[Captain Hat]

In a previous thread, I noted that Warrior Monk said that Hitler was a Leftist judging by the name of his party, the National Socialist German Workers' Party. This is a classic case of "Don't judge a book by its cover." The Nazi Party's platform and actions did not reflect anything that could be judged as leftist or liberal. Liberalism is solving social ills through democratic processes and to support democratic institutions. Hitler created a dictatoral police state, while persecuting Jews, Communists, and various other groups while glorifying a German Aryan past that did not exist.

[liberalist]

A good point, and well made. The lesson to be learnt here is dont bother arguing with Warrior Monk. He does not understand logic or history.

But still, Hilter hated alot of people and leftys, and liberals were some of them.

[jaakko]

Or more specifically, Hitler was not a socialist. "Leftist" is too vague term, one can put the line between "left" and "right" about wherever he likes.

NSDAP's real position in the political map should be judged from their relation with the German capitalist class, instead of their demogoquery. I mean their relationship both before and after their coming to governmental power.

[Liberal]

The nazi ideology is one of the most complex and contradictual that exists. It has elements of bouth extreme right and some of the left. It is contradictal because it tries to stick together nationalism(which is local) and socialism(which is universal). The elements that are simular for bouth nazism and socialism is the command economy, the dictatorship and totalitarism(we saw something vbery simular in Stalin`s USSR). Some authors have a problem when they try to destingish Nazi Germany and Stalin`s USSR, couse they are bouth totalitarian. I dont say that there is no difference. There is. But, there are some simularities as well.

[liberalist]

The elements that are simular for bouth nazism and socialism is the command economy, the dictatorship and totalitarism(we saw something vbery simular in Stalin`s USSR).

Yes, I agree that both Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR were totalitarian. But some people have problems when they think that the actions of the USSR define what socialism is. Socialism is not authoratarian, and never was. In fact one of the main tenets of socialism has always been democracy and universal sufferage. So, i would disagree that socialism is totalatarian.

[jaakko]

The nazi ideology is one of the most complex and contradictual that exists. It has elements of bouth extreme right and some of the left.

It's contradictory only on surface, ie. the level of rhetorics and propaganda. But some of the contradictions can be addressed to the petty-bourgeois origins of the movement. The party which we know as NSDAP was originally a genuine petty-bourgeois radical nationalist movement. It went through different changes before gaining the sponsorship and support of the German capitalist class. At that time it was a party of the monopoly capital, which aimed at drawing its mass basis from the petty bourgeoisie and the "lumpen proletariat" (petty criminals, unemployed etc.).

The elements that are simular for bouth nazism and socialism is the command economy

The economy in nazi Germany remained capitalist and there were no extraordinary amounts of "command economy" (bourgeois term which I assume to mean 'central economic planning') as compared to any capitalist country preparing for a war. What actually happened is that capitalists themselves got posts and were deeply involved in the government on all levels, instead of just having their political representatives there.

the dictatorship and totalitarism.

The concept "dictatorship" can be understood differently, and it's not the same as despotism or tyranny. "Totalitarianism" is Cold War terminology which by its very definition mechanically bundles the fascist type of government and socialist social system together. So it's no wonder if you find connections because "totalitarianism" is meant to mean both, while conveniently leaving out that socialism is a basic social system (just like primitive society, slavery, feudalism and capitalism) while fascism is just one possible form of government (like parliamentarism) on the basis of capitalism.

[Spin]

Would someone please read what rexcurry.net has been saying. It is the boggest load of shit ever.

He seems to think that because Hitler was slightly to the left economically that he was also a lefty when it came social policy and therefore he couldnt be fascist and socialists are evil.

[jaakko]

He seems to think that because Hitler was slightly to the left economically

Slightly to the left only if we put Smashthestate at the centre.

[Spin]

Slightly to the left only if we put Smashthestate at the centre

I thought the RAD was a leftist idea?

[jaakko]

I thought the RAD was a leftist idea?

How? It was a militarist idea. Youngsters did six months of compulsory labour in many militarist projects. There was nothing leftist about. It of great economic benefit for the capitalists. Germany was preparing for a war, it needed to mobilise all of its labour reserves. Unemployment is not a high priority then.

[Spin]

True. I reckon the best way to deal with rexcurry is to igbore the ignorant little shite. He wouldnt know socialism if it hit him in the face and started beating him repeatedly (which it will if it finds out his address)

[jaakko]

True. I reckon the best way to deal with rexcurry is to igbore the ignorant little shite.

I agree, but unfortunately I must remind you that as long as he's allowed to stay here personal insults towards him are not allowed. That capitalists supported Hitler to power and stood undivided behind the nazis, means nothing to him.

We know that it's popular among bourgeois politicians to mock each other with the name "socialist". It's common that the extreme-right calls "socialist" anything that involves more "state-intervention" than complete laissez-faire economic policies. But this is not how genuine socialists have defined socialism. And this is not how any serious person would define socialism.

[malachi151]

Well, Hitler was certianly not a leftist, but I wouldn't say that he wasn't really a "socialist" in some sense of the word.

He wasn't a socialist in the Marxist since the word, and perhaps in truth he was just as much a "socialist" as George Bush is a "free marketer", that is to say, he preached it but the policy didn't always match the words.

However, the Nazi Party did have soem elements of "socialism."

For example, from "Faith and Action":

Socialism
Socialism means: "The common good before the individual good."
Socialism means: "Think not of yourself, but of the whole, of the people and the state."
Socialism means: "Not the same for everyone, but to each his own."

These sentences make clear what we call "German socialism." No one is a socialist who does not live according to them. §A new order grows from these sentences. The sentence "To each his own" has killed the "mass," the slogan of Marxism, and replaced it with the "community." Every community grows around a leader. He is the center of its order, which forms around him. A number of these leaders form a larger community, and stand around their leader as a living order. It all grows from below—the number growing ever smaller—like a pyramid, and finds its epitome in the Führer of the Reich. All are bound by the community. Each community is a living order. The whole, the great living order, is the people's community. It binds inextricably person to person, leader to leader. It does not give the same to everyone, but to each his own. It creates the socialist people in a socialist state. §Each has his his task in the community, given to him according to his gifts. Never do all have the same task, rather each his own. His task gives him a place in the community, If he fulfills it completely, he wins the esteem of the others. He is happy, even if his task is not large in the overall scheme of things. §Such communities grow in the field, in assault troops, in artillery battalions, in submarines, in S.A. units. Strong, bound forever together, wordlessly understanding each other, together until the end, sworn to a common goal. Strength grows from such communities, and from them grows the state. §We want community in Germany so that we can stand unshaken in the face of whatever may come. The mass is conquered by the community. It gives to each his own, to each his goal and his task, and everyone together one goal: the people's community in the new state.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/glauben.htm

Hitler's "socialism" is really what "rightists think of when the think of Socialism.

A society in which all individuals are subordinate to the "common good."

That is not the concept of Marxist socialism or leftist socialism in general, it is the concept of rightist "socialism."

For example also, the Nazis develped several labor corps where people worked together, often young men, who did things like help build the highways, and plant trees, and build damns, and things of this nature.

The Nazis had a lot of rallies and a large community based effort to get people invovled in the Party.

You see, in Nazi Germany everything was based on "the Party."

All along the Nazis weren't really "government based" they were "party based."

Being a member of the Party was like goining a large fraternaty in a way. There was a lot of ritual and things to make you feel wanted and a part of the group and to be invovled in a community effort. The party operated outside the boundaries of government, which many people don't realize. The Nazis weren't exactly acting within the parameters of the government, they never had full control of the State.

They developed a powerful Party, that was able to wield enough pressure to push the government around is more like what it amounted to.

But anyway, I think that its foolish to think that Hitler didn't genuinely want to "do good."

What you have to keep in mind is that the Nazis saw their actions as good. They really believed that the Jews were a threat, they really believed in racial superiority, etc, etc.

The Nazis weren't trying to "enslave everyone," they were trying to do what they thought would most benefit a certian group of people, "white Germans" at the expense of other groups of people.

Let's assume that the Germans won the war.

The members of the Nazi Party would have all had it great. Certian German people would have been gretly benefited. His plans COULD have worked, and would have benefited a large segment of the Gemran population.

His brand of "socialism" would have created a beneficial society... for those people who bought into it and liked it.

Afterall, don't forget that Hitler helped to design the "Folk's Wagon" - Volkswagen, and created the highways for people to use them on too.

My advice: watch Triumph Of the Will.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/speci ... ofwill.htm

Yes, Hitler advocated some type of "socialism," however it had nothing at all to do with the leftist socialist movements in any way shape or form.

RexCurry is full of crap, as I have pointed out several times.

Unfortunately he runs around everywhere spouting his crap in many places where people are less informed and they think his is on to something. I've seen references to his info several places, even on a "rationalist" website. I wrote them to correct the madness, but I got no reply.

Interestingly though, the author of the Pledge may be closer to a Nazi style "socialist" than one would think, but even still his views were largely different from the Nazis, but he was a "Nationalist Christian Socialist", which is in fact a very good way to describe the Nazis, though Christian would not be exactly accurate, Religious does fit them well, as well as "Faith Based."

Frances Bellamy and the Christian Socialists were deeply opposed to Marxism and made several statements about how Society should be constructed on the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Christian Socialist orgnaization that Bellamy belonged to was more like a modern day version of the Puritans or Amish, except unlike the Amish they supported modernization. So really Bellamy's ideology was kind of like the ideology of the Amish mixed with the concept of industrialization and elements of Nationalism thrown in. All and all, not that far off from Nazism, but the trut is that Bellamy didn't share the Nazi concepts of race nor the drive for war and militancy, so in teh regions where the Nazis did their real damage, Bellamy simply didn't share their views.

[Dark_Stalin]

dont trust warrior monk he is a thoughcriminnal who has been shoved down the memory hole

[Lincoln (m)]

Malachi151, review Jaako's response. You have confused the rhetoric of the NAZI's with their substance.

[dillinger]

One of the best books on the subject is Michael Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism.

His main point is that Fascism is only irrational in its appearance, which it carefully and deliberately cultivates. Objevtivly, it consistently serves a very strict set of class interests. You can also get some of his spoken word on Kazaa or other p2p networks.

[Fernando]

I think Hitler had not really an ideology. He was not more than a

- Nationalist: Germany is the aim of his policy.
- Totalitarian: colectivity (State/nation/aryan race) is more important than individual.
- Anti-liberal: Political parties are egoist, only NSDAP has altruistic objectives.

The rest of his ideas are consequences: he hates internationalist powers (free trade, communism, jews) and the ideas that bothers fully obedience to state (churches).

Regarding ecoomy, I think he hadn't a real model. He took "socialist" (search for full employment, infrastructure employment) as well as "capitalist" measures (friend and protector of german big companies). Certainly he was not a free trader. He opened the country only when needed to get some raw materials not in Germany.

I don't mind if you consider this extreme right or left. As a matter of fact both are totalitarian and anti-liberal, and most of them nationalists (since Vietcong to Perón). In example, Was Perón leftist or rightist?

Hitler was just another populist: they try to appear in the center of the extremes, embracing the whole country, leaving out of the system only small minorities (burgeois, jews). He took an almost communist party (Strassers) and turned it into a "national movement" in which workers and capitalist would belong comfortably without fighting each other.

[Attila The Nun]

You know, I actually talked to a nazi (no, not during the 1930s-40son the internet, and here is the reason he gave for the persecution of the jews by the nazis: "The jews are the cause for the depression in Germany, and the reason for the Germans not winning WWI. The Germans are the master race because they are conquerers, and have conquered part Europe, and would've conquered all of it WWI had it not been for the jews."

Gee, uh, here I was thinking that Germany was never defeated in WWI, and the Treaty of Versailles was a big "Screw Germany, you lost, even though you never got invaded". That, and Germany conquering all of Europe is absurd, there's an issue of plain numbers there. Anyone remember when Hitler was fighting with 40 year old poles and greeks and 15 year old Germans?

But, Hitler...leftist? Tha'ts absurd. He was a fascist and a totalarian, you can't get more right wing than that. That, and Hitler hated democracy, and liberals. He voiced that opinion regularly, if you had ever studied how he got into power.

[Napuljun]

"Don't judge a book by its cover."

Nice one

[malachi151]

This is the piece I am currently working on (it still has a ways to go). This covers Hitler's politcal disposition.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... pectru.htm