Replies

Well David Duke, Le Pen, Haider and a bunch of other politicians are very much to the right, yet they gather and incredible ammount of nazi supporters, skinheads, racists, KKK types etc.. Do I really have to explain more? :)

The point is there are extremes on both sides of the major political spectrum and the Nazi movement was very much associated with the extreme right. I really don't know why acknowledging that would be such a problem, unless someone would identify with such beliefs. And oppresive regimes were both ruled by the extreme left and right (Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao etc...)

The point is there are extremes on both sides of the major political spectrum and the Nazi movement was very much associated with the extreme right.

Nazi, rather National Socialist Workers' Party, can not be on the Right. Socialism is ALWAYS on the Left, just like communism.

Therefore, how could Nazism be associated with the Right with the word "Socialist" in the title? That doesn't make sense.

Well David Duke, Le Pen, Haider and a bunch of other politicians are very much to the right, yet they gather and incredible ammount of nazi supporters, skinheads, racists, KKK types etc.. Do I really have to explain more? :)

Blue. None of these people are conservatives they are socialists. They all believe in big government. Your making the same mistake many others make. You cannot tell the difference between right wing socialists and left wing socialists. Right wing socialists also believe in group think and not the person.

Please try to reason a little more rather than simply repeating what you have been told. The spectrum of political organization does not run from Communism to Nazism, despite what you have been told. For example, where in this spectrum does anarchy fall? If the Communists were the farthest Left and Nazis were the farthest Right, where would the German monarchy fall?

If you study the history of the rise of Hitler you will find that most of his recruits came from the Communists. In Mein Kampf Hitler rants against the old order. This was only natural, since both the Communists and the Nazis hated the old order in Germany: the remnants of the monarchy. They both wanted total control of government and the economy. The fight between the Communists and the Nazis was more of a civil war than anything else.

In the end, the German people voted for Hitler because, believe it or not, he appeared more moderate. The political and economic elite accepted him because they believed he could be controlled. Of course they were wrong, but by then it was too late.

Under Hitler a great deal of the German economy was nationalized. What was not taken over, was controlled by the government to provide the resources for the German war machine.

The last time I saw troops goose stepping was at a May Day parade in Moscow.

Why would you include Franco in that list? Franco was a benevolent ruler who saved his country from communism and then wrote the democratic constitution under which Spain now operates. No hint of corruption. No hint of pogroms. Did probably live a little too long.

Franco was a dictator. He did not rule with an ideology. He did not try to impose any sort of utopia on the Spanish.Opposition was suppressed because it threatened his own position, not because ideas were not correct.He did not strive to build any sort of New Man. He was not a socialist of any sort. Property owners had limits set on their use of resources but could use their property or not use it within those limits.

the Nazi movement was very much associated with the extreme right

Wrong.

The point is there are extremes on both sides of the major political spectrum and the Nazi movement was very much associated with the extreme right. I really don't know why acknowledging that would be such a problem, unless someone would identify with such beliefs.

The definition problem arises when you let Communists make the definitions

For many decades, "The Left" was defined as "the people who support the USSR", and "The Right" as "the people who oppose the USSR". So you get Libertarians, Jeffersonian Republicans, and National Socialists being labeled as being "the same".

Hitler and Stalin had the exact same philosophy: total government control of all aspects of life. Hitler and Stalin only differed in WHO WAS TO BE IN CHARGE. That was their only real difference. Hitler thought that Aryans were geneticly superior, and Stalin thought that the proletariat were superior. Hitler got his main support from the clerical workers, Stalin from the assembly-line workers

But once their systems had been in place for a couple of generations, it would have been hard to distinguish them

The author of the article has a different definition of Right and Left, as he lays out. People who are in favor of total government control are on the Left, and people who want minimal government control are on the Right. So, going from Left to Right, we have Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot at the extreme Left; Hitler & Mussolini not so far to the Left; Welfare Statists to the moderate Left; Ronald Reagan to the moderate Right; Libertarians or various flavors further to the Right; and radical anarchists to the extreme Right

Well David Duke, Le Pen, Haider and a bunch of other politicians are very much to the right, yet they gather and incredible ammount of nazi supporters, skinheads, racists, KKK types etc.. Do I really have to explain more? :)
The point is there are extremes on both sides of the major political spectrum and the Nazi movement was very much associated with the extreme right.

I really don't know why acknowledging that would be such a problem, unless someone would identify with such beliefs. And oppresive regimes were both ruled by the extreme left and right (Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao etc...)

Your statements above could only be made if you base them on the fallacy that a "political spectrum" contains governmental "oppression" at both ends. Obviously, English comprehension is not your strong suit. Public education?
"A scale measures opposing states." Do you comprehend? Shall I dumb it down for you?
Left, right, it's irrelevant. The point is: a true political scale goes from total oppression on one end to total anarchy on the other end.
You're obviously hung up about "right-wing".
You're brainwashed.

Well David Duke, Le Pen, Haider and a bunch of other politicians are very much to the right, yet they gather and incredible ammount of nazi supporters, skinheads, racists, KKK types etc.. Do I really have to explain more? :)

Hell...Al Gore drew an incredible amount of nazi supporters, skinheads, racists, etc. However, I'm keen enough to realize that this doesn't make him one. What it does is identify him as a better match for those folks than G. Bush. Not that many of the people who could be labelled the same way didn't vote for Bush...and that doesn't make Bush one either...funny.

Hell, using your logic, we should be combing through the wreckage caused by the US Air Force of a House in Chippaqua who's resident actually kissed the wife of a known terrorist as a show of support for her husband, and a library in Arkansaw, who is dedicated to a gentleman known to have accepted money from terrorists to advance his political career and even pardoned terrorists for personal gain.

What you've done is create a situation of Guilt by Association and expect it to be taken as gospel.

The point is there are extremes on both sides of the major political spectrum and the Nazi movement was very much associated with the extreme right. I really don't know why acknowledging that would be such a problem, unless someone would identify with such beliefs.

Acknowledging this is trite as it's a fact. However, Nazism, though associated with the extreme right, was a far left movement marginally to the right of Communism. For Goodness sake, they *identified themselves* as socialist. Association aside, try presenting some evidence that this guy has any extremist ideals.

And oppresive regimes were both ruled by the extreme left and right (Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao etc...)

All Leftists. Let's try again...Now put up some real instances of this guy displaying anything approaching "extreme"...the only thing I've seen that could be identified as "extremist" is some mild support for capitalist reforms to a socialist and failing economic system.

It's very quaint to label people as one form of tyrant or another, but unless there's a reason to do so...well...you might do so because you're a liberal. Liberals don't need any facts or evidence for their claims.

The only difference between Nazis and Communists are who their enemies are.