NationStates Jolt Archive

They didn't think so, as can be gleaned from the following quotes:


"The NSDAP is the German Left. We despise bourgeoise nationalism."
-Joseph Goebbels in Der Angriff, Dec 6th, 1931


"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order."
-Adolf Hitler (The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186) (source (http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html))


"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit withn and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good."
-Nazi Party platform (Der Nationalsozialismus Dokumente 1933-1945, edited by Walther Hofer, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bucherei, 1957, pp. 29-31) (source (http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html))


"There is more that unites us with than divides us from bolshevism...above all the genuine revolutionary mentality."
-Adolf Hitler (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, note 500, pg. 399)



Okay, so what of the economic policies of the Nazis? Surely they were "right-wing?" Not so, as documented here (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=54&sortorder=articledate), here (http://www.mises.org/story/1935), here (http://www.mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf), here (http://www.mises.org/story/1937), and here (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=507&sortorder=articledate).

Many people across the political spectrum cite the fact that untold numbers of Communists perished under Nazism as "proof" that Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies. However, a very clear distinction must be made: The two were definitely rivals, but they were not enemies. Though they competed against each other, they were not opposed to each other. Both were united in their hatred of the parliamentary system, capitalism, monarchy, traditional religion, and individual liberty.

In addition to the sources I cited above, perhaps the most damning indictment of all is Dr. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot, an exhaustively researched tome with 150 pages of footnotes, painstakingly documenting - from the Nazis' own deeds as well as words - that the National Socialists were, contrary to misconception, actually left-wingers. Those who doubt this are welcome to pore through K-L's 1,000+ footnotes and challenge his many sources themselves.

bump

bump

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGbiv-nkezc

Maybe this just shows that a binary way of thinking of politics is not so close to reality. The Nazis had some things in common with what we would call liberals, and some things in common with what we would call conservatives.

"The NSDAP is the German Left. We despise bourgeoise nationalism."
-Joseph Goebbels in Der Angriff, Dec 6th, 1931

Hmm, 1931... that was before the massive overhaul if I am not mistaken?

Were the Nazis really “right-wing?”
A couple of points:

Firstly, members of NSDAP told folks what they wanted to hear; they were opportunists. If they were meeting with the working classes of the town then they claimed to support Trade Unions and worker’s rights, stressing their more socialist economic policies. If they were meeting with landowners or businessmen they stressed their opposition to Trade Unions and played themselves as the last defence against Communism. Anything to get into power. You can’t really trust NSDAP to talk accurately about NSDAP.

Secondly, although the NSDAP party platform contained some economic policies that were socialist in nature (much like the BNP in modern-day Britain), they were certainly authoritarians; opposed to free speech, democracy, political dissent, etc. The rest is well-known history. That’s why most modern political scholars would differentiate between the authoritarian-left (Stalinists, arguably NSDAP, etc.) and the libertarian-left (anarchists, etc.).

Thirdly, why do I get the funny feeling that by attempting to prove that the Nazis were left-wing, you are somehow attempting to tar all those on the economic left with the same brush?

[snip due to length]

Well, depends on how you're mapping them politically. Along the traditional 1 dimensional scale they are "right-wing" (but, also was Soviet-Russia) due to them gravitated towards authoritarianism. Though the 1-D scale is deceptive. It makes no distinction between economic views and social views.

A reaffirmation of the fact that the left-right political spectrum is out of date, and was out of date years ago.

After all, it was Bismark who was responsible for the institution of the German social welfare programs for the first time.

Most people only view left and right by their own country's modern standards. What they fail to understand is that politics are actually more 3 dimensional. For example, Stalin and Gandhi both had leftist views, but were both very different.

Left and right can be used to describe economics and trade. The right represents the market view that those with wealth should rise to the top and profit, and that society should be based on competition and consumerism. Leftists believe in collectivism, and working for the entire group rather than individuals working for their own personal benefit. The extreme left is communism, and the extreme right is a total market society without any trade barriers or regulations on the free market.

In addition to the left and right, there is also another dimention used to describe how "free", one believes people have the right to be. This can be described with the words "authoritarian" and "libertarian". Note that libertarian does not have the exact same meaning as the American Libertarian party. Authoritarians include nationalists and religious fundamentalists. Extreme libertarianism is basically anarchism. Traditional anarchism would essentially mean extreme left and extreme anti-authoritarianism, or voluntary collectivism and mutual aid. This greatly contrasts with an authoritarian far left system, such as Stalin's. Authoritarian right-wingers make up people like George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, while libertarian right-wingers share similar values as American Libertarians. This is how there are 4 dimensions, rather than simply "left" or "right".

It also helps to look at it from a universal view. For example, from a world wide perspective, American Democrats such as Hilary and Obama are in fact moderate right wingers, excluding a few left-leaning candidates like Kusinich and Gravel.

And to answer the thread starters question, Hitler was very authoritarian and moderately right-wing.

Hear hear, hear hear.

Most people only view left and right by their own country's modern standards. What they fail to understand is that politics are actually more 3 dimensional. For example, Stalin and Gandhi both had leftist views, but were both very different.

Left and right can be used to describe economics and trade. The right represents the market view that those with wealth should rise to the top and profit, and that society should be based on competition and consumerism. Leftists believe in collectivism, and working for the entire group rather than individuals working for their own personal benefit. The extreme left is communism, and the extreme right is a total market society without any trade barriers or regulations on the free market.

In addition to the left and right, there is also another dimention used to describe how "free", one believes people have the right to be. This can be described with the words "authoritarian" and "libertarian". Note that libertarian does not have the exact same meaning as the American Libertarian party. Authoritarians include nationalists and religious fundamentalists. Extreme libertarianism is basically anarchism. Traditional anarchism would essentially mean extreme left and extreme anti-authoritarianism, or voluntary collectivism and mutual aid. This greatly contrasts with an authoritarian far left system, such as Stalin's. Authoritarian right-wingers make up people like George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, while libertarian right-wingers share similar values as American Libertarians. This is how there are 4 dimensions, rather than simply "left" or "right".

It also helps to look at it from a universal view. For example, from a world wide perspective, American Democrats such as Hilary and Obama are in fact moderate right wingers, excluding a few left-leaning candidates like Kusinich and Gravel.

And to answer the thread starters question, Hitler was very authoritarian and moderately right-wing.

There's a song by czech pop composer Pepa Nos that says something like:
"Earth is round. If you keep going left, you end up coming from the right."

It was intended for czech commies but it applies to all extremisms.

Anyway no big news here. The name of the party gave them immediately away. Not for nothing they called themselves National Socialists.

Anyway no big news here. The name of the party gave them immediately away. Not for nothing they called themselves National Socialists.
Erm.

You do realise that calling them National Socialists was just a vote-buying technique, right?

See also their 'hatred of the bourgeoisie". Goebbels? Spinning an issue, you say? Well I never!

Being left wing in their economy policies does not mean they were left on the social front. They were quite right-leaning when it came to social matters.

So what happened to the real German left when the Nazis came to power?

Oh, yeah. :rolleyes:

If you want to understand what the nazis or anyone else "really were/are", you're going to have to look beyond the oversimplification of "left" and "right" wings.

A couple of points:

Firstly, members of NSDAP told folks what they wanted to hear; they were opportunists. If they were meeting with the working classes of the town then they claimed to support Trade Unions and worker’s rights, stressing their more socialist economic policies. If they were meeting with landowners or businessmen they stressed their opposition to Trade Unions and played themselves as the last defence against Communism. Anything to get into power. You can’t really trust NSDAP to talk accurately about NSDAP.

Secondly, although the NSDAP party platform contained some economic policies that were socialist in nature (much like the BNP in modern-day Britain), they were certainly authoritarians; opposed to free speech, democracy, political dissent, etc. The rest is well-known history. That’s why most modern political scholars would differentiate between the authoritarian-left (Stalinists, arguably NSDAP, etc.) and the libertarian-left (anarchists, etc.).

Thirdly, why do I get the funny feeling that by attempting to prove that the Nazis were left-wing, you are somehow attempting to tar all those on the economic left with the same brush?

Entirely correct. The Nazis frequently lifted Communist/socialist imagery and language when it suited them.

You've got to beware groups with long names: there usually more inherant lies in the name. National Socialist German Worker's Party. There's at least two inherant lies there. It was a party, but it wasn't socialist, nor did it serve the workers. Properly, it's just a group of German ultranationalists.

Remember, just because a country calls itself the "Shiny, Happy People's Democratic Revolutionary Socialist Republic of X", doesn't mean that it is true.

Liberalism was pretty much the only ideology that Hitler never claimed as his own. You can probably say that nazism is a mix of both the right and the left.

Even the name gives an indication. National Socialist German Workers Party. "National" and "German" appeals to people on the right, while "Socialism" and "Workers" appeals to leftist.

- Anti-semitism. Anti-semitism have long roots in Europe, and was something both the Left and the Right had in common. The Left saw the jews as greedy capitalists who exploited the working people. The Right regarded them as racially inferior.
- Nationalism. The German Nazis were intense nationalists. Nationalism was typical of the Right. Karl Marx said that class struggle against the Bourgeoisie was far more important than national struggle. Class was more important than nationality.
- Collectivism. The National-Socialist were collectivist. The individual was nothing, the group/unit was everything. Collectivism is an important component in socialism, and can thus be classified as Leftist.

*ahem*

yes.

this has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions

Hmm, 1931... that was before the massive overhaul if I am not mistaken?

There rise to power in 1933 yes. I mean...looking over their party platform, it was right-wing.

Entirely correct. The Nazis frequently lifted Communist/socialist imagery and language when it suited them.

Yep. That is why their campaigning was so contradictory.

I've heard of fascism as being a splinter of socialism, so I can see how the Nazis could be considered leftist. I actually don't know that much about their ideology, it's hard to get past the beliefs in extermination of non-Arians state worship.

Kind of. The Nazis were not as right as people like to imagine, but they were also not entirely left either. They were an opportunistic movement of statist totalitarians who tailored their specific ideals to what was popular. The whole purpose of calling themselves national 'socialists' was to garner support from the ranks of the left with which they competed originally for popularity.

Fascism/Nazism is defined by most as an authoritarian centralist movement. It disliked both free market capitalism and socialism.The equivlent of this today would be modern day China or Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


Repugs are a form of right-wing authoritarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism).

Fascism/Nazism is defined by most as an authoritarian centralist movement. It disliked both free market capitalism and socialism.The equivlent of this today would be modern day China or Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


Repugs are a form of right-wing authoritarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism).

What is a repug?

What is a repug?

The U.S Republican party. which by the way used to be center to center-right.

They were an opportunistic movement of statist totalitarians who tailored their specific ideals to what was popular.

no they didn't. they tailored what they said were their ideals to what was momentarily advantageous to advancing their actual ideals.

The U.S Republican party. which by the way used to be center to center-right.

funny. I could say that many members of the Democratic Party of Left Wing Authoritarian people as well. YOu do realize that you generalized people right? You do realize that both political parties have Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals right? Its just the more extreme asswipes that get all the attention.

Assigned names can mean little, or even be outright misleading. For example:

"The People's Republic of China" - People's Republic?

"Democratic People's Republic of Korea" - See above

"Greenland" GREENland has lots of ice

"Iceland" ICEland actually HAS greenery

"National Socialist German Workers Party" ummm. yeah.

"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" - As long as that "color" happens to be "black".

"Aryan Nation" - Considering that Iranians/Pakistanis are more "Aryan" than this groups members.

I could say that many members of the Democratic Party of Left Wing Authoritarian people as well.

you could, but you would be factually incorrect.

YOu do realize that you generalized people right?

nothing wrong with generalizations when they accurately reflect reality

Assigned names can mean little, or even be outright misleading. For example:
...
"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" - As long as that "color" happens to be "black".

that one used the standard definition, so its not really in a class with the others.

you could, but you would be factually incorrect.



nothing wrong with generalizations when they accurately reflect reality

1) Most of my family is republican. Guess what? THey are not authoritarian. I am a republican. Guess what I am not authoritarian. There are several republicans in Congress who are not authoritarian. YIKES!! I guess that just debunks the full generalization. Are their republicans who are? Yes. Are there Democrats who are? Yes. Are most of them that way? No! Are most republicans authoritarian? no.

I guess I just destroyed the generalization part.

funny. I could say that many members of the Democratic Party of Left Wing Authoritarian people as well. YOu do realize that you generalized people right? You do realize that both political parties have Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals right? Its just the more extreme asswipes that get all the attention.

Umm yes the Republicans used to have a liberal wing. People like Gerald Ford and Nancy Kassebaum but it's the extreme right that dominates the party right now. Yes there are conservative democrats (Like Joe Lieberman) but the democratic party is mostly controled by the center right DLC. Thats why canidates like Clinton and Obama (Who lead the dem race) are the 2 main contenders. People like Gravel & Kucinich are considered minority players.

BTW. Thats why liberal Republicans like Bloomberg of NYC sre leaving the party or move to the right like my senator, Johnny Isakson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Isakson).

1) Most of my family is republican. Guess what? THey are not authoritarian. I am a republican. Guess what I am not authoritarian.

actually, you are. i have no evidence for your family, other than you yourself, and their republican-ness, so i'd incline towards putting them in that category too. but even granting that there are non-authoritarians in the republican party, that does nothing to demonstrate the wrongness of the generalization.

Are most republicans authoritarian?

according to the data, yep.

Umm yes the Republicans used to have a liberal wing. People like Gerald Ford and Nancy Kassebaum but it's the extreme right that dominates the party right now. Yes there are conservative democrats (Like Joe Lieberman) but the democratic party is mostly controled by the center right DLC. Thats why canidates like Clinton and Obama (Who lead the dem race) are the 2 main contenders. People like Gravel & Kucinich are considered minority players.

BTW. Thats why liberal Republicans like Bloomberg of NYC sre leaving the party or move to the right like my senator, Johnny Isakson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Isakson).

1) Yes the party is controled by the extreme. I will not deny that and I do not like it hence why I like Guiliani. He is not a conservative by any stretches.

2) Clinton is not a moderate though she is not far left either. Obama I can give you.

3) As to people leaving the party, that happens no matter what ideology you are.

4) Interesting history on your senator.

actually, you are. i have no evidence for your family, other than you yourself, and their republican-ness, so i'd incline towards putting them in that category too. but even granting that there are non-authoritarians in the republican party, that does nothing to demonstrate the wrongness of the generalization.

Well I do look at whom I'm talking to so that comes as no surprise. However, generalization in general is flat out wrong when one looks at actual evidence. And no. I am not an authoritarian.

according to the data, yep.

Show it with non-biased sorces.

Also if you look at what bush and his other neo-con friends whant you would say it's pretty authoritarian:


One party state
Corporate domination over everbody's life.
Endless wars
Eliminate discourse over their actions.
Complete control over media.
Forced conversion to fundmentalist religion.
Get rid of 1st, 4th & 5th amendment rights.


Just read the infamous PNAC* statment.

*Project for a New American Century

Also if you look at what bush and his other neo-con friends whant you would say it's pretty authoritarian:


One party state
Corporate domination over everbody's life.
Endless wars
Eliminate discourse over their actions.
Complete control over media.
Forced conversion to fundmentalist religion.
Get rid of 1st, 4th & 5th amendment rights.


Just read the infamous PNAC* statment.

*Project for a New American Century

And what did I say? Both parties have their extremes. That does not mean the whole party itself is extreme. Stop generalizing. It's annoying.

1) Yes the party is controled by the extreme. I will not deny that and I do not like it hence why I like Guiliani. He is not a conservative by any stretches.

2) Clinton is not a moderate though she is not far left either. Obama I can give you.

3) As to people leaving the party, that happens no matter what ideology you are.

4) Interesting history on your senator.

Clinton & Obama are center right: http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/usprimaries2007 From a non partisan website.

Gulliani has moved further right in the last few years because he used to be a liberal Republican.(Only a liberal Republican could be elected mayor of NYC). If I did vote Repub I would vote for Ron Paul who is at least a social moderate with libertarian leanings.
And what did I say? Both parties have their extremes. That does not mean the whole party itself is extreme. Stop generalizing. It's annoying.

Dude Read the PNAC website! http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#US_World_Dominance_.28.22American_Empire.22.29

Thats what they want it's not generalizing it's the truth!!!!

Clinton & Obama are center right: http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/usprimaries2007 From a non partisan website.

I already told you I give you obama but I am not going to give you Clinton.

Gulliani has moved further right in the last few years because he used to be a liberal Republican.(Only a liberal Republican could be elected mayor of NYC). If I did vote Repub I would vote for Ron Paul who is at least a social moderate with libertarian leanings.

HAHA! Ron Paul is a total nut who wants to dismantle the entire Constitution.

American politics are generally "right-wing" regardless of party lines. Alot of stuff we Americans would label as "socialist" or "leftist" coming out in this country wouldn't pass muster in an actual socialist party overseas. Almost every political party in the US (including most of the minor ones) are rightist, really the only differentiation comes in exactly to what extent the extend to the right, and how authoritarian/libertarian they are... Though, to me, it seems both the major parties tend to be overly authoritarian in their own unique ways, each having a different set of particulars where they want to overrule the populace in general "for their own good".

OH and I did read the PNAC website. It has some good ideas and very bad ideas. Just because someone supports PNAC (which I don't but that's a different thread) does not make one authoritarian by nature.

Now let us continue with the original thread here. If you want to debate the American Political Spectrum, lets take it elsewhere as this side thread has no bearing on the regular thread.

Were Nazis right Wing? For the most part they were.

they were very, very anti-communist.

maybe had to do with the equality stuff.
equality stuff? isn't that what america is about.
or so we thought.


the 'national socialists' i.e. the nazi party
wanted socialism for their 'special' in group only.

but yeah, they were right-wing

American politics are generally "right-wing" regardless of party lines. Alot of stuff we Americans would label as "socialist" or "leftist" coming out in this country wouldn't pass muster in an actual socialist party overseas. Almost every political party in the US (including most of the minor ones) are rightist, really the only differentiation comes in exactly to what extent the extend to the right, and how authoritarian/libertarian they are... Though, to me, it seems both the major parties tend to be overly authoritarian in their own unique ways, each having a different set of particulars where they want to overrule the populace in general "for their own good".

To a point, I agree entirely with this post.

American politics are generally "right-wing" regardless of party lines. Alot of stuff we Americans would label as "socialist" or "leftist" coming out in this country wouldn't pass muster in an actual socialist party overseas. Almost every political party in the US (including most of the minor ones) are rightist, really the only differentiation comes in exactly to what extent the extend to the right, and how authoritarian/libertarian they are... Though, to me, it seems both the major parties tend to be overly authoritarian in their own unique ways, each having a different set of particulars where they want to overrule the populace in general "for their own good".

rightest minor parties.

would you say this is so for the Green Party?
the New Party? (ok, forget this one. it's not really a party, per se. but a movement or ngo of sorts)
the Progressive Party?
the Labor Party?
the Socialist Party?
not trying to start anything, just asking.

OH and I did read the PNAC website. It has some good ideas and very bad ideas. Just because someone supports PNAC (which I don't but that's a different thread) does not make one authoritarian by nature.

Now let us continue with the original thread here. If you want to debate the American Political Spectrum, lets take it elsewhere as this side thread has no bearing on the regular thread.

Were Nazis right Wing? For the most part they were.

No The Nazis were centralist authoritarian. There is a big diffrence between centralist authoritarian and right authoritarianism, hence when people call Republicans fascists they're actually incorrect.

However, generalization in general is flat out wrong

haha

And no. I am not an authoritarian.

Show it with non-biased sorces.

what would you accept as evidence?

No The Nazis were centralist authoritarian. There is a big diffrence between centralist authoritarian and right authoritarianism, hence when people call Republicans fascists they're actually incorrect.

well, actually so are the Republicans 'central authoritarians'.
but they give lip service to the phrase "states rights",
which everyone knows is an allusion southern racism and anti-civil rights

No The Nazis were centralist authoritarian. There is a big diffrence between centralist authoritarian and right authoritarianism, hence when people call Republicans fascists they're actually incorrect.

Centralist authoritarian hey? That's a new one as the centrist party in Germany during the era we are talking about was the Catholic Party. The Nazis were to the right of everyone else. So no. They were not centrist.

you know, the political spectrum ist'nt all one dimensional. It's not just left and right. You have the liberal spectrum, wich decides how much freedom the people gets, and you have the economical spectrum, wich decides how the countrys money is divided.

The nazis were actually pretty "left winged" about their money-spending, but they had alot of hate when it came to the liberal spectrum.

Re-think people, re-think.

They didn't think so
They also thought they had the right to massacre people and invade countries. Meh. Nazi speeches aren't the ultimate authority, I'd say.

Many people across the political spectrum cite the fact that untold numbers of Communists perished under Nazism as "proof" that Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies. However, a very clear distinction must be made: The two were definitely rivals, but they were not enemies. Though they competed against each other, they were not opposed to each other. Both were united in their hatred of the parliamentary system, capitalism, monarchy, traditional religion, and individual liberty.

Ehm. If you take as good the things Hitler and his fellows said about NSDAP being "left", then you should take as good also the things Hitler and his fellows said about Communism and CCCP being a jewish conspiracy and the enemies of the Herrenvolk. So? Little logical fallacy on your side.

We could take your previous documentation as a hint that Nazism tried to assume an anti-capitalistic stance: this doesn't prove, however, that Communists were anything but the fiercest oppositors of Fascism and Nazism. Look at the count of german Sozis killed by Nazis. Look at the count of italian Communists killed by Fascists. Look at the sheer percentage of Communists both in the French and Italian partisan resistance.

Then:

Parliamentary system: Hitler was placed and kept into power by a legal parliament, who continued to vote the Enabling act. Hence, the German Parliament liked Hitler. I don't think that Hitler hated the parliament who kept voting for him.
Also, there have been Communist countries with parliamentary systems. Jugoslavia - Tito was excommunicated by Stalin because Tito wanted a multipartitical, parliamentary republic in Jugoslavia instead of a soviet-type country. Hence, Communists don't necessarily hate parliaments.

Capitalism: Excuse me, but I don't think you can find a single document proving that the Nazi Regime bashed german capitalism. IG Farben, Thyssen, Krupp, Junkers, BMW... all good Nazi supporters, just like FIAT, Pirelli, Ansaldo, Reggiane, Piaggio etc supported Mussolini.
German capitalism were one of the political forces who placed Hitler as Reichskanzler and supported him as Reichsführer.

Monarchy: Preposterous assumption. First of all, there was no monarchy in Germany when Hitler took over, so, we cannot compare. Also, Hitler allied with Mussolini, who was the PM of a monarchy, and with Franco, who fought against the Spanish Republic. More again: one could also say that Hitler's regime WAS a sort of monarchy with parliamentary support.

"Traditional" religion: Germany never took a step against Catholics or Protestants, except for anti-nazi Catholics or Protestants. Remember who was Pope during WW2, and his previous relationships with the Nazi regime.

Basically: you quoted some sources pointing out that Nazism wasn't a liberal capitalistic regime (liberal as in the meaning of classical liberism, not as in USian politics), and you derived from this that Communism and Nazism are similar.
This is quite far-fetched. Or a weasely attempt at the old "opposed extremisms" theory - meaning Nazis=Commies, used by lots of centre-wing parties (example, Italy's DC).

Those who doubt this are welcome to pore through K-L's 1,000+ footnotes and challenge his many sources themselves.

Those who doubt that the Nazis were right are welcome to:
1.look where neo-Nazis and post-Nazis sit in the parliaments they're allowed in
2.quote the number of parliamentary Nazi-Commie coalitions in history
3.quote the number of right-wing parliamentary coalitions including neo- or post-Nazis
4.compare the results of 2. and 3.
5.surf any neo- or post-Nazi site and see the amount of references to: "christian values", "bashing commies" etc etc.
6.there is a current in Italy's AN (post-fascist party) called "Destra Sociale", referring to the old party's name "Movimento Sociale Italiano", who in turn was referring to Mussolini's "Repubblica Sociale Italiana", the puppet state he formed after the King turned coat and sided with the Allies. "Destra Sociale" means "Social Right" (a socially-minded right-wing).
7.Benedetto Croce, one of the most influential italian liberal thinkers, was an early supporter of Fascism (leaving it after the racial laws, iirc)
8.Mr.Ford (of the Ford automobile company) was an admirer of Mussolini's policies.
9.Churchill was pro-Mussolini until Mussolini invaded Ethiopia in 1936: however, the UK continued to purchase Isotta-Fraschini naval motors from Italy until Italy declared war on UK and France (10 june 1940).

Dr. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's

let's see who's this guy.

excerpts from wiki follow, bolds mine

****

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (July 31, 1909–May 26, 1999) was an Austrian Catholic aristocrat intellectual who described himself as an "extreme conservative arch-liberal." Kuehnelt-Leddihn often argued that majority rule in democracies is a threat to individual liberties, and declared himself a monarchist and an enemy of all forms of totalitarianism. Described as "A Walking Book of Knowledge," the cosmopolitan Kuehnelt-Leddihn was a polyglot, able to speak eight languages and read seventeen others.[1] His early books Menace of the Herd and Liberty or Equality were influential within the American conservative movement. His best-known writings appeared in National Review, where he was a columnist for 35 years.

Contrary to the common historical view, Kuehnelt-Leddihn asserted that Nazism was a leftist, democratic movement ultimately rooted in the French Revolution that unleashed forces of egalitarianism, identitarianism, materialism and centralization. He essentially argued that Nazism, fascism and communism were essentially democratic movements, based upon inciting the masses to revolution and intent upon destroying the old forms of society. Furthermore, Kuehnelt-Leddihn claimed that all democracy is basically totalitarian and that all democracies eventually degenerate into dictatorships.

In Liberty or Equality, his magnum opus, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn contrasted monarchy with democracy and presented his arguments for the superiority of monarchy: diversity is upheld better in monarchical countries than in democracies, monarchism is not based on party rule, and it "fits organically into the ecclesiastic and familistic pattern of Christian society". Thus he concluded that monarchical government is actually more "liberal", in that it provides greater liberty.

(yes, go tell this a tsarist-era muz'ik, or a XVIII-century french peasant, or a Roman Jew under the Pope-King... liberty my arse)

"Right is right and Left is wrong."

"It is the low drive for sameness and the hatred of otherness that characterizes all forms of leftism, which inevitably are totalitarian because, defying the divine diversity of the universe, these ideologies want to convert us by force to sameness -- sameness being the brother of equality. The leftist vision enjoins uniformity: the nation with one leader, one party, one race, one language, one class, one type of school, one law, one custom, one level of income, and so forth."

******

Ehm... so, Dr.EvKL just said that monarchies are good, didn't he, and that the left is wrong, didn't he? Then again, he states that the nation with one leader is left-wing. Since "nation with one leader" means "monarchy" (I speak only 4 languages and read only 10, including Ancient Greek, so I might be wrong, but "monarchy" means "rule of a single person" iirc), Dr.EvKL just said that monarchy is left, hence wrong. This contradicts Dr.EvKL's statement that "monarchies are good", so this could be a hint that Dr.EvKL's political theories were not very logically consequent. Oh well.

To sum it up in impolite words, I think that Dr.EvKL was that sort of guy who tries to hide his preposterous ideas behind a vast culture. Forgetting false modesty, I could say that it might work with other people, but not with me.

No The Nazis were centralist authoritarian.

QFT

Were the Nazis really "right-wing?"

Yes.

This has been another edition of Short Answers to Simple Questions.

No The Nazis were centralist authoritarian.
Erm, not really.

Almost all of their policies were right-wing, even the ones which seemed to be left-wing, such as the building of the Autobahns (Autobähne?) were really an excuse to get people doing somewhat crappy jobs, so they'd get back into the workforce.

Were the Nazis really "right-wing?"

Yes.

This has been another edition of Short Answers to Simple Questions.

beat you to it

Were the Nazis really "right-wing?"

Yes.

This has been another edition of Short Answers to Simple Questions.

You, sir, have been blessed with the rare gift of synthesis.

rightest minor parties.

would you say this is so for the Green Party?
the New Party? (ok, forget this one. it's not really a party, per se. but a movement or ngo of sorts)
the Progressive Party?
the Labor Party?
the Socialist Party?
not trying to start anything, just asking.

No, I was thinking of:
Republican : Major
Democrat : Major
Libertarian : Minor
Reform : Minor
Constitutional Party : Minor
America First Party :Minor
American Heritage Party : Minor
American Patriot Party :Minor
Centrist Party : Minor
New American Independence Party : Minor

To name a few.....

I know there are some Leftist parties, but the general US political spectrum runs from FAR right to center-right, with only a minority being FAR-FAR right, and tending left to true-left.

beat you to it
Wow, yeah you did. Plus you used the funnier version ("short" and "stupid").

Bottle = phail this morning.

Erm, not really.

Almost all of their policies were right-wing, even the ones which seemed to be left-wing, such as the building of the Autobahns (Autobähne?) were really an excuse to get people doing somewhat crappy jobs, so they'd get back into the workforce.

Meh. If we take the left-right axis as in the Political Compass (right being no state intervention in economy, and left being state-run economy) we might say that the economical policies of nazism were centrist. "An excuse to get people doing somewhat crappy jobs, so they'd get back into the workforce" is somewhat similar to some parts of FDR's New Deal, isn't it?

The awful truth is that, usually those political parties who claim that they don't want state intervention in the economy (that is, they claim to be on the "right" side of the left-right axis), mean that they want the State to pour money on private-owned industries instead than on welfare programs. That is, they want the monopoly on nanny State - an odd mix of "left" (nanny State) and "right" (private interest!).

(Btw, the plural of Autobahn is Autobahnen)

QFT

Oh brother. I see the facts of history are lost on people.

Wow, yeah you did. Plus you used the funnier version ("short" and "stupid").

Bottle = phail this morning.

is ok, everyone has off days

Oh brother. I see the facts of history are lost on people.

(re)read my previous about the left-right axis of the political compass...

Most people only view left and right by their own country's modern standards. What they fail to understand is that politics are actually more 3 dimensional. For example, Stalin and Gandhi both had leftist views, but were both very different.

Left and right can be used to describe economics and trade. The right represents the market view that those with wealth should rise to the top and profit, and that society should be based on competition and consumerism. Leftists believe in collectivism, and working for the entire group rather than individuals working for their own personal benefit. The extreme left is communism, and the extreme right is a total market society without any trade barriers or regulations on the free market.

In addition to the left and right, there is also another dimention used to describe how "free", one believes people have the right to be. This can be described with the words "authoritarian" and "libertarian". Note that libertarian does not have the exact same meaning as the American Libertarian party. Authoritarians include nationalists and religious fundamentalists. Extreme libertarianism is basically anarchism. Traditional anarchism would essentially mean extreme left and extreme anti-authoritarianism, or voluntary collectivism and mutual aid. This greatly contrasts with an authoritarian far left system, such as Stalin's. Authoritarian right-wingers make up people like George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, while libertarian right-wingers share similar values as American Libertarians. This is how there are 4 dimensions, rather than simply "left" or "right".

It also helps to look at it from a universal view. For example, from a world wide perspective, American Democrats such as Hilary and Obama are in fact moderate right wingers, excluding a few left-leaning candidates like Kusinich and Gravel.

And to answer the thread starters question, Hitler was very authoritarian and moderately right-wing.

Yes I agree.

This is more or less how Americans and Belgians would look at the same parties:



Party........................................................USA.....................Belgium

US Republicans...........................................Right....................Extreme Right
US Democrats............................................Central-Left...........Right
The Belgian Liberal VLD................................Central-Left..........Right
The Belgian Socialist Party............................Extreme Left..........Left
The Belgian Vlaams Belang............................Right....................Extreme Right
The Belgian Christian Democrats CD & V..........Centrum-Right........Centrum

Pretty much. They certainly were not socialist, they just said they were to win the support of the workers and to limit the support of the KPD (communists). There are many records of Hitler telling is his propagandists to lie to the "dense" masses. They were fiercely nationalist, obviously, making them inherently right wing. Despite their strict social policy, their economy was not right or left wing but an awkward centrist economy that benefited from fucking up other countries basically. The Nazis were not too concerned with the economy, and basically said separate things to different groups, promising the industrialists that their wealth will not be compromised, and promising the workers of a fairer distribution of wealth that will benefit them. In short, the Nazis were outright liars.

(re)read my previous about the left-right axis of the political compass...

Political compasses mean nothing. I go by historical information garnered through research and documents from the nazi regime itself. Based on research and policies, they were right wing.