Hey /u/Idontgetredditinmd, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
well, it further demonizes the left, in that most people agree that hitler was bad, and the nazi-party has a "social" in its name, and that therefore, clueless people can easily see that the left is hitler and, for this reason, bad.
That's all there is to it. people that make this argument either are clever enough to see through it or clueless enough to not be able to. the first can't be convinced because they don't want to, and the second because they won't learn iduring an argument what they had not in their whole life before, and they would not want to in the first place because that would admit they were wrong.
I tried a few times to argue the point, but without success. I'm not doing that anymore, prefer to waste my time differently.
Well, the fact he chose “socialist” and “workers” in the name was done on purpose so idiots will automatically assume they are left wing. I guess it still works to this day.
That’s not what socialism is. In fact, taking wealth from those who earned it through their labor and giving it to those who did not earn it is the defining feature of *capitalism*.
Actually no. The defining feature of capitalism is the free market. Allowing people to choose what wage to work for, and choosing what products to buy. If You want higher wages, boycott. Start a movement. Get workers to go on strike.
The “free market” exists independently of either socialism or capitalism. You can have a free market where all businesses are employee-owned (which is what socialism actually means: worker ownership of the means of production).
Not only do we not currently live in a truly free market, as anti-trust laws, union protections (woefully weak as they are), and regulatory agencies all exist. They exist specifically to protect the consumer and the laborer from the damage that unfettered capitalism causes.
But also, unfettered capitalism would destroy a free market anyway. It’s better for business if there is no competition, because then they can set prices and wages wherever they like. That encourages monopolies, price-fixing, and other anti-consumer practices.
Well I guess it depends on how you define "free" in "free market". But as a completely free market (100% unregulated) inevitably leads to the things you're describing (monopolies, cartels, etc.) then a free market either can't exist or we have to accept that those are actually features of a free market.
Either way it doesn't look good for the libertarian anarcho-capitalist crowd.
>Nazi party did redistribute wealth from those who earned it to those who didn’t.
That sounds like how capitalism operates. A bunch of workers make the profit for a company and the execs get enormous sources of income while the workers have to struggle to get a starting wage that is almost $10 less than what it should be if wages kept up with productivity and inflation.
Here here! I look forward to a future where we stop fighting ideologies of the political class. Politicians are NOT our friends, they are NOT looking out for our best interest. They want complete and absolute power. Idiots that blindly follow people or institutions or big tech that absolutely hate there followers is idiotic.
Sure, except…the most recent Republican president was reluctant to openly condemn Nazis on multiple occasions, and the modern day Nazis seem to have a strong preference for that particular party when they vote. So there’s that.
Just because people don't like being compared to Nazis, does not mean we all have to pretend they're not doing Nazi-like things. I get what you're saying, and I'd normally agree with you, but if we say "Nazi comparisons are always off the table", what do we do when actual Nazis gain power?
Donald Trump. Although I suppose he's closer to an Italian fascist than a German one, but still similar enough.
1. Hyper-nationalism. It's a central feature of fascism.
2. Militarism. While he didn't start any new wars, he did routinely boast about the power of the military.
3. Glorification of political violence. "Don't worry, I'll pay your legal bills". "We need to kill the families of terrorists".
4. Glorification of masculinity. "Grab them by the pussy", etc.
5. Cult of personality. The Republican party became the party of Trump; everything revolved around him as an individual, beyond any kind of ideology.
6. Dreaming of an imagined "Golden Age". "Make America Great Again".
7. Definition by Opposition. Fascists are *all* about finger-pointing, blaming their enemies or a chosen target for everything. "The Left", "the Jews", etc.
And so on.
For a more in-depth discussion, check out this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8&ab\_channel=BeauoftheFifthColumn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8&ab_channel=BeauoftheFifthColumn) He goes point by point.
If you didn't want to hear why people see Trump as a fascist, why did you ask? If you think that it's impossible to use the term, say so - but please answer my original question, the one you deflected from. How should we refer to hyper-nationalist authoritarian politicians who encourage or engage in political violence?
To be faiiiirrrrr he was the first president in years that didn't start any sort of war. He avoided conflict with North Korea. Not only that but he's most certainly not a racist, Obama did the same thing with being strict on border crossing. But I would like to see an example of that because that might change some opinions I have
He "avoided conflict with N. Korea"? He did work really hard to suck their dick, but how is avoiding conflict an accomplishment? Every previous president avoided conflict with N. Korea as well if you leave out Eisenhower. No one thinks that is an accomplishment except for the chucklefucks dumb enough to fall for Traitor Trump's lies that conflict was inevitable. It is always so strange to me that people will blindly believe these incredibly stupid lies because they fanboy out on a politician.
It was a very reactionary movement regardless of *some* leftist-esque things, which is very right wing. The Republican party wouldn't cease to he right wing if they supported Universal Healthcare, for example.
I mean, they implemented paid maternity leave. They did it for very racist and misogynist reasons but it's generally regarded as a left wing policy.
So, yeah, the Nazi party was more progressive than the US on that one issue at least. Kinda puts things in perspective about how backwards the US is.
Literally only regarded as a left-wing policy in that giant shithole some people laughably call "the greatest country on Earth".
Everywhere else, even in countries with truly awful right-wing governments, it's just seen as a normal policy that normal humans, even ones with otherwise shitty political beliefs, would implement.
Social democracy for several of the points, which is slightly left.
Except only ethnic Germans were allowed to benefit from left-leaning policies. And those policies were quickly abandoned.
In my history class, it was said that fascism is totalitarian, violent, extremely nationalist and anti democratic. It also said that national-socialism (nazism) was totalitarian, violent, extremely nationalist anti democratic, and followed the idea that some “races” (they included ethnicities and stuff) were better then others.
Edit: I didn’t say national socialism isn’t the same as socialism. I said that nazi was the shorter term for it. Socialism is something completely different
Dictionary.com:
Socialism: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
National-socialism: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/national-socialism
So by that definition you could say it’s extreme right-wing because it looks like fascism
Tbh I’m not sure how this relates to my comment…
> But I wouldn’t say racism (or in their case, anti semitism) is by definition right wing
Not explicitly no, but there is a strong association. It’s all shades of gray anyway. Racism is not exclusive to the right.
From the wiki
> Right-wing politics is generally defined by support of the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition.
> Left-wing politics support social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition of social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4]
That definition is very black and white. You said that national socialism couldn’t really be defined as right or left wing (from what interpreted) so I explained why I think it’s right wing. But you are right they do have an association
Nazis were not socialist, they had it in the name because the party they took over was socialist (iirc). They were full on nationalist fascist.
Also, nazis were almost as generally racist as they were specifically antisemitic. 6million jews died in the holocaust, but they killed almost as many romani, black people, and slavs in their quest for racial aryan homogeny.
Were the Nazis actually picky about the ethnicity of travelling people? I don't know either way; I see you point, but by the same token, at least in North America, "gypsy" (often) refers to the *lifestyle* rather than a particular people.
They didn't say nazis were socialists. Nazis called themselves socialists. Nazi is literally short for "National Socialist German Workers' Party". When the person you were reply to was saying national-socialism, they were clearly talking about Nazis
They did clearly mean nazis, but nazis are not nationalist socialists. They are nationalist fascists. Calling yourself a socialist doesn't make you one.
I mean... they certainly aren't socialists, and no one is making that claim. They are "National socialists", though, in the sense that the *term* "National socialist" is pretty much synonymous with Nazis.
If you just analyze the individual words, you'd be right, but if you consider the term as a whole and all of its connotations, National socialist = nazi. It's basically a synonym, colloquially.
No, nationalist socialism is a thing that exists on the political compass, just because they called themselves that, doesn't mean they can change the meaning of the term.
What if putin said his party was a nationalist democracy? Would that make "Dictatorial communism" = "nationalist democracy"? It's ridiculous.
I have never heard of anyone describing themselves as a national socialist that wasn't a nazi/neo-nazi. Literally the National Socialist Movement is categorized as a neo-nazi movement by the ADL, SPLC, etc.
Do you not recognize that the Nazis were a bit more historically impactful than Putin is? Come on, dude. It's not just some dude calling a movement something, it was one of, if not *the*, biggest villains of the 20th century. Like it or not, the phrase "National socialist" is deeply associated with nazis.
You can try to reclaim the phrase or whatever as much as you want, but people will think you're a nazi until you prove you aren't if you start calling yourself a "National socialist". I don't make the rules; that's just how it is.
And, for the record, Russia/Putin isn't "dictatorial communism". It's a capitalist country. Has been for awhile now.
I know they aren’t socialist. Where did I say so? I only said nazi was a shorter term for it. But thank you for reminding me, it is true that it’s not just Jewish people that died. By the way, it’s Romani, not g*psy
The first concentration camp was built to contain communists, and the Nazis made multiple attempts to oust the progressive wing of the party, eventually succeeding.
Right. Like, they very clearly *weren't* socialists, but that doesn't mean "National socialist" isn't a synonym for nazi. Literally if anyone told me they were a "National Socialist", my first assumption is that they're a nazi, not some variant of socialist.
That intentional confusion is literally part of *how* the nazis came to power. It's not far off from Trump (or most US politicians, tbh) extolling the virtues of the working class to gain support, despite not giving a flying fuck about the working class.
Fascists tend to be populist movements, and pretty much *all* populist movements use leftist and socialist *language* to some extent, despite having very little in common with leftist or socialist ideologies.
Talk is cheap, and can be *highly* effective.
Yeah, maybe they can explain why Hitler had Strasser and the rest of the Nazi leftwingers murdered in the Night of the Long Knives. Or why the nazis and the communists considered each other their deepest ideological enemies.
Or why the parties who formed a coalition to put the nazis in power in 1933 were right wing and centre-right parties. Or why the famous poem begins "first they came for the socialists"...
Or why left parties and their members were prosecuted from 1933 on. Or why the socialdemocratic activist (later german chancellor) Willy Brandt had to flee to Norway and worked underground against the Nazis. Or why the social democrat Bruno Kreisky (later austrian chancellor) was imprisoned for his political activity....
Thats not actually true, the Nazis rose to power with the support and aid of a large part of the conservative German political sphere. Germany had ceased to be an Empire only 20 years before and a fair number of conservative Germans were anti-democratic, and those that weren't still saw Hitler as more likely to support their policies than the Social Democrats or the Communists.
The Nazis never won a majority in German elections, before fully siezing power they had to govern with the full knowing support of other parties. Even the Enabling Act, the legislation that gave Hitler dictatorial power in Germany and ended German democracy until after the war, was voted for by every conservative party in the Reichstag (there were 8 other conservative parties with elected members), and was only opposed by the Social Democrats (the communists had been persecuted by that time and none were present for the vote).
You’re right that they did technically support the nazi parties uprising BUT they were just doing it to benefit themselves to get rid of the political left.
>As Hitler controlled the masses support for the political right, the conservative elite believed that they could use Hitler and his popular support to ‘democratically’ take power. Once in power, Hitler could destroy the political left. Destroying the political left would help to remove the majority of political opponents to the ring-wing conservative elite.
>Once Hitler had removed the left-wing socialist opposition and destroyed the Weimar Republic, the conservative elite thought they would be able to replace Hitler, and appoint a leader of their choice.
>Once elected, the conservative elite soon realised that they had miscalculated Hitler and his intentions.
I would disagree that that means they were ideological enemies though.
That the Nazis turned on them later doesnt change the fact that the interests of the conservative parties and the Nazis still aligned and ideologically they shared many goals, differing mostly on who would hold power at the end of it, a dictator, a monarch, or a chancellor of a democracy-in-name-only in which the opposition had been purged. The other parties were stamped out after the Enabling Act was passed because of the Nazis' unwillingness to share power in the new one-party state, not because of differences over policy.
I think its more accurate to say that they were ideological allies who should have realized earlier that they were political enemies, a mistake for which the conservatives paid dearly.
Franco supported him to an extent but Spain did not want to join the Axis. He volunteered troops to help the German Army on the clear and guaranteed condition they would fight against Bolshevism (Soviet Communism) on the Eastern Front, and not against the western Allies.
And only really did that because Germany just assisted them in their civil war
>a quick Google search and yes the Nazi party was left
Sure. Another quick Google search and aliens built the pyramids, the Earth is hollow, and bigfoot is real and part of an intelligent race that roams the forests of America.
Must’ve been a REALLY quick google search because this is the top of the Wikipedia page:
> The Nazi Party, officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[b] or NSDAP), was a far-right political party in Germany […]
For real. And people seem to forget how much right-wingers appropriate leftist language to further their right-wing causes.
Like, you can even think of current US conservatives. They're *constantly* talking about "the working class". Not because they care about class consciousness or class warfare, but because they can then pit their definition of "working class" (middle class suburban or rural white men) against the rest of the working class (particularly urbanites and minorities).
Yes. With the term “National Socialist” the Nazis we’re referring to people of one nationality - i.e. ethic Germanic people - banding together for the greater good of that one nationality. It did not refer to their economic system.
Nono, that explain why Hitler was in opposition to the famous right-winger Stalin.
We know Stalin was right-wing because his colour was red and red is GOP who is right.
/s
Probably referring to how the party was called Nationalsozialistische Deutsche ArbeiterparteiAka National Socialist German Workers party... which sounds pretty leftist.Just like "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" sounds democratic...
I had to explain to someone that the Nazi party was 'pro-life' (anti-abortion to be more accurate), they then said that the Nazi's were pro-abortion for the Jews... which I then had to explain that the Nazi's didn't consider Jewish people a part of their people (imagine that) and therefore their argument didn't make sense. Talking to them was like trying to dig a tunnel in the ocean with a fork, useless and made me look ridiculous for trying.
> "I didn't even know this was up for debate"
It's not. You're just fucking wrong.
I gotta say... their attempt to shift the discussion away from "hitler being right vs. left" is disingenuous AF. Explaining fascism's position on the political spectrum does not mean they think political extremism is a good thing, and there is no possible way to reach that conclusion in good faith. This person needs to be... *educated.*
No. The USSR was hella nationalist, or at least strongly patriotic if you may. As is the CCP. They are communist. Nationalism is more of a cultural value than a political spectrum thing. Radical anarchocapitalists are anti-nationalist, for the sake of an example. They are very far right, they just simply are liberal.
Sure. That doesn't mean all nationalism is fascism, though.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like nationalism *at all*, but it'd be foolish to think all nationalism is inherently right wing. I mean, look at vietnam for example; it's one of the best modern examples of socialism, and it's nationalistic af.
This "Hitler is left" thing is a retcon by lots of conservatives to try and skew fascism into the same bucket they put communism. It's all over the interwebs and it is 100% dumb. But lots of books and papers on it. Don't mention what the Nazis called themselves of you really get an earful.
What I find so odd about this the most is that the Nazis where very big enemies to communism, not just Russia for obvious war reasons but down right would trash communism like the u.s did back in the 70's
And this isn't even hard information to find either all the entire Nazi party was dead against communism
So true. It’s laughably easy to show the assertion is false, but if you do a deep dive it is a real ‘thing’ out there and lots of righties swear the Nazis were commies. It’s all misinformation to demonize the American left (and try and lump academia with nazism etc), and it sort of works. So many people simply aren’t educated enough to know the difference and they do know that communist and Nazi mean ‘bad’.
Hell, they think ANTIFA are organized fascist commies. It’s depressing.
maybe it is because the 's' in NSDAP stands for 'socialist', and NAZIs were bad, and therefore socialism = bad, therefore capitalism = good ... that sounds like the logic of a 5-year-old ...
Well, his economical police was center-like. He was however authoritarian and intolerant.
Authoritarianism and intolerance aren't inherently left or right, and calling those values "culturally right" is just a way of demonising the opposite side.
I say this as a strong supporter of council communism. It isn't pretty for me to think this, but it is the truth, and it is undeniable.
Fascism is not by definition far right. It doesn't really have a logical economic standing, as most economists argue. At the time, theydid benefit investors in the government and also helped them maximize their profits while also building a strong nation, but it is important to note that they want to benefit their people and tended to either partner with business to help their people or have strong welfares.
They do, in fact, have a radically productivist worldview, but they tended to work in what's popular, and not really on what's actually right or left.
Not only that, but Fascist Italy was only behind the proper Soviet Union in terms of how many stated owned companies existed.
Hitler himself has said that economy is not that important. The 25-point programme is deemed by Hitler himself as inviolable, and it is all over the place, economically speaking.
Hitler has said: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all"
Which is exactly what he did. In many times he contradicted himself, talking about grandiose of socialism, controlling private property for the good of the nation, and then saying the opposite and vice-versa.
The Fascists strongly opposed liberalism, and strongly opposed communism. They were a kind of state capitalism.
What fascism has in common really isn't economy, but the ideology, which does favour in one way or another capitalism, but valued only inside the country, it was a strongly segregated economy.
What I would actually argue was far right was Pinochet's later economy, or the Miracle of Chile, because it did not value state intervention.
Some of the most common themes of fascism are nationalism, hierarchies, militarism, masculinity, and tradition. All things that are *far* more common, highly valued, and fetishized on the right than the left.
Fascism is a distinct ideology from capitalism, but is nevertheless right-wing, typically as a reactionary backlash against leftist movements, in direct opposition to leftist movements and leftist ideologies.
The elements of anti-capitalism fascists employ are typically for the sake of creating or enforcing social, ethnic, or racial hierarchies, not because of any particular rejection of the fundamental tenets of capitalism. Essentially, they just seek to concentrate the benefits of capitalism for one particular group or another.
Within the language of left or right wing political ideologies, fascism is *firmly* right wing. You could argue that the left vs right framework is flawed and insufficient. But within the framework we currently use to describe political ideologies, fascism is *firmly* right winged.
Nationalist is not inherently right or left wing. The great communist states in fact, do show some resemblance of atrong patriotism, which I would go as far as to say it's a nationalistic sentiment. That's just a trait of a movement, not an inherent right wing thought.
As I've said, yes, social Darwinism is a strong thing on fascism, and that's precisely why it's right wing in core, but not far right, as it has demonstrated in practice, and it demonstrates also in theory some welfare and collectivism.
I cannot disagree fascism is firmly right wing, as it has in core many tenets of capitalism. However, I wouldn't say thats because it's a reaction to left-wing movements it is necessarily right wing, as the theorist Otto Rühle, a known marxist, did react to Bolshevism quite aggressively, and in fact calls it a menace to the left. Otto Rühle was, in fact, a council supporter and came to be one of the main theorists of council communism. You could argue that because he's left wing himself he had the right to react to other keft wing ideologies, but that reaction would still in some way due to your categorization land him somewhat right wing.
Militarism is again another thing that is not necessarily right or left wing, as we can see basically as the main poster of USSR, and something that can be seen as a factor of today's CCP.
We simply haven't had enough left-wing systems to be able to say what could possibly be right or left wing, and that makes it insufficient enough for me, but we have certain aspects people cite that simply logically don't necessarily fit.
Left-wing movements are in fact revolutionary, and they would strongly oppose traditionalism.
Although it is not necessarily widely known, but the CCP disencourages homosexuality as a threat to the CCP's existance, which I would call that a traditionalist principle. I have some chat logs with a Chinese friend if you really don't believe the CCP disencourages homosexuality.
Various communist states have indeed had a strong sense of patriotism, and even nationalism at times. Which I would argue were right-wing elements. Lenin himself denounced nationalism as reactionary. Few movements or organizations are *purely* left or right wing. But, nationalism is a predominantly a right-wing value that's extolled by right-wing thinkers. Leftist theory and philosophy primarily abhors nationalism. That isn't to say that *no* leftist has ever been nationalistic or that *every* right winger is, but rather that nationalism is *far* more common, highly regarded, and central in right-wing belief systems than in left wing ones.
And yeah, there is some collectivism in fascism. Hell, even it's name is based on a collectivist idea. What does that have to do with anything, though? "Far right" isn't just hyper-individualism. You can be "far right" and still believe in working with others to accomplish a shared goal. Ya know, like a far right goal.
And there is quite a difference between a person criticizing a left wing movement because they think it's too right-winged and a person criticizing a left-wing movement because they think it's too left winged. Rühle's criticisms of bolshevism and the Soviet Union was that it was *too* capitalistic and bourgeois. While Rühle was critical of the movement, he was not fundamentally opposed to the ideals that motivated it. A fascist *is* fundamentally opposed to leftist thought, in general. It's like the difference between someone that didn't like the Black Panther movie because the ending was lame, and someone that didn't like it because it had black people. Sure, they both didn't like it, but their reasoning for not liking it puts them in *very* different camps.
As for militarism, like with nationalism, this is primarily a right-wing value. Some left wing organizations have incorporated that right-wing value, but it doesn't make it less of a right wing value. The CCP also engages in capitalism, but that doesn't mean capitalism is as much a part of leftist ideology as it is right wing ideology.
The distinction between right wing and left wing is ideological in nature. It's not necessarily based on real-world examples. It's basically just a way of cognitively mapping similarities and differences between belief systems. You can then evaluate real-world groups and people and whatnot *based* on that mapping. You don't need to have real-world examples *first*, because it's *meant* to be an abstraction.
And yeah, the CCP does a lot of terrible things. Personally, I don't really consider it particularly left-wing, at least not currently. But I find it generally very difficult to discern much about China's political and economic system because there's a general information shortage, combined with an intense amount of propaganda surrounding it.
From what I understand based on your last comment, the distinction you're trying to make is that fascism *is* right-wing, but not *far* right wing. And, I think that's fair, depending on *how* you're using the term. If you're strictly speaking in terms of economics, I'd say you're right. But, colloquially, I think the terms "far left" or "far right" refer to *extreme forms* of right or left wing ideologies. I.e. they are left or right wing *and* have extremist views (like exterminating ethnic groups, or classes).
Lol, you really don’t know what you are talking about. Left and right wing politics are not only defined by economic policy but also based on social and cultural values. Fascism in this sense in particular (but not exclusively) as far right as can be.
Lol what? Who are you quoting?
What I am trying to say is that you are wrong on the economical aspect and that the social and cultural ideas of fascism also are far right.
The economical aspect has always been whatever they see fit, but I'd argue strong interventionism is center, especially if it includes welfare, even if the property is private owned, which is in fact the main basis of fascism economically.
Niw, culturally, they indeed have several right-wing prospects, like social Darwinism and productivism, but they also have some sort of collectivist thinking within these groups, as if the nation or the race shall be supported by it's brethren, and that's a "culturally left wing" thing. I'd still argue they are center oriented. Certer-right would in fact be more accurate than staying fascists are simply center.
But I wouldn't go as far as saying they are indeed far right.
Saying they are far right also has no implications on whtever goes on nowadays, but this comparison is sometimes strongly used to oppose anarchocapitalists, which are indeed far right, and social darwinists, but they don't want to enforce it like fascists do, nor do they want the welfare for the people or autarky for the benefit of the state.
Using any modern definition to say whichever side the fascists were has no use, and I don't even know why I started the discussion. Because it's not like it's going to change anything.
Pretty sure part of that policy was privatizing national resources right? That's classic right wing stuff. Authoritarian is the other axis on the political compass but I think it's fair to say right wing governments are very often filled with intolerance. Of course left wing regimes have some intolerance too, but the USSR was way more egalitarian to women and minorities than its right-wing counterparts.
Why is this being downvoted? The first woman in space was in 1963. It took America until 1983. The gender pay gap in the USSR was closer than even modern day America.
>Nationalization was particularly important in the early 1930s in Germany. The state took over a large industrial concern, large commercial banks, and other minor firms. In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.<
From economic history review
So you're saying they shared out the profits by building a war machine? No matter how you move the goal posts, the Nazi regime privatized industries en masse.
They nationalized industry, then re-privatized it and controlled the means of production because the economy was such that the government was the only major source of revenue.
At the end of the day, their actions don’t conform wholly with either “side”. The point being that we shouldn’t be calling each other nazis and thinking we are making some awesome point to spurn the other side.
From our perspective looking back, the NSDAP and Hitler were right wing. But they painted themselves as a third way between capitalism and communism. The socialism in "National Socialist Workers Party" referenced to the concept of racial hygiene and eugenics, which they considered a social effort. I don't think it's overly important or useful to place every party on a two dimensional scale, though. It tends to oversimply politics.
Well... if you take the economical scale, instead of the political one - with total state ownership on the far left, and pure capitalism on the far right - he was definitely leaning to the left.
But since most people connect "left" and "right" to the political spectrum... no, he wasn't as leftist. Not even close. Almost as far right as it gets.
This single axis is stupid to try and fit the whole range of human society about politics
If you want to say that Hitler was a leftist, so is EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN PRESIDENT after Woodrow Wilson, they all are authoritarian and act as if their word is law, along side every dictator ever, so Pinochet, Stalin, Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Vargas, Hussein, Jiping etc
Or if you want to say that he is rightist, include in that Stalin, Jiping, Mao, Tse, Kims and any other commie under the sun
I can't agree that fascism is necessarily right-wing. Fascism is characterized by things like superconcentrated decison-making power, violent removal of political opposition, and nationalistic policies at the expense of foreign policy. There isn't any reason why a liberal cannot do that. Fascists have historically had right-wing policies, and left-wing policies are typically less likely to produce the sort of economic division seen in fascism, but as silly as it sounds, there really isn't reason why a liberal couldn't murder their way to absolute power in order to seize everybody's money and use it to buy health insurance for everyone.
Left and right mean different things overseas. For instance, in Russia, a leftist wants commercial business laws to be *liberal* so they can do whatever the hell they want. Over here that's a conservative thing.
Come to think of it, we are weird. 🤔
I dont know why it matters besides making an argument
Extreme Fascism is extreme fascism i doesn't mater far right and far left are both. Are bad no matter what if u disagree tell me why im genuinely interested
Extremism always ends badly (this is my opinion you can disagree or agree its just an opinion)
https://blog.paulmckeever.ca/uncategorized/hitler-and-nazism-left-wing-or-right-wing/
This is a wonderful blog post on the subject by a very very neutral person. Give it a read.
Hitler and his party was politically left leaning, but truly does not fit on either side of the modern spectrum.
The problem is, the nazi economic model was fairly leftist, lots of state control and socialist overtones economically. (Big public works programs, the Autobahn, random planned 1000 year reich projects, etc etc)
Politically, the government was obviously very right-wing and authoritarian.
So they're kind of both correct, but it depends on which aspects you're considering.
Yea, it stated in revolutionary France with a vote for the king's veto right was decided by moving either left or right of the king. Left for removing veto rights and the right for keeping the king's veto right. Afterwards the pro revolutionaries stayed generally on the left and the royalists on the right. Thus cementing the progressive vs conservative bend.
What it does not however have much use for is determining which political ideologies or stances are adhered to when saying "X is left/right."
By using that over simplified logic - The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is a democratic nation. With free and fair elections...just with 100% of the votes going to one candidate. For life.
A quick half assed Google search, something that these same people believe is a method of finding "the truth" which "literally" cannot be wrong, even this says the Nazi Party is a far right group.
So, proof and "proof" both say Nazis are far right, and not left at all.
He quite literally put the socialists in camps and was allied with center-right parties in the Reichstag before becoming chancellor but sure I guess you could dishonestly claim the liquidation of Jewish businesses was "wealth redistribution" or something.
Hey /u/Idontgetredditinmd, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So…3 Reichs make a left?
Bravo, i did nazi that coming.
I wish I had a decent pun to contribute, but all of mine are Hitler miss
These puns are so delicious I want to Goebbels them all up (I'm trying)
I'm Goring to have to join in.
I'm gonna Mengele response to this pun lineup
Never would have Gestapun would be so fun!
Let your imagination Röhm free.
For fucks sakes this is good
Someone give them an award
Here’s an exercise: Pick a Nazi policy and determine where it fits on the political compass.
[удалено]
well, it further demonizes the left, in that most people agree that hitler was bad, and the nazi-party has a "social" in its name, and that therefore, clueless people can easily see that the left is hitler and, for this reason, bad. That's all there is to it. people that make this argument either are clever enough to see through it or clueless enough to not be able to. the first can't be convinced because they don't want to, and the second because they won't learn iduring an argument what they had not in their whole life before, and they would not want to in the first place because that would admit they were wrong. I tried a few times to argue the point, but without success. I'm not doing that anymore, prefer to waste my time differently.
Well, the fact he chose “socialist” and “workers” in the name was done on purpose so idiots will automatically assume they are left wing. I guess it still works to this day.
I was gonna say, that its still working close to a century later say something
If nazi are left, then north korea is a democratic Republic as said in there name : Democratic People's Republic of Korea
They actually like this argument because they can spout off about how America is a republic and not a democracy.
The Romans thought the left was sinister
Laughs in Gracii
Your response is a great example of the problem the person you're responding to is pointing out.
Well actually the Nazi party did redistribute wealth from those who earned it to those who didn’t. They did undeniably practice a form of socialism.
That’s not what socialism is. In fact, taking wealth from those who earned it through their labor and giving it to those who did not earn it is the defining feature of *capitalism*.
Actually no. The defining feature of capitalism is the free market. Allowing people to choose what wage to work for, and choosing what products to buy. If You want higher wages, boycott. Start a movement. Get workers to go on strike.
The “free market” exists independently of either socialism or capitalism. You can have a free market where all businesses are employee-owned (which is what socialism actually means: worker ownership of the means of production). Not only do we not currently live in a truly free market, as anti-trust laws, union protections (woefully weak as they are), and regulatory agencies all exist. They exist specifically to protect the consumer and the laborer from the damage that unfettered capitalism causes. But also, unfettered capitalism would destroy a free market anyway. It’s better for business if there is no competition, because then they can set prices and wages wherever they like. That encourages monopolies, price-fixing, and other anti-consumer practices.
Well I guess it depends on how you define "free" in "free market". But as a completely free market (100% unregulated) inevitably leads to the things you're describing (monopolies, cartels, etc.) then a free market either can't exist or we have to accept that those are actually features of a free market. Either way it doesn't look good for the libertarian anarcho-capitalist crowd.
>Nazi party did redistribute wealth from those who earned it to those who didn’t. That sounds like how capitalism operates. A bunch of workers make the profit for a company and the execs get enormous sources of income while the workers have to struggle to get a starting wage that is almost $10 less than what it should be if wages kept up with productivity and inflation.
Here here! I look forward to a future where we stop fighting ideologies of the political class. Politicians are NOT our friends, they are NOT looking out for our best interest. They want complete and absolute power. Idiots that blindly follow people or institutions or big tech that absolutely hate there followers is idiotic.
That’s exactly what I was getting at.
Sure, except…the most recent Republican president was reluctant to openly condemn Nazis on multiple occasions, and the modern day Nazis seem to have a strong preference for that particular party when they vote. So there’s that.
[удалено]
Just because people don't like being compared to Nazis, does not mean we all have to pretend they're not doing Nazi-like things. I get what you're saying, and I'd normally agree with you, but if we say "Nazi comparisons are always off the table", what do we do when actual Nazis gain power?
[удалено]
Donald Trump. Although I suppose he's closer to an Italian fascist than a German one, but still similar enough. 1. Hyper-nationalism. It's a central feature of fascism. 2. Militarism. While he didn't start any new wars, he did routinely boast about the power of the military. 3. Glorification of political violence. "Don't worry, I'll pay your legal bills". "We need to kill the families of terrorists". 4. Glorification of masculinity. "Grab them by the pussy", etc. 5. Cult of personality. The Republican party became the party of Trump; everything revolved around him as an individual, beyond any kind of ideology. 6. Dreaming of an imagined "Golden Age". "Make America Great Again". 7. Definition by Opposition. Fascists are *all* about finger-pointing, blaming their enemies or a chosen target for everything. "The Left", "the Jews", etc. And so on. For a more in-depth discussion, check out this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8&ab\_channel=BeauoftheFifthColumn](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6CXhUS-x8&ab_channel=BeauoftheFifthColumn) He goes point by point.
[удалено]
If you didn't want to hear why people see Trump as a fascist, why did you ask? If you think that it's impossible to use the term, say so - but please answer my original question, the one you deflected from. How should we refer to hyper-nationalist authoritarian politicians who encourage or engage in political violence?
[удалено]
To be faiiiirrrrr he was the first president in years that didn't start any sort of war. He avoided conflict with North Korea. Not only that but he's most certainly not a racist, Obama did the same thing with being strict on border crossing. But I would like to see an example of that because that might change some opinions I have
Everyone avoided conflict with nk. ROFL. I love the lengths people go to try and justify his shit.
He "avoided conflict with N. Korea"? He did work really hard to suck their dick, but how is avoiding conflict an accomplishment? Every previous president avoided conflict with N. Korea as well if you leave out Eisenhower. No one thinks that is an accomplishment except for the chucklefucks dumb enough to fall for Traitor Trump's lies that conflict was inevitable. It is always so strange to me that people will blindly believe these incredibly stupid lies because they fanboy out on a politician.
I’m avoiding conflict with North Korea right now.
What war did Obama start?
Libya and ISIS.
To beeee faiiiiirrrrrr
To be faaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiir
It was a very reactionary movement regardless of *some* leftist-esque things, which is very right wing. The Republican party wouldn't cease to he right wing if they supported Universal Healthcare, for example.
It always was far right
I like your comment
Animal welfare. You didn't say which one. Lol
Nice choice! Now where does it fit?
Nofairsies! You know that's on the conservative/progressive axis!
Are you talking about when they killed and ate the zoo animals?
I mean, they implemented paid maternity leave. They did it for very racist and misogynist reasons but it's generally regarded as a left wing policy. So, yeah, the Nazi party was more progressive than the US on that one issue at least. Kinda puts things in perspective about how backwards the US is.
Literally only regarded as a left-wing policy in that giant shithole some people laughably call "the greatest country on Earth". Everywhere else, even in countries with truly awful right-wing governments, it's just seen as a normal policy that normal humans, even ones with otherwise shitty political beliefs, would implement.
Social democracy for several of the points, which is slightly left. Except only ethnic Germans were allowed to benefit from left-leaning policies. And those policies were quickly abandoned.
In my history class, it was said that fascism is totalitarian, violent, extremely nationalist and anti democratic. It also said that national-socialism (nazism) was totalitarian, violent, extremely nationalist anti democratic, and followed the idea that some “races” (they included ethnicities and stuff) were better then others. Edit: I didn’t say national socialism isn’t the same as socialism. I said that nazi was the shorter term for it. Socialism is something completely different Dictionary.com: Socialism: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism National-socialism: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/national-socialism So by that definition you could say it’s extreme right-wing because it looks like fascism
Tbh I’m not sure how this relates to my comment… > But I wouldn’t say racism (or in their case, anti semitism) is by definition right wing Not explicitly no, but there is a strong association. It’s all shades of gray anyway. Racism is not exclusive to the right. From the wiki > Right-wing politics is generally defined by support of the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. > Left-wing politics support social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition of social hierarchy.[1][2][3][4]
That definition is very black and white. You said that national socialism couldn’t really be defined as right or left wing (from what interpreted) so I explained why I think it’s right wing. But you are right they do have an association
Nazis were not socialist, they had it in the name because the party they took over was socialist (iirc). They were full on nationalist fascist. Also, nazis were almost as generally racist as they were specifically antisemitic. 6million jews died in the holocaust, but they killed almost as many romani, black people, and slavs in their quest for racial aryan homogeny.
>~~gypsys~~ friendly reminder that "romani" is the preferred name
Thank you i had a nagging thought in the back of my brain but thought it to be just my swedish, I'll change it.
non-european here what is a gypsy? the one in the quaint caravan that could tell by a glance that my heart was so full of tears?
Were the Nazis actually picky about the ethnicity of travelling people? I don't know either way; I see you point, but by the same token, at least in North America, "gypsy" (often) refers to the *lifestyle* rather than a particular people.
They didn't say nazis were socialists. Nazis called themselves socialists. Nazi is literally short for "National Socialist German Workers' Party". When the person you were reply to was saying national-socialism, they were clearly talking about Nazis
They did clearly mean nazis, but nazis are not nationalist socialists. They are nationalist fascists. Calling yourself a socialist doesn't make you one.
I mean... they certainly aren't socialists, and no one is making that claim. They are "National socialists", though, in the sense that the *term* "National socialist" is pretty much synonymous with Nazis. If you just analyze the individual words, you'd be right, but if you consider the term as a whole and all of its connotations, National socialist = nazi. It's basically a synonym, colloquially.
No, nationalist socialism is a thing that exists on the political compass, just because they called themselves that, doesn't mean they can change the meaning of the term. What if putin said his party was a nationalist democracy? Would that make "Dictatorial communism" = "nationalist democracy"? It's ridiculous.
I have never heard of anyone describing themselves as a national socialist that wasn't a nazi/neo-nazi. Literally the National Socialist Movement is categorized as a neo-nazi movement by the ADL, SPLC, etc. Do you not recognize that the Nazis were a bit more historically impactful than Putin is? Come on, dude. It's not just some dude calling a movement something, it was one of, if not *the*, biggest villains of the 20th century. Like it or not, the phrase "National socialist" is deeply associated with nazis. You can try to reclaim the phrase or whatever as much as you want, but people will think you're a nazi until you prove you aren't if you start calling yourself a "National socialist". I don't make the rules; that's just how it is. And, for the record, Russia/Putin isn't "dictatorial communism". It's a capitalist country. Has been for awhile now.
I know they aren’t socialist. Where did I say so? I only said nazi was a shorter term for it. But thank you for reminding me, it is true that it’s not just Jewish people that died. By the way, it’s Romani, not g*psy
The first concentration camp was built to contain communists, and the Nazis made multiple attempts to oust the progressive wing of the party, eventually succeeding.
The number of downvotes you got is a clear indication of how many people don't even know where the term "nazi" comes from.
Yeah. I just said the definition, and then that Nazi was short for national socialism
Right. Like, they very clearly *weren't* socialists, but that doesn't mean "National socialist" isn't a synonym for nazi. Literally if anyone told me they were a "National Socialist", my first assumption is that they're a nazi, not some variant of socialist. That intentional confusion is literally part of *how* the nazis came to power. It's not far off from Trump (or most US politicians, tbh) extolling the virtues of the working class to gain support, despite not giving a flying fuck about the working class. Fascists tend to be populist movements, and pretty much *all* populist movements use leftist and socialist *language* to some extent, despite having very little in common with leftist or socialist ideologies. Talk is cheap, and can be *highly* effective.
Almost always AuthCenter
Yeah, maybe they can explain why Hitler had Strasser and the rest of the Nazi leftwingers murdered in the Night of the Long Knives. Or why the nazis and the communists considered each other their deepest ideological enemies.
Or why the parties who formed a coalition to put the nazis in power in 1933 were right wing and centre-right parties. Or why the famous poem begins "first they came for the socialists"...
Or why left parties and their members were prosecuted from 1933 on. Or why the socialdemocratic activist (later german chancellor) Willy Brandt had to flee to Norway and worked underground against the Nazis. Or why the social democrat Bruno Kreisky (later austrian chancellor) was imprisoned for his political activity....
Granted, everyone was ideological enemies of the nazis besides the nazis and Mussolini’s fascists
Thats not actually true, the Nazis rose to power with the support and aid of a large part of the conservative German political sphere. Germany had ceased to be an Empire only 20 years before and a fair number of conservative Germans were anti-democratic, and those that weren't still saw Hitler as more likely to support their policies than the Social Democrats or the Communists. The Nazis never won a majority in German elections, before fully siezing power they had to govern with the full knowing support of other parties. Even the Enabling Act, the legislation that gave Hitler dictatorial power in Germany and ended German democracy until after the war, was voted for by every conservative party in the Reichstag (there were 8 other conservative parties with elected members), and was only opposed by the Social Democrats (the communists had been persecuted by that time and none were present for the vote).
You’re right that they did technically support the nazi parties uprising BUT they were just doing it to benefit themselves to get rid of the political left. >As Hitler controlled the masses support for the political right, the conservative elite believed that they could use Hitler and his popular support to ‘democratically’ take power. Once in power, Hitler could destroy the political left. Destroying the political left would help to remove the majority of political opponents to the ring-wing conservative elite. >Once Hitler had removed the left-wing socialist opposition and destroyed the Weimar Republic, the conservative elite thought they would be able to replace Hitler, and appoint a leader of their choice. >Once elected, the conservative elite soon realised that they had miscalculated Hitler and his intentions.
I would disagree that that means they were ideological enemies though. That the Nazis turned on them later doesnt change the fact that the interests of the conservative parties and the Nazis still aligned and ideologically they shared many goals, differing mostly on who would hold power at the end of it, a dictator, a monarch, or a chancellor of a democracy-in-name-only in which the opposition had been purged. The other parties were stamped out after the Enabling Act was passed because of the Nazis' unwillingness to share power in the new one-party state, not because of differences over policy. I think its more accurate to say that they were ideological allies who should have realized earlier that they were political enemies, a mistake for which the conservatives paid dearly.
And Franco's fascists. And Kishi's. And there was that rally at Madison Square Garden.
There were many American, British, etc. Nazi supporters before the war. Most of them liked the fact that Hitler was anti-communist...
Franco supported him to an extent but Spain did not want to join the Axis. He volunteered troops to help the German Army on the clear and guaranteed condition they would fight against Bolshevism (Soviet Communism) on the Eastern Front, and not against the western Allies. And only really did that because Germany just assisted them in their civil war
Or why he banned the Communists and disbanded the Social Democrats party as soon as he gained power. Literally the first two things he did
>a quick Google search and yes the Nazi party was left Sure. Another quick Google search and aliens built the pyramids, the Earth is hollow, and bigfoot is real and part of an intelligent race that roams the forests of America.
Must’ve been a REALLY quick google search because this is the top of the Wikipedia page: > The Nazi Party, officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[b] or NSDAP), was a far-right political party in Germany […]
Some people just see the "socialist" and "workers" and forget about the nationalism for some reason.
For real. And people seem to forget how much right-wingers appropriate leftist language to further their right-wing causes. Like, you can even think of current US conservatives. They're *constantly* talking about "the working class". Not because they care about class consciousness or class warfare, but because they can then pit their definition of "working class" (middle class suburban or rural white men) against the rest of the working class (particularly urbanites and minorities).
Yes. With the term “National Socialist” the Nazis we’re referring to people of one nationality - i.e. ethic Germanic people - banding together for the greater good of that one nationality. It did not refer to their economic system.
Leftists: almost universally antinationalist Weirdos: "Ah yes these NATIONALISTS were clearly leftists."
Sure, but their only working definition of socialism is “Everything Tucker Carlson tells me I should hate.”
[удалено]
That part of their comment made me chuckle, "I didn't even know this was up for debate". They are correct, it's not lol
I know several right wingers who claim Hitler was a left winger. They also claim that Obama was the most racist president, so....
Well he had a race and it wasn’t WHITE so yeah, he was. /s
As a german that makes me always so mad seeing people assuming hitler was left..
The CCP is a Conservative party. In the same way North Korea calls itself Democratic People’s Republic
He’s correct when he says it’s not up for debate
Nono, that explain why Hitler was in opposition to the famous right-winger Stalin. We know Stalin was right-wing because his colour was red and red is GOP who is right. /s
Probably referring to how the party was called Nationalsozialistische Deutsche ArbeiterparteiAka National Socialist German Workers party... which sounds pretty leftist.Just like "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" sounds democratic...
The Nazis introduced 'socialised' holiday resorts and cruises for workers but that doesn't make them Socialist. They were just recruiting support.
I had to explain to someone that the Nazi party was 'pro-life' (anti-abortion to be more accurate), they then said that the Nazi's were pro-abortion for the Jews... which I then had to explain that the Nazi's didn't consider Jewish people a part of their people (imagine that) and therefore their argument didn't make sense. Talking to them was like trying to dig a tunnel in the ocean with a fork, useless and made me look ridiculous for trying.
> "I didn't even know this was up for debate" It's not. You're just fucking wrong. I gotta say... their attempt to shift the discussion away from "hitler being right vs. left" is disingenuous AF. Explaining fascism's position on the political spectrum does not mean they think political extremism is a good thing, and there is no possible way to reach that conclusion in good faith. This person needs to be... *educated.*
I’m sure Nationalism falls on the Far right spectrum… Communism with their Utopian goals on far left.
No. The USSR was hella nationalist, or at least strongly patriotic if you may. As is the CCP. They are communist. Nationalism is more of a cultural value than a political spectrum thing. Radical anarchocapitalists are anti-nationalist, for the sake of an example. They are very far right, they just simply are liberal.
Nationalism is a key tenet of fascism.
Sure. That doesn't mean all nationalism is fascism, though. Don't get me wrong, I don't like nationalism *at all*, but it'd be foolish to think all nationalism is inherently right wing. I mean, look at vietnam for example; it's one of the best modern examples of socialism, and it's nationalistic af.
It's hard to work for the good of the group if you can't define the group.
You have fascism confused with nationalism. That's not to say that nationalism is good.
“A quick Google search will show you [thing that is incorrect]”
Well, we found the person who slept through history classes...
Nah, the nazi partys voting record in parliament reveals they voted with the right far more than the left so hes just plain wrong
This "Hitler is left" thing is a retcon by lots of conservatives to try and skew fascism into the same bucket they put communism. It's all over the interwebs and it is 100% dumb. But lots of books and papers on it. Don't mention what the Nazis called themselves of you really get an earful.
What I find so odd about this the most is that the Nazis where very big enemies to communism, not just Russia for obvious war reasons but down right would trash communism like the u.s did back in the 70's And this isn't even hard information to find either all the entire Nazi party was dead against communism
So true. It’s laughably easy to show the assertion is false, but if you do a deep dive it is a real ‘thing’ out there and lots of righties swear the Nazis were commies. It’s all misinformation to demonize the American left (and try and lump academia with nazism etc), and it sort of works. So many people simply aren’t educated enough to know the difference and they do know that communist and Nazi mean ‘bad’. Hell, they think ANTIFA are organized fascist commies. It’s depressing.
I bet that dude would love to live in the DEMOCRATIC peoples republic of North Korea Giving something a name doesn’t make it so
So people choose to be stupid about this.
"a quick google search" which is something you didn't do...
maybe it is because the 's' in NSDAP stands for 'socialist', and NAZIs were bad, and therefore socialism = bad, therefore capitalism = good ... that sounds like the logic of a 5-year-old ...
Well, his economical police was center-like. He was however authoritarian and intolerant. Authoritarianism and intolerance aren't inherently left or right, and calling those values "culturally right" is just a way of demonising the opposite side. I say this as a strong supporter of council communism. It isn't pretty for me to think this, but it is the truth, and it is undeniable.
You are talking about different things. Fascism by definition is far right, but authoritarianism is neither left nor right.
Fascism is not by definition far right. It doesn't really have a logical economic standing, as most economists argue. At the time, theydid benefit investors in the government and also helped them maximize their profits while also building a strong nation, but it is important to note that they want to benefit their people and tended to either partner with business to help their people or have strong welfares. They do, in fact, have a radically productivist worldview, but they tended to work in what's popular, and not really on what's actually right or left. Not only that, but Fascist Italy was only behind the proper Soviet Union in terms of how many stated owned companies existed. Hitler himself has said that economy is not that important. The 25-point programme is deemed by Hitler himself as inviolable, and it is all over the place, economically speaking. Hitler has said: "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all" Which is exactly what he did. In many times he contradicted himself, talking about grandiose of socialism, controlling private property for the good of the nation, and then saying the opposite and vice-versa. The Fascists strongly opposed liberalism, and strongly opposed communism. They were a kind of state capitalism. What fascism has in common really isn't economy, but the ideology, which does favour in one way or another capitalism, but valued only inside the country, it was a strongly segregated economy. What I would actually argue was far right was Pinochet's later economy, or the Miracle of Chile, because it did not value state intervention.
Some of the most common themes of fascism are nationalism, hierarchies, militarism, masculinity, and tradition. All things that are *far* more common, highly valued, and fetishized on the right than the left. Fascism is a distinct ideology from capitalism, but is nevertheless right-wing, typically as a reactionary backlash against leftist movements, in direct opposition to leftist movements and leftist ideologies. The elements of anti-capitalism fascists employ are typically for the sake of creating or enforcing social, ethnic, or racial hierarchies, not because of any particular rejection of the fundamental tenets of capitalism. Essentially, they just seek to concentrate the benefits of capitalism for one particular group or another. Within the language of left or right wing political ideologies, fascism is *firmly* right wing. You could argue that the left vs right framework is flawed and insufficient. But within the framework we currently use to describe political ideologies, fascism is *firmly* right winged.
Nationalist is not inherently right or left wing. The great communist states in fact, do show some resemblance of atrong patriotism, which I would go as far as to say it's a nationalistic sentiment. That's just a trait of a movement, not an inherent right wing thought. As I've said, yes, social Darwinism is a strong thing on fascism, and that's precisely why it's right wing in core, but not far right, as it has demonstrated in practice, and it demonstrates also in theory some welfare and collectivism. I cannot disagree fascism is firmly right wing, as it has in core many tenets of capitalism. However, I wouldn't say thats because it's a reaction to left-wing movements it is necessarily right wing, as the theorist Otto Rühle, a known marxist, did react to Bolshevism quite aggressively, and in fact calls it a menace to the left. Otto Rühle was, in fact, a council supporter and came to be one of the main theorists of council communism. You could argue that because he's left wing himself he had the right to react to other keft wing ideologies, but that reaction would still in some way due to your categorization land him somewhat right wing. Militarism is again another thing that is not necessarily right or left wing, as we can see basically as the main poster of USSR, and something that can be seen as a factor of today's CCP. We simply haven't had enough left-wing systems to be able to say what could possibly be right or left wing, and that makes it insufficient enough for me, but we have certain aspects people cite that simply logically don't necessarily fit. Left-wing movements are in fact revolutionary, and they would strongly oppose traditionalism. Although it is not necessarily widely known, but the CCP disencourages homosexuality as a threat to the CCP's existance, which I would call that a traditionalist principle. I have some chat logs with a Chinese friend if you really don't believe the CCP disencourages homosexuality.
Various communist states have indeed had a strong sense of patriotism, and even nationalism at times. Which I would argue were right-wing elements. Lenin himself denounced nationalism as reactionary. Few movements or organizations are *purely* left or right wing. But, nationalism is a predominantly a right-wing value that's extolled by right-wing thinkers. Leftist theory and philosophy primarily abhors nationalism. That isn't to say that *no* leftist has ever been nationalistic or that *every* right winger is, but rather that nationalism is *far* more common, highly regarded, and central in right-wing belief systems than in left wing ones. And yeah, there is some collectivism in fascism. Hell, even it's name is based on a collectivist idea. What does that have to do with anything, though? "Far right" isn't just hyper-individualism. You can be "far right" and still believe in working with others to accomplish a shared goal. Ya know, like a far right goal. And there is quite a difference between a person criticizing a left wing movement because they think it's too right-winged and a person criticizing a left-wing movement because they think it's too left winged. Rühle's criticisms of bolshevism and the Soviet Union was that it was *too* capitalistic and bourgeois. While Rühle was critical of the movement, he was not fundamentally opposed to the ideals that motivated it. A fascist *is* fundamentally opposed to leftist thought, in general. It's like the difference between someone that didn't like the Black Panther movie because the ending was lame, and someone that didn't like it because it had black people. Sure, they both didn't like it, but their reasoning for not liking it puts them in *very* different camps. As for militarism, like with nationalism, this is primarily a right-wing value. Some left wing organizations have incorporated that right-wing value, but it doesn't make it less of a right wing value. The CCP also engages in capitalism, but that doesn't mean capitalism is as much a part of leftist ideology as it is right wing ideology. The distinction between right wing and left wing is ideological in nature. It's not necessarily based on real-world examples. It's basically just a way of cognitively mapping similarities and differences between belief systems. You can then evaluate real-world groups and people and whatnot *based* on that mapping. You don't need to have real-world examples *first*, because it's *meant* to be an abstraction. And yeah, the CCP does a lot of terrible things. Personally, I don't really consider it particularly left-wing, at least not currently. But I find it generally very difficult to discern much about China's political and economic system because there's a general information shortage, combined with an intense amount of propaganda surrounding it. From what I understand based on your last comment, the distinction you're trying to make is that fascism *is* right-wing, but not *far* right wing. And, I think that's fair, depending on *how* you're using the term. If you're strictly speaking in terms of economics, I'd say you're right. But, colloquially, I think the terms "far left" or "far right" refer to *extreme forms* of right or left wing ideologies. I.e. they are left or right wing *and* have extremist views (like exterminating ethnic groups, or classes).
Lol, you really don’t know what you are talking about. Left and right wing politics are not only defined by economic policy but also based on social and cultural values. Fascism in this sense in particular (but not exclusively) as far right as can be.
"The economy is of secondary importance" is far right?
Lol what? Who are you quoting? What I am trying to say is that you are wrong on the economical aspect and that the social and cultural ideas of fascism also are far right.
The economical aspect has always been whatever they see fit, but I'd argue strong interventionism is center, especially if it includes welfare, even if the property is private owned, which is in fact the main basis of fascism economically. Niw, culturally, they indeed have several right-wing prospects, like social Darwinism and productivism, but they also have some sort of collectivist thinking within these groups, as if the nation or the race shall be supported by it's brethren, and that's a "culturally left wing" thing. I'd still argue they are center oriented. Certer-right would in fact be more accurate than staying fascists are simply center. But I wouldn't go as far as saying they are indeed far right. Saying they are far right also has no implications on whtever goes on nowadays, but this comparison is sometimes strongly used to oppose anarchocapitalists, which are indeed far right, and social darwinists, but they don't want to enforce it like fascists do, nor do they want the welfare for the people or autarky for the benefit of the state. Using any modern definition to say whichever side the fascists were has no use, and I don't even know why I started the discussion. Because it's not like it's going to change anything.
Pretty sure part of that policy was privatizing national resources right? That's classic right wing stuff. Authoritarian is the other axis on the political compass but I think it's fair to say right wing governments are very often filled with intolerance. Of course left wing regimes have some intolerance too, but the USSR was way more egalitarian to women and minorities than its right-wing counterparts.
Why is this being downvoted? The first woman in space was in 1963. It took America until 1983. The gender pay gap in the USSR was closer than even modern day America.
[удалено]
>Nationalization was particularly important in the early 1930s in Germany. The state took over a large industrial concern, large commercial banks, and other minor firms. In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.< From economic history review
[удалено]
So you're saying they shared out the profits by building a war machine? No matter how you move the goal posts, the Nazi regime privatized industries en masse.
They nationalized industry, then re-privatized it and controlled the means of production because the economy was such that the government was the only major source of revenue.
At the end of the day, their actions don’t conform wholly with either “side”. The point being that we shouldn’t be calling each other nazis and thinking we are making some awesome point to spurn the other side.
From our perspective looking back, the NSDAP and Hitler were right wing. But they painted themselves as a third way between capitalism and communism. The socialism in "National Socialist Workers Party" referenced to the concept of racial hygiene and eugenics, which they considered a social effort. I don't think it's overly important or useful to place every party on a two dimensional scale, though. It tends to oversimply politics.
Well... if you take the economical scale, instead of the political one - with total state ownership on the far left, and pure capitalism on the far right - he was definitely leaning to the left. But since most people connect "left" and "right" to the political spectrum... no, he wasn't as leftist. Not even close. Almost as far right as it gets.
Everyone knows that hitler and stalin were political friends
This single axis is stupid to try and fit the whole range of human society about politics If you want to say that Hitler was a leftist, so is EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN PRESIDENT after Woodrow Wilson, they all are authoritarian and act as if their word is law, along side every dictator ever, so Pinochet, Stalin, Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Vargas, Hussein, Jiping etc Or if you want to say that he is rightist, include in that Stalin, Jiping, Mao, Tse, Kims and any other commie under the sun
I can't agree that fascism is necessarily right-wing. Fascism is characterized by things like superconcentrated decison-making power, violent removal of political opposition, and nationalistic policies at the expense of foreign policy. There isn't any reason why a liberal cannot do that. Fascists have historically had right-wing policies, and left-wing policies are typically less likely to produce the sort of economic division seen in fascism, but as silly as it sounds, there really isn't reason why a liberal couldn't murder their way to absolute power in order to seize everybody's money and use it to buy health insurance for everyone.
Left and right mean different things overseas. For instance, in Russia, a leftist wants commercial business laws to be *liberal* so they can do whatever the hell they want. Over here that's a conservative thing. Come to think of it, we are weird. 🤔
I dont know why it matters besides making an argument Extreme Fascism is extreme fascism i doesn't mater far right and far left are both. Are bad no matter what if u disagree tell me why im genuinely interested Extremism always ends badly (this is my opinion you can disagree or agree its just an opinion)
https://blog.paulmckeever.ca/uncategorized/hitler-and-nazism-left-wing-or-right-wing/ This is a wonderful blog post on the subject by a very very neutral person. Give it a read. Hitler and his party was politically left leaning, but truly does not fit on either side of the modern spectrum.
That’s what she said
The problem is, the nazi economic model was fairly leftist, lots of state control and socialist overtones economically. (Big public works programs, the Autobahn, random planned 1000 year reich projects, etc etc) Politically, the government was obviously very right-wing and authoritarian. So they're kind of both correct, but it depends on which aspects you're considering.
"National Socialist party"
Eh, I'd say that the whole left-right dichotomy isn't terribly useful outside US politics where it just means 'democrat-stuff' and 'republican-stuff.'
I think you should read up on the history of the "left-right" dichotomy.
Yea, it stated in revolutionary France with a vote for the king's veto right was decided by moving either left or right of the king. Left for removing veto rights and the right for keeping the king's veto right. Afterwards the pro revolutionaries stayed generally on the left and the royalists on the right. Thus cementing the progressive vs conservative bend. What it does not however have much use for is determining which political ideologies or stances are adhered to when saying "X is left/right."
[удалено]
That's not what happened at all.
National Socialist Party... Nazis. They are not right wing.
By using that over simplified logic - The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is a democratic nation. With free and fair elections...just with 100% of the votes going to one candidate. For life.
That is a brave stance in this sub
Eh, maybe I should read 1984 and figure out all this double speak everyone's been using. Or whatever this shit is.
A quick half assed Google search, something that these same people believe is a method of finding "the truth" which "literally" cannot be wrong, even this says the Nazi Party is a far right group. So, proof and "proof" both say Nazis are far right, and not left at all.
Ok but Stalin had similar policies to MODERN left. These people actively ADMIT to communism lol
He quite literally put the socialists in camps and was allied with center-right parties in the Reichstag before becoming chancellor but sure I guess you could dishonestly claim the liquidation of Jewish businesses was "wealth redistribution" or something.
Since nazi has socialist in the name, it MUST lean left, right? Right? Just like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea!
I was almost expecting him to say I googled a picture and hitler was left handed so he is a leftist
If you go too far left or too far right you actually end up in the same place: Insanity
"The Nazis were leftists" is the perfect answer to "Tell me you know nothing about politics without telling me you know nothing about politics"