Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
The topic is whether Socialism is Fascist (it isn't, automatically) as well as whether either are "left or right" politically.

If Nazi Germany had been truly socialist (in the most general sense) it would have provided the ownership (or control) of the industrial complex to the workers and producers in the economy. That isn't what happened.
...

Stop trying to mirror your fallacious arguments against me... First of all, the topic is that Hitler, and the NAZIS were of one branch of socialism, but they were socialists.

Second, you want to claim that I want to re-write history, when you yourself want to rewrite the meaning of socialism, you want to claim it is only an economic model when every source states socialism as both a political and economic model, while others say it is a political model.

As for your claim that NAZI Germany was not socialist because it didn't transfer ownership to the people... You yourself have stated that not all socialist branches are the same. Not to mention that while Hitler allowed certain business owners to keep their businesses, they ALL had to do what HItler ordered them to do.

Hitler boycotted ALL businesses of minorities, including Jewish, and took control of these businesses. If German business owners did not do as Hitler stated for the common good of the German people, they lost their jobs and were branded as "bad Germans".

a reply to: Gryphon66

All you did was just take everything I've said and attempted to make it seem that you've said that the whole time...

Then you misquote me:

having socialism or not

When my actual quote it:

Either they had socialist policies or they didn't

Those two statements are NOT the same. One indicates they are truly socialist (in some form) and hence probably farther left and the other indicates they simply implement socialist policies without going farther left. Hence they are authoritarian left as I have previously stated. They as a country only went slightly left, retaining many, albeit crony, aspects of a neo-liberalism. Again, they were Far-Right in that they were authoritarian, however they were slightly left of center in that they leaned more towards socialist policies pertaining to economic policy.

I am the one in this thread who has been saying the whole time Authoritarianism is NOT socialism and vice versa.

I've also stated there are several types of socialism, yet you seem to think that because they aren't a certain TYPE of socialism they can't be considered socialism. You indicate this using terms like "true socialism" which doesn't apply to any form of government.

If Nazi Germany had been truly socialist (in the most general sense) it would have provided the ownership (or control) of the industrial complex to the workers and producers in the economy. That isn't what happened.

I never claimed they were truly socialist. I showed that they had socialist policies which had them trend left, but not hard left. They were slightly left of center. Hitler was slightly right of center. They had a brand of Authoritarian Socialism.

Socialist policies can be Left of, at or Right of Center and will fall somewhere on the north and south line of Libertarian vs Authoritarianism.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are confused. It is a political line based on ECONOMICS. That is what all sources say. Authoritarian is a political line based on SOCIAL POLICY. One does NOT require the other.

I've sourced where you can find this information in my previous posts.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Stop trying to mirror your fallacious arguments against me... First of all, the topic is that Hitler, and the NAZIS were of one branch of socialism, but they were socialists.

I'll argue any way I damn please as long as I'm in adherence to ATS T&C. Why don't you prove an argument is fallacious?

Because you can't, of course, that's why. You've tried just about every fallacious tactic yourself though, I'll give you that.

Your argument here makes about as much sense as anything else you've said "they were socialist because they were socialist." Read your title again. You're claiming that Fascism is inherently socialist and you're implying that socialism and fascism are left-wing, and by extension, that the Third Reich was as well.

Which is all completely ludicrous on its face ... as I and others have informed you numerous times.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Second, you want to claim that I want to re-write history, when you yourself want to rewrite the meaning of socialism, you want to claim it is only an economic model when every source states socialism as both a political and economic model, while others say it is a political model.

Every "source" does not state "that" about socialism. You keep repeating this ... it continues to be incorrect.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

As for your claim that NAZI Germany was not socialist because it didn't transfer ownership to the people... You yourself have stated that not all socialist branches are the same. Not to mention that while Hitler allowed certain business owners to keep their businesses, they ALL had to do what HItler ordered them to do.

Right. That's why the Nazis were right-wing, authoritarian nationalists, led by a dictator with almost absolute power. That doesn't make them socialist for the umpteenth time. Socialism does not mean "government control of the economy."

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Hitler boycotted ALL businesses of minorities, including Jewish, and took control of these businesses. If German business owners did not do as Hitler stated for the common good of the German people, they lost their jobs and were branded as "bad Germans".

Right again. And again, those facts are what made the Nazis right-wingers, and authoritarians, not socialists, per se.

Which side are you arguing for again???

a reply to: raymundoko

LOL ... why would I quote you saying what I said?

Keep slicing and dicing and telling yourself that you're right.

Keep thinking you're the only one who knows anything. You just reached my terminal boredom limit.

Argue with Electric ... you're apparently on the same level.

Good day, Merry Christmas, or whatever holiday you favor.

originally posted by: daskakik
Ad hom huh?

There is always someone to complain about everything under the sun.

Pointing out why you are biased is just telling the truth.

How about you resort to discussing the topic?... Show me how was nationalization of all trusts, and emphasis on a collective identity puting common good above individual rights right wing... How was right wing the communalization of all large stores, with the state renting cheaply those stores to small traders.

How was it right wing that the state would take over all education and the entire cultural system of the people...

How is a WELFARE STATE right wing...

How was COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD right wing...

All of the above and more, were policies that the NAZIs and Hitler implemented, and they were LEFT WING policies.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

BECAUSE RIGHT WING MEANS AUTHORITARIAN!!! AUTHORITARIAN IS A SOCIAL STRUCTURE, SOCIALISM IS AN ECONOMIC STRUCTURE.

YES THEY WERE FAR-RIGHT, YES THEY ALSO LEANED LEFT. TWO.DIFFERENT.LINES.

Sorry for the all caps. I was intending to yell.

Common good before individual good is Left Wing ON AN ECONOMIC SCALE.

Authoritarianism is Right Wing ON A SOCIAL SCALE.

How are you not getting this? Serious, how are you not getting it?

Hint:

Fascism uses Marx's 10 Planks at an 80% rate.

"denazification" was essential to the Western success in order to "hide" the stunning similarities.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I'll argue any way I damn please as long as I'm in adherence to ATS T&C. Why don't you prove an argument is fallacious?

Already did several times... You and some other far leftists want to claim that even when authoritarian regimes have socialist policies, that they are right wing simply for being authoritarian and nationalistic... I proved that this is not the case... Gadhi was a socialist, but he brought together all the NATIONALIST MOVEMENTS in India... Socialist and communist regimes have always turned despotic/authoritarian.

You can't change your narrative and claim they become right wing because their left wing policies are authoritarian...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Your argument here makes about as much sense as anything else you've said "they were socialist because they were socialist." Read your title again. You're claiming that Fascism is inherently socialist and you're implying that socialism and fascism are left-wing, and by extension, that the Third Reich was as well.

In whose twisted mind are the policies that the Third Reich implemented right wing, when they were obviously left wing.?.. Again... I am not talking simply about the name of the National Socialist party, but IT'S POLICIES, which were socialist...

A welfare state is not right wing...it is left wing...

The state taking over large stores from owners without compensation, to rent them cheaply is not right wing, it is a socialist policy...

The state taking over all education, and the cultural system of the entire people is not right wing, it is left wing...

You can claim all you want, but just because of the fact that socialist and communist systems always turn despotic and authoritarian, does not make them right wing... it still makes them extreme left wing ideology...

a reply to: raymundoko

All Left Wing policies require massive authoritarian measures to succeed.

90% of those policies affect 90% of populations negatively.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
How about you resort to discussing the topic?...

Why? You will just dismiss everything anyway.

a reply to: muse7

And in socialist/communist regimes like North Korea, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, etc, you could only belong to one union controlled by THE STATE, and Hitler implemented a union which he, and the NAZIS controlled... Not to mention that you can't strike against the state in those countries...
Also, not to mention that in socialist and communist dictatorships the salaries of the workers are reduced "for the good of all"... Rationing is implemented early on "for the good of all"...

Nothing of what you posted makes it right wing...

originally posted by: daskakik

Why? You will just dismiss everything anyway.

Because you can't prove it... Instead you resort to attacking the messenger, and denying what is right in front of you...

A welfare state in which the state takes control of large stores it is not right wing... As Hitler himself said it "he was a different type of socialist", but a socialist he was.

a reply to: xuenchen

Is there anything that doesn't?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Because you can't prove it...

Not to you. Other people have already posted what I could have and you dismissed it. That is in front of me as well.

I actually don't really care what Hitler was. I'm just pointing out your bias.

a reply to: daskakik

Ohh...riight riight... So when left wing policies become authoritarian, it doesn't matter that they are left wing policies it suddenly makes them "right wing"... Gotcha...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Ohh...riight riight... So when left wing policies become authoritarian, it doesn't matter that they are left wing policies it suddenly makes them "right wing"... Gotcha...

Doesnt' matter to me either way.

I'm just pointing out the reason for your thread, your need to fight against the red tide.

This makes you biased and, your unwillingness to actually accept other peoples points actually doesn't leave much to talk about, other than, to point out that you are a brick wall that people should not be banging their heads against.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

In this case the, benefits of having a clean living space is "not dying horribly and having your species go extinct."

Yeah, well, HItler also implemented extreme environmental policies "for the good of all and Germany"...

Forcing environmental extremism is not right wing... it is extreme left wing ideology that "must be implemented for the good of all and the planet"... Hitler and his NAZIs used this and I showed how in the NAZI propaganda film “The Eternal Jew”, he turned the minds of the "progressive Germans" against the Jewish people.

This NAZI propaganda film showed, among other things, the Jewish kosher ritual slaughter of cows and sheep, proclaiming

..."that the Jewish Mosaic Law “has no love or respect for animals in the Germanic sense.”

www.aim.org...

We have been seeing a similar phase of environmental extremism being pushed on people these days.

Heck, not too long ago we had a video made in Britain in which they exploded some kid's heads if they didn't comply with the extremist left wing view on Climate Change, and later on on another video interview of these children you can hear one of them say i would give up my life to save the planet... (that video is in another thread when this video first made it's appearance) This is a form of brainwashing and indoctrinating children to accept the extreme environmentalist views.

in the name of "for the good of all and the planet", extreme left wing authoritarian policies can, and will be implemented on the world, and the elites will love you for accepting such an extremist view.

Here is the video...

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES!!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"he was a different type of socialist", but a socialist he was.

You believe that?

Infrastructure for warmachines, the promise of work for everyone merely covered the needs of mil. ind. complexes for the war. Right, there were jobs in abundance. Actually many had labour and money again, at least for a while.
You know why they chose red? It's a clever trademark design and red is the colour of socialists. More appealing to the working class, yes indeed. See the pattern yet?

And then they went to war. There was nothing national-social about his game, was it? Remember how Lebensraum Ost turned out? Or do you think it's social and for the common good of Germany to burn down Europe, killing everyone who dared to speak up? The repercussions were predictable, why would you ignore the plethora of consequences and stick to the liars campaign only? There must be something you hold on to, constantly telling yourself 'he wasn't that bad after all'. He was a special social snowflake!

Yep, and I'm the aryan Prince of Persia. Just focus on some redundant talking-points, it's for the common good belly-feel of all white aryan cowards. Go ahead!

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

What delusional world do you live in? He was only a fan of private property for GERMAN CITIZENS, and the definition of what qualified as a German citizen was extreme under NAZI rule. They confiscated businesses, land, equipment etc so they could give it to what they considered "true Germans". Those Germans then were regulated on how they could perform their business so that they could ensure the war machine grew quickly and efficiently. They thought they were doing what was for the common good of Germany. It was socialist to it's core and where crony capitalism (state run capitalism) on a governmental level really started in full swing. Even in your quote Hitler clearly says "True Socialism requires..." Hitler just understood that your forced labor is so much more efficient if they think they are doing it freely and of their own accord.

A curious response.

Yes, he was quite big on Germany and ("true") Germans. Being an Austrian who went to Germany to fight a war on its behalf... he was an odd character. Yes, Nazis did confiscate property from 'bad' or 'non' Germans. Yes, the government significantly directed industry. However, none of these made Nazis socialist.

Nazis weren't really focused on the economic side of things - where socialism most strongly exists; rather, they picked things up and threw them together to make a sort of economic chimera. You might recall that industrialists assisted the Nazis - they weren't big on socialism, given that socialism is generally opposed to capitalism.

Perhaps you also missed the part where Hitler wrote:

Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism.

Perhaps you also missed the Night of the Long Knives, where he purged the more socialist elements of the Nazi party (amongst others). Röhm, who led Hitler's Sturmabteilung (the SA; brownshirts/stormtroopers paramilitary that critically assisted the rise of the Nazi party), was one of the prime targets. He pushed Hitler to abolish aristocratic land holdings, implement socialist reforms, and fulfill other 'socialist' reforms to complete the 'National Socialism' ideal.

The brownshirts were poor and working class, while the infamous SS (Schutzstaffel) hailed from middle class backgrounds. He paid for that - and probably a comment saying he wouldn't take orders anymore from Hitler, after he was forced to agree to the military issuing his organization orders. Oh, and industrialists who supported Hitler didn't like the extent that Röhm wanted the country to be socialist.

However, was sealed by Hindenburg - who demanded the SA be broken, or else Hitler would lose his government. Thus Röhm, and the strive for socialist ideals, perished. This is a rather quick and dirty history, alas.