The Nazi Party was not Right-Wing

What a silly little spiel you've got there. I suspect your political education stems primarily from talk radio. Adolf Hitler, the calculating man that he was, chose the name National Socialist German Worker's Party mainly to attract as large a group of Germany's populace as possible, and so combined the leading political movements; Nationalism, Socialism, Pan-Germanism, and Communism into the name of the party, thus increasing his appeal. Its parallel to creating the Progressive American Tea Partiers Association of Conservative Wall Street Occupiers Party, just a strategy of mismashing as many political slogans into your name in an attempt seem universally appealing.

The Left/Right scale is somewhat lacking. Its better to think of political attitudes as more of a circle composed of Reactionaries, Conservatives, Liberals, and Radicals. Reactionaries want to return to an often idealized past (that may not have even existed)where everything was better 'before', and their willing to use violence to get there. Radicals are like Reactionaries except they look to the opposite direction, they want to go forward to an idealized future(that may never be reached), and will also use violence to reach their goals.

Adolf Hitler was without a doubt a Reactionary. He wanted to return to the romanticized Germany of Wagner and Siegfried etc. "If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution." - Adolf Hitler <<<<< sounds pretty conservative/right wing to me

 

It's like the Liberal Party of Australia, Australia's largest conservative party. Your name doesn't determine what you are, your actions determine what you are.

 

Gimme an f'ing break. Hitler was for expanded government control of the private sector. Just as liberals are. Modern day Fascism, just as Obama has advocated. Hitler confiscated private guns. That;s uber-liberal. Hitler squashed freedom of the Press. Uber-liberal. The man had not a Conservative bone in his body. The Nazi's were liberals on steroids.

 

The illusion of left and right is the stepping stone for tyrants the world over. It's a great way to make folks bicker while the are being prepped for bondage.

Trying to categorize them by their position on a single axis is folly

 

What spectacular display of stupid. You think regulating speech and the press is a liberal thing? I'm sure its all those 'pro-family values' liberals out there that are responsible for the existence of the FCC.

On the other accounts I'll say yes, Hitler regulated private industry and severely limited gun ownership, and guess what happened, Germany's economy skyrocketed and crime all but disappeared. He was wrong about most things, but not all.

 

Jeeeezus Krist. This is so stupid. Without any doubt, it is the liberals that want to limit freedom of speech. It is abundantly clear here in the US.

Germany was in the dumps due to the destruction of its economy by the victors of WWI. Its economy could only go up with a renewed nationalization. Hitler saw the opportunity, and never looked back until 1945, when he had to kill himself.

Liberals are so clueless.

 

I'd love for you to provide an example of 'liberal censorship', seeing as its so common and all. Just to be clear, when you say 'nationalization' you mean when the government takes control of certain industries for the betterment of the economy, if so I'd like to be the first one to tell you that you're economics are already quite left leaning sir.

 

Prior to the outbreak of WWII they did indeed allow price competition in wages. No nation allows such competition during a total war scenario. When an nation state's economy has to devote 80 % of it's industrial and agricultural output to the war effort, as every major conflict from the U.S. Civil War on has, things like wage and price controls are unfortunate, but absolutely necessary. Anything short would be to guarantee national suicide. Can you cite even one reputable economist who would argue that a free market economy could effectively have won WWII?

 

The free markets of the world provided the industry and goods to conduct that war. They provide the funding today for the most powerful military on earth and the military is strongest when the private market is allowed to grow.

Price controls only cause shortages. Not lower prices. They are in no way effective at achieving their goals. Price and wage controls started before the war anyway. By "reputable economist" do you mean left keynsian?

 

See people? This guys gets that the economics are pretty leftist.

As far as censorship, that is easy. Hate speech laws in Europe, PC in America.

 

You are getting the GOP confused with conservatism, a common mistake.

You see, this conversation is useless because we all have differing preconceived notions as to their definitions.

Again, we should look at collectivists as statists, they can be seen as right leading or left leaning. As such, they are on the same side of the political spectrum rather than on opposite sides.

Those in the US 2 party system are both parties of statists. That is why both the DNC and RNC detest conservative leanings in the Tea Party because they are both for empowering government over the individual. This is why they both supported such actions as going to war in Iraq, going to war in Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and on and on.

Most get caught up in the rhetoric. For example, when Obama attacked Libya the GOP passed a resolution to have him withdraw, however, it was a powerless resolution, done for political purposes. Then when it came time to fund the war effort, the GOP voted for it. The only way for Obama to be forced out was to not fund them, and the voted to continue the war effort.

This is but a taste of what I'm telling you. Both parties are more alike than the media and academia would have you believe, mostly because academia and the media get their bread and butter from the source of all money in the world, namely the Fed. As a result, they create these ridiculous charts to try and get us to believe that collectivists to the left and right are on opposite sides of the political spectrum rather than right next to each other, if not together.

As for the economy, as I said the Nazi economy was in shambles. Try reading a book called, "Hitler's Beneficiaries" by historian Gotz Ally. It is rumored that Hitler was forced to go to war in 1939 when he did in order to avoid economic meltdown due to his massive debt he had incurred under left winged Keynesian economics.

Essentially, Hitler would invade countries and then loot them. He did this in various ways, but the best way seemed to be to create currency in these countries for their soldiers to use. They would then just print this money and give it to their soldiers to buy whatever their hearts desire and send it home. Of course, this would drive up inflation and cause the economy of the conquered country to begin to collapse. Then Hitler would just tell the puppet governments in these countries to round up the Jews, take their gold and other valuable, and then use these funds to help stabilize the economy of that particular nation as the Jews were then sent to their deaths.

It worked like clock work and wickedly efficient. The Jews ended up being just a minority upon which to feed for monetary purposes rather than just mere ideological hatred of a certain race or religion.

 

I do love when people recognize my genius.

PC is not enforceable policy, therefore not censorship.
I could care less about European 'hate speech' laws, let them choke on their cultural relativism.

 

with the exception of the significant increase in crimes of the state against the citizens. I recall a few nazis being hung for that. Oh we'll, what's a few million citizens dead in the name of safety anyway? I say it was a fair trade.

 

I generally agree with everything you've said regarding political labeling. I don't particularly like ideologies or right/left categorizations, they're too myopic. I think of myself as a pragmatist and take policy on a case by case basis.Usually when there is little difference between the political parties in a country it means that things are going well and there is little to argue about, when they start to become more polarized its usually a sign of trouble.

I disagree with your assessment of the Nazi economy. Hitler was not 'forced' into a war in 1939, he wanted it. In fact he was disillusioned with the Munich Pact a year earlier because he thought his annexation of the Sudetenland would finally initiate the war of revenge he always wanted. I find it unlike that the plunder attained from the Jews, less than 1% of the German population, could sustain the country before and during the war. Besides I'm mostly concerned with their economy before the war, since once initiated they gradually moved more towards a total war from economics. Also I looked up that Gotz Aly guy, he's considered to be on the fringe and is not generally accepted by the majority of those in his field of study sooo yeaa gonna need to see those TPS reports.

 

" *sigh* There's just no pleasing you guys is there"-Hitler

 

I'd prefer my neighbor with a gun than a government with all the guns

BTW discussing left or right is meaningless when it comes to tyrants. They're not even on the same axis as left or right

 

Agree

xcept for the guns part, sorry just not a fan

 

when it comes to social values, the Nazis were clearly right-wing.

 

I'll say it again. Hitler lessened restrictions on firearm ownership for 99.7% of the population. That's hardly disarming everyone.

 

NO IT IS NOT. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING. HOLY (*)(*)(*)(*).

Ok, point?


[/QUOTE]Guaranteed Retirement Program
Guaranteed Job at Guaranteed wage
Mothers pension
Living Wage for All
Redistribution of tons of Jewish Wealth to all sorts of Germans[/QUOTE]
You still aren't understanding the hierarchy aspect of this. All these "socialistic" work projects and jobs were not there because Hitler wanted everyone to have a job, he wanted more people to serve the state.

Shove your threats, this is the internet what are you gonna do, yell more? Your question doesn't even have anything to do with this since the answer an obvious "NO".

Are you getting this yet? Actual Marxism is IMPOSSIBLE. Lenin knew that. What he did was pragmatize Marxism - there has to be a ruling party and a leader. But within that party, all members are equal, and among the vast masses, all people are equal. Inevitably this is exploited for personal gain, but that is the theory.

Ron Paul is centrist.

Nazi Germany was a hierarchial society. At the top you have Hitler. Below him you have Himmler and Goering. Below that you have people like Speer, Goebbels, Hiedrich, Hess, etc. Then people like Kietel and the rubber-stamp brigade on the General staff. After that you have varying degrees of authority within the Nazi Party itself, then the SS commanders, then their subordinates, then industrialists, businessmen, etc, the military commanders, the SS, all the way down to local Nazi Party members, and finally the lowest you can be without being in a concentration camp: passive citizens who do what they're told and no more.

If Hitler began (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with the higher up people, despite all his power those people he'd be going after had so much power themselves that he'd never be able to effect anything. Himmler, despite the SS being there for Hitler, made the thing into his personal army. Goering had the airforce, the Gestapo and all the police and paramilitary forces that weren't SS under his control.

The Soviet Union had no such thing. It didn't matter how much of a suckup you were, only a very small number of people were ever granted any power, that would be Party officials. And they themselves have little power other than administering the orders of the Politburo, the people who actually run the place. All other citizens are there to just...exist. Kruschev had no "sidekicks" like Goering of Himmler, people who were essentially equal in power but were letting him be in charge because they all thought it best. He and his little Politburo were the kings, no one else had the power to defy them, nor was almost anyone given or rewarded with such power. Basically, you were either at the top, or you weren't. If you were at the top, you made the decisions. If you weren't, even as a party member you just had to deal with it. Really, Fascism turned out to be more of a collaborative effort, as everyone being given different levels of power meant people had to deal with each other and make agreements. There was tons of internal conflict in Nazi Germany from people trying to climb their way up the ladder, or obstruct each others' plans. In the USSR, that (*)(*)(*)(*) would get you thrown in a Gulag, but in Nazi Germany it was acceptable so long as there was no opposition to the goals they were trying to achieve, because that's all that mattered: servitude to the state.

I already know that. I'm saying they have less of a hierarchy than fascists.

Yeah, so?

The Politburo only became the real rulers after Stalin was dead. While he was there it was all about Stalin.

No. This completely ignores the hierarchy of power among individuals, organizations and subgroups within Nazi Germany.

Why would I give a name when none exist? I know it's BS. I don't support socialism you know, or where you under the automatic assumption that because I'm arguing with conservatives I must be a leftist? Man you really jump to assumptions, or you must have forgotten who I am.

I'm pointing out that Stalin is a totalitarian, and he's there for his own personal gain. Lenin was trying to achieve something. You don't have to agree, but at least his motives weren't purely about personal gain.

Ok. My point about Leninism being the closest you can get to Marxism in real life still stands.

 

Hitler confiscated the weapons of all those he planned to kill. Your 2nd amendment right is to protect you from government should they come for you unjustly. Don't you think a few Jews would have preferred to keep their weapons?

Name a socialist that has disarmed themselves and I will care about the non point you are trying to make.

 

Guaranteed Retirement Program
Guaranteed Job at Guaranteed wage
Mothers pension
Living Wage for All
Redistribution of tons of Jewish Wealth to all sorts of Germans[/QUOTE]
You still aren't understanding the hierarchy aspect of this. All these "socialistic" work projects and jobs were not there because Hitler wanted everyone to have a job, he wanted more people to serve the state.




Shove your threats, this is the internet what are you gonna do, yell more? Your question doesn't even have anything to do with this since the answer an obvious "NO".

Are you getting this yet? Actual Marxism is IMPOSSIBLE. Lenin knew that. What he did was pragmatize Marxism - there has to be a ruling party and a leader. But within that party, all members are equal, and among the vast masses, all people are equal. Inevitably this is exploited for personal gain, but that is the theory.




Ron Paul is centrist.





Nazi Germany was a hierarchial society. At the top you have Hitler. Below him you have Himmler and Goering. Below that you have people like Speer, Goebbels, Hiedrich, Hess, etc. Then people like Kietel and the rubber-stamp brigade on the General staff. After that you have varying degrees of authority within the Nazi Party itself, then the SS commanders, then their subordinates, then industrialists, businessmen, etc, the military commanders, the SS, all the way down to local Nazi Party members, and finally the lowest you can be without being in a concentration camp: passive citizens who do what they're told and no more.

If Hitler began (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with the higher up people, despite all his power those people he'd be going after had so much power themselves that he'd never be able to effect anything. Himmler, despite the SS being there for Hitler, made the thing into his personal army. Goering had the airforce, the Gestapo and all the police and paramilitary forces that weren't SS under his control.

The Soviet Union had no such thing. It didn't matter how much of a suckup you were, only a very small number of people were ever granted any power, that would be Party officials. And they themselves have little power other than administering the orders of the Politburo, the people who actually run the place. All other citizens are there to just...exist. Kruschev had no "sidekicks" like Goering of Himmler, people who were essentially equal in power but were letting him be in charge because they all thought it best. He and his little Politburo were the kings, no one else had the power to defy them, nor was almost anyone given or rewarded with such power. Basically, you were either at the top, or you weren't. If you were at the top, you made the decisions. If you weren't, even as a party member you just had to deal with it. Really, Fascism turned out to be more of a collaborative effort, as everyone being given different levels of power meant people had to deal with each other and make agreements. There was tons of internal conflict in Nazi Germany from people trying to climb their way up the ladder, or obstruct each others' plans. In the USSR, that (*)(*)(*)(*) would get you thrown in a Gulag, but in Nazi Germany it was acceptable so long as there was no opposition to the goals they were trying to achieve, because that's all that mattered: servitude to the state.





I already know that. I'm saying they have less of a hierarchy than fascists.




Yeah, so?




The Politburo only became the real rulers after Stalin was dead. While he was there it was all about Stalin.




No. This completely ignores the hierarchy of power among individuals, organizations and subgroups within Nazi Germany.




Why would I give a name when none exist? I know it's BS. I don't support socialism you know, or where you under the automatic assumption that because I'm arguing with conservatives I must be a leftist? Man you really jump to assumptions, or you must have forgotten who I am.




I'm pointing out that Stalin is a totalitarian, and he's there for his own personal gain. Lenin was trying to achieve something. You don't have to agree, but at least his motives weren't purely about personal gain.




Ok. My point about Leninism being the closest you can get to Marxism in real life still stands.

 

There is no 2nd Amendment Right here. Hitler made it EASIER for the majority of Germans to obtain firearms. That's a fact.

 

You.....

YOU ARE NOT (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LISTENING!

Jesus this willful ignorance is astounding.

A libertarian is for equality of rights, but does not in any way guarantee equality in wealth. Some equality, some inequality. Thus on the left right spectrum, which represents equality-inequality, they're not towards either end.

I keep TELLING YOU THIS. LEFT WING IS EQUALITY. RIGHT WING IS INEQUALITY. YOU ARE STILL ACTING AS IF LEFT = TYRANNY and RIGHT = ANARCHY. THAT ISN'T CORRECT. YOU CAN INSIST IT IS ALL YOU WANT BUT YOU'RE WRONG.

 

I'm pretty sure his definition of left right is everything I agree with is right wing and everything I disagree with is left wing.