Jeremy Corbyn sings Communist anthem with activists who shared shocking anti-Semitic posts about the 'ugly Israeli species'

[*]The Labour leader sang the Red Flag with pro-Palestine campaigners in Bristol
[*]He was pictured embracing two activists who have shared anti-Semitic posts
[*]Mr Corbyn also attended an event run by a Muslim organisation which stated the Labour party was 'indebted to Jewish financiers'
[*]He was pictured chatting with a rapper who calls for violence against Israel
[*]MailOnline's revelations reapply pressure on beleaguered Labour leader who is facing rock bottom popularity ratings after by-election failure in Copeland


Jeremy Corbyn was pictured singing a Communist anthem while embracing Labour activists who made shocking anti-Semitic posts on social media, MailOnline can reveal. Supporters were seen punching the air as the Labour leader led a chorus of the Red Flag with campaigners who have said that Israel is responsible for ISIS, openly admitted to 'hating' Israel, and ranted about the 'ugly Israeli species'. Mr Corbyn also supported a Muslim group which states on its website that the Labour Party is 'indebted to Jewish financiers with Zionist leanings', and attended one of its events last year. 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4253926/Jeremy-Corbyn-NEW-anti-Semitism-row.html#ixzz4aCQEqhmY 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




This is he problem Liberals face within Labour, that it is now run by a core of the Far Left and its supporters, who are as bad as the Far Right in their racism.

Your so called 'far right' (like the bnp or nazi germany for example) are actually just other strands of far left...

Tommy Monk wrote:Your so called 'far right' (like the bnp or nazi germany for example) are actually just other strands of far left...

Strands?

Yes they are on opposite ends of the same path of hate

The Far left are not often nationalists

Nazism is so far removed from left wing Politics. Espcially after Hitler came to power after using them.
He showed his thanks by murdering the socialist element of that party in 1934
So the Nazi's were adapt at using the left, they were very much Far Right

Why do you constantly ignore this historical fact Tommy?

Hitler used the left to gain power and when he gained that power, he eradicated them

The nationalist socialists (Nazis) had their own self righteous leftie agenda... and like all lefties, hated all others with even slightly differing views...



There were a lot of leftie factions about then with slightly differing views...

Tommy Monk wrote:The nationalist socialists (Nazis) had their own self righteous leftie agenda... and like all lefties, hated all others with even slightly differing views...



There were a lot of leftie factions about then with slightly differing views...

Really, is that why they murdered them or locked them up in 1934, in the knight of the long knives?
Its so far removed from left wing or universal human rights or liberalism. It shows you have no comprehension of Political affiliations.
So why did he murder the left wing elements Tommy?

Your are a puppet to nationalism Far Right Propaganda

Old waffle argument that I have exposed countless times before...

Tommy Monk wrote:Old waffle argument that I have exposed countless times before...

Really?

So again, why did Hitler murder and jail, those left wing elements one year after gaining power Tommy in 1934?

You only exposed, why you need to read some real history and not the bullshit you promote.

Tommy Monk wrote:The nationalist socialists (Nazis) had their own self righteous leftie agenda... and like all lefties, hated all others with even slightly differing views...

Yeah, that's why we promote tolerance so much -- because we hate everyone who isn't exactly like us.

Jeez, Tommy, you're practically the polar opposite of me and I don't hate you ... at least not that much ...

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The nationalist socialists (Nazis) had their own self righteous leftie agenda... and like all lefties, hated all others with even slightly differing views...

Yeah, that's why we promote tolerance so much -- because we hate everyone who isn't exactly like us.

Jeez, Tommy, you're practically the polar opposite of me and I don't hate you ... at least not that much ...

Yeah, but you are as bad as Tommy, when you ignore antisemitism from the left

I dont hate you but sigh, when you ignore that racism

Tommy Monk wrote:Old waffle argument that I have exposed countless times before...

No tommy it is Again just you posting Rubbish that no one with an ounce of education would even consider suggesting is true.
Nazis were right wing, Fascism is right wing. get it through your head
Hitler and the Nazi murdered lefties before the murdered Jews, as thorin said it is known as the night of long knives

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The nationalist socialists (Nazis) had their own self righteous leftie agenda... and like all lefties, hated all others with even slightly differing views...

Yeah, that's why we promote tolerance so much -- because we hate everyone who isn't exactly like us.

Jeez, Tommy, you're practically the polar opposite of me and I don't hate you ... at least not that much ...

Yeah, but you are as bad as Tommy, when you ignore antisemitism from the left

I dont hate you but sigh, when you ignore that racism

and you are just as bad for promoting Islamophobia

same shit
Abrahamists are all the same
But you only ever defend one sect and openly attack another.

And IF Israel is secular than being anti Israel is not being anti Semitic.
Israel as a nation cannot be Secular and Semitic at the same time.
the promotion of the idea that the nation should be allowed to use anti Semitism as a shield for it's current actions is Zionist.

Corbyn hardly represents the modern LW
he is the old left and the fact that UK Labour has stuck with the old left is the reason why it is polling so poorly.

why does the UK feel the need to keep old stuff for as long as possible?

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yeah, but you are as bad as Tommy, when you ignore antisemitism from the left

I dont hate you but sigh, when you ignore that racism

and you are just as bad for promoting Islamophobia

same shit
Abrahamists are all the same
But you only ever defend one sect and openly attack another.

And IF Israel is secular than being anti Israel is not being anti Semitic.
Israel as a nation cannot be Secular and Semitic at the same time.
the promotion of the idea that the nation should be allowed to use anti Semitism as a shield for it's current actions is Zionist.

Really?

I am against prejudice and discrimination of Muslims.
I am critical or all 3 abrahamic religions

Ben is silent on antisemitism when from the left
He once made fun of me via the holocaust and ovens.
It was in really poor taste of which he apologized

You are protecting religious ideologies again.
Islamophobia is a made up word to defend Islam from criticism
I am critical of Judaism
I dont hate either of its followers

Understand the difference?

Being anti-Israel's Government or armed forces is fine, but being anti-Israeli is no different than being anti black or Irish, its racism.
Invoking views to the worst forms in history that have no comparability, is a form of racism. Hence claiming Israel is like Nazism and Apartheid are born from ignorance and done to justify and normalize hating Israeli's and by association Jews.

You can be critical of anything.

There are many reasons why labour are polling so badly... and all down to their previous 13 years in govt... doesn't really matter who their current leader is.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The nationalist socialists (Nazis) had their own self righteous leftie agenda... and like all lefties, hated all others with even slightly differing views...

Yeah, that's why we promote tolerance so much -- because we hate everyone who isn't exactly like us.

Jeez, Tommy, you're practically the polar opposite of me and I don't hate you ... at least not that much ...

Yeah, but you are as bad as Tommy, when you ignore antisemitism from the left

I dont hate you but sigh, when you ignore that racism

We don't get a lot of antisemitism from the left here in America -- it's since Trump's election that all the Jewish community centers are getting threatened. It's the alt-right holding anti-Jewish parades, not the left.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yeah, but you are as bad as Tommy, when you ignore antisemitism from the left

I dont hate you but sigh, when you ignore that racism

We don't get a lot of antisemitism from the left here in America -- it's since Trump's election that all the Jewish community centers are getting threatened. It's the alt-right holding anti-Jewish parades, not the left.

And that shows why you are being naive

The far right hate Jews, so does the Far left

Do you want to see some more evidence on this?

This is where you bury your head again and prove again you excuse racism from the illiberals and regressives Ben

You get plenty of antisemitism from the left in the US.

Lets start with conspiracies on Jews shall we?

Okay Ben, are you telling me Universities are now all Alt_Right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/26/anti-semitism-spikes-on-u-s-campuses/?utm_term=.b34c772f0929

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universities_and_antisemitism

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Old waffle argument that I have exposed countless times before...

Really?

So again, why did Hitler murder and jail, those left wing elements one year after gaining power Tommy in 1934?

You only exposed, why you need to read some real history and not the bullshit you promote.

Too true, Thorin...

All that Tommy has ever exposed in any political discussion, is his total ignorance in anything to do with political history or economic theory...

I suppose that's what happens when his only references/sources are neo-nazi and alt.right blog sites..

Tommy really should get himself a proper education.

I've already answered that old waffle argument before...

Tommy Monk wrote:I've already answered that old waffle argument before...

No you have not.
As each time, you misdirect by claiming waffle and run away.

I've answered before... just not on this thread.

Tommy Monk wrote:I've answered before... just not on this thread.

I know you have not, so if you have answered before, what is stopping you now?

Again you simple do not understand Fascism or nazism and are gullible to sites like info wars.

Here is a lovely link to fully educate why you are so wrong continually on the this poor claim you make..

Was Hitler a Socialist? Was Hitler a Left-Winger?

The idea that “Hitler was a socialist” is a myth. Hitler was a Fascist. Fascism has some socialist roots, but it is a unique authoritarian and nationalist ideology separate from socialism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
The simplest proof of the above is Hitler’s own Mein Kampf and Mussolini’s own Doctrine of Fascism, as both specifically explain that their ideologies are Nationalist, Imperialist, Militaristic, “Right”, Authoritarian, anti-Liberal, and anti-Socialist (anti-Marxist, anti-Democratic Socialist, and anti-Christian-Socialist).

This is true, as explained in both works, despite the early socialist roots of both ideologies and a few of their in-practice socialist actions like free healthcare for nationals (the terms Fascist and National Socialism both specifically denote this form of authoritative, imperialistic, and militaristic nationalism which offers aspects of socialism for a core group of nationals only).

In other words, not only does history show these fascist movements were right-wing in practice, Hitler and Mussolini’s own works confirm it enthusiastically and in great detail.

Pair the above with the fact that Hitler led his party’s Nationalist wing, and that the Nationalist wing assassinated and jailed the socialist wing of Strasserists who had helped write the NAZI’s early 1920’s platform (which some will cite as “proof of socialism”) and we have a rock solid case that Hitler was not actually a socialist or left-winger and most certainly was not a liberal.

Like the KKK, fascism grew out of a left-wing movement, but that doesn’t make it anything we call socialist, liberal, or left-wing in practice.

Below we further explain why it is correct to call Hitler a right-wing Fascist and not correct to call him a left-wing Socialist Liberal (like infowars does).

TIP: A good way to think about this is that the global right-wing has more than one faction, and while the populist nationalist fascists are to the left of the traditional conservative order in terms of populism vs. elitism (like the “Bannon alt-right” is to the left of a Neoliberal Globalist Elite or Neoconservative Global Elite in some respects), they are to the right of just about everyone else in terms of being authoritarians against liberty and equality. So most people will almost always accurately describe fascists as right-wing as an absolute, but in very specific conversations you can say they are “to the left” of another right-wing group in terms of the populist / elitist divide. Learn more about the political left-right.

Understanding Why it is Incorrect to Call Hitler a Socialist, Even Though His Party Was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI party)

Despite being a far-right nationalist fascist, Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI party), just like his inspiration Mussolini and his National Fascist Party and later Republican Fascist Party, had socialist roots and embraced a few socialist policies for nationals (especially in the early days, decades before the war).

We call this authoritarian militaristic far-right nationalism with hints of socialism, “fascism“.
We should not be sidetracked by other terms like Republican and Socialist in the fascist parties names, especially given the history of these parties. They are important, but they don’t speak to the core of the party.

In fact, since fascism as a term denotes its own socialist roots, it would be tautological and confusing to call Hitler “a socialist” without first denoting his fascist ideology.

Likewise, since fascism arguably comes in both left and right forms, and since both Hitler’s and Mussolini’s forms were “right[-wing]” and not “socialist” by Mussolini’s own admission in his Doctrine of Fascism where he describes his “FASCIST TOTALITARIAN VISION OF THE FUTURE”, it is confusing to give Hitler or Mussolini (or Franco, or any other militant nationalist fascist or quasi-fascist with an authoritarian and/or exclusive ideology) the general label “left-wing”.

Furthermore, given the very authoritative nature of the dictators, and their rabid opposition to liberalism, it is just flat out wrong to call either a liberal (that point really shouldn’t even be up for debate).

This is to say, no, historically speaking, “Hitler was not a left-wing, socialist, liberal”, and this can be confirmed by their own major written works and general recorded history.

Fascism is unique and should not be mistaken as being “progressive”, “left-wing”, liberal, or what today we think of as “socialist” just because it has a few parallels (like the seeking of conformity) and shares some common roots with these ideologies.

Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle….. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ” right “, a Fascist century…. If liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government… Fascism desires the State to be strong and organic, based on broad foundations of popular [populist] support… Activism: that is to say nationalism, futurism, fascism… The Fascist State expresses the will to exercise power and to command…. Never before have the peoples thirsted for authority, direction, order, as they do now. – Excerpts from Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism that prove in one short essay all the points made, now we need only equate this with Hitler (who was further to the right on most issues, save his party’s socialist wing of Strasserists.)

Further Proof that Hitler Was a Fascist Right-Wing Nationalist Authoritarian like Mussolini and the Other WWII Fascists

Most of what people cite to attempt to show Hitler was “left-wing” or “a socialist” comes from the NAZI’s early 1920’s platform, which was written before Hitler rose to power in the party’s Nationalist wing! Simply, the nationalists were in a party with some socialists (Strasserists) at one point, but that doesn’t make the nationalist fascism left, liberal, or socialist. Fascism is a right-wing (authoritative and small group focused) ideology.
Consider some main aspects of fascism are:

• Anti-specific religions (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Pro-racial separation (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Anti-civil rights for minorities (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Anti-establishment (left-wing, against the elite; but right-wing, against the protections of the state; and right-wing, in practice the NAZIs became despotic tyrants who used the full power of the state)
  
  
• Anti-homosexual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Anti-abortion (right-wing, authoritative)
  
  
• Anti-intellectual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Anti-immigration (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Pro-social programs for their “nationals” AKA their in-group (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).
  
  
• Pro-nativist worker (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).
  
  
• Anti-Capitalism on paper (left-wing, against capitalism and toward socialism for the in-group on paper; right-wing, were capitalists with a strict hierarchy in practice.)
  
  

In short, just based on general reason, not much about the NAZI’s fascism is left-wing (not much liberty and/or equality going on here). Sure, on paper in the 1920’s they were to the left of a Monarchy with the help of the Strasserists). But the militant WWII era (Sep 1, 1939 – Sep 2, 1945) NAZI fascism is mostly right-wing, despite its quasi-socialist roots.

This exclusive in-group nativist, nationalist, xenophobic, and at times militant ideology is what we call in modern language “right-wing”, and it is not an ideology of liberty and equality, it is an ideology of authority and inequality, it is not liberalism.

In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated. – Hitler’s Mein Kampf where he states clearly what he means by National “Socialism”… a right-wing fascist type of nationalism with a few socialist elements.

NOTE: Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, like Mussolini’s Doctrine, also describes a right-wing fascist ideology, but be warned, Mussolini’s Doctrine is a short readable essay, and Hitler’s book is a long-winded recount of his becoming a right-wing nationalist in the Nationalist Socialist party. In the text, Hitler speaks of how he was at first enamored by the Christian-Socialists like Lueger, but he also clearly illustrates his move away from socialism toward National Socialism (socialism for the in-group only, a type of fascism… and one that notably gets less socialist over time in practice).


Hitler admits he’s a Socialist and anti-Communist. People confuse the NAZI’s pro-German worker stance to mean that Hitler was a left-winger, but his despotic exclusive authoritarian fascist form of socialism was very right-wing compared to the other socialist ideologies of the time (all of which the NAZI eradicated as they illegally ceased control of the German Government and created a tyrannical despotic state where Germans were forced into Hitler’s brand of militaristic fascism… which embraced some aspects of socialism, like free healthcare and education for German nationals). It isn’t that there are no socialist aspects of Hitler’s Nazism, it is that those few socialist aspects don’t make Hitler a left-wing social liberal socialist like Bernie Sanders… obviously.

TIP: The KKK is one of the first modern fascist groups, they were a progressively conservative faction within the old Democratic party. Like the NAZIs who came after them, they were right-wing on just about every issue… except their ideology toward the central government and economic elites. Like the NAZIs, the KKK are not well described (especially in modern terms) as left-wing liberals. It isn’t that there are no parallels, it is that their ideology is fascism and not social liberalism. The Radical Republicans of the Civil War era were arguably the real progressives of the era, and they were the polar opposite of the KKK Confederates. See a heady discussion here: No, the Ku Klux Klan Has Never, Ever Been a ‘Leftist’ Organization or here: The Democrats were the Party of the Ku Klux Klan and Slavery. In short, just based on general reason, not much about the KKK’s fascism is left-wing, especially the militant Civil War era KKK fascism, despite its quasi-liberal roots.
TIP: Hitler was inspired by Karl Lueger when he studied in Vienna Austria in the times leading up to WWI. Lueger was an early European Fascist. Lueger was not liberal-left, he was a populist and anti-Semitic leader of the Christian Social Party… again we see the left-wing roots, but we can’t let that obscure the move toward right-wing ideology, as a response to immigrants, that is part of what makes it fascist. If it wasn’t a unique thing, we wouldn’t have a unique name for it.
TIP: Today, speaking very broadly, the debate is between nativist protectionist “tea party” alt-right-ism against immigration and for nationalism (global right-wing), and a progressive alt-left neoliberal globalization that seeks inclusion (global left-wing). If FDR, Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler were alive today, we can kind of figure out which would be Tea Party and which would be Progressive, FDR and Stalin would err toward the globalist collectives, Hitler and Mussolini would be screaming about immigration and nationalism. The left and right in any era are just what they are, the core of the human condition has not changed (not its centered correctness, nor its corrupted extremes). We can compare authoritarians all day long, but we need to use consistent comparative terms. Saying “all WW2 ideologies were left” demonizes the left and socialism and normalizes alt-right neo-fascism. Which I think is the point of some propagandists on the right-wing, but let this page stand as an argument against that and the calling out of that alternative-fact.
TIP: It make sense that people get confused. Try to compare a bunch of authoritative ideologies and polices, and the lines between left and right start to blur. Still, Communism and Fascism are different despite both having some socialist and fascist parallels. To properly explain this debate we need to consider some complex factors. We can appreciate articles like Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt by Cato’s David Boaz for deep insight without confusing liberalism, fascism, socialism, and communism, without confusing FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini, and without trying to normalize modern socialism or fascism by swapping left and right labels when it suits us politically. See our left-right model based on the Nolan chart, Hitler is not “left” generally speaking, FDR is to the left of Stalin in terms of authority, and both FDR and Stalin were to the left of Hitler. Comparative terms are important in complex conversations.
TIP: In general, terms like nationalism, socialism, and even fascism aren’t “inherently bad”, they are bad in extremes when liberty and democracy are cast aside and the ideologies break the non-aggression compact and become aggressive. Most ideologies comes in many forms, the NAZI’s ideologies were typically right-wing and extreme broadly speaking, but when we go plank-by-plank, year-by-year, the conversation gets a bit more complex than can be said in a blanket statement.
FACT: The Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated as a working-class political party, it became fascist over the course of 20 years under Hitler’s influence. That isn’t the same as “being socialist”.[10]

A List of Reasons that we Should Consider Hitler a Fascist, and not a Socialist

The essay below makes all these points in detail, but to start:

• Hitler was in the nationalist wing of his party. Hitler often spoke out against socialists and communists, especially as the 1920’s rolled on.
  
  
• That the NAZIs murdered the socialist wing during the Night of the Long Knives. They also murdered and jailed a number of other socialist and communist parties and generally anyone not loyal to the NAZI’s Nationalist wing. That is one of the ways that Hitler rose to power.
  
  
• Mussolini’s National Fascist Party, and later Republican Fascist Party, more accurately described the right-wing National Fascist ideology of WWII that Hitler and Mussolini mostly shared. Remember, Hitler came later and was influenced by Mussolini. On that note, Mussolini was a socialist in the 1910’s, before Hitler’s rise and a wing of the NAZI party was previously socialist too. So there are real socialist roots in the fascist ideology, it is just that, despite this, neither Mussolini or Hitler were “socialists” on paper or in practice, they were fascists (a term which, again, implies its own roots; as any term does).
  
  
• Many of the parties of WWII Germany were socialist or nationalist (including the Communists and Democratic Socialists the Nationalist NAZIs hated, jailed, and killed).
  
  
• NAZIism was about excluding races rather than abolishing class inequality and classes. It didn’t want global equality (on paper) like the Communists, it wanted German world domination.
  
  
• Any militaristic despot with half a brain and resources will provide their army healthcare and education or strip their enemy of guns and gold. Even Communist regimes attempted to do this to the other nationalist and socialist parties (Mensheviks and Whites come to mind in Russia).
  
  
• Early NAZIism may have had socialist planks, but once in power in 1933, Adolf Hitler turned Germany into a fascist state. WWII started in 1939, so it is super confusing to talk about some “sort-of socialist” NAZI plank from their 1920 platform like it was representative of everything Hitler stood for. The NAZI platform was not progressive in practice in the 1930’s and 1940’s, just on paper in the early days! When most people think of Hitler and the NAZIs, they think of them in their early 1940’s form (long after TIME declared Hitler the man of the year… in 1938). The early 1920’s NAZI party platform might have been “progressive“, but that was before the socialist wing of the NAZIs was taken over by the nationalist wing! It isn’t like their progressive policies led to NAZI Germany, there is no real lesson about socialism in the story of fascism (that is in the story of communism). Fascism is more a story of right-wing nationalism, and its slippery slopes.
  
  

On being left or right: Left and right are complex and comparative terms (see an essay on this). In comparative WWII terms, Fascism is “to the right” of Communism, but both these ideologies are arguably “to the right” of liberalism. In absolute terms, both authoritarian WWII ideologies were very “right-wing” in their use of authority and the state in practice. This doesn’t mean aspects of fascism and communism aren’t “to the left” of other ideologies, especially if we go plank-by-plank through the early fascist platforms. Even the National Review (a right-wing and nationalist conservative American publication) agrees with this logic. Americans and our western modern counterparts are generally liberal, so our love of liberty is going to put us to the left of any despot, in terms of being authoritative. In terms of embracing collectives, communism is much more inclusive than the exclusive fascist ideology which requires a certain race, creed, national allegiance, and more. This is the way in which communism is “more left” and why it is misleading to call hitler “left-wing”.[11]

Conclusion and Complexities

Given the above proofs, I ultimately couldn’t label the idea that “Hitler was a Socialist” as a Fact. It is too confusing for someone not ready to spend time in research mode. Too many words are required to frame this for a modern audience, as one must understand Mussolini, Hitler, Fascism, Liberalism, Communism, Marxism, the forms of socialism, and the rise of all these to even have a serious conversation here.
History isn’t supposed to be relayed with ease, but it is supposed to be relayed with accuracy. Given this, the essay below clearly discusses the ways in which Hitler was and wasn’t a socialist, left-winger, or liberal.
We will ultimately make the case that the best description of populist authoritarian tyrants like Hitler and Mussolini is right-wing national fascist, or just “fascist” (not left-wing socially liberal democratic socialist; that is a whole different WWII ideology despite the parallels; as we discuss below).
This is true even though Mussolini began his political career as a socialist and Hitler’s party once had a socialist wing.
The key here is realizing that Mussolini had pretty much given up on socialism by the time he formed his National Fascist Party in 1921. Meanwhile, Hitler joined the NAZIs in 1921, and although they initially championed socialist themes of anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, over time they began to downplay this in order to gain the support of industry. Finally, by the 1930s, the party’s focus had mostly shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes, moving further and further right, and further away from socialism.
As Hitler fully gained control of Germany, and became Führer und Reichskanzler in 1933, the NAZIs quickly turned Germany into a far-right authoritarian fascist state. At that point, any social programs were designed to do little more than train an army and ensure a master race (which isn’t exactly what we think when we think “Bernie Sanders” democratic socialism… as Hitler also hated democracy, NAZI Germany was not democratic!).
So, we can find socialist roots in fascism, and some socialist policy in 1930’s and 1940’s fascism, but of course, the term fascism inherently accounts for its own quasi-socialist roots and thus isn’t a useful primary descriptor.
Ultimately, NAZIism was less about the German worker and more about a nationalist desire for world domination, as is the case with any despot.

“Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether… What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.” – What Hitler actually thought about socialism. In practice, Hitler supported “social revolution” rather than social welfare, supported private property, and thought competition was good for weeding out the weak (a right-wing individualist stance).[12]

What is Fascism? Fascism is an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. It often has intolerant views toward “others”, and is exclusive to a certain type of native national. It can be protectionist, but in practice it is often militaristic and imperialistic. In words, it is a mash-up of other ideologies, including in some very specific and nuanced ways, socialism (which, aside from its authoritarian aspects in-practice, is why it has similarities with Communism). Fascism is generally “to the right” of communism and liberalism, as it is for a smaller group the communism and more authoritative the liberalism.[13]
What is Socialism? Socialism is the ideology of common ownership and equality among all (on paper, in general, speaking for all types at once). This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. Imagine there’s no classes, no possessions, a brotherhood of man, etc… And this of course sounds more like Communism, the extreme left-wing socialist ideology. Socialism is generally “left” as it favors equality and collectives, and the form “communism” is to the far-left (democratic socialism is toward liberalism and the center). That said, in terms of authority, socialism can be to the right of liberalism, and Communism to the far-right of liberalism (as liberals champion liberty and all forms of socialism are necessarily authoritative).[14]
What is Liberalism? The ideology of liberty and equality. And this of course sounds like… what we went to war to defend in WWII. Since it is an ideology that favors liberty and equality, the authoritative and exclusive fascism (which favors neither liberty nor equality “for all”) is to the far-right of liberalism, and on paper Communism is to the far-left in terms of equality on paper, but ultimately to the far-right in-action in terms of its use of the state (still, in WWII terms, it is to the left of fascism due to its collective nature).

“We want to be aristocrats and democrats, conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and revolutionaries, legalists and antilegalists—depending on the circumstances of the time, place and situation.” – What Benito Mussolini (the other prominent fascist of the time) thought. The implication is the fascism is pulled together from other past ideologies. Simply, neither Mussolini or Hitler was much of a socialist in practice despite their roots. Fascist is the word we use to describe this far-right (but sometimes left) ideology of Mussolini and Hitler.

TIP: See a List of fascist movements by country. We can see that “National Socialism” (not just Socialism in any form) denotes a Fascist right-wing ideology.

TIP: For another look at this, see the differences between Communism and Fascism. Both this page and that page draw the same conclusion, as the conclusion is simply an honest examination of history and political ideology, rather than the twisting of facts into a modern left or right viewpoint (as is common).

Firstly, nearly every fact in the above meme is a half-truth (as anyone who has researched the part-Jewish intellectual art student who got hit on the head one time many times knows; obviously any tyrant of a despotic state will have a 99% approval rating. 99% approve, and the other 1% on their way to Auschwitz). We can cherry pick and make it look like Hitler was a progressive left-wing socialist… but the same can be said for King George III and Stalin with this sort of half-baked logic. History is more complex than this. Hitler was a right-wing Nationalist Fascist Populist Nativist. All the aforementioned ideologies share planks. Who doesn’t want to make “fill in the blank great again”? No one has ever run on “make things worse”. (source)
BOTTOM LINE: Hitler may have taken the socialism out of National Socialism on the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 when he killed the Strasserists… but Mussolini and Hitler’s opportunistic ideologies still pulled from socialism (especially in the early days of the late 1910’s and early 1920’s when the NAZI’s 25 point program contained some socialist provisions). Thus, we have to acknowledge Hitler’s socialist characteristics, even if it isn’t the characteristic that defines him. In one word, Hitler and Mussolini were Fascists. In two words, Nationalist Fascists. With a left-right qualifier, far-right National Fascists with some left-wing elements. In many words, they can be described as anti-capitalist-and-elite, anti-intellectual, far-right, authoritative, extremist, fascist, nativist, populist, nationalists who embraced elements of socialism. Still, NAZIism was about excluding races rather than abolishing classes, and other such points discussed below, leaves us with the obvious conclusion that Hitler is best described as a fascist right-winger, not a left-wing socialist.





http://factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-socialist/

Lots more to read on the link

Dodge... you try to suggest that those who were eliminated were nice fluffy leftie socialists, when in fact...


"...Many of those killed were leaders of the SA (Sturmabteilung), the Nazis' own paramilitary Brownshirts organization; the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies. Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were establishment conservatives and anti-Nazis (such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Bavarian politician Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had suppressed Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). The murders of Brownshirt leaders were also intended to improve the image of the Hitler government with a German public that was increasingly critical of thuggish Brownshirt tactics.

Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, because he saw the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street violence as a direct threat to his newly gained political power..."


Wikipedia

Tommy Monk wrote:

Dodge... you try to suggest that those who were eliminated were nice fluffy leftie socialists, when in fact...


"...Many of those killed were leaders of the SA (Sturmabteilung), the Nazis' own paramilitary Brownshirts organization; the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies. Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were establishment conservatives and anti-Nazis (such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Bavarian politician Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had suppressed Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). The murders of Brownshirt leaders were also intended to improve the image of the Hitler government with a German public that was increasingly critical of thuggish Brownshirt tactics.

Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, because he saw the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street violence as a direct threat to his newly gained political power..."


Wikipedia

PMSL

I never said he did not get rid of others did I? like certain leaders of the SA, but you even posted the part I have highlighted which again proves why you are wrong.
Hitler also got rid of Rohm, because he was homosexual and feared his control of the SA. As they had been arguing ever since Hitler came to power, as their views were clearly far removed. More evidence for you, how Hitler used those on the left.

So funny

Anyway, this proves Hitler was anti socialism, as he removed those socialist, from within the Nazi party

Thanks, you just proved my point, as you clearly like I said, never answered this before.
You have helped back my facts glowingly

"...Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies..."


Funny how this life long friend/supporter/ally of Hitler never considered Hitler to be anything other than a socialist, like himself...?

Tommy Monk wrote:"...Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies..."


Funny how this life long friend/supporter/ally of Hitler never considered Hitler to be anything other than a socialist, like himself...?

And yet killed him
Love how you play off life long friend, since when?

Rohm was a socialist and nationalist, yet the former cost him his life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm

You see its very easy to see past stupidity Tommy, where even worse you end up further backing why Hitler was not a socialist. That he removed or killed most of the important figures in the Nazi party who were socialists. That is him stamping his Far Right wing authority.

So your only ability to continue this myth, is based on them being life long friends, when he only knew Hitler for 14 years. As he died at 46, that does not even remotely constitute as life long friends. Let alone how dumb to use this, as a counter. As if this dispels the fact Hitler hated Socialists.

I suggest you read Mein Kampf Tommy. If you have, you would know, there is no way on earth Hitler or Nazism when in powers was socialist

Ok... so maybe not a lifelong friend...


But you get my point...



"...Many of those killed were leaders of the SA (Sturmabteilung), the Nazis' own paramilitary Brownshirts organization; the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies. Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were establishment conservatives and anti-Nazis (such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Bavarian politician Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had suppressed Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). The murders of Brownshirt leaders were also intended to improve the image of the Hitler government with a German public that was increasingly critical of thuggish Brownshirt tactics..."

Tommy Monk wrote:Ok... so maybe not a lifelong friend...


But you get my point...



"...Many of those killed were leaders of the SA (Sturmabteilung), the Nazis' own paramilitary Brownshirts organization; the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies. Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were establishment conservatives and anti-Nazis (such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Bavarian politician Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had suppressed Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). The murders of Brownshirt leaders were also intended to improve the image of the Hitler government with a German public that was increasingly critical of thuggish Brownshirt tactics..."

No, as you had no point for your claim, but ended up further backing my point.

Like I said, thanks.

Learn some real history, not bullshit.

Still long time supporter and ally... so point still stands.

Tommy Monk wrote:Still long time supporter and ally... so point still stands.

What point?

That Hitler used him just like he did George Strasser. Then quickly got rid of them, when they outlived their usefulness?

You just end up further backing my point Tommy

Like i said, stop reading gibberish on "info wars", you might then actually learn something

I mean the rebuttal I posted, that you have failed to even read, proves why you are wrong and yet you still persist in this (what I can only class as near idol worship in being in denial) refusal to listen to the facts.

I have not read/posted anything from infowars dodge...


"...Hitler used him just like he did George Strasser. Then quickly got rid of them, when they outlived their usefulness?..."


No...


"...Many of those killed were leaders of the SA (Sturmabteilung), the Nazis' own paramilitary Brownshirts organization; the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies. Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were establishment conservatives and anti-Nazis (such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Bavarian politician Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had suppressed Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). The murders of Brownshirt leaders were also intended to improve the image of the Hitler government with a German public that was increasingly critical of thuggish Brownshirt tactics..."


Hitler acted against the thuggish Brownshirts and their leaders, who were not only unpopular with the people because of their long history of acts of thuggish militant aggressiveness, but who were also (at the time) demanding that they should have complete control of the army/military...


Hitler also acted against Strasser because Strasserism was the original and much more hardcore form of nazism (that was rooted in communist beliefs), and in opposition to Hitler's comparatively softer socialist views...


"...Strasserism (German: Strasserismus or Straßerismus) was the strand of Nazism that called for a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism, hostile to Jews not from a racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious perspective, but from an anti-capitalist basis, to achieve a national rebirth. It derives its name from Gregor and Otto Strasser, the two Nazi brothers initially associated with this position.

Opposed on strategic views to Adolf Hitler, Otto Strasser was expelled from the Nazi Party (NSDAP) in 1930 and went into exile in Czechoslovakia, while Gregor Strasser was murdered in Germany on June 30, 1934 during the Night of the Long Knives. Strasserism remains an active position within strands of neo-Nazism..."

Wikipedia


Also... 'long knives' targeted conservatives too!

Hilarious

So your hypothesis is based on one factor only

He killed some conservatives.


Which conservatives Tommy?

And why?

I now and can eat this argument alive when you answer.

What kind of conservatives were they?

Look forward to that answer  

So you poorly clutch at straws at who else Hitler did kill that night. Who were standing the way of his leadership.

Tell me again Tommy, why on earth did he still eradicated the socialist element of the Nazi's that night?

As its this question you keep avoiding

Why did he thus still get rid of these socialist elements of the Nazi Party?

Hitler backed and was backed by the majority of conservative Germans Tommy.

Ask again why?

So your rebuttal stem on one factor

Bullshit

Just you doing what most people do when clutching at straws, stall for time.

You are wrong on all of your suppositions dodge.

Tommy Monk wrote:You are wrong on all of your suppositions dodge.

Wrong you claim?

You just claim it Tommy and run away. Never backing up why you claim they are this way

Copout

I have answered your original 'long knives' question.


Hitler acted against the thuggish paramilitary Brownshirts who were deeply unpopular with the people, as well as being a direct threat (and even greater potential threat) with their demands for control over the army/military...


And he acted against Strasser and his fellow communist leaning agitators who followed a much more hardcore/radical Nazi agenda...


He also acted against some conservatives...



So... who were these nice/fluffy/'happy clappy lefties' that you claim were murdered by Hitler's regime and evidence that this makes Hitler an 'anti' nice/fluffy/'happy clappy leftie'... and how this therefore instead makes him 'far right'...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:I have answered your original 'long knives' question.


Hitler acted against the thuggish paramilitary Brownshirts who were deeply unpopular with the people, as well as being a direct threat (and even greater potential threat) with their demands for control over the army/military...


And he acted against Strasser and his fellow communist leaning agitators who followed a much more hardcore/radical Nazi agenda...


He also acted against some conservatives...



So... who were these nice/fluffy/'happy clappy lefties' that you claim were murdered by Hitler's regime and evidence that this makes Hitler an 'anti' nice/fluffy/'happy clappy leftie'... and how this therefore instead makes him 'far right'...!?

1) Hitler backed the brown shirts Tommy
2) A more hardcore/ radical Nazi agenda,the left wing element of the Nazi's?

Fuck me, that was priceless

Jog on you twat, that was beyond embarrassing. It just proved you are an idiot Tommy

Dumbest defense of the day:

He also acted against some conservatives.

So... he acted against the thuggish Brownshirt paramilitary who were deeply unpopular with the people... as well as them being a direct threat by their demands to take over control of the army/military...

And he acted against the more hard line/radical Nazis like Strasser and followers... who not only had communist affiliations/beliefs/leanings... but which also threatened to split the Nazi Party and which would subsequently remove Nazi from power...

And he acted against some well known/established conservatives...



And this proves that he was 'far right' how exactly...!?


Come on dodge...!?


You claim 'long knives' was an example of the removing of all the nice/fluffy/happy clappy/leftie/socialists... and this proves that Hitler was a nasty horrible evil 'far right' type instead...!!!???

PMSL


Where above George Strasser more hardline that Hitler Tommy?

I am rolling up at this pure fuckery

Priceless


Hitler cause the deaths of 50 million

George?
Himself


PMSL

Already posted this dodge...

And it's 'Gregor'... not 'George'...




Hitler also acted against Strasser because Strasserism was the original and much more hardcore form of nazism (that was rooted in communist beliefs), and in opposition to Hitler's comparatively softer socialist views...


"...Strasserism (German: Strasserismus or Straßerismus) was the strand of Nazism that called for a more radical, mass-action and worker-based form of Nazism, hostile to Jews not from a racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious perspective, but from an anti-capitalist basis, to achieve a national rebirth. It derives its name from Gregor and Otto Strasser, the two Nazi brothers initially associated with this position.

Opposed on strategic views to Adolf Hitler, Otto Strasser was expelled from the Nazi Party (NSDAP) in 1930 and went into exile in Czechoslovakia, while Gregor Strasser was murdered in Germany on June 30, 1934 during the Night of the Long Knives. Strasserism remains an active position within strands of neo-Nazism..."

Wikipedia

Already backed my facts Tommy?

I know.

You want to gain brownie points on firsts names here?

Be my guest

You are still going to look dumb

You are left not able to refute me, but look dumb

How many misdirection's is that from you Tommy?

'Long knives' does not prove Hitler was 'far right'.


And that's an end of it!

Tommy Monk wrote:'Long knives' does not prove Hitler was 'far right'.


And that's an end of it!

Is that your defense?



Please stick with THAT Tommy

His views and Polices does Tommy and he murdered those leftist in 1934


Funny how you want to attempt to hut down this debate. Why is that?
Because you know I will make you look a dick?

But... then... arent you therefore claiming that the thuggish militant Brownshirts were nice socialist lefties...?


And also therefore claiming that Strasser and his even harder line nazi ideals and harder line followers were nice socialist lefties too...?


For you claim that Hitler must have been 'far right' because he was against these 'nice socialist lefties' when they were eliminated under 'long knives'...


So... are you saying that paramilitary Brownshirts and hard line Nazis are really the 'nice socialist lefties'...!!!???


And anyone opposed to them must really be 'far right'...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:But... then... arent you therefore claiming that the thuggish militant Brownshirts were nice socialist lefties...?


And also therefore claiming that Strasser and his even harder line nazi ideals and harder line followers were nice socialist lefties too...?


For you claim that Hitler must have been 'far right' because he was against these 'nice socialist lefties' when they were eliminated under 'long knives'...


So... are you saying that paramilitary Brownshirts and hard line Nazis are really the 'nice socialist lefties'...!!!???


And anyone opposed to them must really be 'far right'...!?

1) Am I? Where did I say the SA were nice socialist lefties?  PMSL I said some of their leaders were socialists

Seriously how old are you Tommy in mentally? 2 or 3?

2)Where did I claim the SA were all nice socialists? Seems you are doing that

3) Strasser along with other socialists were removed by Hitler and murdered in 1934

Why was this Tommy?

Again this is why most on here tommy either think you were dropped on your head as a baby or you simple are a retard

It can only be one or the other. As not only is it cringe worthy your stupidity on the subject, but you now attribute people to then the organisations.  

The fact remains this.

Apart from you being a retard, Hitler removed ther socialist elements from the Nazi party in 1934

You cannot explain this or other aspects and I am left dealing with a 2 year of pathetic immature dick

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I've answered before... just not on this thread.

I know you have not, so if you have answered before, what is stopping you now?

Again you simple do not understand Fascism or nazism and are gullible to sites like info wars.

Here is a lovely link to fully educate why you are so wrong continually on the this poor claim you make..

Was Hitler a Socialist? Was Hitler a Left-Winger?

The idea that “Hitler was a socialist” is a myth. Hitler was a Fascist. Fascism has some socialist roots, but it is a unique authoritarian and nationalist ideology separate from socialism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
The simplest proof of the above is Hitler’s own Mein Kampf and Mussolini’s own Doctrine of Fascism, as both specifically explain that their ideologies are Nationalist, Imperialist, Militaristic, “Right”, Authoritarian, anti-Liberal, and anti-Socialist (anti-Marxist, anti-Democratic Socialist, and anti-Christian-Socialist).

This is true, as explained in both works, despite the early socialist roots of both ideologies and a few of their in-practice socialist actions like free healthcare for nationals (the terms Fascist and National Socialism both specifically denote this form of authoritative, imperialistic, and militaristic nationalism which offers aspects of socialism for a core group of nationals only).

In other words, not only does history show these fascist movements were right-wing in practice, Hitler and Mussolini’s own works confirm it enthusiastically and in great detail.

Pair the above with the fact that Hitler led his party’s Nationalist wing, and that the Nationalist wing assassinated and jailed the socialist wing of Strasserists who had helped write the NAZI’s early 1920’s platform (which some will cite as “proof of socialism”) and we have a rock solid case that Hitler was not actually a socialist or left-winger and most certainly was not a liberal.

Like the KKK, fascism grew out of a left-wing movement, but that doesn’t make it anything we call socialist, liberal, or left-wing in practice.

Below we further explain why it is correct to call Hitler a right-wing Fascist and not correct to call him a left-wing Socialist Liberal (like infowars does).

TIP: A good way to think about this is that the global right-wing has more than one faction, and while the populist nationalist fascists are to the left of the traditional conservative order in terms of populism vs. elitism (like the “Bannon alt-right” is to the left of a Neoliberal Globalist Elite or Neoconservative Global Elite in some respects), they are to the right of just about everyone else in terms of being authoritarians against liberty and equality. So most people will almost always accurately describe fascists as right-wing as an absolute, but in very specific conversations you can say they are “to the left” of another right-wing group in terms of the populist / elitist divide. Learn more about the political left-right.

Understanding Why it is Incorrect to Call Hitler a Socialist, Even Though His Party Was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI party)

Despite being a far-right nationalist fascist, Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI party), just like his inspiration Mussolini and his National Fascist Party and later Republican Fascist Party, had socialist roots and embraced a few socialist policies for nationals (especially in the early days, decades before the war).

We call this authoritarian militaristic far-right nationalism with hints of socialism, “fascism“.
We should not be sidetracked by other terms like Republican and Socialist in the fascist parties names, especially given the history of these parties. They are important, but they don’t speak to the core of the party.

In fact, since fascism as a term denotes its own socialist roots, it would be tautological and confusing to call Hitler “a socialist” without first denoting his fascist ideology.

Likewise, since fascism arguably comes in both left and right forms, and since both Hitler’s and Mussolini’s forms were “right[-wing]” and not “socialist” by Mussolini’s own admission in his Doctrine of Fascism where he describes his “FASCIST TOTALITARIAN VISION OF THE FUTURE”, it is confusing to give Hitler or Mussolini (or Franco, or any other militant nationalist fascist or quasi-fascist with an authoritarian and/or exclusive ideology) the general label “left-wing”.

Furthermore, given the very authoritative nature of the dictators, and their rabid opposition to liberalism, it is just flat out wrong to call either a liberal (that point really shouldn’t even be up for debate).

This is to say, no, historically speaking, “Hitler was not a left-wing, socialist, liberal”, and this can be confirmed by their own major written works and general recorded history.

Fascism is unique and should not be mistaken as being “progressive”, “left-wing”, liberal, or what today we think of as “socialist” just because it has a few parallels (like the seeking of conformity) and shares some common roots with these ideologies.

Further Proof that Hitler Was a Fascist Right-Wing Nationalist Authoritarian like Mussolini and the Other WWII Fascists

Most of what people cite to attempt to show Hitler was “left-wing” or “a socialist” comes from the NAZI’s early 1920’s platform, which was written before Hitler rose to power in the party’s Nationalist wing! Simply, the nationalists were in a party with some socialists (Strasserists) at one point, but that doesn’t make the nationalist fascism left, liberal, or socialist. Fascism is a right-wing (authoritative and small group focused) ideology.
Consider some main aspects of fascism are:

• Anti-specific religions (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Pro-racial separation (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Anti-civil rights for minorities (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Anti-establishment (left-wing, against the elite; but right-wing, against the protections of the state; and right-wing, in practice the NAZIs became despotic tyrants who used the full power of the state)
  
  
• Anti-homosexual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Anti-abortion (right-wing, authoritative)
  
  
• Anti-intellectual (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Anti-immigration (right-wing, exclusively focused on a small group)
  
  
• Pro-social programs for their “nationals” AKA their in-group (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).
  
  
• Pro-nativist worker (left-wing, for social programs for a collective; right-wing exclusively focused on a small group).
  
  
• Anti-Capitalism on paper (left-wing, against capitalism and toward socialism for the in-group on paper; right-wing, were capitalists with a strict hierarchy in practice.)
  
  

In short, just based on general reason, not much about the NAZI’s fascism is left-wing (not much liberty and/or equality going on here). Sure, on paper in the 1920’s they were to the left of a Monarchy with the help of the Strasserists). But the militant WWII era (Sep 1, 1939 – Sep 2, 1945) NAZI fascism is mostly right-wing, despite its quasi-socialist roots.

This exclusive in-group nativist, nationalist, xenophobic, and at times militant ideology is what we call in modern language “right-wing”, and it is not an ideology of liberty and equality, it is an ideology of authority and inequality, it is not liberalism.


NOTE: Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, like Mussolini’s Doctrine, also describes a right-wing fascist ideology, but be warned, Mussolini’s Doctrine is a short readable essay, and Hitler’s book is a long-winded recount of his becoming a right-wing nationalist in the Nationalist Socialist party. In the text, Hitler speaks of how he was at first enamored by the Christian-Socialists like Lueger, but he also clearly illustrates his move away from socialism toward National Socialism (socialism for the in-group only, a type of fascism… and one that notably gets less socialist over time in practice).


Hitler admits he’s a Socialist and anti-Communist. People confuse the NAZI’s pro-German worker stance to mean that Hitler was a left-winger, but his despotic exclusive authoritarian fascist form of socialism was very right-wing compared to the other socialist ideologies of the time (all of which the NAZI eradicated as they illegally ceased control of the German Government and created a tyrannical despotic state where Germans were forced into Hitler’s brand of militaristic fascism… which embraced some aspects of socialism, like free healthcare and education for German nationals). It isn’t that there are no socialist aspects of Hitler’s Nazism, it is that those few socialist aspects don’t make Hitler a left-wing social liberal socialist like Bernie Sanders… obviously.

TIP: The KKK is one of the first modern fascist groups, they were a progressively conservative faction within the old Democratic party. Like the NAZIs who came after them, they were right-wing on just about every issue… except their ideology toward the central government and economic elites. Like the NAZIs, the KKK are not well described (especially in modern terms) as left-wing liberals. It isn’t that there are no parallels, it is that their ideology is fascism and not social liberalism. The Radical Republicans of the Civil War era were arguably the real progressives of the era, and they were the polar opposite of the KKK Confederates. See a heady discussion here: No, the Ku Klux Klan Has Never, Ever Been a ‘Leftist’ Organization or here: The Democrats were the Party of the Ku Klux Klan and Slavery. In short, just based on general reason, not much about the KKK’s fascism is left-wing, especially the militant Civil War era KKK fascism, despite its quasi-liberal roots.
TIP: Hitler was inspired by Karl Lueger when he studied in Vienna Austria in the times leading up to WWI. Lueger was an early European Fascist. Lueger was not liberal-left, he was a populist and anti-Semitic leader of the Christian Social Party… again we see the left-wing roots, but we can’t let that obscure the move toward right-wing ideology, as a response to immigrants, that is part of what makes it fascist. If it wasn’t a unique thing, we wouldn’t have a unique name for it.
TIP: Today, speaking very broadly, the debate is between nativist protectionist “tea party” alt-right-ism against immigration and for nationalism (global right-wing), and a progressive alt-left neoliberal globalization that seeks inclusion (global left-wing). If FDR, Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler were alive today, we can kind of figure out which would be Tea Party and which would be Progressive, FDR and Stalin would err toward the globalist collectives, Hitler and Mussolini would be screaming about immigration and nationalism. The left and right in any era are just what they are, the core of the human condition has not changed (not its centered correctness, nor its corrupted extremes). We can compare authoritarians all day long, but we need to use consistent comparative terms. Saying “all WW2 ideologies were left” demonizes the left and socialism and normalizes alt-right neo-fascism. Which I think is the point of some propagandists on the right-wing, but let this page stand as an argument against that and the calling out of that alternative-fact.
TIP: It make sense that people get confused. Try to compare a bunch of authoritative ideologies and polices, and the lines between left and right start to blur. Still, Communism and Fascism are different despite both having some socialist and fascist parallels. To properly explain this debate we need to consider some complex factors. We can appreciate articles like Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt by Cato’s David Boaz for deep insight without confusing liberalism, fascism, socialism, and communism, without confusing FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini, and without trying to normalize modern socialism or fascism by swapping left and right labels when it suits us politically. See our left-right model based on the Nolan chart, Hitler is not “left” generally speaking, FDR is to the left of Stalin in terms of authority, and both FDR and Stalin were to the left of Hitler. Comparative terms are important in complex conversations.
TIP: In general, terms like nationalism, socialism, and even fascism aren’t “inherently bad”, they are bad in extremes when liberty and democracy are cast aside and the ideologies break the non-aggression compact and become aggressive. Most ideologies comes in many forms, the NAZI’s ideologies were typically right-wing and extreme broadly speaking, but when we go plank-by-plank, year-by-year, the conversation gets a bit more complex than can be said in a blanket statement.
FACT: The Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated as a working-class political party, it became fascist over the course of 20 years under Hitler’s influence. That isn’t the same as “being socialist”.[10]

A List of Reasons that we Should Consider Hitler a Fascist, and not a Socialist

The essay below makes all these points in detail, but to start:

• Hitler was in the nationalist wing of his party. Hitler often spoke out against socialists and communists, especially as the 1920’s rolled on.
  
  
• That the NAZIs murdered the socialist wing during the Night of the Long Knives. They also murdered and jailed a number of other socialist and communist parties and generally anyone not loyal to the NAZI’s Nationalist wing. That is one of the ways that Hitler rose to power.
  
  
• Mussolini’s National Fascist Party, and later Republican Fascist Party, more accurately described the right-wing National Fascist ideology of WWII that Hitler and Mussolini mostly shared. Remember, Hitler came later and was influenced by Mussolini. On that note, Mussolini was a socialist in the 1910’s, before Hitler’s rise and a wing of the NAZI party was previously socialist too. So there are real socialist roots in the fascist ideology, it is just that, despite this, neither Mussolini or Hitler were “socialists” on paper or in practice, they were fascists (a term which, again, implies its own roots; as any term does).
  
  
• Many of the parties of WWII Germany were socialist or nationalist (including the Communists and Democratic Socialists the Nationalist NAZIs hated, jailed, and killed).
  
  
• NAZIism was about excluding races rather than abolishing class inequality and classes. It didn’t want global equality (on paper) like the Communists, it wanted German world domination.
  
  
• Any militaristic despot with half a brain and resources will provide their army healthcare and education or strip their enemy of guns and gold. Even Communist regimes attempted to do this to the other nationalist and socialist parties (Mensheviks and Whites come to mind in Russia).
  
  
• Early NAZIism may have had socialist planks, but once in power in 1933, Adolf Hitler turned Germany into a fascist state. WWII started in 1939, so it is super confusing to talk about some “sort-of socialist” NAZI plank from their 1920 platform like it was representative of everything Hitler stood for. The NAZI platform was not progressive in practice in the 1930’s and 1940’s, just on paper in the early days! When most people think of Hitler and the NAZIs, they think of them in their early 1940’s form (long after TIME declared Hitler the man of the year… in 1938). The early 1920’s NAZI party platform might have been “progressive“, but that was before the socialist wing of the NAZIs was taken over by the nationalist wing! It isn’t like their progressive policies led to NAZI Germany, there is no real lesson about socialism in the story of fascism (that is in the story of communism). Fascism is more a story of right-wing nationalism, and its slippery slopes.
  
  

On being left or right: Left and right are complex and comparative terms (see an essay on this). In comparative WWII terms, Fascism is “to the right” of Communism, but both these ideologies are arguably “to the right” of liberalism. In absolute terms, both authoritarian WWII ideologies were very “right-wing” in their use of authority and the state in practice. This doesn’t mean aspects of fascism and communism aren’t “to the left” of other ideologies, especially if we go plank-by-plank through the early fascist platforms. Even the National Review (a right-wing and nationalist conservative American publication) agrees with this logic. Americans and our western modern counterparts are generally liberal, so our love of liberty is going to put us to the left of any despot, in terms of being authoritative. In terms of embracing collectives, communism is much more inclusive than the exclusive fascist ideology which requires a certain race, creed, national allegiance, and more. This is the way in which communism is “more left” and why it is misleading to call hitler “left-wing”.[11]

Conclusion and Complexities

Given the above proofs, I ultimately couldn’t label the idea that “Hitler was a Socialist” as a Fact. It is too confusing for someone not ready to spend time in research mode. Too many words are required to frame this for a modern audience, as one must understand Mussolini, Hitler, Fascism, Liberalism, Communism, Marxism, the forms of socialism, and the rise of all these to even have a serious conversation here.
History isn’t supposed to be relayed with ease, but it is supposed to be relayed with accuracy. Given this, the essay below clearly discusses the ways in which Hitler was and wasn’t a socialist, left-winger, or liberal.
We will ultimately make the case that the best description of populist authoritarian tyrants like Hitler and Mussolini is right-wing national fascist, or just “fascist” (not left-wing socially liberal democratic socialist; that is a whole different WWII ideology despite the parallels; as we discuss below).
This is true even though Mussolini began his political career as a socialist and Hitler’s party once had a socialist wing.
The key here is realizing that Mussolini had pretty much given up on socialism by the time he formed his National Fascist Party in 1921. Meanwhile, Hitler joined the NAZIs in 1921, and although they initially championed socialist themes of anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, over time they began to downplay this in order to gain the support of industry. Finally, by the 1930s, the party’s focus had mostly shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes, moving further and further right, and further away from socialism.
As Hitler fully gained control of Germany, and became Führer und Reichskanzler in 1933, the NAZIs quickly turned Germany into a far-right authoritarian fascist state. At that point, any social programs were designed to do little more than train an army and ensure a master race (which isn’t exactly what we think when we think “Bernie Sanders” democratic socialism… as Hitler also hated democracy, NAZI Germany was not democratic!).
So, we can find socialist roots in fascism, and some socialist policy in 1930’s and 1940’s fascism, but of course, the term fascism inherently accounts for its own quasi-socialist roots and thus isn’t a useful primary descriptor.
Ultimately, NAZIism was less about the German worker and more about a nationalist desire for world domination, as is the case with any despot.


What is Fascism? Fascism is an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. It often has intolerant views toward “others”, and is exclusive to a certain type of native national. It can be protectionist, but in practice it is often militaristic and imperialistic. In words, it is a mash-up of other ideologies, including in some very specific and nuanced ways, socialism (which, aside from its authoritarian aspects in-practice, is why it has similarities with Communism). Fascism is generally “to the right” of communism and liberalism, as it is for a smaller group the communism and more authoritative the liberalism.[13]
What is Socialism? Socialism is the ideology of common ownership and equality among all (on paper, in general, speaking for all types at once). This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. Imagine there’s no classes, no possessions, a brotherhood of man, etc… And this of course sounds more like Communism, the extreme left-wing socialist ideology. Socialism is generally “left” as it favors equality and collectives, and the form “communism” is to the far-left (democratic socialism is toward liberalism and the center). That said, in terms of authority, socialism can be to the right of liberalism, and Communism to the far-right of liberalism (as liberals champion liberty and all forms of socialism are necessarily authoritative).[14]
What is Liberalism? The ideology of liberty and equality. And this of course sounds like… what we went to war to defend in WWII. Since it is an ideology that favors liberty and equality, the authoritative and exclusive fascism (which favors neither liberty nor equality “for all”) is to the far-right of liberalism, and on paper Communism is to the far-left in terms of equality on paper, but ultimately to the far-right in-action in terms of its use of the state (still, in WWII terms, it is to the left of fascism due to its collective nature).


TIP: See a List of fascist movements by country. We can see that “National Socialism” (not just Socialism in any form) denotes a Fascist right-wing ideology.

TIP: For another look at this, see the differences between Communism and Fascism. Both this page and that page draw the same conclusion, as the conclusion is simply an honest examination of history and political ideology, rather than the twisting of facts into a modern left or right viewpoint (as is common).

Firstly, nearly every fact in the above meme is a half-truth (as anyone who has researched the part-Jewish intellectual art student who got hit on the head one time many times knows; obviously any tyrant of a despotic state will have a 99% approval rating. 99% approve, and the other 1% on their way to Auschwitz). We can cherry pick and make it look like Hitler was a progressive left-wing socialist… but the same can be said for King George III and Stalin with this sort of half-baked logic. History is more complex than this. Hitler was a right-wing Nationalist Fascist Populist Nativist. All the aforementioned ideologies share planks. Who doesn’t want to make “fill in the blank great again”? No one has ever run on “make things worse”. (source)
BOTTOM LINE: Hitler may have taken the socialism out of National Socialism on the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 when he killed the Strasserists… but Mussolini and Hitler’s opportunistic ideologies still pulled from socialism (especially in the early days of the late 1910’s and early 1920’s when the NAZI’s 25 point program contained some socialist provisions). Thus, we have to acknowledge Hitler’s socialist characteristics, even if it isn’t the characteristic that defines him. In one word, Hitler and Mussolini were Fascists. In two words, Nationalist Fascists. With a left-right qualifier, far-right National Fascists with some left-wing elements. In many words, they can be described as anti-capitalist-and-elite, anti-intellectual, far-right, authoritative, extremist, fascist, nativist, populist, nationalists who embraced elements of socialism. Still, NAZIism was about excluding races rather than abolishing classes, and other such points discussed below, leaves us with the obvious conclusion that Hitler is best described as a fascist right-winger, not a left-wing socialist.





http://factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-socialist/

Lots more to read on the link

To add to my already damning evidence

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:But... then... arent you therefore claiming that the thuggish militant Brownshirts were nice socialist lefties...?


And also therefore claiming that Strasser and his even harder line nazi ideals and harder line followers were nice socialist lefties too...?


For you claim that Hitler must have been 'far right' because he was against these 'nice socialist lefties' when they were eliminated under 'long knives'...


So... are you saying that paramilitary Brownshirts and hard line Nazis are really the 'nice socialist lefties'...!!!???


And anyone opposed to them must really be 'far right'...!?

1) Am I? Where did I say the SA were nice socialist lefties?  PMSL  I said some of their leaders were socialists[

Seriously how old are you Tommy in mentally? 2 or 3?

2)Where did I claim the SA were all nice socialists? Seems you are doing that

3) Strasser along with other socialists were removed by Hitler and murdered in 1934

Why was this Tommy?

Again this is why most on here tommy either think you were dropped on your head as a baby or you simple are a retard

It can only be one or the other. As not only is it cringe worthy your stupidity on the subject, but you now attribute people to then the organisations.  

The fact remains this.

Apart from you being a retard, Hitler removed ther socialist elements from the Nazi party in 1934

You cannot explain this or other aspects and I am left dealing with a 2 year of pathetic immature dick

You have again just claimed that the socialists were the ones removed...


Those removed were mostly Brownshirts, and also Strasser and some of his more hard line Nazis were targeted as well as some conservatives.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:

1) Am I? Where did I say the SA were nice socialist lefties?  PMSL  I said some of their leaders were socialists[

Seriously how old are you Tommy in mentally? 2 or 3?

2)Where did I claim the SA were all nice socialists? Seems you are doing that

3) Strasser along with other socialists were removed by Hitler and murdered in 1934

Why was this Tommy?

Again this is why most on here tommy either think you were dropped on your head as a baby or you simple are a retard

It can only be one or the other. As not only is it cringe worthy your stupidity on the subject, but you now attribute people to then the organisations.  

The fact remains this.

Apart from you being a retard, Hitler removed ther socialist elements from the Nazi party in 1934

You cannot explain this or other aspects and I am left dealing with a 2 year of pathetic immature dick

You have again just claimed that the socialists were the ones removed...


Those removed were mostly Brownshirts, and also Strasser and some of his more hard line Nazis were targeted as well as some conservatives.

Hard line?

So fun the shit you continually spit out

So you admit he removed the socialist element from the Nazis?

Because Hitler hated the left.

Maybe you should look up Strasser/Strasserism...