Hitler was left wing

[Schwarzepard]

Don't compare us to him, unless you want to be heaped in with such pillars of right-wing as Bush or (ooh! Ooh! I'm going to invoke Godwin here!) Hitler.

Hitler was left wing.

[Vekseid]

Hitler was left wing.

Split from this thread:

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=20424.0

[OldSchoolGamer]

The left-right spectrum never has held up well at the ends.  One can argue the rest of it is losing relevance these days too.

[Vekseid]

Well, since I don't care for semantics games I would like to see Heritikat's or Methos's definitions of left and right wing, for sure.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I don't get the whole left and right wing thing myself.  To me it's childish. 

[Inkidu]

That's futile. Hitler didn't care if he was left or right wing; it was merely a way for him to carry out his atrocities against mankind.

[ShrowdedPoet]

That's futile. Hitler didn't care if he was left or right wing; it was merely a way for him to carry out his atrocities against mankind.

. . .Hitler didn't think he was doing anything wrong.  He felt justified in what he was doing because that was what he believed.  Did he know that other people saw it as wrong. . .I'm sure he did.  But he didn't think it was wrong, therefore to him it was not a way to carry out his atrocities, it was a way for him to do what he thought was right.  People make plans and such to carry out what they think is right everyday even if it is in fact wrong.

[Mathim]

The only thing that determines right and wrong is whoever's still alive after you fight over it.

To me, I don't understand the distinction between right and left politics. Some of it seems hypocritical, supporting one thing and not another, often based on trivial things. In the end, it's just the extremes that matter, the ones who take either side too far. On one end you've got Stalin's communism, look how that ended up. And on the other end you've got Hitler's Nazi Germany, look how that ended up. I don't even think it's possible for moderate to ever exist, since there's never a perfect balance.

[ShrowdedPoet]

The only thing that determines right and wrong is whoever's still alive after you fight over it.

To me, I don't understand the distinction between right and left politics. Some of it seems hypocritical, supporting one thing and not another, often based on trivial things. In the end, it's just the extremes that matter, the ones who take either side too far. On one end you've got Stalin's communism, look how that ended up. And on the other end you've got Hitler's Nazi Germany, look how that ended up. I don't even think it's possible for moderate to ever exist, since there's never a perfect balance.

I think that this will work in here also.  This came from McCains Running Mate. . .

I just did a summary of the first chapter in my U.S. History 2 book.  I think what Sherona is trying to say is very much like the way the book distinguished between views within ONE party.  Ultra Radical Republicans, Radical Republicans, Moderate Republicans.  I really love the way my history book is written!!!!  ;D

[Inkidu]

. . .Hitler didn't think he was doing anything wrong.  He felt justified in what he was doing because that was what he believed.  Did he know that other people saw it as wrong. . .I'm sure he did.  But he didn't think it was wrong, therefore to him it was not a way to carry out his atrocities, it was a way for him to do what he thought was right.  People make plans and such to carry out what they think is right everyday even if it is in fact wrong.

Just because he thought he was right it didn't give him the right to kill millions of people.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Just because he thought he was right it didn't give him the right to kill millions of people.

I didn't say it did.  You said that it didn't matter whether he was left or right because all that was was a tool to carry out his atrocities.  I was offering a different view on your statement.  I think he was wrong for what he did.

[Trieste]

Just because he thought he was right it didn't give him the right to kill millions of people.

That would be a wellduh, pointdexter.

What is the point of this thread, anyhow? 'Cause it seems like comparing 'left' or 'right' to Hitler is often a roundabout way of demonizing that side.

Edit: Never mind, just saw Vekseid's post.

Well, since I don't care for semantics games I would like to see Heritikat's or Methos's definitions of left and right wing, for sure.

*points, then waits patiently, as she'd like to see definitions, too*

[ShrowdedPoet]

*points, then waits patiently, as she'd like to see definitions, too*

*nodsies*  I agree!

[Inkidu]

I didn't say it did.  You said that it didn't matter whether he was left or right because all that was was a tool to carry out his atrocities.  I was offering a different view on your statement.  I think he was wrong for what he did.

I was saying it didn't matter left or right if it got him closer to achieving his goals he wouldn't care. Deep down he probably himself knew what he was doing was heinous. I call it atrocities because that's what they were regardless, of other points of view or what Hitler thought.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I was saying it didn't matter left or right if it got him closer to achieving his goals he wouldn't care. Deep down he probably himself knew what he was doing was heinous. I call it atrocities because that's what they were regardless, of other points of view or what Hitler thought.

Whatever. . .

[Methos]

As I pointed out in the thread this was split from Hitler's party was the Nationalsozialismus National Socialist Party Nazi just happens to be an abbreviation. It was originally a worker's party before Hitler started to steer it into towards racism and world domination. However, their economic platform remained socialist.

I personally happen to view blood lust as sociopathic as opposed to unique to any particular ideology. Mao and Stalin were even more prolific and less descriminatory than Hitler is committing mass murder.

Hence your rather left looking at what Hitler did to the German economy. He engaged in massive government spending. This is conventionally considered left wing. He nationalized industry and were he didn't nationalize he issued directives as to how companies were to operate. He also seized all the property of a subset of the population after having assailed them for hording the nation's wealth. Sure he thought all those evil rich people were Jewish but his language was still the same as a Communist. Demonizing the rich, and nationalizing private firms are again all left wing actions.

If you want a definition of 'right wing' modern usage of the term is simply a follower of one of the following idealogies conservatism, libertarianism or classical liberalism.

[Krule]

*sighs* Labling one side or the other of an arguement as Nazi's is a tiresome ploy, and has been done by both sides of the left and right, and in this case, I'm afraid it doesn't quite work.. what's more, some of what Hitler was doing at that time period, every goverment has done... so that's not a good arguement

The real issue with Hitler was that power corrupts, and using fear and hatred to shape a nation, is a path that ultimately leads to disaster... and that evil is evil, no matter who is responsible for it. 

[Inkidu]

Yeah that's the Machiavellian component to it.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Generally left-wing regimes couch their rhetoric in economic terms, singling out the rich or some other group as traitors or the source of everyone's problems for reasons rooted in economics.  Left-wing regimes focus on transferring wealth directly from individuals to the State, dissolving large corporations or nationalizing them.

The extreme Right, on the other hand, tends to focus on rabid nationalism and cultural and/or racial purity.  The Right is more willing to see individuals and corporations with high levels of wealth...as long as they toe the party line.  Right-wing regimes let corporations remain in existence, but pull their strings from behind the scenes.

I don't tout this as a foolproof or exhaustive definition; as I said earlier, the Left-Right political spectrum gets rather fuzzy and tattered at the ends.  Both far Left and far Right emphasize authoritarianism and centralization of power in State hands at the expense of individual liberty.  But I have found this definition (well, rubric is probably a more accurate term) to be adequate, a notch better than "I know it when I see it."

[The Great Triangle]

Muffins!

Hitler was a nasty waffle eater!


Therefore, don't stack your waffles or pancakes more than two to a plate, or you'll slide to the right or left and cause a breakfast disaster.

Especially if the syrup gets involved!

[Inkidu]

Generally left-wing regimes couch their rhetoric in economic terms, singling out the rich or some other group as traitors or the source of everyone's problems for reasons rooted in economics.  Left-wing regimes focus on transferring wealth directly from individuals to the State, dissolving large corporations or nationalizing them.

The extreme Right, on the other hand, tends to focus on rabid nationalism and cultural and/or racial purity.  The Right is more willing to see individuals and corporations with high levels of wealth...as long as they toe the party line.  Right-wing regimes let corporations remain in existence, but pull their strings from behind the scenes.

I don't tout this as a foolproof or exhaustive definition; as I said earlier, the Left-Right political spectrum gets rather fuzzy and tattered at the ends.  Both far Left and far Right emphasize authoritarianism and centralization of power in State hands at the expense of individual liberty.  But I have found this definition (well, rubric is probably a more accurate term) to be adequate, a notch better than "I know it when I see it."

The funny thing is Hitler did both. He singled out the rich Jews and preached about the Superior Race. So maybe both sides are two parts of the same Hitler? Makes sense.

[Vekseid]

So, now that I have some time (not really but I can act like it), I'm going to weigh in here, but only a bit as I spent too much time debating last night.

I personally find blanket statements like "Hitler was x" to usually be rather simplistic. Even saying Hitler was a nutjob is not telling the proper story. He was a nutjob who rose to power by playing on the fear and suffering of his people.

I need to squash something here:

As I pointed out in the thread this was split from Hitler's party was the Nationalsozialismus National Socialist Party Nazi just happens to be an abbreviation. It was originally a worker's party before Hitler started to steer it into towards racism and world domination. However, their economic platform remained socialist.

This is a bit like calling the DPRK Democratic because democratic is in the name. And as you point out, their economic platform has nothing in the remotest sense to do with their social platform. It is popular to call them right-wing extremists because people tend not to think of economic issues as right or left any longer - the Democratic party now has a better history of being fiscally conservative than the Republicans, and yet we call them left and right wing, respectively.

Besides, Hitler became the dominant force in his party rather early on, and well:

To quote

Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

Socialism was merely a gimmick for him to gain power, nothing more.

[OldSchoolGamer]

As a corollary to that, it would be interesting to see an alternate universe where the Nazi Party had simply focused on German nationalism rather than racial purity, ethnic and other pogroms, and anti-Semitism.  Still fascism, just no death camps for Jews, communists, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.

[Celestial Goblin]

As a corollary to that, it would be interesting to see an alternate universe where the Nazi Party had simply focused on German nationalism rather than racial purity, ethnic and other pogroms, and anti-Semitism.  Still fascism, just no death camps for Jews, communists, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.

That could be the alternate history when Germany didn't become nazi but Italy remained fascist with Mussolini in power. Though finding some 'other' to opress would become necessary sooner or later. Each of the above groups would make a good target.

As for Hitler being left or right wing, it's a ridiculous discussion.

By modern definitions of left and right wing, he's completely not left wing and probably everything modern left wing opposes. He might or might not be right wing depending if we go with right wing = libertarian or right wing = militaristic, nationalistic, 'strong are good' view.

By definitions of his own time, he started out courting the center and moved rightwards as time progressed. I also recall that he shown more enmity to the more moderate, non-soviet socialists than to hardline communists, probably because he knew that pro-USSR extremists will be less of a political threat.

[Caehlim]

Hmmm, I would have thought he was about as typical right-wing conservative as you could get when he wasn't busy performing genocide. Believer in family values, attempting to rebuild the glory of his country's lost past, more interested in reforming the economy than providing charity to the people.

This isn't said to insult the right wing community, just what I consider to be true. The immorality of his genocidal actions didn't necessarily affect everything he did and transform it into pure evil.

He loved his dog Blondi and was very keen on animal rights. That doesn't mean that dog-lovers are evil, they just happen to have that trait in common with Hitler because who could resist a cute animal.

[Methos]

Hitler wasn't much of what you'd call a conservative Caehlim. He was actually rather rigid in trying to inflict anti-smoking laws upon people. He nationalized industry and was hostile to conventional religion, he was actually rather fascinated with the ocult.

[Caehlim]

Interesting. Clearly I shall have to learn a bit more about him.

[HairyHeretic]

Actually I believe Himmler was the real occult fan, rather than Hitler.

[Schwarzepard]

Hitler was superstitious rather than religious.  He was extremely hostile to Christianity in addition to Judaism and Jews as an ethnicity.  His economic platform was fairly conventional socialism.  It had positions like this:

Abolition of unearned incomes and the elimination of what he called 'rent slavery'.
Total confiscation of all war profits.
Nationalization of all defense industries.
Required profit sharing from heavy industry.
Expansion 'on a large scale of old-age welfare'.
Land reform and prevention of all real estate speculation.
Immediate communalization of 'great warehouses' (whatever that means) and their subsequent leasing at low cost to small businesses.
Education at the expense of the state

It was 'nationalist' socialism because the Germans who joined his party didn't like the internationalist perspective of the Soviet backed socialism.  They just weren't into it.  They were far more interested in their own perspective for their own country.  Many of them were former communists that preferred the locals-only version of socialism rather than a world revolution.  The war and genocide was a product of Hitler and his fellow travelers rather than anything having to do with fascism, socialism or nationalism.  Mussolini was left wing too, also a socialist.  Like Hitler's, his was a socialism that was a unique outgrowth of his national/cultural environment of the times.  Mussolini was hostile to Catholicism but there was no anti-semitism in his Fascist party until Hitler badgered him into it in the late 30s or early 40s.  Mussolini had been a leftist socialist fascist since the 20s and many Jews were members of his Fascist party.  Even then Italian Fascist authorities routinely declined to enforce anti-Jewish regulations until Italy was occupied by the German army.

The point of my original post that got split off to start this thread was a simple correction that Hitler, because he was a socialist, was left wing, not right wing.  Hitler's socialism is irrelevant to socialism and leftism today.

If leftists want to insult rightists, calling rightists 'Pinochet' or 'Francisco Franco' makes far more sense.  Calling them 'Hitler' just reveals ignorance. 

[Dashenka]

Left-wing is a vague thing. Left-wing in the US is VERY different then left-wing in let's say the Netherlands or Germany. So I think left-wing is not a very good term to use for Hitler. In most countries, communism is seen as left-wing and capitalism right wing. Now with that in the back of our heads, taking care of the weaker people could be placed left, while stimulation the stronger to become stronger, is placed right. What did Hitler do? Well neither of those two. What he did was something never done before in that time. He defended the native people over the foreign people. So he sort of invented Nationalism but is that the left or the right? I say it's the centre actually.

[Schwarzepard]

Don't compare us to him, unless you want to be heaped in with such pillars of right-wing as Bush or (ooh! Ooh! I'm going to invoke Godwin here!) Hitler.

The original purpose of this thread was the correction of a fundamental error.  The poster of the quote above named Hitler as a pillar of the right wing, which he wasn't.  His domestic policies since he entered politics in the 1920s were socialist, and therefore Hitler was a man of the left, as were Mussolini and Mosley.  His violence was a product of his sick mind.

Whether taking care of weaker people is left or right is a matter of methods.  If people voluntarily give to the poor that can be left or right.  If the government taxes people whether they like it or not then distributes that money to the poor or other government decreed recipients, that is socialist and thus left.

Increasing strength politically or militarily is independent of left or right, as is nationalism.

US leftism is an outgrowth of the old Progressive movement which was given new life by the communist ideology pumped into it by the Soviet government.

[Dashenka]

His domestic policies since he entered politics in the 1920s were socialist, and therefore Hitler was a man of the left, as were Mussolini and Mosley.  His violence was a product of his sick mind.


US leftism is an outgrowth of the old Progressive movement which was given new life by the communist ideology pumped into it by the Soviet government.

Two interesting points you stress out here which I would like to ask you something about. First one: What if socialists are
the furthest right party in a country? Would that party still be left or would it be considered right?

Second one is not an offend but something out of curiosity. Why is it that when Hitler is named, or Lenin or any other dicator, the discussion somehow involves the US? The US is a big country and powerful and some smart people live there but in my opinion they know jack sh*t about socialism. Lenin was a communist, most European countries are somewhat socialists but the USA is FAR from socialist.

[Schwarzepard]

Two interesting points you stress out here which I would like to ask you something about. First one: What if socialists are
the furthest right party in a country? Would that party still be left or would it be considered right?

Second one is not an offend but something out of curiosity. Why is it that when Hitler is named, or Lenin or any other dicator, the discussion somehow involves the US? The US is a big country and powerful and some smart people live there but in my opinion they know jack sh*t about socialism. Lenin was a communist, most European countries are somewhat socialists but the USA is FAR from socialist.

In my personal use of the terms 'left' and right', I would say that a socialist party in your example would be left and the other parties would be even more left.  The people of such a country would most likely refer to the least left party as 'right'.  My personal definitions of left and right depend on the policies a particular party has.  If the majority of their policies are socialist or collectivist, I consider them left.  If the majority of their policies are individualist, capitalist, and tend towards minimal government regulation of private commerce, I consider that party 'right'.

In my opinion dictators get named usually because people are throwing insults.  It's usually Americans calling each other Hitler or Europeans calling Americans Hitler. Given the unpopularity of the Bush administration,  Bush gets called Hitler alot, and American politicians call the current dictators they don't like Hitlers.

The US has many socialist policies and programs.  It has its own brand of socialism (Progressivism) which it combined with later socialist and collectivist thought from other countries.  The left in US politics are outwardly socialist but the parties and people who claim to be right or conservative have far more socialist aspects than they admit.  Bush, who is universally considered a neo-conservative rightist, supported and signed into law a massive expansion of the goverment medical care for the elderly, a huge socialist program.  The US has slowly but steadily moved in a socialist direction over the decades.

[Vekseid]

In Europe, left and right frequently refer to immigration policy. European conservatives want to keep out immigrants, and European liberals want to let them in.

These days, defining the left or right by fiscal policy in the United States is absolutely silly. Almost everyone divorces fiscal conservation from such practices - the Libertarians are not considered 'right wing' in these cases.  Left or right wing refers to social policies, because both democratic ('liberal') and republican ('conservative') parties almost always pass greater and greater spending appropriations. There isn't a fiscal conservative in power, the closest we ever got to a fiscally conservative presidency was Ross Perot. Clinton and Bush Senior did do a lot in that regard, but spending was never significantly reduced.

Hitler was fascist, officially defined as "The union of government and corporate power" but quickly took on a number of defining features. While the presence of some of these defining features in modern US government is quite tenuous, their presence in the neoconservative movement is a lot more striking, in my view.

[Schwarzepard]

These days, defining the left or right by fiscal policy in the United States is absolutely silly.

I did not define left and right by US fiscal policy.  Straw man argument.

The government economic policies affect the personal lives of every person living in a country, so it is not silly to define left and right in terms of economics.

Almost everyone divorces fiscal conservation from such practices - the Libertarians are not considered 'right wing' in these cases.  Left or right wing refers to social policies, because both democratic ('liberal') and republican ('conservative') parties almost always pass greater and greater spending appropriations.

Left and right refers to economic policies.  Liberal and conservative refers to social policies.  That's why you have social conservatives like Bush and Lyndon B. Johnson signing massive leftist social programs into law.  Unfortunately the words have been used so indiscriminately they are losing their meanings.

Hitler was fascist, officially defined as "The union of government and corporate power" but quickly took on a number of defining features. While the presence of some of these defining features in modern US government is quite tenuous, their presence in the neoconservative movement is a lot more striking, in my view.

Please state the source for the "official" definition of fascism.

It wasn't neoconservatives talking about nationalizing independent power stations during the California energy crisis.

Fascism orginated as a leftist socialist movement born from dissatisfaction with parliamentary democracy.  Ask Mussolini.
It was anti-capitalist, anti-religious, authortarian, and economically statist.

[Vekseid]

I did not define left and right by US fiscal policy.  Straw man argument.

The government economic policies affect the personal lives of every person living in a country, so it is not silly to define left and right in terms of economics.

So if a government spends money on various forms of corporate welfare instead (including the military industrial complex), that's 'right'?

If you are going to be basing these arguments on your own semantic definitions of things, then it's best to make such things absolutely clear.

Left and right refers to economic policies.  Liberal and conservative refers to social policies.  That's why you have social conservatives like Bush and Lyndon B. Johnson signing massive leftist social programs into law.  Unfortunately the words have been used so indiscriminately they are losing their meanings.

Language evolves. Until Obama, basically no one would dream of challenging the AARP vote.

Please state the source for the "official" definition of fascism.

It wasn't neoconservatives talking about nationalizing independent power stations during the California energy crisis.

Fascism orginated as a leftist socialist movement born from dissatisfaction with parliamentary democracy.  Ask Mussolini.
It was anti-capitalist, anti-religious, authortarian, and economically statist.

I find it amusing that you ask me to source that and then say 'ask Mussolini', since he was the one who is said to have said that (though all I can find are indirect quotes based off of Irvin, regardless, the Doctrine of Fascism does rather solidly support that view.)

'Corporation', of course, is referring to a lot more than just businesses, but also guilds and such. So yes, it's obviously going to be economically statist, it's a major part of how it was originally defined.

[Schwarzepard]

So if a government spends money on various forms of corporate welfare instead (including the military industrial complex), that's 'right'?

If you are going to be basing these arguments on your own semantic definitions of things, then it's best to make such things absolutely clear.

These are very clear criteria:

My personal definitions of left and right depend on the policies a particular party has.  If the majority of their policies are socialist or collectivist, I consider them left.  If the majority of their policies are individualist, capitalist, and tend towards minimal government regulation of private commerce, I consider that party 'right'.

Those are my definitions.  I leave it up to you to determine if corporate welfare is left or right.

Language evolves. Until Obama, basically no one would dream of challenging the AARP vote.

Saying language evolves makes talking about definitions pointless.  The AARP has nothing to do with this topic.

I find it amusing that you ask me to source that and then say 'ask Mussolini', since he was the one who is said to have said that (though all I can find are indirect quotes based off of Irvin, regardless, the Doctrine of Fascism does rather solidly support that view.)

I'd be more interested in a reference closer to the source.  I'm not finding much on Irvin.

'Corporation', of course, is referring to a lot more than just businesses, but also guilds and such. So yes, it's obviously going to be economically statist, it's a major part of how it was originally defined.

[Vekseid]

The AARP was why Bush signed that into law. Until recently, they were the most powerful voting bloc in the country, and did a great deal to dictate 'socialist' policy.

Anyway, The Doctrine of Fascism

...But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State...

And the entirety of section 8 ("Conception of a corporative state")

I'm not in any way decreeing that Fascism did not 'interfere' with commerce, in many ways, though, that was the mantle under which much of the work was done.

These are very clear criteria:

My personal definitions of left and right depend on the policies a particular party has.  If the majority of their policies are socialist or collectivist, I consider them left.  If the majority of their policies are individualist, capitalist, and tend towards minimal government regulation of private commerce, I consider that party 'right'.

Those are my definitions.  I leave it up to you to determine if corporate welfare is left or right.

Just because you proclaim a definition does not mean other people are going to follow it. It's just important that we're clear what you think, but it has nothing to do with you winning any sort of argument. You define certain policies as being left wing, declare social policies irrelevant (conservative versus liberal), and then make the claim, and wait for people to fall into the trap.

All the while, it contributes nearly nothing to intelligent discourse. "Hitler was left wing because people who agree with me and I define this to be left wing."

It's nice that we have a solid definition, but there's little argument about Hitler's policies in the overall scheme of things, because more than anything, he wanted power, and used what movements and policies he could to attain that power. Megalomaniacs like him do not tend to operate under the idea of "well this is made of rainbows and sunshine, let's implement it!"

[Schwarzepard]

At the start of this thread which you created you wanted me to define my terms.  I have, and now you are stating that those definitions are not valid.  Without mutually agreed on definitions this intelligent discourse is not intelligent.

There's no trap and this thread was never about me winning an argument.  It was about correcting kong's ignorant and incorrect Hitler reference.  Contemporary US social policies are irrelevant to Hitler's socialism and his being part of the left, as Hitler's leftism is irrelevant to contemporary leftism.

I've given my definitions and stated my argument.  People who read this can decide for themselves.

[Vekseid]

Because if someone chooses to define right wing as a focus on military spending, an 'us versus them' attitude, censorship, and so on, and they consider those traits to be more defining than your traits, than the exact opposite effect occurs. It means nothing, it's just another vapid assertion meant to draw an emotional response.

Now, if you could have shown that Hitler or the Nazi party demonstrated that the vast majority of their policies were 'left wing' as it is popularly defined, that would be a different issue. I rather much doubted that you could or would be able to do that, so rather than waste a bazillion posts figuring out your semantics, I asked for them right from the start. Saves time.

[Schwarzepard]

The important words here are 'popularly defined', and there's the trap you mentioned.  You defined leftism as positions on social issues.  Leftism has a very long history, and the social issues that are at the forefront of leftist thought today weren't as recently several decades ago, so they could not have been popular.  If we're defining leftism by the current social issues, then no group or person existing before today's popular social issues became popular can be defined as 'left'.  50 years from now the social issues will have changed, and today's leftists will then not be 'left'.  Also by defining leftism by positions on social issues, a society that practices free market capitalism with no public services or programs whatsoever is left as long as they hold the correct positions on social issues.  The common thread that runs through all the flavors of leftism is socialist economic policy.   

[Vekseid]

The important words here are 'popularly defined', and there's the trap you mentioned.  You defined leftism as positions on social issues.  Leftism has a very long history, and the social issues that are at the forefront of leftist thought today weren't as recently several decades ago, so they could not have been popular.  If we're defining leftism by the current social issues, then no group or person existing before today's popular social issues became popular can be defined as 'left'.  50 years from now the social issues will have changed, and today's leftists will then not be 'left'.  Also by defining leftism by positions on social issues, a society that practices free market capitalism with no public services or programs whatsoever is left as long as they hold the correct positions on social issues.  The common thread that runs through all the flavors of leftism is socialist economic policy. 

"Forefront of leftist thought."

I've mentioned your issue, over and over again. You're not going to win over any opinions talking like that, at best, you frustrate people who don't see what you're doing. The crux is that in any discussion, your definition of something does not matter, at all. It's that of the person you're trying to convince. I'm not trying to convince you that Hitler was right-wing (except, being specifically for property rights, he was by any stretch to the right of pure Marxist or Communist ideologies). I'm trying to convince you that your argument has no meaning - it's a "Call what you hit the target" strategy. Which is all very nice, but tells us absolutely nothing.

[Schwarzepard]

We have different definitions of leftism.  I define it by economic policies, you define it by social positions.  Since we don't agree on definitions, we're not going to be able to convince each other.

You will not be able to convince me my argument has no meaning because my argument is completely valid.

Socialism is left, Hitler was a socialist as evidenced by his socialist policies, therefore Hitler was left.


If we're defining left as social issue positions:

Nazi social positions included being anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, pro-Muslim, pro-animal rights (this is a funny pic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AnimalRightsNaziGermany.jpg), and pro-environment, sentiments which are all left.  Hitler was a strict vegetarian and vehemently anti-smoking.  The Nazis were also focused on class equality (though obviously not on ethnic or gender equality).

[Vekseid]

...anti-Christian?

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

...I could go on, from Mein Kampf and his speeches, but, of course, that's just Hitler. What about the Nazi Party Platform?

We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: The Common Good before the individual good.

...seriously, you do know the course of events that led up to the Nazi party is inextricably bound with European Christianity's treatment of the Jews, I would hope?

[Schwarzepard]

Yes, anti-Christian.

Joseph Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[18][19] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating affect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman Empire.[20] In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-Christian tract from 362 AD, neo-platonist and pagan Roman emperor Julian the Apostate's Against the Galileans, saying "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this..."

In 1998 documents were released by Cornell University from the Nuremberg Trials that revealed Nazi plans to exterminate Christianity at the end of World War II[36] The documents cover the Nuremberg trials of leading Nazis and demonstrate the deliberate genocide of Jews during the Holocaust, in which some six million Jews were killed. One senior member of the U.S. prosecution team, General William Donovan, as part of his work on documenting Nazi war crimes, compiled large amounts of documentation that the Nazis also planned to systematically destroy Christianity.[37]

Donovan's documents include almost 150 bound volumes currently stored at Cornell University after his death in 1959; these documents state

    "Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion," said an OSS report in July 1945. "The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.

They also show the different steps involved in the persecution, including the campaign to suppress denominational and youth organizations, denominational schools, and the use of defamation against the clergy, orchestrated to started on the same day over the Reich and supported by the press, Nazi Party meetings and by traveling party speakers.[38][39] The documents show that the Nazis early on wanted the churches neutralized because they feared that the Churches would oppose Nazi plans based on racism and aggressive wars. The Nazis planned to infiltrate churches and use defamation, arrest and assault or the killing of pastors plus the re-education of church congregations. They also suppressed denominational schools and Christian youth organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

Greenwood says, "Of all the organisations which the Nazis sought to control, the Christian churches proved the most difficult" (p. 524). The Roman Catholic Church "proved the least pliable" (p. 524), but Hitler allowed Alfred Rosenberg, the most violent anti-Christian among the Nazis, to persecute them, and most resistance crumbled. Catholic bishops like Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich and Bishop Preysing of Berlin showed courage and defended their beliefs but to no avail.

The Protestants proved less effective in their resistance because of lack of cohesion, but they did form a "vigorous, confessional, evangelical church, determined to oppose state interference and Nazi attacks on Christian values" (Greenwood, p. 525). In May 1936 this group protested to Hitler about the anti-Christian attitudes of the Third Reich, against anti-Semitism, Gestapo brutality and the concentration camps; for their trouble many were arrested, including Pastor Niemoller.

By 1941 it was admitted that the efforts to silence the Christian churches had failed.

http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/modern_history/national_studies/germany/2434/page79.htm

During the early years of the Nazi reign political prisoners made up a large portion of the inmates in the concentration-camps. Dachau was the main camp for political prisoners. Hitler also ordered the imprisonment of the dissenting clergy of the Confessional Church. This action was the result of the church writing a memorandum to Hitler criticizing the government's anti-Christian campaign.

http://holocaust.hklaw.com/essays/1999/994.htm


The creation and rise of the Nazi Party was bound up in political, social, and economic conditions in Germany caused by WW1.  That party's anti-semitism sprang from anti-semitism in German culture, which is inextricably entwined with anti-semitism in European Christianity.

[Mia]

Well yes and no, what Hitler did was to pick what people thought best about the left wing and the right wing, merge it totally and then present it as some kind of mix. And people bought it... Just to say he was left wing is to make things too easy as he was both.

[Vekseid]

Do you have any primary source for any of that? The Donovan collections are interesting, but the rest of the sources are either single-source (I can't even find a reference to your Goebbels quote outside of people quoting from Wikipedia), or are rather misleading, ie, implying that Michael von Faulhaber was persecuted for his belief in Christianity rather than for his support of the Jews.

Ultimately, the question becomes, what verifiable statements did Hitler make or write that suggested an opposition to Christianity? I can't find any.

This document points to a desire by members of the Nazi party to remove the influence of Christian churches that do not subscribe to the notion of the racial state. There is a lot there but I haven't found anything yet to support the idea that Hitler was anti-Christian - any more than Martin Luther was. This document largely points to individual members with anti-Christian views.

This document discusses incidents of church persecution.

These seem to be the main items that the Wikipedia author is quoting, I would need to read them more, but I haven't find statements directly related to Hitler vs. Christianity in them yet. You are welcome to point them out if you find them.

And please remember that encyclopedias in general are not sources.

[Apple of Eris]

Question: If Hitler was so socialist, why were the Nazi parties biggest contributors major german industrialists - well before he was elected.

Why, after he was elected, did Germany not seize the biggest industries in the country and leave them in the hands of monopolistic capitalists?

[Jefepato]

What does it matter if Hitler was left-wing, right-wing, Christian, anti-Christian, socialist, or even fascist?

It's not like the members of any of those groups -- to the extent that those groups can be adequately defined -- generally support the horrors that Hitler authored.  Nor can the policies they support be said to lead to those horrors.

I mean, someone who happens to be a genocidal monster might also be a liberal or a conservative or an anarchist or a Pastafarian.  But there's no reasonable relationship between the one and the other.

Hitler is rightly reviled by nearly everyone.  No matter how much you dislike [insert the political group you love to hate here], they're not Adolf Hitler and do not support what Hitler did, and no amount of sophistry can make them into him.  (Unless the political group you love to hate is actually the neo-Nazis, in which case you may proceed.)

[Revolverman]

its called labeling, or godwin's law. make the other side be attached to Hitler.