What makes Nazism right-wing

Alright, ya'll probably know 10x more about this than I do, so I'm asking. What is it that makes Nazism right-wing. Can someone please tell me some specifics. I'm afraid to actually go to any nazi sites

it really isn't a government that can be based on the left right 'conservative/liberal' scale, it is really one that is viewd on the 'authoritarian/libertarian' scale

i suppose it was probably in the middle of the left right spectrum, but at the apex of the authoritarian one

it's more of a meaurement made on the totalitarian/libertarian scale. though, I believe the Nazi/Conservative correlation is made mostly through the Nazi's reliance on military solutions for economic problems. Once you travel so far up the authoritarian axis, movement to the left and right becomes impossible, because all the decisions are made virtually on a case-by-case basis with no regard to a sticking ideology, only that which serves the desired end.

I took the link out.

I just finished reading that essay and my skin is still crawling.

Tell your family. Tell strangers on the street.

The only way to avoid this kind of history is to learn from it. Jews remember the hell of Nazism on Yom Hashoa by represting the prayer, "Never forget, never again".

Ever.

Many people in the United States are unable to see the warning signs of fascism right here in our own back yard. Of the fourteen characteristics of fascism, our current administration clearly fits all of them.

When they come for you, who will be left to speak out?

and embrace is :evilfrown:

Its attacks on workers and the labor movement.
Its attacks on women's rights.
Its attacks on gays and lesbians.
Its attacks on people of color and racial/national minorities.
Its attacks on democratic rights.

Its quest for imperialist empire.
Its quest for merger between state and corporation.
Its quest for resources at the expense of whole peoples.

any questions, anyone?

Look up fascism in the dictionary and see if it strikes you as liberal or conservative.

fascism- A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

14 Characteristics Of Fascism
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

Sound like anyone else we know?

It's great as a description of history, but because it is so context dependent such a list isn't really diagnostic. Lists include things which are specific to historic/geopolitical circumstance and grow out of other more central issues.

Honestly, "between the wars" fascism in general and nazism in particular were rather opportunistic and contained an eclectic mix of issues with popular appeal.

The interesting thing about Cinton/Bush-era conservatism is that it is also multifaced. But it is also almost a perfect cut of conservatism with facets from each of the myriad forms of conservatism. In today's GOP there is truly something for every brand of conservative.

You can make the argument that Nazism is actually a left wing rather than a right wing concept. Why? The more rightward you go on the spectrum, the more individualism becomes significant. While, the more leftward you go, the more authoritarianism becomes the focus. At the right winged extreme we get anarchy, at the left winged extreme we get draconian rule, where individual identity and rights are trumped by the "good of society." A campus shout-down by activist is a fascist/leftist attempt to shut down free speech. The firing of a college professor because he suggests something that is not politically correct in the class room has a fascist/leftist basis.

One of the biggest myths being perpetuated by American journalism (which in itself is an oxymoron)is to equate leftism with liberalism. What we call centrists and moderates are really the true liberals. Look up the terms "liberal" and "liberalism" in the dictionary and you will see what I mean.

There are many on the left who accuse true liberals of being DINOs, which is ironic since the lefties themselves are DINOs--actually they are LINOs (liberals in name only). Leftists despise liberals for being wishy-washy,for settling for the status-quo, for selling out to the conservatives. For leftists, the immediate enemy is not conservatism, but liberalism.

where do you get this? "At the right winged extreme we get anarchy, at the left winged extreme we get draconian rule, where individual identity and rights are trumped by the "good of society." "

Please provide a source for this assertion because it certainly sounds like a typical RW Talking Point.

Yours is a fair request. I may suggest a comparative politics or a political economy text book.

If you could provide LINKS that would be helpful here. You need to put your money where your mouth is or you can expect a lot of healthy debate.

Looks like you just lost your debate "partner". Funny how quickly they shut up when confronted with knowledge... seems right-wingers have always been confounded by that though, haven't they?

Don't people read books anymore? Tell you what? I will dig through my basement, find some of my old textbooks and get back to you. Fair enough?

What are your sources? You want "healthy debate" and the burden of proof falls only on me? As for my sources, you can go to a college/university library and type in "political economy" or "comparative politics" is a subject or keyword line.

so the burden falls on you to back it up. Being a newbie as well you need to learn to put your money where your mouth is. What I stated is the generally accepted historical viewpoint. If you present something different, you need to provide sources.

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
- lib·er·al·ist /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
- lib·er·al·is·tic /"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective



I only care about intellectial liberalism, my overall goals in the political world sometimes conflict with "liberalism" let us retire the word and take to the moniker of progressives.

One entry found for progressive.


Main Entry: 2progressive
Function: noun
Date: 1846
1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action
2 capitalized : a member of any of various U.S. political parties: as a : a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans; specifically : BULL MOOSE b : a follower of Robert M. La Follette in the presidential campaign of 1924 c : a follower of Henry A. Wallace in the presidential campaign of 1948

implies competitive markets. In many cases such markets do not exist. One glaring example pertains to network utilities (gas, water, electricity, sewage etc.). There is not way in hell you can get competition in these industries. This is why I am completely baffled by the ease with which deregulation has been permitted over the past twenty-something years.

You're right. There is no constant best approach to markets; each has its own pitfalls.

Welcome aboard!!
;>)

Main Entry: Na·zism
Pronunciation: 'nät-"si-z&m, 'nat-
Variant(s): or Na·zi·ism /-sE-"i-z&m/
Function: noun
Etymology: Nazi + -ism
Date: 1934
: the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the National Socialist German Workers' party in the Third German Reich including the totalitarian principle of government, state control of all industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer

Quote:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927.)

http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/

The Programme of the German Workers' Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party.

1. We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.

4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.

5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.

6. The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.


We demand therefore:

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The breaking of the slavery of interest

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army.

23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:

(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.

The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly -- if need be to sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this programme into action.

The more leftward you go the more the common good becomes significant.

Selfishness/'winner-takes-all' leads to concentration of wealth and power, keeping that wealth and power requires suppression of the people.

Hitler went after socialists and communists (besides jews), how leftward is that?
Hitler called himself socialist, but i'd expect a fascist to try and deceive me.
And Bushites call themselves compassionate conservatives, just how compassionate is Bush?

you know, democracy.
preferably not corrupted by corporations.

What is more true is that a) both authoritarian extremes of left and right merge into one as they approach the extreme

b) Hitler HATED socialist, commies, and liberals alike. There is ample documentation that the "socialism" part of National Socialism was as much a sop to fool workers as the name "Free Republic" as a sop to fools to join an organization that believes in neither freedom nor the Republic but rather blindly following the leader

c) because authoritarianism merges left and right at the extremes, this is a persuasive, yet Orwellian argument. Difficult to disprove, because nazi and Commies were someowhat similar in the ends, yet differed in their rationaization for tyranny.

d) I liosten to the words of the leaders. Mussolini said that facsism should be mnore rightly called corporatism, as it represents the melding of corporate and authoritarian rule.

Does that sound like something a Lefty Commie would say?

e) Further, if you are brave enough to try this: find and attend your local Aryan Nations Meeting. Once inside share your love of leftism, socialism and communism with these supposed lefty socialists. My guess is that you would get quite a fistic education on what Nazis believe themselves to be.

Like many of the Orwellian arguments put for by the Goebbels v2.0 operation of the Busheviks, it seeks to debase and distort language, blur distinctions, but most importantly OBLITERATE HISTORY.

And it is true that both extremes, left and right, hate liberals and intellectuals for similar reasons...their love of free and democratic principles.

due to the fact that there have always been a few who ran everything under the guise of communism. They talked about doing everything for the good of the people, but really took advantage of them. Case in point is the basic slave labor used to construct the beautiful Moscow subway stations, not to mention the murder of millions who were "thought" to be subversives.

It's liberals that are individualists. The right-wing- like we are seeing today- are draconian.

I'm what I'd call a "true" liberal, though, as opposed to "leftist"- I believe in a very liberal interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The whole thing, not the Bill of Rights minus the 2nd Amendment.

So, I do understand what you were saying toward the end of your post, there.

However, I'm also an economic progressive. Some people have WAY too much money- which gives them way too much power. Economic and social issues have very close ties that must be respected.

that does exist, even here, but is way far at the end of the spectrum. Most people here don't view the term "leftist" in that way. It's less about being on the far left or right and more about being absolutely sure you know what's best for everyone and getting the power to make everyone do what you say. This is the character flaw from whence many neocons sprang; many were far left and then swung violently far right. It's not about the policies; it's about those warm, fuzzy authoritarian feelings.

"While, the more leftward you go, the more authoritarianism becomes the focus. At the right winged extreme we get anarchy, at the left winged extreme we get draconian rule, where individual identity and rights are trumped by the 'good of society.'"

He claims this comes out of a textbook. How can anyone believe such tripe?

Political ideology does not fit a simple one dimmensional model. Witness the fact that modern American conservatives favor a police state over the current due process system we have in place. Clearly, the model offered does not account for this phenomenon.

Witness the fact that right-wingers wish to regulate social freedom to conform to their religious and moral perspectives (abortion, sodomy laws, etc). Witness the fact that the right-wing branch of the Court has reduced the Free Exercise Clause to a near nullity (Employment Division v. Smith). Consider also the fact that they also want to religiously indoctrinate children in public schools.

What makes this guy look like even more of a phony is his attempt to fit P.C. on his scale. It does not fit- liberals do not seek to use the government to impose it.

How odd that Jeff Rense would put that on his site. He's a creepy anti-Semite.

Here's a more appropriate and humane source for the 14 characteristics.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Althought the name implies it was socialist which might be construed as being on the left. The anticommunist position of nazism was very real, as is the antifascist position of the socialist movement.

Trotsky was one of the early critics of nazism and his pamphlet about what nazism is, is actually posted on the web.

It is basically a dictonomy between these two poles:

INEQUALITY and SOCIAL DARWINISM.
(survival off the fittist fighting amongst each other)
Applied Elitism/social Darwinism,empire/colonialism and authoritarian hierarchy,Nespotism,war and glorification of sacrifice /strife and efforts to increse this sort of stress and willingness to suffer through threats,fear or hype.Unemployment,A tendancy for cultural domination and bullying.Disrespect of others,degradation of women/ animals.A social monoculture,Wealth flowing up from the poor and middle classes to the obscenely powerful and rich.
More wealth freedom and privacy and power for the powerful.Erosions of protections and justice from the predations of the powerful and thier syncophants for the poor,less powerful or scapegoated groups of people.And of course Cheap Labor. The kinds of strife,instability and insecurity that creates cheap labor in a society..or



EGALITARIANISM /FAIRNESS/ COOPERATION
between people(Respect,helping each other taking care of each other)Generosity,Embracing of diversity,Different and Equal,More Protection for the less powerful from the powerful. Freedom and privacy for the less powerful from the predation and thievery from the more powerful.Wealth flowing from the top downwards to the people that generate the wealth.An Equalizing of the distribution of wealth amongst all members of of society.Shared Political power. Less trusting of and blind obedience to self-serving authority figures. No glorification of suffering/strife/sacrifice,these things are to be minimized in an egalitarian liberal society.Respect for women,compassion twords animals.Wide casting social safety nets. Prosperity is for all.Labor is paid very well and treated with
respect and companies are loyal to workers first.
Stability.Security.Peace.Education,accessability,
Healing of old social divisions,wounds and bigotries.

Or To make it simpler,

Elitism /Social Darwinism ,where a few on top are priveleged to rule in opulence while others live in strife and compete for a bit of status/security from the wealthy.Profit over people.Less freedom. Cheap Exploited, Labor,Busted Ineffectual,sold out to the wealthy Unions.Where some have all and the rest have close to nothing.(making them dependant and beholden to the elites for everything)
VS
Egalitarianism/liberalism where all aresupposed to get treated with the same level of fairness and respect regardless of whatever wealth or status they claim.Where all have some.More freedoms.The assumption of compassion,respect and dignity because we all are human beings in this human condition. Fairness.People over profit. Well Paid ,Empowered and Respected Labor and Strong active Unions.(making the people dependant on each other and independant of authority(elites))

To make it real simple:
INEQUALITY / SOCIAL DARWINISM /DOMINATION
VS
EGALITARIAN /COOPERATION /FAIRNESS

Lets look at the dictionary:

Liberal:
A:The Quality or State of being Liberal.(B: a political philosophy
advocating,Personal freedom for the individual,democratic forms of government,gradual reform in political and social institutions,ect.

Egalitarian:
of, advocating or characterized by the belief that all men should have equal political, socialand economic rights n,an advocate and supporter of this belief

Elite:
The group or part of a group selected or regarded as the finest best most distiguished most powerful ect.(Bush said he was "chosen" by God)
Elitism:
(1 government control by an elite
(2 advocacy of such control

It's always been about

Haves VS Have Nots.

Bullies VS the Exploited.

Sharing, fair, genuine ,creative,peaceful,live and let live, ,cooperative types of people who can negotiate with others and can handle thier own failure and sucess..
VS
The Bullies,manipulative,abusers,narcissistic,greedy,control freaks,selfish and arrogant types of people with overweening ambitions who think they can do no wrong and that everyone else must become just like them or they are inferior...

Just place the two side by side and look!

This doesn't stop Freeps and Neocons from insisting Hitler and the Nazis were leftists, though.

Even though Hitler was very anti-communism, and was supported by a lot of British Lords and American businessmen(Prescott Bush - banker and financial consultant for the Nazi party).

One of the most confusing bumper stickers I've seen it the one that says:
Abortion, Hitler would have loved it!

The only thing that I can figure this means is that the Right's disdain for education has made it impossible to learn anything about history. One of the first things the Nazi party did once taking power was limit reproductive freedoms.

Once, a long time ago, I was on an AOL chat board where the thread was frequented by so-called conservatives. they kept going on and on about how lefties were fascists. When I dug up a definition for them it was discounted outright because "it probably came from so liberal academic text".

it is infuriating to try to have a rational discussion with people who have no respect for education and learning.

Especially when you can still dig up quotes from people in the early 30s who claimed Hitler was good because he was "tough on communism".

Hitler and FOrd were good friends (business and personal), each had pictures of the other in their offices.

Lets not forget that even though Nazi stands for, in part, "National Socialist", it is an oxymoron, just as much as the rest of the party name "German workers party" is a bit conflicting as well.

Pukes love to tell me that Lincoln was a Republican. Makes me want to retch.
I just ask them which party they think he'd be registered with today. They bloody well know he'd be a Dem!

Nazism is much more of an authoritarian/libertarian thing, with elements of right and left. For instance, you wouldn't consider most libertarians Nazis, yet libertarians are much more right/conservative oriented. Looking at it the other way..the Soviet union/communism is viewed as leftist, yet were militaristic...something you normally don't associate with the left, especially today.

A case can be made that the Soviet Union had more in common with fascism than it did Marxism. I take the position that fascism is left of what Marx proposed in Das Kapital.

Or the later USSR, since all the Party members were uniformly corrupt and rich and indulged in captalism.

...Lenin and Stalin didn't have distinct similarities in their ideas. Some of the more brutal policies normally associated with Stalin, such as control over the proletariat, came with Lenin at the helm.

But one of the first things Stalin did was purge everyone connected with Lenin and changed Leningrad to Stalingrad.

...of Stalin wanting complete control and his name all over everything, rather than some kind of dislike for Lenin. A result of meglomaniacal complex rather than any disavowment of Lenin.

It's also the counterargument to the "Nazis hated the communism and wanted to destroy them" point. Both the Nazis and the Communists had designs of world domination...and knew that both of them couldn't do it. Among the differences in policy, they viewed each other as competitors, and therefore didn't have much love for each other. They basically conidered each other a threat to their respective goals.

I was working off the popular conception of the Soviet Union as a leftist entity (I would feel weird using the word "liberal", and would probably have former residents rather angry at me).

and not a true communist state.

Was Stalin a socialist? I don't think so.

Nazi Germany was totalitarian, authoritarianist and repressive, but when you say "fascism", the image that comes to mind is Nazism.

All Nazis were fascists, but not all fascists were Nazis.

...that I think can generally sum up the Nazi attitude towards socialism:

"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

-Adolf Hitler to Herman Rauschning, "Why Does Socialism Continue to Appeal to Anyone?", Robert Hessen

The Nazi's and Fascism in Europe rose as a counter to leftist movements that were occurring throughout Europe after WWI. Fascist states like Nazi Germany crushed leftist groups such as the Communist party and trade unions and Social Democrats. Hitler's rise was also funded and Nazi Germany retained a capitalist structure. Major industrialists such as Kr ups and Faber were instrumental in bringing him to power. Freepers calling liberals Nazis is a prime example of their stupidity. The following is a definition of Fascism (cant remember where I got it.


"Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that
celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community
transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of
national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or
destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a "spiritual
revolution" against signs of moral decay such as
individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien"
forces and groups that threaten the organic community.
Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical
unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not
always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic
persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same
time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based
on either racial or ideological solidarity across national
boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy,
though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and
new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or
race."

"Fascism's approach to politics is both populist--in that it
seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived
oppressors or enemies--and elitist--in that it treats the
people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one
supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward.
Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a
drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate
all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic
community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a
movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a
system of integration and control, and uses organized
violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of
violence varies widely. "

"Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism,
yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism
rejects the principles of class struggle and workers'
internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet
it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and
landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding
conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of
individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and
representative government, yet it advocates broad popular
participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels
in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes
with the conservative attachment to tradition-based
institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes
the past as inspiration for national rebirth."

F"fascism has a complex relationship with established elites
and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the
ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social
base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against
instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that
sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant
ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and
interaction between fascism and other sections of the right,
producing various hybrid movements and regimes. "

because Nazism is a specific form of Fascism, which is considered on the right, since, even thought they are similiar, they REALLY hate communists, which are considered far left.


Im not sure why, it is just the way it is.

The middle class gave rise to fascism to prevent a return to economic serfdom. But the threat that their limited wealth and political power could be lost to the lower class through communism was also a very real threat which had demonstated itself in Russia.

Think about the fascist propaganda promoting the skilled technician and engineer. I grew up in the 50's and people in the Chicago suburbs still spoke of Germans as superior technicians. Stereotypical? Absolutely.

We love to label things, and categorize things. In politics, things tend to fall on a bar of left to right. One of the replies to your question showed a box in order to more accurately show the political spectrum.
In the United States, left to right is accurate for mainstream politics, but it's more complicated than that.

Nazism incorporates aspects of the right and the left. Another reply showed 14? aspects of fascism, but there are hundreds of aspects of facism. I do not recall seeing any replies that indicated how the individual is considered insignificant in Nazism. Individualism is minimalized in a Nazi state. Each person is viewed as a family member and part of the "fatherland", and it is made very clear that the survival of the state is far more important than the survival of any one individual within the state.

As for the economic system of fascism and Nazism, a good dictionary definition is as follows: "any system of government in which property is privately owned, but all industry and labor are regulated by a strong national government, while all opposition is rigorously suppressed."

Fascism of any type is not a friend of capitalism. AS an example, under Mussolini's rule, businesses were told how much to produce by the government.

Belief that the German nation and people were superior to all others.
Basis of Nazism, plus add the elements of fascism.

and consequently the cultish reaganite belief in deregulation adopted by BushCo seems hard to reconcile with fascism.

That isn't to deny that BushCo isn't doing terrible things, but rather their terrible things don't seem to derive from fascist ideology.

support.
Sounds familiar, does it not?!

Liberalism/leftism becomes conservatism/rightwing by default when power is accrued by the changing party/ideology.

Classic signs of this are Nazis and Communists.

The Nazi's were initially considered leftist, because they wanted change from the current regime. They used nationalism and human rights as the initial jumping off point, and eventually became the ruling party, thereby becoming one of the most notorious conservative governments of all time. They resisted change, (change being the hallmark of liberalism), with incredible brutality. They relied on fear and apathy to push their agenda. The apathy was used in the initial push; and fear kept the Nazi regime in place long after it would have collapsed on itself. The "enemy behind every tree", is the same thing present day neo-cons use to keep the populace under wraps. It works, because most people would rather be afraid than call on the powers that be to task, and demand where all of these "enemies" are, and what is being done about them.

There are complexities that go far beyond what can be stated in a small post, but the reality of the situation is that, when a challenging, (leftist), group takes on an incumbent, (conservative), group, there will be changes. If the incumbent group retains power, there will be changes in laws that will protect them and their power, (regardless of whether it is 'liberal or 'conservative' at the moment it is in power). Ultra-conservatism is in itself doomed for failure in a democratic republic. The people will only put up with so much of social shackles. Ultra-liberalism cannot take hold, because people in general want some laws and regulations that keep the society together.

Progressive change is an absolute necessity in any society, but not every idea or notion is expressly beneficial to that society. What we have in this administration, is a blind obedience to an ideology that those in power have the best interest of society in their view. This could not be further from the truth, and will lead to its downfall.
Unless apathy rears its ugly head, and fear is the only emotion that drives others to look at what they could be, but are just too damn afraid to move in that direction.

O8)

best observation I've seen, thanks.

Illustrates the thesis that all communities can be ranged on a scale running from democracy to despotism. The two chief characteristics of despotism -- restricted respect and concentrated power -- are defined and illustrated. Two of the conditions which have historically promoted the growth of despotism are explained and exemplified. These are a slanted economic distribution and a strict control of the agencies of communication.

1946 Encyclopaedia Britannica Films Inc.
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=00178&from=pickList

http://www.geocities.com/puhleeze_puhleeze/hate.html

Nazi stands for National Socialism, with German spelling. They were a variant of socialism.

See Hitler's propaganda and cencorship.
Hitler went after socialists and communists (besides jews).

I could go on about the media lies, Bush's propaganda and and who he's going after.

Because is it any wonder that all the rich German capitalists were also Nazi party members? Smacks of corporate cronyism to me. Just like the reign of Bush II.

This is often over looked in history. Conquering other nations is just the means of gain. The Nazi's used fear and apathy as springboards to enrich themselves. While they went out of their way to show that they had the trappings of "the common people" at heart, they were hell bent on amassing fortunes. This was the reason for the confiscation of all of the gold fillings and gold eyeglass frames, as well as much of the property the Jews and other groups had. One of the prime reasons for the decimation and killing of the "untermenschen" such as the insane, the retarded and the disfigured, was to keep the drain from the treasury in check. Once it was accepted, (begrudgingly), by the common German citizen, the rest of the carnage was relatively easy. Remember, Hitler DID put everyone to work, and after the Great Depression, that was a thankful position to be in. I am not condoning HOW he put these people to work, but I can understand why many of the people would turn a blind eye and a deaf ear as to what was going on.

It should also be remembered, that there were many who opposed National Socialism from its inception. Most of them were some of the first that were put in Concentration Camps. They were often swept off the streets without knowledge of their families or friends. Most were summarily executed, but some survived or escaped. It was the "intelligentsia" that were rounded up because they had the ability to see beyond the alluring slogans and militaristic attitudes. ( Be aware that they also did not lose their jobs as readily as those that were on the lower ranks of society ).

It was extremely important that the economic goals of the leaders were met. Once they had power, they looted wherever they went, enriching themselves and those that served them. In the long run, it was more about money than some new philosophy of "Ubermenschen". The ideals of the "Aryan superiority" was just another way to make vast amounts of money.

O8)

It was not all about money, or anywhere close to it. As in any
totalitarian government, there were some who plundered to personally
enrich themselves. The biggest and best example is Herman Goering, one of the most inept military leaders in history. Goering surrendered
at the end of World War II and did not commit suicide as many others
close to Hitler did.

Hitler, as deplorable and disgusting as he was, was not in it for the
money. After conquering most of Europe, there was plenty to loot, but
it was more important to that lunatic to keep on the attack (invasion of Russia).

The killings of mentally challenged, handicapped, and mentally ill was
due to Nazi philosophy of "social Darwinism" and had very, very little
to do with money.

At a point when all hope was lost for winning the war, the Nazis became hell bent on sending Jews, gypsies, and others to death camps. This also had very little to do with money and everything to do with Nazi beliefs.

but after he was sentenced to death. Spandau prison was the site of his demise by cyanide.

Hitler became remarkably rich during the war, but much of the economy was spent on killing "untermenschen". Vast fortunes were made, generally in Reichsmarks, which were used to purchase gold and jewelry, since those in the know, realized that Reichsmarks were virtually worthless.

Without a basic economic role, that was abused by so many of the elite, the war could not possibly have been waged. Economics played a huge part of the Nazi ideology.

O8)

How the Nazi Regime converted the people:

a) In the 1920s, Hitler’s German Workers’ Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a “Programme” with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a “positive” Christianity: “We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession...”

b) The Nazi regime started a youth movement which preached its agenda to impressionable children. Hitler backed up the notion that all people need faith and religious education: “By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious- dogmatic principles-- or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles-- by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence.” – Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

c) The Nazi regime began to control schools insisting that Christianity was taught.

d) The Nazi regime included anti-Semitic Christian writings in textbooks and they were not removed from Christian doctrines until 1961.

e) The Nazi regime having full blown power over the people began to forcibly convert all its military.

f) The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is this German army belt buckle (I believe my Opa had one) which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.

g) The German troops were often forced to get sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going out on a maneuver.

h) The Nazis created a secret service called the “SS Reich” that would act as spies on the dealings of other citizens. If anyone was suspected of heresy (Going not only against the Socialist party but CHURCH DOCTRINE) they would be prosecuted.


More here:
http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

(non-Nazi site)

Words are meaningless if they don't describe acurately.

Hitler found the party while he was a military spy looking for possible 'troublemakers' in Munich.

He found the National-Sozialistische Arbeiters Partei.

He decided for whatever reasons that this group would make a good vehicle for his goals. The party was small and didn't have a strong leader.

Hitler took over, spent years with the party, tried a coup (1923?) and failed, spent time in prison where he wrote Mein Kampf (My Struggle), and eventually had a following all over Germany.

When he was appointed chancellor by Hindenberg in Jan. 1933, he immediately began to consolidate his power.

Finally in 1934 he was ready to take out his 'enemies' (possible challengers to his authority) in the party.

In the 'Night of the Long Knives' (which lasted over a weekend), Ernst Roehm the leader of the SA (the street fighters who helped the Nazis come to power) was killed along with some of his aides.

Hitler also got rid of those who had been semi-leaders of the party before he took it over; some of them had a sort of hazy 'socialist' outlook and had given the party its name.

When all the party and personal enemies were eliminated, Hitler called to a party day in Nuremberg.

He picked Leni Riefenstahl to 'immortalize' the celebration of 'unity after some necessary housecleaning' in the movie Triumph of the Will.

Thanks in advance

First, you need to understand what makes any govt right-wing or left-wing.

How would you characterize a 'left wing' government? Generally, it's a govt that attacks the existing power structure and attempts to diminish the gap between rich and poor. So, for example, the Communist coup in Russia eliminated the aristocracy, confiscated their wealth, and replaced it with an egalitarian social order.

Hitler, on the other hand, replaced to govt of Germany, but left virtually the entire economic structure intact, and in fact, he was greatly aided in his efforts by the richest, most powerful German businessmen.

On the non-economic front, you have the tradional right-wing hatred of people different from themselves. In Hitler's Germany, it was the Jews who were singled out for hatred, as well as the 'subhuman' slavs in Poland and Russia. In the American right-wing today, it's Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics. Just as the right-wingers in Germany had no problem trying to exterminate the Jews, so the right-wingers in the US want to 'nuke Mecca and Medina'.

I had the same problem at looking at ancient Greek politics and seeing how hard it is to make our definitions stick. The same characteristics that make Plato, Alexander Hamilton and other cross history neo-elitists behave the way they do vis a vis "the mob"
are certainly hard to pin down with a label. Yet the behavior, the character and the results start looking the same. Plato and Hamilton made their elitist outlook respectable by their accomplishments, a tragedy for future clear thinking.

The characters in power now are almost universally coward/opportunists, simplistic ideologues with followers worse than they. They have hamstrung all the redeeming qualities of Conservatives and made idols out of some corporatist entities. It should be easier to get beyond Plato's glow, Hamilton's sense and heroism.

Yes, the displaced old Commies of the USSR are now behaving functionally as brainless rightists to appeal to the disgruntled, back to the past, males. The gangsters are the most developed corporatist entity they have. Because even today language and the actors are mixed insanely and hard to sort out, let's begin with the who throughout history.

Men of power and money. Old families of the same. Warlords running a militarist protection racket. Simpler thugs doing the same. Personal cult leaders and their sheep. Scared, insecure and angry males and the women who love them. People blinded by greed and self-interest. Those who have lost the higher human faculties of compassion and foresight, partly in the skew toward the self, then totally in living practice. Human history since the first kings has been the Divine Right of Might. What was left was supposedly the "left". "Left Behind" is no accidental pun or derision. In fact the left only exists as a reaction to age old tyranny. Once deposed(briefly in the Greco-Roman Republics and elsewhere) it is not cured or dispelled but confused. In the French Revolution the people enjoyed payback not principle until they woke up to find opportunity squandered into Empire, but the "liberal" ideas spread as surely as they had earlier in the surrogate revolt of Christian Reformists(with the pols taking full advantage of the divine chaos). That is, only in part.

The battle since engaged in a sidelong, progressive fashion sort of began dividing people into authoritarian and libertarian with a sprinkling of mild liberalism emerging out of the darkness, forgetting it is caught in the crossfire or used as a scapegoat, because these are the people who have the best values, intelligence and chance to survive. Hitler was a counter reformer, all deceits and opportunism set in perspective. He was the neo-Kaiser, the WWI soldier resurrected in glory, the one who would sweep aside the moderate socialist reformers after WWI for the sake of the real base villains- the military industrial complex. Those last were the same families with the same ruthless drives as the ones driving the Kaiser's war. Some of those same families are still active doing the same things for the GOP as has been documented and universally ignored. The proof of past failure means that fantasy must take a stronger, new and more deceptive form each time. The opportunity for growing self-irony in contradictory history worship and coverup has grown to glactic proportions. Hence the disdain for thought or competitive creativity each time- and the need to possess more raw power to drive the enngine of destruction.

It has been said how much the neocons and neoliberals have in common, with regard, I suppose, to macho dominance assertion and pop eyed optimism about the superiority of their traditions. They wish to sweep aside the riff raff of slow, excruciating, dull moderate bureaucracy to "go for it" once again. An "Alexander the Great" committee of sorts where many a dolt and chickenhawk can hide from individual responsibility. Once again the real benefit, push and money goes to the same sort of corporate entities, a few new zealots like Enron falling all over their feet in the stampede.

Bush is not left wing or moderate and neither certainly was Hitler. And they enlist and benefit the same people. If anything Bush has expanded Hitler's statist secularism to include religious radicals and the media is a glorious corporate stew rather than a single sad state run organ. Hitler was a common vet in extreme circumstances. Bush is an actual member of the financial base that makes the Right wing and all tyrannies possible. In an age that is not kind to those who try to out thug their rivals and bully the finances, the counter-revolution to restore tyranny as a principle has emerged in a sea of insane mislabeling and lies. But now the merchant kings have come to the fore themselves, no better than the bloated caveman chief but with a lot more accessories, and it is still largely about wily braggarts getting dominance over a drifting male pack unable to get a grip.

The warning signs almost transcend ideology. Few women in leadership roles in this "bastion of democracy". More millionaire males at the top of "democratic" government. Education under assault and propagandized. The media as merchandise defined by the company store.
But as far as membership and types of character go? Scalia would have fit in enthusiastically and perhaps far surpassed the German judges. The hilarious bravos at Swansea planning the Holocaust are pretty much the same types(even nice guys if you met a few of them)as the kinder gentler versions of PNAC. Business conservatives, anti-labor, pro-cheap slave labor, anti-civil rights, pro lies and fear, savage and aggressive in false discourse, labelers and bigots, weird religious ideas or soft harmless self-righteous puffery(little in between), militarist dominance needs, second rate brains and failures at real business. Ecstatic with the glamour of power.

The disease takes many forms, so it is wise to be leery of labels, finger pointing and claims to the contrary. It is the murk of combat in a way, a war between our better nature and the tyrannies of the past. In direct financial and psychological line, in ends and goals, the Nazis have quite a few actual ties with Conservatism in the West and common adherents, common helpless dissidents, common victims. Other right or left authoritarian models than the German have no such tentacles as you can directly find in the Bush Dynasty itself. These are their chosen play pals. Therefore Bush is not just like Hitler and those events, he is a continuation of a common corporate trajectory, but no more a friend of Hitler than the other ultra loser Ken lay. And all the types that adhere to that experience repeat the same dance and tune. Judge them buy their fruits. Any mouth can frame any word.

If niether Bush nor Hitler are the Right, then the Right has lost its soul to them anyway, the libertarians their liberty, the GOP it's business wisdom, the Christian fundies their connection with Christ. Hijacked, hoodwinked, complicit? What does it matter?

They are are all on the juggernaut bearing triumphantly down on a scary future civilization and Right on over a cliff.

more than sixty years and I think it boils down to facism really being a perversion of chiefdom or monarchy and liberalism is a system of people rule, like a tribal council.

I think in the neolithic Stone Age, government was by council and there was a chief or king for waging war. It seems that one or the other would have to rule. I think that while getting or growing food and providing for the necessities of a whole tribe was paramount at one time, the council would be the ruling body with the warrior and chief subject to them.

When men became more mobile with horses and chariots then the kings prevailed because they could raid a neighboring tribe for food and other necessities and were no longer dependent on the council of farmers. On the other hand the farmers would be dependent on them to protect them from other raiding tribes. So then the kings prevailed.

I think the last century has been an attempt to reconcile the two to work in harmony with each other instead of against each other. This is just an old woman's ruminations. I'm sure a real historian can explain what is happening much better.

They miss the point of the original question. Why are Nazis considered right. If memory serves it goes back to the government of one of the Louis of France. The conservative elements were seated on the right and the liberals were seated on the left of the king. Hence, right and left.
And all of this discussion misses a very strong psychological factor. We need to stop referring to the conservative as "RIGHT". It carries the connotation of being correct. That is why so many call themselves conservative, they want to be right/correct--even though most people tend to be progressive in their attitudes.

Definitions change over time but Grouch has the right point. To the right of the king sat the powerful aristocrats and clergy. Seated to the left were commoners seeking to assert their stake in society for the first time. At that time they were the wealthy merchant class, but over time it expanded to include all workers. I believe that this is the essence of left/right to this day.

Nazism was right wing because it was primarily an alliance between government and the rich. It used fear, hatred, and propaganda to unite the working class behind it.

I remember finding it strikingly odd that the media referred to the old communist hard liners as right wingers when they attempted that coup against Yeltsin shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. For decades we had been hearing them called leftists. The truth finally came out; they ruled their country much like any extreme right wing government would. When the Soviet state fell, the old party bosses simply continued running the factories and industries, but as "private" enterprises.

and rightist in the definition of a "citizen". From Hitler's exciting 25-point plan:

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

Therefore we demand:
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

The other 15 are more nationalist than socialist, but it's fallacious to confuse nazism with fascism. It was the worst of both worlds, like John Birch with PETA's marketing knowhow.

Can't resist a little bypass to these important, truly-informative posts. RWs often try to divert attention from the enormous prosperity of Scandinavia and Western Europe by dismissing them as being part of the same "left" as communism. Too often the media goes along, neglecting to point out that these welfare states are democratic and capitalistic, successful opposite to the left and right fascisms of the past.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.



Summary

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.



Argument

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

more...
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

peace

then this false tautology stays true to itself, at least.

Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism.

So socialism is strictly theoretical? Even the existence of black holes can be demonstrated, unlike a description of socialism that has to be upwardly defined to exclude actual attempts at socialism. In other words, a myth (that can't be falsified).

True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic.

True quantum mechanics don't advocate electrical polarity -- it can only be tortoises.

People shouldn't label someone like Hitler as right wing or left wing.
A quote from Hitler you rarely ever see:

"We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting every capitalism: we are making the people completely free."

Quote obtained from:
http://www.cla.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/Comparative/SOURCES/nazism.htm

Hitler also clearly condemns capitalism in Mein Kampf.

Your definition of socialism is warped. You state: "But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production."
My dictionary definition of socialism says: "a theory or system of social organization by which the means of production and distribution are owned, managed, or controlled by the GOVERNMENT (STATE SOCIALISM) or by associations of WORKERS (GUILD SOCIALISM).
The type of socialist government that you say has never existed in the world has not existed for a good reason: it's impossible for a government like that to form because it would no longer be guild socialism.

These discussions get very fraught and confused because "fascism" is not a well-defined ideology, in itself, the way Communism is (with lots of theoretical and philosophical writings by its proponents to draw on).

One of the clearest and well-reasoned brief treatises I've seen on this--and eminently readable, along with an overview of major thinkers on the topic--is the one by d. Neiwert. It can be found on his blog, Orcinus. Click the link for "Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis."

Neiwert cut his teeth studying incipient American fascism in the so-called "patriot movement" and is one of the best (because highly informed, rigorous, and non-hysterical) observers of the propensity toward fascism in the US today.

has inevitably proven disastrous.

Whether left/right, liberal/conservative; unchecked, any ideology is disastrous to the population. This is why we have checks and balances in this nation. Now I will be the first to acknowledge that those C&B's are in dire jeopardy at this point, especially since the media is spineless at this point. I do have faith however, that the American people are not nearly as foolish as the current administration seems to think we are.

The ONLY thing this administration is working with is fear. Since that fear is a figment of the administrations collective imagination, I would suspect that the masses will awaken, especially if the media suddenly arises.

Eternally optimistic, I feel good about the coming election. I may be forced to eat crow after Nov 9th, but I don't think so. In the mean time, I will continue to educate those in my area as to the evil this administration pursues, and do all I can to ensure their defeat in Nov.

O8)

Liberals don't lock people up for thinking differently (or being different)

its own sake.

Conservatism is marked by being on the side of status quo Capitalism--big business/corporations; it may claim to be other things but the reality, based on history, of what and who it serves is irrefutable. Without the presence of a larger ideology or objective than power for its own sake, or an effective Left counterbalance, conservatism degenerates into fascism--the melding of state/government and corporate power. Nazism is a narrower and more virulent form of fascism (ie. Mussolini was a fascist but not a Nazi ditto for the Japaneze fascists of WWII).

What distinguishes it from Communism, prevents it from being "Left", IMO, is the element of Corporate Capitalism--absent in a communist country, predominant in a fascist one.


Also check out "plutocracy"--government by the wealthy. Fascism is an expansion of plutocracy into nationalistic, militaristic adventurism and global imperialism.

...have spent a lot of time making their subjects believe that Nazism is a product of the left. The reason, of course, is to disassociate the increasingly totalitarian-leaning Republicans of any relationship to Hitler. And to paint leftists as Nazis, of course.

It's classic skewing of thought. Take a visit to freerepublic.com and you'll see the lie being perpetuated every day.

In theory, they had certain leftist tendencies, like "universal" health care, land for all "aryan" germans, gun control (disarming the "undesireables"), State care for unwed mothers, a Social Security system, et cetera. Where they were right wing is in WHO they offered this stuff to, and how they got it. If you were a proper "aryan" german, they had all kinds of perks and bennies paid for by the State. If you weren't, they'd kill you, take your cheese, and give it to the "aryans". It was a classic redistribution of wealth, but based upon genetics instead of need.

Earlier nazi ideals were much more towards the socialist spectrum. As Hitler consolidated power, he quickly crushed the people who supported socialism, even if they were in the Party. Early on, there was a joke that the Nazis were "beefsteak"...as in "brown on the outside, red on the inside." Once Hitler had a firm grip on the country, the socialist aspects greatly diminished.

but it's incredibly authoritarian, and opposes pretty much all leftist ideologies, as well as leftist concepts like pacifism. it's more anti-left than right.