Nazis were right wing, not left

[Shadowferal]

Anarchism is close to slavery though? Who made that up?

That's why I stated (back one page) that the metric is more along the lines where totalitarianism meets no government at all.

And lets face it, no matter that some countries claim to be "communist" they aren't at all "by the people, for the people." (sound familiar?) No country has ever been truly "communal."

And Anarchism isn't friendly at all since it tends to be "only the strong survive." Which translates to "whomever has the biggest and most guns wins."

[Pannonian]

Constantly amazed by how Hitler and Mussolini are constantly dredged up as bad people and used as a stick to beat anyone with right wing views over the head, despite the fact that many on the right of the political spectrum are equally horrified by both of those people and their actions

Why are there never threads demonising the leaders of the old USSR leaders who enslaved whole countries, set up their own concentration camps, detained without trial, undertook state sponsored murder, no right to free speech, few, if any civil liberties etc

And that did not end until the collapse of the USSR in the 1980's

Whilst those espousing similar, or the same political views of Hitler and Mussolini should certainly be vilified, equally so should those who follow the odious extreme left views prevalent in most eastern european countries until recent times should also be called to account


Oh silly me, they're now socialists..........

I think authoritarian principles are vilified today - so Stalin too

Many of those responsible for appalling atrocities in those countries are still alive and very few have ever been held to account unlike the nazis who have literally been hounded to the grave

Seriously? Only a handfull ever saw a trial. De-Nazification was essentially cancelled after a few months in favour of integrating the still strong anti-communist nazis into the modern society of the cold war. Also... rat-lines?

Edit: Do i think people responsible for atrocities should stand trial in ex-commuist countries? Yes, absolutley. But i think its a bit hypocritical as my own country needed 40 years to face its own past...

[RobertMugabe]

Why is monarchism even there? Sweden is a monarchy and is left wing as fuck. Monarchism is a political system, not a political ideology.

That's the whole problem with the posters here (and that graphic). They compare ideologies, political systems and forms of economy at the same time.

[MozDef]

I suggest you apply that high-powered perception to yourself. The National Socialist Party (i.e. Nazi Party) was socialist... which firmly ensconces them on the left side of the political spectrum.

Who did the white supremacists support in this past election? Yeah, the right side of the political spectrum.

Go back to fox news so you can pretend that Trump just had the biggest showing of support at his inauguration, and if you look really, really hard you might be able to find a tiny, tiny bit of text about a couple hundred thousand or so people protesting his presidency.

[Steve French]

"No, your side were Nazis"
"No, your guys were the Nazis!"

This is easily the saddest and least productive thing I've seen around here.

That's exactly what a nazi would say.

[Darkeon]

I say Left and Somewhere-on-the-Center because I don't want Hitler to be Right.

[Puupi]

????

I am Austrian.

I just mean that your definition "left wing = socialism, right wing = capitalism" is just pure bullshit, because it is a nonsense comparison. Socialism is a political ideology... Capitalism, on the other hand is an economical system.

Socialism is an economical system, too. The left-right wing scale is about the economic policy.



This is how it works.

Left-wing is about having a smaller difference between classes, Nazis wanted bigger gaps between classes(i.e Jews).

Now this is just some next level ridiculousness.

[Deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchism

not monarchy

Come on, it's even explained in the wiki article:

"Monarchism is the advocacy of a monarch or monarchical rule. A monarchist is an individual who supports this form of government, independent of any specific monarch; one who espouses a particular monarch is a royalist. Conversely, the opposition to monarchical rule is sometimes referred to as republicanism."

There are two types of monarchism, absolute and liberal/constitutional. The 1800s was the stage of civil wars between the two sides.

So, again, monarchism is a political system, not a political ideology.

[Deleted]

I'm intrigued. The treaty of Versailles was evidently a big reason for the rise of national socialism in Germany. Funny enough though, when the Nazis eventually rose to power nearly all of the hurting clauses were already nullified by the democratic german government (in 1926 german and french foreign ministers got the peace nobel prize for this). It doesn't work for italy though, where facism first rose, as they were one of the winners of WW1.

So, i don't really get what you mean - care to elaborate?

In Germany the humiliation was the worst thing about it, as well as the loss of Alsace and Lothringen.
To understand the rise of Hitler, Nazism one has to understand the disunited German context, for a thousand years germany was divided and squabling subject to foreign invasion and intervention, and with the rise of the German state (Prussia) that was finally over, they were strong, united and powerful.
Then they weren't, and subject to humiliation, its not that the Versailles treaty wasn't bad, its that the German question then and now doesn't have a good solution.
Almost a third of Europe (to some degree) is German, and their wish to be united cuts countries apart -

A powerful leader that said, and managed mind you, to reunite all of Germany into one solid harmonious unit was very appealing.
Frankly i think even if WW2 never happened, (i.e Hitler didn't get elected) they would have had leaders who sought to retake the German speaking parts of central Europe and there would have been a non-violent if not victim less genocide of minorities (talking ethnic cleansing, not concentration camps).
its also worth noting that a non trivial part of why WW2 happened was because of the perceived dangers of a united central Europe to the UK, Hitler could have been a white Gandhi, they would likely have treated him the same.

[Deleted]

Its not talking about the kind of monarchy you find in modern Europa.

Think Feudal Europa.

Reason why the graphic is wrong.

[JohnBrown1917]

Socialism is an economical system, too. The left-right wing scale is about the economic policy.



This is how it works.

And nazis are not socialists.

Now this is just some next level ridiculousness.

That is how the left vs right often gets defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E...s_the_spectrum

[Deleted]

Why are there never threads demonising the leaders of the old USSR leaders who enslaved whole countries, set up their own concentration camps, detained without trial, undertook state sponsored murder, no right to free speech, few, if any civil liberties etc

Because most left wing people think socialism is good.

[Milotic]

Wait.

Do some people think Nazis were left wing.

Oh my god hahahahaha.

[Xarkan]

Come on, it's even explained in the wiki article:

"Monarchism is the advocacy of a monarch or monarchical rule. A monarchist is an individual who supports this form of government, independent of any specific monarch; one who espouses a particular monarch is a royalist. Conversely, the opposition to monarchical rule is sometimes referred to as republicanism."

There are two types of monarchism, absolute and liberal/constitutional. The 1800s was the stage of civil wars between the two sides.

So, again, monarchism is a political system, not a political ideology.

So what exactly would you think a person who advocated the return to a monarch as ruler is? A monarch? A monarchist?

Monarchism is the advocacy of a specific type of rule making it an ideology. It is the very first sentence

Or do you think the idea of abolishing the monarchy is not an ideology? (republicans)

[Puupi]

And nazis are not socialists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

"Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system",^[16] "

That is how the left vs right often gets defined.

Bullshit. Go read a book, kid.

[Ravenblade]

I feel like I have to insert the most important aspect:

The understanding of socialism in the 1920s wasn't the same as today. Back then socialism had a lot of different followers regardless of the spectrum and it wasn't connected to communism per se. A lot early socialists were outspoken anti-communists. It's only really only during the Cold War that the term became synonymous with communism but definitely is a leftwing idea these days. Hence why nationalsocialism could work back then but wouldn't today.

[Deleted]

Socialism is an economical system, too. The left-right wing scale is about the economic policy.

Wrong. The left-right scale began because the liberal/anti-royalist french members got the left side of the National Assembly and the royalists got the right side. It's about liberalism vs. absolutism.

[Pannonian]

In Germany the humiliation was the worst thing about it, as well as the loss of Alsace and Lothringen.
To understand the rise of Hitler, Nazism one has to understand the disunited German context, for a thousand years germany was divided and squabling subject to foreign invasion and intervention, and with the rise of the German state (Prussia) that was finally over, they were strong, united and powerful.
Then they weren't, and subject to humiliation, its not that the Versailles treaty wasn't bad, its that the German question then and now doesn't have a good solution.
Almost a third of Europe (to some degree) is German, and their wish to be united cuts countries apart -

A powerful leader that said, and managed mind you, to reunite all of Germany into one solid harmonious unit was very appealing.
Frankly i think even if WW2 never happened, (i.e Hitler didn't get elected) they would have had leaders who sought to retake the German speaking parts of central Europe and there would have been a non-violent if not victim less genocide of minorities (talking ethnic cleansing, not concentration camps).
its also worth noting that a non trivial part of why WW2 happened was because of the perceived dangers of a united central Europe to the UK, Hitler could have been a white Gandhi, they would likely have treated him the same.

Fully agree on most of what you said. The "white Ghandi" part is a bit too artifical for me, as Hitler laid out his policies long before he began uniting the german lands. Heck as an austrian i'm well aware as for "us" the humiliation after WW1 was probably even bigger. Austria as a state is a very recent inventions. For most of history austrians saw themselves as german. Even after Königgrätz 1866 they still perceived themselves as germans. Then after WW1 they lost a big part of their territory and were forbidden to join germany (even the first name of the new republic "Deutschösterreich" (german austria) was forbidden by the winners) - so they hailed Hitler.

Again i fully agree on the importance of the treaty of versailles for germany and the rise of national socialism, but again - why he asked about facism as a whole in europe, especially italy as they were on the winning side - just curious

[Deleted]

And nazis are not socialists.

Volksgemeinschaft (German pronunciation: [ˈfɔlksɡəˌmaɪnʃaft]) is a German expression meaning "people's community".[1] This expression originally became popular during World War I as Germans rallied in support of the war, and it appealed to the idea of breaking down elitism and uniting people across class divides to achieve a national purpose.

yeah nothing socialist about that.
And here it is again:
Folkhemmet (Swedish: [²fɔlkhɛmːɛt], the people's home) is a political concept that played an important role in the history of the Swedish Social Democratic Party and the Swedish welfare state. It is also sometimes used to refer to the long period between 1932-1976 when the Social democrats were in power and the concept was put into practice, but also works as a poetic name for the Swedish welfare state. Sometimes referred to as "the Swedish Middle Way",

someone should inform SAP that they are right wing Nazis.

[Deleted]

This image just is wrong. First, the opposite of Authoritarian is not libertarian, but Liberty. Second, there is and never was something like "lbertarian right", the right spectrum always targeted on authority. Also, there are a lot of different political agendas missing. Anarchy, for example. Syndicalism. Democrats. Socialism. Religious politics. Green politics (and no, they are not "left"). Constitutional monarchists.