What Has Happened To The Left?

[unbeliever]

 

I am aware that there has been an attempt by a tiny minority of Conservatives to try and re-brand Hitler as a socialist - maybe out of embarrassment or (more likely) political mischief making.

But if contemporaneous writings, The Holocaust Trust, and many other authoritative sources label him a far right dictator, then as far as I'm concerned I'd rather take the view of serious historians, than with partisan politicians engaging in, at best revisionist history, or at worst, bit of trolling.

 

You've got to be kidding!

National SOCIALISTS!

It's in the damn name.

If there's any pathetic, mischievous, history denying re-branding going on here, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the socialists are the ones doing it.

 

Modern academia and media have collectively branded all racially and /or religiously intolerant organisations as "right". They seem to have got away with this somehow. I started a whole other thread "what does far right mean anyway" on this subject which you can read if you want the arguments.

 

Right in this context doesn't mean capitalist. It just means racist and/or authoritarian.

Racist and/or authoritarian organisations are labelled as "right" even though they are macro-economically and in terms of state-interventionism more aligned with the moderate to far "left".

Being labelled "right" by people like that doesn't mean much. It is certainly not in conflict with being socialist.

 

I've heard historians and academics refer to Stalin (history's most famous communist), Pol Pot and the Kims of North Koreas as "far right". They're authoritarian and brutal. That doesn't somehow turn them from socialists into capitalists.

 

 

An extremist capitalist government is either libertarian or classical anarchist. You'd have no or almost no government, little if any public services and no real rights or entitlements except perhaps property possession enforcement. Obviously there'd be little or no taxation either.

Anybody who thinks about this for more than a minute can't reasonably reach any other conclusion.

Edited November 12, 2015 by unbeliever

[Mister M]

As another poster observed:

 

You have to realise that Hitler wasn't politically naive initially. "Nationalist" "Socialist" were terms used in a propaganda sense to dupe the masses. He couldn't ride on the back of "kill all Jews and homosexuals" as a rallying cry.

 

The Nazi's social policies, such as better pensions and reducing unemployment, appealed to a lot of people and also many traditional socialists - but their methods certainly didn't.

 

Thanks for saying that Nazis labelled themselves as national socialists, I was aware of that

Edited November 12, 2015 by Mister M

[runningman1]

As another poster observed:

 

You have to realise that Hitler wasn't politically naive initially. "Nationalist" "Socialist" were terms used in a propaganda sense to dupe the masses. He couldn't ride on the back of "kill all Jews and homosexuals" as a rallying cry.

 

The Nazi's social policies, such as better pensions and reducing unemployment, appealed to a lot of people and also many traditional socialists - but their methods certainly didn't.

 

Hitler most definitely was a socialist, confirmed from his own mouth. He based his views upon Marx, but criticised him for inciting a class war, when he should have worked hard to bring the nation together. Ergo, Hitler was a national socialist.

[unbeliever]

As another poster observed:

 

You have to realise that Hitler wasn't politically naive initially. "Nationalist" "Socialist" were terms used in a propaganda sense to dupe the masses. He couldn't ride on the back of "kill all Jews and homosexuals" as a rallying cry.

 

The German jews were the wealthiest ethnic group in 1930's Germany. Their wealth was seized and they were murdered so they couldn't complain.

Any other reasons or justifications for the holocaust were just propaganda.

Their wealth was spent on providing jobs are public services for the majority ethnic group in Germany.

It's just an aggressive implementation of the redistribution of wealth that all socialists go in for.

 

 

You're only struggling with this because you've crudely lumped socialism in with tolerance and liberalism, then lumped capitalism in with authoritarianism and bigotry. It's a circular argument.

There's some history in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK of political alliances between social traditionalists and capitalists, and conversely between social progressives and socialists. These ideologies are essentially independent. You can be a socially conservative socialist or a progressive capitalist. Whether you're labelled "right" or "left" is contextual and arbitrary.

 

All the absolute worst people in the last century have been either religious of socialist zealots. Get used to it.

 

 

By any reasonable definition, I'm a progressive capitalist. Does that make me "right" or "left"?

Edited November 12, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

I don't think any serious historian is going to argue that Hitler was anything other than a far right ideologue.

 

Looking back through the events since WW2 and at the abhorrent groups that identify with that ideology, we cant realistically argue that Hitler was anything other than a fascist.

 

It's telling that these days those groups are more closely aligned with right of centre parties. The Tories themselves sit alongside some of them in the European parliament

 

If you want to have a debate about the origins of Naziism then fine but the sum total of the movement, the way it developed, and the form it was in at the end was about as right wing as anything we have ever seen in this world. End of story.

[Eric Arthur]

I don't think any serious historian is going to argue that Hitler was anything other than a far right ideologue.

 

So what was Stalin?

[I1L2T3]

So what was Stalin?

 

They were actually remarkably similar in so many ways, both products of a time in history we could hardly imagine from the comfort and safety of the 21st century. This is one of the best books I've ever read:

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/782319.Hitler_and_Stalin

 

I really recommend it Eric

[Eric Arthur]

So they were both essentially the same. Where does right or left come into it?

[unbeliever]

I don't think any serious historian is going to argue that Hitler was anything other than a far right ideologue.

 

Looking back through the events since WW2 and at the abhorrent groups that identify with that ideology, we cant realistically argue that Hitler was anything other than a fascist.

 

It's telling that these days those groups are more closely aligned with right of centre parties. The Tories themselves sit alongside some of them in the European parliament

 

If you want to have a debate about the origins of Naziism then fine but the sum total of the movement, the way it developed, and the form it was in at the end was about as right wing as anything we have ever seen in this world. End of story.

 

Fascism has no links to capitalism. It requires heavy state intervention in the economy and a large, powerful government.

 

---------- Post added 12-11-2015 at 21:09 ----------

 

So they were both essentially the same. Where does right or left come into it?

 

It doesn't.

 

These labels are useless.

 

People are either progressive or socially conservative, either capitalist or socialist and either libertarian or authoritarian.

Many combinations are possible. I consider myself a progressive, liberal, capitalist.

 

The term "right" is applied to traditionalists, capitalists and the authoritarian.

The term "left" is applied to progressives, socialists and liberals.

I have no idea why.

 

Stalin and especially Hitler were extreme social conservatives, socialists and authoritarian. That gives them ticks on the "left" and on the "right". What makes them "right".

 

It is very hard to be an authoritarian capitalist. Capitalists want minimal government. Government can't be small (therefore weak) and authoritarian at the same time.

It is very easy to be an authoritarian socialist. Both require big and powerful government.

Edited November 12, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

Fascism has no links to capitalism. It requires heavy state intervention in the economy and a large, powerful government.

 

That's not strictly true.

 

Hitler was tolerant of capitalist enterprise as long as it was compliant. It's just a refined form of capitalism where corporate and state power work together