Sixteen arrested at EDL protest (UK)

fileymercury ^ | Sept 4, 2011 | Not Listed

[Steve Van Doorn]

I would like to ask you guy the same question:
Was the pre-WWII National Socialist of Germany a right wing or left wing party?

Thank you

[dfwgator]

It must be remembered that he gained power by way of a democratic election, not by way of a revolution or a military coup.

Wrong. Hitler was not elected...he was appointed Chancellor, by Von Pappen, who saw Hitler as a useful tool to get back at his main rival, Von Schleicher, and was able to convince the then-senile Von Hindenburg....However, once Chancellor, Hitler in essence led a coup, with the help of his Brownshirt thugs.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Hitler would never have been appointed Chancellor which originally was just a figure head position he was not supposed to have any power, if he didn't win 35% of the vote in the election against Hugenberg.

Hugenberg won against Hitler but their elections are different then ours. Our elections are winner take all in Europe is based on the percent of the vote. So, Yes Hitler did rise to power through the election process.

After he became Chancellor only then did he create a Coup d'état. Granted it was a huge mistake by Hugenberg to appoint him Chancellor but that was the deal they made for winning 35% of the vote.

[Vanders9]

As regards your exact question - I studied the rise of the Nazi's as part of a history course recently and its not an easy thing to define. National Socialist party thinking had some elements that are defined today as left-wing and others that are defined today as right-wing, and quite a lot that was uniquely German 1930's. In other words, you really had to be there man! :). As a result, the only definite conclusion you can draw is that the terminology doesn't mean a lot.

My personal opinion is this whole left-wing/right-wing trope is thoroughly obsolete and needs to be put to bed. It's become nothing more than a labelling system these days, a short hand method for putting people and their opinions in nice neat little boxes that you can either applaud or condemn, as appropriate. It saves having to actually think about the issues involved. The whole concept is based on seating positions in the French national assembly pre-revolution - in other words, its based on an obsolete political division, in another country, over two centuries back!

We talk about political spectrums - representatives to either the US senate or the European parliament or to Westminster are always shown in this huge arc with the commies at one end and the fascists at the other - I think its actually more like a circle. You go further and further to the left you end up going over the bump and into the extreme right. After all, Mussolini was a member of the communist party before he started the fascist movement. The original name for the Nazis was the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers party) and the Nazis were the National Socialists. The real division is not left wing versus right, its libertarian/individualist/liberal (classic sense) versus statist/centralist/control freak.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Thank you very much.
Not feeling so hot. I hope this comes out ok.

Hitler originally based his fascism on Mussolini with modifications which I agree with you all systems can be rooted down to Statist or individualism forms of government. Mussolini was the editor of the L'Avvenire del Lavoratore which was a Marxist News print which he kept on as advisors those that worked for the pamphlet. The German Swastika was first seen in Russia and the US before the Nazi's as a symbol for socialism.

I do not agree that right wing and left wing should be lumped together. Because if you look at the most extreme right wing in the history of the world that would be the government of Singapore. Singapore imprisons people that goes against their government but they are not mass murderers as with Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

With all due respect the conservatives in England are monarchist more then they are conservatives, which I really do not understand the logic of this.

thank you. I hope that comes out ok.

[Steve Van Doorn]

One other thing that is note worthy. Marxism is the only system flat out says the rich and the poor must die in or for the system to work. The left avoids the second part for the masses. The mass killers were only following Marxist form of government.

Here is an example of Engels writing 1849:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm
the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.”

The sonderbund is a territorial area but the Slav Sonderbund were considered the low life scum.

[Trailerpark Badass]

In all fairness, there are plenty of Americans who would say the same things about the Tea party.

[Vanders9]

I do not agree that right wing and left wing should be lumped together. Because if you look at the most extreme right wing in the history of the world that would be the government of Singapore. Singapore imprisons people that goes against their government but they are not mass murderers as with Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

I think that statement only further strengthens my case against this "left-wing/right-wing" division. Who says that Singapore is "the most extreme right wing in the history of the world"? By your lights they are, but presumably Singaporans wouldn't agree with you! Who defines what "right-wing" is anyway? Fiscally and economically Singapore is extremely liberal (classic sense). Its only on social matters that they are more restrictive.

With all due respect the conservatives in England are monarchist more then they are conservatives, which I really do not understand the logic of this.

With all due respect, that doesn't surprise me, because you're American. The very fact that you can say "conservatives in England are monarchist more than they are conservatives" proves quite conclusively that we have different perceptions of what "Conservative" means. And that's ok because we have separate histories and traditions that do not equate exactly to each other. In other words, conservative = monarchist is nonsense if you are an American conservative, because being conservative to you means being true and loyal to the ideals of the revolution and to the constitution and the republic. But to a Briton conservative = monarchist makes perfect sense, because our liberties are guaranteed by the great compromises that established the crown as a constitutional monarchy but vested power in Parliament through the Bill of rights (and rather less so, the act of settlement).

[Steve Van Doorn]

During the McCarthy time and the red scares Singapore took it one step farther and imprisoned their whole left wing party and never allowed them to build back up again. To this day there is only one conservative party remaining.

"Briton conservative = monarchist makes perfect sense, because our liberties are guaranteed by the great compromises that established the crown as a constitutional monarchy but vested power in Parliament through the Bill of rights (and rather less so, the act of settlement)."

I understand why but individualism and a Monarchy are direct opposites.

[Vanders9]

I understand why but individualism and a Monarchy are direct opposites.

Why so? Individualism, by definition, implies inequality. The opposite of individualism must surely be socialism, because that is the only system that insists on absolute equality (even if it means everyone has to be equally miserable).

[Steve Van Doorn]

I am sorry I got a bad flu. I will pick up on this another time again I am sorry

[Vanders9]

I understand. I just came thru a bad case of that myself!