Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Left vs. Right Question - Nazis were rightwing?

Posted on 10/25/2010 12:53:38 PM PDT by Feline_AIDS

Periodically I come to this same conundrum when I encounter people who attach the terms "Nazis" and "rightwing."

I read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, and from what I can gather, he is saying that the Nazis were socialists and nationalists at the same time, meaning they were nationalistic enough to be considered rightwing, even though they were on the left economically (and socially). A third way, not meeting in the middle--more like bending the spectrum backward so the two ends meet.

Could someone explain this curious part of the political spectrum? Because Goldberg explains that nationalism was mostly a leftie thing--"Moreover, historically, nationalism was a liberal-left phenomenon. The french Revolution was a nationalist revolution, but it was also seen as a left-liberal one for breaking with the Catholic Church and empowering the people" (71).

I just basically want to be able to explain this to myself and others more succinctly. This is something I think we probably should all be adept at, because the longer the left can say there were commies on the left and Nazis on the right, the longer they stall us from talking about real issues.

I get very frustrated when I can't articulate this. I'd appreciate any explanations of the political spectrum, though I'd hope nothing so simple and erroneous (?) as communism on the left, anarchism on the right.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: leftwing; nazis; rightwing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
To: BiggieLittle

What was Franco?

A dictator. People disappeared. Lived in real poverty.

I met an old guy who spoke of living under Franco with fondness. Odd, that conversation. Only Franquista I ever met.


41 posted on 10/25/2010 1:24:37 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini.

Pursuing the corporatist ideas of the fascists gives the biggest payoff in modern comparisons because it is apt. The state support of BOA, or GM, or AIG, or whatever bailout you want to pick is corporatism to a T. As is funding green energy and the state meddling in non-bankrupt business. And as is the threats made against businesses going against the State like the few medical companies that have spoken out against the health care takeover. Corporatism = Fascism, Fascism = Corporatism. Magaziner, Hillary Clinton’s main person who wrote the monstrous health care takeover bill in 1993 wrote books lauding the Japanese corporatist economic system in the 1980’s . . . the left in America gladly embraced the corporatist ideas of the Japanese when they appeared to be working. They stopped talking about them in the 90’s and 2000’s . . . but when they came back into power, they actually implemented them. We are living in a fascist state right now. It’s just the early years of it. If we don’t react, it’s just a matter of time until state control is complete enough to allow for a dictator to succeed in taking full power.

Remember that there was a Senate under the Caesars. Elections in the Soviet Union. Not all fascist systems get rid of the pretense of a Republic.


42 posted on 10/25/2010 1:26:45 PM PDT by November 2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
They were the same people. They just used different slogans.

Very true. In Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism he tells the story of a visiting professor in Germany meeting with students prior to Hitler's rise. They are very much into Communism. He returns to visit after the Nazi party comes to power and these same students have all soaked up the Nazi propaganda - basically, the ideology didn't change, just the closeness of the ideology (Germany for Germans, as opposed to Communism for everyone).

43 posted on 10/25/2010 1:27:29 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Liberalism can be summed up thusly: someone craps their pants and we all have to wear diapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS
Hitler was a radical populist who used what ever tool was at hand. It happened to suit him to square off against the Socialist elements in Germany, in order to sell his particular brand of deformed ‘nationalism’ and all this made him ‘appear’ right wing in the way WE comprehend right wing.

It is a mistake to assume this bears any resemblance to American Conservatism. Our right is NOT comfortable with ‘totalitarianism’ ... Our Left IS... like Hitler. If you really want to be confused, read about Il Duce... there was one Left/Right guy for sure!!

44 posted on 10/25/2010 1:27:47 PM PDT by SMARTY ("..discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shadow44

get a grip-— being right wing in America has NOTHING to do with the Nazis...

NAZI stood for national SOCIALIST party....

try reading a bit


45 posted on 10/25/2010 1:28:43 PM PDT by eeevil conservative (GIVE ME A PLACE TO STAND AND I WILL MOVE THE EARTH....Archimedes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

Just buying into the “left-right” model is your first mistake.

The spectrum should be “more freedom” versus “less freedom”. Or, more government versus less government. The details of how this “total government” versus that “total government” are pretty indistinguishable, when it comes right down to it.

Fascism, socialism, communism, are variations on a theme that, in fact, usually appear together in the same government. Chavez of Venezuela, for example, is both a marxist (or communist) and a fascist. Mussolini, the original fascist, was a marxist. Nazism competed with the communists for the same gangs of street fighters. The only difference was that the communists were coordinated by the NKVD and the Nazis were not; that, and the fact that the Nazis made ethnicity more of a fetish than did the fascists and communists.

It was no less totalitarian for all that. Nazis killed maybe 12 million in their camps, while Stalin killed maybe 20 million.

If you imagine a continuum with communism on the left and fascism on the right, its a pretty short continuum since they are two sides of a single coin (with the nazis as their freakazoid inbred cousin). Classic liberal freedom lovers aren’t on that continuum at all, if you want to define it that way. We are not the half-way point between two identical brands of totalitarianisms. We are a thing of our own.

If you want to think of it as some do, a continuum with the totalitarians on the far left and anarchy on the right, classic liberal constitutional liberty is pretty far to the right. Even thats a bit slippery, though, since most self-named “anarchists” are actually marxists. And real life “anarchies” like Somalia wind up as a collection of petty gangster totalitarians.

So, even that continuum is a bit fictitious. Its better to just recognize that limited government, self-government, rule-of-law liberty is a thing of its own; it has nothing to do with totalitarianism and every effort to put it into the same spectrum with communism and fascism is going to distort the truth.


46 posted on 10/25/2010 1:29:09 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

Let’s keep it simple. The only reason the left considers the Nazi’s ‘right wing’ is because they attacked the Soviets. You can read all the definitions and review all the political philosophy you wish and not get a satisfactory answer why a socialist party is considered ‘right wing’. The only ‘definition’ that counts is this: the enemy of my friend is my enemy. The Nazi’s attached Stalin, so they must be the left’s enemy as well. Therefore, the Nazis must be ‘right wing’.


47 posted on 10/25/2010 1:34:31 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS
Photobucket http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/11/the-electric-tea-party-acid-test/
48 posted on 10/25/2010 1:34:33 PM PDT by Hypo2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eeevil conservative
When did I ever say that? Maybe you should pay attention to what I actually said. And if social welfare policies exclude people from the right-wing, then Benjamin Disraeli and Klemens von Metternich wouldn't be conservatives.

Believe it or not, Right-Wing politics do not solely consist of Liberal-Conservatism.

49 posted on 10/25/2010 1:35:57 PM PDT by Shadow44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

Nazi’s are socialist, through and through. They were never ‘right-wing’. The left today likes to call Nazi’s right-wing to taint conservatives. The Klintoons are, if we use history to define them, Nazi’s. The used the military-industrial complex to further their socialist ‘dreams’. That is what Hitler did.


50 posted on 10/25/2010 1:42:50 PM PDT by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

Both the Nazis and the Communists were big government.

Nazi stands for National Socialist.


51 posted on 10/25/2010 1:42:57 PM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS
...meaning they were nationalistic enough to be considered rightwing, even though they were on the left economically (and socially)."

First, see post #2.
Then understand that 'nationalistic' and 'nationalize' are neither synonymous nor mutually exclusive.

Nationalism means loyalty toward one's country. In German and many other instances this means "Fatherland". Here (in part because of the onus on Fatherland) we have moderated it to "Homeland" and probably still feel a bit antsy when we use the term.
Best local example is "My country, right or wrong, but my country".

Nationalization is centralization of most or all aspects of society, financial, industrial, educational, social, and anything else not nailed down, by government fiat. The state might simply take over a company or it's local assets (as has happened in Latin America to foreign oil and other operations), take over or establish an entire industry (PIMEX), or pull the owners of a major industry in and explain to them that they WILL cooperate for the national good - and their own (Hitler's route).

Nationalism has nothing to do with "right wing". Today, that term gets applied to most conservatives; those who favor limited government, free markets, individual investment, profit, an ability to advance financially. (Formerly, liberal economic policy and conservative social policy, but I digress.)

Nationalism does not necessarily support nationalization while today's conservatism is almost totally antagonistic to any form of nationalization - hence the newly dubbed "Government Motors". Germans had no need to be made into nationalists following WW1. National Socialism was the means used to recruit neer-do-wells into the anti republican movement and later it was the means of keeping potential dissenters in line.

At root nationalization is a means of removing the individual direction of assets ("rich fat cats") and relying on a central body to manage things "for the good of all" - socialism. It is historically espoused by those claiming to act for the working man or peasants who, in turn, relish believing that it will somehow benefit them - as per Marx/Engles and Mao. So far it has failed in that regard about 100% of the time - in large part because centralization can only survive where there is a small elite group doing the directing.

Not that most liberals would admit to it, but the most glaring absence in all this is the original linkage between Marxist socialism and internationalism. Too bad because that may be the only anchor that the left has in this debate - if socialism equals internationalism, the opposite must then equal nationalism...right?
Not to worry because just about every bit of evidence we see today shows the current socialist administration aiming directly at ceding sovereignty to centralized international bodies, whether they be unions, rioting mobs, borderless terrorists, United Nations, or NGOs.

End of rant - hope it helps with your liberal associates.

52 posted on 10/25/2010 1:51:39 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

Please define “socialist”.


53 posted on 10/25/2010 1:54:32 PM PDT by BiggieLittle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

nazis were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS... even an idiot can’t spin that fact.

LLS


54 posted on 10/25/2010 1:56:00 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

My grandfather was from LaCoruna in Galicia province in Espana. He passed on when I was very young, but my father told me that “Pappy” was a Franco supporter. He was a very conservative Catholic who hated the communists, and was very fearful of Russia, and their desire to digest Espana into the communist orbit. He was faced with an choice between something bad, and something infinitely worse, and he through his lot in with the bad. Franco was a Galician (Gallego) and Franco’s family was from a small town next to A Coruna, so I’m sure that had something to do with it. Also, Angel Castro, Fidel Castro’s father was a Galacian from Santiago Compestelo.


55 posted on 10/25/2010 1:59:24 PM PDT by AdvisorB (Dilma is a communist and a chavista.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

Well here’s a great video detailing exactly what ‘left’ and ‘right’ are, with respect to economics and government. Part one of a series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTQQJOEn9yI


56 posted on 10/25/2010 2:02:08 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS; marron

Whatever their politics, one thing the Nazis did better than other bloodthirsty scum like the Leninistas, Stalinistas, Maoists was their adherence to an impeccable sense of sartorial excellence.


57 posted on 10/25/2010 2:04:43 PM PDT by swarthyguy (KIDS! Deficit, Debt,Taxes!Pfft Lookit the bright side of our legacy -Ummrika is almost SmokFrei!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy

With uniforms that cool, they had to be gay.


58 posted on 10/25/2010 2:08:09 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Feline_AIDS

One of the major problems with these questions is that American conservatism (right-wing) is very different from European right wing.

We try to “conserve” the principles of the American Revolution, the most truly radical revlution of all time. It is thus a conservatism of revolution.

European right-wingers are descended from the much older aristocratic, authoritarian ideologies, often blended with hare-brained blood and soil idiocy.

Hindenburg would have had very little in common with an American conservative of his day, much less now. OTOH, today’s liberals or progressives have a great deal in common with both commies and nazis, the main difference being that they intend to reach the same goals using kinder, gentler methods.


59 posted on 10/25/2010 2:14:56 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (You shall know the truth, and it shall piss you off mightily)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BiggieLittle
Was Franco a Commie too?

Franco was a Nazi and was aided in the Spanish civil war by Hitler's Germany. German troops as well as air and mechanized support provided a preview of "Blitzkrieg" tactics prior to their invasion of Poland.

Franco establish a authoritarian military dictatorship. He maintained his control in Spain through the implementation of severe measures, the systematic suppression of dissident views through censorship and coercion, the imprisonment of ideological enemies in concentration camps throughout the country, the implementation of forced labor in prisons, and the use of the death penalty and heavy prison sentences as deterrents for his ideological enemies. During the Second World War, Franco officially maintained a policy of non-belligerency and later of neutrality. His regime lasted until 1978. During the "cold war" Franco's Spain was considered by the US government to be a "strong ally" because of his strong anti-Communist policy.

Regards,
GtG

PS To further confuse the left/right issues, communist Russia provided military aid to the "Popular Front" opposing Franco during the civil war.

60 posted on 10/25/2010 2:17:26 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson