Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Nazi Germany in no way shape or form acted like capitalists.

a reply to: daskakik

Just ask Krupp. Or Dr. Porsche. Or Fritzy Thyssen.

a reply to: DJW001

Don't forget to ask this guy too

He knows.

The whole point of this exercise is to attempt to make Nazi's "liberals" so that the bad feelings the right-wing has towards "liberals" can feel more justified. This is, therefore, an argument of rhetoric, not logic.

It does not matter how many times we say "totalitarianism /authoritarianism is something that can happen to both left & right ideologies, on the left you get a Communist Dictator like Stalin and on the right you get a Fascist Dictator like Hitler" because to agree to that would mean that SOMETIMES right-wing folks act badly and turn into fascists, no, it has to be just left-wing folks that go bad and turn into horrible dictators, etc., because that is what feels the best. Hitler and Stalin were both horrific men, and it is extremely important to be able to see how they rose to power, why they rose to power and what they wanted to accomplish with their power.

Right MUST = well, "righteous, correct, and good" and Left MUST = "bad, liars, horrible dictators, etc." therefore Hitler and the Nazi's MUST be Left-Wing. The conclusion comes before the proof, and whatever proof is presented MUST fit the model or be rejected.

It is black and white thinking, and a lack of willingness to observe the complexity of someone like Hitler, who LIED ALL THE TIME to get what he wanted, including making a couple baseless claims toward socialism IN ORDER TO RILE UP AND ROOT OUT SOCIALISTS.

And, I give you for your dubious reading pleasure (sarcasm) a direct quote from the website of National Socialism:

Hadding’s commentary:
“This chapter will be challenging for readers in the United States, who generally have a deeply ingrained aversion to the word socialism, but it should be all the more rewarding for those who can think beyond that.

National-Socialism in practice was not socialism in the same sense as Marxism-Leninism: the state did not take ownership of enterprises. The socialism of the Third Reich thus does not fit the current textbook definition of socialism. The state, however, did regulate the economy as needed for the benefit of the society as a whole and conducted extensive social programs.

The “Liberalism” discussed here is primarily 19th-century liberalism, the free-market ideology, from which, Maennel explains, Marxism has evolved. National-Socialism, as a true, folk-based socialism, opposes both Liberalism and its bastard child Marxism.”]

LINK

Of course, they say they are "beyond right and left" and that their form of "democracy" is to elect a leader who then has autocratic control. They deny they are fascist the same as they deny they are typical socialists, but since that is a negative label, it is not surprising they would choose to deflect...

- AB

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Ah yes, that great friend of labor unions and socialism,Henry Ford.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Actually, all the Victors of WW2 had to "denazify" their own systems.

The victors write history and set up the steering committees.

a reply to: xuenchen

Hello, xuenchen.

I'd love to see your source for that. T'would be awesome. Thanks!

- AB

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Jeez, are people still arguing this? It's incredibly basic.

Right and left wing are opposites on the x axis
authoritarian and libertarian are opposites on the y axis.

If you go far enough down the y axis you have fascism regardless of whether it's right or left wing.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at a complex issue but you're right for the most part. Fascism comes from taking away the power of the individual in the favor of the collective. However that is still only one side of it. At the same time you deceptively redirect the purpose of the new collective to favor the goals of the Government rather than the collective.

What you're describing is a very simple form of what I wrote earlier really. My post just explained it in more detail is all.

It might help if others would think of the Right/Left struggle as more of a circle or horseshoe rather than a line. Their extremes don't continue to grow apart but instead start wrapping back around toward each other at their extremes.

are you agreeing with me? They had their businesses stripped from them and nationalized...

a reply to: DJW001

originally posted by: Chickensalad

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Left wing = a bigger government, state control over means of production, in general higher taxes, state control/heavy regulations on businesses, state control on healthcare, state control on everything for the common good and more government spending, mostly in favor of state control of firearms...

Right wing = smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations/less state control on businesses, reduced government spending, oppose state control on healthcare, oppose state control on firearms, oppose state control for the good of all"...

Not interested in more of your straw-men, red herrings or appeals to the dictionary ... state a rational, reasonable, accepted source of information that corroborates these statements.

Why does he need a source for this
He seriously, honestly, factually, and logically just stated the the difference between the two. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you get to dismiss it.
State your sources for this please.

State my source for a request for sources?

Myself (TM). Feel better? (What a silly question.)

The statements he made defining right and left wing are false ... he's merely parroting Republican BS.

His summation is simplistic, errant, contrived and derivative. Every accepted definition, description, and discussion of what right and left wing mean contradicts what he (and apparently you) believe.

/shrug

a reply to: raymundoko

The Lex Krupp says otherwise.

The Lex Krupp was a document signed into federal law on November 12, 1943 by Adolf Hitler that made the Krupp company a personal company with specially regulated rules of succession, in order to ensure that the Krupp family enterprise remain intact.

a reply to: mOjOm

Honestly, we're trying way too hard to keep using the false dichotomy of "right" and "left." It was simplistic in its origin 200 years ago ... and it's long overdue to be left on the trashpile of history. I've been mistaken here in my support for the traditional definitions ... as they are mostly meaningless in the world of the 21st century (and were in the 20th century as well).

For example, American politics, the Democrats, by and large, are almost as "right wing" as the Republicans ... they just focus on different areas of the "bread and circuses" offered to their constituents.

The actual "political left" focuses on limiting the power of the government and enhancing the power of the individual.

If we are going to retain anything let's just agree that The Left is revolutionary; The Right is reactionary.

The only question we really need to ask is does a political party glorify and support the POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT over the POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL in order to understand their place in that description.

... and all the pandering among Republicans about "Smaller Government" is a sick joke.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I think you can still use the Right/Left argument but not unless you break both sides down and show it's sub structure which is where the real change to fascism takes place.

The problem is that everyone keeps arguing it from the position that you get fascism from going Right or Left but that's not true. You can get there from both sides just in a slightly different way. It's not that Right or Left head toward Fascism any more or less than going the other way. The change over happens in their supporting structures which are the Social and Economic sub structures which support both Right and Left Systems.

That's what my earlier post was trying to show.

As someone else pointed to earlier however, some people aren't really trying to discuss this topic with the goal of reaching an honest and correct answer to the problem and it's cause. They are simply trying to paint the opposing side as the being the reason for Fascism. That's not looking objectively or honestly at the situation. It's just a way to try and pin something terrible like fascism on to your opponent any way you can.

Right, and what did that document do? It stripped the company from the guy who disagrees with Hitler and gave it to the family member who did. Krupp himself was imprisoned and released after the war.

Thyssens' company was completely stolen through nationalization and not returned until after the fall of Germany.

Edit: Surely you researched this at least a tad? Surely you can put more effort it right?

a reply to: daskakik

originally posted by: mOjOm
The problem is that everyone keeps arguing it from the position that you get fascism from going Right or Left but that's not true. You can get there from both sides just in a slightly different way.

I think the real problem is that people are using fascism interchangebly with authoritarianism.

You can get authoritarianism from both sides but fascism had a side.

a reply to: mOjOm

Agreed.

Also, we would be better off to use the phrase Fascism to define Mussolini's party and the time his government was in power and totalitarianism for everything else.

(EDIT: Yeah, what Daskakik said ... LOL.)

Also, we could stop conflating Nazism with Fascism ... as they were structurally quite different.

I heard what you were saying earlier, and I agree with you. Every government is authoritarian, and therefore, in the classic sense, every government is "right-wing."

No government really works to destroy its own power and restore that to the People as Marxist idealism suggested.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Also, we cannot have "no government" in the 21st century and expect to compete on the world stage.

Also, I'm preaching to the choir ... Happy New Year mOjOm!

a reply to: Gryphon66

The only question we really need to ask is does a political party glorify and support the POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT over the POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL in order to understand their place in that description.

The U.S. Constitution would be more to the left in the sense that it gives the people more power and equality and restricting the power of the government.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Right, and what did that document do? It stripped the company from the guy who disagrees with Hitler and gave it to the family member who did.

And that family member was a private owner.

I don't know what deals were done behind closed doors but I'm sure private citizens turned a profit for themselves and not for the common good.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The constitution was almost dead center on a social scale even though many authors were slightly right. It's a great document.

a reply to: daskakik

Wow, what beautiful mental gymnastics.

If the state has the right to strip an owner of a business, that isn't privately owned. Don't be obtuse. Especially if that business then had to run exactly how the government told it to. That's nationalization under the auspices of private ownership which the nazi government perfected the illusion of. If you didn't agree with them, like Thyssen, they simply took ownership themselves. In the case of Krupp the found a crony they could put in place.

All these examples prove my position and undermine yours.

Surely you can easily admit you are mistaken and everything will be fine. If you wish to continue this debate it will only end with you looking like you don't know anything about evonomics.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

The only question we really need to ask is does a political party glorify and support the POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT over the POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL in order to understand their place in that description.

The U.S. Constitution would be more to the left in the sense that it gives the people more power and equality and restricting the power of the government.

I absolutely agree. I've pointed out that the Founders were leftists who won ... and had to become a bit more "right" to form the government (as the Articles had failed so badly.)

As soon as the Revolutionaries win, they become the "New Boss." Fortunately, the US was structured to be more balanced between individual and State ... and that made us great for a little over two centuries ...