Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Fascism uses Marx's 10 Planks at an 80% rate.

Oh?

Which planks do the Nazis embrace?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Already did several times... You and some other far leftists want to claim that even when authoritarian regimes have socialist policies, that they are right wing simply for being authoritarian and nationalistic... I proved that this is not the case... Gadhi was a socialist, but he brought together all the NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS in India... Socialist and communist regimes have always turned despotic/authoritarian.

You can't change your narrative and claim they become right wing because their left wing policies are authoritarian...

Authoritarian is right-wing. Full-stop. Far Right = Authoritarian. The end. Cut off the 'left wing policies' part because that is meaningless when implemented by an authoritarian government.

Left and Right politics literally comes from how people sat in relation to the king:

"We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp."

Monarchists - authoritarians and conservatives - sat on the right. Seating arrangements changed a few times; ultimately becoming a political term after Napoleon's Second Empire collapsed; these days, communists sit on the far left and right-wing extremists sit on the far right.

Remember, we're talking about Europe here, where Nazi Germany existed - not the U.S. idea of Left/Right (incidentally, if it were on the same scale as the rest of the world, both parties would be rather far on the Right side).

*doublepost*

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
Fascism uses Marx's 10 Planks at an 80% rate.

Oh?

Which planks do the Nazis embrace?

Many.

Marx 10 Planks of Communism compared to Fascism


1. Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Fascism - 75%


2. A heavy progressive or graduated incometax.
Fascism - 100%


3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Fascism - 50%


4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Fascism - 100%


5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Fascism - 100%


6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Fascism - 100%


7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Fascism - 75%


8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies especially for agriculture.
Fascism - 75%


9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Fascism - 75%


10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Fascism - 100%

a reply to: xuenchen
Curious scoring. Any standard for it?

Also, what would you rank the United States today on those planks?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: xuenchen
Curious scoring. Any standard for it?

Also, what would you rank the United States today on those planks?

We can start here and maybe go "plank by plank"...

There's loads of information,

depends how somebody interprets.

Economics of fascism

a reply to: xuenchen

I thought you don't trust wiki sources?

originally posted by: xuenchen
We can start here and maybe go "plank by plank"...

While you haven't answered with an opinion on the United States today, why don't we start with the first plank - private property.

How can you possibly judge Nazi Germany at 75% fulfillment of that plank?

a reply to: Greven

"Private" property was ....

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[4] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[5]

same wiki

(the "sources" are academic)


The majority of the economy was military/industrial and subject to mass government authority.

You could "own" it, but not without "permission" from the State.

Not to mention the mass confiscations of private property (Jewish etc.)

This was the case in Germany and most occupied countries.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen

I thought you don't trust wiki sources?

Depends on how easy or hard it is to verify and examine the sources.

There's hundreds of sources.

a reply to: raymundoko

BS, again you can't change your narrative when it suits you. I guess left wing extremists like Bill Ayers became right wing because they used force?... Every freaking communist and socialist dictatorship became right wing when they use/d force against the people and oppressed them?... BS They were/are left wing dictatorships... When a left wing government uses force, oppresses people, murders, and imprisons people it doesn't suddenly become right wing... It is still a left wing dictatorship...

a reply to: xuenchen
Uh-huh... yes we know they did terrible stuff to Jews and other groups they mistreated.

Did you know that Nazi Germany carried out the first instances of what we now call privatization?

They were denationalizing nationalized industries - even selling originally public enterprises to private entities. They wanted a great deal of control in private enterprises - but they also wanted the means of production to be in the hands of individuals.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
...
And then they went to war. There was nothing national-social about his game, was it? Remember how Lebensraum Ost turned out? Or do you think it's social and for the common good of Germany to burn down Europe, killing everyone who dared to speak up? The repercussions were predictable, why would you ignore the plethora of consequences and stick to the liars campaign only? There must be something you hold on to, constantly telling yourself 'he wasn't that bad after all'. He was a special social snowflake!

Are you insane?... What about Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the castro brothers, etc, all of them left wing who destroyed their own countries claiming "it is for the good of the people" just like Hitler claimed?... Many of them also marched into other countries, or tried to, to subjugate them to "socialism and/or communism". Are you also going to claim none of them were socialists, and communist dictators like some here have tried to claim already?...

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Yep, and I'm the aryan Prince of Persia. Just focus on some redundant talking-points, it's for the common good belly-feel of all white aryan cowards. Go ahead!

And Karl Marx was anti-semite as well, even though he was of Jewish origin, and he stated that the world needed to rid itself of what he called the "Jewish problem"... Did that make Marx any less socialist and communist?...

BTW, wth are you talking about... I am hispanic not Aryan, nor NAZI.... so get off the insults and the libel and slanderous false comments...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Again, lots of people spout 'common good' line or some variant thereof - I quoted Reagan and Bush both doing so a few pages back.

Utilitarianism resonates to this day. Stop using it as a crutch, because it just ain't holding any weight.

a reply to: Greven

But not every one of those people implemented extremist left wing policies...Hitler did alongside other extremist left wing dictators...

Stop claiming that left wing dictatorships turn right wing when they show those extreme left wing policies in fact oppress instead of help the people like some like to keep claiming..."because it ain't holding any weight"...

a reply to: Greven

I guess the Obama administration, Timothy Geithner and Hillary Clinton are right wing as well because they were fundamental in the talks that sold an American bank to a Chinese bank...

How convenient that you left the following out...

...
Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many
recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation.
...

From your link...
www.ub.edu...

You forget the NAZIS had to pay for the costs of their war machine... This "privatization of some businesses" was not ideologically driven, but financial needs were the central motivations for the NAZIs doing this...

I realize that there are extremely entrenched viewpoints on this issue. I am not going to change mine, and you are not going to change yours. However, I will politely add this to the mix:

Hitler wasn't a Socialist - Stop Saying He Was

Tim Stanley
Dr Tim Stanley is a historian of the United States. His new book about Hollywood politics is out now. His personal website is www.timothystanley.co.uk and you can follow him on Twitter @timothy_stanley.


Hitler wasn't a socialist. Stop saying he was
By Tim Stanley Politics Last updated: February 26th, 2014
2445 Comments Comment on this article

The comparison between Hitlerism and Marxism doesn't bear scrutiny.

My colleague Dan Hannan argues that Hitler was a socialist. It's a popular idea among libertarians, often used to shame the opposition – after all the Nazis did call themselves National Socialists. But, then again, Tony Blair once said he was a socialist, too. So labels can be misleading.

That Hitler wasn't a socialist became apparent within weeks of becoming Chancellor of Germany when he started arresting socialists and communists. He did this, claim some, because they were competing brands of socialism. But that doesn't explain why Hitler defined his politics so absolutely as a war on Bolshevism – a pledge that won him the support of the middle-classes, industrialists and many foreign conservatives.

Dan asserts that Hitler was a socialist with reservations, that:
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.

Yet, by this very definition, Hitler wasn't a socialist. Marxism is defined by class war, and socialism is accomplished with the total victory of the Proletariat over the ruling classes.

By contrast, Hitler offered an alliance between labour and capital in the form of corporatism – with the express purpose of preventing class war.

Marxists regarded this as one of the stages of capitalist development and few at the time legitimately interpreted the Third Reich to be a socialist society.

The radical George Bernard Shaw, for example, certainly expressed sympathy for Hitler when he came to power but later described the dictator's socialism as fraudulent – as a way of buying off the inevitable revolution. He wore, in Shaw's opinion, "the latest mask of capitalism."

And there you have it. Saying Hitler was left-wing is popular among a certain kind of politics, libertarianism, which makes sense why we are having this protracted tussle. It is used to "shame" the opposition (the "left"), as a feel-good tactic for those espousing this erroneous and false ideologically based viewpoint. Those of our ATS brethren who are libertarians, are perhaps the driving force behind the misguided idea that Hitler was a socialist, perhaps because it fits their own political ideology and satisfies the expression of that ideology.

Don't get me wrong - I understand. We all have our biases and folks on the left have been using Hitler to "shame" those on the far right for a long time. It's a simple attempt to turn the tables and perform "political judo" whereby one group's shaming rhetoric gets turned against them. But that's all it is - political rhetoric.

My stance is clear - I cannot see Hitler as socialist, because he was a corporatist dictator who USED SOME socialist rhetoric, along with other rhetoric, to become the evil dictator we all know today. He *gasp* told lies. Remember?
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” - Hitler

Hitler's government was, ultimately, evil. Can we agree on that? I think most of us can...

I don't think conservatives or libertarians are evil. I think evil is evil. I don't think communists or socialists are evil. Again, I think evil is evil.

You can argue up and down all day that Hitler was a socialist because of your bias, but I do not think you have "proved" your stance, because the historical facts only remotely match up if you believe Hitler's lies that he ultimately used to round up all the real socialists and kill them one horrible night. The Night of the Long Knives

To argue "well, but look at Stalin!" is to forget that Stalin was also an evil dictator. They had that in common, and were both in it for personal power to create totalitarian regimes. They both USED the unwitting and non-sociopathic average folk to put themselves in power and once there, their true colors ran to rivers of blood.

Instead, I think it has become an issue of "being right at all costs" and so there is no discussion or room for seeing the ACTUAL history of LIES and DECIT that wrapped around Hitler and his inner circle.

If you believe Hitler was a socialist, then you simply believe his early propaganda. It is understandable that people still buy into his big lies, after all, he was a Master at being evil. Can we agree on that?

peace,
AB

So, the Nazis were National Socialists. Does that mean that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a Democratic Republic?

Guess America is the same as NK then.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I realize that there are extremely entrenched viewpoints on this issue. I am not going to change mine, and you are not going to change yours. However, I will politely add this to the mix:

So, as a rebuke you offer the claims from a left wing "Hollywood writer"?... (I know he is British, but he is still a left wing writer) Humm, i wonder why he would claim Hitler wasn't socialist?...

originally posted by: AboveBoard
My stance is clear - I cannot see Hitler as socialist, because he was a corporatist dictator who USED SOME socialist rhetoric, along with other rhetoric, to become the evil dictator we all know today. He *gasp* told lies. Remember?
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” - Hitler

Humm, i wonder what other socialist dictator made a similar quote?...

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Vladimir Lenin

www.brainyquote.com...

*gasp*...

Stalin ordered the imprisonment and death of other communists who didn't agree with him such as Trotsky...

The castro brothers murdered, or imprisoned "socialist revolutionaries" who noticed and questioned them about the infiltration of more, and more "communist revolutionaries"...

You can't just claim "they were evil and that's it"... Their extreme left wing policies were the tools they used for their oppression, and murderous campaigns.

In the name of "for the good of all" injustices can be inflicted on the very same people that these policies claim "to help".

The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes.
Thomas Paine

www.azquotes.com...

Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.
James Madison

www.inspiringquotes.us...

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”
Albert Camus

www.goodreads.com...

A democratic despotism is like theocracy; it assumes its own correctness.
Walter Bagehot

www.qotd.org...

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
William Pitt

www.goodreads.com...

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

www.goodreads.com...

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
So, the Nazis were National Socialists. Does that mean that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a Democratic Republic?

Guess America is the same as NK then.

You are still 30 pages behind, how convenient for you to ignore the policies which were very left wing...

BTW Eilasvaleleyn, Hitler's environmental extremism denigrating and demonizing an entire human group "for the good of the animals". That sounds very right wing to you right?...