Nazis were right wing, not left

[Adam Jensen]

Of course, I think it's also a moot point. Just because the Nazis were ____-wing, doesn't mean ____-wing is evil (insert right or left into the blank, it doesn't matter for my argument which you chose.) The Nazi take on that wing would be evil, but not the wing itself.

So if the Nazis were left wing, who cares? That doesn't mean all lefties are nazis, just like, if the Nazis are right wing, it doesn't make all righties Nazis.

[Glorious Leader]

Pot calling the kettle black.

Especially in the alternative fact age of president small hands

[NihilSustinet]

Not sure you understand what "authoritarian" means. *Supporting a federal government is not "authoritarian". *Authoritarianism necessarily requires a restricting of political freedoms, and Lincoln was opposing that. *He was a republican, but that's not authoritarian, inherently.



Yeah, terrible Lincoln for wanting all men to be treated equally as people, and harshing on those noble Southern States who illegally started murdering Americans because they couldn't get their way legally. *Lincoln didn't start the Civil War. *He simply pushed for emancipation, and the Confederates decided to illegally secede and start killing people rather than participate democratically in deciding that issue.

like i said, lincoln didnt care about people being treated equally. he didnt actually care about the slaves. he cared about his own power. the southern states are far from noble. like i said, I'm a new-england socialist. I;m just realistic about lincolns goals and why he did what he did, and what cost it had.

[Deleted]

This is not what defines left-wing politics.

No, but is one of the three pillars of liberalism. "Liberty, equality and fraternity".

[Devonitar]

It's somewhat confusing to learn how many people are so fanatical about something so abstract as "political option" to the point that they are assigning crimes against humanity to the other side, as the "guilty one", and bend history just to fit their narrative. And everything bad is fault of those elusive "leftists" or "rightists" that are probably sitting in some dark room plotting against good people of the world and laughing like villains from cartoons. No one focuses on Nazi Germany's crimes (or any other tyranny or dictatorship in the history), and how they were wrong from the pure moral stand point. No, it was "left" or "right" who has done it, and if they were "right" or "left" nothing like that would happen. Tough break, either option is important and serves its purpose, and its cyclical how relevant they are. It's humans who decide to bring them to extremums.

[Spectral]

No, but is one of the three pillars of liberalism. "Liberty, equality and fraternity".

Liberalism =/= left-wing politics. There's occasional overlap, but they are not synonymous.

[Wyrt]

I think it's pretty easy to prove when you point out the Nazis murdered socialists and communists along with the Jews, the gays, and other "undesirables."

Shh, don't bring facts into this. The Nazis had socialist in their name so clearly they were socialists. Ignore the murdered socialists by the nazi party.

[Deleted]

Liberalism =/= left-wing politics. There's occasional overlap, but they are not synonymous.

In the French Estates General, the liberals were on the left wing of the assembly, while the absolutists were on the right wing. That's why the politics got "Left/Right" definitions.

[MasterHamster]

The only impression I'm getting from this confused topic is that self-proclaimed "right wingers" (GOP voters, conservatists, or Trump voters in particular) from the US think they are somehow being lumped together with Nazis because they/the NSDAP were regarded as far-right and not left. And since Americans can't help but abuse the word "socialist" due to incredible political ignorance on that matter partially thanks to the Cold War, it's not that hard to understand why some would make the oh-so-intelligent observation that "oh, nationalSOCIALIST, hurrdurr nazis were left wing thus Democrats are evil, not us". Because names are apparently some form of evidence here.
Did you know Norway has a political party named Fremskrittspartiet, or "The Progress-party", yet are relatively conservative, anti-immigration and lower tax, things that aren't really considered "progressive" today. But aren't they progressives???? Its in the name!!1

No, that is not how this shit works. And no one worth listening to is calling GOP voters nazis. Nor are the general ideas of the Democrats anything similar to what Hitlers NSDAP stood for or did. Stop this utterly ridiculous label-war. Hell this is even more embarassing than calling Sanders a communist, as if his ideas of an economic model that tries to incorporate successful parts of the Scandinavian model, would harbor a repetition of the abominable political era of the USSR

Division in the US political arena is of course high right now, but this is just sad. Another great example of black-white thinking of the political spectrum, and utterly ridiculous guilt-by-insuinated-association (totally a legit named fallacy)

[mmolurker]

do people even know what left and right means? left is equality and right is liberty. how can u say that nazis were not left wing when they implement welfare and nationalising industries?
the thing to remember is that nazism is national socialism, while communism is global socialism. one is nationalistic and the other is internationalistic. it is no surprise that they hate each other, but that doesn't make them into the complete opposites.

[Deleted]

do people even know what left and right means? left is equality and right is liberty. how can u say that nazis were not left wing when they implement welfare and nationalising industries?
the thing to remember is that nazism is national socialism, while communism is global socialism. one is nationalistic and the other is internationalistic. it is no surprise that they hate each other, but that doesn't make them into the complete opposites.

Did you even read the thread?

[Endus]

do people even know what left and right means? left is equality and right is liberty.

I don't know where you ever got this idea, but it's flat-out wrong. Left-wing politics support social equality, yes, but right-wing supports social inequality, by design. That's what makes them right-wing. *If you had a liberty-focused view that supported everyone being equally free, that is a left-wing viewpoint. "Liberty" is, in fact, one of the many principles on which left-wing viewpoints push for greater equality.

how can u say that nazis were not left wing when they implement welfare and nationalising industries?

Because they also had policies that created legal distinctions between groups, with the intent of harming if not outright destroying some of those groups, such as Jews. *Which is obviously right-wing in nature.

Welfare isn't automatically left-wing; it depends on the intent. *If it's meant to support the "best" peoples (Aryans, in this case), then it's not left-wing at all. *Nor is it left-wing if its purpose is to create or maintain a purposeful underclass.

the thing to remember is that nazism is national socialism, while communism is global socialism. one is nationalistic and the other is internationalistic. it is no surprise that they hate each other, but that doesn't make them into the complete opposites.

And this is also wrong, since Stalinist communism is heavily nationalist in nature. Nationalism, unsurprisingly, clashes against pretty much any other nationalist system.

[hakujinbakasama]

do people even know what left and right means? left is equality and right is liberty. how can u say that nazis were not left wing when they implement welfare and nationalising industries?
the thing to remember is that nazism is national socialism, while communism is global socialism. one is nationalistic and the other is internationalistic. it is no surprise that they hate each other, but that doesn't make them into the complete opposites.

Additionally, Left is heavily Populist which is down the middle identical to Nazism. The main reason for the incorrect ties to modern Right-wing to Nazism is from the failed equality drawn to the exclusionary position of the Nazi party vs the Jews or the "undesirables." It is a false position to claim that their view points are equal when they aren't. There are parallels but that does not necessitate equality. Specifically, there is a misconstrue notion that because people on the right-wing do not want immigrants who's fundamental ideology is anti typical democratic believes they are being equal to Nazis.

Equally, there is an obnoxious double standard which gets levied against the perceived right-wing here in the states. All of the SJW and leftist aren't bitching about equality and fair treatment in the middle eastern or Asian countries. They aren't out on a tirade against the lack of diversity in the northern European countries. And they sure as fuck aren't in a big hurry to move down to South America to fix the cultural issues or live there. Yet, some how, Right-wing supporters are the evil doers.

- - - Updated - - -

social equality

Please explain wtf the quoted is and policy in which you have that is empirically supported to your claim.

[Deleted]

Because they also had policies that created legal distinctions between groups, with the intent of harming if not outright destroying some of those groups, such as Jews. *Which is obviously right-wing in nature.

Not only that, but they also privatized commercial banks, the german railways, the steel companies and many others.

- - - Updated - - -

Additionally, Left is heavily Populist which is down the middle identical to Nazism.

The far left and far right are populists, until they get the control of the state. It's a political tactic, not a political ideology.

[hakujinbakasama]

Not only that, but they also privatized commercial banks, the german railways, the steel companies and many others.

- - - Updated - - -



The far left and far right are populists, until they get the control of the state. It's a political tactic, not a political ideology.

I'd argue and agree at the same time. There was a time in which we would look at the curve and say that the populist mentality existed only on the far right or far left. However, the consistent stance and support of the left in modern US politics is in fact by the mass majority a populist stance. Their defense for all of their choices and messages is "the majority of Americans want" or "the majority of Americans feel." That is the essence of a populist mentality. Equally, the fundamental reality of a populist is that there IS NO TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. Which comes at a huge bit of irony as they do not care if they trample over a realistic minority if said minority believes in a contrary view.

This never ceases to be a really stupid approach to the matter. What part is hypocritical, exactly? Is it the part where they're not letting themselves get distracted by yelling at people in other countries so the right can run roughshod over minority rights? Or is it perhaps the part where they don't advocate a global empire so they can force their will on everyone? Where is this supposed hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy isn't the point of my comment. It's more of an issue of irony. The typical leftist who is going out of their damn minds attempting to pointing out how terrible everything is (here) are the same people who are completely open to ignoring actual problems in areas which are stricken by a serious reality that they love to claim exists here. It's the same reason why I hate the concept of how "mass shooting" is applied here. It drastically diminishes something like when ISIS goes out and lines up 1000 people and executes them as that is lumped into a "mass shooting." The consistent push to identify everything as "sexist" or "racist" or "hateful" completely diminishes actual examples of those concepts. Again, yelling that looking at you is "rape" is actually diminishing of an actual rape victims experience.

I like how Sam Harris sorts of put it. The next time a SJW goes on a rant, ask them to pull out their iPhone. When they do, look at it, look back at them, and then tell them to shut the fuck up.

[Synadrasa]

In what country are right wingers capitalists? I'm asking, because I live in America, and our rightwing just elected a president who is most certainly not a capitalist.

When compared to Americans, the Nazis are much closer aligned to the conservatives and rightwing.

Wait what? You're saying Trump who made billions off american capitalism, who talks about de-regulation for business, less tax for the rich, defunding/dismantling of the affordable care act isn't a capitalist?

Bringing jobs to America doesn't make you a socialist.

[frogger237]

And you are wrong already. The bolded part is 100% bullshit. Otherwise Nazis wouldn't wear a belt buckle with "Gott Mitt Uns" on it.

You know what that translates to? "God With Us" Nazis were fucking Christians, not atheists or Pagans. The only one that needs to learn to read, anything other than the fucking whitewashed history you were taught, is you.

Actually that was an early German attempt at advertising in English:

[hakujinbakasama]

So basically the boogeyman then?

I have no clue what you're attempting to get at with this comment.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Socialism is an incredible popular idea. That its name is abused by unsavory individuals and groups is a shame. Groups and leaders use the rhetoric and appeal of socialism but in action they abandon most if not all of the principles. Witness the claim that hitler was a socialist because he put people back to work and took em off a gold standard. Usually people claim he was a socialist based on this fact but it ignores every other attrocious and regressive aspect of the nazi party. You can be in favor of effective economic policy and not be a socialist or a nazi.

To be perfectly historically correct, they did have some aspects of socialism - but then again any nation that isn't destitutely poor and ruled by tribal warlords has socialism in it. The wealthier a nation, the more socialist policy it enjoys. And the more socialist a nation, the more wealth it gets to enjoy. Getting wealth into the hands of the lower class is precisely what stimulates a country's economy into motion.

Here's why this thread is stupid. The OP is right, nazis were right wing. This is historically correct. Even Hitler said they were right wing. For some odd reason, modern conservatives seem to think that your party being associated with that same political direction as a historical ruthless dictator somehow is a smear against your party... which is utterly stupid on its face.

But THEN AGAIN... modern conservatives have also been using the argument that since millions died under communist regimes, that must mean communism itself is always evil. So by that brand of "logic" (I use that word looser than a hooker's vajyjay) nationalism and populism must also be evil since that was the primary governmental agency of the nazis. Woops, well that either means that they have to accept that they're evil motherfuckers because of their own "logic" (fuck that word really does not belong in here) or accept that their argument that communism is always evil because communist dictatorships killed people is really really dumb.

So in order to avoid both, they try really hard to insist nazis, and any other evil motherfuckers, are lefties.

Because clearly, the only evil people in this world are liberals. Not a single evil person was ever right wing, because conservativism says so right there in the dictionary, "Conservatives are by definition never evil, you dense fuckers!"

[Auxora]

Well it depends how you look at things. The problem comes in because people try to apply modern conservatism/liberalism to political areas that were far different 80+ years ago. National socialism was absolutely not liberal and is really the wrong name, which is what throws people off. But it sounded better I'm sure than facism or authoritarianism which is what was, just like "alt-right" sounds better than what it really is.

There were some small socialist aspects of Nazism, such as Hitler wanting to give all people automobiles. But more often than not, the socialist aspect of it was just used as an excuse to implement authoritarian policies like restricting freedom of radio and the press (and eventually they just took them over).

The same is true when Republicans constantly bring up Lincoln to dispute any claims of bigotry and racism today. What most people don't realize is that the party positions on social topics were completely reversed back in the 1860's compared to today. Back in the 1860's, it was the Democrat party that was anti-Black equality (and outspoken in their racism), and the Republicans were pro-Black freedoms and anti-slavery. Read some historical publications from back then to see for yourself.