Are the Nazi Party extreme far right or extreme far left?

First topic message reminder :

Simple question

Please tell us some of the right wing policies of the german Nazis or communist member Mussolinis fascists...?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


No... Nazism has for a few decades been misrepresented as far right... but at the time nobody was in any doubt it was left wing and socialist rooted...

Sure they were.  Read, Herbert Marcuse, Technology, War and Fascism: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse  (compiled, 1998).  It's available in pdf, here:

http://www.heathwoodpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/herbert-marcuse-technology-war-and-fascism-collected-papers-vol-1.pdf

NOTICE also, there, how Tommy has now slipped into that "everybody/we/us/all" blatherspeak form of arrogant laziness, where he is further compounding his ignorant and stupid lies by falsely claiming that "everyone" agrees with his nonsensical drivel...

When the only person foolish enough to support his lies seems to be Major.

Those two seem determined to reinforce well-held positions as the stupidest dolts on this site.
I'm still waiting to see Tommy present one honest and genuine reference to back his lies, rather than his endless parade of neo-nazi and fascist apologist bloggers..

and I'm still waithing for wolfie to post about the topic...rather than the posters

Wolfie thinks fuck the topic, i'll just carry on with the insults, it's easier for me than posting intelligent replies.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sure they were.  Read, Herbert Marcuse, Technology, War and Fascism: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse  (compiled, 1998).  It's available in pdf, here:

http://www.heathwoodpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/herbert-marcuse-technology-war-and-fascism-collected-papers-vol-1.pdf

NOTICE also, there, how Tommy has now slipped into that  "everybody/we/us/all"    blatherspeak form of arrogant laziness,  where he is further compounding his ignorant and stupid lies by falsely claiming that "everyone" agrees with his nonsensical drivel...

When the only person foolish enough to support his lies seems to be Major.

Those two seem determined to reinforce well-held positions as the stupidest dolts on this site.
I'm still waiting to see Tommy present one honest and genuine reference to back his lies, rather than his endless parade of neo-nazi and fascist apologist bloggers..

I'm not going to copy and paste a wall of stuff here... but please read these links...



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/13/leftists_become_incandescent_when_reminded_of_the_socialist_roots_in_nazism_121913.html


https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/


https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian


https://mises.org/library/nazism-socialism


https://evilproggies.wordpress.com/tag/dan-hannan/



Even Orwell confirms most of this in the earlier post put up by Quill...

Tommy Monk wrote:Even Orwell confirms most of this in the earlier post put up by Quill...

But complete the sentence of Orwell: "...just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes." Socialism is efficient. No doubt, more efficient than the profit system. But, if uncoupled from the idea of direct ownership by the people, it's just state control.

Nazism sees ownership in the party and party leaders, not the people. It lauds the German people, but it doesn't vest ownership of the state in them. In other words, Nazism does not complete the cycle of socialism.

Unrequited ownership means state authority is only vested in the party and party leaders. This, in form, is totalitarianism. Hitler and his crew only co-opted the term 'socialism', allowing you a coincidence of terms leading to a confusion of ideas.

I am curious Tom. Your avatar is clearly a Nazi looking cat, with the hair, 'tache and seig heil salute.
Your avatar is a representation of yourself and your personality.
I therefore take it you consider yourself a far left socialist..

The Founding Principles of the Nazi Party, were written by Hitler and Dietrich Eckart to establish a state drawing on the strength of the masses, but vesting in one dictator. Point 25 states:

Principles wrote:25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.
The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

As one commenter said:

That is why the Nazi party is a right-wing party. Because although it is based on the struggle of the masses, its basic principle is that of the existence of a dictator and strong centralization.

Right wing is small state/small state control/minimal state interference/low taxes/free market capitalism... it also supports democracy...

And Quill... reading through your 'point 25' list post... sounds much like the eu to me...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Right wing is small state/small state control/minimal state interference/low taxes/free market capitalism... it also supports democracy...

No, you are confusing RW with libertarianism:

Wiki wrote:lib·er·tar·i·an·ism
ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/
noun
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

Right-wing originates from the old French Parliament:

Wiki wrote:The political terms Right and Left were first used during the French Revolution (1789–99), and referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Ancien Régime. The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism. The use of the expression la droite (the right) became prominent in France after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Ultra-royalists. The people of English-speaking countries did not apply the terms "right" and "left" to their own politics until the 20th century.

Today, RW generally means:

Wiki wrote:Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies.

RW is conservative, and even reactionary, and generally opposes change, holding that the world as it is, is a natural order. The RW implicitly embraces ethical naturalism, and if not theological, embraces darwinism.

So how is nazism/fascism of the right..?

It's reactionary, conservative and authoritarian, not to mention nationalistic and warlike.

soviet union
stalinist rusia
china
pol pot
khymer rouge
north korea

all good solid left wing....

Original Quill wrote:It's reactionary, conservative and authoritarian, not to mention nationalistic and warlike.

Those are not definitions of right wing...


"...what we now call ‘libertarianism’ is woven into the fabric of this nation and of the Conservative party. It is a philosophy whose core principles revolve around the liberties enshrined in the Magna Carta of 1215. It was men who believed those liberties to be sacrosanct who took up arms against the King in 1642, and who bound his successors by the Bill of Rights in 1689.

It was the free-market Liberals of the nineteenth century whose prudent stewardship of the economy made Britain the richest and most powerful country on Earth. It was right-wing libertarians who provided the intellectual foundations for Margaret Thatcher’s transformation of Britain from ‘the sick man of Europe’ to the fifth largest economy in the world (even if the great lady herself would never be known as anything other than a Conservative). And it was in large part right-wing libertarians like our President, Daniel Hannan, who were behind the Brexit Mrs May so wants to make a success of.

But more importantly for the PM, research shows most young people are right-wing libertarians without even knowing it. Decades of polling by Ipsos MORI has shown ‘Generation Y’ – those born between 1980 and 2000 – are far more likely than their parents or grandparents to be critical of high taxation and the welfare state, as well as to be more liberal on social issues..."


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/je-suis-right-wing-libertarian/

Most people I know were born between 1980 and 2000, and most people I know support the welfare state and oppose pure capitialism.

PS: on the Civil War. A major political force influential among parliamentarians at that time were the Leveller's, whose 'Agreement of the People' manifesto is very much an early socialist document, demanding equality among other things. Parliament then stood against traditionalists and conservatives of the time.

Magna Carta was a step toward democracy for sure, but let's not forget it was chiefly about the Norman aristocracy, the Barons, securing their power against that of the king.

And again, you cannot cite big state small state as the defining features. RW politics is ultimately about conserving the wealth of individuals and having leaving the poor to sort themselves out. Inequality is a given. As such, there is only little govt involvement in helping the poor. In terms of military and social programmes, RW (especially nationalist, a very RW idea) govts can be just as big as LW govts. You cannot say the British govt was not RW for most of the 18th-20th century- yet we never really had a small govt apparatus.

As for Nazi Germany. Under Hitler, trade unions were disbanded, there was no real redistribution of wealth, minorities were persecuted (due to RW social darwinist thinking), and importantly, big business were allowed to thrive. There was nothing socialist in any of this, quite the opposite.

NOTE: no one denies those terrible communist regimes LF mentions were LW. The problem with them all of course was the totalotarian aspect. But then, I suppose on NF at least the LW is obviously just more grown up in acknowledging the failings from our side of the political divide.

Further, I think pointing out Nazism or Stalinism to deride either side is pointless. It stands to reason tommy isn't a Nazi and andy isn't a Stalinist. We all know these were evil regimes not truly representative of RW or LW ideology. So why bother. But pretending Nazism was anything but a Nationalist horror show is juvenile and ignorant.

Lord Foul wrote:soviet union
stalinist rusia
china
pol pot
khymer rouge
north korea

all good solid  left wing....

ALL of your examples are of extremist far left wing 'Marxist' dictatorships...

"Political power grows out of the end of a gun.."
Mao Tse Tung,  1938.

Nothing good about them.  That's why they each had to use military dictatorships to exert their 'totalitarian' 'political will..  Simply replacing one class of "elitists" with another...          

They have about as much to do with genuine "socialism", as the corporate Fascist states of WWII --  Germany-Austria, Italy and Japan --  had to do with democratic expressions of capitalism..

If people refuse to understand that communism isn't equivalent to socialism,  or that free market "laissez faire" isn't the defacto definition of democracy, then they are doomed to see the endless cyclical regurgitations of those nonsensical lies that keep on emanating from rusted-on far right idealogues, who in the main never even completed their secondary schooling.        

Eilzel wrote:Most people I know were born between 1980 and 2000, and most people I know support the welfare state and oppose pure capitialism.

PS: on the Civil War. A major political force influential among parliamentarians at that time were the Leveller's, whose 'Agreement of the People' manifesto is very much an early socialist document, demanding equality among other things. Parliament then stood against traditionalists and conservatives of the time.

Magna Carta was a step toward democracy for sure, but let's not forget it was chiefly about the Norman aristocracy, the Barons, securing their power against that of the king.

And again, you cannot cite big state small state as the defining features. RW politics is ultimately about conserving the wealth of individuals and having leaving the poor to sort themselves out. Inequality is a given. As such, there is only little govt involvement in helping the poor. In terms of military and social programmes, RW (especially nationalist, a very RW idea) govts can be just as big as LW govts. You cannot say the British govt was not RW for most of the 18th-20th century- yet we never really had a small govt apparatus.

As for Nazi Germany. Under Hitler, trade unions were disbanded, there was no real redistribution of wealth, minorities were persecuted (due to RW social darwinist thinking), and importantly, big business were allowed to thrive. There was nothing socialist in any of this, quite the opposite.

NOTE: no one denies those terrible communist regimes LF mentions were LW. The problem with them all of course was the totalotarian aspect. But then, I suppose on NF at least the LW is obviously just more grown up in acknowledging the failings from our side of the political divide.

Further, I think pointing out Nazism or Stalinism to deride either side is pointless. It stands to reason tommy isn't a Nazi and andy isn't a Stalinist. We all know these were evil regimes not truly representative of RW or LW ideology. So why bother. But pretending Nazism was anything but a Nationalist horror show is juvenile and ignorant.

No... big state and big state control is definitely a left wing ideal... along with high taxes and authoritarianism... right wing is small state and small state control and low taxes and minimal interference in people's lives.

The Nazis had a health care system in place and the poor and homeless were given food and shelter and given work.


"...On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver "der echte Sozialismus": real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk..."



Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/13/leftists_become_incandescent_when_reminded_of_the_socialist_roots_in_nazism_121913.html#ixzz4NWjKnhva

Has anyone actually read any of these...?



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/13/leftists_become_incandescent_when_reminded_of_the_socialist_roots_in_nazism_121913.html


https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/


https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian


https://mises.org/library/nazism-socialism


https://evilproggies.wordpress.com/tag/dan-hannan/

Or your favorite www.naziparty.com

What's Nazi about mises?


He was an Austrian jew who fled from the Nazis... and was a brilliant economist...


Try reading what he had to say...

"...The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936...

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well..."


https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Tommy Monk wrote:
And Ziz... the people have spoken...!

Yep.

83% Nazis are far-right
17% Nazis are far left

Popular belief does not necessarily make it true...


And on this site full of lefties... is there any surprise that they all think the same?


I have shown evidence and logical reasoning why nazism/fascism was of the left...


And so far nobody has managed to provide any evidence of why nazism/fascism are of the right...

The wisdom of the crowd.
That philosophy is used in every democracy by way of legitimate elections.
The majority wins, even by a small margin , as we respect the 4% winning Brexit margin.
Will you accept the will of the 83% of the posters on here, Tom

Democracy now inconvenient, Tommy?

Don't worry - when UKIP get a majority (*sides splitting*) you can abandon it.

What is socialism?

It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which based on a “scientific theory” of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship (“of the proletariat”) to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.

Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.

To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

I’ve read Hitler’s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:

Chapter VII:
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.
Chapter 4:
The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. 

If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.

Chapter XII:
The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.
Some other quotes:

Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:
I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.
On this, see Alan Bullock, Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, pp.156-7; and Graham L. Strachan “MANUFACTURED REALITY: THE ‘THIRD WAY’”

Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:
We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.
F.A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom (p. 168) said:
The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. …. From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.
See also his chapter 12: “The Socialist Roots of Naziism.”

Von Mises in his Human Action (p. 171) said:
There are two patterns for the realization of socialism. The first pattern (we may call it the Lenin or Russian pattern) . . . . the second pattern (we may call it the Hindenburg or German Pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers … bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by government.
This is precisely how Hitler governed when he achieved dictatorial power.


https://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/

Ziz wrote:Democracy now inconvenient, Tommy?

Democracy doesn't exist on this site...


This site is full of turkeys who would vote for Christmas..

Oh no, not a Wordpress blog...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:Democracy now inconvenient, Tommy?

Democracy doesn't exist on this site...


This site is full of turkeys who would vote for Christmas..

Of course it does - we voted and got a result - how do you define democracy?

Seventy years ago today an avowedly leftist nationalist project surrendered to Allied forces in Europe, bringing to end the horrors of the Second World War in Europe.

“Fundamentally, these new means of political struggle can be traced back to the Marxists,” said one Adolph Hitler to Hermann Raushning in 1935. “I only needed to adopt and further develop them, and I essentially had what we needed. I just had to continue, with greater resolve, where the Social Democrats had failed ten times over because they insisted on trying to achieve their revolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism could have been if it had freed itself from its absurd, artificial connection with the democratic system.”

If the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn’t exist, then I submit that the second greatest trick is the idea that 20th century fascism derived from right wing political or philosophical precepts. What makes the lie especially galling is that elite opinion even in the “decadent” West – the object of contempt for all collectivist ideologies of the time – expressed great affinity for the planned economies which announced themselves as the solution to the perceived failures of democratic capitalism.

The roots of British and American collectivism are found in Germany. Ironically, one can make the argument that much of the foundations for individualism, common law, and parliamentary democracy also trace back to Germany, albeit of a much earlier vintage (c. 8th or 9th century Saxon tribalism), but with respect to post-industrial modernity, Germany is the fount from which bad politics sprout. During the late-nineteenth century American elites considered it a rite of passage to spend time in Prussia observing and absorbing the wonders of the world’s first welfare state, designed and presided over by Bismarck. Though he looked askance at the Marxist socialists in his midst, Bismarck was nevertheless guided by the same general ethos that exalted the state as the ultimate engine for equality and happiness. Not only was the idea of the individual’s natural subordination to the general will already deeply embedded across the continent (and to a lesser degree in the broader Anglosphere), so too was the idea of the organic state as the ultimate arbiter of History as a proper noun. Despite being a largely dull and unoriginal philosopher who culled his ideas from Plato, Hegel was a brilliant polemicist who knew how to advance an agenda for his masters. Such was his task when he was commissioned by the Prussian state to proselytize on behalf of the mystical, metaphysical state. Hegel preached (and Marx greatly expanded on) that the state existed foremost to interpret the hidden, internal logic of History. That wars were always just for the victors since History’s logic willed it. That states rise and fall according only to a fixed arc of pre-determined events. Ah, but how to obtain this mysterious logic that explains all of History? Hegel and Marx have the answer and it’s one that understandably pleases anyone predisposed to power and control. To know the Arc of History, you see, is to trust in an enlightened clerisy who cloister in academia or administrative agencies waiting for the truth to reveal itself and relay to the masses like Moses with tablets the wisdom and reason behind the mystical forces driving the universe.

Call me cynical, but that sounds suspiciously like a religion.

Because all variants of leftism are essentially faith exercises in collective delusion designed to keep the truth hidden, it should not be news that the left lies about where fascism falls on the left-right spectrum. The lie that JFK was killed by rightwing ragers instead of by a loony Castro-inspired commie is small potatoes compared to the seventy year myth that Hitler and Mussolini carried the banner for the political right. Hitler didn’t just lead a revolutionary party called the “National Socialists,” he outright bragged that he was “a socialist, and a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow.” Mussolini left the Communist Party not out of disillusionment with the philosophy but because he saw in Italian Fascism and its alliance with the Nazis a more efficient and assured path to power.* At least Mussolini resisted the Jewish pogroms until the Nazis forced his hand well into the 1940s, making Benito the tallest midget in the room when it comes to dictators, I suppose. Leftists love to diagnose fascism as what happens when the state doesn’t control the means of production, the implication being that if you don’t go the Full Marx then you’re clearly just a wrecker and closet laissez-faire enthusiast. But while both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy each allowed private business nominal ownership of its plant and equipment, this was merely a facade, for both Berlin and Rome were centers of top-down central planning where private enterprise was deemed merely a cog in the collective wheel. A company’s profits in Germany or Italy were not its own because those fruits belonged to “the people,” meaning the government.

Because the Nazis and Fascists did not subscribe as fully to the tenets of revolutionary socialism as Lenin, their socialist movements did not mirror Bolshevism’s zeal to burn down everything that came before as the way towards the classless society. Instead, Germany and Italy accepted the existence of the bourgeoisie but resolved to bring them under their strict yoke. But Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all lockstep in their agreement that bourgeois Anglo-Saxon capitalism’s characteristic exploitation was a thing of the past and, moreover, that the very concept of individualism was a quaint and outmoded relic of the “decadent” West. Why the consensus? World War I was so devastating to Europe and its collective conscience that naturally the prevailing wisdom about what caused it – an exuberant and toxic wave of “nationalism” brought about again by that decadent capitalist system – was entirely wrong and blamed it all on insufficient planning. Because science and Darwin were thick in the air, elites were giddy to deploy all kinds of newfangled approaches to social engineering and economics. Leveraging the prior hundred years of elite discomfort with the very idea of capitalism, collectivists of all stripes – progressives, socialists, pragmatists, communists – used the chaos of the first World War to ascend to intellectual fame by promising the masses that the unjust inequities of bourgeois capitalism could finally and forever be eradicated by implementing the scientific, empirical, pragmatic programs of the central planners.

The idea that Hitler or Mussolini stood against this tide is ridiculous. The social prize for being a rogue individualist in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy was nonexistent. Cultures that send their children to indoctrination camps and jail dissenters for insufficient deference to der Furher or Il Duce are not havens of capitalist opportunity that venerate the rugged entrepreneur in the popular imagination. No, these are cultures of conformity, of rigorous military ritual made mandatory in the social sphere. They stood on opposite sides of the Bolsheviks the same way a football team’s offense and defense can be said to play for different teams.

Seventy years on and still scores of useful idiots in the West have been raised to believe that the evil Nazis and Fascists were examples of what happens when rightwing extremism reaches its logical terminus. Communism, which could never be made to look rightwing no matter the effort, is offered by Western elites as the wary example of going too far to the left. And yet, throughout the Cold War and even today, it’s clear that the Left never really bought the idea that communism was anything to apologize for. It just never got implemented properly was the standard refrain up until the fall of the Berlin Wall, the event that drove the final nail into Marxist/Leninism as a plausible system and sent the more enthusiastic communists largely underground (or into the waiting arms of the environmental left).

Today, paeans to communism are far less common, though one need not look too hard to find some moron at The Nation or Salon extolling the virtues of the Venezuelan model. Still, sometimes reality is so real that even the liars can’t change it. So there are scant few brave leftists today willing to go to bat for Bolshevism (Jacobins on the other hand?), but in practice that has meant a quiet doubling down on their conviction that fascism is of the right. It’s a neat and tidy construct that History and English professors can cope with if discussion surrounding WWII concerns the leftwing communists against the rightwing fascists, with noble and unaffiliated America and Great Britain riding to the rescue. It is a lot harder to explain how the socialist Nazis and socialist fascists came to fight such a bloody campaign against the socialist Russians. The American Civil War saw brother fight against brother while the Eastern front pitted socialist against socialist, but the latter is not something commonly taught in America.

George Orwell wrote in Politics and the English Language that “one ought to recognise that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” In their campaign to make the word fascism meaningless, intellectuals and elites have spent seven decades turning it into a catch-all for “thing I don’t like.” Partly motivated by a desire to impugn their opponents and partly out of self-preservation, the “fascist!” epithet is deployed against conservatives to a staggering degree.

The political right is and has always been full of problems and inconsistencies, but nothing really comes close to approaching the rank dishonesty and intentional deception that defines the left and which goes into making two of the 20th century’s most toxic manifestations of collectivism/socialism conventionally accepted as intellectual products of the right. If misrepresenting the political lineage of past totalitarian regimes is done to paint modern adherents to a certain politics as hopelessly wedded to a patrimony of extremism is what it means to “stand on the right side of History,” then who wants to be right? And why do sanctimonious lectures about being on the right side sound so familiar?


https://evilproggies.wordpress.com/tag/dan-hannan/

Oh no, not another Wordpress blog...

In Tom's own words.
Waffle. Yawn.

Popular belief doesn't make it right...


I have asked for anyone to show how nazism/fascism were in any way of the right wing...


Why can't anyone produce any evidence...?

Tommy Monk wrote:
Popular belief doesn't make it right...


I have asked for anyone to show how nazism/fascism were in any way of the right wing...


Why can't anyone produce any evidence...?

Tell that to the Sunderland massive.

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver "der echte Sozialismus": real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.

The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers' Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun," he boasted, adding that "the whole of National Socialism" was "based on Marx".

Marx's error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity - to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to "convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists" - by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. "What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish," he told Wagener, "we shall be in a position to achieve."

Leftist readers may by now be seething. Whenever I touch on this subject, it elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology. Well, chaps, maybe now you know how we conservatives feel when you loosely associate Nazism with "the Right".

To be absolutely clear, I don't believe that modern Leftists have subliminal Nazi leanings, or that their loathing of Hitler is in any way feigned. That's not my argument. What I want to do, by holding up the mirror, is to take on the equally false idea that there is an ideological continuum between free-marketers and fascists.

The idea that Nazism is a more extreme form of conservatism has insinuated its way into popular culture. You hear it, not only when spotty students yell "fascist" at Tories, but when pundits talk of revolutionary anti-capitalist parties, such as the BNP and Golden Dawn, as "far Right".

What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty. When written down like that, the notion sounds idiotic, but think of the groups around the world that the BBC, for example, calls "Right-wing": the Taliban, who want communal ownership of goods; the Iranian revolutionaries, who abolished the monarchy, seized industries and destroyed the middle class; Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who pined for Stalinism. The "Nazis-were-far-Right" shtick is a symptom of the wider notion that "Right-wing" is a synonym for "baddie".

One of my constituents once complained to the Beeb about a report on the repression of Mexico's indigenous peoples, in which the government was labelled Right-wing. The governing party, he pointed out, was a member of the Socialist International and, again, the give-away was in its name: Institutional Revolutionary Party. The BBC's response was priceless. Yes, it accepted that the party was socialist, "but what our correspondent was trying to get across was that it is authoritarian".

In fact, authoritarianism was the common feature of socialists of both National and Leninist varieties, who rushed to stick each other in prison camps or before firing squads. Each faction loathed the other as heretical, but both scorned free-market individualists as beyond redemption. Their battle was all the fiercer, as Hayek pointed out in 1944, because it was a battle between brothers.

Authoritarianism - or, to give it a less loaded name, the belief that state compulsion is justified in pursuit of a higher goal, such as scientific progress or greater equality - was traditionally a characteristic of the social democrats as much as of the revolutionaries.

Jonah Goldberg has chronicled the phenomenon at length in his magnum opus, Liberal Fascism. Lots of people take offence at his title, evidently without reading the book since, in the first few pages, Jonah reveals that the phrase is not his own. He is quoting that impeccable progressive H.G. Wells who, in 1932, told the Young Liberals that they must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis".

In those days, most prominent Leftists intellectuals, including Wells, Jack London, Havelock Ellis and the Webbs, tended to favour eugenics, convinced that only religious hang-ups were holding back the development of a healthier species. The unapologetic way in which they spelt out the consequences have, like Hitler's actual words, been largely edited from our discourse. Here, for example, is George Bernard Shaw in 1933:

Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly... If we desire a certain type of civilisation and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.

Eugenics, of course, topples easily into racism. Engels himself wrote of the "racial trash" - the groups who would necessarily be supplanted as scientific socialism came into its own. Season this outlook with a sprinkling of anti-capitalism and you often got Leftist anti-Semitism - something else we have edited from our memory, but which once went without saying. "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite?" Hitler had asked his party members in 1920.

Are contemporary Leftist critics of Israel secretly anti-Semitic? No, not in the vast majority of cases. Are modern socialists inwardly yearning to put global warming sceptics in prison camps? Nope. Do Keynesians want the whole apparatus of corporatism, expressed by Mussolini as "everything in the state, nothing outside the state"? Again, no. There are idiots who discredit every cause, of course, but most people on the Left are sincere in their stated commitment to human rights, personal dignity and pluralism.

My beef with many (not all) Leftists is a simpler one. By refusing to return the compliment, by assuming a moral superiority, they make political dialogue almost impossible. Using the soubriquet "Right-wing" to mean "something undesirable" is a small but important example.

Next time you hear Leftists use the word fascist as a general insult, gently point out the difference between what they like to imagine the NSDAP stood for and what it actually proclaimed.



Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/13/leftists_become_incandescent_when_reminded_of_the_socialist_roots_in_nazism_121913.html#ixzz4NXOr2dhX

Ziz wrote:Oh no, not another Wordpress blog...

Argumentum ad Hominem...


Fact is... that is an article by MP Dan Hannan and has just been archived onto that site...


Maybe you could address the points raised instead of trying to undermine the platform on which they are presented on...?

Ziz wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:In Tom's  own words.
Waffle. Yawn.

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

Sorry, HA, I forgot to give attribution - it's some called Ludwig von Mises.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:Oh no, not another Wordpress blog...

Argumentum ad Hominem...


Fact is... that is an article by MP Dan Hannan and has just been archived onto that site...


Maybe you could address the points raised instead of trying to undermine the platform on which they are presented on...?

If you eat from a dustbin then expect rubbish.

What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to Germany in less than six years was applauded wildly and ecstatically by most Germans. He lifted the nation from post-War defeatism. Under the swastika Germany was unified. His was no ordinary dictatorship, but rather one of great energy and magnificent planning. The "socialist" part of National Socialism might be scoffed at by hard-&-fast Marxists, but the Nazi movement nevertheless had a mass basis. The 1,500 miles of magnificent highways built, schemes for cheap cars and simple workers' benefits, grandiose plans for rebuilding German cities made Germans burst with pride. Germans might eat many substitute foods or wear ersatz clothes but they did eat.



What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to the German people in that time left civilized men and women aghast. Civil rights and liberties have disappeared. Opposition to the Nazi regime has become tantamount to suicide or worse. Free speech and free assembly are anachronisms. The reputations of the once-vaunted German centres of learning have vanished. Education has been reduced to a National Socialist catechism.



Pace Quickened. Germany's 700,000 Jews have been tortured physically, robbed of homes and properties, denied a chance to earn a living, chased off the streets. Now they are being held for "ransom," a gangster trick through the ages. But not only Jews have suffered. Out of Germany has come a steady, ever- swelling stream of refugees, Jews and Gentiles, liberals and conservatives, Catholics as well as Protestants, who could stand Naziism no longer. TIME's cover, showing Organist Adolf Hitler playing his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on, was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper, a Catholic who found Germany intolerable.



Meanwhile, Germany has become a nation of uniforms, goose- stepping to Hitler's tune, where boys of ten are taught to throw hand grenades, where women are regarded as breeding machines. Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.



From...

Adolf Hitler, Time Magazines's 1938 Man of the Year.

Written January 1939.

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html

You sound a great fan of Adolf.
Nothing to say about the gas chmbers and slaughter of millions of innocent jews in the death camps.

Handy Andy wrote:You sound a great fan of Adolf.
Nothing to say about the gas chmbers and slaughter of millions of innocent  jews in the death camps.

I'm no fan hand shandy... but I bet there are quite a few fans among those huge number of antisemites in the labour party...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Handy Andy wrote:You sound a great fan of Adolf.
Nothing to say about the gas chmbers and slaughter of millions of innocent  jews in the death camps.

I'm no fan hand shandy... but I bet there are quite a few fans among those huge number of antisemites in the labour party...!

That's disgusting if true, where does the Labour Party advocate the extermination of Jews?

It's not true, Ziz. Tom has never spoken a word of it in his forum life.
He TOLD us tha UKIP would get DOZENS of MP's last year, so not only does he lie, his judgement is pretty rocky too. UKIP in power ???
Yeah,like that's going to happen.
Trump has picked a duff 'un in Farage as an adviser on how to win an election. Farage cannot even win a seat as an MP.!

Handy Andy wrote:It's not true, Ziz. Tom has never spoken a word of it in his forum life.
He TOLD us tha UKIP would get DOZENS of MP's last year, so not only does he lie, his judgement is pretty rocky too. UKIP in power ???
Yeah,like that's going to happen.
Trump has picked a duff 'un in Farage as an adviser on how to win an election. Farage cannot even win a seat as an MP.!

So no orders for Zyklon B and the like - phew, that's a relief.

I take it that the Labour Party doesn't hate Muslims either?

I am sure there are Jew haters and Muslim haters in every political party and from every walk of life.
That, I'm afraid, is human nature.

Handy Andy wrote:I am sure there are Jew haters and Muslim haters in every political party and from every walk of life.
That, I'm afraid, is human nature.

I don't think it is human nature to hate.



Regardless, we must condemn haters wherever we might find them.

The jew haters are the Muslims and the Islamists lefties...


Hated jews just like the Nazis...


And the Nazis were allied with the Muslims of course... lest we forget...
.