"Nazis on the Right" Topic

45% of you said Nazis are on the 'right' of the political spectrum

21% of you said 'left'

TMP link

Since this cannot but be a political thread, and there being no Blue Fez and the Ed himself started this, let's see where we go. There is no question that the Nazis, and other Facists, were Leftists. They were, and Fascism remains to be, Socialist.

Fascism…Isn't that "right wing?" I thought that much of my up until college when I was taking a course on 20th century western history. We were studying the rise of the great dictators -- Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. The professor led us through an examination of Mussolini's rise to power.

Mussolini, as it turns out, was a fervent believer in The Socialist International until WW1. Mussolini, the founder of Fascism, was born and raised into a family of commited Socialists and was very active as a Marxist in his youth.

He was a committed Socialist and a leader of the International in Italy. He was the editor of "Avanti!," Italy's leading Socialist/Progressive newspaper. He hated Capitalism and Liberal Democracy as obstacles to The Revolution. However, he was discouraged at the progress of Socialism in Italy and became disillusioned with the International (Socialist movement), since if it were true, then the workers of the world would have been united by class and not fought WW1. Instead, German socialists fought for Germany, and British socialists for Britain, etc.

He also saw during WW1 that in the trenches there was no class distinction. Rich, poor, educated and ignorant were all equal in the mud -- they were reduced to being Italians serving the State, first and foremost. That's the vision he had for Socialism in Italy, all Italians serving the State.

He felt there needed to be an *Italian* Socialism for Italians, the International movement would not work in Italy, and indeed had already failed as proven by WW1.

So he created a *national* Socialist movement he called "Fascism" -- named after the baton of power wielded by an ancient Roman field general or consul, the Fasces. This was a rod fashioned of small sticks, bound together to be strong -- representing the different interests of Rome working as one.

Fascism's "sticks" were comprised of Socialist groups and Labor Unions. The controlling core economic principle was Corporatism -- the control of the economy and thus the nation via control over industrial leaders and the Unions. Rather than sieze corporations and run them from the State, as in Communism, Fascism controlled industry by co-opting and forcing industrial leaders to bend to the will of the Socialist State and become part of the ruling party structure. The working class was led and controlled by the State through the Unions. So under Corporatism, companies and labor Unions become part of the State's power apparatus -- those Unions and companies that did not bend to the will of the State were crushed.

Property was also allowed so long as it didn't conflict with the needs of the State, and the Individual was subordinate to the needs of the State -- true freedom, according to Mussolini, came from surrender of the Individual to the State. So, I asked my professor --Mussolini was a Socialist, embraced Socialism, saw Capitalism as the Enemy and created a State controlled society with the Individual subordinate to the needs of the State. How does that make him "Right Wing?"

Why, Nationalism, of course, he said.

However, I said, we'd just studied Stalin and the rise of the Communists to power, and they resorted to heavy ethnic and nationalist appeals in their propaganda wars. So why is it different in Italy?

Why, because it's Fascism! He had a closed loop argument, he got very angry that he couldn't explain why Italian Nationalism in the service of a Socialist movement was different from Russian Nationalism in the service of a Socialist movement -- it just was, so stop being stupid, he told me! After that my professor would take opportunities in class to harangue me, slight me and tried to embarrass me in front of my peers to silence me. Wow. That was an eye opener.

Red Pill, anyone?

Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same coin, they are both Statist, Socialist systems. That Fascists and Communists fought is little different from how Stalinists and Trotskyites fought for control of their movement.

And Nazism is Fascism (Socialist) with a violent racial chauvanism/superiority ideology layered on top.

And this from another thread, a quote from the mustachioed one himself:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Getting the popcorn & diet coke….

Sorry, Nazis and Fascists are extreme Right.

Right. Left.
What bloody difference does it make, unless it pleases you to throw out insults?
Oh. I get it. I'm a conservative republican. That makes me "right". That makes me a Nazi. Ho hum.
I've had my say the last 17 times this year it popped up on TMP.
Nobody will say anything new or original they hadn't said on the previous threads.

In my opinion, I give Hitler the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word when he described what he was. He should know.

The whole paradigm is stupid, because in reality the model is a sphere, not a line.

Freedom is at the top of the sphere. Tyranny is at the bottom. There are lots of paths/ideologies to get from top to bottom.

And the closer you get to the bottom, the more one path looks like another.

@Lucius "The whole paradigm is stupid, because in reality the model is a sphere, not a line."

Good point, I feel much the same way. Left and Right are terms from the French Revolution -- the seating chart for where people sat in their parliament/diet/whatever.

For example, what is "Right Wing?"

Well, an American "Right Winger" typically believes in Constitutionally limited government that maximizes Individual Rights while constraining the State's ability to infringe on Individual Rights, and in the Free Market as a vehicle for the free and open exchange of goods, labor and ideas between freely consenting individuals.

In short, an American "Right Winger" is a Classical Liberal and is thus diametrically opposed to Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Socialism and Authoritarianism.

I hope this is the last thread on this topic for at least a week.
But no…..

We took a vote, that settles the issue, right?

Since this cannot but be a political thread, and there being no Blue Fez and the Ed himself started this, let's see where we go.

I will remind the gentlemen once again that the "no politics" rule refers to the most recent ten years. TMP link

I will remind the gentlemen once again that the "no politics" rule refers to the most recent ten years.

OK, but Gunfreak did resort to calling me a Nazi, so that's pretty recent. I do see those comments deleted.

And my call for him to rebut my point is honest. That moment, sitting in class in a UC school when I asked my professor why Mussolini and fascism were "right wing" after multiple classes exploring his Socialist history, writings and ideology was a real eye opener for me.

Blink, blink. Because.

Really?

"Nazis and Fascists are extreme Right."

Calling it what you wish it was, doesn't make it so.

Too funny…. (shakes head). Capitalists (right) cannot be Socialists.

Is somebody a Nazi in modern America just because they say they are?

That was a "duh!"

Fascists and Nazis left money and power in the hands of the ruling class/capitalists in their countries (Germany, Italy, Spain and the other fascist states). Fascists and the Nazis destroyed the unions, the Democratic Socialists, the Socialists, the Communists, the Anarchists, the leftists in the churches, and any intellectual that they perceived as leftist. Of course, they arrested, imprisonned, tortured and killed all opposed to their violent capitalism controlled by a Fuhrer or a Duce. It is self-deception,and ignorance, or a poor understanding of the history of the left and right wing political history to argue otherwise. The right wishes to distance themselves from their modern ultraright extremist allies (ultra-nationalists, violent racists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists and their ilk). These modern ultra nationalists show up at "unite the right" rallies, not "unite the left". It is clear to them what their sordid violent roots are.

Facists are really kind of super hard core centrists. They allow private ownership and unions, but with controlled limits.

Joe Collins

I wonder if the Nazis ever used the term left or right to position their own doctrine? Certainly in their anthem, the Horst Wessel Lied, they describe their opponents as Red Front but also Reactionaries, they being the hard core imperialist conservatives. My studies suggest that whilst the early NSDAP (or DAP) saw itself as a party of the left, Hitler saw it as a third way which didn't conform to the simplistic right or left traditional spectrum.

What is undoubtedly clear is that Nazism did have some early policies which were seen as being "for the mass of the people" rather than for the ruling elite. However, the fact that the Nazis were only ever going to attract chiefly working class voters, in particular the unemployed or underemployed, meant that was not surprising. Hitler sought to provide these people with an enemy to blame.

However, upon taking power Hitler became less driven by political doctrine and more by a desire to maximise industrial production for war by allowing industry to remain in the hands of the large corporations whilst unifying the nation behind nationalistic rhetoric which was reliant on providing enemies for them to combat, be that the Jews, the Soviets or the shirker on the factory fooor. His policies were then driven by a militaristic, expansionist agenda rather than one based on the doctrines of the left or right.

That aside, we need to consider how Hitler gained support by annexing movements like the Stahlhelm on the right and some arch conservative and even monarchists who saw a national rebirth via National Socialism. Did he incorporate movements of the left in a similar manner? No, he fought them and when he took power he imprisoned them and killed them.

I think terms like left and right are incorrectly applied to National Socialism (Italian fascism is another matter, as is Franco's own brand of Spanish nationalism) but what is clear is that the left was the hate figure for Hitler whereas he compromised with the right to get its support, something he needed until he could take power on his own and ride rough-shod over all of them.

Fascists and Nazis left money and power in the hands of the ruling class/capitalists in their countries (Germany, Italy, Spain and the other fascist states).

They left the "ruling class" in place that did their bidding. Fascism controls the economy by controlling the industrialists and producers. Play ball, serve the State and you can stay. When ordered to do stuff by the State, your company will do as told or you will be removed.

Fascists and the Nazis destroyed the unions, the Democratic Socialists, the Socialists, the Communists, the Anarchists, the leftists in the churches, and any intellectual that they perceived as leftist.

Almost. The Fascists and Nazis, like the Communists, destroyed any group or person they could not co-opt or control, and who refused to bend to the will of the State. They presented a different view of Socialism than the Communists did, and any Union that didn't support them was shut down. That's no different from say, China, where there is only one single official Union allowed. And yes the Fascists fought the Communists, but that's little different from how Maoists fought Stalinists, and Trotskyites fought Leninists -- they all think they are the true Socialist way.

Of course, they arrested, imprisonned, tortured and killed all opposed to their violent capitalism controlled by a Fuhrer or a Duce.

As did the evil twin of totalitarian Socialism, the Communists. Oh, and it's not capitalism when the State controls what companies and individuals can do, say, make, etc. by force and threat of force. Did some people get to make money or keep their wealth? Yep, as long as they served the State. And in the Communist countries we saw the rise of a neo-aristocracy who had more wealth and priviledge than others as well.

And they liked the idea of Social Justice as well, which is very different from capitalism -- here's a quote from Mussolini on the subject of Social Justice:

"Fascism establishes the real equality of individuals before the nation… the object of the regime in the economic field is to ensure higher social justice for the whole of the Italian people… What does social justice mean? It means work guaranteed, fair wages, decent homes, it means the possibility of continuous evolution and improvement. Nor is this enough. It means that the workers must enter more and more intimately into the productive process and share its necessary discipline…"

source – Four Speeches on the Corporate State, Rome, (1935) pp. 39-40. Speech delivered to the workers in Milan. Eric Jabbari, Pierre Laroque and the Welfare State in Postwar France, Oxford University Press, (2012) p. 46

Lucius +1

Just shows that the bulk of the voters paid attention in school.

And SB has stown what that academic view is and how it is maintained.

A reminder: Please refrain from personal attacks on those you disagree with.

mkenny 16 Jul 2018 9:48 p.m. PST
It is all very simply. The modern far-right are desperate to get rid of the baggage of Hitler and The Nazis….I guess that means all of modern Socialist Europe is also Nazi.

Btw, you can be a Fascist without being a Nazi, though Nazism is based on Fascism.

But what makes Fascism "right wing" or even "far right?"

*The founder of Fascism was a committed Socialist, a Marxist in his younger days.

*Fascism denies the free market and enforces State control of industry and approved labor Unions.

*Fascism denies the individual in favor of the collective, like other totalitarian Socialist ideologies.

*Fascists view liberal democracy and the free market as enemies of the people.

"We go to battle against the plutocratic and reactionary democracies of the west… This gigantic struggle is nothing other than a phase in the logical development of our revolution; it is the struggle of peoples that are poor but rich in workers against the exploiters who hold on ferociously to the monopoly off all the riches and all the gold of the earth…"

"To-day we can affirm that the capitalistic method of production is out of date. So is the doctrine of laissez-faire, the theoretical basis of capitalism… To-day we are taking a new and decisive step in the path of revolution. A revolution, in order to be great, must be a social revolution"

"social revolution that will be followed by a more equitable distribution of the earth's riches"

* Mussolini even stated his desire for social justice

"Fascism establishes the real equality of individuals before the nation… the object of the regime in the economic field is to ensure higher social justice for the whole of the Italian people…"

So what about any of that is "right wing?" Please explain.

*The founder of Fascism was a committed Socialist, a Marxist in his younger days.

Did you never change your mind? He did.

Fascism denies the free market and enforces State control of industry and approved labor Unions

Fascism and Nazism are Corporatists – working with Capital to a 'greater national goal'. Not Internationalists as Socialists are.

Fascism denies the individual in favor of the collective, like other totalitarian Socialist ideologies

Completely wrong. Collectivism subordinates the individual to the group – socialism believes in the equality of the individuals in the group- fascism believes in an unhealthy violent competition between weak and strong to allow 'natural strength' to prevail over the weak.

Fascists view liberal democracy and the free market as enemies of the people

All sorts of people believe(d) that – feudalism not a big fan of either, but not socialist.

The rest?
Well you can find quotes from all sorts of people saying nice things from mid twentieth century tyrants of all political hues – doesn't mean a thing. Psychopaths frequently lie.
But sometimes they tell the truth:

'The Socialists ask what is our programme? Our programme is to smash the heads of the Socialists' Benny 'the lampost' Mussolini.

@ SBMinisguy
it just was, so stop being stupid, he told me!

I had the same thing with physics and chemistry.

Essentially this was because the way it was taught was profoundly anti-scientific and – in a term I did not then know – anti-empirical. That is, the answer was known in advance, and you wrote up the results of your experiment accordingly. If the result of mixing one thing with another was supposed to be a white precipitate, you wrote up in your exercise book that you had duly obtained a white precipitate. You wrote this whether you had done so or not, and if you had not, then your result was not explained but explained away, or more simply ignored. You didn't experiment and write up what you found; you ignored your own results in favour of the established answer.

As well as writing up observations you had not made, you were also expected to swallow the "it just is" explanation for everything. A staple of physics lessons was to be presented with a series of circuit diagrams, in which some arrangement of wires, batteries and bulbs made a circuit. You then had to say which bulb came on if you connected the circuit. To me the answer to this was obvious: every bulb would come on for an instant as the electricity passed it. It would then go out again as the current reached a dead end and could no longer move. The current did not know, when it set off down a cul-de-sac, that it was a cul-de-sac; so should not every bulb fleetingly be lit? I never got a good explanation at school of why this reasoning was wrong. At university five years later, a physics undergraduate finally explained it to me properly: the current is the individual electrons in the conductive material, and the battery simply sends a pulse along them. Rather than seeing the set up as I did, as being like a model train layout, it is better understood as a system of water pipes, with the battery as a pump and the bulbs as water wheels. If the circuit were water, what wheels would turn if the pump were to be switched on?

Seen in that light, bulbs in dead ends would never come on. This made perfect sense, but nobody thought to proffer this explanation at the time. The explanation was "it just is". I think the teachers did not properly understand what they were teaching.

I don't suppose much has changed and I am not surprised to learn that it happens in tertiary education too.

4th Cuirassier

Being taught by a teacher ignorant of the subject isn't quite the same as being taught 'un-scientific' methodologies as part of a purposeful scheme.

Clearly who ever put that teacher in front of a science class should be sacked, I'd doubt the teacher had any choice in the matter.

The water analogy works – but only to a limited extent. Like so many ways of making science 'easier' it has negative implications further along the study path.

Returning to the original point – I do like the 'sphere' analogy, far better than my original 'neither & both' description.

> Capitalists (right) cannot be Socialists.

They are doing a pretty bang up job of it in China.

Just a reminder not to drag this discussion into the realm of modern politics (last 10 years). Thank you.

@Gwydion

The founder of Fascism was a committed Socialist, a Marxist in his younger days.

Did you never change your mind? He did.

Indeed, I learned that he changed his mind on the International. He felt that if International Socialism were valid then WW1 should not have happened, but it did. And Italian Socialists fought for Italy, as German Socialists fought for Germany, etc. Because of this he changed his mind to think Socialism could only really work on a National scale -- that while International Socialism was a failure, National Socialism could succeed. Needless to say the International Socialists objected violently to this prospect.

Fascism denies the free market and enforces State control of industry and approved labor Unions

Fascism and Nazism are Corporatists – working with Capital to a 'greater national goal'. Not Internationalists as Socialists are.

Indeed, as said earlier Musollini broke from the International since in his eyes it was a proven failure. And Communism is only one variant of Socialism, but all subborn the Individual to the Collective – the State, if you will. And in Fascism it uses Corporatism to control the means of production on behalf of and for the good of the People as embodied by the State.

Fascism denies the individual in favor of the collective, like other totalitarian Socialist ideologies

Completely wrong. Collectivism subordinates the individual to the group – socialism believes in the equality of the individuals in the group- fascism believes in an unhealthy violent competition between weak and strong to allow 'natural strength' to prevail over the weak.

Ahhh, no. Sort of. Again, there's many strains of the virulent virus known as Socialism, Fascism being just one of them, Communism another. At various times these strains (aka "factions") used terms like Mutualists, Associationists, Cooperativists, Communalists, Communist, Facists, etc. All of them promote the good of the general social group as a whole over the good of the individual, and all of them felt that this path, under their benign yet absolute leadership, would lead to utopia in which all are equal…except as Orwell pointed out, some would be more equal than others. There would arise a "New Soviet Man" who was better, more moral, and all that. Every one of them had a variant of that. And in each one the will of the Individual was suppressed to one extent or another. In Fascism it was held that only in service to Society (as embodied by the State) was a person truly free.

As for the Darwinistic side of Fascism, well, thank you Atheism! While Mussolini didn't destroy the Church since by controlling it he held control over society (which was more important to his idea of Socialism than the "clean sheet" approach of mass slaughter by the Communists), he himself was an atheist who railed against Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular.

As he said – "God does not exist— religion in science is an absurdity, in practice an immorality and in men a disease."

Since there is no God, there is only science -- and science through Darwinism shows us that in nature only the fit will survive.

While not exactly the same, the Communists operate much the same way. There is no God, thus no transcendent source of morality, thus morality is decided by the State. What serves the State is moral, what opposes the State is immoral.

Fascists view liberal democracy and the free market as enemies of the people

All sorts of people believe(d) that – feudalism not a big fan of either, but not socialist.
The rest?
Well you can find quotes from all sorts of people saying nice things from mid twentieth century tyrants of all political hues – doesn't mean a thing. Psychopaths frequently lie.
But sometimes they tell the truth:

'The Socialists ask what is our programme? Our programme is to smash the heads of the Socialists' Benny 'the lampost' Mussolini.

Ah, not only are you hand waving here because you're stumped by these quotes that show Mussolini promoting Social Justice and all that, but you took that particular quote of his out of context, yes?

Benny felt the traditional International Socialists, aka "Socialists" were impeding the progress of *his* strain of Socialism, Fascism. So yes, he attacked them to smash their heads, as he did with other Socialist strains who stood in the way of his particular virus.

Just as Marxists bash the heads in of Maoists, and Leninites bashed in the heads of Trotskyites. There is no war so uncivil and bloody as a Civil War between those related to each other…even if by ideology…

They left the "ruling class" in place that did their bidding. Fascism controls the economy by controlling the industrialists and producers. Play ball, serve the State and you can stay. When ordered to do stuff by the State, your company will do as told or you will be removed.

So what major German companies did the Nazis close down or appropriate and not for the personal profit of theNaxi hierarchy, but for not towing the party line? Can't think of any that weren't Jewish owned.

In practice, left, right, and center all promote the good of their own party over everyone else.

So what major German companies did the Nazis close down or appropriate and not for the personal profit of theNaxi hierarchy, but for not towing the party line? Can't think of any that weren't Jewish owned.

Here's an interesting article on how they did it. First they took control of key infrastructure, then they took over the banking system and controlled the ability to borrow and invest. They used increasing regulations and taxes to bring companies to heel, and then the cartelized the whole of the German economy. This meant that all businesses were organized into activity and production categories and forced all businesses into structures that reported directly to the State.

"The Cartel Act was amended on July 15, 1933, and supplemented at the same time by an Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels which placed existing cartels under the virtually complete control of the minister of economics, and also gave him power to force unorganized businesses into existing or new cartels. The Act stated expressly that it was not to be used as the basis for a planned economy, and it was intimated that it would be invoked as rarely as possible; but it was soon being used not only as a measure of control but also to cartelize many hitherto unorganized industries including cigarette, paper, radio equipment, electric bulbs, and steel wire makers. All organizations of entrepreneurs which were not brought under central control either dissolved voluntarily or were dissolved by the state."

They also brought all resource industries under State control, decided what could and could not be produced, who had access to raw materials, etc.

link

That's not capitalism by by any definition.

@Bill N

All of them promote the good of the general social group as a whole over the good of the individual
It seems you are trying to impose a 1980s American conservative view of liberalism and conservatism on 1920s Italy.

Don't know what you mean, please explain.

The salient point here isn't that both Fascism on the right and Communism on the left employ terror and force to achieve their ends and wield power over their subjects as much as that right-wingers accept if not encourage an elite "bourgeoisie" class (aka the one-percenters) while left-wingers want to chop their heads off and elevate the rabble "proletariat" class.

link

The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defense and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.

The term "Socialism" has been used in many different ways over the years, by people with many different agendas. Likewise for the term "Capitalism". What determines whether a particular implementation of either of these systems (which are not BTW completely incompatible) is reasonable is the details. Are basic human rights respected? Is a level playing field enforced, without excessively inhibiting the ability to excel and improve one's personal circumstances? Etc.

IMHO it is not reasonable to claim that because a particular group or individual painted themselves at some point in time as being "Socialist" (Nazis, Italian Fascists, Stalinists, etc.), that other Socialist flavors are equivalent and are therefore bad as well. It may forward one's personal political agenda to do this, but it is not reasonable, nor is it intellectually honest. I mention no names …

MH

IMHO it is not reasonable to claim that because a particular group or individual painted themselves at some point in time as being "Socialist" (Nazis, Italian Fascists, Stalinists, etc.), that other Socialist flavors are equivalent and are therefore bad as well. It may forward one's personal political agenda to do this, but it is not reasonable, nor is it intellectually honest. I mention no names

Sometimes competing labels get in the way of understanding. The history of Socialism is very much wrapped up in that. First they were Socialists, then changed their name to Progressives, then to Liberals, and then back to Progressives and now back to being Socialists. The new in vogue flavor of Socialism happens to be "Democratic Socialism," but in the past Communism was in vogue, in its day Fascism was hailed by many as the "Third Way" of Socialism, and so on.

So if you don't define it properly you can't recognize it when it's staring you in the face. If you can't recognize it, you can't fight it effectively.

SB, most of, if not all all of those groups you mention are different, from different historical eras, associated with different personalities, and having different agendas. You are taking abstraction to extremes here.

You don't sound unintelligent, so I assume you realize this. Question is, why are you doing it? I guess if nothing else, you are generating posts for TMP, and helping Bill out …

MH

Here's an interesting article on how they did it.

Can only access a small section and that is about wartime economy. British government controlled every aspect of the economy and production during the war. Not a socialist of fascist state. Then there is this piece.

The long-term objective of the Nazis is to dovetail the industries of conquered countries into the Germany economy, and force them, as much as possible, to expand their agriculture. Under this scheme Germany, and perhaps Italy, would act as the industrial centers of Europe, drawing foodstuffs and raw materials from the occupied territories which, in turn, would be obliged to purchase German and Italian manufactured goods at prices set by the Axis powers.

Doesn't sound like socialism just good old fashioned colonialism. Buy the raw materials cheap off the colonies and sell them back the manufactured goods for a massive profit.

I guess if nothing else, you are generating posts for TMP, and helping Bill out

In the UK we would say it is just another of Mrs Murton's 'heated debates'.

SB, most of, if not all all of those groups you mention are different, from different historical eras, associated with different personalities, and having different agendas. You are taking abstraction to extremes here.

No, I'm pointing out the arc of the ideology of Socialism. There have been many attempts to launch Socialist movements based upon differing ideas of how to do it.

Most withered, some led to the bloody regimes of Fascism and Communism, etc. But while the name keeps changing, the song remains the same. And it's an old and tired dirge-like song the world has been playing for over 170 years, racking up a body count approaching 200 million dead, billions enslaved, with misery, pain and oppression for all.

I'll let de Toqueville finish for me…

It is not my intention to examine here the different systems which can all be categorized as socialist. I want only to attempt to uncover those characteristics which are common to all of them and to see if the February Revolution can be said to have exhibited those traits.

Now, the first characteristic of all socialist ideologies is, I believe, an incessant, vigorous and extreme appeal to the material passions of man. [Signs of approval.]

Thus, some have said: "Let us rehabilitate the body"; others, that "work, even of the hardest kind, must be not only useful, but agreeable"; still others, that "man must be paid, not according to his merit, but according to his need"; while, finally, they have told us here that the object of the February Revolution, of socialism, is to procure unlimited wealth for all.

A second trait, always present, is an attack, either direct or indirect, on the principle of private property. From the first socialist who said, fifty years ago, that "property is the origin of all the ills of the world," to the socialist who spoke from this podium and who, less charitable than the first, passing from property to the property-holder, exclaimed that "property is theft," all socialists, all, I insist, attack, either in a direct or indirect manner, private property. ["True, true."] I do not pretend to hold that all who do so, assault it in the frank and brutal manner which one of our colleagues has adopted. But I say that all socialists, by more or less roundabout means, if they do not destroy the principle upon which it is based, transform it, diminish it, obstruct it, limit it, and mold it into something completely foreign to what we know and have been familiar with since the beginning of time as private property. [Excited signs of assent.]

Now, a third and final trait, one which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. ["Excellent."] For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, [Further signs of assent.] to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom. [Lively assent.]

I have not entered into a discussion of the details of these systems. I have indicated what socialism is by pointing out its universal characteristics. They suffice to allow an understanding of it. Everywhere you might find them, you will be sure to find socialism, and wherever socialism is, these characteristics are met.

link

At least it shows the flavour of your depiction of socialism; clearly taken from sources that decry socialism by cherrypicking 'characteristics' that are not true of all socialist philosophies never mind socialist societies.

At least it shows the flavour of your depiction of socialism; clearly taken from sources that decry socialism by cherrypicking 'characteristics' that are not true of all socialist philosophies never mind socialist societies.

Ahhh…the "not real Socialism" remark. Wondered when we'd see that.

Since you don't like how I've defined Socialism, please do me the favor of:

1. Provide *your* favorite definition of Socialism

2. Then, in that context provide your favorite examples or example of a successful socialist society.

I will step down and turn the soap box over to you…

All socialisms share common traits to be sure, but let's not oversimplify the subject by saying they're all the same.

link

All socialisms share common traits to be sure, but let's not oversimplify the subject by saying they're all the same.

Yep, that's what I've said -- which is why Mussolini's vision of Socialism differed from Lenin's vision, which differed from Mao's vision, etc., etc.

It just goes to show you how useless the terms right and left truly are. What do they mean? I think you'll find there is no true definition, so while everyone is arguing about the definition between racism and socialism you are missing the important issue that right and left have no true meaning. You might as well argue if they are purple or pears.

The political right is on the circumference of a circle at the opposite end from the political left on that same circumference on that same circle.

One can argue that Nazism has never been properly tried either.

It just goes to show you how useless the terms right and left truly are. What do they mean? I think you'll find there is no true definition

It's just another way for people to define "us" and "them." No different than Liberals and Conservatives. The liberals (revolutionists) used to sit on the King's left, while the conservatives (loyalists) sat on his right side. Someone thought differentiating people (and their political vews) based on where they sat relative to the king was a good idea and the tradition still stands today.

Had the loyalists and revolutionists switched positions relative to the king, conservatives would be leftists and liberals right-wingers.

Like "red" and "blue" states, left and right are not wholly arbitrary distinctions but they can certainly be switched had circumstances been a little different.

Hitler and his cronies apparently perpetrated a huge hoax upon the German people by naming their political organization …
The National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party
… when they were really a right-wing party.

Can anyone explain why they would do such a thing?

B

Can anyone explain why they would do such a thing?

You were expecting Hitler to tell the truth all the time? That strikes me as very naive! :-) Maybe to get some gullible mugs to support his party?!

Hi Fred -
One would think that such a gross basic misrepresentation would soon become apparent to the public ….. nicht wahr?

B

Hitler's a populist who knew that he must rally the entire German population, rich and poor, in order to realize his dream of a "Thousand Year Reich," not just the upper class.

So he couched his rhetoric and propaganda in ways that would appeal to the masses. After all, most of the rank-and-file personnel in the Wehrmacht who bled and died on the battlefields were people of humble beginnings, not Counts or landed gentry.

One would think that such a gross basic misrepresentation would soon become apparent to the public ….. nicht wahr?

Some did see through him, but chose to go along with it for their own reasons, like most of the German high command and I am sure many industrialists and intellectuals. Then of course there are a certain percentage of the population you can fool all the time.
If I had to classify the Nazi regime under Hitler I would say it most closely resembles a feudal style of government. The country is largely under the control of the king and his cronies. Those in favour were allowed to prosper. Trusted courtiers would use their access to the king to get their own way. If you fell out of favour then you were banned from court, but sometimes allowed back like Guderian. But most of the population, the serfs if you like, have no power and no control over anything.