get him there.
Edited by Halb on Monday 21st January 10:43
Balmoral said:
The Political Compass is just that, a compass, the clue is in the name. The left/right axis is primarily one of economic management, there are another 359 axis available to measure a whole raft of other political and social characteristics. The problem is, for some reason, pretty much everyone attempts to put everything onto that left/right economic axis, when it doesn't go on there at all, things like Nationalism and eugenics through to racism and football violence, wherever you put them in terms of left/right is going to be wrong, because they don't go on that axis, they go on one of the others.
Hitler was an authoritarian fascist, there's an axis (no pun intended) for that and he's on it, not unsurprisingly at the extreme end of it along with Stalin, but Stalin comes on the far left, so presumably Hitler comes at the other end on the far right? Well the folks at the political compass have run the numbers and worked it all out, so go and have a look (or scroll back, it's already been posted), and it's not like the folks at the political compass are apologists for Hitler.
Fascism evolved from syndicalism in places like Italy and Spain. Syndicalism is on the left, perhaps far left.Hitler was an authoritarian fascist, there's an axis (no pun intended) for that and he's on it, not unsurprisingly at the extreme end of it along with Stalin, but Stalin comes on the far left, so presumably Hitler comes at the other end on the far right? Well the folks at the political compass have run the numbers and worked it all out, so go and have a look (or scroll back, it's already been posted), and it's not like the folks at the political compass are apologists for Hitler.
The question really is whether the terms Left and Right Wing are really useful when they are being used to describe at least two orthogonal characteristics. Clearly the association between right wing and authoritarianism or racism is useful to those who wish to slander fiscal conservatives, but I'm not sure that it's really useful outside of propaganda.
As for the BNP - if you ignore the racism and immigrant bashing, their policies included cracking down on tax evasion, controlling foreign business ownership in the national interest, nationalising railways and the Royal Mail, further regulating banking and pushing credit unions, more council housing, more funding for schools, free university education, etc. Not very appealing to the free marketeers, basically populist economically left of centre policies for working class racists.
As for the BNP - if you ignore the racism and immigrant bashing, their policies included cracking down on tax evasion, controlling foreign business ownership in the national interest, nationalising railways and the Royal Mail, further regulating banking and pushing credit unions, more council housing, more funding for schools, free university education, etc. Not very appealing to the free marketeers, basically populist economically left of centre policies for working class racists.
s2art said:
Because they were privately owned in name only. The state controlled the means of production. These privately owned companies did exactly what the state told them to do. Ultimately the orders came from Hitler, in reality it was people like Speer who controlled industry.
That is a characteristic of a totalitarian regime. It's still a capitalist economic model; there is a difference between control and ownership. Atomic12C said:
I've taken an interest in politics and political histories over the recent years and the subject of hitler is an unavoidable one.
The NAZI party was a strong socialist ideological party at heart, which places it firmly on the hard left wing of politics.
Erm, no. The NAZI party was a strong socialist ideological party at heart, which places it firmly on the hard left wing of politics.
The Nazis (it's not an acronym) were never a socialist party, they were formed from the ultranationalist Freikorps culture, who were primarily fighting the Bolsheviks in post WWI Germany. In fact before Hitlers ascension to power, before he started on the Jews, the enemy of the Nazi party was the Bolsheviks and we don't hear much about the German Bolsheviks because the Nazis killed them in the early 20's.
At no point were the Nazis a socialist or even left wing party. They began from a paramilitary culture steeped in racism and nationalism.
The closest thing the Nazis ever had to a social program was Action T4... The enforced euthanasia of anyone considered to be a burden to the state, the old, infirm, disabled, feeble (what we'd call handicapped).
Hitler was never left wing. That would have been the Bolsheviks and I've mentioned above what happened to them.
s2art said:
Fascism evolved from syndicalism in places like Italy and Spain. Syndicalism is on the left, perhaps far left.
Fascism should be called corporatism, because it is the merger of corporate and state power. - Benito Mussolini (I think he knew a thing or two about Fascism). A single entity controlling all of an market doesn't make it communist, but it is bad which is why we regulate monopolists in functional economies.
Fascism technically does not espouse an economic ideology, what makes Fascism right wing are it's views on nationalism as well as age and gender roles. Economically Fascism wasn't tied to any particular ideology but tended to use the economic system in place before their rise to power... This means that Fascism maintained the pre-existing capitalist systems of Germany and Italy.
However it should be noted that Fascists were violently opposed to Socialism.
captain_cynic said:
Erm, no.
The Nazis (it's not an acronym) were never a socialist party, they were formed from the ultranationalist Freikorps culture, who were primarily fighting the Bolsheviks in post WWI Germany. In fact before Hitlers ascension to power, before he started on the Jews, the enemy of the Nazi party was the Bolsheviks and we don't hear much about the German Bolsheviks because the Nazis killed them in the early 20's.
At no point were the Nazis a socialist or even left wing party. They began from a paramilitary culture steeped in racism and nationalism.
The closest thing the Nazis ever had to a social program was Action T4... The enforced euthanasia of anyone considered to be a burden to the state, the old, infirm, disabled, feeble (what we'd call handicapped).
Hitler was never left wing. That would have been the Bolsheviks and I've mentioned above what happened to them.
Check out von Mises, try this first https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism...The Nazis (it's not an acronym) were never a socialist party, they were formed from the ultranationalist Freikorps culture, who were primarily fighting the Bolsheviks in post WWI Germany. In fact before Hitlers ascension to power, before he started on the Jews, the enemy of the Nazi party was the Bolsheviks and we don't hear much about the German Bolsheviks because the Nazis killed them in the early 20's.
At no point were the Nazis a socialist or even left wing party. They began from a paramilitary culture steeped in racism and nationalism.
The closest thing the Nazis ever had to a social program was Action T4... The enforced euthanasia of anyone considered to be a burden to the state, the old, infirm, disabled, feeble (what we'd call handicapped).
Hitler was never left wing. That would have been the Bolsheviks and I've mentioned above what happened to them.
. As I remember those caring, sharing Communists were not big on disability rights/burden on the state either, for example.Balmoral said:
You see, it's the same old same old, trying to nail these non left/right traits onto the left/right axis.
people seem to want it easy. Look at the insults and derision in this very thread, simply debating the idea it isn't a simple good tribe/bad tribe equation unsettles people.glazbagun said:
Also interesting to compare the anti left-wing, "libtard" stuff you get from the US with their two choices of presidential candidates.
This, the US is a predominantly right-wing nation. Even the left are probably more right wing than the Tories. I don't think the US could even closely tolerate a party like Labour.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff