NationStates Jolt Archive

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)

No, the Nazis are right wing. Killing Jews, gypsies and others are hardly the actions of a liberal group, is it?

No, the Nazis are right wing. Killing Jews, gypsies and others are hardly the actions of a liberal group, is it?

I don't know. I understand the Soviet communists killed a few of those groups themselves.

They were right-wing, I know exactly what their name was, in either language, but that was a way to gain votes from the socialist voters.

OK, let me give you an example.

I'm forming a political party called the Global Socialists. Our manifesto is the extermination of anyone without blue eyes and blond hair.

Are we right or left wing?

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)

A nationalist is always right winged

You just want to throw away the whole politcal spectrum thing, now don't you Po.
Extreme Right wing, but right-winged none the less. Just like Communism is extreme-left-winged.

Not at all! You just DON' T know the basis of right-wing!

Nasism is strongly socialistic-oriented system!

Nationalisation of fabrics, the nation is superior at rights of individual, complete lack of law obey in the country (Hitler could appoint (by decrets) anything, even if those decrets would be inconsistent with constitution!), complete lack of respect for human life, operssion of Catholic Church, no free market, racism - You call THIS right-wing??

Come on! Be serious... It' s exactly opposition of right-wing!

A nationalist is always right winged

Completely wrong.

From the Nazi politics...they were strongly anti-capitalistic.

No, the Nazis are right wing. Killing Jews, gypsies and others are hardly the actions of a liberal group, is it?

Liberals are far-right - in my country at least.

A nationalist is always right winged

Well then what were those millions of Soviet peasants fighting for if not for their country? The Germans fought for their Fatherland in World War Two just as the Soviets fought for their Motherland. Nationalism is present in all politics, just more so in extremist groups.

National Socialism is a right wing ideal. It is not the same as Socialism.

Wikipedia says on the matter:
Socialism:Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.

In National Socialism the economy and production are controlled not by the people but the nation ie the State. National Socialism does not advocate social equality or equal distribution of wealth, everything is directed towards the benefit of the whole nation.

How about this? We have you and the couple of other guys who think you're right take on me, the guys who think we're right and THE WHOLE OF HISTORY SINCE 1930. Sound good?

National Socialism is socialism but for the nation, not the individual. Pretty obvious because the name tells you that. But anyway, the name doesn't mean anything. Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea democratic?

Political ideology works on a 2 dimensional axis. It isn't just right and left it's also libertarian and authoritarian. You can get left wing authoritarian governments (e.g. Stalinist Russia) and libertarian right wing governments (e.g. USA).

NAZI-ism ideology isn't right wing, Facism is, both are severly authoritarian as have been all 'successful' communist states. Now, the question is... was German government from 1933 to 1945 a right wing government? I would have to say it was, There was much talk of a redistribution of wealth but little actually took place. Much Geman-Jewish owned business was passed on to already established German big business. Hitler and his cronies were notorious for courting the ruling classes (e.g. Goering) and big business (e.g. Krupp, VW, IG Faben) and there were many promises made to the working man which never fully materialised (e.g. people's car).

Additionally, western capitalist democracies were not that scared of Hitler to satrt with because the saw him as a man they could do business with and therefore preferential to communism. In fact G W Bush's grandad traded with Nazis and help bank roll Hitler.

All in all although the Nazi ideology is left wing in outlook, it was never implemented and you could never really describe it as left wing although it was always going to be authoritarian.

Not at all! You just DON' T know the basis of right-wing!

Nasism is strongly socialistic-oriented system!

Nationalisation of fabrics, the nation is superior at rights of individual, complete lack of law obey in the country (Hitler could appoint (by decrets) anything, even if those decrets would be inconsistent with constitution!), complete lack of respect for human life, operssion of Catholic Church, no free market, racism - You call THIS right-wing??

Come on! Be serious... It' s exactly opposition of right-wing!

This is a dictorial form of the Extreme Right Wing, oppressing freedoms and the church become necessary under such a rule, it keeps the people in line.
Complete lack of respect for Non-German human life would be more accurate. Non-(what he considered) pure blood beyond that. (Hitler forbade abortions among Germans for German life was precious.)
He also was searching for the Holy Grail to prove that they were the descendants of the Teutonic Knights, which proves that religion had a facet within Hitler's Germany.
Beyond that, he betrayed his own party, merely using them as a stepping-stone to power.
Control of sources is also important if you are going to make a "war machine." You will find it easier to advance your efforts if you take control of the industries that provide the needed items for war during times of war.

Well then what were those millions of Soviet peasants fighting for if not for their country? The Germans fought for their Fatherland in World War Two just as the Soviets fought for their Motherland. Nationalism is present in all politics, just more so in extremist groups.

National Socialism is a right wing ideal. It is not the same as Socialism.

Wikipedia says on the matter:
Socialism:Socialism is a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised through a State. A primary concern of socialism (and, according to some, its defining feature) is social equality and an equitable distribution of wealth that would serve the interests of society as a whole.

In National Socialism the economy and production are controlled not by the people but the nation ie the State. National Socialism does not advocate social equality or equal distribution of wealth, everything is directed towards the benefit of the whole nation.

Soviet Peasants welcomed the Germans until they discovered that the Germans were worse than Stalin. Those millions of Soviet peasants fought for Stalin because it was the best choice(choice between two options: death under Hitler or a hard life under Stalin).
French volunteered by thousands, so did the English and neither of these two was nationalist during World War 2. A nationalistic feeling created by a war does not make your nation or government nationalist, it makes you populist or patriotic.

And then you have the typical Stalinist decision to send every person who is not commited in the war effort yet to the front or the factory. Firing squad for those who refuse.

Anyway, this belongs in the General forum.

Explain me one thing...

You boys and girls agree, that Soviet Union was communist country, right?

Do You know, that Stalin was also a dictator and could do ANYTHING, just as Hitler?

So... Why You' re shouting, that Germany were ruled by right wing, just because it was an dictatorship? National Socialism is just another kind of socialism, that' s all.

I see, that I have to explain the basis of REAL right-wing:

- no social werfare
- no compulsory military service
- free market
- banned trade unions (it' s wrong, when workers can strike against the owner of company)
- strong traditionalism (so: in western civilisation it would be Catholic Church)
- no abortions
- respect for human life (all life, not just lifes of our citizens)
- indiwidual has right to do whatever he wants IF this not collides with rights of other individual
- low taxes (no VAT, no income tax, no luxury-good tax)
- taxes are spend only at military, police and administration, everything else is private (e.g. hospitals, schools and so on)
- right to own gun
- right to kill in self defence
- penalty of death for murders
- small administration (and it' s less important if rules parlament, governor, king, president, dictator - it' s just important for goverment/ruler to obey the law).

And that' s it. Tell me, WHERE Hitler and NSDAP were talking about those points and puted them into practise?

Of course - nowhere and never! He was as red, as Stalin!!!!!!

Completely wrong.

From the Nazi politics...they were strongly anti-capitalistic.

Not completely wrong at all - does anyone here know where the phrase "right wing" comes from?

Explain me one thing...

You boys and girls agree, that Soviet Union was communist country, right?

Do You know, that Stalin was also a dictator and could do ANYTHING, just as Hitler

You just negated the rest of your post by claiming the Soviet Union was communist. Sorry.

Oi! We don't want them. The agreement was we take the Communists, you take the Nazis. You can't renege now...

I don' t understand. Why??

I told You once, that communism and national socialism are just some variants of left-wing, that' s all (and YES, social-liberalism is ALSO one of them, it' s just not so bloodthirsty).

The point is, that almost every real communistic states were/are ruled by distators. Cuba, North Korea, Soviet Union...

And somebody here claimed, that dictatorship is ALWAYS right-wing! So I ask You: do You think, that Stalin and his Union was RIGHT-WING oriented?????????

Why can't you get that Nationalist-Socalism is both left AND right winged!

The thing is, right winged supporter say they are left winged, left wing support say nazis come from the right.

You also have to learn to stop using the left-right idea to divide political parties, NO ONE USES IT ANY MORE!!!

I don' t understand. Why??

I told You once, that communism and national socialism are just some variants of left-wing, that' s all (and YES, social-liberalism is ALSO one of them, it' s just not so bloodthirsty).

(1) Stalin was not communist, the communist manifesto bears no relation to the state the Bolsheviks instigated. It's like calling Moonies Christian because they claim a common root.
(2) The term "right wing" comes from the French National Assembly instigated after the revolution. Nationalists sat on the right wing of the semi-circular chamber, ergo, nationalism is right wing.
(3) As with Stalin claiming to be communist, Hitler claiming to be socialist lacks all real credibility. They don't conform to the ideals of either group, they were just statist authoritarians using the words as camouflage for their actions.

Anything else i can help you with?

Why can't you get that Nationalist-Socalism is both left AND right winged!

The thing is, right winged supporter say they are left winged, left wing support say nazis come from the right.

You also have to learn to stop using the left-right idea to divide political parties, NO ONE USES IT ANY MORE!!!
No one, except just about everyone who posted in this thread?

The point is, that almost every real communistic states were/are ruled by distators. Cuba, North Korea, Soviet Union...

And somebody here claimed, that dictatorship is ALWAYS right-wing! So I ask You: do You think, that Stalin and his Union was RIGHT-WING oriented?????????

To answer your rejoinder:-
(1) None of these states are communist. The most you could call them were Authoritarian State-Capitalist.
(2) Yes. Of course. Hideously so. But then i'm a trotskyite.

No one, except just about everyone who posted in this thread?

I mean in the political world. They don't use it because it is ambiguous, and gets people, like those on this tread, confused.

No, the Nazis are right wing. Killing Jews, gypsies and others are hardly the actions of a liberal group, is it?

Liberals only want to kill right wingers. :rolleyes:

Sure.

Hitler was an socialist, he knew he was socialist, he talked, that he was an socialist, he did everythink like socialist - but You' re talking, that he wasn' t socialist. Something' s obviously wrong here...

You see, if states NOT put into practise points that I' ve just expounded, it' s ALWAYS socialistic in it' s nature. Germany under rule of Hitler and his NSDAP did not anything to put them into life. The conlusion is: THEY WERE SOCIALISTS. And SOCIALIST are ALWAYS LEFT-ORIENTED! Is this REALLY so HARD to UNDERSTAND??

United Island Empires - You' re talking, that nobody uses this anymore... NationStates uses, as You can see.

If the Nazis were left-wing, then why did the Reichstag socialists/communists oppose them and the business lobby support them?

I mean in the political world. They don't use it because it is ambiguous, and gets people, like those on this tread, confused.
Except the Australian Prime Minister, The Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, an Proffesor of Political Science at the University of Queensland and they're just Australians I can name from today, in the poltical world. it may be a faulty scale, but by no means can it be said to not be in common use

The Nazis may have claimed to be socialist but they actually never implemented their ideas of state control over the economy, because Hitler wanted the support of the industrialists. In fact, they hated socialists and believed themselves diametrically opposed to communism. Anyone got any real evidence suggesting the Nazis were left wing?

SOCIALIST are ALWAYS LEFT-ORIENTED!

WRONG AGAIN!!!

Socialists aren't always left winged. They are left winged if they believe in equality for all. The Nazis did not. They wanted the German people to be the richest. This makes them highly highly right winged.

Sure.

Hitler was an socialist, he knew he was socialist, he talked, that he was an socialist, he did everythink like socialist - but You' re talking, that he wasn' t socialist. Something' s obviously wrong here...

You see, if states NOT put into practise points that I' ve just expounded, it' s ALWAYS socialistic in his nature. Germany under rule of Hitler and his NSDAP did not anything to put them into life. The conlusion is: THEY WERE SOCIALISTS. And SOCIALIST are ALWAYS LEFT-ORIENTED! Is this REALLY so HARD to UNDERSTAND??

United Island Empires - You' re talking, that nobody uses this anymore... NationStates uses, as You can see.

This is your definition of "Right Wing"

- no social werfare - So the USA is "Left Wing"?
- no compulsory military service - So Switzerland is "Left Wing"?
- free market - Define "Free"? No market under capitalism is "Free", hence why anyone uses the phrase is either a Libertarian dreaming of a future state of affairs, or deluded.
- banned trade unions (it' s wrong, when workers can strike against the owner of company) - The Nazis banned trade unionists, as i recall? Or did they merely subsume them into the machinery of the state?
- strong traditionalism (so: in western civilisation it would be Catholic Church) - Right, so your first few are Libertarian points, then you move into free-market liberalism of the 1800s, now you are on social conservatism. Your "Right Wing" is a real mish-mash here...
- no abortions - see above...
- respect for human life (all life, not just lifes of our citizens) - respect how?
- indiwidual has right to do whatever he wants IF this not collides with rights of other individual - Libertarianism again, but tempered by the state, so not libertarianism at all...LIBERALISM. A supposedly left wing ideal.
- low taxes (no VAT, no income tax, no luxury-good tax) - ah, free market liberalism again, huzzah!
- taxes are spend only at military, police and administration, everything else is private (e.g. hospitals, schools and so on) - Libertarianism. Mingled with insanity.
- right to own gun - irrelevant to whether right or left, you have people of both sides advocating this nonsense.
- right to kill in self defence - as above.
- penalty of death for murders - respect for human life? Ah, the contradictions...
- small administration (and it' s less important if rules parlament, governor, king, president, dictator - it' s just important for goverment/ruler to obey the law). - So, free-market liberalism again, basically, small state, yadda yadda yadda.

Dude, your ideals are all over the shop, you have no consistency whatsoever, and you are claiming this as the basis for ALL right wing thought?

*sighs*

If the Nazis were left-wing, then why did the Reichstag socialists/communists oppose them and the business lobby support them?

Because all business people are left wing obviously...

either that or someone can't tell the difference between an authoritarian corporate state and a socialist state...

So Switzerland is "Left Wing"?
Yep

But I do have to agree, he did make some sweeping statements.

Yep

But I do have to agree, he did make some sweeping statements.

I wouldn't say Switzerland is left wing, it - like our original poster - is a bit all over the place - immigration controls, tax rates from the right wingers copy book, town militia and local organisation from the wet dreams of the left...

The Half-Hidden...

I have party A, You have party B. We both are socialists, but I want all power for my party, You want all power for Your party. So? I will always try to block everything You do just because I want all the power for ME.

United Island Empire - oh my God... You just killed me softly. :)

Locoland - I told You how looks basis of right-oriented politics. If they do anything that limits free market - they are red, red, red, red, red, red, red!!!!

National socialism LIMITS free market. Anybody wants to argue with that?

basis of right-oriented politics. If they do anything that limits free market - they are red, red, red, red, red, red, red!!!!

Then every government in the world is "red, red, red, red, red!!!" to quote you.

Then every government in the world is "red, red, red, red, red!!!" to quote you.
I think every goverment in the world is "red, red, red, red, red!!!"

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)


Christ!

How many times are you right-wing faith-based reactionaries going to have to have it explained to you before it clicks. Just because they called themselves National Socialist doesn't mean they were any more than than the current Chinese Communist party is communist. They're both totalitarian.

Socialist governments are pro-union. The nazi party was anti-union.
Socialist governments are pro-democracy. The nazi party was anti-democracy.

There is not one real resemblence between left-wing politics and nazi politics. There are however many similarities between far right politics and every step along the path of the Nazi party's evolution from its ultra-nationalist propaganda to it's staunch pro-military and corprate interest stance.

It's a simple equation.
Pro-military + pro-big business + pro-nationalism - labor rights - free speech = right-wing politics.

I think every goverment in the world is "red, red, red, red, red!!!"

Libertarian?

Hitler did start out decidedly socialist, what with putting the unemployed to work on the autobahns and all... but did he nationalise industries? redistribute wealth? extensive social welfare programs? work toward other standardly left-wing/socialist goals? communitarian? answers: only during the period of total war; no; no; no; and no.

this is why the political spectrum is often portrayed as horseshoe-shaped - there's actually a lot of similarity between the far right and far left.
however, don't forget that there's more to being nazi than just left/right - more to any real political spectrum than this 1-dimensional split. nazis were/are truly totalitarian, as well (young nazis and reformation of the schooling system, burning of books, etc). that's an important distinction to make. not to mention messed up with the whole holocaust thing...

don't forget also how much hitler hated the USSR. socialists hating socialists, eh? (well it happens on here all the time... :p)

my point is elements of what he did and nazi policies were decidedly socialist, yes, but as a whole... no (hence the horseshoe). distinctly different from socialist models, theories, and socialism in practice (be it the USSR or more moderate RL socialised reigimes)

there's a difference between socialism and nationalsocialism. Socialism is based off of subsidized economy. Nationalsocialism is based off of separating the races into their own nations to boost national esteem.

Hitler did start out decidedly socialist, what with putting the unemployed to work on the autobahns and all... but did he nationalise industries? redistribute wealth? extensive social welfare programs? work toward other standardly left-wing/socialist goals? communitarian? answers: only during the period of total war; no; no; no; and no.

this is why the political spectrum is often portrayed as horseshoe-shaped - there's actually a lot of similarity between the far right and far left.
however, don't forget that there's more to being nazi than just left/right - more to any real political spectrum than this 1-dimensional split. nazis were/are totalitarian, as well. that's an important distinction to make.

don't forget also how much hitler hated the USSR. socialists hating socialists, eh? (well it happens on here all the time... :p)

my point is elements of what he did and nazi policies were decidedly socialist, yes, but as a whole... no (hence the horseshoe). distinctly different from socialist models, theories, and socialism in practice (be it the USSR or more moderate RL socialised reigimes)


I'd throw out the horseshoe, to be honest. What Hitler had was a corporate state. Similar to Mussolini and similar to Stalin - everyones good was for the state, not for the individual a la the claimed reasoning behind right wing philosophy (funny it's always for the individual who owns the company innit?) or for the "people" as per left wing ideology. Hitler believed in the German state and the German race, but he was quite happy to sacrifice members of the german race for the german state. All the steps he took were not for the good of the unemployed, but for the good of the state. Authoritarian, corporate state. Only linked with socialism because it's got this concept of subsuming your own desires for "the greater good", but the greater good isn't the masses, but the machinery that controls the masses...

does that make sense?

This is your definition of "Right Wing"

- no social werfare - So the USA is "Left Wing"?
- no compulsory military service - So Switzerland is "Left Wing"?
- free market - Define "Free"? No market under capitalism is "Free", hence why anyone uses the phrase is either a Libertarian dreaming of a future state of affairs, or deluded.
- banned trade unions (it' s wrong, when workers can strike against the owner of company) - The Nazis banned trade unionists, as i recall? Or did they merely subsume them into the machinery of the state?
- strong traditionalism (so: in western civilisation it would be Catholic Church) - Right, so your first few are Libertarian points, then you move into free-market liberalism of the 1800s, now you are on social conservatism. Your "Right Wing" is a real mish-mash here...
- no abortions - see above...
- respect for human life (all life, not just lifes of our citizens) - respect how?
- indiwidual has right to do whatever he wants IF this not collides with rights of other individual - Libertarianism again, but tempered by the state, so not libertarianism at all...LIBERALISM. A supposedly left wing ideal.
- low taxes (no VAT, no income tax, no luxury-good tax) - ah, free market liberalism again, huzzah!
- taxes are spend only at military, police and administration, everything else is private (e.g. hospitals, schools and so on) - Libertarianism. Mingled with insanity.
- right to own gun - irrelevant to whether right or left, you have people of both sides advocating this nonsense.
- right to kill in self defence - as above.
- penalty of death for murders - respect for human life? Ah, the contradictions...
- small administration (and it' s less important if rules parlament, governor, king, president, dictator - it' s just important for goverment/ruler to obey the law). - So, free-market liberalism again, basically, small state, yadda yadda yadda.

Dude, your ideals are all over the shop, you have no consistency whatsoever, and you are claiming this as the basis for ALL right wing thought?

*sighs* The problem with these broad generalizations is that there is no government or country to which they all apply. Some lean more to the left and some lean more to the right, but there has never been a government that has followed all of the presumed liberal or conservative ideals. Hitler was insane. His government and military were carrying out the orders of a deranged man. This was neither left nor right wing. I understand the desire of liberals to label "neo-cons" as Nazis, but they are wrong. I also understand the desire of conservatives to do the same thing with respect to liberals. The fact is that neither comparison is legitimate.

I'd throw out the horseshoe, to be honest. What Hitler had was a corporate state. Similar to Mussolini and similar to Stalin - everyones good was for the state, not for the individual a la the claimed reasoning behind right wing philosophy (funny it's always for the individual who owns the company innit?) or for the "people" as per left wing ideology. Hitler believed in the German state and the German race, but he was quite happy to sacrifice members of the german race for the german state. All the steps he took were not for the good of the unemployed, but for the good of the state. Authoritarian, corporate state. Only linked with socialism because it's got this concept of subsuming your own desires for "the greater good", but the greater good isn't the masses, but the machinery that controls the masses...

does that make sense?
yes it does... kinda what i was getting at. corporate state, yes, but with elements of socialised policy. economic policy, therefore, slightly ambiguous but mostly "right wing".
then authoritarian/totalitarian... but not in a standardly left-wing style (with aim to produce greater equality) but instead borrowing that socialist idiom of 'for the good of the state/people' and using it to pursue... their own insane goals and policies.

in my head nazism is out on its own in terms of political policy - drawing in elements from all over the place and hashing them together in a somewhat unique way to pursue singularly misguided and twisted goals...

The problem with these broad generalizations is that there is no government or country to which they all apply. Some lean more to the left and some lean more to the right, but there has never been a government that has followed all of the presumed liberal or conservative ideals. Hitler was insane. His government and military were carrying out the orders of a deranged man. This was neither left nor right wing. I understand the desire of liberals to label "neo-cons" as Nazis, but they are wrong. I also understand the desire of conservatives to do the same thing with respect to liberals. The fact is that neither comparison is legitimate.

You do have valid points with regard both governments not being strictly one thing or t'other (for example, all governments have to have some element of "socialist" leanings, as they are about common organisation etc), and also with regards Hitler's insanity. However, we can say his government and program followed certain right-wing goals...even if they did take it way further than Pat Buchanan, for instance, would ever have dreamed of...

Oswald Mosely, the leader of the British Union of Fascists was a labour MP. Indeed, he garned plaudits from the likes of Micheal Foot &c.

I imagine the label "right-wing" was ultimately applied to fascism to strengthen the so-called "popular front" and has, unfortunately, stuck.

Oswald Mosely, the leader of the British Union of Fascists was a labour MP. Indeed, he garned plaudits from the likes of Micheal Foot &c.

I imagine the label "right-wing" was ultimately applied to fascism to strengthen the so-called "popular front" and has, unfortunately, stuck.

*ex Labour MP

And Mussolini was once a socialist deputy in the Italian Parliament...

Stalin was also at a seminary to be a priest. Does that make the Stalinist state a construct of Russian Orthodoxy?

Stalin was also at a seminary to be a priest. Does that make the Stalinist state a construct of Russian Orthodoxy?
haha :p

G. W. Bush was once an alcoholic. does that make his policies hair-brained drunken lunacy? oh, actually, yes it does.... ;)

*ex Labour MP

And Mussolini was once a socialist deputy in the Italian Parliament...

Well, clearly he was ex labour after he formed the BUF. I'm just pointing out his left wing credentials, and indeed fascism's in general.

Call it what you like, but you have to admit that fascism is no respecter of private property - no matter how they choose to dispose of it - or equality before the law. Both of which are pretty much central planks of the right wing.

Stalin was also at a seminary to be a priest. Does that make the Stalinist state a construct of Russian Orthodoxy?

He was fourteen when he was sent - possibly against his will -, and nineteen when he was expelled for his involvement with socialist groups. It's pretty clear that his association with the Russian orthodox church was of a very different character to Mosely and Mussolini's engagements in left wing politics.

It realy depends on your definition of "right wing" If you mean their economic policies support less regulated buisiness and lower taxes, then no, they wern't realy that right-wing. If you mean that they were "reactionaries" thenthey were about the most right wing that you can get. If you go to the political compass website, you will see that they place Hitler at the Authoritarian edge, but at the center of it. which translates to: Centrist economics and strict government.

Call it what you like, but you have to admit that fascism is no respecter of private property - no matter how they choose to dispose of it - or equality before the law. Both of which are pretty much central planks of the right wing.


1) Equality before the law is NOT a central plank of the right wing.

2) The disregard for private property is not fuelled by any beliefs or ideology under fascism, but for disdain for an ethnic group (which happens under capitalism)

1) Equality before the law is NOT a central plank of the right wing.

Yes it is. It's absolutely central. Learn about capitalism before you criticize it.

2) The disregard for private property is not fuelled by any beliefs or ideology under fascism, but for disdain for an ethnic group (which happens under capitalism)

Actually, there was a general disregard for private property under fascism. The state could, and would, take anything. It limited the free market, and directed employment engagements (not unlike Clement Atlee's lot tried to do after the war).

Look at Mussolini's fascist Italy. Which didn't even really persecute any ethnic groups in the begining.

Ok, let' s try in other way...

Right-wing - individual is most important.
Left-wing - most important is state.

RW - human life is most important.
LW - human life isn' t so important, so we can legalise abortion, euthanasia, compulsory military service.

RW - human should carry himself.
LW - human should be carry by state (social werfare, education, medical aid).

RW - less law, more freedom.
LW - more law, less freedom.

RW - more money for companies, less money for state budget (low taxes).
LW - more money for state budget, less money left in companies (high taxes).

And so on.

III Reich was OBVIOUSLY left-winged state.

About penalty of death... See, murderer by killing just isn' t human anymore and human rights doesn' t apply to him. He must be killed, because if not, he could kill more humans. Let' s say, we judge murderer to spend all his life in jail. Now he can kill without any fear, because we cannot judge him again for all-life jail! In this way we protect others people lifes. And least but not last - justice MUST be satisfied. You killed - You must die. Life for life.

Yes it is. It's absolutely central. Learn about capitalism before you criticize it.

:D


Actually, there was a general disregard for private property under fascism. The state could, and would, take anything. It limited the free market, and directed employment engagements (not unlike Clement Atlee's lot tried to do after the war).

A limited free market doesn't stop a state from being right-wing.


Look at Mussolini's fascist Italy. Which didn't even really persecute any ethnic groups in the begining.

I ain't getting into one of these arguments again

Alright, you win, you win.
Nazis are so left wing, they're right wing.

No, the Nazis are right-wing. So were the Stalinist Communists. The name means nothing. To support one race extensively at the cost of others, and to thereby emphasize the divide between races or a belief in the superiority of one race over all others or a support of one absolute leader over the people, is right-wing. The liberal thing to do would be to remove these divides, "superiorities", and give the rule to the people to the greatest degree possible.

:headbang: Nazi's are insane!!!!!!!! Their political views are insane!!!!!! Ok?:headbang: :headbang:

Explain me one thing...

You boys and girls agree, that Soviet Union was communist country, right?

Do You know, that Stalin was also a dictator and could do ANYTHING, just as Hitler?

So... Why You' re shouting, that Germany were ruled by right wing, just because it was an dictatorship? National Socialism is just another kind of socialism, that' s all.

I see, that I have to explain the basis of REAL right-wing:

What you go on to profess here is not the position of a wing. It is the position of a point on a wing. Left-right is a spectrum, not two points. Close to the center the leftists believe that the right to free speech is a freedom that is to be respected by the government, on the right is is believe that the government should not have the power to limit that right. The further right you go the more that tradition asserts itself to give rightists the power to limit leftist speech. The further left you go the more powerful the government gets in its ability to regulate the dialogue. Same difference.

- no social werfare
Nazi's. They believe so strongly against social welfare that they even outlawed the people's ability to secure their own welfare by limiting wages and outlawing labor unions.
- no compulsory military service
When was this ever a conservative position. Conservatives are the pro-military crowd and the national defense crowd. No conservative would ever oppose conscription in wartime, and the Nazi's entire reason for existence was ensuing war.
- free market
No such thing, but as a slogan it is used by center-left governments to break up large corporations to encourage competition. By center-right governments to limit the damage caused by things like wild-cat strikes and civil service strikes. With far-right gov't like the Nazi's this goes so far as to outlaw unions.
- banned trade unions (it' s wrong, when workers can strike against the owner of company)
Moderate right gov'ts would treat this as a market force and allow them, especially since the business of gov't does not extend to settling petty disputes between workers and employers. The further right you go the more they step in on the side of the employers, like Hitler and Reagan did, the more to the left you go the more they step in on the side of the workers like Mitterand and Mao did.
- strong traditionalism (so: in western civilisation it would be Catholic Church)
It would be any Christian church. But yes, the Nazi's were very much in league with the big Christian denominations. Just not the Jehovah's Witnesses
- no abortions
Hitler banned abortions for the Germans. It was part of his right-wing "strong traditiona values" thing.
- respect for human life (all life, not just lifes of our citizens)
There's nothing right-wing about a respect for life.
- indiwidual has right to do whatever he wants IF this not collides with rights of other individual
This conflicts with the "strong traditional values thing." The further right that a government goes the more that it sacrifices personal liberty to adherence to tradition. When they go crazy left they sacrifice personal liberty to the removal of outmoded traditions. Like when the Chinese Red Guard drove the Shaolin into exile and destroyed monestaries.
- low taxes (no VAT, no income tax, no luxury-good tax)
Perhaps, but all governments raise taxes when the need arises. Fiduciary necessity cannot be used to define political alignment. All that can be used is what the gov't considers to be a need. Right-wing - law enforcement and military spending, left-wing social spending.
- taxes are spend only at military, police and administration, everything else is private (e.g. hospitals, schools and so on)
Nazi's were big on military and police spending. But again, this is a point on the scale, not the entire right side of the spectrum.
- right to own gun
The Germans had the right to own guns in Nazi Germany. Everyone else was considered a potential terrorist.
- right to kill in self defence
Nazi's went one better. Germans had the right to kill in self defense, in defense of property, or because they felt like it. As long as the killed was non-German.
- penalty of death for murders
Yup here too. Death penalty for murder, complaining about Hitler, being Jewish. Nazi's loved the death penalty.
- small administration (and it' s less important if rules parlament, governor, king, president, dictator - it' s just important for goverment/ruler to obey the law).
Nazi's loved small government. They removed the entire legislative branch.
And that' s it. Tell me, WHERE Hitler and NSDAP were talking about those points and puted them into practise? Of course - nowhere and never! He was as red, as Stalin!!!!!!

Well, I've done it. Hitler did almost all of those things, and the things he didn't it was either because it was impossible in the circumstances or because he took an even more right wing position. Of course there was also the couple on which you were actually in error. But the thing to remember, as I've said a couple of times. "Right-Wing" is not a point on a spectrum, its an end of the continuom. Just because you're off by one or two points that can be a compromise with reality rather than a wholesale betrayal of your political position. e.g. Whether we get a liberal or conservative gov't once Bush is out. Taxes will have to go up. We've got a huge bill to pay off. You can't hide that behind an ideology.

Ok, let' s try in other way...

Right-wing - individual is most important.
Left-wing - most important is state.

RW - human life is most important.
LW - human life isn' t so important, so we can legalise abortion, euthanasia, compulsory military service.

RW - human should carry himself.
LW - human should be carry by state (social werfare, education, medical aid).

RW - less law, more freedom.
LW - more law, less freedom.

RW - more money for companies, less money for state budget (low taxes).
LW - more money for state budget, less money left in companies (high taxes).

And so on.

III Reich was OBVIOUSLY left-winged state.

About penalty of death... See, murderer by killing just isn' t human anymore and human rights doesn' t apply to him. He must be killed, because if not, he could kill more humans. Let' s say, we judge murderer to spend all his life in jail. Now he can kill without any fear, because we cannot judge him again for all-life jail! In this way we protect others people lifes. And least but not last - justice MUST be satisfied. You killed - You must die. Life for life.
Now I see the problem...

Now I see the problem...
You didn't see it in the thread title? ;)

You didn't see it in the thread title? ;)
I thought the title was trying to be ironic...

Yes it is. It's absolutely central. Learn about capitalism before you criticize it.

even if it was central to capitalism (which it isn't), capitalism itself is merely one branch of the right-wing.

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)

The are very far right wing.

They are highly conservative so they are reactionaries. Very lawful and strict. They are not liberals in any sense.

Ok, let' s try in other way...

Right-wing - individual is most important.
Left-wing - most important is state.

Incorrect. In the center individuals are important. Far-right state is most important. Far left social strata is most important with the ultimate goal of the state being abolished. The communist "national anthem" was called the International for a reason.

RW - human life is most important.
LW - human life isn' t so important, so we can legalise abortion, euthanasia, compulsory military service.

Incorrect. RW property is most important. Far right state can do anything to protect the people with the most property including killing people who threaten the sanctity of property. It's an "ownership society."

...

And so on.

III Reich was OBVIOUSLY left-winged state.

About penalty of death... See, murderer by killing just isn' t human anymore and human rights doesn' t apply to him. He must be killed, because if not, he could kill more humans. Let' s say, we judge murderer to spend all his life in jail. Now he can kill without any fear, because we cannot judge him again for all-life jail! In this way we protect others people lifes. And least but not last - justice MUST be satisfied. You killed - You must die. Life for life.

I'm not going to keep going point by point because it's clear that all your points are based on the fallacy of comparing far-left totalitarian failed-states with center right idealized states. i.e. It's bullshit.

even if it was central to capitalism (which it isn't), capitalism itself is merely one branch of the right-wing.

Capitalism is not a left-wing/right-wing thing. It's merely an economic reality. Free-market economics is a right wing thing.

Adam Smith's capitalism is merely recognizing the fact that specialized labor leads to greater wealth than trying to do it all yourself. It's a reality that has to be faced. If you take a look at the evolution of agricultural economics of rice and silk production in China (it was almost totally internal so it produces a nice studyable microcosm) you'll see that it plays out the same way even without Adam Smith's chronicling of it.

He points out that when governments try to control this process they often get it wrong and that more money will come to a country by letting it run its course and simply taxing the proceeds. It's like trying to garden wild plants. Human intervention often produces unexpected and undesireable consequences.

Also worth noting is that he points out that when business interests grow powerful they will act to limit competition just as the government will. The one thing that governments can do well and easily is break up these large business groups to restore competition. Just like Teddy Roosevelt did with Standard Oil.

I dont knw if I only managed to read the idiots in this thread or what happened.

I want to make some statements.

Right Wing, i.e. Conservative--will not seek to break the status qou by murdering millions.

Left Wing, i.e. Liberal --will not seek to further a progressive agenda of multiculturalism and Solcialist ideals by comminting genocide.

So if you have imprinted American Political concepts on the Labels Rigth Wing/LeftWing as they would apply to Nazis and included the mention of Genocide you are officially an idiot. Without exception.

Yes, Nationalism as seen in the Nazi Party is an atribute typically associated with most Right Wing Parties Everywhere.

Yes Nationalization of National Resources and INdustries is typical of Leftist (Socialist) Part Governments everywhere.

Yes the NAZIs were indeed National Socialists.

However with adoption of a bastardization of Facism they became Right Wing, were their actions Right Wing?
To some extent yes.
If you are ignorant enough to consider the Holocaust the Actions of All Right Wing Parties then you are officially and Idiot--without exception.

Because That would mean that the 30 odd million Soviet Jews,Gypsies, Catholics, Cossacks, Georgians, who were murdered at Stalins hands were killed typical of Left Wing politics.----which it is not.

The Nazis, or rather their leaders ...were of the Evil-Maniac-Self-Serving-Monster-bent-on-Power-and-Immortality in the-HistoryBooks Party.

About penalty of death... See, murderer by killing just isn' t human anymore and human rights doesn' t apply to him. He must be killed, because if not, he could kill more humans. Let' s say, we judge murderer to spend all his life in jail. Now he can kill without any fear, because we cannot judge him again for all-life jail! In this way we protect others people lifes. And least but not last - justice MUST be satisfied. You killed - You must die. Life for life.

Defining who's human and who isn't. Big right-wing thing. To you being human stops when you kill someone. Even though humans have been killing eachother as long as we've existed.

To the Nazi's being human stopped where being German stopped.

To hard-right American's being human stops where being Republican stops.

Nazi's, Bushites, you. All right-wingers.

Isn't there more to this that it being either left or right ring?

There are numerous ways to measure the political spectrum now, not just the straight line, but also in a cross way too. Here's one. (http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/2792/chartpolitical9uk.gif)

I was told that the Nazi's aren't right wing, they're Authoritarian Left, and according to the graph above, thats far left...and up ish.

But then again....it has socialism as right-wing.....:confused: Shit.

Defining who's human and who isn't. Big right-wing thing. To you being human stops when you kill someone. Even though humans have been killing eachother as long as we've existed.

To the Nazi's being human stopped where being German stopped.

To hard-right American's being human stops where being Republican stops.

Nazi's, Bushites, you. All right-wingers.
A clear example of my points is this poster here.

There are numerous ways to measure the political spectrum now, not just the straight line, but also in a cross way too. Here's one. (http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/2792/chartpolitical9uk.gif)

Why does that scale have Anarchists in the free-market capitalist area when Anarchism is a branch of socialism, and many Anarchists are also communists?

Why does that scale have Anarchists in the free-market capitalist area when Anarchism is a branch of socialism, and many Anarchists are also communists?

Anarchies are hardly communist. Its a breakdown of all forms of government.

Why does that scale have Anarchists in the free-market capitalist area when Anarchism is a branch of socialism, and many Anarchists are also communists?
Because Most Anarchist are not purists, and Anarchy is the most free of freemarkets.

Why does that scale have Anarchists in the free-market capitalist area when Anarchism is a branch of socialism, and many Anarchists are also communists?
They are in the libertarian area and are basically the ultimate libertarians.

Isn't there more to this that it being either left or right ring?

There are numerous ways to measure the political spectrum now, not just the straight line, but also in a cross way too. Here's one. (http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/2792/chartpolitical9uk.gif)

I was told that the Nazi's aren't right wing, they're Authoritarian Left, and according to the graph above, thats far left...and up ish.

But then again....it has socialism as right-wing.....:confused: Shit.
No it hasthe NAZIs exactly where they are supposed to be....that chart is not broken into right or left it is broken into what relates to what.

The NAZIs while calling themselves Socialists were a Twist on Facism.

even if it was central to capitalism (which it isn't), capitalism itself is merely one branch of the right-wing.

It you don't have the rule of law, free markets don't work properly.

Why does that scale have Anarchists in the free-market capitalist area when Anarchism is a branch of socialism, and many Anarchists are also communists?
This going to be half-baked, but I'll give it a shot. Anarchy is like free-market capitalist because only without government, will we have true free-market - uh - ism. Then again, the corporation would become the government and the world would devolve into somesort of feudalist corporate battlefield, but remember, this is only half-baked.

Anarchies are hardly communist. Its a breakdown of all forms of government.

Actually Anarchism is a star-shaped pie, with oozing red insides and burnt black crusts.

actually he is semi-right

First of all
a) Socially, the nazi's and the commie's are on the exact same level
b) Economically, the communists were far-left with complete control over the economy. The nazi's on the other hand had a center-wing approach to the economy(not right wing approach)

So it depends which one you are looking at(socially or economically). A good term to use could be "Far-center" lol

A clear example of my points is this poster here.

I'll admit that that one was a bit snarky, but I'm as frustrated as you are at the nonsense I've been seeing here.

I've tried the point by point thing, but whenever points are refuted, they go ignored.

If you've got something to say about one of my earlier posts I'd like to hear it.

While your points about what the left and right wouldn't do applies to center left/right movements, when they go far one way or another then some ideals get sacrificed for others. Take a look at the cultural revolution of China. In the effort to get people into the 20 century and create a culture of equality they destroyed anything that represented their cultural heritage and ended up creating an upsidedown social hierarchy.

Nazi's did the same thing in the other direction. By going so far to an extreme they became more and more willing to make unconscienable compromises for their idealized goal. The issue of this thread is was it insanely to the right or insanely to the left. That's why I pointed out that left and right are not points, in which case you'd have been right about what they don't do, but they're directions upon which you're likely to pass all sorts of crazy things.

It's like saying that Florida must be South because it's warm, and warm is in the south. Well that's only true until you pass the Florida keys. Then Florida is north. Just like Siberia and Alaska.

Wow! A right-wing nutjob trying to imply that all dictatorships are left wing and that right wing is by definition democracy. How original. :rolleyes:

It you don't have the rule of law, free markets don't work properly.
Wrong, freemarkets dont work properly because of law.

actually he is semi-right

First of all
a) Socially, the nazi's and the commie's are on the exact same level
b) Economically, the communists were far-left with complete control over the economy. The nazi's on the other hand had a center-wing approach to the economy(not right wing approach)

So it depends which one you are looking at(socially or economically). A good term to use could be "Far-center" lol

How were the Nazi's center wing? Their clamp down on labor unions and salary caps smacks of right-wing authoritarianism and pro-corporate partisanship.

I've always heard that they were split. Some Nazis opposed capitalism and could presumably be considered socialist; others supported it a great deal. In any case, the name means little and I think it's partly a hold-over from the days when it really was a socialist party (the German Worker's Party or something).

Capitalism is not a left-wing/right-wing thing. It's merely an economic reality. Free-market economics is a right wing thing.

actually, real free marketeers can just as well be leftists as rightists - it kind of depends on what ends they hope to achieve and how they plan to get there.

most righties that talk about 'the free market' are just fucking around with words. they all seem to want to privilege the elite even more and skew the power relations even further against the average person. hence the strange spectacle of 'libertarians' consistently voting republican and calling for unions to be outlawed. to quote kevin carson (http://www.mutualist.org/id71.html),

This school of libertarianism has inscribed on its banner the reactionary watchword: "Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get." For every imaginable policy issue, the good guys and bad guys can be predicted with ease, by simply inverting the slogan of Animal Farm: "Two legs good, four legs baaaad." In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury. As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse."

The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.

Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article in The Freeman arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."

This going to be half-baked, but I'll give it a shot. Anarchy is like free-market capitalist because only without government, will we have true free-market - uh - ism. Then again, the corporation would become the government and the world would devolve into somesort of feudalist corporate battlefield, but remember, this is only half-baked.

Wrong. This is about as far from anarchist thought as possible. Anarchism is the destruction of both the state and capital. What you are discussing is some kind of capitalist minarchist horrorshow. It's not half-baked, it's just plain wrong.

Read Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman. That's anarchism.

It you don't have the rule of law, free markets don't work properly.

and what does the 'rule of law' have to do with 'equality before the law'? the law can still rule while treating people inequally. it usually does.


and for that matter, what do 'free markets' have to do with 'capitalism'?

Why does that scale have Anarchists in the free-market capitalist area when Anarchism is a branch of socialism, and many Anarchists are also communists?

'cause words are hard

Wrong, freemarkets dont work properly because of law.
Agreed

Wrong. This is about as far from anarchist thought as possible. Anarchism is the destruction of both the state and capital. What you are discussing is some kind of capitalist minarchist horrorshow. It's not half-baked, it's just plain wrong.

and ideally communism means equality, doesn't mean that's how it turns out. i would say marieham is closer: anarchy makes a power vaccuum, makes capitalist minarchist horrorshow (which was awesome btw).

Division between left and right breaks down as you reach total government control or total anarchism. The political spectrum therefore could be seen as a diamond, with authoritarianism at the top, anarchism at the bottom, and left and right representing civil freedom emphasis and economic freedom emphasis (or economic control and civil control) respectively. Hitler was very pro civil control, but he was also for signifigant (although not near complete) economic control, which would place him at the top-right edge and a point or two towards the top. Stalin would be at the very top, because he was for both firm civil and economic control. That would place hitler to the right of stalin. But they were both authoritarians, so it's really a matter of semantics.

Wrong, freemarkets dont work properly because of law.

Verily so. After all, the word 'free' in free-market indicates that there are no limitations to it. And laws are limitations.

Simple.

and ideally communism means equality, doesn't mean that's how it turns out. i would say marieham is closer: anarchy makes a power vaccuum, makes capitalist minarchist horrorshow (which was awesome btw).

No, no, no. We (and by "we" I mean Refused Party Program, the Spirit of the Revolution, The Hokus Blokus, The Cosmic Antithesis and all-round Cool Dude) have already established that Anarchism is a kind of pie.

No, no, no. We (and by "we" I mean Refused Party Program, the Spirit of the Revolution, The Hokus Blokus, The Cosmic Antithesis and all-round Cool Dude) have already established that Anarchism is a kind of pie.

well i certainly wouldn't want a vaccuum going into my pie.

i would say marieham is closer: anarchy makes a power vaccuum

round and round and round we go...

would it help if we called it decentralized libertarian federalism? egalitarian associationism?

well i certainly wouldn't want a vaccuum going into my pie.

Why not? I imagine there are all sorts of delicious possibilities for heat retention.

round and round and round we go...

would it help if we called it decentralized libertarian federalism? egalitarian associationism?

I say: stick with anarchy.

'cause words are hard

speaking of which, i read an interesting article recently.

The Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary
Arthur E. Bestor, Jr.
Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jun., 1948) , pp. 259-302 (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-5037%28194806%299%3A3%3C259%3ATEOTSV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M)

you'll need some sort of university library access to get it. or, i suppose, you could ask me for the pdf.

Hopefully this will end this and prove that I was right in saying that the Nazis were both left and right. The following are the difinitions for left and right. Next to it I put where the Nazis stood:


Equality of outcome (left) versus equality of opportunity (right). (neither)
Fairness (left) versus freedom (right). (neither)
Redistribution of wealth and income (left), or acceptance of inequalities as a result of the free market (right). (left)
Whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). (left)
Support for widened lifestyle choices (left), or support for traditional values (right). (right)
Whether the state should prioritise equality (left) or liberty (right). Both the left and the right tend to speak in favor of both equality and liberty - but they have different interpretations. (neither)
Whether human nature is more malleable (left) or intrinsic (right). (right)
Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religious morality (right). (left)
Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right). (left)
Support for internationalism (left), or national interest (right). (right)

round and round and round we go...

would it help if we called it decentralized libertarian federalism? egalitarian associationism?

too many double negatives. i'm going back to my anti-vaccuum pie.

too many double negatives. i'm going back to my anti-vaccuum pie.

See now you're just confusing Anarchism with anti-matter. While on the surface it may seem like a harmless mistake, I wouldn't advise you to tuck into an anti-matter sandwich. There'd be cheese everywhere!

And who would clean up the mess?

In National Socialism the economy and production are controlled not by the people but the nation ie the State. National Socialism does not advocate social equality or equal distribution of wealth, everything is directed towards the benefit of the whole nation.
And this, oddly enough, sounds like paraphrasing of various laughable theories that marxists spout. Wow, what a coincidence.

equality of opportunity (right).
freedom (right).
laissez-faire (right).
liberty (right).
individualism (right).


what right are you talking about? those certainly aren't defining characteristics at all.

Facists are not the same thing as socialists. The name does not mean actual policy. Just as some countries that use the word democratic in their name are not democratic, the Nazis were not really socialists, at least since Hitler took over the party.

Nazi's. They believe so strongly against social welfare that they even outlawed the people's ability to secure their own welfare by limiting wages and outlawing labor unions.


Tell me, what has in common social welfare and limiting wages? Real right-oriented government NEVER limits wages, because about high of the wages shoud decide employer, NOT state.
Nazis outlawed labor unions only because they hated any opposite groups (or, which only COULD be opposite in future). In USSR weren' t labor unions also. Know why? Because all companies were in the hands of state. Remeber this? "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer". And ONE party.


When was this ever a conservative position. Conservatives are the pro-military crowd and the national defense crowd. No conservative would ever oppose conscription in wartime, and the Nazi's entire reason for existence was ensuing war.


Wrong. Conservatives want to have strong army, but an proffesional army. Not compulsory. In Third Reich everything was subordinate to military.


No such thing, but as a slogan it is used by center-left governments to break up large corporations to encourage competition. By center-right governments to limit the damage caused by things like wild-cat strikes and civil service strikes. With far-right gov't like the Nazi's this goes so far as to outlaw unions.


Oh, come on, give me a break. In Third Reich there was NO free market. Everything, including market, was subordinate to government.


Moderate right gov'ts would treat this as a market force and allow them, especially since the business of gov't does not extend to settling petty disputes between workers and employers. The further right you go the more they step in on the side of the employers, like Hitler and Reagan did, the more to the left you go the more they step in on the side of the workers like Mitterand and Mao did.


Wrong again. Unions are natural enemies of capitalism. Look what is going on in France. And again - in normal country NOBODY has right to blockade functioning of my company, just because he wants more money from me. If he dislikes his fee - he should go and find better job. Because of labor unions I cannot fire worker just because I want to do this. Because of strike I' m losing money, I cannot hire other workers in the place of those, who strikes...
In other words - labor unions are ultra-socialistic beings and should be banned.

But Nazis banned them for other reason. Look above.


It would be any Christian church. But yes, the Nazi's were very much in league with the big Christian denominations. Just not the Jehovah's Witnesses


From where You took those informations? In Third Reich, Hitler killed those priests, who weren' t happy of nasism. Just as other opposition. Those, who survived, had to propagate national socialism in the threat of death. Pulpit become another place to spread propaganda. This is, in Your opinion, "being in league witch Church"? Church was under control of nasis just as other things.


Hitler banned abortions for the Germans. It was part of his right-wing "strong traditiona values" thing.


Wrong again. Hitler wanted to have more Germans. More soldiers. Have You ever heard about "Lebensborn" programme? And right oriented politicans outlaw abortion because of sainity of human life. Every life - not only their countrymen. Hitler wanted just produce more soldiers. You see, right oriented people are strongly pro family, they believe in God, which forbids sex without marriage. Hitler ordered young girls to go to bed with SSmans just to get fertilized. It' s really NON right-winged!! State SHOULDN' T even THINK to enter with it' s boots into sphere of human sexuality! More... This was something more like human breed experiment. We, as right-winged, disagree to experiment on humans, embrions, cloning humans and so on. Only left-winged agree to do such things.


There's nothing right-wing about a respect for life.


No comment.


This conflicts with the "strong traditional values thing." The further right that a government goes the more that it sacrifices personal liberty to adherence to tradition. When they go crazy left they sacrifice personal liberty to the removal of outmoded traditions. Like when the Chinese Red Guard drove the Shaolin into exile and destroyed monestaries.


You utterly didn' t understand such things. See, in right oriented state, citizen may do everything until he doesn' t limit somebody' s rights. For example, I cannot go outside with naked ass just because I want to do it, because other people may be indignant by such view (so: their right to morality). When I was talking about tradition I meant that law should be contructed on the foundation of tradition. In our civilisation - the tradition is strongly connected with church and law should be coherent with catholic course.

I don' t know, why You wrote about Red Guard. They hated every religion, just as all communists. No right oriented man would EVER burn any temple, even of religion, which he doesn' t profess.


Perhaps, but all governments raise taxes when the need arises. Fiduciary necessity cannot be used to define political alignment. All that can be used is what the gov't considers to be a need. Right-wing - law enforcement and military spending, left-wing social spending.


What? You' re thinking, that the point of view od taxes CANNOT be used to define political alingment? Oh my GOD! Have You ever heard, that taxes come from people and companies? If state TAKES NOT a lot of money - they can spend them or ivest them. When state takes a lot - they cannot spend them nor invest them! Point of view about taxes is MOST IMPORTANT criterion to tell, if this party is left or right oriented!!!!!!!!! You see, left oriented says: most important is budget! The bigger, the better! Right oriented says: most important is to keep hands off of citizens pockets! The lower budget, more money stay in citizens pockets. It' s so obvious!


Nazi's were big on military and police spending. But again, this is a point on the scale, not the entire right side of the spectrum.


So what? Soviets also spent a lot of money for milice and military. Big part of that money went to Gestapo (political police), which was raised to fight with opposition. And I was talking about fighting with crimes! In normal state (right oriented) there is NO NEED for political police! In socialistic states - always.
And I was talking about proffesional army.


The Germans had the right to own guns in Nazi Germany. Everyone else was considered a potential terrorist.


And very good. But again - only Germans... People should be equal for law. No matter nationality. Only socialism splits humans for better and worse. In USSR for workers (good) and inteligents (bad), in Germany for Germans (good) and others (bad).


Nazi's went one better. Germans had the right to kill in self defense, in defense of property


Very good!


or because they felt like it. As long as the killed was non-German.


This is NOT self-defence, but murder. Again - spliting humans for Germans and others.


Yup here too. Death penalty for murder, complaining about Hitler, being Jewish. Nazi's loved the death penalty.


Bolsheviks loved MORE.

But there is one BIG diffrence: we' re talking about death penalty for MURDER,
predicated by independent court. And nazis just killed people because they had bussines in that. Just like every red motherfuckers (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot).


Nazi's loved small government. They removed the entire legislative branch.


So? And made hundreds of own departments with thousands of officers.


Well, I've done it.


You didn' t.


Hitler did almost all of those things, and the things he didn't it was either because it was impossible in the circumstances or because he took an even more right wing position.


As You can see - he did NOT. Everything what he made was very, very, very socialistic.


Of course there was also the couple on which you were actually in error.


Where?

See now you're just confusing Anarchism with anti-matter. While on the surface it may seem like a harmless mistake, I wouldn't advise you to tuck into an anti-matter sandwich. There'd be cheese everywhere!

And who would clean up the mess?

actually, anarchy is accepted as the absence of affectionate administrators, allowing alliterate assumptions of an anti-vaccuum's appetizing appearance.

thus, clearly, the anarchy pie is filled with a delightfully sweet antivaccuum (although it could be sprinkled with antimatter).

actually, anarchy is accepted as the absence of affectionate administrators, allowing alliterate assumptions of an anti-vaccuum's appetizing appearance.

thus, clearly, the anarchy pie is filled with a delightfully sweet vaccuum (although it could be sprinkled with antimatter).
All I know is that this man http://www.sean-o-meter.com/archives/anarchist-vampire2-thumb.gif, had much too much pie.

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.



Oh no, here we go again. The same old gibberish again.

Click here (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm) to dispell the myth of "Hitler was a Leftist".

Both (real) Socialists and Facists are Authoritarian not Libertarian. Socialists are left authoritarian. Facists are right authoritarian. Neither believe in the free market. Hear that? Neither! Anarchists are libertarian. There are libertarian left and libertarian right. Generally, anarchists are left wing because ther cannot be much nationalism with out a government. In the US, all one hears about is libertarian right, so the term libertarian becomes cofused with libertarian right as if they were the same thing. :headbang:
There haven't been any true communists states. The closest to communism anyone came is the early Christian Church spoken about in Acts. People like to claim they are communists because then it sounds like they care about the people. Most who claim to be communists are actually socialists.
Real right wing is about nationalism, not religion. Just because they coincide in the US presently does not mean that they ever have before or will in the future here or anywhere else.
Who really believes that Hitler was pro-life? :confused: Concentration camps, mass exectutions, killing of the infirm and retarded, et cetera. Hitler may have been on of the most pro-death people ever.

This whole thread is an example of the failure of the Public School System in the United States. Liberal education professionals have turned out students that truly believe that Hitler was a right wing fanatic, and somehow different from Stalin. The one thing they have in common, that cannot be disputed, is that they where dictators for life. How many dictators can anyone name that allowed the free enterprize system to grow and develop? Liberals like to label conservatives as pro big business; If Hitler was a right wing conservative he failed big on this one.

How many dictators like to control the day to day activities of business? Like wages, who will work where, price controls, free health care for all. And then to make sure they remain in office, no ownership of guns, no prayer in schools, and all protestors to be jailed or shot. Hitler and Stalin both fit this discription.

Hitler and Stalin were even buddies for awhile and agreed to divide up Poland and not make war on one another. It would not make sence that one would be extreme right wing, and one would be extreme left wing, and still be allies.

Wrong. This is about as far from anarchist thought as possible. Anarchism is the destruction of both the state and capital. What you are discussing is some kind of capitalist minarchist horrorshow. It's not half-baked, it's just plain wrong.
State, check. Now about that capital ... oh, OK, about another half-hour.
Read Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman. That's anarchism.
Emma Goldman got a one way ticket to the USSR, didn't she? That's not anarchism.
and ideally communism means equality, doesn't mean that's how it turns out. i would say marieham is closer: anarchy makes a power vaccuum, makes capitalist minarchist horrorshow ...
Don't you remember the recipie?! It syas right here, "Rinse out all reality that is present in the pie with battery acid." Oh, and only if the pie's in the oven for only one half-hour.
(which was awesome btw).
I'm trying to work it into my dogma.

The one thing they have in common, that cannot be disputed, is that they where dictators for life.This is very literally the one thing they had in common - they were power-hungry dictators. Their stated ideologies, however, were quite distinct. Liberals like to label conservatives as pro big business; If Hitler was a right wing conservative he failed big on this oneActually, Hitler and the Nazi Party worked hard to promote big business. Anti-union measures, wage ceilings, etc, were designed to keep production costs down. Industries were - almost universally - not nationalized, but allowed to remain in [non-Jewish] private hands. Large businesses in friendly hands benefitted (http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-urban-f05.htm) from the Nazis' moves.

It is also a good idea to look at the ideology of facism - often described as the "corporate state," and also very often described as a reaction to the rise of communism and socialism on the left.

There are, then, several key "right-wing" components shared by facists and by modern conservatives:
Nationalism.
Friendly to corporations and other such institions.
Antipathy towards socialists, communists, and labor unions.
Militarism.
Many modern "conservatives," depending on the use of the term, also believe in a number of other things not included in facism; however, if we are to divide between left and right, Hitler clearly fell on the right in most regards; he drew his support primarily from those identified as conservative or reactionary in that day and age.Hitler and Stalin were even buddies for awhile and agreed to divide up Poland and not make war on one another. It would not make sence that one would be extreme right wing, and one would be extreme left wing, and still be allies.Historical analysis suggests that Stalin was being a land-hungry dupe making a bad deal with someone who intended all along to stab the "dirty communists" in the back... and probably intended to stab Hitler in the back in 1942, but got caught by surprise.

Politics makes strange bedfellows; for example, during the Cold War, communist Yugoslavia was considered on the US's side, thanks to fallings-out with the USSR.

Okay. I'm going to try and kill this thread.

Left-wing and right-wing are subjective descriptions. My definition is that anybody who is a socialist is left-wing and anybody who supports any form of free market is right-wing. To me the nazis are not left-wing because they did not end capitalism. They changed it's nature by having it more subordinate to the needs of the state (which seems pretty damn similar to a lot of war economies to me) but they hardly established socialism.

So to me, nazis are right-wing.

Now, some people say the nazis were left-wing. These tend to the people who say liberals are left-wing. This is because they are unable to comprehend any system other than capitalism and subsequently have a sliding left-right scale limited by what they see around them. To the left they picture those who want a capitalism with some regulations (liberals, social-democrats, nazis) and on the right they put themselves. Grrreat.

My god I'm tired. if this post rambles/makes no sense i apologise.

And if you care to look at the link Trevor posted, it covers everything in much more exhaustive detail than I did.

Emma Goldman got a one way ticket to the USSR, didn't she? That's not anarchism.

wait, what?

wait, what?
Emma Goldman, recieved a ticket, curtousy of the United States of America, to the USSR durring the First Red Scare shortly after World War I. That's not anarchism. That's exile. Is that even coherent? Bah, nevermind, the point remains: People are not anarchism.

Emma Goldman, recieved a ticket, curtousy of the United States of America, to the USSR durring the First Red Scare shortly after World War I. That's not anarchism. That's exile. Is that even coherent? Bah, nevermind, the point remains: People are not anarchism.
No. No it isn't. Anarchists and Communists were birds of a feather to scaremongering capitalists during the first red scare.

Original poster - Thankyou.

The Nazis institutionalised business and brought about complete state control (note that control is different to ownership only in principle and not really in practise) of the means of production. They were undoubtably socialists. The fact is that despite what today's skewed left-right political definitions say, socialists are authoritarians and capitalists are liberals. A lot of people dont like liberty. It allows people to, say, smoke cigarettes, own guns, drive cars, start businesses and all sorts of other things that are potentially harmful / some people dislike. It's fine to want to ban those things - I believe that that should be your right - just don't pretend that you're liberal while doing it, and certainly don't pretend that everyone else is authoritarian for opposing you.

Emma Goldman, recieved a ticket, curtousy of the United States of America, to the USSR durring the First Red Scare shortly after World War I. That's not anarchism. That's exile.

actually, that's called 'the red scare' or 'getting deported'

No. No it isn't. Anarchists and Communists were birds of a feather to scaremongering capitalists during the first red scare.
I was merely referring to Emma Goldmans removal from the States, who happens to be described as an anarcho-communist. But one must admit, bombs in the freaking mail is something that I only thought would happen today. Looks like those folks scaremongering in the '20s were quite before their times.
actually, that's called 'the red scare' or 'getting deported'
I was merely referring to Emma Goldmans removal from the States. You're right, it was deportion. One cannot exile a foreigner.

Ah, since y'all aren't getting it, I'm toying with grammar. A person cannot be anarchism. However, they can be an anarchist. Sheez, thinkin' I'm all serious and stuff. I will admit that I learned the proper definitions of "exile" and "deportion" though.

It will be a great day when neo-nazis and fascists will start voting and supporting left wing parties and organizations. :)

if national socializmus /nazi/ is"far right and international communismus is 'far left' but in general there is no difference, why not to say nazi is far left wing.
if A = B and B = C mins A = C

Not at all! You just DON' T know the basis of right-wing!

Nasism is strongly socialistic-oriented system!

Nationalisation of fabrics, the nation is superior at rights of individual, complete lack of law obey in the country (Hitler could appoint (by decrets) anything, even if those decrets would be inconsistent with constitution!), complete lack of respect for human life, operssion of Catholic Church, no free market, racism - You call THIS right-wing??

Come on! Be serious... It' s exactly opposition of right-wing!

The cause was reactionary, which is perhaps a good definition of right wing.

You might protest that the reforms you mention are radical and therefore not reactionary. I would say that desperate times call for desperate measures and that the reactionary values of respect of hiearchies, law and order, conformaty and capitalist markets were falling apart. Fascism was therefore a radical solution for a conservative cause in radically changing times.

This is why it is far better to conceptualize the political spectrum as a circle or a grid rather than a line from left to right. Because at the end of the day, the realities are far too complex to just plot people along a one-dimensional line.

Just because Nazis advocated for state intervention in the economy does not make them socialists. Many right of centre ideologies advocate protectionism and state intervention: nationalism is one of them. Not all "right-wingers" are capitalists. Capitalism is the economic idelogy of classical liberals, not conservatives (even if some "conservatives" have adopted it) and certainly not nationalists.

Because of the way fascism developed, it does indeed contain some elements that are similar to socialism. That does not mean they are one and the same. It contains many elements that are similar to conservatism as well.

Not completely wrong at all - does anyone here know where the phrase "right wing" comes from?

I revolutionary Paris, the delegates arranged themselves from right to left in order of increasing radicalness.

This is why it is far better to conceptualize the political spectrum as a circle or a grid rather than a line from left to right. Because at the end of the day, the realities are far too complex to just plot people along a one-dimensional line.

Just because Nazis advocated for state intervention in the economy does not make them socialists. Many right of centre ideologies advocate protectionism and state intervention: nationalism is one of them. Not all "right-wingers" are capitalists. Capitalism is the economic idelogy of classical liberals, not conservatives (even if some "conservatives" have adopted it) and certainly not nationalists.

Because of the way fascism developed, it does indeed contain some elements that are similar to socialism. That does not mean they are one and the same. It contains many elements that are similar to conservatism as well.

Whilst I agree, I think the orthadox spectrum should not be completely discredited.


The cause was reactionary, which is perhaps a good definition of right wing.
Excuse me repeating myeslf, but reactionary values of respect of hiearchies, law and order, conformaty and capitalist markets can be considered right wing and fascism is usually invoked when these values are in crisis a radical solution to preserve them is required. It is sacrificing some ideals of the right to preserve the core values of the right.

Both Fascism and Nazism are antitheses of Socialism. Why people refuse to understand that, I have no idea.

Two things to read:
a) This Text. (http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/mussolini-fascism.html)
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
b) "Mein Kampf" by Hitler.

Whilst I agree, I think the orthadox spectrum should not be completely discredited.


The cause was reactionary, which is perhaps a good definition of right wing.
Excuse me repeating myeslf, but reactionary values of respect of hiearchies, law and order, conformaty and capitalist markets can be considered right wing and fascism is usually invoked when these values are in crisis a radical solution to preserve them is required. It is sacrificing some ideals of the right to preserve the core values of the right.

I agree that the left-right spectrum does have some value as an explanatory tool, but its value is limited. Any more nuanced discussion of politics needs a better tool.

I'm not sure if I agree that right-wing is necessarily reactionary. I think what is reactionary depends on who is in power. For example, in the former Soviet Union, the hard-line communists could probably have been described as reactionary.

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)

LOL. You're using the name the Nazis themselves gave their party as evidence? Don't be fooled. Hitler and company picked a name for their party that sounded good to the people; it in no way shape or form represented their views. The Nazis hated communists, Marxists, etc. with a vengeance, and it doesn't get any further right-wing (on the social axis) than authoritarian social interference and intolerance enforced by hideously draconian "justice".

Right wing or not... Nazism is populism in its most purest of forms. Perhaps one of the darkest pages of human history and the most grotesque and horrifying of human concoctions.

NEVER AGAIN.

I'll admit that that one was a bit snarky, but I'm as frustrated as you are at the nonsense I've been seeing here.

I've tried the point by point thing, but whenever points are refuted, they go ignored.

If you've got something to say about one of my earlier posts I'd like to hear it.

While your points about what the left and right wouldn't do applies to center left/right movements, when they go far one way or another then some ideals get sacrificed for others. Take a look at the cultural revolution of China. In the effort to get people into the 20 century and create a culture of equality they destroyed anything that represented their cultural heritage and ended up creating an upsidedown social hierarchy.

Nazi's did the same thing in the other direction. By going so far to an extreme they became more and more willing to make unconscienable compromises for their idealized goal. The issue of this thread is was it insanely to the right or insanely to the left. That's why I pointed out that left and right are not points, in which case you'd have been right about what they don't do, but they're directions upon which you're likely to pass all sorts of crazy things.

It's like saying that Florida must be South because it's warm, and warm is in the south. Well that's only true until you pass the Florida keys. Then Florida is north. Just like Siberia and Alaska.

So abandon the Linear thinking and percieve the front center---the centrist the moderate....and on the other side of the circle...the Extremist.

Right Wing Extremists look no differnt then Left Wing Extremists.
Communist Murderers, Look no Different then Facist Murderers.

You choose to asail the American Right Wing party in a Comparison to NAZISM.
Hence I lumped into my Official Idiots category.

Right Wing Conservative Americans are fluffy liberal kittens compared to Conservative Europeans. So attaching a Concept of the Day to the entire Historical model is wrong.

Extremists are bad, period.

Fundamentalist are not always bad, unless they are EXTREME Fundamentalists.
Nazi, Communist, Capitalist, Zionist, whatever Ist or Ism you choose is a carbon of the others when brought to extremes.

This whole thread is an example of the failure of the Public School System in the United States. Liberal education professionals have turned out students that truly believe that Hitler was a right wing fanatic, and somehow different from Stalin. The one thing they have in common, that cannot be disputed, is that they where dictators for life. How many dictators can anyone name that allowed the free enterprize system to grow and develop? Liberals like to label conservatives as pro big business; If Hitler was a right wing conservative he failed big on this one.

How many dictators like to control the day to day activities of business? Like wages, who will work where, price controls, free health care for all. And then to make sure they remain in office, no ownership of guns, no prayer in schools, and all protestors to be jailed or shot. Hitler and Stalin both fit this discription.

Hitler and Stalin were even buddies for awhile and agreed to divide up Poland and not make war on one another. It would not make sence that one would be extreme right wing, and one would be extreme left wing, and still be allies.

But Hitler was considered to be good for business and good for the German economy.

Right Wing Extremists look no differnt then Left Wing Extremists.

except in terms of ideology, motivations, goals, means, base of support, tactics, etc.

Leftist and rightist as mention came out of the French revolution. The Royalists tended to sit on the right of the assembly while the republicans sat to the left. They were both considered radicals with extreme views. The centrists which most people are, tended to sit between the radical elements. The centrists wanted to keep a constituional monarchy. So rightist means to return or hold to a traditional policy while leftist means to alter the policy.

To categorize a party you have to look at the history of the country at the time. Nazi Germany had a right wing foreign policy because it wanted to revise the Versalles (sp?) Treaty of 1918. It's internal policies were leftist.(Government regulation of major business for the war effort for example was very new and non-traditional).

In American politics domestic issues are traditionally defined by the extent of Federal government control. More Federal control is considered Leftist and less is Rightist. This is because the American Constitution rigidly limited the power of the federal government. American Foreign policy is determined by the amount of foriegn involvement. Rightist have been historically isolationist, while leftists traditionally in favor of foreign involvement.

So interestingly the current American President should be considered a leftist since he favors extending Fededral government control and also foreign intervention.

So interestingly the current American President should be considered a leftist since he favors extending Fededral government control and also foreign intervention.

Which I think illustrates the drawbacks of a one-dimensional political spectrum.

Listen, I think that we can all agree(with the exception of the Neo-Nazis(I KNOW THERE ARE SOME!) here), left-wing or right-wing, communist or fascist, etc, that Adolf Hitler(and indeed, most of the Nazi Party that followed him), Joseph Stalin, and all of those dictators and genocidal maniacs are evil.

Rightist have been historically isolationist, while leftists traditionally in favor of foreign involvement.

and thus do you make the ancien regime into a bunch of commies...

except in terms of ideology, motivations, goals, means, base of support, tactics, etc.
Really?
Stalin was Differnt then Hitler?
Pol Pot to Pinochet?

Chiang Kai Shiak to Mao?

I see no difference beyond symantics....However I am certain there are plenty of Official Idiots here who try to claim the side of the equation they lay upon is not as bad the opposite.

Extremism is the great equalizer in its madness.

Your Handle is pure poetic irony if you somehow believe that one side is better or more correct then another side.

The problem is the political line isn't a line---it's a circle. If you start as a moderate at the top of the circle and go left, you work your way to communism at the bottom. If you start at the top of the circle and go right, you work your way to nazi at the bottom. Once you reach the bottom of the circle the left communists aren't far from the right nazis.

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)
this is kind of unrelated, but i really don't like people who hate for the sake of hating.

Really?
Stalin was Differnt then Hitler?
Pol Pot to Pinochet?

Chiang Kai Shiak to Mao?

I see no difference beyond symantics

look harder - even in terms of body count alone (which is really where the similarities begin and end), some are worse than others. but they are different on all sorts of levels; from the deep philosophical difference in their theory to the mundane minute of daily life under their regimes.

Your Handle is pure poetic irony if you somehow believe that one side is better or more correct then another side.

how so?

Right wing or not... Nazism is populism in its most purest of forms. Perhaps one of the darkest pages of human history and the most grotesque and horrifying of human concoctions.

NEVER AGAIN.
Left wing or not... comunizm is populism in its reachest form. The darkest page of human history.

NEVER AGAIN.
what is ok? left wing or right wing:headbang:

Ok, heres what I know:

Nazism:

THIS IS NOT A FORM OF SOCIALISM! Adolf Hitler had the Social Demcrats imprisoned, upon gaining power. Nazism uses the illusion, that it operates on a basis of socialism. But really, the main basis of Nazism is Nationialism. Taking pride in ones country, language and people. Unfortunetly, Nazism is agressive nationailism, in which people of specified ethnic groups/religions are the ones to blame for all of Germany's problems, and are too inferior to be given the right to live. Which flows into facisim. Nazism, in my opinion is a mixture of Nationalism/Facism. These political systems, incompass th radical right, making Nazis, right wing politicians.

Communism:

A patriotic idea of the elimination of all social classes. A virtuous idea indeed. However, due to us humans, are in a preptual state of the inablilty to reach perfection, Communism became polluted, and in a sense, a State Mafia. One party, headed by its General Secretary holds power. (A Totalirian Dictatorship if you will) All policies made are put into action and if opposed, the party may deal with the opposition as it sees fit (Gulags) Communism is an extreme form of Socialism. Therefore, they would be considered the radical left.

That's a very communist-apologist post. Regardless of your personal views on Communism (I personally think a society where no one is allowed to progress above the mean sounds more like a tyranny than a "virtuous idea indeed", but whatever), the German Nazis (and you must remember that "Nazi" is a mere abreviation for "National Socialist") took ultimate control of all industry. This is undeniably socialist. The Nazis did all they could not primarily to improve the economy but to get people in work. This is undeniably socialist. Nazi economics was socialist, their outlook was socialist. They were closer to Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" than anything. Look at their successors. The BNP, for example, want to increase state power and investment in welfare substantially. They want people like the Social Democrats imprisoned because, like Stalin, they are not Democratic.

You must also remember that Stalin, just like Lenin (who also oversaw mass-killings), honestly believed in the ideals of Communism, and he certainly tried to implement them - collectivising farms and taking over factories, asigning their production and creating an internal Warsaw Pact economy controlled by the state. The fact is that people simply do not like this, because it is tyranny and so many rebelled against it, and ended up in Gulags. Ended up in Gulags not just because they opposed the state, but because Stalin honestly believed that the state was the only tool by which Communism could be implemented.

what right are you talking about? those certainly aren't defining characteristics at all.
Political Spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum)

You consider nazis as the ulimate right-wing. THEY ARE NOT. The closest goverment to the ulimate ring-wing is the US.

Really?
Stalin was Differnt then Hitler?
Pol Pot to Pinochet?

Chiang Kai Shiak to Mao?


Stalin... came to power thanks to extreme poverty in Russia following US led invasion of Russia by 14 countries, causing hunger, disease and massive loss of life.

Hitler... backed by US funds (see grandfather Bush). Allowed free run by the US so that it could destroy USSR, until the tide changed and the USSR looked like liberating all of Europe, thus ending US influence in Europe forever. At this stage, US intervenes.

Mao... adherant of anti-socialist Stalinist ideology, that would never have existed had the US not devastated Soviet Russia during the Civil War.

Khmer Rouge... trained by the CIA in Thailand and funded well into the '90's following the Viet Cong's overthrow of Pol Pot.

Pinochet... brought to power during bloody coup backed by the CIA.

Chiang Kai Shek... backed and funded by the US.

Saddam Hussein... brought to power, armed and backed by the US until he no longer served their interests.

Saud Royal Family... backed by US.

King Gyanendra... backed and armed by the US.

Shah of Iran... backed and brought to power by USA

Fujimori... backed by the USA

The Taliban... backed and armed by the USA in secret war against USSR

Yeah.............. come to think of it, a lot of dictators have common links... Let's just be glad other US backed groups like the Northern Alliance, Kosovo Liberation Army and the Contras never managed to take state power...

Which I think illustrates the drawbacks of a one-dimensional political spectrum.
Agreed.

I think this entire thread illustrates the drawbacks of a one dimensional polital spectrum.

Agreed.

I think this entire thread illustrates the drawbacks of a one dimensional polital spectrum.

Thanks for the link, BTW.

Just making an observation, but every poltical spectrum I've seen places fascim in the extream right. Nazism, no matter what they called themselves, were fascists, seems that makes them extream Right.

Just making an observation, but every poltical spectrum I've seen places fascim in the extream right. Nazism, no matter what they called themselves, were fascists, seems that makes them extream Right.
But the whole point of this thread is questioning that belief.

But the whole point of this thread is questioning that belief.
Questioning what, though? That Nazi Germany wasn't fascist or that facism isn't right wing?

Questioning what, though? That Nazi Germany wasn't fascist or that facism isn't right wing?
Fascism isn't right wing.

But Hitler was considered to be good for business and good for the German economy.
Nazi Germany was bankrupt in 1939.:rolleyes:

:headbang: Nazi's are insane!!!!!!!! Their political views are insane!!!!!! Ok?:headbang: :headbang:

Stalin was also insane though!

Left wing or not... comunizm is populism in its reachest form. The darkest page of human history.

NEVER AGAIN.
what is ok? left wing or right wing:headbang:

Why is it that people tend to see someone criticising Nazism as being apologetic and sympathetic to Comunism? Why can't we just denounce Nazism for what it is? An atrocious political view that must never again be allowed to manifest itself.

Nazi Germany was bankrupt in 1939.
Really? I thought Hitler took Germeny out of the biggest economic mess it has every been in and made it into a world superpower.

Fascism isn't right wing.
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

And

"the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism... and as rejecting (in democracy) "the absurd conventional lie of political equalitarianism, the habit of collective irresponsibility, the myth of felicity and indefinite progress". - Mussolini, coiner of the term fasicism, dictator of Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

From the article, it would seem that fascism is indeed an extream right wing position, now if Nazism in particular fits in there is another story, though I would tend to lump it in. I think in comparison to other famous mass killers, you're missing the point that both sides can and do head towards totaliterianism. On thr Right, this take the place of the State as supreme organ because the state should be made up of all right thinking folk, meaning that only those like us belong in the elite. The Left makes the State supreme on the notion that only the state can make everyone equal.

Nazism, with its emphasis on racial purity and racial destiny seems to promote the extream right, no matter what it called itself at the time.

Really? I thought Hitler took Germeny out of the biggest economic mess it has every been in and made it into a world superpower.

Prior to 1939 (German territorial expansion and military aspirations) Germany was statistically bankrupt. The only real problem Hitler had solved was unemployment through direct manipulation of statistics. Excluding women from unemployment stats and organising parades, nazi rallies and all other forms of sick pageantry.

The drop in inflation was thanks to the last minute policies of the weimar republic.

Going to war and investing heavily in military machinery and arms manufacturing simply gave Germany a muscle to flex. In terms of real wage gains, Germany saw a slight decrease comparing numbers from 1933-1945.

Really? I thought Hitler took Germeny out of the biggest economic mess it has every been in and made it into a world superpower.

Not really. In the short term yes, with 'New Deal'esqe programs, but the economy would have had problems if not for total war production, and even then it wasn't perfect.

Not really. In the short term yes, with 'New Deal'esqe programs, but the economy would have had problems if not for total war production, and even then it wasn't perfect.
Exactly.

Prior to 1939 (German territorial expansion and military aspirations) Germany was statistically bankrupt. The only real problem Hitler had solved was unemployment through direct manipulation of statistics. Excluding women from unemployment stats and organising parades, nazi rallies and all other forms of sick pageantry.

The drop in inflation was thanks to the last minute policies of the weimar republic.

Going to war and investing heavily in military machinery and arms manufacturing simply gave Germany a muscle to flex. In terms of real wage gains, Germany saw a slight decrease comparing numbers from 1933-1945.

This is much better stated that my post. Yes, manipulating statistics was a Nazi speciality at times, but the stupidest thing was keping women out of the factories. I often wonder what the consequences would have been to the war if women had been allowed in the factories...

From the article, it would seem that fascism is indeed an extream right wing position, now if Nazism in particular fits in there is another story, though I would tend to lump it in. I think in comparison to other famous mass killers, you're missing the point that both sides can and do head towards totaliterianism. On thr Right, this take the place of the State as supreme organ because the state should be made up of all right thinking folk, meaning that only those like us belong in the elite. The Left makes the State supreme on the notion that only the state can make everyone equal.

Nazism, with its emphasis on racial purity and racial destiny seems to promote the extream right, no matter what it called itself at the time.

The wikipedia article you got that from is debatable, as it does not come from a neutral point of view.

Apart from that, you are getting you definition of "right wing" wrong. Something that is right wing doesn't just mean nationalism and traditionalism. It also means freedom from the state and liberty. The nazi German government did not uphold any of these values.

However, like I have said earlier on this thread, the political spectrum is one-dimensional and ambiguous, and so in some ways, the Nazis were highly right winged, in others they were far towards the left, it's all about the ways you look at it.

The wikipedia article you got that from is debatable, as it does not come from a neutral point of view.
I'm working from the definition, not if Nazism was right winged or not. As a definition of fascism, it works.

Apart from that, you are getting you definition of "right wing" wrong. Something that is right wing doesn't just mean nationalism and traditionalism. It also means freedom from the state and liberty.
Odd, because left wing also means the same. As stated, both right and left will preach the same goals, and indeed are more like than dislike. The extreams of both sides lose those positions however when goals become more important than liberty.

Or to put it another way, extream left publications seem to have no qualms about calling for censorship of any hate speech. Extream right also have no qualms about calling for censorship of any who would doubt the president.

I just put Nazism on the right because their ultimate goal was the advancement of one race, whereas communism (i.e. Stalin) was attempting for equality. Neither did what they set out to do, but extreamism is like that.

However, like I have said earlier on this thread, the political spectrum is one-dimensional and ambiguous, and so in some ways, the Nazis were highly right winged, in others they were far towards the left, it's all about the ways you look at it.
This is true.

Really? I thought Hitler took Germeny out of the biggest economic mess it has every been in and made it into a world superpower.

The only reason Germany didn't go bankrupt in 1939 was the capture of polish assets in that year.

Hitler ruined Germany in more ways then one.

...the German Nazis (and you must remember that "Nazi" is a mere abreviation for "National Socialist") took ultimate control of all industry. This is undeniably socialist...
That's a huge, huuuuge mistake.

They didn't take control of the economy in the way a socialist would. They had this concept called "Herrenstaat" (or at least that's what I've heard English-speakers call it...:rolleyes: ) which was basically a pyramide scheme.

In a state-socialist economy like the USSR, there would be plans and everyone was exactly told what, when and for whom to produce. Importantly, no one owned capital either.

In Nazi Germany, everyone was free to own their machines. But importantly, things went like this:
Hitler wants a thousand tanks to be built. He goes to Speer and tells him he wants a thousand tanks.
Speer goes to his office and calls his lackeys and tells them to make a thousand tanks happen.
They go to their phones and call the business leaders. They tell the business leaders to get a thousand tanks off the lines, and pronto (usually there were contracts given).
The business leaders go to their lower-level managers, and tell them to get the f*ck to work.
They tell the shift supervisors even more rudely, really enjoying their power.
And the shift supervisors bully around their workers.

And the union rep is dead in some ditch somewhere.

At any rate, you see the appeal of such a system. Everyone gets to boss around someone - but the vital decisionmakers are also free to decide themselves how to make things happen.

The Nazis did all they could not primarily to improve the economy but to get people in work. This is undeniably socialist...
No, the Nazis did everything to make their people, their country, more powerful. That was the central driver.

People who don't understand the absolutely fundamental difference between socialism and fascism (which ultimately spawned or at least influenced nazism) really haven't bothered to read the material, I believe.
Reading what these people believed, how they viewed the world and what their vision was makes it very clear that despite any similarity in methods, they were worlds (and I mean huge worlds) apart.

Nazi Germany was bankrupt in 1939.:rolleyes:
Yes and No.
The internal economy was working very well, because price controls meant that the government was free to print extra money without risking inflation too much.
But as far as external reserves are concerned, yes, the country was short on money. Some have argued that that was the reason they went to war and after the Jews, but there was much more to it (seeing as to how they decided against attacking Switzerland for example).

Really? I thought Hitler took Germeny out of the biggest economic mess it has every been in and made it into a world superpower.
That link is usually overestimated a little bit.

There was the terrible hyperinflation (my grandma still owns billion Reichsmark bills), but that was actually over long before Hitler came to power.
The economy wasn't doing great, but it had stabilised (albeit at a level of relatively high unemployment).

Hitler got the support he got not because of economic misery, but because of political misery, the inability of the Weimar government to make anything happen at all.

The only reason Germany didn't go bankrupt in 1939 was the capture of polish assets in that year.

Hitler ruined Germany in more ways then one.
This I do have to agree with.

Plus Hitler did such awful things Germany will take many more years to completely recover.

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.Yes. Things are always the way the call themselves. Just like the German Democratic Republic was democratic, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic and belongs to the people of Korea.

"But don't worry, it has nothing to do with workers."
-German businessman commenting on the NSDAP in "Das Spinnennetz"

This is much better stated that my post. Yes, manipulating statistics was a Nazi speciality at times, but the stupidest thing was keping women out of the factories. I often wonder what the consequences would have been to the war if women had been allowed in the factories...
I honestly don't know where you got the idea from that women were not allowed in the factories!
Since the Wehrmacht incorporated approximately 7.5 million men from the workforce, that had to be balanced - and although the role of the woman in Nazi-Germany was not considered as the hard working mother at the assembly line, it did take place and throughout the war approximately 2.5 million women worked in factories.
That doesn't even include all the slave-laborers, many of whom were women.

Especially interesting in the statistics is that after 1942 production numbers didn't really have to be manipulated all that much because only then was the economy completely switched to a (total-)war-economy and production increases of 45-50% annually were possible.

I honestly don't know where you got the idea from that women were not allowed in the factories!
Since the Wehrmacht incorporated approximately 7.5 million men from the workforce, that had to be balanced - and although the role of the woman in Nazi-Germany was not considered as the hard working mother at the assembly line, it did take place and throughout the war approximately 2.5 million women worked in factories.
That doesn't even include all the slave-laborers, many of whom were women.

Especially interesting in the statistics is that after 1942 production numbers didn't really have to be manipulated all that much because only then was the economy completely switched to a (total-)war-economy and production increases of 45-50% annually were possible.

Interesting. I've yet to find anything that states women who weren't slave labourers were allowed to work. What are your sources/points of reference?

Right wing and Left wing politics can't reallly be compared from country to country. They are dependant on a country's history.

For example, currently in Russia the Communist party has been referred to as right wing because it would be a return to a former type of government.

Those who want to return to a earlier form government are right wing, those who want to try a new form government are left wing. There really is no inherent "good" or "evil" in either form.

A DICTATORSHIP, whether in the form of Communist, Fascist, Nazi (which is different from Fascist BTW), Monarchy, Democratic or Sheikdom will tend to crush people. Freedoms are outlawed by the need of the elite to keep power.

No matter what your party alliegence in your own country, and no matter what you think of opposing political paties, people should always remember that if one political patry controls a country it is bad for EVERYONE except the controlling party's leadership.

No, the Nazis are right wing. Killing Jews, gypsies and others are hardly the actions of a liberal group, is it?
Liberal and Left Wing are not the same thing!! One can be liberal, yet also right-wing. And one can also be left-wing without being liberal.

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)

In the US, "right wing" organizations are the ones that associate themselves with neo-Nazi groups and other "pseudo-Nazi" groups (like the Minutemen). If you are angry about how the right wing is associated with Nazism, I suggest you yell at the right wingers who are creating those associations.

Interesting. I've yet to find anything that states women who weren't slave labourers were allowed to work. What are your sources/points of reference?
German history books on the considered and actual role of women in Nazi-Germany - that and accounts of those who did work in and for the factories.
I have to admit that this doctrine of putting the women behind the stoves was introduced at first to "create" jobs for unemployed men - but as soon as those men were needed elsewhere, all available workers (including women) were put to use. (The unemployment rate of unmarried women during the 2nd half of WW2 was still around 5 million, only married women were allowed to work of conscripted.)
Now, the real problem was that Germany did not have enough trained (wo)manpower to do that and not the time to make the "mother-women" trained workers overnight. So, the nazis' doctrine that denied women work in the factories turned on themselves when those women were needed most (just like it had been in the Great War before).
The total number of women who worked in the industry has always been around 2.5 million, and never more than 3.
While women were conscripted into the workforce, the nazis refrained from doing so on a mass scale. Only 1/5th to 1/4th of Nazi-Germany's workforce consisted of women. (Very different from what happened in WWI!)

German history books on the considered and actual role of women in Nazi-Germany - that and accounts of those who did work in and for the factories.
I have to admit that this doctrine of putting the women behind the stoves was introduced at first to "create" jobs for unemployed men - but as soon as those men were needed elsewhere, all available workers (including women) were put to use. (The unemployment rate of unmarried women during the 2nd half of WW2 was still around 5 million, only married women were allowed to work of conscripted.)
Now, the real problem was that Germany did not have enough trained (wo)manpower to do that and not the time to make the "mother-women" trained workers overnight. So, the nazis' doctrine that denied women work in the factories turned on themselves when those women were needed most (just like it had been in the Great War before).
The total number of women who worked in the industry has always been around 2.5 million, and never more than 3.
While women were conscripted into the workforce, the nazis refrained from doing so on a mass scale. Only 1/5th to 1/4th of Nazi-Germany's workforce consisted of women. (Very different from what happened in WWI!)

Interesting. Woud you know of any English-translated texts on the subject?

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)What they called themselves is irrelevant. You could call yourself an egg-salad sandwich, but it wouldn't make you any tastier.

Political Spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum)

You consider nazis as the ulimate right-wing. THEY ARE NOT. The closest goverment to the ulimate ring-wing is the US.

how does this help you demonstrate that the features you mentioned are defining ones for the right? the u.s. government doesn't appear to stand for any of them either. nor do any other traditionally rightwing movements stand for even most of them.

how does this help you demonstrate that the features you mentioned are defining ones for the right? the u.s. government doesn't appear to stand for any of them either. nor do any other traditionally rightwing movements stand for even most of them.
Of course this is what the US stands for. I'll do the same ting I did for the Nazi government for the US


Equality of outcome (left) versus equality of opportunity (right). (right)
Fairness (left) versus freedom (right). (right)
Redistribution of wealth and income (left), or acceptance of inequalities as a result of the free market (right). (right)
Whether the government's policy on the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). (right)
Support for widened lifestyle choices (left), or support for traditional values (right). (right)
Whether the state should prioritise equality (left) or liberty (right). Both the left and the right tend to speak in favor of both equality and liberty - but they have different interpretations. (both)
Whether human nature is more malleable (left) or intrinsic (right). (neither)
Whether the government should promote secularism (left) or religious morality (right). (right)
Collectivism (left) versus individualism (right). (right)
Support for internationalism (left), or national interest (right). (right)


On nearly every one the US supports the right. What are you talking about "not supporting any of them".

Interesting. Would you know of any English-translated texts on the subject?
There probably are some but they escape my knowledge. Sorry.

On nearly every one the US supports the right. What are you talking about "not supporting any of them".

i was talking about the specific portion of the list i quoted previously.


equality of opportunity
freedom
laissez-faire
liberty
individualism

none of these are defining features of the right, and the u.s. only partially goes for a couple of them, with the government trying to undo those.

for example, how does one get laissez faire out of massive corporate welfare, anti-union intervention, the major capitalists being put in charge of both coming up with the 'regulations' placed on them and enforcing them, state-backed monopolies on all sorts of shit, different liability levels for them poor ol' bosses and the rest of us, etc?

equality of opportunity? show a single rightwinger on the planet that think the children of the elite should have to go to the same schools as the children of the masses. one of the major projects that the u.s. has to try to promote equality of opportunity has been under constant attack by the right since it's inception.

individualism? when did this become equivalent to conformism, and obeying your rulers/bosses/social betters? when has individualism been able to sit comfortably next to the glorification of war and the military?

freedom and liberty? hah! it's not like it's hard to guess who came down where on the question of the state being allowed to lock people up indefinitely without charges or trials, or being allowed to spy on everyone without cause or oversight. 'free speech zones'? the merging of crazed fundie religion and state? a strong disapproval of privacy rights, despite the fact that doing so necessitates massive state intrusion into every sphere of a person's life?

i was talking about the specific portion of the list i quoted previously.


equality of opportunity
freedom
laissez-faire
liberty
individualism

none of these are defining features of the right, and the u.s. only partially goes for a couple of them, with the government trying to undo those.

for example, how does one get laissez faire out of massive corporate welfare, anti-union intervention, the major capitalists being put in charge of both coming up with the 'regulations' placed on them and enforcing them, state-backed monopolies on all sorts of shit, different liability levels for them poor ol' bosses and the rest of us, etc?

equality of opportunity? show a single rightwinger on the planet that think the children of the elite should have to go to the same schools as the children of the masses. one of the major projects that the u.s. has to try to promote equality of opportunity has been under constant attack by the right since it's inception.

individualism? when did this become equivalent to conformism, and obeying your rulers/bosses/social betters? when has individualism been able to sit comfortably next to the glorification of war and the military?

freedom and liberty? hah! it's not like it's hard to guess who came down where on the question of the state being allowed to lock people up indefinitely without charges or trials, or being allowed to spy on everyone without cause or oversight. 'free speech zones'? the merging of crazed fundie religion and state? a strong disapproval of privacy rights, despite the fact that doing so necessitates massive state intrusion into every sphere of a person's life?

The US government's economic is so Laissez-faire it has come under attack. Ignoring corporations dumping waste into the see, exploiting slave labour in the far-east and breaking countless laws, who Laissez-faire do you have to be?

Equality of opportunity means the opportunity to make money. Simple as that.

Individualism. Of all developed nations of the world, the USA is the one which leaves it people to their own accord the most. Low taxes, slack gun rules and no healthcare screams "ITS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY"!!!

Freedom and Liberty are the most important part of American politics. Although they have been a bit shaky along the way (and "a bit" is a huge understatement), the US's ultimate goal is freedom and liberty for all.

Nasis WERE socialists. Their every decision, their whole politics aimed to national socialism. Understand, that every action, that includes such points are ALWAYS socialistic:

1. Humans are not equal for law.
2. State has right to intervere in free market.
3. State can confiscate somebody' s property.
4. Law is unstable and can be broken by government.

Nasiz initiated ALL those points into life. All. Right wing, all right wing, even this, which assumes to be far right wing NEVER EVER initiates such points in policy! Never! Ever!

If ANY state has just ONE, just ONE of them - IS socialistic in his nature, no matter WHAT the government says!

Now, let' s look at Third Reich.

1. Humans were not equal for law. There was Germans and others. Others were BAD.
2. Third Reich could do ANYTHING in market.
3. They COFISCATED lots of property, not only of Jews, but when they needed to do it.
4. Fuhrer could initiate decrets, which were incoherent with consitution (this was openly stated in nasis acts).

Can' t You see, that they couldn' t be right wing? Every group, that has sympathy for neo-nazis AREN' T right wing. Never. Right wing ALWAYS assume, that humans are equal for law and in eyes of God. With NO exeptions! NO EXEPTIONS! NOT EVEN JEWS! NOBODY! EVERYBODY ARE ALWAYS EQUAL!!! Right wing rules are NEVER comparative!!!!! Third Reich WASN' T state of law!! They killed, they confiscated, they did horrible things against law (even their own) and God!

In our western civilisation everything go comparative. And You know what? We will fall because of this before muslims. Just like Roman Empire.

All issues of racially charged hate aside, the Nazis are still incredibly far to the right. Nazis are fascist, and thus on the far right of the spectrum. On the opposite end you would find Communists. Calling yourself a socialist does not make you left wing, it might just mean that you know how to market your image.

Nasis WERE socialists. Their every decision, their whole politics aimed to national socialism. Understand, that every action, that includes such points are ALWAYS socialistic:

1. Humans are not equal for law.
2. State has right to intervere in free market.
3. State can confiscate somebody' s property.
4. Law is unstable and can be broken by government.

Nasiz initiated ALL those points into life. All. Right wing, all right wing, even this, which assumes to be far right wing NEVER EVER initiates such points in policy! Never! Ever!

If ANY state has just ONE, just ONE of them - IS socialistic in his nature, no matter WHAT the government says!

Now, let' s look at Third Reich.

1. Humans were not equal for law. There was Germans and others. Others were BAD.
2. Third Reich could do ANYTHING in market.
3. They COFISCATED lots of property, not only of Jews, but when they needed to do it.
4. Fuhrer could initiate decrets, which were incoherent with consitution (this was openly stated in nasis acts).

Can' t You see, that they couldn' t be right wing? Every group, that has sympathy for neo-nazis AREN' T right wing. Never. Right wing ALWAYS assume, that humans are equal for law and in eyes of God. With NO exeptions! NO EXEPTIONS! NOT EVEN JEWS! NOBODY! EVERYBODY ARE ALWAYS EQUAL!!! Right wing rules are NEVER comparative!!!!! Third Reich WASN' T state of law!! They killed, they confiscated, they did horrible things against law (even their own) and God!

In our western civilisation everything go comparative. And You know what? We will fall because of this before muslims. Just like Roman Empire.

Jesus. Another person who thinks Muslims will wipe us out or enslave us. Team up with Kievan-Prussia - the two of you nuts might come up with one non-insane idea.

Jesus. Another person who thinks Muslims will wipe us out or enslave us. Team up with Kievan-Prussia - the two of you nuts might come up with one non-insane idea.


I'm pretty sure that they never said that the Muslims would wipe us out or enslave us. They just said that the Muslims would outlast us. That in no way requires that they will contribute to the downfall of western civilization.

No, no... They will not enslave us nor wipe us out.

We will just die out, just like dinosaurs. ;) And they will take our place.

Dude, Po, if youre going to argue about something, at least know how to spell what youre talking about. Its Nazis not nasis or nasiz. And right wing or left, they were wacked! So whats the bid deal? But just for the record, they were self proclaimed right wingers.

Dude, Po, if youre going to argue about something, at least know how to spell what youre talking about. Its Nazis not nasis or nasiz. And right wing or left, they were wacked! So whats the bid deal? But just for the record, they were self proclaimed right wingers.
I do hope your name is a joke. :rolleyes:

<snip>Let me see:
Dislikes homosexuality
For tough punishments against criminals
High patriotism/nationalism
Family values
Traditional roles of husband and wife
Anti-abortion
Anti-Internationalist
Pro-Death Penalty

These are core right wing values, espoused by both the extreme right (Nazis) and the right (Conservatives). This is an overgeneralization, but honestly, the above are things I commonly see with the US Republican party. There's differences, but the direction is clear. Nazis are right wing. They differ from conservatives in important points, but have more in common with them than with the left. Now, if you compare them to the extreme left, you'll find more similarities than with conservatives, since both desire a totalitarian government and the many things that come with that.

Its an on going joke with my friends so hence the interest when i saw this post...

WHY??

Do You write "socialists" or "Socialists"? I would like to write (fucking <nASIS>)!!

Are you truly being serious? Nazis or National Socialists are nothing to do with Socialism.
The two things have nothing in common whatsoever.
I can't be bothered going into all the reasons as to why you are so wrong, but...

"1. Humans are not equal for law - not sure what this means, but in Socialism (as it should be) everybody has equal rights in law and society.
2. State has right to intervere in free market - Again, not sure what you are on about, but the State can control the market for the benefit of everybody, thereby sidestepping individuals and companies dominance.
3. State can confiscate somebody' s property - erm, eh?
4. Law is unstable and can be broken by government - erm where did you read this twoddle?

I am content in the knowledge that you are wrong.

I pity you, in a way for your poor knowledge of European history and political history.

Wrong, Laerod...

All right wing parties respect for ALL human life and totally FREE market. Every party, that does not profess this, ARE left winged! Just! No "but"!!!!!!!

Liberal and Left Wing are not the same thing!! One can be liberal, yet also right-wing. And one can also be left-wing without being liberal.

Explain how please?

Wrong, Laerod...

All right wing parties respect for ALL human life and totally FREE market. Every party, that does not profess this, ARE left winged! Just! No "but"!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but you're just plain being silly. You can be right-wing while still having policies which are more aligned with the left end of the spectrum. It's the overall combination of these policies that determine the placement on the political spectrum.

Brynienoyland.

Why You' re defending socalism? You like this system, don' t You?

For Your information:

1. I WAS living in real SOCIALISM. You did not.
2. I' m lawyer, and, if You don' t know, history is a big part of my education.
3. It' s not me... It' s You, who is ignorant in history of Europe.

You can be right-wing while still having policies which are more aligned with the left end of the spectrum.


Not at all. ;) If I' m a dog, I cannot be a cat, right? ;)

Not at all. ;) If I' m a dog, I cannot be a cat, right? ;)
Your analogy is flawed. It's more like: If I'm not a pitbull, I can still be dog.

But if I' m a pitbull, I cannot be a sheperd dog. And I still cannot be a cat. ;)

Wrong, Laerod...

All right wing parties respect for ALL human life and totally FREE market. Every party, that does not profess this, ARE left winged! Just! No "but"!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Not at all. ;) If I' m a dog, I cannot be a cat, right? ;)

Nice try, but that reasoning doesn't work.

My dog will eat catfood if given the chance. However, this does not make her a cat. This might make her stupid, but it does not make her a cat. The point is, she still eats the catfood while remaining a dog.

Please though, don't make me use any more ridiculous sounding analogies. The fact of the matter is that placement on the political spectrum is determined by a number of factors.

But if I' m a pitbull, I cannot be a sheperd dog. And I still cannot be a cat. ;)

Again your analogy is flawed. No single government has laws and rules that totally comply to the governing form they have adopted.

And if you think otherwise, please post such a nation/state.

So, You think, that every politican, when given a chance, WILL do everything to initiate socialism, even, when he' s names himself as right wing? :):D:D Maybe it' s something in that. ;)

Again your analogy is flawed. No single government has laws and rules that totally comply to the governing form they have adopted.


That' s why some dogs are pittbulls, and some shepperd dogs... And some are wolves.

And some cats are lions, some tigers and some are house cats. ;)

But still, You can always tell, if this particular animal is a dog or a cat.

That' s why some dogs are pittbulls, and some shepperd dogs... And some are wolves.

And some cats are lions, some tigers and some are house cats. ;)

But still, You can always tell, if this particular animal is dog or cat.
Always (http://www.goana.com.au/Gossips/Gossip34/images/platypus.jpg)?

Ok, everyone's political spectrum is fairly ambiguous... and largely based on their country's politics seemingly... but... the political spectrum remains entirely political... whereas, another spectrum arises to measure the economic spectrum. The Soviet Union was officially a left-wing utopian-style government, but in reality, they were much more right-wing as they emphasized concentrated power and increased power to the government... the Nazis, from the beginning, are technically right-wing, because they concentrated all power into Hitler and allowed him to basically eliminate democratic practices and freedom of race.

Hence, Right-wing emphasizes more concentrated government power, whereas, left-wing emphasizes a more diffuse spread of power. A right-wing government tends to be fairly anti-capitalism... that's mainly because capitalism takes the power out of the government's hands and hands it out to the market. However, left-wing governments would prolly be bigger fans of perfect capitalism... but that has yet to exist. However, that's only a pattern... any right-wing government can become an ally of capitalism and whatnot. Hence why economic preference is separated from political style.

That' s why some dogs are pittbulls, and some shepperd dogs... And some are wolves.

And some cats are lions, some tigers and some are house cats. ;)

But still, You can always tell, if this particular animal is a dog or a cat.

Well .... yea. That was my point :rolleyes: .

Oh, and let me say a thing or two about socialism... Socialism is the act of the government to initiate programs to provide services directly to the citizenship. Public schools... social security... libraries... etc... Socialism, in action is not a bad thing... but it has the tendency to cause stress in the economic system.

Always?


Yes, unless You don' t know which attributes are characteristic for cats and dogs.

Nasis WERE socialists. Their every decision, their whole politics aimed to national socialism. Understand, that every action, that includes such points are ALWAYS socialistic:

1. Humans are not equal for law.
2. State has right to intervere in free market.
3. State can confiscate somebody' s property.
4. Law is unstable and can be broken by government.



The above suggests that anyone who doesn't respect the rule of law, private property rights, and the free market must be a socialist. That is quite simply wrong because all of these are liberal beliefs, and most nationalists and conservatives do not agree with them either. You seem to think of the right-wing as capitalist and classical liberal, which is not necessarily the case.

Tell me, what has in common social welfare and limiting wages? Real right-oriented government NEVER limits wages, because about high of the wages shoud decide employer, NOT state.
Nazis outlawed labor unions only because they hated any opposite groups (or, which only COULD be opposite in future). In USSR weren' t labor unions also. Know why? Because all companies were in the hands of state. Remeber this? "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer". And ONE party.

You're still operating on the fallacy that the Right is a point on one side or the other of another point. It isn't. It's an end of the spectrum. Start at the middle where people are allowed to form unions.

Go a little to the left and unions are encouraged as a means of asserting workers rights.
Go a little to the right and they're ignored because the government isn't supposed to get involved in that sort of thing.

Go further to the left and the unions gain political recognition and power. Like in France after the first World War
Go further to the right and the employers gain government protection in the form of strike breakers and banning of some union practices. Like in America when the labor movement got started.

Wrong. Conservatives want to have strong army, but an proffesional army. Not compulsory. In Third Reich everything was subordinate to military.
You're still confusing philosophy with reality. Conservatives OK conscription in preperation for a war. The third Reich's whole existence was for the war that it was creating.

Oh, come on, give me a break. In Third Reich there was NO free market. Everything, including market, was subordinate to government.
There's no such thing as a free market anywhere. Either the government acts to limit competition or the more powerful business interests do. If you're going to make this about practical matters instead of philosophical one (though you don't seem able to tell the two apart) then free market practices aren't an issue. In terms of philosophy its about who gets favored under government interference.

Slightly left benifits the workers.
Extreme left benifits the government.
Slightly right benifits the employers.
Extreme right benifits the government.

The measure of left or right on free market philosophy is not where it ends up, but how it gets there.


Wrong again. Unions are natural enemies of capitalism. Look what is going on in France. And again - in normal country NOBODY has right to blockade functioning of my company, just because he wants more money from me. If he dislikes his fee - he should go and find better job. Because of labor unions I cannot fire worker just because I want to do this. Because of strike I' m losing money, I cannot hire other workers in the place of those, who strikes...
In other words - labor unions are ultra-socialistic beings and should be banned.

You're idea of capitalism is so confused it's difficult to tangle out where you're MOST wrong. Capitalism just means that left to their own devices businesses will find the best way to generate the most money until a few powerful interests stifle the market. Then the government should break them up and let them start over. Don't believe me? Read Adam Smith.

The workers have the right to organize. Don't like it? You can fire the whole staff and replace them. If you think there are enough unemployed people to fill the position and man your company then go for it. If you don't then you have to negotiate. That's competition. Capitalism pure and simple. Supply and demand. If you have a lot of demand for workers in short supply you have to give them what they want. If you have little demand for workers in good supply they have to take what you want to give. Unions are just an outgrowth of workers position in the market.


But Nazis banned them for other reason. Look above.

They banned them because they favored employers over workers.

From where You took those informations? In Third Reich, Hitler killed those priests, who weren' t happy of nasism. Just as other opposition. Those, who survived, had to propagate national socialism in the threat of death. Pulpit become another place to spread propaganda. This is, in Your opinion, "being in league witch Church"? Church was under control of nasis just as other things.

There were a few priests who worked against Hitler underground. But the Pope cooperated with him because he saw Hitler as an ally against the Soviets, which imposed athiesm. This was how everyone worked with Hitler. They knew he was bad, but they were more afraid of something else. The rich were afraid of communism, the Catholic Church afraid of athiesm.



Wrong again. Hitler wanted to have more Germans. More soldiers. Have You ever heard about "Lebensborn" programme? And right oriented politicans outlaw abortion because of sainity of human life. Every life - not only their countrymen. Hitler wanted just produce more soldiers. You see, right oriented people are strongly pro family, they believe in God, which forbids sex without marriage. Hitler ordered young girls to go to bed with SSmans just to get fertilized. It' s really NON right-winged!! State SHOULDN' T even THINK to enter with it' s boots into sphere of human sexuality! More... This was something more like human breed experiment.

You're still falling prey to the "Right-Point Fallacy." A little to the right and tradition means family and apple pie and church on Sundays. The further right wing you go the more distant a mythological path you travel to "get back to." In America right-wingers want to get back to their Donna Reed vision of the 50's. Liberals remember things like segregation and Brinkmanship and feel the need to evolve past such nonsense. Hitler was SOOOOO right wing that he wanted to get back to a mythological past in which Germany was populated by Blond Blue-eyed Germans. The fact that such a past never existed is besides the point. Just like Donna Reed.

Also, I said that he banned abortions for Germans. You didn't point out anywhere that he didn't.

We, as right-winged, disagree to experiment on humans, embrions, cloning humans and so on. Only left-winged agree to do such things.
That is a sick, disgusting, and completly erroneous statement. Left-wingers believe in equality and human rights. Extreme leftists may kill, but the worst they do is cruel indoctrination. It is the right-wing's heirarchical view of the world that lends itself, in its most extreme forms, to view some people as less important than others. Conservative segregationists in the South US, Conservative royalists in England and France, and Conservative Nazi's in Germany (there were some conservative Nazi's, the ones who thought that Hitler was insane and evil, but still better than the Communists).

No comment.
That should be your mantra.




You utterly didn' t understand such things. See, in right oriented state, citizen may do everything until he doesn' t limit somebody' s rights. For example, I cannot go outside with naked ass just because I want to do it, because other people may be indignant by such view (so: their right to morality). When I was talking about tradition I meant that law should be contructed on the foundation of tradition. In our civilisation - the tradition is strongly connected with church and law should be coherent with catholic course.

Again, you're falling victim to the Right-Point Fallacy. The left has a positive approach to protecting rights. The right nas a negative approach. Not positive/negative as in good/bad, but just in terms of doing something or not doing something. The left believes that the government should have the power to protect rights. The right believes that it should NOT have the power to violate rights. But it should have the power to promote cultural values and orderly behavior.

Go too far to the left and you get a government that screws everything up when trying to protect one right in favor of another. Go too far to the right and you get a government that tramples all over rights to promote traditional values. Including cultural intolerance.


I don' t know, why You wrote about Red Guard. They hated every religion, just as all communists. No right oriented man would EVER burn any temple, even of religion, which he doesn' t profess.

I was trying to point out the issue of extremism not conforming to moderate rightism or leftism. Just because the Nazi's did some things that moderate conservatives disagree with doesn't mean that the Nazi's were left extremists instead of right extremists. Just like how just because the extreme left Red Guards did things that moderate liberals disagree with doesn't mean that they were crazy right instead of crazy left.




What? You' re thinking, that the point of view od taxes CANNOT be used to define political alingment? Oh my GOD! Have You ever heard, that taxes come from people and companies? If state TAKES NOT a lot of money - they can spend them or ivest them. When state takes a lot - they cannot spend them nor invest them! Point of view about taxes is MOST IMPORTANT criterion to tell, if this party is left or right oriented!!!!!!!!! You see, left oriented says: most important is budget! The bigger, the better! Right oriented says: most important is to keep hands off of citizens pockets! The lower budget, more money stay in citizens pockets. It' s so obvious!

Read it again Genius. Fiduciary necessity cannot be used to define political alignment. Any government that doesn't levy taxes when its broke is not left or right, it's gone.

The issue of taxation philosophy is only relavent in times of relative prosperity when there's actually a choice. Then there's the issue of "do we promote social spending, or reduce taxes." If you cut taxes when you need money you're not a right-winger, you're an idiot.




So what? Soviets also spent a lot of money for milice and military. Big part of that money went to Gestapo (political police), which was raised to fight with opposition. And I was talking about fighting with crimes! In normal state (right oriented) there is NO NEED for political police! In socialistic states - always.
And I was talking about proffesional army.

Was there a political police force in France in the 80's? How about anywhere in Scandinavia? You were the one who said that taxes should go mostly to the military and police. I guess that means that the USSR war right wing right?:rolleyes:


And very good. But again - only Germans... People should be equal for law. No matter nationality. Only socialism splits humans for better and worse. In USSR for workers (good) and inteligents (bad), in Germany for Germans (good) and others (bad).

A little to the right, you're right. Extreme to the right and all bets are off.
Rightists believe in a natural heirarchy. Go a little to the right and it's a hierarchy of merit based on the ability to accumulate money. A little to the left and you have people trying to provide chances for people to climb that heirarchy.

Go crazy to the left an you have people trying to remove the heirarchy completly. Overthrowing monarchies, burning down stores, killing college professors.

Go crazy to the right and you have people trying to reinforce that heirarchy and the heirarchy becomes more brutal as the people at the top feel more secure in their position. The Nazi's did it by establishing not only a political and monetary heriarchy, but also a racial one. Don't forget. It was the conservatives here in America who opposed integration as late as the 60's. So much for equality before the law.



Very good!

This is NOT self-defence, but murder. Again - spliting humans for Germans and others.

It was conservatives here who split humans into Whites and coloreds. There is nothing inherently egalitarian about the right. That's one of the few areas in which the right and the left distinguish themselves from each other as soon as you look at them.

Bolsheviks loved MORE.

But there is one BIG diffrence: we' re talking about death penalty for MURDER,
predicated by independent court. And nazis just killed people because they had bussines in that. Just like every red motherfuckers (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot).

You know that the right-wing military dictatorships that those guys overthrew also killed their fair share right? Extremist governments of either side will kill lots of people. That's part of what makes them extreme.

So? And made hundreds of own departments with thousands of officers.

It was a simple, small, and streamlined government. One guy tells everyone what to do. Governments don't get any smaller. Yes, there were different levels of power, but even our own right-wing government has hundreds of people running even the smalles town. Dozens will run a school district. The Nazi's had as small a government as anyone can possibly ask for.

You didn' t.
As You can see - he did NOT. Everything what he made was very, very, very socialistic.

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean I didn't do it. The fact that you so often conflate theory with fact, and confuse the center with the fringe, tells me that you really want to go far right, but you can only let yourself do that if you find a way to convince yourself that there's no such thing as a far-right. Only a center and a far left. Sadly, that is not the way of things. Ever.

Where?

In all those points to which you responded with completly fallacious reasoning based on a confusion between "all things being equal" theories and "this is the situation we're in" facts, and also with a confusion on the matter of center-right =/= extreme right and center-left =/= extreme left.

I've shown you where traveling from the center, through center-right, gets you to Nazism. I've also shown you where traveling from the center through the center left gets you to communism if you keep going. All that's left for you to do is realize that if you want to go to the right wing there is a place you have to stop before you become a complete psycho.

That's a very communist-apologist post. Regardless of your personal views on Communism (I personally think a society where no one is allowed to progress above the mean sounds more like a tyranny than a "virtuous idea indeed", but whatever), the German Nazis (and you must remember that "Nazi" is a mere abreviation for "National Socialist") took ultimate control of all industry. This is undeniably socialist. The Nazis did all they could not primarily to improve the economy but to get people in work. This is undeniably socialist. Nazi economics was socialist, their outlook was socialist. They were closer to Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" than anything. Look at their successors. The BNP, for example, want to increase state power and investment in welfare substantially. They want people like the Social Democrats imprisoned because, like Stalin, they are not Democratic.

You must also remember that Stalin, just like Lenin (who also oversaw mass-killings), honestly believed in the ideals of Communism, and he certainly tried to implement them - collectivising farms and taking over factories, asigning their production and creating an internal Warsaw Pact economy controlled by the state. The fact is that people simply do not like this, because it is tyranny and so many rebelled against it, and ended up in Gulags. Ended up in Gulags not just because they opposed the state, but because Stalin honestly believed that the state was the only tool by which Communism could be implemented.



Actually, Hitler only took control of industry, to push it into a War Economy. Though industry was still under state ontrol, it was only to produce weapons, which I suppose, can possibly be considered socialism. And yes, Stalin did try to implement Communism, but russia certainly, to this day, DOES NOT HAVE 1 SOCIAL CLASS WITH EQUAL RIGHTS!! If Stalin believed the state was needed to implement Communism then perhaps he should have FOLLOWED THE ODEALOLOGY HIMSELF. He simply used the ideals of communism, to gain support, and appear patriotic. In reality, he rewarded state officails (which you are NOT suppose to do) with bonuses and further oppresed the peasentry, seeing that they gained nothing. Stalin wasnt a communist, what we see in Russia in those days, is Stalins twisted form of Communism. Stalinism.

You seem to think of the right-wing as capitalist and classical liberal, which is not necessarily the case.

this does seem to be a big confusion going on here. well, that and a general confusion about what capitalism is. it goes on all over too, hence the laughable nonsense of delusional 'libertarians' declaring bush to be a socialist.

The US government's economic is so Laissez-faire it has come under attack. Ignoring corporations dumping waste into the see, exploiting slave labour in the far-east and breaking countless laws, who Laissez-faire do you have to be?

that ain't laissez faire, that's privilege.

Equality of opportunity means the opportunity to make money. Simple as that.

no, it doesn't. look it up.

Individualism. Of all developed nations of the world, the USA is the one which leaves it people to their own accord the most. Low taxes, slack gun rules and no healthcare screams "ITS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY"!!!

that ain't individualism - especially considering the rest of the story here. social conditions matter, and the order of the day is conformity and obedience.

Freedom and Liberty are the most important part of American politics. Although they have been a bit shaky along the way (and "a bit" is a huge understatement), the US's ultimate goal is freedom and liberty for all.

evidence? i mean, sure, they talk about 'freedom' a lot. But talk is cheap.

that ain't laissez faire, that's privilege.
Try and made a family in China, then tell me the US isn't Laissez Faire.
no, it doesn't. look it up.
Sorry, thats just wrong.
that ain't individualism - especially considering the rest of the story here. social conditions matter, and the order of the day is conformity and obedience.
Have you ever left the US. Take a holiday in cuba mate.
evidence? i mean, sure, they talk about 'freedom' a lot. But talk is cheap.
Liberty is the US ulimate goal, there are no two ways around it.

WHY??

Do You write "socialists" or "Socialists"? I would like to write (fucking <nASIS>)!!

You're not overly intelligent are you? You keep making illogical analogies. You can spell socialist with either a upper or lower case 's'. You can only spell nazi one way. I think you just need to stop posting.....

Nazis are rightwing...although before Hitler they may have been left-wing...not sure though. But they are very right-wing now.

Nazi's are argueably left and right wing.

Socially they are centrist but right wing on key issues IE
Ban hunting-Left Killing Jews-Right.
That doesnt make it balance out. They were right wing socially.


Economically they are indeed left wing and i accept this.
Simply because and i'll be the first to admit, left wing grants more power to the state. If hitler had stock in all the companies doubtless he would have adopted right wing policies because it helps buisness but the point is he simply was a totalitarian.

He combined left and right wing which is bad.
NEVER DO IT.
Its like fish and chips, i love them. I also love egg and bacon but that doesnt mean i want fish and egg.
(Is stoned, please ignore.)

You can only spell nazi one way


...and You' re typing here in one way, and in other post - in other way...

First, use Your advices yourself, and then teach me, ok?

Domici said
''The issue of taxation philosophy is only relavent in times of relative prosperity when there's actually a choice. Then there's the issue of "do we promote social spending, or reduce taxes." If you cut taxes when you need money you're not a right-winger, you're an idiot."

From taxpayer point of view, idiotic idea is to raise taxes, when money are needed /for taxpayer/.
Not idiot can only be tax-collector. Who are you? Quo vadis Domici?;)

...and You' re typing here in one way, and in other post - in other way...

First, use Your advices yourself, and then teach me, ok?

That was alot of words that made no sence what so ever.... i think you need to think through what you want to say before you type it. You'll sound alot smarter,and people will be more apt to listen to you.

Socialism is on the left side of economic/political spectrum - that is clear!
The question is where to place national socialism?

For me the answer is only one - LEFT.
Why?
German national socialism /to hide word ,socialism, named ,nazism,/, and
Soviet communism are only ,roadless area's, results of go in for SOCIALISM
IN PRACTICE.
Every kind of socialism /democratic too/, sooner/above/ or later ends in totalitarism. This is its immanent, characteristic trait.
Conclusion:
All thise systems are from the same family/ maybe black sheeps, insane/ and I don't see any reason to seperate them from each other.
NATIONAL SOCIALISM IS LEFT WING!!!!!!!!!

ps. democracy and revolutions are tools of socialism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

brgds:headbang:

Brynienoyland.

Why You' re defending socalism? You like this system, don' t You?

For Your information:

1. I WAS living in real SOCIALISM. You did not.
2. I' m lawyer, and, if You don' t know, history is a big part of my education.
3. It' s not me... It' s You, who is ignorant in history of Europe.


I certainly wouldn't want you defending me with your blinkered views. 'Real Socialism'? has that ever been tried? Certainly not in Europe.
It is you who is ignorant of european history, not me (epeat ad infinitum)

I certainly wouldn't want you defending me with your blinkered views. 'Real Socialism'? has that ever been tried? Certainly not in Europe.
It is you who is ignorant of european history, not me (epeat ad infinitum)


Yet another case of somebody's magnificent but as yet unfortunately not existant Snark.

If you want anyone to admire your socialism, please produce an example of it. Without delay.

A nationalist is always right winged

True.

A Nationalist is Right-Wing.
A Socialist is Left-Wing.

Nationalists are better.:cool:

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)
They can either be right, left or center. That's an econmic scale. What they definetely are is authoritarian, as opposed to libertarian.

I certainly wouldn't want you defending me with your blinkered views. 'Real Socialism'? has that ever been tried? Certainly not in Europe.
It is you who is ignorant of european history, not me (epeat ad infinitum)


Son, have You ever heard about states from Warsaw Pact? Their system was called REAL SOCIALISM. In those countries governments made everything to initiate 100% socialism. Unfortunately, communism (socialism was a "way" to communism - own Lenins words) was UTOPIA. That is: IMPOSSIBLE to get this, what Marks and Engels dreamed of. Socialism just ALWAYS sooner or later become totalitarism. It' s unavoidable. That' s why socialism in Poland and other states was called REAL SOCIALISM, not UTOPIAN socialism. Got that? Clear enough? Understood? And You know... Poland IS in Europe. Always was.

Son, have You ever heard about states from Warsaw Pact? Their system was called REAL SOCIALISM. In those countries governments made everything to initiate 100% socialism. Unfortunately, communism (socialism was a "way" to communism - own Lenins words) was UTOPIA. That is: IMPOSSIBLE to get this, what Marks and Engels dreamed of. Socialism just ALWAYS sooner or later become totalitarism. It' s unavoidable. That' s why socialism in Poland and other states was called REAL SOCIALISM, not UTOPIAN socialism. Got that? Clear enough? Understood? And You know... Poland IS in Europe. Always was.

This post makes me want to put a pencil through my eye. I wonder why that is.

This post makes me want to put a pencil through my eye. I wonder why that is.


I have no idea why... ;)

I have no idea why... ;)

Obviously you don't, because you clearly thought I was talking about something entirely different than I was.

(Is stoned, please ignore.)
I almost always do. :) On occassion though you do have good points to make.

Liberal and Left Wing are not the same thing!! One can be liberal, yet also right-wing. And one can also be left-wing without being liberal.

Precisely. :)

Explain how please?
You can have right-wing economic ideas (ie liberal economics) and liberal views on society, ie that the government should not interfere much with people's lives. You would still be right-wing in the economic sense. In addition, you may well cling to certain morals and beliefs, but at the same time believe you should tolerate those of others. In this way, you are right-wing and liberal. Libertarians are a common example of right-wing liberals.

You can also have the left-wing economic ideas and believe that the state should heavily regulate people's lives. That is the authoritarian left. There is authoritarian/liberal and right/left wing. Liberal and right wing are by no means mutually exclusive. The word liberal was first used, in fact, for laissez-faire economic ideas. Simply because the US has deemed it appropriate to change how these words are used does not mean the rest of the world agrees.

This may be the stupidest discussion I have seen here.

On topic, I think the Nazis are authoritarian right-wing, with some left-wing ideas and views, mainly where the economy was concerned.

This may be the stupidest discussion I have seen here.
You haven't been long enough here to even begin making such a comment. And, the discussion is hardly stupid. The OP, on the other hand, is a bit misinformed.

This could be good, if there were more than two or three literate people who knew what they were talking about were involved.

I find it funny the Ku Klux Klan was originally started by the democratic party...

Nazism is far right wing, believe me. The socialism thing was, as someone else said, mostly to sway voters. Communism and fascism are on opposite sides of the spectrum, and Nazis fall under the far right wing. Communists lay on the left.

Nazism is far right wing, believe me. The socialism thing was, as someone else said, mostly to sway voters. Communism and fascism are on opposite sides of the spectrum, and Nazis fall under the far right wing. Communists lay on the left.
Yes, but you know, in the real world, things don't work quite that way. People like Bush would have you believe that they are absolutely, positively mutually exclusive. They are not. Sure, the Nazis were authoritarian right-wing, but they also espoused certain left-wing principles. Both right and left, authoritarian and liberal, are based on many different ideas, which you can pick and choose, and subsequently, combine. And to be honest, fascism and leninist Communism, whilst ideologically founded on different principles, had pretty much similar results; a vile erosion of respect for human life.

Let's sketch the outlines for this:
1. being anti-capitalist does not make one "left-wing" (although many left-wing parties are anti-capitalist); consider the anti-capitalism of XIXth century conservatism vs. the majority of left-wingers then - laissez-faire liberals and radicals (the proper terms, people: if you don't know them, look them up)

2. Nazis weren't especially anti-capitalist. Nationalism had sought a reconciliation between bottom and top of the social structure, vs. both the bottom and top of another's nation structure, and as such included quasi-socialism or adapted socialism (a discourse which pre-dated Marx, and which Marx denounced as being "petty-burgeois opportunism" and "counting on a lumpen-proletarian public"). In fact, I would argue that nationalism itself (in most of its forms) started because of a need to argue that class conflict paled in comparison with conflict between the national communities (a variation of populism that embraced producerism, and the predilect theme of the syncretic extreme right from Orleanism to National-Syndicalism to Fascism to Hitler's version of Fascism).

Let's sketch the outlines for this:
1. being anti-capitalist does not make one "left-wing" (although many left-wing parties are anti-capitalist); consider the anti-capitalism of XIXth century conservatism vs. the majority of left-wingers then - laissez-faire liberals and radicals (the proper terms, people: if you don't know them, look them up)

2. Nazis weren't especially anti-capitalist. Nationalism had sought a reconciliation between bottom and top of the social structure, vs. both the bottom and top of another's nation structure, and as such included quasi-socialism or adapted socialism (a discourse which pre-dated Marx, and which Marx denounced as being "petty-burgeois opportunism" and "counting on a lumpen-proletarian public"). In fact, I would argue that nationalism itself (in most of its forms) started because of a need to argue that class conflict paled in comparison with conflict between the national communities (a variation of populism that embraced producerism, and the predilect theme of the syncretic extreme right from Orleanism to National-Syndicalism to Fascism to Hitler's version of Fascism).

agreed, Hitler actually admired American industry, such as the Ford motor company.

Far-right-wing Nazi supporters plan to stage a rally in the city center tomorrow, giving voice to their violent, racist views.

Sounds familiar?

I must strongly protest! Nasis in fact are far-left-wing!!! NSDAP means "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", in englisch "National-Socialist German Workers Party". Where You see here right wing? I know, that today all socialists around the world try to synonimize nasism with right wing, but NationStates should be objective.

Oh, and one thing... In this issue is lacking the answer "We cannot let them to set a rally, not because they are nasis, but because we don' t need any demonstrators on our streets. People don' t like, when somebody screams next to their windows, blockade the roads and so on".

I had to dissmis this issue. I don' t want this demonstration, not because some jewish activist demands this, but because I' m against any demonstrations. :)


How stupid is it that we have idiots in this world, able to express their idiocy in a public place, and not know what they are speaking of. It is a shame and a true shift for the worse in our times.

You need to learn the difference between 'Idealism' and 'Pragmatism'. Anyone can paint a sign saying "I am a Democrat" and then go home and count the money coming in from their major industry.

(well...maybe not everyone, since not everyone runs a major industry, but you get the point...hopefully)

Oh...and woot, my 2000th post.