In my opinion Hitler was a race-based socialist. He even allied with the Communist party of his country temporarily to get rid of capitalism.
Also uh.. socialists are not right wing 🤣
Joseph Stalin killed more people than Hitler by the way and lived in an authoritarian country which banned religion. Is he "right wing" too?
You are exactly right. Hitler was far left. Mussolini was far left too and it is hard to argue he wasn't a card carrying internationalist communist. He even edited the communist newspaper for gods sake so how right wing was that huh?
Why some less educated people have trouble with this concept is that Lenin/Stalin Internationalist Communism was the only form surviving WWII and therefore assume that was the only type there ever was.
That is entirely wrong. Even before Marx there were many schools of communism. Socialism was used as a synonym and was not seen as distinct. The first Internationale was distinguished by complete disagreement of how a communist society should be structured.
The neat thing about Marxism is you just have to define an oppressing class and an oppressed class and away you go. For Hitler (like Marx before him) Jews were the oppressors and Germans the oppressed. Mussolini was a little different; the Italian nation was his centerpiece.
There is a good quote from Hitler in which he said if it wasn't for national socialism's racial concepts it would be indistinguishable from International communism.
There was another in which Hitler said that he learn't every thing he needed to know from Marx.
Both of these came from dinner chats that Hitler gave which were recorded. Not giving them verbatim though.
I don't think left and right wing distinctions helps. Lets just call it what it is Marxism which includes International communism, Chines communism (not the same as USSR and they came close to war over it), socialism, Nazi, fascism, feminism, and critical race theory and more
@OddBeMe Sorry, no it is not. There are divides within socialism, but socialism overall is a philosophy of the left, Within that leftist spectrum, there is a range, but it is all within the larger leftist framework.
Oh, and by the way, you are talking to a man with a MA in political philosophy. Just in case you are wondering.
(Here I would insert an epithet, but we will let your vulgarity stand as an expression of your own philosophical depth.)
@nightdrot I did respond to yours as well, so prob apt here to. Right wing socialism is totally a think. Ie tax cuts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus
@OddBeMe The first job I got I had to join a union and I was surprised to find it was described as a Hard Right union and that there was a Hard Right faction in the associated political party.
Hard Right must be to the right of the conservative that hates unions. Or so I thought confusedly at the time. NO. It just meant it was to the right of the socialist left faction and the Hard Right labor faction was to the left of the conservative right wing part.
What is left and right is relative.
Very true, left and right are relative. Your union experience seems really weird as right wingers in the US are for banning unions.
But in the 30s Germany, there were commies on far left, social democrats center left, industrial right, and then the far right Nazis. can't get around that.
Who said this?
"I'm a socialist, but a very different kind of socialist than your rich friend Count Reventlow."
The year was 1930 and the speaker was a German politician named Adolf Hitler.
Names count and the National SOCIALIST German Worker's party, " was a party of the extreme left. It's rivalry with communism being the result of a split in the socialist world.
The communists and socialist believed that the war between the classes was the driving force in History - with a capital "H." The National Socialists believed that it was clash of the races, not the classes, that drove history forward.
The portrayal of the German Nazis as extreme right wing was an accident of Allied propaganda. Once the USSR had joined the Allied cause, Allied leaders had to find a way to explain to their publics how the Soviets - not so long ago regarded as an equal enemy of the West - had become allies.
Thus the portrayal of the Nazis as "extreme right." This then explaining in simple terms their conflict with the communists.
Yet tracing the pedigree of their ideas - and indeed listening to their own words - it can be seen that the conflict was the result of a split in the leftist ideological movements. That in fact, Hitler was - as he said himself - a man of the left.
Right wing socialist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussentum_und_Sozialismus
@OddBeMe Prussian does not equal "right wing." Besides, there are better sources of information on political philosophy. (See my response to your response above. By the way, just as one response to the article you attached - as you may recall, the Soviets and Poles were not supporters of the "right to strike" either. See also the Solidarity movement. Based on the article above, should we assume the Soviets were "right wing.")
Oh, and as regards Spengler, he noted an identity of interests between the socialists and Prussian nationalism against the UK. That does NOT means he thought that they were the same thing. Merely that there was an identity of interests between the two. See also the later Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939-1941 as another example.)
P. S. Just to be clear, there is a broader spectrum of ideas and then subsets within that spectrum. Thus, for example, absolutist monarchy would be the extreme right and socialism the extreme left. Then within that larger spectrum, there is WITHIN socialism - to use that example - a spectrum of left to right.
However, please note, that does NOT make "right wing socialism" right wing, it merely makes it to the right within the larger leftist spectrum. This is where much of the confusion lies in everyday language.
Strictly speaking, "right wing socialism" is an oxymoron. It is a useful term only in a discussion of the spectrum of ideas in the larger left wing. NOT within the whole spectrum of ideas left to right.
The article you provided badly muddles this - and confounds it with nationalism to boot.
@OddBeMe Actually, Hindenburg turned to Hitler to buy off the left and thereby exacerbate their divides. His strategy was for more complex than you seem to suggest. He was, in effect, hoping to divide his opponents - ands he considered the Nazis less of an immediate danger than the communists.
On this last point he was wrong - as events would prove. However, at the time, the communists had been a more long established force and the Nazis relatively new. This leading conservative aristocrats like Hindenburg to believe that they would be enhancing the weaker side and thus exacerbating the divide on the left.
One last P. S. - and sorry, I don't mean to be bother, but this article may interest you:
medium.com/.../were-hitler-and-the-nazis-politically-left-or-right-wing-e9fcc9d3ab1e
The only point I disagree with you on is the use of the single word 'split' because communism/socialism was quite diverse well before Marx &1848 and there was quite strong dislike amongst the broad communist/socialist church for each other. Marx and Engels would chortle together over the bombs (their word) they sent out
Riven is a more apt word i think than split because the later implies a uniformity at an early point that did not exist. In WW1 belief in socialism was not enough to prevent them dividing along national identity lines.
Have you come across Marx's book Le Petite Grande Hommes? Marx had talent for hatchet jobs and it is an entertaining read. I take familial pride that a communist forebear was worth a couple of paras of derogative insults in it. :)
The problem most people have is that as USSR was communist and as there was a bitter war with the Nazi state, they had to be extreme political opposites is the popular reasoning.
I think we would be better calling them both Marxist states than trying to correct a WWII mislabeling.
In my view Marxism still needs to be strongly opposed but for different reasons than in the Cold War. So it would be a useful relabeling aside from historical accuracy.
.
@RavVid Well, I don't have any objection to your use of the term "riven." There was - and still is - a great deal of splintering in what we will call here for sake of convenience, the leftist world.
As far as your last point, Marxism does retain a certain cultural hold in parts of the Western world - even if it is not recognized as such. Communism as such has been discredited by its' defeat in the Cold War.
Marxism, overall, though continues to have an appeal. Its' pseudo-scientific constructions are especially attractive to a society that embraces the scientific while not understanding its' full ramifications.
Not least its' degenerative impact on views of the human being. Under the Marxist analysis, humans are less individuals than raw material to be shaped by social engineers. Unconsciously, this remains very attractive in the West, where the idea is that every problem has a solution and that we need only discern the proper methods for dealing with them.
So a Medium post with commentary should override the scientific method of historians?
And you think Hindenburg would appoint anyone from the left? That’d be like Trump appointing Hillary. Your intelligence is blinded by ideology.
Simple research, my friend. And all you have is commentary.
@OddBeMe As I said, I have an MA in political philosophy and am also very familiar with European history. In fact, in the German case, it is family history to boot.
In any case, yes, Hindenburg was in a tough spot and was desperate to stabilize the country. His gamble was to divide his opponents and therefore exercise de facto control.
As to the article, I thought you would find the parallels between the policies of the Nazis and the Communists to be of interest. I was less concerned with the source than with the data - which can be verified by other sources.
By the way, enough with the Trump stomping. As you know, I am no fan of Mr. Trump. Yet good grief, his philosophy is as thin as gruel. He is a populist, pure and simple, and all the foot stomping about Trump is wildly disproportionate.
Oh, and yes, by the way, have you noticed how Trump has begun to modify his views on abortion? Our system is not a parliamentary system, but it is not beyond imagination that Trump would appoint a political rival if it suited his interests.
The old saw applies, "I'm a man of no convictions - at least I think I am." Thus is Mr. Trump - making him very different from Hitler, whose convictions were pointed to the level of bloodthirsty.
So, then, if all I have is commentary, please outline for me the pedigree of ideas that conduced to National Socialism and how they are anti-socialist.
Thank you for "humans are less individuals than raw material to be shaped by social engineers" and the other thoughts you cogently gave.
Sadly it is one of my major character defects that I resent being shaped by Cultural Marxists.
The proper methods for dealing with them [the problem] inevitably turns out to be Gov't spending a lot of money ineffectively and creating new problems with that spending. In my country increased education spending negatively correlates with education outcomes yet different results are expected each time. :)
Could care less about your MA or supposed experience on Capitol Hill. Honestly that means you’re most likely more deluded working for Teabagger congressmen.
But again…facts are on my side. Your side is just ideology of needing a pure politcal belief with no “uh ohs”. Lol
Thinking socialism is only left wing is like believing capitalism is only right wing. No actual basis in reality there. I really am disappointed in you.
@OddBeMe Okay, first, define your terms, Give me your outline of the pedigree and origins of Socialism and its' fundamental premises. Second of all, if you are going to resort to insults and epithets and caricatures we are probably at the end of this discussion.
Too bad as I did enjoy the back and forth, but there is little I can say if your starting premise is I am wrong because of who I worked for - and by the way, at the U. S. Helsinki Commission I worked for both a Democrat and a Republican - and because my academic credentials do not count for anything. The premise there being that my work and research experience count for nothing against your attitudes.
Define my terms? Me thinks you are trying to wiggle out of obvious poly-science hole you fell in to make liberals look bad.
I’ll define the 30s political era in Germany. From the left: Commies, Social Democrats, Elite conservatives (Hindenburg and the industrialists) and the Nazis.
Von Papen was foiled trying to make a conservative government over and over, and talked Hindenburg into appointing Hitler thinking they can control him.
They did NOT even dream of appointing a lefty, so afraid of communism as they were. So much so, they had previously turned the other cheek when the Nazi SA thugs murdered left wing politicians in the streets.
It’s like you’re trying to rewrite history with a crayon.
“The conservative elite’s second move towards authoritarian rule was helping the Nazi Party to gain power. The conservative elite and the Nazi Party had a common enemy – the political left.”
www.theholocaustexplained.org/.../
@OddBeMe How are the Nazis conservative? Did they support the restoration of the monarchy? Did they support the traditional social order?
They were not the right. Indeed, define the "right." (That term coming out of the French revolution - where supporters of the monarchy sat to the right of the Speaker's chair in the Chamber of Deputies, opponents to the left."
The bottom line being that the Nazis were NOT supportive of a traditional social order and thus cannot be plausibly classified as "right wing."
Plus, words matter - National SOCIALIST German WORKER'S Party. Those are the words that would appeal to a leftist audience - certainly not draw in a right wing membership.
You are a good man, but your grasp of intellectual history is not strong. I gently suggest that you take a more serious look at the pedigree of political ideas as they have developed in the West.
Thank you for your contribution @nightdrot I find you break the fundamentals down pretty well. I enjoy this.
Thanks so much for the kind compliment. I have - because I work in politics - made it part of what I do to study the pedigree and history of ideas. It is a passionate interest of mine, but day-to-day in politics you don't often get to discuss it. To your credit, your question opened up an avenue to that discussion.
Unlike @Juxtapose, I neither care nor would count your DC work as some authority. You write loooong, but in with intelligence.
However on this you are deeply blinded by ideology. Socialism and Capitalism are flip sides of a coin and both can used by the right or the left wings.
Opinion
23Opinion
m I am stealing this from Quora, as I cannot be hassled to write it.
While they both fundamentally are socialist ideologies, the main difference is while communism is preaching their goal of an egalitarian utopia across all people in a borderless communist world order, national socialism is ridden by a strong national and racial element, preaching socialism within the borders of a national state for a specific people.
HItler believed that socialism could only be achieved if you rid the nation of what he perceived as parasites on the socialist welfarestate, this included mentally challenged people, homosexuals and races he considered inferior, like gypsies and Africans.
Jews on the other hand was in general successful in the german state and a lot of them had made great careers as bankers and businessowners.
Hitler perceived jews as the manifestation of capitalism, people exploiting the labour of german workers for their own gain, contributing nothing to society, Ths was his motivation for seizing the jews valuables and businesses, this and the fact that the german welfarestate was unsustainable and was broke at the point, and the confiscation of jewish valuables could keep him going for another while. When the funds stolen from the jews also ran out, the only way he could sustain the socialist welfarestate for the german people was with expansion and war.
While private ownership to some degree was pertained under nazism compared to communism in USSR, the private ownership was stricty regulated by the nazi leadership and corporate taxes were doubled many times over since Hitler, like most other socialists believed income should come from labour and not capital gains. They had to produce what they were instructed to produce, failure to comply would lead to state confiscation of their assets. For practical purposes the totalitarian nazi-regime was a planned economy, and had nothing to do with the typical limited state and freedom that is attributed to right-wing capitalism.
Hitlers main reason for opposing communism and USSR was that he perceived this ideology as a jewish conspiracy, he perceived the slavs as an inferior race and he was obsessed with seizing the resources and lebensraum situated in the east to excel the german people.
The only reason Hitler-Germany is called “right-wing” is due to the racial elements promoting differences between people and that this somehow should be a trait of a right-wing/capitalist/conservative ideology.
When looking at economic policy, Germany was far on the left in regards of a totalitarian state, general welfare policies and strict regulations of trade and the means of production.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ideological-difference-between-national-socialism-and-communism
communism is the polar opposite of socialism/
Communism was created specifically to destroy christian Europe.
By the bankers as part of a manifold strategy that included creating the great depression.
Hitler pulled germany out of that depression by creating his own currency.
Completely divorced from world currencies that the bankers' owned.
This new german money was founded on the future productivity of the german people.
Sounds kinda simple because it was.
Germany all of a sudden had interest free bank loans. Interest free for gods sake !!!
They didn't need to pay taxes because if govt needed money they just printed it.
They werent stealing people's possessions or taxing their wealth.
And yet germany became rich very quickly.
That was socialism- invented by adolph hitler to combat the bankers design to destroy Europe.
If you think communism and socialism are similar you dont know history.
And probably believe the holohoax version.
you're brainwashed. Click. dickhead.
omg nice try rewriting history. almostm all german people were very poor under hitler they could not even buy a folks-wagon!
@strateguy632 i know a lot of true history most of u brainwashed dullards do not.
For example the rest of the world was on bread lines when the berlin olympics were held.
And they got a glimpse of ;ife without the bankers. And they were extremely jealous
Hitler invented socialism and never got credit for it. It was a paradise
If u want to remain ignorant dont talk to meagain. click dickhead
this is why hitler is still demonised even to this day. Tojo is forgotten and the japs forgiven even though the japs actually were evil- the shit they did to POWs.
And mussolini kind of an historical joke.
But hitler? The powers that be won't take their foot off his neck.
He has to be portrayed as evil, lest we see the world according to adolph.
Life without the bankers and their poison money.
And just print our own
His party was the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party.
*They believed in government control of the tools of production.
*They believed in racial purity.
*They believed in population control.
They are Leftists without exception.
Claiming Nazism is "rightist" is merely projection.
When I was a kid I used to think it was a right-wing thing to be racist but then I learned about history. I have not right wing, I'm a classical liberal but the type of leftism the Democrats are pushing today is definitely more similar to the Nazis than it is to Thomas Jefferson's vision of America.
The Nazi Party, under Hitler's leadership, pursued an extreme form of authoritarian nationalism and espoused racist and anti-Semitic ideologies. The far-right typically involves extreme forms of conservative or reactionary ideologies, while far-left ideologies often involve radical socialist or communist positions. Hitler's political ideology and policies align more closely with far-right extremism.
While Hitler did criticize certain aspects of capitalism and advocated for state control in certain areas, it's crucial to understand the historical context. Hitler's economic policies were not rooted in socialist principles; rather, they combined elements of state control with corporatism, promoting private ownership under state guidance.
Regarding your comment on the modern left, political ideologies are diverse, and individuals within a political spectrum may hold varying views. It's important to engage in nuanced discussions about specific policies and positions rather than making broad generalizations. Not all individuals or factions within a political ideology share the same perspectives.
actualy capitalism is right wing which hitler opposed. and authoritarian is what left in u. s. is doing interfering with cars we can buy as biden is doing now, and food and beef we can eat. so democrat in u/s is athoritarain, beware.
@strateguy632 Political ideologies and economic systems are complex, and they can vary significantly.
The terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" can have different meanings in different contexts and countries. In the case of Hitler and the Nazi Party, their policies included elements of authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, and anti-communism, which are typically associated with far-right ideologies.
He was lying to get votes. Just like Trump was lying about providing affordable health care to all Americans, including the poor. You just have to look at how the rich made fortunes from running companies under the Nazis, often with slave labour, to see that they weren't socialist in anything but name.
health care? medicare for poor has existed long before trump. anti trump are very patheitci with ther propaganda.
@strateguy632 "“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said in an interview with The Washington Post. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” "
You know very well that that's not what you're talking about.
Oh, as for the liar who says: "The communists and socialist believed that the war between the classes was the driving force in History - with a capital "H." The National Socialists believed that it was clash of the races, not the classes, that drove history forward."
"clash of the races" is nothing like socialism. Fascism is about finding people to hate and defeat, socialism is about finding equality and standing together against power. They're diametrically opposed (although people like Stalin co-opted it).
It is interesting how often the Far Right and the Far Left get along. Hitler and Stalin were of course allies for awhile as were many black and white seperatists. Hitler had a lot of support in the Middle East. They all seem to unite around a few concepts like anti-zionism, anti-bourgeoise, repressing individual liberty in favor of some concept of tribe whether that tribe be the proletariat, Aryans, blacks, Muslims etc.
his actions and policy were far left opposing guns like democrat people party in u. s.
Socialism is a left-wing ideology family. It's not a matter of debate.
Considering right is conservative and left is not, Hitler was far left.
The only people who think Hitler was on the left are people on the far right lol
Socialism and communism are both far left. The modern Democrats have a lot in common with them, including being racist, discriminating based on race, and hating Jews.
It doesn't matter.
He was an asshole.
He's dead.
And ''we'' paid his bills.
Let's move on.
@Dargil You have read something into my comment that I did not intend to place: the racism thing was meant towards Hitler. I will agree that Trump has no such notions to my knowledge. Nationalism is debatable, though.
As a non-''American'' I cannot really be bothered about who runs 'your' country. I just allow myself an opinion about 'manners', style, empathy, and such.
For your comfort: Biden also did not impress me much until now.
As for IQ, I can't help unless I come for a longer visit to fornicate until my heart fails :)
As for your emotional condition/s - personal assumptions and insults cannot be the way people interact during political discussions.
Relax :D
it matters because the u. s. democrat peoples party is very left same as hitler left and opposes guns same as hitler. get it?
to @andreasderjuengere reminder kamala pointed out bidens RACISM in BIDEN statement about racial jungle and opposing black integration in schools. same as democrat history of pro slavery to the point of seceding from uniion just to keep slaves.
An odd mix of both. Right wing in the sense of the extreme Nationalism of the Nazis, but Left in the concept spouted about being a "classless" society.
He was far right. If you beleive otherwise you’re a fucking dunce.
Right wing socialism is a thing. (Definition if tax cuts)
And Hindenburg appointed Hitler…and was right wing.
That’s like a idiot saying capitalism can’t be both right and left. Are you that idiot?
en.wikipedia.org/.../Paternalistic_conservatism
Cute insults but it's too dross. Anyways, the right and left are interepted differently depending on your region. By the USA standards as I understand it, you CANNOT be a socialist and call yourself conservative. Socialism in reality is closely tied to far left views in European and Scandinavian countries.
@Juxtapose My god! He worked in DC! You right wing fucks love cults of personality. Even in some bullshit gag poster. Hahahahaha. Jesus fucking Christ dude. Think for yourself for once.
Socialism is an idea like capitalism. Both right and left can use either for their purposes. Europe has a balance of socialistic capitalism that works quite well.
Yes, it is not left wing at all. Any sort of social program, taxation and so on stains capitalism. The only left wing idea that actually facilitates and promotes capitalism is keeping monopolies from rising. That's something libertarians and so on have trouble addressing.
Socialism can never be conservative unless I guess that is preserving the natural order of your country in comparison to a radical social change. But in contemporary politics, socialism is just never going to be associated with the right unless people want to dodge responsibility and call the Nazis "right wing." May as well claim Joseph Stalin was right-wing as well.
Dr. Anthony Fauci's track record on being a piece of shit is well documented during the AIDS epidemic while while Night is a rational, good intentions human being who knows what the hell he's talking about and is not a compromised piece of shit who's willing to get people killed to make a few bucks.
No I say journalists with good honest track records are republished by “established” or “accredited” news sources…but they still have to be factual first.
Anyone can be a journalist. That Ronan farrow guy was just the son of a bygone actress, and yet he became a journalist by…huh…publishing facts.
What you mean is they have to go through a narrow choke point where their reporting has to be politically convenient.
It's absolutely preposterous to think you need to have any credentials whatsoever to be a journalist or a reporter. Anybody with a camera or the ability to write can be an independent news source and all they really have to do is post their sources for what they say.
First amendment auditors for example do a sacred duty that mainstream news will never do, flex their rights and make sure the police respect their rights.
If people keep voting for democrats we are going to find out/
Far left, despite being semi socially conservative. Hitler was obsessed with race…. just like modern leftists. No surprise there. No one is more obsessed with race than left wingers.
who even gives a fuck he was evil mother fucker that's who he was I care less about him
With a combination of both what is considered left and right, Hitler was a centrist.
He’s economically left wing, and socially right wing.
Far left. He has way more in common with communists than those who believe in a laissez-faire economy.
It doesn't matter. You never heard of Horseshoe Theory?
Too dead for me to care.
TEMPORARILY, is the key word there
Far right
i also hear left in u. s. saying hitler not our side but socialist NOT right wing.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions