Nazis were right wing, not left

[JohnBrown1917]

I honestly don't see what this even matters, a bad idea is a bad idea despite it's political leanings.

It tends to be argued to be left so that 'they' can argue that the far right can't be bad.

- - - Updated - - -

"National Socialist German Workers' Party"

End of story....

Like the French socialist party? Which is not socialist at all(social democrats)?


Or even better, what @Algy said.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"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.

Lots of people were basically never raised by their parents teaching them to do real research. So we have a whole lot of people who think right wing = good, light, life, freedom, happiness, strength and that left = evil, dark, enslavement, death, remorse.

Instead of, you know, what they really are, a set of two mostly conflicting beliefs that aren't exactly rooted in good or evil.

- - - Updated - - -

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Hey... they get to vote. In fact, they're FORCED to vote.

Their only option may be glorious god king Kim-Jong <whatever dickhead is alive> the third, but they get to vote!

[Maletalana]

The graphic is totally wrong. Fascism/Communism/"Neo"-liberalism and Anarchism absolutely do not fit there

- - - Updated - - -



This is not an oversimplifcation, but totally wrong (and bad comparrisons). Is this satire or do people in America (and apparently many EU countries) absolutely don't learn anything about political systems?

As a 23-year old American, I am so glad people are shitting on these two graphics. I am attempting to gain some perspective because, sadly, no, we did not learn very much about political beliefs in school from what I can remember. More about history than theory.

[Spectral]

The way I see Left and Right, and feel free to disagree, hopefully tastefully, is how it relates to the equality of man, with the Left favoring equality, and the Right favoring inequality as a "natural law". Socialism and Capitalism fall to the Left and Right by how they interact with this principle, they do not dictate what is Left or Right.

I think this is broadly true. As an addendum, I think Arnold Kling's languages of politics are a useful idea for describing how leftists and rightists think about the world. Leftists see most interactions and policies about an oppressor->oppressed access while rightists view things through a prism of civilization vs. barbarism. These views result in very different conclusions about things like policing in ghettos.

Of course, there are all sorts of gradations between these and a few people entirely outside of them (libertarians most notably).

- - - Updated - - -

I guess so. No wonder the average IQ of this country is in the fucking shitter. People making shit up like the Trumpettes.

The average IQ in the country is no different than one would expect based on demographic makeup. What are you referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

I honestly don't see what this even matters, a bad idea is a bad idea despite it's political leanings.

Paradigms shape what people consider bad ideas. Two people with non-shared pieces of their moral framework will arrive at very different ideas about things like how much money the government should confiscate from high income earners and transfer to low income earners.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The left/right axis isn't really a subjective, moving axis. It's an objective one. It doesn't shift over time. What was left-wing in 1880 is left-wing today. What changes is the context; a move to more progressive civil rights for women in 1880 was a left-wing push, but it's a battle that's largely been won in the modern Western world. So we don't have to keep pushing. But pushing to tip the balance back and create stratification on that measure is right-wing.

It's about the direction you want to take things from here, not the place you're currently at.

It's like arguing that you can't tell whether a car is going in reverse or not, because it's in Pittsburgh. It's a statement that really doesn't make any sense, once you understand that the car can go in either direction, and where it's at has no bearing on that whatsoever.

It's true that the left-wing/right-wing poles themselves cannot switch. What's important to understand, however, is how we tended to push Authoritarianism with right-wing politics for quite a while. It's not surprising though, when you consider that authoritarianism used to be tightly knit with economical growth -- you had to have a large array of workers to be able to expand your economy.

The left authoritarianism is more recent and more or less understood. In a lot of ways, it is very similar to the typical right-wing autoritarianism in how it is integrated -- only the core principle changes. In some way, this is why the horseshoe theory is so fascinating. Same methods, differing ideologies.

[Docturphil]

Who cares?

If you go too far left you end up extreme right and vise versa.

Left or right it doesn't make much of a difference. You just don't want to be extreme left or right. Moderate is the way to be.

[Release]

Who cares?

If you go too far left you end up extreme right and vise versa.

Left or right it doesn't make much of a difference. You just don't want to be extreme left or right. Moderate is the way to be.

I disagree, moderate hasn't spared us rampant inequality and a completely unfair system weighted in favour of an economic elite. It hasn't saved countless species going extinct on our watch or the degradation of the natural environment to levels which imperil our civilization. Moderate is exactly where the oil companies et al want us to be.

[Docturphil]

I disagree, moderate hasn't spared us rampant inequality and a completely unfair system weighted in favour of an economic elite..

I believe your perceived "unfairness" is due to the simple fact that some people are more capable/motivated than others. There will always be an elite class because some people are just more valuable to society. That's exactly how it should be.

It hasn't saved countless species going extinct on our watch...

If a species goes extinct it's because that species cannot survive. That's called natural selection. You could say that we influenced their extinction, but are we not part of the natural world?

or the degradation of the natural environment to levels which imperil our civilization.

While we may be negatively influencing the environment slowly over time, it has not yet reached levels which imperil our civilization. Let's be real...

[willtron]

Nazis were fascist aka authoritarian nationalist. And they also were socialists, not capitalists. There was pretty much nothing capitalist about nazism.

Left wing = socialism, right wing = capitalism

So, nazis were left wing.

If you can't handle that truth, go have your temper tantrum somewhere else.

/thread

There's a more simple version: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. National Socialist German Workers' Party.

National Socialist.

The clue is in the name.

[Endus]

It's true that the left-wing/right-wing poles themselves cannot switch. What's important to understand, however, is how we tended to push Authoritarianism with right-wing politics for quite a while. It's not surprising though, when you consider that authoritarianism used to be tightly knit with economical growth -- you had to have a large array of workers to be able to expand your economy.

The left authoritarianism is more recent and more or less understood. In a lot of ways, it is very similar to the typical right-wing autoritarianism in how it is integrated -- only the core principle changes. In some way, this is why the horseshoe theory is so fascinating. Same methods, differing ideologies.

If you dig back through my posting history, I pretty firmly divorce the authoritarian/libertarian axis from the left/right axis, which has more to do with societal stratification (whether social or economic), and whether it's good/unavoidable or should be mitigated/restricted. Left-wing favors the latter, right-wing the former.

There's a more simple version: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. National Socialist German Workers' Party.

National Socialist.

The clue is in the name.

That so many of you are so convinced that Nazis would never lie about anything is pretty damned shocking, to be frank.

Hitler condemned socialism. What he called "socialism" wasn't rooted in anything Marxist, and was directly opposed to it; it was nationalized state capitalism.

But continue with the "Nazi propaganda said so" argument, it sure helps your case.

[Dadwen]

I disagree, moderate hasn't spared us rampant inequality and a completely unfair system weighted in favour of an economic elite. It hasn't saved countless species going extinct on our watch or the degradation of the natural environment to levels which imperil our civilization. Moderate is exactly where the oil companies et al want us to be.

have to admit seeing this argument and your avatar all I heard was Zap's voice complaining about dirty neutrals..... lol

[Annoying]

There's a more simple version: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. National Socialist German Workers' Party.

National Socialist.

The clue is in the name.

Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The name argument has been made several times in this thread already. And it's quite silly.

[Forogil]

And still they became a dictatorship, can´t get any more traditional right than that.

False, the traditional right was to conserve the original monarchy - not to replace it with a new dictatorship.

To claim that dictatorship means 'traditional right' would mean that Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Marx' theoretical "proletarian dictatorship", etc were traditional right - which makes no sense.

[Release]

I believe your perceived "unfairness" is due to the simple fact that some people are more capable/motivated than others. There will always be an elite class because some people are just more valuable to society. That's exactly how it should be.



If a species goes extinct it's because that species cannot survive. That's called natural selection. You could say that we influenced their extinction, but are we not part of the natural world?



While we may be negatively influencing the environment slowly over time, it has not yet reached levels which imperil our civilization. Let's be real...

No my perceived unfairness is and let me use an example from England where I live. The Royal family. I don't have any particular gripe with the royal family but the fact you are born into the royal family or have connections to it means you are set up for life just by your genes. Same with the Bush family or Clinton in America. I am not arguing against people making more money for increased training or educational motivation. I'm a Dentist and I worked hard to achieve that but the dice are loaded. I also have problems with things like tax havens for the wealthy and cooperation's like Google avoiding paying their fair share. I've said before on this forum I am completely in favour of a wage cap, nobody on this earth should own 4 mega yachts that is just excessive and unnecessary.

The Dodo did not die due to natural selection. That was mankind going over to a place with guns and them having evolved no natural fear of man and shooting them until none were left. Today it is generally land usage by cooperation's, governments and farmers putting the natural world at the bottom of all policy decisions.

I disagree with that. There is going to be a reckoning. Whether its in the over fished ocean, decrease in arable land, Co2 levels or drought, within 20-30 years shit is gonna get real.

have to admit seeing this argument and your avatar all I heard was Zap's voice complaining about dirty neutrals..... lol

Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness I sent wave after wave of my own men until they reached their kill limit and shut down. Isn't that right men.

[Forogil]

A good starting point about Left and Right is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-w...litics#History
The Left is about Republic and Liberty, while the Right is about Monarchy and Tradition.
Therefore, if you want to stick to the original meaning of the term, without distorting it for the sake of an argument about economy, you would say that Nazis are more right-wing since they were more conservative than progressist.

Others view them as revolutionary and even if they were some more conservative nazist, it was not a traditional conservative movement.

In Italy the Futurist party (which in some sense were ultra-progressive) joined the Fascists (and then it got more complicated).

[Mayhem]

False, the traditional right was to conserve the original monarchy - not to replace it with a new dictatorship.

To claim that dictatorship means 'traditional right' would mean that Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Marx' theoretical "proletarian dictatorship", etc were traditional right - which makes no sense.

Yes that´s where the term originated, that doesn´t mean the idiology behind it is just about preserving a monarchy and ignore everything such a monarchy includes.

You probably can figure out the differences in your examples.

[miffy23]

Nazis were fascist aka authoritarian nationalist. And they also were socialists, not capitalists. There was pretty much nothing capitalist about nazism.

Left wing = socialism, right wing = capitalism

So, nazis were left wing.

If you can't handle that truth, go have your temper tantrum somewhere else.

/thread

Complete and utter fabrication. The Nazis considered socialism and thus "the Bolsheviks", ie the Soviet Union, to be their nemesis and main opponent.
The German economic system under the NSDAP was, while there was plenty of nationalized capital going on, utterly capitalistic.
Ever heard of such companies as IG Farben, Messerschmidt, Henkel....? Truly, symptoms of a socialist system.

The Alt Right trolls prey on the uninformed and the gullible.

[Docturphil]

No my perceived unfairness is and let me use an example from England where I live. The Royal family. I don't have any particular gripe with the royal family but the fact you are born into the royal family or have connections to it means you are set up for life just by your genes. Same with the Bush family or Clinton in America. I am not arguing against people making more money for increased training or educational motivation. I'm a Dentist and I worked hard to achieve that but the dice are loaded. I also have problems with things like tax havens for the wealthy and cooperation's like Google avoiding paying their fair share. I've said before on this forum I am completely in favour of a wage cap, nobody on this earth should own 4 mega yachts that is just excessive and unnecessary.

Most of the time when someone is born into wealth it's because their ancestors earned that wealth. Somewhere along the line someone had to start at the bottom and work their way up. Why shouldn't wealthy people who earned their wealth be able to pass it on to their children and grandchildren?

I agree though that at some point you're just too damn wealthy. At that point I believe it is that person's moral obligation to make the world a better place with their money. I don't think the government should be involved with that though.

The Dodo did not die due to natural selection. That was mankind going over to a place with guns and them having evolved no natural fear of man and shooting them until none were left. Today it is generally land usage by cooperation's, governments and farmers putting the natural world at the bottom of all policy decisions.

The dodo was selected for extinction because it was too stupid to survive alongside mankind. If we were created by nature, then we must also accept that we are part of the process of natural selection.

I disagree with that. There is going to be a reckoning. Whether its in the over fished ocean, decrease in arable land, Co2 levels or drought, within 20-30 years shit is gonna get real.

OK, but that's in 20-30 years. We'll have to wait to see if you're right or wrong. And nothing disastrous has happened yet. It'll probably take more than 20-30 years and by then our technology will hopefully be efficient enough to moderate pollution levels.

[Forogil]

Yes that´s where the term originated, that doesn´t mean the idiology behind it is just about preserving a monarchy and ignore everything such a monarchy includes.

The point is that they didn't preserve the monarchy, and they weren't conservatives (or at least not an overwhelming majority).

The ideology of a dictator is to tell what-ever to gain and preserve power. Doesn't matter what ideology they claim to have.

[Mayhem]

The point is that they didn't preserve the monarchy, and they weren't conservatives (or at least not an overwhelming majority).

The ideology of a dictator is to tell what-ever to gain and preserve power. Doesn't matter what ideology they claim to have.

So you think the only thing the traditional far right cared about was preserving the monarchy and not what it stood for? Interesting idea.