Was Hitler really right wing?

[PositronicRay]

AshVX220 said:

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.

Given that I'm not convinced re the validity of the test, did they ask Donald, Hillary, et all to complete it, or did someone guess at the answers on thier behalf?

[AshVX220]

Vanden Saab said:

Liberal leftie here
In the first instance, if there is no UK based chef available then they can recruit from wherever they like, subject to any immigration limits or rules.
In the second instance, no. Bringing in workers from elsewhere when the skills and workers are available here is just daft.Why should taxpayers subsidise your company?

Liberal and Libertarian are not quite the same

[glazbagun]

"Please note that the positions on the chart are based on speeches, manifestos and, where applicable, voting records. If positions markedly change during the campaign, we will revise the chart accordingly. Already the positions of Trump and Clinton differ slightly from the primaries chart."

They also point out that, despite calling himself socialist, Bernie wasn't. And he supported Hillary, despite Stein being closer to hisbown manifesto (which strikes me as pretty sensible for a Dem in a 2 horse race).

Edited by glazbagun on Monday 21st January 12:59

[plasticpig]

Balmoral said:

You see, it's the same old same old, trying to nail these non left/right traits onto the left/right axis.

The polar opposite of totalitarianism is anarchism. Anarchism is often perceived as being left wing because we mainly see anarchists causing trouble at demonstrations on the news. There are anarcho capitalists who are pretty much as libertarian right as you can get on the political compass. They don't turn up on the news smashing up a bank or McDonalds though so a lot of the public's perception is guided by what they see in the news

[Atomic12C]

Countdown said:

otolith said:

Countdown said:

Is there a Far-Right Party which isn't racist?

Depends, does you definition of "a Far-Right Party" include "racist"?

It always has done because I've never read about one which isn't...however I'm happy to be corrected.

A general rule is that as you move away from centrist politics you stray more towards ideologies, and these often include racism.
A modern day example is the move of the current UK Labour party towards the hard left with Corbyn, which has surfaced its brand of racism in the form of anti-semitism.

[s2art]

Countdown said:

Is there a Far-Right Party which isn't racist?

How do you judge that? By its policies or by its membership?

[plasticpig]

Balmoral said:

We talked about this in Normandy, doing all the D Day stuff on our pilgrimage, so quite topical really. That was over three years ago, we must catch up together sometime.

Definitely. I hadn't realized it was that long ago. I did try and contact you a while back but you had changed your mobile number.

[Teddy Lop]

plasticpig said:

Balmoral said:

You see, it's the same old same old, trying to nail these non left/right traits onto the left/right axis.

The polar opposite of totalitarianism is anarchism. Anarchism is often perceived as being left wing because we mainly see anarchists causing trouble at demonstrations on the news. There are anarcho capitalists who are pretty much as libertarian right as you can get on the political compass. They don't turn up on the news smashing up a bank or McDonalds though so a lot of the public's perception is guided by what they see in the news

but it all conflicts, to be hard left anarchist is a contradiction as the hard left bit requires considerable authoritarianism to work. Mind, hard left anarchists tend to be every bit the dribblingly thick (or just in it for the trouble) as their neo-Nazi counterparts so I doubt they have the presence of mind.

The anarcho- capitalists seem to have an impossible (because humans) utopia vision just as flawed as their lefty counterparts too. Although atlas shruged is on my reading pile so maybe I can be converted.

[AshVX220]

plasticpig said:

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.

Would we consider this to be the same model that China operates under now?

[AshVX220]

PositronicRay said:

AshVX220 said:

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.

Given that I'm not convinced re the validity of the test, did they ask Donald, Hillary, et all to complete it, or did someone guess at the answers on thier behalf?

Well, they definitely didn't ask Hitler, Stalin, Ghandi or Maggie T! I guess that they have "experts" who give the responses they believe those people would give or use history etc to come to the same conclusions as those people. But, as I said, the US is very Right of centre, even the democrats.

[dudleybloke]

I would say Nazism was a cult of personality.

[Teddy Lop]

AshVX220 said:

PositronicRay said:

AshVX220 said:

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.

Given that I'm not convinced re the validity of the test, did they ask Donald, Hillary, et all to complete it, or did someone guess at the answers on thier behalf?

Well, they definitely didn't ask Hitler, Stalin, Ghandi or Maggie T! I guess that they have "experts" who give the responses they believe those people would give or use history etc to come to the same conclusions as those people. But, as I said, the US is very Right of centre, even the democrats.

a lot of so called experts can exhibit massive bias though, you only need look at historical accounts.

I guess the most impartial you could make it is to have people from across the political spectrum and only include data they all agree on, probably quite unlikely this was the process though, and then there's the timing - Hitlers "publically readable" political position when? 1932? 1938? 1944? Its likely a lot of what he said and did in wartime was utilised but is that relevant when other political leaders are pitched while not in a state of all out war?

[AshVX220]

s2art said:

Countdown said:

Is there a Far-Right Party which isn't racist?

How do you judge that? By its policies or by its membership?

It should be by it's policies, unfortunately though members can be drawn to parties for "perceived" views, rather than actual policies.

[andy_s]

Atomic12C said:

Countdown said:

otolith said:

Countdown said:

Is there a Far-Right Party which isn't racist?

Depends, does you definition of "a Far-Right Party" include "racist"?

It always has done because I've never read about one which isn't...however I'm happy to be corrected.

A general rule is that as you move away from centrist politics you stray more towards ideologies, and these often include racism.
A modern day example is the move of the current UK Labour party towards the hard left with Corbyn, which has surfaced its brand of racism in the form of anti-semitism.

Apart from commending the excellent points made in this bit of thread, yeah - and I've said before that ideological political thinking is flawed in two ways; firstly you lose solutions to problems as you're constrained by the ideology and secondly strong ideology requires a certain hysterical following that is almost cultish ('personality' as above, and Uncle Joe etc of course) which, as Solzhenitsyn pointed out; "Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble – and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology – that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination."

[otolith]

andy_s said:

The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology – that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination."

See also C.S. Lewis's omnipotent moral busybodies.

[AshVX220]

Teddy Lop said:

AshVX220 said:

PositronicRay said:

AshVX220 said:

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.

Given that I'm not convinced re the validity of the test, did they ask Donald, Hillary, et all to complete it, or did someone guess at the answers on thier behalf?

Well, they definitely didn't ask Hitler, Stalin, Ghandi or Maggie T! I guess that they have "experts" who give the responses they believe those people would give or use history etc to come to the same conclusions as those people. But, as I said, the US is very Right of centre, even the democrats.

a lot of so called experts can exhibit massive bias though, you only need look at historical accounts.

I guess the most impartial you could make it is to have people from across the political spectrum and only include data they all agree on, probably quite unlikely this was the process though, and then there's the timing - Hitlers "publically readable" political position when? 1932? 1938? 1944? Its likely a lot of what he said and did in wartime was utilised but is that relevant when other political leaders are pitched while not in a state of all out war?

Possibly, but I imagine there's enough data on Hitler and his views/thoughts etc taken from the lead up to war to enable them to make an informed decision.

[PositronicRay]

glazbagun said:

"Please note that the positions on the chart are based on speeches, manifestos and, where applicable, voting records. If positions markedly change during the campaign, we will revise the chart accordingly. Already the positions of Trump and Clinton differ slightly from the primaries chart."

They also point out that, despite calling himself socialist, Bernie wasn't. And he supported Hillary, despite Stein being closer to hisbown manifesto (which strikes me as pretty sensible for a Dem in a 2 horse race).

Edited by glazbagun on Monday 21st January 12:59

So not accurate at all then.

[andy_s]

otolith said:

See also C.S. Lewis's omnipotent moral busybodies.

Yup he had that nailed too.

[plasticpig]

Teddy Lop said:

but it all conflicts, to be hard left anarchist is a contradiction as the hard left bit requires considerable authoritarianism to work. Mind, hard left anarchists tend to be every bit the dribblingly thick (or just in it for the trouble) as their neo-Nazi counterparts so I doubt they have the presence of mind.

The anarcho- capitalists seem to have an impossible (because humans) utopia vision just as flawed as their lefty counterparts too. Although atlas shruged is on my reading pile so maybe I can be converted.

Atlas Shrugged isn't really about anarcho- capitalism. Rand wasn't a fan of anarchism but just very free market capitalism. Most fiction with a anarcho- capitalists society is Cyberpunk SF. Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson being my favorite; although Robert A. Heinlein was a bit of a fan with The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and Friday having strong anarcho capitalist themes.

[jakesmith]

Teddy Lop said:

History may paint him as a freak and plenty of the less informed judge him by the standards of today, but Hitler wasn't that far off what was current thinking of the time, so stands to reason today's Hitler would be working with current and relevant ideas. The danger of the Nazi comes from within, not externally.

Who are you comparing his thinking with, which other national leaders or prominent politicians of the time, outside of the Nazi Party would you say shared his ideology? That weren't fringe movements.

In lieu of an answer I would suggest that he was a murderous rabble rouser that managed to take a significant portion of a large population with him, a population who had suffered a generation of desperate poverty that would make current so-called-austerity look like decadence, with little access to balanced education, and tapped into a vein of base human fear and ignorance in order to perpetuate the largest and most shocking campaign of murder and violence that the world has ever seen. He was and is without peer internationally even compared to the brutality of Mao or Stalin who also hoodwinked their populations into following completely false promises of a better way of life in order to seize perpetual & absolute control of power. Hitler was not in any way in line with any thinking of the time before or since

I suggest you watch this in full and educate yourself a little so you don't say such deeply stupid things in public again

https://www.amazon.co.uk/World-War-Ultimate-Restor...