Nazism: rightwing or leftwing?

[DesertFox]

From The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 4:

The following rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates, gives some sense of the scale and gravity of these crimes:

USSR: 20 million deaths
China: 65 million deaths
Vietnam: 1 million deaths
North Korea: 2 million deaths
Cambodia: 2 million deaths
Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths
Latin America: 150,000 deaths
Africa: 1.7 million deaths
Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths
[Assorted other Communist parties:] 10,000 deaths

The total approaches 100 million people killed.

Page 13: ...terror and dictatorship--the defining characteristics of Communists in power...

Page 16, citing Vasily Grossman in Forever Flowing: "To massacre them, it was necessary to proclaim that kulaks are not human beings, just as the Germans proclaimed that Jews are not human beings." ...

Time and again the focus of the terror was less on targeted individuals than on groups of people. The purpose of the terror was to exterminate a group that had been designated as the enemy. ... Thus, the techniques of segregation and exclusion employed in a "class-based totalitarianism" closely resemble the techniques of "race-based totalitarianism." ...Communism...like Nazism...deems a part of humanity unworthy of existence. The difference is that the Communist model is based on the class system, the Nazi model on race and territory."

My comment: Lenin got the terror started in the USSR, but Stalin was responsible for the majority of those 20 million killed -- and the more than six million who died, during the forced collectivization and dekulakization campaigns of the period 1929-1935, eclipsed Hitler's murder of Jews.

Mao was directly responsible for the 65 million deaths under Chinese Communism -- far, FAR exceeding the murders under Stalin and Hitler combined.

The PR that evil people put out about themselves isn't what they should be judged by. They should be judged by their actions. Nazism and Communism are both atheist totalitarian systems built on hate and terror, in which govt force is used to enslave populations and murder those deemed unworthy of living. The murders run into the millions. THAT is the defining characteristic of both. Both warred on religion, mainly Christianity since Christianity was the dominant religion in both countries (though different forms thereof); and bent what was left of the official church to their own ends.

Nazism is left wing. It only appears right wing because Hitler warred on the USSR and we aren't accustomed to think that you war on someone like yourself. Territorial expansion via war was central to Hitler's Nazi philosophy and central to Lenin's Communist philosophy. Both said as much repeatedly in their writings. Both were racist to the core -- Nazism officially, Communism unofficially. No one doubts Nazi racism, but Communist racism has been every bit as horrible, as witness the starved Ukrainians in the early Thirties, the pogroms against nonChinese in Red China, against Chinese and Hmong by Vietnamese in Vietnam, against Vietnamese by Cambodians, etc. These were not aberrations, but inherent in Communism.

Right wing totalitarianism does exist -- in the theocracies of the Middle East. The difference between left and right wing is the presence or absence of religion. The mullahs appeal to Allah as their ultimate authority; Communists and Nazis appealed to their respective Parties. It's also worth noting that both Commie and Nazi systems developed "cults of personality" -- Nazism of course with Hitler, the Soviets with Stalin, the Chinese with Mao, the Romanians with Ceausescu, the Cambodians with Pol Pot, the Cubans with Castro, the Albanians with Enver Hoxha, the North Koreans with Kim il-Sung and now Kim jong-Il.

[PrezLeefun]

That bullshit is not right wing it is just plain evil.

[DesertFox]

The Lefties want to smear us Conservatives with Nazism. We have to fight back using arguments with clear thinking and authoritative sources.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Speaking of authoritative sources:

In <I>LEFTISM: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse</I> by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1974, Professor Kuehnelt-Leddihn details the natural progression of leftism from The French Revolution to Socialism to Communism to Marxism to Fascist Nationalism to National Socialism to Socialist Racism to what he calls "False Liberalism" - modern American liberalism.<p>Some interesting tidbits:<p>The original myth that the Nazis were considered to be on the right was that they were misplaced on the right in the <I>Reichstag</I> (pg. 37).

"One need only to read the pertinent passages about Italian fascism in the very interesting diaries of Victor Serge, a dissident Russian Communist, to understand the deep and lasting connection between the national and international leftist ideologies, socialism-communism and fascism." (pg. 159) "At heart Mussolini was always a Socialist." (pg. 161) "Dr. Goebbels asked in 1932: 'Where would we take the moral right from to fight the idea of the proletarian struggle between the classes, if the bourgeois class-state were not first destroyed and replaced by a new Socialist structure of German community?'" (pg. 175) "The leftist character of Nazism was also apparent in its attitude towards Christianity." (pg. 175)

"The economic order under the Nazis, indeed, was Socialistic, also from an economic point of view, because in a totalitarian state the factory owner or banker no longer holds genuine property. He is merely a steward, the tolerated representative of an almighty government which can expropriate him at the drop of a hat. Not by accident was the Nazi flag the <I>red</I> banner." (pg. 177)

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was an Austrian born in 1909. He read 20 languages and spoke 8. He has a M.A in Economics and a Doctorate in Political Science from the University of Budapest. He went to England in 1935, so he observed first-hand many of the events he writes about. He was head of the History Department in St. Peter's College, Jersey City (1938-1943) and lecturer in Japanese at Fordham University. He visited the USSR as early as 1930-1931, so he observed events there first hand.

[DesertFox]

Excellent, N-T.

[USPatriot8320]

I dont think Nazism was left nor right. It was pure psychotic. I'll never fully understand why the Germans allowed such a thing to occur. One man rose up and committed such an evil upon the world, I don't think it can be grouped to one side or the other. Purely digusting to try and say Nazism was left or right. What the party did was use fear, intimidation, and national pride to cause genocide. No party in modern society should even try to compare the opposition to the Nazi's.

[DesertFox]

Um, USP, if we don't identify Nazism's roots, we can't, er, "uproot" it. Nazism's roots are lefty, and revolutionary lefties, in all cases, have wrought death, destruction, privation and misery on scores of millions of people. The more sedentary, Social Democrat version of Leftism has merely brought permanent hard times where good times formerly prevailed.

It's all about overweening govt. Our Founders long ago recognized that govt is a problem in human affairs, not the solution.

[THEBIRD]

Its not right wing

Hear me on this...

The killing of the Jews was not a Nazi agenda. The killing of the Jews stemmed from Hitler himself and from his own prejudices.

The Nazi agenda came and socialized medicine, socialized education, and took away firearm ownership.

The left is more along the lines of the NAZI agenda. The killing of the jews was just an Adolf side-project.

[DesertFox]

Leftism everywhere has been racist (actually, xenophobic) to the core. Its first victims always include anybody different. Lenin used Latvians and Jews and then turned on them. Stalin went after Jews, Ukrainians and scores of nationalities (including Germans, Armenians, Turks, Kalmyks, Kazakhs, and Poles). Pol Pot went after Vietnamese. Vietnamese went after Chinese and Hmong. Chinese went after Koreans, Japanese and any other foreigner. Tito went after Serbs. Ceausescu went after Albanians and Greeks. Albanians went after Romanians. North Koreans went after Chinese and Japanese.

Same story everywhere Lefties seize power. Xenophobia. Outsiders aren't the only victims but are always among the first.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Actually, Leftism everywhere has been racist
Including modern American liberals.

[Taylor]

I think Nazism is far left. After all the Nazis took away the guns, then they murdered millions of their own citizens.

[papaimp]

May I add, it wasn't just Jews, and the extermination actually started with the handicapped and the infirm, such as Terri Schiavo.
Between December 1939 and August 1941, about 50,000 to 60,000 Germanschildren and adults were secretly killed by lethal injections or in gassing installations designed to look like shower stalls. It was a foretaste of Auschwitz. The victims were taken from the medical institution and put to death....
Of the number of people killed in the T4 and the 14f13 projects, the following statistics are usually given: adult mental patients from institutions, 80,000 to 100,000; children in institutions, 5,000; special action against Jews in institutions, 1,000; concentration camp inmates transported to killing centers (14f13), 20,000 (Klee estimated that at the end of 1941, some 93,521 `beds' had been emptied for other uses [70,000 patients gassed, plus over 20,000 dead through starvation and medication] - in other words approximately one-third of the places for the mentally ill.) But these figures may well be too low; twice these numbers of people may have perished. The fact is that we do not know and shall probably never know. Elements of deception, imposed chaos, and the destruction of many records make anything like an accurate estimate impossible. The same is true concerning the total number of people murdered at specific killing centers. Hartheim victims of both ordinary `euthanasia' and 14f13 are variously estimated from 20,000 (by Dr. Georg Renno, Lonauer's successor as director), to 400,000 (by Franz Ziereis, the former commandant of Mauthausen, on his deathbed); 30,000 is believed to be the best estimate. While these figures may seem unimpressive when placed next to the millions killed in the Final Solution, they represent the murder of shockingly large numbers of people all in places characterized as hospitals.
Above sourced here. (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id16.html)
How can this not be comparable to the programs of abortion, assisted suicide, and the recent upholding of unsubstantiated verbal death requests, such as in Terri Schiavo's case.
Documentation is no longer necessary, as there is now a precedent set in our Court system.
It is not a overly large step to justify termination of the handicapped, and the mentally unfit, now.
Which Political Party is leading us down this slippery slope?
Is it not self evident, that a tree is known by it's fruits (pun intended), and the Democratic party, more properly termed the Liberal Socialist party, is leading us down the same path that Hitler led his subjects down?
Hitler's Government was most definitely Leftist.
As to Islam extremism being a Right-wing manifestation of evil, I offer this link (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/) as counter-evidence.
We're not just fighting Islamic Extremism. We're fighting Hitler's heirs.

[dPrasse]

I've always said that there are no "wings" in politics ...politics is a big circle where the extremes are actually next to each other at the top of the circle and lack of govt is at the bottom ... which curve of the circle you are on depends if you are humanistic or God centered .... the more govt intervention one supports , no matte what the cause , the closer to the top you move ...the less govt intervention , the closer to the bottom of the curve one is ...

[DesertFox]

Interesting idea, dPrasse, but God-fearing cultures have also had totalitarian govts. Ivan the Terrible was an Orthodox believer, and really did believe in God, and was as totalitarian (and insane) as they come.

[ConservativeYouthMovement]

The problem with the circle theory is if you tip it on its side with the bottom at the right and the top at the left it is absolutely correct.

Left is more government by definition, right is less.

[DesertFox]

That's one way of looking at it, but it groups the mullahs (who do believe in the Almighty) with the atheists. That makes no sense to me. Maybe it does to you.

With totalitarianism on each end of the continuum, the center is the place for less (or no) govt. To the left of center would be a Social Democrat govt such as Britain's; a little less to the left, a less socialistic govt such as ours. Barely to the right would have been our govt in the days of the Founders.

Note that this scheme allows you to examine a govt using the left side in isolation or the right side in isolation, depending solely on where religion is in the polity.

[TempestTossed]

I think it is misleading to view all politics in all societies through a one-dimensional spectrum of left vs. right. That is useful only when applied to a single political framework, not many. If you want to talk about left vs. right in current United States politics, that is OK. But a diverse range of political systems deserves a broader method of judgment. In Germany 30's and 40's, the NAZI party was considered right-wing, even if it had "socialist" in the abbreviation, because the opposition party (the Social Democratic Party of Germany) was further to the left, and because the NAZI party was more traditional, religious and patriotic than the opposition. The leftness or rightness of either party says nothing about politics anywhere in the world. Any side in the spectrum of any society, even libertarians, are vulnerable to political manipulation and dictatorships. In US politics, it was once believed that the right-wing stood for small government, but now neither Republicans nor Democrats can boast that doctrine.

[DesertFox]

Left-Right is perfectly acceptable for weighing govts -- when the proper terms are put in the scales. My schema considers any extreme to be either right or left on the spectrum, depending solely on the place of religion in its ideology. Extreme right wing would be the mullocracies of the Middle East today. Extreme left wing would be the Nazis and the Communists, neither of which -- contrary to what you think, TT -- tolerated independent churches.

As you come to the center point of my schema, you arrive where the America of the Founders was -- the minimum amount of govt necessary to make things work. America today is rather far from that, and also far from any religious authoritarian system, so we would be on the left.

The important things about govt, always, are these two: First, does it effect the two most fundamental functions of govt (defend sovereignty, which is its external mission; and regulate the society effectively and efficiently, which is its internal mission); and second, how much does it intrude into private lives. No other issues matter at the most fundamental level. The latter often conflicts with the former two, which is where the particulars of govt structure become important.

[TempestTossed]

Left-Right is perfectly acceptable for weighing govts -- when the proper terms are put in the scales. My schema considers any extreme to be either right or left on the spectrum, depending solely on the place of religion in its ideology. Extreme right wing would be the mullocracies of the Middle East today. Extreme left wing would be the Nazis and the Communists, neither of which -- contrary to what you think, TT -- tolerated independent churches.

As you come to the center point of my schema, you arrive where the America of the Founders was -- the minimum amount of govt necessary to make things work. America today is rather far from that, and also far from any religious authoritarian system, so we would be on the left.

The important things about govt, always, are these two: First, does it effect the two most fundamental functions of govt (defend sovereignty, which is its external mission; and regulate the society effectively and efficiently, which is its internal mission); and second, how much does it intrude into private lives. No other issues matter at the most fundamental level. The latter often conflicts with the former two, which is where the particulars of govt structure become important.I'm not accusing you, but can you tell me how you got the idea that I believed that either the Soviets or the Nazis tolerated independent churches? That is not what I believe, and I am curious about how I may have given a contrary impression.

I would like to know how you define right and left. I define right as conservative, meaning traditional, religious, patriotic, and family-values oriented. I define the left as liberal, which is generally the humanistic sort, weak or lacking in the conservative values--non-traditional, non-religious, non-patriotic.

[DesertFox]

You said: "the NAZI party was more traditional, religious and patriotic than the opposition." No, it wasn't. The traditional thing in Germany was a monarchy. The Nazis were anything but traditional. Neither were they religious.

Nor were they patriotic in the sense normally intended by that term -- they were racist. If you were Aryan they loved you no matter what your nationality, and patriotism has to do with nation-states. It's true that this point (patriotism) can be persuasively argued in more than one direction.

At any rate, that's where I got that impression. If I misconstrued you, my apologies.

Your take on conservative-liberal is the usual one, and I use it myself often. Problem is that it only fits one kind of society -- ours. In my schema you can be conservative at the extreme left OR the extreme right. Hence it can be used in any society, even a mullocracy or a Mugabe-ocracy.

It may be of interest that in the Soviet Union, they used the terms "left" and "right" just as we do -- anybody against the system was left, anybody for it was right/conservative.

[star2589]

The Lefties want to smear us Conservatives with Nazism. We have to fight back using arguments with clear thinking and authoritative sources.

its because they confuse true conservatism with the policies of Bush, etc.

[star2589]

I dont think Nazism was left nor right. It was pure psychotic. I'll never fully understand why the Germans allowed such a thing to occur.

my guess is that it was because they werent fully aware of everything that was going on, and with the things they were aware of, they felt powerless to stop it.

there at least were a lot of people that hid jews in their homes at great risk to themselves, as well as many people that left the country.

[star2589]

Actually, Leftism everywhere has been racist (actually, xenophobic) to the core.

I think racism is pretty independent of where you otherwise stand politically, the difference is how you express that racism.

[DesertFox]

Sounds like you think everybody's racist. Is that what you think?

[star2589]

Sounds like you think everybody's racist. Is that what you think?

who are you talking to? if that was addressed to me, then no, of course not.

I just dont think the amount of racism changes significantly on the left to right scale.

[DesertFox]

I agree. I think nutty people go in for racism whether they're religious or atheist. Racism's handy for getting all heated up when there's nothing else to get heated up about.

[Warlady]

Fox please move this to Hall of Fame when it is spent okay? I want this for future reference.

[markus3622]

Just wondered, if Nazism and fascism were left wing movements, why did the conservatives in power welcome the fascists into government, rather than the moderate left and liberals? The two examples I can think of are Germany and Italy in the 1930s.

It doesn't make sense to allow some extreme leftists into government if the other choice was a coalition of moderate leftists and liberals.

[DesertFox]

I've shown that you can be conservative on the Left OR conservative on the Right. But it makes perfect sense when (1) they disguise themselves and (2) the world has too little experience, as in the Thirties, to judge that they are completely without honor and will say anything, any lie, any fib, to get their way (in those days you could speak of "honor" without blushing). The examples are Hitler and Stalin, both far lefties, both extraordinary liars and extraordinarily successful in getting Westerners to buy off on their lies.

Good liars always have success at some level. There are always the naive, the innocent, and those who just don't believe the worst about others. In my experience such people comprise 30-40% of the population.

"Left wing/Right wing" didn't mean much in the Thirties. They thought more in terms of monarchic or less monarchic, authoritarian or less authoritarian. The Depression moved govts generally toward centralization (more authoritarian), and there was no experience yet with totalitarianism to caution going too far in that direction.

[markus3622]

The Nazis called themselves National Socialists, and as claimed in this thread, the fascists were obviously socialists, but still managed to tricked the conservatives in both Italy and Germany into thinking they were fellow travelers of the right.

In Europe, left wing/right wing meant everything in the thirties, with the threat of communism. Governments were terrified of letting leftists into power, which explains why the conservatives in power were willing to accommodate the extreme right (such as Hitler and Mussolini) in government, rather than the moderate left and liberals.

I think it's quite a stretch to suppose that the fascsists managed to trick millions of people into thinking they were right wingers when all along they were leftists.

Isn't it far more likely that everyone thinks/thought that fascism was a right wing movement, and in fact, it was a right wing movement?

[DesertFox]

Nope. I've clearly explained what's going on. You are free to think what you will.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I've shown that you can be conservative on the Left OR conservative on the Right. But it makes perfect sense when (1) they disguise themselves and (2) the world has too little experience, as in the Thirties, to judge that they are completely without honor and will say anything, any lie, any fib, to get their way (in those days you could speak of "honor" without blushing). The examples are Hitler and Stalin, both far lefties, both extraordinary liars and extraordinarily successful in getting Westerners to buy off on their lies.

Good liars always have success at some level. There are always the naive, the innocent, and those who just don't believe the worst about others. In my experience such people comprise 30-40% of the population.

"Left wing/Right wing" didn't mean much in the Thirties. They thought more in terms of monarchic or less monarchic, authoritarian or less authoritarian. The Depression moved govts generally toward centralization (more authoritarian), and there was no experience yet with totalitarianism to caution going too far in that direction.

That's a keeper.

[Republican_Legion]

what fox said means : someone like zell miller is a conservative left winger and Rudy guilianni is a right wing liberal .

[DesertFox]

A bit more history: The Germans had been wallowing in racist thinking vis-a-vis the Slavs since before Martin Luther, who himself was virulently racist (and also virulently class-conscious). Remember that Bolshevism took Russia out of WWI in 1917, awakening Germans to the organizing power of Bolshevism. The Red Scare of the early Twenties swept the world, even reaching into Latin America and impacting strongly in the United States.

But it wasn't Bolshevism per se that the Hitlerians hated, but the untermensch (subhuman) Slavs. It's worth noting that after the gigantic German victory at Tannenberg in WWI over the Russians, the Kaiser himself said that the Russian prisoners and population should be left to starve. The Kaiser was hardly a Hitler lover, but this shows that Hitler's ideas weren't new.

Hitler's program against the Jews was merely more direct than what he had in mind for the Poles and European Russians after defeating them in war -- starvation on the stupendous scale. The land and peoples east of the Ural Mountains (Asiatic Russia) were to be prevented from attaining high levels of civilization and kept at a lowly, animalistic state of survival. If they caused problems, they, too, would be exterminated.

Bolshevism threatened this scheme because Bolsheviks ran Russia at the time Hitler came to power. Had the Czar still been in control, we never would have heard of Nazis hating Bolsheviks. But Bolshevism as a form of totalitarianism was no different from Nazism in aiming to wipe out entire classes of people. Nazism classified people by race, Bolshevism by social class.

[RyteWynger]

The difference between left and right wing is the presence or absence of religion.

So Jesse Jackass, 'Weird Al' Sharpton and 'Loveable Lou' Führer-khan are creatures of the Right, and agnostics like Yours Truly are Lefties?

Religious faith is completely unrelated to ideology and is, in any event, present all across the spectrum. Hillary [as I recall] is a fairly serious Lutheran. This idea that one end of the ideological spectrum is religious and the other end is not clearly lacks merit.

The real difference between the Left and the Right is in a person's [or a society's] view of the correct relationship between The Individual and The State. Nazis and Communists are Lefties because they heavily empower the State at the expense of the Individual, not because they're unsympathetic to the faithful.

[DesertFox]

Religious faith is completely unrelated to ideology Um, sorry, but that's just not so. The theocracies of the Muslim world are very seriously into politics. That has also been the case throughout most of history. It's only in the last couple of hundred years that the idea entered anybody's head that religion and politics should be separate.

Al Sharpton et al aren't men of God. What they profess and what they do are very different things, and one must be judged by what he does. Neither is Hillary serious about her religion.

Don't confuse reality with propaganda or spurious labels. Anybody can say anything; that doesn't make it so.

The real difference between the Left and the Right is in a person's [or a society's] view of the correct relationship between The Individual and The State. Nazis and Communists are Lefties because they heavily empower the State at the expense of the Individual, not because they're unsympathetic to the faithful. Reread what I wrote. My continuum has far right on the religious end and far left on the atheistic end. The very center is where no religion would reign. Somewhere to the right would be govt where religion played no role in govt but was strongly influenced by it. Somewhere to the left would be govt where religion played no role and was not informed or strongly influenced by it, either.

IOW, our form of govt can occur on either side of that center point. Earlier in our history -- in 1776, for example -- it would have been slightly to the right. Today it's further to the left than it ever was to the right.

What you're proposing does not differentiate between the totalitarianism of theocracies and that of anyone else. Stalin, an atheist; and Khomeini, a fervent believer, are no different in your scheme. Yet they are diametrically opposed in the sources of their ideologies. That's what my scheme takes into account.

[Dragon]

Nazism and communism give lots of power to the government, and are thus bad. Nazism and argueably communism are bad, and thus BEING LEFT IS BAAAD!

I could turn around and say that anarchy is conservative right wing because it gives full power to the people. Therefore, since anarchy is usually accepted to be bad, being right wing is bad too! You can't really argue that because some idealogies may have some elements of a certain side that the entire side is wrong.

[BEST45CAL]

Nazism: Rightwing or leftwing?


The answer is in the name NAZI.

"National Sozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitpartei" or "National Socialist German Workers Party"

Does this help?

[DesertFox]

Actually, though it is accurate, it doesn't help because those kinds of folks readily say one thing and do another. The name could as well have been National Little Sisters of the Poor, but that doesn't mean their behavior was Catholic-inspired or -informed.

In Russia, Lenin named his Party the Bolsheviki, meaning "Majority." But they weren't; they were in the minority. The lie, though, doubtless influenced a lotta people.

[BEST45CAL]

Hmm...they say one thing, but do something different. Sounds like leftwing to me. LOL

[Republican_Legion]

actually religion can be on the left , the new pope is a lefty just like the last except he is more socialy conservative . most political scales have left and right as an economic scale and up and down as a social scale .

[DesertFox]

In my scheme it can't. The more govt, the further to either extreme you go. If the pope favors big govt, he would be on the Right, prolly midway. If he were a nonbeliever (sadly, it's possible), he would be on the Left about midway.

Economies unfailingly reflect fundamental ideology. No liberal govt (in the sense the Founders intended) would have a controlled economy. The only place in history that ever had a truly liberal govt was America in the early years. We had a free market economy then. We don't have liberal govt today, and we don't have a free market economy, either.

Conversely, no country with big govt has ever had a market economy. What you get instead are mixed economies where the govt progressively gets larger and the economy progressively less market-oriented. Govt can't keep its hands off the economy because money, after all, makes everything go.

[Popperite]

The difference between left and right wing is the presence or absence of religion.



Toggling the definition can lead you anywhere you want to go on this.

[dPrasse]

Ooops , I see that I missed a chance to reply when I was diving truck last spring ...
I said

I've always said that there are no "wings" in politics ...politics is a big circle where the extremes are actually next to each other at the top of the circle and lack of govt is at the bottom ... which curve of the circle you are on depends if you are humanistic or God centered .... the more govt intervention one supports , no matte what the cause , the closer to the top you move ...the less govt intervention , the closer to the bottom of the curve one is ...

Interesting idea, dPrasse, but God-fearing cultures have also had totalitarian govts. Ivan the Terrible was an Orthodox believer, and really did believe in God, and was as totalitarian (and insane) as they come.

Agreed ...
I'd say the "left" side of my sphere is the "Non -religious" or "humanist" side and the "right" side of my sphere is the "religious" side ... totalitarion gubermint is the North pole and complete anarchy is the South pole ... (my political sphere needs poles to keep it fromm falling over as had been suggested ) ....

[DesertFox]

Toggling the definition can lead you anywhere you want to go on this. That's true of anything you want to name. I've given a comprehensive account of this scheme, showing why it's superior to the usual Left-Right thinking and better than any other I've seen -- and as a political scientist I've seen plenty.

Not every opinion carries, or should carry, equal weight.

[Republican_Legion]

how do you explain the pope who is a staunch conservative socialist ?

[DesertFox]

About a third of the way down on the right. The further you go toward either extreme, the more govt you get.

[dPrasse]

Chris ... you might be correct ... that means the "left-wing" is a biplane wing or a "V" wing ?

you have the "humanist socialists" that "claim" to be "for the people" by direct action (Dems) and you have the "industrial socialists" that are still for govt controls but are against direct citizen support , looking out more for the industrialist concerns ....

[DesertFox]

I am very much correct. My remarks concerned my model, described earlier.

But you are incorrect in any case, Chris. I've been a political scientist for 20 years and have never heard of any "historic" (sic) definition such as you describe. Political spectra commonly allow for extremism on both ends. Their mistake has been in styling Nazism far Right; Nazism is far Left, which is the subject of this thread.

What you're describing, but not saying right, is that anarchy (no govt) is at the extreme right of the spectrum and totalitarianism on the extreme left. That much is true, if not "historic." Tyranny, as such, does not enter into it as anarchy (which in practice means no one respects anyone's authority) has historically been as tyrannical as anything else.

[omegatrump]

Great question! Here's your answer (and you probably wont like it):

Europe, and in particular those in power, were frightened by the menace of soviet Communism -- while privately in love with the concept of fabian socialism (simply: a totalitarian system in which the elite and intelligencia govern using the external trappings of communism for public validation -- this is the least discussed facet of the socialist movement precisely because it is the philosophy which actually took hold; it was, by design, imported into all the worlds great universities in the early 1900's. When you wonder why it is that so many of the worlds elite are socialist this is the answer, they do not believe in or practice the same form of socialism you are taught in schools.)

What differentiated Hitler's national socialism from Soviet communist-socialism was NOT policy or philosophy but rather that Hitler promised a German-Arian baised government rather than a Russian one, and assured the leaders of industry that they would not only maintain their place and position, but that National Socialist laws would eliminate the major problems they faced such as labor and a market. The german communists sought to destroy germany's industry and military in order to advance the spread of soviet socialism, Hitler pledged to maintain and boost industry and the military under a German Socialism.

There is a CLEAR parallel in America today. The Democratic party wants to see America weakened in every way, from the military to industry and even into the family and moral structure. They do this to advance an anti-american (probably euro-centric) world socialist agenda. The republicans, also socialists and every bit as dangerous, want to maintain the strength of these American institutions, but only up to the point that they do not conflict with their goals of an American based socialist world state.

The elite of both parties see the PEOPLE as being little more than usefull idiots, to be used and then exterminated at their whim. In both cases the American people (and the people of the world) are screwed. The ultimate objectives are, for all practical purposes, exactly the same.

Very well said.

[omegatrump]

I believe they have the ball rolling, and to try to define todays prolitics by yesterdays benchmarks is an exercise in futility. With the ball rolling what was on top soon ends up on the bottom. Look at how the Republicans have moved to redefine conservatism in just the past year. The Dems are redefining their stand on liberalism. What was liberal where the Republicans are concerned is heralded as conservative. IE big government, out of control spending, social services etc. The Dems I expect will move to secure the borders as a pretense toward conservatism.

I like Chris's comparison of Russia's Communism to Hitler's Socialism. But today I see the elite rolling the ball.

[omegatrump]

I am very much correct. My remarks concerned my model, described earlier.

But you are incorrect in any case, Chris. I've been a political scientist for 20 years and have never heard of any "historic" (sic) definition such as you describe. Political spectra commonly allow for extremism on both ends. Their mistake has been in styling Nazism far Right; Nazism is far Left, which is the subject of this thread.

What you're describing, but not saying right, is that anarchy (no govt) is at the extreme right of the spectrum and totalitarianism on the extreme left. That much is true, if not "historic." Tyranny, as such, does not enter into it as anarchy (which in practice means no one respects anyone's authority) has historically been as tyrannical as anything else.

We have serious anarchy developing now, if we will only admit it. Millions of illegals cross our borders with no respect for our laws, our judicial system has no respect for the law that would correct the trespass, the government agencies have no choice but to adapt an attitude of apathy, the American public ignores the law to hire the illegals, the Mexican government does everything it can to help their people disregard our laws, I would call that a type of anarchy. Didn't Hitler promote a season of anarchy (controlled for effect) to give reason to his totalitarian rule? I see what 'was' Nazism as far left.

[Tumblehome]

actually religion can be on the left , the new pope is a lefty just like the last except he is more socialy conservative . most political scales have left and right as an economic scale and up and down as a social scale .

I think this is essential. Right/Left doesn't say enough. For example, I am fiscally very conservative but socially very liberal. So what does that make me? A conservative or a liberal?

[aaron11]

You are a Liberal who likes the thought of calling himself fiscally Conservative. In any event, Fiscal conservatism where it pertains to government and liberalism [As defined in the US] are mutually exclusive in any workable sense.

[sunsettommy]

I think this is essential. Right/Left doesn't say enough. For example, I am fiscally very conservative but socially very liberal. So what does that make me? A conservative or a liberal?

I think what you are saying is an impossibility.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I think this is essential. Right/Left doesn't say enough. For example, I am fiscally very conservative but socially very liberal. So what does that make me? A conservative or a liberal?

Do you think government is responsible, fiscally, for providing for
1) the homeless
2) the unemployed
3) the hungry
4) those seeking abortions
5) the "arts"
6) the elderly
7) universal healthcare (cradle to grave)
8) children


If you answered "yes" to any of those questions, you are NOT fiscally conservative. Government has no business providing for any of those things.

As for Naziism, does it really matter which end of the spectrum it can be found? No one can prove either position is absolutely correct, there are elements of both extremes within the ideology. It's wrong, it is detrimental to individuals and society as a whole. It is an antithetical to freedom.

[USPatriot8320]

Food and children I agree with personally

[DesertFox]

Right/Left doesn't say enough. For example, I am fiscally very conservative but socially very liberal. So what does that make me? A conservative or a liberal?Are you an atheist or a theist? That would determine which side of the spectrum you are on. Once on that side, the less govt you want, the more toward the middle you are; the more to the extreme, the more govt you accept.

[DesertFox]

Tommy is right. You can't be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. A liberal is one has no problem with gigantic govt programs which necessarily involve giant govt. A fiscal conservative is one who insists on balanced budgets, which would necessarily mean cutting down the size of govt, which would necessarily mean cutting down gigantic govt programs.

You're a liberal. In any tugga war between conservative and lib principles, the conservative loses in the end because it's just too easy to do things "with other people's money."

[Tumblehome]

Hmm. Well I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal (to each their own, so long as nobody is hurt). I'm anti-authoritarian, and that leads me to being somewhat anti-government. It also leads me to being somewhat anti-religious.

So I think I'm an example of somebody with both liberal and conservative in them. I think most of us have a little of both actually.

[bannerman]

Do you think government is responsible, fiscally, for providing for
1) the homeless
2) the unemployed
3) the hungry
4) those seeking abortions
5) the "arts"
6) the elderly
7) universal healthcare (cradle to grave)
8) children


If you answered "yes" to any of those questions, you are NOT fiscally conservative. Government has no business providing for any of those things.

As for Naziism, does it really matter which end of the spectrum it can be found? No one can prove either position is absolutely correct, there are elements of both extremes within the ideology. It's wrong, it is detrimental to individuals and society as a whole. It is an antithetical to freedom.

the "word Nazi is slang for a National Socialist party

that pretty well sums up who they were

[Warlady]

In Europe, left is right and right is left. The polar opposite of America and basically the rest of the world. That's why they drive on the wrong damn side of the road. :grin: Seriously, it must have taken an awful lot of energy to kill that many people...or at least be responsible for their deaths. I have often wondered why these monsters were allowed to breathe for as long as they did to do their evil.

[Justaguy]

I think it's multidimensional.

They were authoritarian, they had a religion but it was some sort of Germanic/occult myth worship, most production was privately controlled, if government directed. I think the facist component is what gets them painted with the conservative brush.

[racehorse43]

Yes and Putin is bring back the USSR, we need to wake up America. Also keep the other eye on Commie China.

[DeclinetoState]

In Europe, left is right and right is left. The polar opposite of America and basically the rest of the world. That's why they drive on the wrong damn side of the road. :grin: Seriously, it must have taken an awful lot of energy to kill that many people...or at least be responsible for their deaths. I have often wondered why these monsters were allowed to breathe for as long as they did to do their evil.
Only the English and Irish and a couple of other insular countries drive on the "wrong" side of the road there. :D

I do remember the hardline communists being characterized as "conservatives" during and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, even though a hardline communist would have virtually nothing (at least politically speaking) in common with a Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.

[DesertFox]

Putin is bring back the USSR, we need to wake up America. Also keep the other eye on Commie China.You sound more and more like a troll.

[Tumblehome]

Yes and Putin is bring back the USSR, we need to wake up America. Also keep the other eye on Commie China.

I wouldn't be so upset about a ressurection of the USSR, so long as it was a much more humane version. The world needs balance. Having one sole superpower is not healthy for the world. I'd prefer the European Union to become strong and rival the US militarily and economically but Russia would do. I fear that it may be China.

If the US doesn't get some competition in the near future, it will start to implode and eventually collapse.

[pinqy]

I do remember the hardline communists being characterized as "conservatives" during and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, even though a hardline communist would have virtually nothing (at least politically speaking) in common with a Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.
Since "conservative" means wanting little or no (or at least slow) change and "liberal" means wanting change, in Eastern Europe the Conservatives are Communists and the Liberals are Capitalists. This goes for "left wing" and "right wing" as well. In Russia, the Left Wingers are Capitalists and the Right Wingers are the Communists.

Western Europe makes the distinctions like the US...though a US Moderate is very Conservative in Western Europe.

[DesertFox]

Having one sole superpower is not healthy for the world. I'd prefer the European Union to become strong and rival the US militarily and economically but Russia would do. I fear that it may be China.Balance? You mean good needs to be balanced by evil? Poppycock.

If the US doesn't get some competition in the near future, it will start to implode and eventually collapse.Nonsense.

[dPrasse]

The terrorists are actually a big enough threat and all the balance the world needs ...

[Tumblehome]

Balance? You mean good needs to be balanced by evil? Poppycock.

That you see the US as "good" is telling.The US is neither good nor evil, it is a country and a democratic one at that. It is perfectly possible for some charismatic leader to be swept into power and do evil (or good) things. Without balance in the world there is nothing to counter-act it.

Moreover, as they say, power corrupts. As time goes on, if another power doesn't rise up the US will become more and more aggressive (it already is starting to). Also without competition to push it forward, it will lose drive, stagnate, and likely split from within.

[DesertFox]

Aggressive? You can't distinguish between normal, perfectly acceptable responses to others' aggression, and aggression.

That you do NOT see the US as "good" is telling. To say that the US is neither good nor evil betrays an inability to distinguish good from evil.

You clearly don't understand what moves nation-states forward. It isn't the nation-state itself, but the people within it, and forward motion requires the right kind of system. America has become so great so fast because her system releases the creative genius of the population for productive work. Any population would respond the same way, but only the American system allows it.

[Tumblehome]

To say that the US is neither good nor evil betrays an inability to distinguish good from evil.

You clearly don't understand what moves nation-states forward. It isn't the nation-state itself, but the people within it

Exactly. The nation itself is neither good nor evil. The actions of the people who run it may be good or bad, but the nation itself?

America has become so great so fast because her system releases the creative genius of the population for productive work.

I agree that this is part of the reason. It certainly isn't the whole reason. Slavery and the 2nd world war (that set back most of europe and left the US relatively untouched) certainly played their part along with other factors. Geographic location, few borders (separation from most of the world), and natural resources also played their part.

[The Hard Truth]

Are you an atheist or a theist? That would determine which side of the spectrum you are on. Once on that side, the less govt you want, the more toward the middle you are; the more to the extreme, the more govt you accept.

You've made some interesting and correct points in this thread, but whether you're a theist or atheist has virtually nothing to do with which end of the political spectrum you're on.

It's very simple: Those who advocate total government are at the far left of the spectrum, those who advocate no government are at the far right.

Communists, Nazis and Fascists advocate total or near-total government control of the people, economy etc. Thus they are at or near the left end of the spectrum.

Those who advocate no government or very little government, such as anarchists and libertarians, are at or near the right end of the spectrum.

People who support a Constitutional Republic (as envisioned and rendered by the Founding Fathers) like the USA, are closer to the middle of the spectrum.

[The Hard Truth]

the "word Nazi is slang for a National Socialist party

that pretty well sums up who they were

The complete and correct title of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).

[The Hard Truth]

They were authoritarian, they had a religion but it was some sort of Germanic/occult myth worship, most production was privately controlled, if government directed. I think the facist component is what gets them painted with the conservative brush.

Actually, the Nazis observed no specific religion. Some were atheists, some were deists, some worshiped one or more of the various mythical Germanic occult entities like Wotan, etc.

Hitler and his inner circle had one thing in common, they were virulently anti-Christian.

[Joe Blow]

Hitler and his inner circle had one thing in common, they were virulently anti-Christian.

Well that's not what Hitler said:

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed. [Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 125]

This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.152]

Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another... while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.309]

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

....and interestingly: "There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland." [Message, signed Hitler, painted on walls of concentration camps; Life, August 21, 1939]

Doesn't sound like any left-winger I've ever met.

[DesertFox]

Joe Blow, link, please. I've never heard of this crap. Hitler hated any kind of religion, as was plain in his treatment of the churches and the leading churchmen.

[Warlady]

I wouldn't be so upset about a ressurection of the USSR, so long as it was a much more humane version. The world needs balance. Having one sole superpower is not healthy for the world. I'd prefer the European Union to become strong and rival the US militarily and economically but Russia would do. I fear that it may be China.

If the US doesn't get some competition in the near future, it will start to implode and eventually collapse.

This wins the most obsurd post of the year award. He should be reinstated just so I can play. Yeah I'm bored.

[Rhino]

Yep, that's what he said. But words don't make you a Christian. His actions spoke far louder than his words, and those actions were far from Christian. Many of them were the antithesis of Christianity, hence Hard Truth's comment.

You've never met a left wing Christian? You must not get around much.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

The Hard Truth:
Hitler and his inner circle had one thing in common, they were virulently anti-Christian.

:smirky: They were also a bunch of homosexuals.

[Rhino]

I heard they liked sheep too.

[DoctorDoom]

All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
-- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 (1925)

It would appear that JB has fallen for the lies that have deceived generations that Hitler was anything other than a charismatic monster.

[DesertFox]

Actually, he was a pretty nice guy. One can deduce this from the behavior of those around him. His dog Blondi thought he was God. His wife Eva very nearly worshipped him. Those closest to him -- a family named Goebbels -- couldn't bear to live without him and committed suicide, also killing his young kids, rather than have them grow up in a Hitlerless world.

:rolleyes: