Be honest, this is your entire argument - the Nazis must be left wing because they were called the National Socialists.
They weren't socialists.
Your analysis is faulty, your conclusions pre-determined and false.
- 3
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Be honest, this is your entire argument - the Nazis must be left wing because they were called the National Socialists.
They weren't socialists.
Your analysis is faulty, your conclusions pre-determined and false.
No, that is not my "entire argument." It is not even an important part of my argument. My fundamental argument in that post was that the Nazi party platform was explicitly socialist, according to the accepted definition of socialism. Their economic ideology is perfectly in line with far left socialism:
Demanding the nationalization of all trusts, demanding profit-sharing in large industries, providing state-funded maternity welfare centers, advocating the immediate communalization of large stores, and enacting laws to appropriate private property for the common good, among many other things, are all clearly left-wing positions. This is such basic, elementary stuff that I am astonished that I have it to explain it so many times in order for people to understand it. Do you really think any staunch, right-wing conservative would support ANY of the above things? LOL!
Your entire "argument" (or lack thereof) consists of blindly repeating "they weren't socialists" over and over again, as if blindly repeating something over and over again is any sort of argument. You either lack the intelligence to understand what a socialist is, or you lack the intellectual honesty to recognize a socialist when you see one.
- 4
It makes no sense to try and understand "conservative," "liberal," "right wing" or "left wing" in terms of policies over a century. Or often even over a decade. Otherwise you start thinking that Bismarck was leftist because he wanted government pensions or puzzling over whether supporting a balanced budget is something conservatives or liberals do.
The only way it makes sense to apply these terms is by looking at who was supporting which group, which isn't nearly as fluid as policy positions. I'm not saying you have to do that--you could decide the categories are a waste of time--but if you're doing it that's what matters.
The fascists and nazis definitely appealed to the right wing. The voters came from the right wing and influential factions on the right ultimately supported it. It's one reason Franco was widely considered "Fascist" and supported by Hitler and Mussolini, even though he was arguably just the leader of a more traditional conservative coalition. Occasionally you get people saying fascism vs. communism was just some internicene lefty thing, which is silly. The capitalists knew which side they hated more, and Hindeburg would never have given power to a communist, even if they did have 40% of the vote.
The only way it makes sense to apply these terms is by looking at who was supporting which group, which isn't nearly as fluid as policy positions. I'm not saying you have to do that--you could decide the categories are a waste of time--but if you're doing it that's what matters.
The fascists and nazis definitely appealed to the right wing. The voters came from the right wing and influential factions on the right ultimately supported it. It's one reason Franco was widely considered "Fascist" and supported by Hitler and Mussolini, even though he was arguably just the leader of a more traditional conservative coalition. Occasionally you get people saying fascism vs. communism was just some internicene lefty thing, which is silly. The capitalists knew which side they hated more, and Hindeburg would never have given power to a communist, even if they did have 40% of the vote.
- 3
According to your definition of socialism maybe? Most socialists are going to have some pretty strong words about your definition. Let me give the mic to one of them, from back when Hitler getting the Enabling Acts passed:
The head of the Social Democratic Party of Germany said:
You are free to invent whatever kind of silly crap you want and say "that's what I think socialism is". But that's just your opinion. The people who were there at the time felt that the differences between Nazism and socialism were worth dying over. Socialism as it was practiced then and as it is practiced now cares an awful lot about the idea of internationalism, humanitarianism and care for those in need. When other people were going along with Nazi militarism, the socialists said it had no place in their movement.
So you can invent whatever kind of silly definition you want. But it's a pretty crappy one you are inventing.
- 9
- 1
I see how you're drawing this comparison: the ultimate goal of national-socialism is to create a state where everyone is equal, which is the same ultimate goal of leftism. However, national-socialism tries to do so by eliminating all groups except one, while leftism tries to do so by making all groups equal.
- 2
- 1
The definition of socialism that I posted earlier is not my own invention or my own opinion, but was copied verbatim from Encyclopedia Britannica. You can post any other definition of socialism from any other reputable source, and the Nazi economic policies as outlined in their 25 Points would match that definition. As usual, my opponents show that they are utterly unable to refute my argument, and demonstrate that they either (1) lack the intelligence to understand what socialism is, or (2) lack the intellectual honesty to identify an obviously socialist platform as a socialist platform.
The German Social Democrats did not refute the socialist character of the Nazi Party anywhere in the excerpt that you quoted, because they could not; the Nazis were an obviously socialist party, and everyone (including the Nazis themselves) referred to the Nazi Party as a socialist party. The German Social Democrats only criticized the totalitarianism of the National Socialists and their opposition to liberal parliamentary democracy, but simply being opposed to liberal parliamentary democracy does not make one a non-socialist. The German Social Democrats would have agreed with many of the left-wing socialist principles contained in the Nazi platform that I posted above; they would have disagreed only with the means used to attain certain socialist/collectivist ends by the Nazis.
And no, internationalism is not, and never has been, a defining characteristic of socialism. Show me a single reputable source (such as Encyclopedia Britannica) from any point of history that identifies internationalism as an essential, defining characteristic of socialism.
- 10
Conclusive proof that the National Democratic Party of Germany is not fascist:
1. It has the word "Democratic" in its name.
2. Because I say so.
3. Err...
4. That's it.
I'm being facetious, but your argument is based on caste-iron, outdated assumptions about socio-political movements which have not only evolved over time and space but whose own adherents rarely reach consensus. For instance, you refer to the "proper context" of the right-wing label and thereby claim it's absurd to refer to "right-wing nationalist". But your 'context' is an international political environment that had not existed for centuries by the time of Nazism: feudal, multi-national polities presided over by absolute monarchs. Germany may have been an empire, but it was still a nation-state, one whose chief architects had in fact been - gasp - right-wing nationalists!
You make sweeping claims about the right-wing having "never been defined by ethnocentrism at any point in history." That's demonstrably false; even if we limit ourselves to interbellum Germany, you can point at the DNVP, the BVP and the DVFP. The latter was lead by none other than Erich Ludendorff - the traditional conservative par excellence. Even today, one can easily cite Britain's BNP or Russia's LDPR as examples of right-wing ethnocentric parties. Once you start from the false premise that ethno-nationalism is incompatible with right-wing politics, it's no wonder that you end with the false conclusion that Nazism cannot be identified as right-wing.
You keep referring to the NSDAP's 25 Point Programme as an article of faith. Yet you seem to forget that this programme was promulgated in 1920, when the movement was still known as the German Worker's Party (DAP). You don't make any effort to trace Nazism's political evolution in the subsequent thirteen years before they seized power. Thirteen years is an aeon in politics; it's the difference between the Socialist Party of Allende and the Socialist Party of Bachelet. You do not even mention the concerted purge of the Left Nazis during Hitler's consolidation of power, such as the Strasserists and the SA. You do not even mention Mein Kampf - the intellectual foundation of the movement! I'm really not sure you're in a position to make authoritative declarations about the political character of Nazism when you seem to have only a superficial understanding of it. For one thing, if the 25 Points is such definitive proof of Nazism's leftist orientation, then why was it barely implemented by Hitler?
Nor do you seem to recognise Nazism's extreme divergences from accepted socialist ideology. Nazism rejected the class struggle for corporatism; Nazism rejected the withering away of the State for its entrenchment; Nazism rejected international solidarity between the working classes in favour of an exclusivist ethno-national community. Really, what Nazism succeeded in doing - and thus what brought it such great electoral success - was synthesising the rhetoric and machinery of state socialism with the objectives of right-wing ultra-nationalism. But even state socialism has its critics within the socialist movement, including those who would deny that it is socialism at all. This is the problem with assuming that political ideologies are rigid, inflexible and precise.
1. It has the word "Democratic" in its name.
2. Because I say so.
3. Err...
4. That's it.
I'm being facetious, but your argument is based on caste-iron, outdated assumptions about socio-political movements which have not only evolved over time and space but whose own adherents rarely reach consensus. For instance, you refer to the "proper context" of the right-wing label and thereby claim it's absurd to refer to "right-wing nationalist". But your 'context' is an international political environment that had not existed for centuries by the time of Nazism: feudal, multi-national polities presided over by absolute monarchs. Germany may have been an empire, but it was still a nation-state, one whose chief architects had in fact been - gasp - right-wing nationalists!
You make sweeping claims about the right-wing having "never been defined by ethnocentrism at any point in history." That's demonstrably false; even if we limit ourselves to interbellum Germany, you can point at the DNVP, the BVP and the DVFP. The latter was lead by none other than Erich Ludendorff - the traditional conservative par excellence. Even today, one can easily cite Britain's BNP or Russia's LDPR as examples of right-wing ethnocentric parties. Once you start from the false premise that ethno-nationalism is incompatible with right-wing politics, it's no wonder that you end with the false conclusion that Nazism cannot be identified as right-wing.
You keep referring to the NSDAP's 25 Point Programme as an article of faith. Yet you seem to forget that this programme was promulgated in 1920, when the movement was still known as the German Worker's Party (DAP). You don't make any effort to trace Nazism's political evolution in the subsequent thirteen years before they seized power. Thirteen years is an aeon in politics; it's the difference between the Socialist Party of Allende and the Socialist Party of Bachelet. You do not even mention the concerted purge of the Left Nazis during Hitler's consolidation of power, such as the Strasserists and the SA. You do not even mention Mein Kampf - the intellectual foundation of the movement! I'm really not sure you're in a position to make authoritative declarations about the political character of Nazism when you seem to have only a superficial understanding of it. For one thing, if the 25 Points is such definitive proof of Nazism's leftist orientation, then why was it barely implemented by Hitler?
Nor do you seem to recognise Nazism's extreme divergences from accepted socialist ideology. Nazism rejected the class struggle for corporatism; Nazism rejected the withering away of the State for its entrenchment; Nazism rejected international solidarity between the working classes in favour of an exclusivist ethno-national community. Really, what Nazism succeeded in doing - and thus what brought it such great electoral success - was synthesising the rhetoric and machinery of state socialism with the objectives of right-wing ultra-nationalism. But even state socialism has its critics within the socialist movement, including those who would deny that it is socialism at all. This is the problem with assuming that political ideologies are rigid, inflexible and precise.
- 14
Just to say, grandstanding to an invisible audience is not just poor debating form; it also makes you look slightly unhinged.
Would you accept The Communist Manifesto, which literally ends with a call for the "working men of all countries" to unite? For someone who self-describes as left-wing, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the historical socialist movement. By Hitler's day, socialism had already organised at the international level. As with conservatism, you take an inappropriate 'originalist' interpretation that basically ignores any subsequent political development.
- 1
Reading through this thread again, it occurs to me that this is not the dry humour I took it to be.
Anyone looking at German politics in the 1920s and early '30s will observe a clear left to right spectrum, with the Communists and Nazis at opposite extremes. I suppose it's possible to say that the centre is the finishing position of Nazism - but only because the left was completely eliminated and outlawed. When you end up with a political spectrum of a single colour I suppose you can call that the centre, but the term has become pretty meaningless by then.
- 1
- 1
I will do whatever I like.
Your problem is that you don't understand English (or at least don't make the effort necessary to properly comprehend English), and also don't understand categorical logic.
If we say that some quality X is an essential or defining characteristic of some category Y, then that means the entire category Y is defined by X. For example, if we say that authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of fascists (which is true), that that means all fascists must be authoritarians, and no fascist can be non-authoritarian. There can be no such thing as a fascist democrat, because a "fascist democrat" is an inherent contradiction in terms. However, internationalism is not, and never has been, a defining characteristic of socialism, meaning that the entire category of socialists has never been defined at any point in history by the quality of internationalism. I have never said that "no socialists are internationalists," only that "some socialists are not internationalists." Since the latter is obviously a true statement, it logically follows that internationalism cannot be a defining characteristic of socialism. Therefore, your citation of the The Communist Manifesto is completely irrelevant. The category of Marxists has never been identical with the category of socialists.
You made this same logical fallacy in your previous post, when you brought up the British BNP as some sort of proof that the modern right-wing is defined by ethnocentrism, which is as stupid as claiming that that all birds are eagles. I will post again exactly what I said previously:
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
You are right I was serious.
National Socialism has features from the left and the right, almost equal and then put into an extreme. Mind you they where seen as right because the Reichstag didnt knew where to seat them so they placed them next to the Monarchists.
Facism = Extreme right
Nationalsocialism = Extreme center.
Communism = Extreme left.
Thats how I perceive it.
- 2
- 1
I can actually see what you mean, but I don't really see that much difference between Fascism and Nazism - in terms of position on the spectrum. Of course Italy and Germany were very different places and there were certainly specific differences, but to me they are both extreme right. I think the origin of the NSDAP as a supposed party of 'the workers' is confusing. What the party evolved into was certainly not a party of the left - as the OP is trying to maintain - but I concede that this does not rule out your centrist position.
It's an interesting idea - I'll leave it at that.
Ouch.
That's a silly, prescriptivist interpretation of political theory. There are indeed such things as fascist democrats, or fascists who believe in using the democratic process to achieve fascist objectives. There are even, heavens forefend, socialists and social democrats who reject the common ownership of the means of production. You speak of "defining characteristics", but all you're talking is a one-line, broad-church summary of infinitely complex ideological spectra. You then act as if this summary - and this summary alone - defines that political movement, and any other characteristic is superflous to consideration. That's infantile. The defining characteristic of a democracy, for example, is the regular election of officials with agenda-setting power. But it is blatantly obvious that, say, the USA, Russia and North Korea are not the same kind of democracy. One is a liberal democracy, the other is a 'managed' democracy or dominant-party regime and the latter is an authoritarian single-party regime. Paring back the details does not provide clarity of analysis; it obfuscates the differences.
So you declare that because socialism - according to your extremely circumscribed understanding of it - does not fundamentally enshrine internationalism, therefore this means that internationalism cannot be considered a defining characteristic of socialism. Yet a hundred years of social and political development suggest otherwise. Certainly, by the Nazi era, internationalism was a defining characteristic of socialist movements, both in the social democratic and Marxist camps which had by then partitioned the mainstream socialist cause between them. You may dispute this, but then by your own interpretation, it would be impossible for right-wing conservatives to be republicans.
But instead of repeating yourself, why don't you explain why the Nazis singularly failed to implement the 25 Point Programme?
- 4
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow
- 1
Imho, extremists take whatever they desire to extreme. The Nazis, at their beginning had a great many thing in common with communism, They were also extremist authoritarian, which conflicts nearly completely with theoretical communism which sees a diminishing need for a state of any kind.
This conflict resulted, in time, in the Nazis becoming the absolute authoritarians they were, with only the smallest vestiges of any communist or socialist policies. Pragmatic "leader worship" overruled all else.
It no longer mattered what the party "platform" or doctrine may have been, all became subject to the leader.
IMHO no discussion of the values or positions of the 3rd Reich form of Nazis has any value beyond looking at the personal positions of Hitler and his highest deputies. Nothing else mattered.
- 2
It is always fun when someone uses a limited (usual economical) definition of the left-right axis and tries to hammer the much more messy European context onto that. The argument always seems to miss the cultural conservatism and nostalgia that is traditionally part of the right wing here.
- 2
That depends on what you consider "the right wing". The preservation or exaltation of existing customs is one of the core elements of conservative ideology, and that one has been infused with ethnocentrism and xenophobia since the days of Cato the Elder.
Stressing a common cultural heritage, common religion, or common national roots with the poor (and specifically, the rural poor) is a rhetoric key element of conservativism and right-wing politics, and serves precisely to uphold social inequality.
Did you ignore my explanation by way of Christian Conservativism on purpose or accidentially?
Do you consider Christian-Social Conservativism a socialist ideology?
Last edited:
For someone who prides themselves on their wielding of "logic", you appear to have some serious problems noticing the inherent contradiction in a party program that demands both the complete nationalization of all industrial production, and a re-ordering of society among corporatist lines where all economic activity is controlled by representatives of their relevant professions.
So you agree that the Nazis were not Marxists, and thus different from any contemporary strand of European Socialists and Social Democrats?
The 25 point plan was never implemented. When in power the Nazi Party consistently favoured large corporate organisations in the awarding of state contracts and prevented workers from using any form of collective negotiations. This is not to say they did not introduce policies that are traditionally associated with the 'left', but rather that if taken as a whole, Nazi policies were fundamentally oppositional to liberty, equality and fraternity (except in a very limited meaning of fraternity).
Nazi policy was also fundamentally backward looking (conservative) - the reason the Nazis had strong environmental policies was not because of a collective responsibility for the environment, but due to ideas of traditional rural virtues and the role of 'wild spaces' in supporting those virtues. Nazi ideology looked back to the idealised past to find its aspirational examples, it was obsessed with restoring former glory rather than producing a new future. Even the 'new man' that the Nazis tried to mould through education and activities such as the Hitler Youth was actually an idealised old man bearing the traditional conservative virtues of obedience, hard work, physical prowess and dedication to the political elite (loyalty). In no way was it attempting to produce a citizen who was his own master and had the skills and intellectual tools to make free and informed choices.
Nazi policy was also fundamentally backward looking (conservative) - the reason the Nazis had strong environmental policies was not because of a collective responsibility for the environment, but due to ideas of traditional rural virtues and the role of 'wild spaces' in supporting those virtues. Nazi ideology looked back to the idealised past to find its aspirational examples, it was obsessed with restoring former glory rather than producing a new future. Even the 'new man' that the Nazis tried to mould through education and activities such as the Hitler Youth was actually an idealised old man bearing the traditional conservative virtues of obedience, hard work, physical prowess and dedication to the political elite (loyalty). In no way was it attempting to produce a citizen who was his own master and had the skills and intellectual tools to make free and informed choices.
- 3