Nazinotstand,Dresden Germany has a big problem so does all europe

[Stevicus]

Except that they didn't have private ownership. Private ownership meant that the owner had control of the business and what happened with it.

Nazism allowed the appearance of private ownership, but in reality the government controlled everything with regulations, taxes, etc.

Nazism also took DIRECT control of all public utilities; no private utility, communication or transportation companies.

If you're saying that government control through regulations and taxes means "no private ownership," then I guess that's the case for every country in the world. Still, regulated or not, they still had private ownership and the ability to earn profits (which many still did), along with a class hierarchy and a legacy of monarchism.

 

[Augustus]

Nazism was another form of Fascism,, Hard, rightwing conservatism.

It certainly wasn't 'conservative' given it called for a radical restructuring of German society, and many aristocratic conservatives were contemptuous of Hitler.

It's rise was aided by conservative elements of German society though as they thought they could use it for their own ends against the social democrats and socialist, but ended up seriously underestimating Hitler.

 

[sooda]

It certainly wasn't 'conservative' given it called for a radical restructuring of German society, and many aristocratic conservatives were contemptuous of Hitler.

It's rise was aided by conservative elements of German society though as they thought they could use it for their own ends against the social democrats and socialist, but ended up seriously underestimating Hitler.

Hitler had to get rid of anyone with an education.. to include doctors, lawyers, professors, intellectuals,, anyone with brains enough to see thru his lies. He too LOVED the uneducated.

His next step was to round up and exterminate the socialists and communists.

 

[dianaiad]

Hitler tried to kill or imprison all the Socialists and Communists as soon as he came to power.. They were the first people put in Dachau concentration camp.

He did that because they were RUSSIAN communists, buying into the Russian version. Hitler was not the Soviet Union's friend. Did you forget that he invaded that country, and that the Soviet Union was our ally in WWII? Are your history books THAT completely skewed?

Italian conservatives were the first to back Fascism and Mussolini.

Are you aware that Mussolini was one of the leaders of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party from 1910 to 1914...a socialist/communist group, considered to be 'far-left.' He was expelled for advocating participation in WWI, and less than four years later he started the fascist party in Italy....and that the platforms for both were pretty much identical? The only real difference was that he wanted to politically enforce the rules as a fascist, (police state, anybody?) where the socialists he used to march with were neutral. Oops. He was indeed a megalomaniac. However, the rules he wanted to run his regime by were the rules he learned from the Italian Socialist Party.

As for liking him...remember; unlike Hitler who was defeated by his opponents and purportedly killed himself when they won, Italians killed Mussolini themselves two years before WWII ended.

Hitler's Reich did not own or take over any businesses.. He did provide them with free labor .. namely Jews.

No, actually, Hitler's Germany went the other way; privatizing businesses whenever possible, at least in 'name.' The problem is, business owners had very little choice in the contracts they held, and could do nothing that didn't 'advance the interests of the nation." This got them out of the depression...good for him...but the taxes and regulations were incredibly restricting. The government was in complete charge of the work force, assigning slave labor anywhere it wanted to, and usually murdering the children of those workers in 'Auslanderkinder-Phlegetatte," where 90% of the children...products quite often of rape...died. You really think that stuff like that is typical RIGHT WING?

Look at history. WHICH end of the political spectrum does that sort of thing?

I submit; not the right. Not the conservatives.

 

[dianaiad]

If you're saying that government control through regulations and taxes means "no private ownership," then I guess that's the case for every country in the world. Still, regulated or not, they still had private ownership and the ability to earn profits (which many still did), along with a class hierarchy and a legacy of monarchism.

there are regulations and taxes....and then there are the sort of regulations and taxes imposed by the Nazis.

....and the more left a nation goes, the more regulations and taxes imposed upon private businesses. If one measures by that, Hitler was about as far left as one can get.

 

[sooda]

He did that because they were RUSSIAN communists, buying into the Russian version. Hitler was not the Soviet Union's friend. Did you forget that he invaded that country, and that the Soviet Union was our ally in WWII? Are your history books THAT completely skewed?



Are you aware that Mussolini was one of the leaders of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party from 1910 to 1914...a socialist/communist group, considered to be 'far-left.' He was expelled for advocating participation in WWI, and less than four years later he started the fascist party in Italy....and that the platforms for both were pretty much identical? The only real difference was that he wanted to politically enforce the rules as a fascist, (police state, anybody?) where the socialists he used to march with were neutral. Oops. He was indeed a megalomaniac. However, the rules he wanted to run his regime by were the rules he learned from the Italian Socialist Party.

As for liking him...remember; unlike Hitler who was defeated by his opponents and purportedly killed himself when they won, Italians killed Mussolini themselves two years before WWII ended.



No, actually, Hitler's Germany went the other way; privatizing businesses whenever possible, at least in 'name.' The problem is, business owners had very little choice in the contracts they held, and could do nothing that didn't 'advance the interests of the nation." This got them out of the depression...good for him...but the taxes and regulations were incredibly restricting. The government was in complete charge of the work force, assigning slave labor anywhere it wanted to, and usually murdering the children of those workers in 'Auslanderkinder-Phlegetatte," where 90% of the children...products quite often of rape...died. You really think that stuff like that is typical RIGHT WING?

Look at history. WHICH end of the political spectrum does that sort of thing?

I submit; not the right. Not the conservatives.

Mussolini changed horses.. He was hard right conservative,, That's what Fascism is.

Hitler rounded up GERMAN socialists and communists before any encounters with Russia.

You are misinformed. Start over.

 

[sooda]

there are regulations and taxes....and then there are the sort of regulations and taxes imposed by the Nazis.

....and the more left a nation goes, the more regulations and taxes imposed upon private businesses. If one measures by that, Hitler was about as far left as one can get.

Nope.. Hitler's earliest move was to align himself with German industrialists and capitalists. He catered to their every whim.

 

[dianaiad]

Mussolini changed horses.. He was hard right conservative,, That's what Fascism is.

That's called 'begging the question.' Which is...is fascism 'hard right conservative?" I say it isn't. I say it is far left labeled as right by the left who a: don't want to examine their own history and b: want to blacken and insult the REAL 'right wing.' Which, I acknowledge, has extremists that are embarrassing....but don't include Nazism or Mussolini's version of fascism. They are what happens when the far left extremists get leaders who want to impose those views on their nations.

Hitler rounded up GERMAN socialists and communists before any encounters with Russia.

Wait, You are claiming that he had never heard of Russia or the Soviet Union? Didn't know where it was? Didn't know about their expansionist policies? Was entirely unaware of them?

Seriously?

You are misinformed. Start over.

*I* am misinformed?

sheesh.

 

[Augustus]

It's ALWAYS used in bad faith. Calling someone or some ideology "Nazi" is a bit like using the word 'cult.' Nobody can actually define either word, so that both mean 'I REALLY don't like you."

You can use it to refer to the actual Nazis in the particular time and historical circumstances they emerged in, rather than using it to score political points in the 21st C.

That's not for the want of trying by the left wing types.

Well they were (small p) progressives after all...

'Right-wing types' aren't exactly shy at trying to use centuries old politics completely out of context to score cheap political points though: "Lincoln was a Republican something something this means modern Republicans are great!" (even though Lincoln's whiggish politics are about as easy to map onto modern politics as the whiggish politics of the American Revolution (or the Nazi politics of 1930s Germany onto the modern US 'conservative/liberal' divide).

1. dictatorship where the government controls all aspects of business and daily life

Now precisely WHICH nationstates are more prone to that?

Hint: it ain't the conservative right. So again I ask: how do you guys get away with calling Nazism/fascism RIGHT WING?

Government power is not the same as 'left wing'.

The Nazis also had many aspects of their politics that are considered 'right wing'.

Staunch anti-communism, opposition to social democracy, privatisation of business, militaristic 'blood and soil' nationalism, highly competitive and hierarchical society with minimal social welfare, anti-trade unionism, powerful business cartels given favourable treatment if they backed the government, etc.

Reminiscent of many of the regimes the US backed during the Cold War (Chile, Indonesia, etc), so unless Reagan was backing the socialists worldwide...

Left/right are very dumb political labels though and have about as much precision as the term 'fascist' when used as an insult.

 

[Augustus]

Hitler had to get rid of anyone with an education.. to include doctors, lawyers, professors, intellectuals,, anyone with brains enough to see thru his lies. He too LOVED the uneducated.

He purged the state of those who were not ideologically aligned with him, but it's a bit much to say he got rid of anyone with an education.

He still needed the state to be a success to fund his ambition.

His next step was to round up and exterminate the socialists and communists.

And then some of the conservatives too

Night of the Long Knives - Wikipedia

 

[Stevicus]

It certainly wasn't 'conservative' given it called for a radical restructuring of German society, and many aristocratic conservatives were contemptuous of Hitler.

It's rise was aided by conservative elements of German society though as they thought they could use it for their own ends against the social democrats and socialist, but ended up seriously underestimating Hitler.

I agree that there were aristocratic conservatives who were contemptuous of Hitler, but were they contemptuous of his politics, or just the fact that he was a corporal from a lower class? The kind of nationalism Hitler preached was mostly derivative of the same malignant nationalism which was favored by the aristocrats and was quite prevalent since at least the Franco-Prussian War of 1871.

They all enthusiastically served the Kaiser, who was an anti-Semite and malignant nationalist, just as Hitler was, even if not quite as extreme. So, I think their politics were probably similar to that of Hitler, but it may have grated on their egos to have a mere corporal elevated to position of supreme leader. Perhaps they felt he was the lesser of two evils, considering that actual communists were a formidable political threat at the time. Maybe they thought they could control him.

After the war, they were all saying "we didn't know" or "we were just following orders," but I don't think very many people actually believed that. They may have been contemptuous of him, but they still chose him. The communists were the only ones openly challenging Hitler and fighting Nazis in the street. They were contemptuous of Hitler, too, but they didn't get any help from the German aristocracy, as Hitler did.

It should also be noted that a lot of early social reforms were favored by German aristocrats. It was similar with Napoleon III, who favored a more nationalistic program, but was also a social liberal in supporting pensions, old age homes, and other social programs which gained traction in other countries. They were "liberal" in the sense that they believed in taking care of their own people, but also nationalists in their campaigns to screw everyone else. But it had nothing to do with Hitler; these were programs already supported by German nobility.

I believe the English aristocracy also supported similar social programs around the same time. In the US, Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" and Woodrow Wilson's "New Freedom" both contained support of social programs and promised a better standard of living. It wasn't "socialism," as such, even if it might have contained some elements of it.

 

[Stevicus]

there are regulations and taxes....and then there are the sort of regulations and taxes imposed by the Nazis.

....and the more left a nation goes, the more regulations and taxes imposed upon private businesses. If one measures by that, Hitler was about as far left as one can get.

Under a leftist society, private businesses don't exist.

 

[Stevicus]

That's called 'begging the question.' Which is...is fascism 'hard right conservative?" I say it isn't. I say it is far left labeled as right by the left who a: don't want to examine their own history and b: want to blacken and insult the REAL 'right wing.' Which, I acknowledge, has extremists that are embarrassing....but don't include Nazism or Mussolini's version of fascism. They are what happens when the far left extremists get leaders who want to impose those views on their nations.

Point of order here. You talk about examining history, but this isn't examining history. This is getting hung up semantics, about whether you're going to call something "left" or "right" or "socialist" or "fascist." You're obsessed over labels, all in some futile disingenuous attempt to make the right wing appear more noble and pure, while concurrently attempting to make the left look like a bunch of villains and scumbags. This whole exercise is just completely absurd, and if you've noticed, no one is really buying it.

Wait, You are claiming that he had never heard of Russia or the Soviet Union? Didn't know where it was? Didn't know about their expansionist policies? Was entirely unaware of them?

Seriously?

There had been German communists supporting communism for about as long as there were communists in Russia. Communism was invented by a German, in case you didn't know.

But @sooda was merely recounting a well-known and well-established historical fact that one of Hitler's first acts was to begin a campaign of persecuting and locking up Germans who happened to be members of the Communist Party.

The Communists had been fighting the Nazis in the streets for many years prior to Hitler's rise to power, and they were apparently the only ones with the courage and political dedication to actually stand up to Hitler. Unfortunately for the world, they failed to stop Hitler's rise to power, and they ended up paying the price for it.

And I can assure you that Hitler knew exactly where Russia was. He had big plans for Russia, but nothing the Bolsheviks or Stalin ever would have approved of.

 

[sooda]

That's called 'begging the question.' Which is...is fascism 'hard right conservative?" I say it isn't. I say it is far left labeled as right by the left who a: don't want to examine their own history and b: want to blacken and insult the REAL 'right wing.' Which, I acknowledge, has extremists that are embarrassing....but don't include Nazism or Mussolini's version of fascism. They are what happens when the far left extremists get leaders who want to impose those views on their nations.



Wait, You are claiming that he had never heard of Russia or the Soviet Union? Didn't know where it was? Didn't know about their expansionist policies? Was entirely unaware of them?

Seriously?



*I* am misinformed?

sheesh.

A lot of people assume the Nazis were socialist. They weren't . Do some research.

 

[dianaiad]

You can use it to refer to the actual Nazis in the particular time and historical circumstances they emerged in, rather than using it to score political points in the 21st C.

Uh huh.

And how often does that happen? There is a REASON everybody knows about Godwin's Law and its corollaries.

Well they were (small p) progressives after all...

'Right-wing types' aren't exactly shy at trying to use centuries old politics completely out of context to score cheap political points though: "Lincoln was a Republican something something this means modern Republicans are great!" (even though Lincoln's whiggish politics are about as easy to map onto modern politics as the whiggish politics of the American Revolution (or the Nazi politics of 1930s Germany onto the modern US 'conservative/liberal' divide).



Government power is not the same as 'left wing'.

Well....yes it is. Isn't it the whole aim of the left to make the government the arbiter and controller of all things, from business to health care to welfare to..????? Is there ANY aspect of life that the left doesn't want the government having 'the' say in?

The Nazis also had many aspects of their politics that are considered 'right wing'.

Not by conservatives, they aren't. In fact, as far as I can tell, anything that the left doesn't like is labeled 'right wing,' not because it IS 'conservative/right wing,' but because they don't like it.

Staunch anti-communism, opposition to social democracy, privatisation of business, militaristic 'blood and soil' nationalism, highly competitive and hierarchical society with minimal social welfare, anti-trade unionism, powerful business cartels given favourable treatment if they backed the government, etc.

I believe you have just proven my point here.

Reminiscent of many of the regimes the US backed during the Cold War (Chile, Indonesia, etc), so unless Reagan was backing the socialists worldwide...

Left/right are very dumb political labels though and have about as much precision as the term 'fascist' when used as an insult.

Well now, I have to agree with that last statement.

 

[dianaiad]

Under a leftist society, private businesses don't exist.

Really?

Well, in a way you are correct: private businesses don't exist in any leftist society that had any chance of still being around for any length of time. You will see that leftist/socialist nations today ALL end up having at least some private businesses, and the more private businesses they have, the more likely they are to be, er.....still nations.

 

[dianaiad]

Point of order here. You talk about examining history, but this isn't examining history. This is getting hung up semantics, about whether you're going to call something "left" or "right" or "socialist" or "fascist." You're obsessed over labels, all in some futile disingenuous attempt to make the right wing appear more noble and pure, while concurrently attempting to make the left look like a bunch of villains and scumbags. This whole exercise is just completely absurd, and if you've noticed, no one is really buying it.

Ah...you are quite right. This IS about semantics, actually; the use of 'fascist' and "Nazi' BY THE LEFT when they refer to anybody to the right of Mao.

And I'm the one who isn't buying it. Modern conservatives...in fact, any conservative that has ever existed in the USA...do not share many, if any, of the fascist/Nazi beliefs or approaches to government. Yes, there ARE extremists who buy into Nazism and fascism...and racism...today. But they are not "conservatives.'

You talk about 'semantics' but it is the LEFT which has been using semantics here to insult anybody who objects to its ideology. I'm simply pointing out that it is wrong.

There had been German communists supporting communism for about as long as there were communists in Russia. Communism was invented by a German, in case you didn't know.

No. A German airdreamed about what would happen as a natural evolution of government. The 'communism' he described bore absolutely no relation to the communism that actually was put into place.

But @sooda was merely recounting a well-known and well-established historical fact that one of Hitler's first acts was to begin a campaign of persecuting and locking up Germans who happened to be members of the Communist Party.

Yes, because they belonged to the communist party and thus opposed HIM, It wasn't because their beliefs were that violently in opposition to the things he actually did. Those communists were just as racist, for instance,as he was.

The Communists had been fighting the Nazis in the streets for many years prior to Hitler's rise to power, and they were apparently the only ones with the courage and political dedication to actually stand up to Hitler. Unfortunately for the world, they failed to stop Hitler's rise to power, and they ended up paying the price for it.

And I can assure you that Hitler knew exactly where Russia was. He had big plans for Russia, but nothing the Bolsheviks or Stalin ever would have approved of.

Hey. I'm not the one who claimed that his opposition to Communists happened before there were any dealings with Russia. That's insane, when one considers that Germany's eastern border was right up against Poland, and Poland was an important part of the 1917 revolution...and very much communist. "Dealings with Russia?" SERIOUSLY?

 

[England my lionheart]

This is quite interesting

New EU resolution: how anti-fascism and fascism became the same thing - DiEM25

 

[Augustus]

I agree that there were aristocratic conservatives who were contemptuous of Hitler, but were they contemptuous of his politics, or just the fact that he was a corporal from a lower class? The kind of nationalism Hitler preached was mostly derivative of the same malignant nationalism which was favored by the aristocrats and was quite prevalent since at least the Franco-Prussian War of 1871.

They certainly had areas of overlapping interest, but this does not necessarily lead to support for the overall political project.

It should also be noted that a lot of early social reforms were favored by German aristocrats. It was similar with Napoleon III, who favored a more nationalistic program, but was also a social liberal in supporting pensions, old age homes, and other social programs which gained traction in other countries. They were "liberal" in the sense that they believed in taking care of their own people, but also nationalists in their campaigns to screw everyone else. But it had nothing to do with Hitler; these were programs already supported by German nobility.

Although often for pragmatic rather than moral reasons.

Bismarck pioneered government healthcare primarily as a means to undercut the socialists. Somewhat ironically, the actual socialists opposed the welfare state as it would mollify the working class and thus prevent genuine political revolution

 

[Augustus]

And how often does that happen? There is a REASON everybody knows about Godwin's Law and its corollaries.

So "because they do it so can I"?

Well....yes it is. Isn't it the whole aim of the left to make the government the arbiter and controller of all things, from business to health care to welfare to..????? Is there ANY aspect of life that the left doesn't want the government having 'the' say in?

If we are going to use a reductive right/left dichotomy then, no.

Not by conservatives, they aren't. In fact, as far as I can tell, anything that the left doesn't like is labeled 'right wing,' not because it IS 'conservative/right wing,' but because they don't like it..I believe you have just proven my point here.

So militarism, nationalism, crony capitalism, anti-communism, anti-social democracy, anti-trade unionism, minimal welfare state, ideology of competition and social hierarchy have no history on 'the right'? Should we consider these core 'leftist' values?

Why did Reagan et al. support such regimes during the Cold War then?

Well now, I have to agree with that last statement.

Yet you keep using them to score cheap political points against 'the left'