NationStates Jolt Archive

"[T]here is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

Source: Hitler Speaks, by Hermann Rauschning (London, T. Butterworth, 1940)

Great, so in one speech he said his movement shared similiarities with communism. I think he made up for that blunder by sending communists and suspected communists to the concentration camps, and by invading the USSR.

He was anticommunist. The communists were the first ones he had locked up. However he had a lot more respect for the Bolsheviks which he viewed as strong, than he did for the Western European democracies which he thought were weak and useless.

When did Hitler say this? He was a notorious liar. (Though I do think his policies tended to the left wing).

Edit: Though now I think of it, he was always truthfull about his feelings towards Jews. So no-one can really claim that people had cause to be "surprised" by the holocaust.

He was kissing Stalin's at the time, it was just a ploy to distract Russia so they could invade France without fighting on 2 fronts. Then when they were comfortabely rampaging through Western Europe, he revealed his true colors and invaded Russia. He despised the communists, possibly second only to the Jews.

-edit-
When did Hitler say this? He was a notorious liar. (Though I do think his policies tended to the left wing).
Hitler was as right wing as they come. Fascism is the ultimate in social conservatism. 1 man with total power making all the decisions.

Great, so in one speech he said his movement shared similiarities with communism. I think he made up for that blunder by sending communists and suspected communists to the concentration camps, and by invading the USSR.

Don't forget, he and Stalin started out as allies. For more proof that communism and Nazism are identical, read Cecil F. Melville's The Russian Face of Germany (London: Wishart, 1932) and Jan Valtin's Out of the Night (New York: Alliance, 1944).

Don't forget, he and Stalin started out as allies. For more proof that communism and Nazism are identical, read Cecil F. Melville's The Russian Face of Germany (London: Wishart, 1932) and Jan Valtin's Out of the Night (New York: Alliance, 1944).

Maybe he started out as an ally of Stalin because he took a lesson from WWI and realized that Germany couldn't fight on two fronts simultaneously.

Don't forget, he and Stalin started out as allies. For more proof that communism and Nazism are identical, read Cecil F. Melville's The Russian Face of Germany (London: Wishart, 1932) and Jan Valtin's Out of the Night (New York: Alliance, 1944).
Read a book that came out before hitler rose to power? :confused: :confused: :confused:

This one is better

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

Maybe he started out as an ally of Stalin because he took a lesson from WWI and realized that Germany couldn't fight on two fronts simultaneously.

He didn't attack Stalin because the USSR was communist, he attacked the USSR because he wanted their land and resources. Also, Hitler was not a genuine anticommunist. He labeled virtually all his opponents "communists," exploited the populace's fear of communism, and used his phony hatred of communism to achieve his own evil ends.

Hitler was as right wing as they come. Fascism is the ultimate in social conservatism. 1 man with total power making all the decisions. Actually, that's extreme authoritarianism, not right wing politics.

Right Wing: More supportive of the "private"
Left Wing: More supportive of the "public"

That's a really horrible generalisation, but it helps a little I hope.

He didn't attack Stalin because the USSR was communist, he attacked the USSR because he wanted their land and resources. Also, Hitler was not a genuine anticommunist. He labeled virtually all his opponents "communists," exploited the populace's fear of communism, and used his phony hatred of communism to achieve his own evil ends. Yes, but he he was hardly kind to real communists either.

He didn't attack Stalin because the USSR was communist, he attacked the USSR because he wanted their land and resources. Also, Hitler was not a genuine anticommunist. He labeled virtually all his opponents "communists," exploited the populace's fear of communism, and used his phony hatred of communism to achieve his own evil ends.

I am still not understanding what the point of this thread is. He clearly wasn't pro-communist.

I am still not understanding what the point of this thread is. He clearly wasn't pro-communist.

Oh, yes he was. Saying you're anticommunist and being anticommunist are too entirely separate things.

Don't forget, he and Stalin started out as allies. For more proof that communism and Nazism are identical, read Cecil F. Melville's The Russian Face of Germany (London: Wishart, 1932) and Jan Valtin's Out of the Night (New York: Alliance, 1944).

Your education is a pastiche of various pro-american john birch society positions.

Anyone who actually knows anything about this period of history would point out to you that, clearly, Hitler and Stalin did "not start[] out as allies". Indeed, during the Spanish Civil war the Soviet bloc - and its various organs in west europe democracies - were millitantly arrayed against Hitlerism. It was only upon the utter failure of the western allies to contain Nazi Germany did the Soviets consent to a none-agression pact. And significantly, they never sought to expand it and become a full member. Now, granted, Stalin was a duplicitious son of a bitch, and did indeed provide arms and supplies to Nazi Germany during the 1939-41 period. But that hardly indicates that hitler was an idelogical bolshevik.

Further, if you read hitlers own little missal, mein kampf -wherein he pretty much tells the rest of the world what he is going to do - you will see that he vehemently rejects internationlism as the antithesis of his racial theories. Boleshevism's very internationalism is a completely at odds with hitlers weltanschaung.

So to claim that hitler is really a bolshevik communist is patently false.

Now, if you wished to make the claim that hitlers policies were basically Stalinist, and therefore de facto left wing, that would be one thing. But that is not what you are saying here. Respectfully I suggest you rethink your arguments.

(Sorry about the spelling and shit, I am enjoying fine italian wine).

Oh, yes he was. Saying you're anticommunist and being anticommunist are too entirely separate things.

So, where's your proof that he as pro-communist? Other than a comment in one of a thousand speeches? I have the whole sending communists to concentration camps thing on my side of the argument.

Your education is a pastiche of various pro-american john birch society positions.

Anyone who actually knows anything about this period of history would point out to you that, clearly, Hitler and Stalin did "not start[] out as allies". Indeed, during the Spanish Civil war the Soviet bloc - and its various organs in west europe democracies - were millitantly arrayed against Hitlerism. It was only upon the utter failure of the western allies to contain Nazi Germany did the Soviets consent to a none-agression pact. And significantly, they never sought to expand it and become a full member. Now, granted, Stalin was a duplicitious son of a bitch, and did indeed provide arms and supplies to Nazi Germany during the 1939-41 period. But that hardly indicates that hitler was an idelogical bolshevik.

Further, if you read hitlers own little missal, mein kampf -wherein he pretty much tells the rest of the world what he is going to do - you will see that he vehemently rejects internationlism as the antithesis of his racial theories. Boleshevism's very internationalism is a completely at odds with hitlers weltanschaung.

So to claim that hitler is really a bolshevik communist is patently false.

Now, if you wished to make the claim that hitlers policies were basically Stalinist, and therefore de facto left wing, that would be one thing. But that is not what you are saying here. Respectfully I suggest you rethink your arguments.

(Sorry about the spelling and shit, I am enjoying fine italian wine).

Ever heard of the secret pact Hitler and Stalin signed? (I forget the name)

And I never said he was a communist. I simply pointed out that he was not the anticommunist people assume he was.

So, where's your proof that he as pro-communist? Other than a comment in one of a thousand speeches? I have the whole sending communists to concentration camps thing on my side of the argument.

As I said, he labeled all opponents "communists." He didn't send them to the camps for being communists. He sent them to the camps because they opposed him.

Ever heard of the secret pact Hitler and Stalin signed? (I forget the name)

And I never said he was a communist. I simply pointed out that he was not the anticommunist people assume he was.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?

Yeah, that's the one. Thanks.

Ever heard of the secret pact Hitler and Stalin signed? (I forget the name)

And I never said he was a communist. I simply pointed out that he was not the anticommunist people assume he was.

You mean the molotov ribbentrop pact. Uh-huh, I have heard of it. It is not all that secret, at least not after Sept. 1. 1939.

The point is, as I said above, communism is an inherently internationalist movement. (Or at least it was at that time). Nazism, is diametrically opposed to that.

Both are left wing however.

Like I said, rethink your arguments. Basically, you are probably complaining that hitler was labelled as right wing. This is a holdover from the pre-war popular front, and really probably largely irrelevant today.

As I said, he labeled all opponents "communists." He didn't send them to the camps for being communists. He sent them to the camps because they opposed him. Uh-huh, but he also sent people to the concentration or labor camps simply on the basis of them being communists.

Hitler a communist? No.
A socialist? Yes. Nazi is short for National Socialist afterall.

Hitler was anti-communist because he was pro-Communist. He did not oppose Communists, he was their rival.

In the political environment of Germany in the 1920's and 1930's, the voters started moving to the extreme left, which in Germany was represented by 2 parties, the National Socialists, and the Communists.

They had the same pitch to voters: Not your fault, (insert enemy group here) did this to you, vote for us, and we'll make everything right, and punish the (insert enemy group here).

They had the same solution: More government control over everything.

The National Socialists used nationalism, and a more circumspect method of economic control than Communists, but the aim, and outcome are esentially the same.

In the political environment of Germany in the 1920's and 1930's, the voters started moving to the extreme left, which in Germany was represented by 2 parties, the National Socialists, and the Communists. *sigh* The National Socialist Party was not extreme left. It's economic policies were fairly moderate. What defines facism is the extreme authoritarianism, ie the government is all, people are merely tools of the state etc. I can't speak for the communists in Germany because I haven't studied them.

EDIT: Hey! 500th post! :D

*sigh* The National Socialist Party was not extreme left. It's economic policies were fairly moderate. What defines facism is the extreme authoritarianism, ie the government is all, people are merely tools of the state etc. I can't speak for the communists in Germany because I haven't studied them.

Hitlerism required the subordination of all property rights to the state and the racial imperative.

Economically, it was very left wing.

This assertion is kinda ridiculous.

More Hitler quotes: ""The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive.""

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2000/zg0005/000519.html
This site goes into great depth on the subject. Read the entire speech at the bottom. Hitler gets MAD.

In Hitler's eyes, Jews=Communists. The above speech provides evidence. He thought the Jews were attempting to take over the world through communism. Killing Jews=Killing communism.

Sorry for the massive abbreviation, I'm tired.

Hitler a communist? No.
A socialist? Yes. Nazi is short for National Socialist afterall.
That was a ploy to get the working class in his movement.

Hitler was anti-communist because he was pro-Communist. He did not oppose Communists, he was their rival.
If that's your point, you miscapitalized. The first C should be caps, the second lower. Sorry, I'm a jerk when I'm tired.

Great, so in one speech he said his movement shared similiarities with communism. I think he made up for that blunder by sending communists and suspected communists to the concentration camps, and by invading the USSR.

With Hitler you have to listen to his speeches the same way you listen to Bush's. Listen to what he says then believe the opposite. Bush says "I don't believe that our troops should be used for what I call 'nation building.'" He secretly believes, "I believe our troops should be used for nation unbuilding, but I'll call it nation building."

Hitler says that his movement is in harmony with Bolshevism, he secretly believes that Jewish Wall Street bankers, Jewish labor unions, and Jewish Communism are all the same Jewish enemy.

My god, this thread is so pathetic. It's just posters from both sides of the spectrum trying to dump hitler on eachother, tossing the Nazi back and forth much like a hot potato.

I'm sorry but I've seen this too often. Does it matter if Adolf Hitler stood a little to the left or right? He was still a totalitarian, and when you are so low on the scale there isn't much room to move either way.

Please pick up a bit of Orwell in your spare time, this debate is dangerous.

My god, this thread is so pathetic. It's just posters from both sides of the spectrum trying to dump hitler on eachother, tossing the Nazi back and forth much like a hot potato.

I'm sorry but I've seen this too often. Does it matter if Adolf Hitler stood a little to the left or right? He was still a totalitarian, and when you are so low on the scale there isn't much room to move either way.

Please pick up a bit of Orwell in your spare time, this debate is dangerous.
While perhaps true of some, my interest is academic.

Try not to tell me what I think, thanks. Unless you've forgotten your own Orwell.

With Hitler you have to listen to his speeches the same way you listen to Bush's. Listen to what he says then believe the opposite. Bush says "I don't believe that our troops should be used for what I call 'nation building.'" He secretly believes, "I believe our troops should be used for nation unbuilding, but I'll call it nation building."

Hitler says that his movement is in harmony with Bolshevism, he secretly believes that Jewish Wall Street bankers, Jewish labor unions, and Jewish Communism are all the same Jewish enemy.

Yeah, because it is all bush's fault.

Indeed, just before I was enjoying my Yoda(tm) fruit snacks, and I thought, damn, these would be all tastier if it wasn't for GW Bush and his efforts to aid Chancellor Palpatine in his take-over of the Galatic republic.

Both hitler and Stalin are both right-wingers. Even Stalin's economic policies are on the right.

Also Stalin's Russia does not = Communism

While perhaps true of some, my interest is academic.

Try not to tell me what I think, thanks. Unless you've forgotten your own Orwell.

I'm very serious, this thread is mostly semantics. I'm not telling you what to think, I'm warning you not to squabble over something just to gain political prestige.

I'm sorry if I sound mean but this topic consistently occurs in every political forum on the internet, surely you know how I feel?

Hitler a communist? No.
A socialist? Yes. Nazi is short for National Socialist afterall.

Hitler's facism being called National Socialism is like Zaire being called the Democratic Republic of Congo, or as America: The Book preticts after its next genocide/civil war/bloody coup, The Shiny Happy People's Democratic Republic of Congo.

It's a name that is a total lie designed to trick people into thinking that it's something more innocuous than it is. Hitler was a socialist like Bush is a conservative.

My god, this thread is so pathetic. It's just posters from both sides of the spectrum trying to dump hitler on eachother, tossing the Nazi back and forth much like a hot potato.

I'm sorry but I've seen this too often. Does it matter if Adolf Hitler stood a little to the left or right? He was still a totalitarian, and when you are so low on the scale there isn't much room to move either way.

Please pick up a bit of Orwell in your spare time, this debate is dangerous.

I suggest you pick up a bit of Orwell too. And while you are at it a bit of Hayek.

Yeah, because it is all bush's fault.

Indeed, just before I was enjoying my Yoda(tm) fruit snacks, and I thought, damn, these would be all tastier if it wasn't for GW Bush and his efforts to aid Chancellor Palpatine in his take-over of the Galatic republic.

I never said it was his fault, just that you have to listen to his speeches the same way. You can't take any politicians speeches as a reliable indicator of what he's really planning to do, but in the case of a few you can get a fairly good idea by simply turning all of their speeches into the exact opposite of what they say.

It won't work all the time. Bush is probably genuinly opposed to a draft because his friends own stock in the mercenary companies that he's sinking billions of our tax dollars into. But for the most part it works quite well. Bush says he want's to improve the economy, but he's deliberatly plunging us into a huge deficit. He says he wants to fix social security, but his suggestions as to how will cause all the problems now that he says will happen in 40 years.

For Hitler to deliver a speech in which he says that he's in agreement with Bolshevism shows that he did the exact same thing. I will not apologize for likening Bush's political strategies to Hitler's. They're identical, though a bit more polished. Keep the people scared and they'll hand you power like it's plutonium.

Both hitler and Stalin are both right-wingers. Even Stalin's economic policies are on the right. Umm, no. That isn't true. Stalin's economic policies were on the extreme left of the scales. Hitler's were somewhere in the middle, leaning only slightly to the right. They were both insane murders, however, because they favoured facistic policies of extensive centralised power.

If you want an example of extreme right wing antics (AGAIN, combining heavy authoritarian elements), you'd do better to take a look at Pinochet's regime.

I never said it was his fault, just that you have to listen to his speeches the same way. You can't take any politicians speeches as a reliable indicator of what he's really planning to do, but in the case of a few you can get a fairly good idea by simply turning all of their speeches into the exact opposite of what they say.

It won't work all the time. Bush is probably genuinly opposed to a draft because his friends own stock in the mercenary companies that he's sinking billions of our tax dollars into. But for the most part it works quite well. Bush says he want's to improve the economy, but he's deliberatly plunging us into a huge deficit. He says he wants to fix social security, but his suggestions as to how will cause all the problems now that he says will happen in 40 years.

For Hitler to deliver a speech in which he says that he's in agreement with Bolshevism shows that he did the exact same thing. I will not apologize for likening Bush's political strategies to Hitler's. They're identical, though a bit more polished. Keep the people scared and they'll hand you power like it's plutonium.


You can't compare Bush to Hitler. Not even. It's silly.

Ever heard of the secret pact Hitler and Stalin signed? (I forget the name)


It wasn't that secret, Low drew a cartoon about it in the Times of London.

Umm, no. That isn't true. Stalin's economic policies were on the extreme left of the scales. Hitler's were somewhere in the middle, leaning only slightly to the right. They were both insane murders, however, because they favoured facistic policies of extensive centralised power.

If you want an example of extreme right wing antics (AGAIN, combining heavy authoritarian elements), you'd do better to take a look at Pinochet's regime.

Agree that they are both insane murders. I hate them both! but I think economically he is on the right.

Examples:"The destruction of the remnants of workers' democracy proceeded apace. Strikes were outlawed in 1928. After 1930 workers were no longer allowed to change jobs without state permission."

"In 1929, the first Five-Year Plan was introduced. The aim Stalin announced, was to 'catch up and overtake' the West. In order to take control of food production, several million peasants were slaughtered. In the towns, workers' wages were cut in half between 1930 and 1937."

"For Russia, competition is primarily military. But, in order to equal the West in sophisticated weaponry, Russia must be capable of matching the growth of western capitalism in all areas: in steel, electrical goods, industrial chemicals and so on. The pressure of world capitalist competition -- both military and economic-- shapes the structure and direction of Russian society. Russia is thereby reduced to little more than a state-owned economy that has adapted itself to the capitalist system as a whole.

It is for this reason that Russia, both in Stalin's day and today, can be described as state capitalist. For the defining feature of capitalism is not that individual businessmen produce for their own gain"

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/socfrombel/sfb_6.htm
^ its a good read

Leftist is not necessarally state control, it is collective(workers) control.

Both hitler and Stalin are both right-wingers. Even Stalin's economic policies are on the right.

Also Stalin's Russia does not = Communism
You are mistaken. Stalin's policies went extreme left. Stalin was originally in Buhkarin's rigthtest camp supporting the "New Economic Policy" which meant capitalist measures in agriculture such as letting peasents sell goods on the market, and lease land from the state for long periods of time. However he then went extreme left, even more so than trotsky, who had been pushing for the collectivization of agricultre but on a voluntary basis, by giving farmers aid and incentives to join collectives. Stalin fearing the growing power of the capitalist "Kulaks" ie rich peasents forced peasents to collectize by force. The introduction of the planned economy and 5 year plans meant the end of capitalism in Russia until 1991.

Hasn't it occorued to anyone posting here that if you go right far enough you start to circle towards the left at a certain point, and vice versa?

Hasn't it occorued to anyone posting here that if you go right far enough you start to circle towards the left at a certain point, and vice versa?

This is true when talking about Hilter(supposedly right) and Stalin(supposedly left, but i disagree :P). But if you are talking about true Marxism and Fascism they are totally on the opposite ends of the spectrum

This is true when talking about Hilter(supposedly right) and Stalin(supposedly left, but i disagree :P). But if you are talking about true Marxism and Fascism they are totally on the opposite ends of the spectrum The complete opposite of Fascism is Anarchism.

Fascism=The state has all the power

Anarchism=The peope have all the power

Hasn't it occorued to anyone posting here that if you go right far enough you start to circle towards the left at a certain point, and vice versa?

So a die hard communist advocating a gift-economy will begin to sound like a dyed in the wool monetarist? An vice versa?

Right and left are very gross over generaliztion that mean even less than liberal and consevative. They are used simply to mobilize those who do not know enough about politics to go above these generalizations. The left can mobilize and say down with those evil, hard-hearted, conservative, right wing pigs, while the right can mobilize and say down with those idiot, bleeding heart, liberal lefties. If you go to the extreme with this you could even call them Orwellian double speak where terms lose meaning.

All left and right do is create an us vs. them mentality that divides a country against itself.

Right-wing means nothing, left-wing means nothing. Conservative means against change or wanting slow change and liberal means wanting rapid change. Reactionary means wanting to go back to the way things were and radical means wanting immediate, drastic change.

As NationStates point out there are at least three different political measures and probably more.

Hitler was extremely low on political freedoms, low on civil freedoms, and low on economic freedoms. Stalin was roughly the same.

The "left" (to use a crude term) is high on civil freedoms, low on economic freedoms, and varied on political freedoms. The "right" (to again use a crude term) is medium on civil freedoms, high on economic freedoms, and varied on political freedoms.

Even this general, crude, and poor description of left and right is likely to be trashed as some "right-wingers" will claim that the right wing is pro-freedom on all 3 scales and left-wingers are anti-freedom on all 3 scales. While some "left-wingers" will claim that they are pro-freedom on all 3 scales and right-wingers are anti-freedom on all 3 scales.

Use more appropriate terms.

Hasn't it occorued to anyone posting here that if you go right far enough you start to circle towards the left at a certain point, and vice versa?

I'm pretty sure I've said something like that once or twice.

Extreme left means that the government owns all the property. In a small direct democracy that might work, but with an authoritarian state then it's just tyranny.

In extreme right-wing governments, the biggest business interests own the government. This might work if you've got innumerable joint ownership concerns competing with each other, but most likely you've got a few giant corporations that step all over their workers.

All that it takes for facism to become authoritarian communism is for those powerful business owners to hold government office at the same time as running their businesses. That's why so many people were upset when Halliburton got handed that giant oil contract and Dick Cheney owns huge amounts of stock in it.

The complete opposite of Fascism is Anarchism.

Fascism=The state has all the power

Anarchism=The peope have all the power

true, but Marxism can also be concidered a form of anarchism.

Fascism = supreme State Power

Marxism = No state at all

So a die hard communist advocating a gift-economy will begin to sound like a dyed in the wool monetarist? An vice versa?

No. I'll show you.

Fascism and (Stalinist) Communism are on opposite sides of the spectrum. But both have low economic, civil, and political freedoms. So despite being complete opposites, they are almost exactly alike.

Libertarionism and (Classical) Marxist Communism/Anarchism are often generally considered to be right and left wing, respectively (although some disagree with this, because, as I posted earlier left and right sucks). But both have high freedoms on all three of the aforementioned scales.

Pure capitalism is indistinguishable to pure anarchism, yet both are on opposite sides of the scale.

The left-right scale blows. It is almost meaningless and useless.

Right and left are very gross over generaliztion that mean even less than liberal and consevative. They are used simply to mobilize those who do not know enough about politics to go above these generalizations. The left can mobilize and say down with those evil, hard-hearted, conservative, right wing pigs, while the right can mobilize and say down with those idiot, bleeding heart, liberal lefties. If you go to the extreme with this you could even call them Orwellian double speak where terms lose meaning.

All left and right do is create an us vs. them mentality that divides a country against itself.

Right-wing means nothing, left-wing means nothing. Conservative means against change or wanting slow change and liberal means wanting rapid change. Reactionary means wanting to go back to the way things were and radical means wanting immediate, drastic change.

As NationStates point out there are at least three different political measures and probably more.

Hitler was extremely low on political freedoms, low on civil freedoms, and low on economic freedoms. Stalin was roughly the same.

The "left" (to use a crude term) is high on civil freedoms, low on economic freedoms, and varied on political freedoms. The "right" (to again use a crude term) is medium on civil freedoms, high on economic freedoms, and varied on political freedoms.

Even this general, crude, and poor description of left and right is likely to be trashed as some "right-wingers" will claim that the right wing is pro-freedom on all 3 scales and left-wingers are anti-freedom on all 3 scales. While some "left-wingers" will claim that they are pro-freedom on all 3 scales and right-wingers are anti-freedom on all 3 scales.

Use more appropriate terms.

I was thinking about this too. There are so many aspects of "rightism" and "Leftism" that Left and right are much to general.

true, but Marxism can also be concidered a form of anarchism. Hehe, that's why I'm an Anarcho-Socialist. :p

No. I'll show you.

Fascism and (Stalinist) Communism are on opposite sides of the spectrum. But both have low economic, civil, and political freedoms. So despite being complete opposites, they are almost exactly alike.

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse and glossing over perhaps the most apparent characteristic of these ideologies, totalitarianism.

The reason that fascism and stalinism are so similar isn't because they are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but because they are both essentially the same ideology even though they have two distinct and seperate origins.

Libertarionism and (Classical) Marxist Communism/Anarchism are often generally considered to be right and left wing, respectively (although some disagree with this, because, as I posted earlier left and right sucks). But both have high freedoms on all three of the aforementioned scales.

Pure capitalism is indistinguishable to pure anarchism, yet both are on opposite sides of the scale.

Ooh, fighting talk. :)

They aren't, since capitalism requires certain conditions incompatible with Anarchism.

The left-right scale blows. It is almost meaningless and useless.

True, all spectrums do. I have no idea why everyone seems to love them so much.

Hehe, that's why I'm an Anarcho-Socialist. :p

Alright, then you know what i'm talking about then! hehe

I need some sleep now. lol

Y

True, all spectrums do. I have no idea why everyone seems to love them so much.

Simple. People, in general, are stupid. There. That's about it.

Want elaboration? Fine, alright, I'll do it.

People are stupid. Most people will spend thier lives in a sheep-herd lifestyle, following the leader so to speak. They can't think for themselves. Most people don't understand American Politics. Most people don't understand American Economy. Most people don't understand how their bloody food got to their damn table, for godsakes. You have no clue how many people don't really understand how milk gets to their table. They know it comes from cows, and that it comes in a carton. But there are dozens of other processes involved before it even gets to the supermarket. Politics is no where near as easy as Milk.

But you see, people want to understand. They want to "Be in the know". Hell, most politicians don't have one bloody clue how things work. They want to be in the know also. Of course, they are to stupid to ever really understand, so they give into forcefed, watered down, and complete crap generalizations which are far to simple to ever truly be even eluded to in simple "Left-Right" spectrums.

Basically, people are stupid, and want to know how things work, even though they will never know because they are stupid.

For more proof that communism and Nazism are identical...

Come now, you know better than to make such absurd statements.

When did Hitler say this? He was a notorious liar. (Though I do think his policies tended to the left wing).

Nope.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm)

Please read this post I made concerning political measurement and terms.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422009

Source: Hitler Speaks, by Hermann Rauschning (London, T. Butterworth, 1940)

Don't you realize that during Hitler's rise to power, he courted everyone? What was the first thing Hitler did upon obtaining absolute control? Why outlaw labor unions of course!

This is the same old tired rightwing shit I've read over and over...Hitler was a Socialist....what bullshit. Hitler was an opportunist, and he took advantage of EVERY opportunity. He was evil, but he was cunning, shrewd, and smart.

Hitler was not a Socialist, nor a Communist. He was an authoritarian dictator, and the fact that you don't realize that make you, and the rightwing you crawled out of, look exceedingly stupid.....as if you needed any more help with that one.....

As many people have already pointed out here, what Hitler and Stalin shared was totalitarianism. This is not something owned or prescribed by either left or right.

On the left-right scale they were very different, Stalin did nationalise the industries and redistribute the wealth (though not exactly equally). But it definitely wasn't socialism or communism in the way Marx or anyone before or after him intended. Hitler on the other hand was very friendly to business (so long as it wasn't Jewish), his cause was the lowest and most race-defined form of Nationlism. This has nothing to do with socialism. But as that was the other main political movement at the time, he thought it was worth trying to win their vote also.

This discussion does come up quite often, with either the left wanting to disown Stalin or the right wanting to disown Hitler. It's not so much dangerous as it is tiresome.

Maybe he started out as an ally of Stalin because he took a lesson from WWI and realized that Germany couldn't fight on two fronts simultaneously.
So he tried four..........

So, in actuallity, what is being said here, is that Hitler had similarities with Stalinism (intepreted by the Fascists as Communism) as opposed to Marxism (which he condemns in the same sentence).

That part I can agree with, Hitler and Stalin's regimes had many similarities. However, neither Hitler nor Stalin were "Marxist" and therefore "pure" communists. (In defense of the Libertaire here).