Was Hitler really right wing?

[NJH]

It's also very corrosive. We live in a liberal democracy, its not just a debasement of words but eventually of all the institutions and norms associated with a liberal democracy. This for me is vastly more worrying than nonsense about left v right.

[Halb]

It means HItler is a great example of authoritarian, and he was right wing, to deny that goes beyond the pale even for here.

NAZIs and capitalism
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-...

NAZIs privatising things
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

NAZIs squashing trade unions, the bastion of the leftie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germ...

[Guybrush]

Halb said:

It means HItler is a great example of authoritarian, and he was right wing, to deny that goes beyond the pale even for here.

NAZIs and capitalism
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/04/capitalism-and-...

NAZIs privatising things
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

NAZIs squashing trade unions, the bastion of the leftie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germ...

Please just compare Hitler's actions with a couple of far left dictators, say Stalin and Mao. You won't see much difference.

[Randy Winkman]

From this thread I'd have to assume most PHers who consider themselves "right-wing" don't want strict immigration controls?

[grumbledoak]

Halb said:

grumbledoak said:

But mostly "right wing" is used as an insult by the left and the "liberals" to mean anyone other than themselves. It's around the intellectual level of "ORANGE MAN BAD" and no-one is going to be reclaiming either phrase any time soon.

'leftie' and 'liberal' (even more bizarrely) is regularly used on PH as a pejorative.

True, but not in the same way. They are used more specifically. Someone using "leftie" as an insult will usually be referring to their economic preferences or social "justice" campaigning. Liberal is normally put in quotes to emphasize that those currently calling themselves "liberal" are quite far removed from it. Whereas seemingly any unrelated nastiness like racism or football violence all get called "far right" even though racism isn't unique to either end of the economic spectrum. The BNP is very left wing, in fact - in favour of large scale renationalization in the last elections, yet "far right" is the slur.

[RJG46]

Is Boris Johnson really stupid?

[Guybrush]

Randy Winkman said:

From this thread I'd have to assume most PHers who consider themselves "right-wing" don't want strict immigration controls?

Skills based is all. Nothing to do with race.

[Countdown]

Guybrush said:

Randy Winkman said:

From this thread I'd have to assume most PHers who consider themselves "right-wing" don't want strict immigration controls?

Skills based is all. Nothing to do with race.

A friend of mine runs an indian restaurant and desperately needs a decent chef. Do you think they should be allowed to recruit from India?

Equally my firm needs an Oracle DBA - I can either pay something like £60k for somebody who live sin the UK or recruit somebody from India for £35k....ok to recruit from India?

[voyds9]

Randy Winkman said:

From this thread I'd have to assume most PHers who consider themselves "right-wing" don't want strict immigration controls?

But the Left have managed to push a narrative that being on the Right is Far Right and Nazi.

[PositronicRay]

alfie2244 said:

PositronicRay said:

kurt535 said:

That was great; I came out same as Gandhi!

Me too.

Me too

I think it's rigged, even Mrs (slightly right of attila the hun) PR comes out as Gandhi.

[Vanden Saab]

Countdown said:

Guybrush said:

Randy Winkman said:

From this thread I'd have to assume most PHers who consider themselves "right-wing" don't want strict immigration controls?

Skills based is all. Nothing to do with race.

A friend of mine runs an indian restaurant and desperately needs a decent chef. Do you think they should be allowed to recruit from India?

Equally my firm needs an Oracle DBA - I can either pay something like £60k for somebody who live sin the UK or recruit somebody from India for £35k....ok to recruit from India?

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?

[Randy Winkman]

voyds9 said:

Randy Winkman said:

From this thread I'd have to assume most PHers who consider themselves "right-wing" don't want strict immigration controls?

But the Left have managed to push a narrative that being on the Right is Far Right and Nazi.

Who are "the left"? I'm fairly left wing; am I one of them?

[dai1983]

PositronicRay said:

I think it's rigged, even Mrs (slightly right of attila the hun) PR comes out as Gandhi.

Maybe instead of being the fine upstanding right wingers you think you are you’re actually lefties in desguise? I think loads of people have done the same as yourselves as it’s fashionable at the moment to call people “libetards” and “leftie snowflakes”.

[dai1983]

grumbledoak said:

True, but not in the same way. They are used more specifically. Someone using "leftie" as an insult will usually be referring to their economic preferences or social "justice" campaigning.

I get called a leftie snowflake when I tell people I voted remain or when I question their zealot like support of Tommy Robinson. Neither for me is a left v right issue but it’s the go to slur for idiots who cant argue their opinions very well

[andy_s]

dai1983 said:

I get called a leftie snowflake when I tell people I voted remain or when I question their zealot like support of Tommy Robinson. Neither for me is a left v right issue but it’s the go to slur for idiots who cant argue their opinions very well

It's an idiot test; when you get called a hyperbolic and projected name that is in current 'fashion' and it's undeserved or irrelevant it immediately shows where the discourse will be going and gives you an opportunity to do something more interesting than arguing with an idiot.

[Countdown]

Vanden Saab said:

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?

It's the same situation for both... there probably ARE workers available in the UK but they cost much more to employ.

It's a bit like LU train drivers insisting that they should be on £50k per annum and preventing LU from recruiting anybody externally. In very simple terms that's what limiting freedom of movement does; it acts to protect certain workers.

And I'm not sure how taxpayers would be subsidising "my" company?

[Countdown]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No I wouldn't (complain). I'm a strong believer in sauce for the goose also being suitable for the gander. nobody thinks that ex-pats working abroad is a "bad thing" but there seems to be a resentment towards people from other countries coming to work in the UK. It's a tad hypocritical.

[grumbledoak]

Countdown said:

No I wouldn't (complain). I'm a strong believer in sauce for the goose also being suitable for the gander. nobody thinks that ex-pats working abroad is a "bad thing" but there seems to be a resentment towards people from other countries coming to work in the UK. It's a tad hypocritical.

It all depends on whether you are bringing in cheaper labour with no need or intention to pay a UK mortgage and putting a local worker on the dole at everyone else's expense. Most UK ex-pats aren't in that situation; our own property being among the most expensive in the first place.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

No. The terms left and right wing as political positions originated in the French revolution when the French parliament divided into two with those on the right supporting the King and those on the left supporting the revolution. More broadly the right stood for continuity and the church, the left stood for revolution and change.

Hitler was by any measure a radical who wanted and implemented huge changes. He was not a monarchist, not a theist and believed in state intervention in all areas of life for innovative 'improvements.' He had no respect for the inherently right wing idea of different centres of power and little interest in order except as an excuse to suppress opposition.

The only possible right wing things about him were that he claimed to be a nationalist, and he was racist. His claim to be a nationalist is dubious as he reinvented the idea of the German nation according to his own ideals, which flies in the face of the traditionalist right wing view that it's precisely the continuity of the nation which makes it something worth defending. He then sought to build an empire, which is immediately a threat to the nation you claim to be a nationalist for. As for racism, I don't believe Hitler was racist for the legitimate right wing reasons, which are to preserve and enhance the tribal differences of your people and nothing to do with hating others. Hitler was all about hating others and creating a master race. That was simply politically expedient for an empire builder at the time, and if he actually believed in it then so much the better for him.

I have no doubt at all that if Hitler were alive today he would be a champion of diversity. a believer in climate change and an arch remainer. Not especially because he would believe in these things either but because he believed in political expedience and the concentration of power at the expense of continuity and heirarchy.

[glazbagun]

Balmoral said:

A true right winger wouldn't give a fk about immigration because the market reaches a level, the more right wing and free marketeer you are, the less of a fk is given. FoM is the very essence of right wing thinking, which is completely contrary to the current narrative.

A true right-winger with capital would think that way. A right winger without it would see it as competition in their attempts to aquire capital. Likewise I have often pondered why the left seem so in love with FOM which hurts the working classes the most. Self-identifying lefties I know boil it down to not being racist scum, but that's not really an economic position.

I instead think it probably has it's roots in egalitarianism and the class struggle- Communism was supposed to spread the globe in as the proles overthrew their capitalist masters, after all, so to a true lefty the Lithuanian cleaner with poor English is your brother/sister in the class struggle, not someone who's dragging your wages down. If one views voting socialist as just a way to get more child benefit, it's possible you're not drinking the same cool-aid.