patriotism?

They are socialists when it comes to economic views.

That is a myth.

The FAQ of the Political Compass can say it better then me.

Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!

But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.
 
The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

I see no obstacles to be both a socialist and a fascist. So what's the point of this article?

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin.

Being well right of Stalin doesn't mean that he wasn't a socialist (economically).

That's because Stalin was economically at the extreme left - he was a communist, economically.

No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector.

Those who totally squash the private sector are communists. Socialists do not totally squash the private sector...

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

That's exactly what Stalin did in the Soviet Union. So Stalin was a fascist?

Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing

It is not a misconception considering that what Staln did in the Soviet Union was so similar.

Unless, of course, Stalin was right wing as well.
 
Labels can be extremely misleading when taken at face value without any thought to what the various individuals or groups actually believe.

Thanks for confirming that liberals/libertarians dont necessarily believe in liberty as well.
 
Again: HITLER WAS NOT A SOCIALIST!

From the FAQ that was important in this:

One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!

I do not think the likes of Ford would make political payments to socialists.
 
Hitler was simply more realistic about economic matters than Stalin, it seems.

Hitler was a socialist, but also an opportunist. It was more important for him. That's the explanation of what Ailedhoo quoted.

All of this doesn't mean that National Socialism was not socialist. Especially considering that Hitlerism is not the only type of Nazism. There was also Strasserism (another kind of National Socialism - apart from Hitlerism), which clearly had a lot in common with Socialism and Syndicalism.

BTW - from the political compass website - Hitler should be even more to the Left, IMHO:

axeswithnames.gif
 
Well, Hitler should be rather on a pendulum depending on his audience - one of the reasons he did so well in elections was that he generally didn't have a coherent set of specific policies (beyond broad ideology such as 'restore German greatness', 'lebensraum' and 'Kueche, Kirche, Kinder') for his opponents to attack. Originally, he did plan to nationalise larget amounts of the private sector, but dropped the proposal once it became clear that German industrialists were opposed to it. Furthermore, he was a pretty useless micromanager, so having the entire economy under his thumb would have been quite out of character, as well as a recipie for disaster.
 
Not before he was elected, dear boy - assuming of course he was running for election. Pointing out a specific difference like that between two people in vastly different situations is ridiculous.
 
Not before he was elected, dear boy - assuming of course he was running for election.

Stalin didn't gain his power in election.

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.

Fascism has both typically leftist and typically rightist features. I wouldn't connect fascism with the extreme right.
 
Yes, that was the point. Hitler, however, was running for election at the time of the policy-drop. It's quite handy to have someone around to explain my posts straight after I write them!
 
and 'Kueche, Kirche, Kinder'

Funny - Ernst Jünger considered Hitler a liberal.

The Nazis also actually persecuted the Catholic Church.

And they didn't persecute the Lutheran Church probably only because it agreed to collaborate.

And "Kinder" - yes, but only healthy ones - invalid / sick to abortion or gas chambers if already born. Eugenics.
 
Thanks for confirming that liberals/libertarians dont necessarily believe in liberty as well.
Again, seeing that libertarian is the exact opposite of authoritarian, I don't think you still understand what these words mean. That is, unless you can prove that a fascist police state is in any way the embodiment of liberty instead of just the opposite.
 
He is also a far-right Republican.

Once again, libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism just as liberalism is the opposite of conservatism. This is from the 2008 election:

usprimaries_2008.png


But what makes it confusing is that Ron Paul styles himself as a libertarian as well, but he is actually a bit more authoritarian than libertarian while being extremely far-right. The reason he seems so libertarian is because most ultraconservatives are staunch authoritarians. Dommy is the same way.

And what makes it even more confusing is the Libertarian Party. They too are typically staunch conservatives and not nearly as libertarian as many centrists and liberals are.

It seems that location of Ron Paul has changed:

image.jpg


So your point is no longer valid.
 
Well, not by much. One would expect someone running under the 'libertarian' name to be far into the looney section, rather than the 'four squares of axis' that denote general sanity. Also, Barack Obama that far North-East? I know he's conservative by our standards, but that seems excessive.
 
Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
That's exactly what Stalin did in the Soviet Union.
Stalin was "extreme left", but "exercised dictatorship of extreme right".
Stalin "squashed the private sector" and "merged state and business leadership".
Priceless.
 
Back
Top Bottom