I think I've finally figured out why the Nazis were considered a right-wing ideology

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 6 months ago to History
48 comments | Share | Flag

Anyone who has studied World War II should know that the full and proper name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). And anyone who knows anything about socialism knows that it is primarily a left-wing ideology. In recent years, this has led many people to believe that the Nazis were on the left-wing of the political spectrum.

But according to this article, Hitler actually opposed socialist ideas, and the Nazi party was socialist in name only, having taken the label in order to gain popularity with the German people. That's why historians have consistently said that the Nazis were a right-wing party, even though they bore the name of a left-wing ideology. The Nazis deceptively called themselves socialists, but many of their actual policies were ardently anti-socialist. Though they did have to implement some genuine socialist policies during their reign in order to appease the masses -- such as wealth redistribution, profit-sharing, nationalization of trusts, retirement pensions and free education -- they nevertheless stood ardently opposed to the ideas of racial and ethnic equality, which were supposed to be a keystone of socialism.

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the [German Worker's Party (GPW)] should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). 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.

[...]

In September 1921, Hitler was sent to prison for three months for being part of a mob who beat up a rival politician. When Hitler was released, he formed his own private army called Sturm Abteilung (Storm Section). The SA (also known as stormtroopers or brownshirts) were instructed to disrupt the meetings of political opponents and to protect Hitler from revenge attacks.

[...]

At the end of the march Hitler would make one of his passionate speeches that encouraged his supporters to carry out acts of violence against Jews and his left-wing political opponents. As this violence was often directed against Socialists and Communists, the local right-wing Bavarian government did not take action against the Nazi Party."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I admit, for the longest time, I had been operating on the assumption that the Nazis were actual, genuine socialists, because that's what they called themselves. But if this article is true, it flips things around completely. Not that I would ever become a socialist, because I've studied economics too much to believe socialism could ever work. But I do finally understand how and why the Nazis were considered to be part of the right-wing, in spite of their party's name.

(As a side note, I also found it interesting that the Nazi SA were sometimes called "stormtroopers." Could that have been where George Lucas got the term from?)


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Also note that there are two ways to look at anarchy. The one is the Sartyr and Camu style of moral relativism which advocates ultimate personal freedom of choice including the ability to set one's own moral compass. This is the common anarchy most refer to in philosophical texts and involves an absence of central government or ruling body and the kind of "might makes right" sociality that makes most people cringe.

    There is another anarchy of sorts, however, in which everyone is completely free to choose independent of a central authority, but in which the rules are the same for everyone. It revolves around individuals being their own police and demands very rigid self-discipline. I suspect that no one really mentions it much because very few people actually have the self-discipline to make it work and it would rely upon foundational understanding of everything so as to comply with natural laws. Omniscience and self-discipline are not highlights of humanity at this point...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 5 months ago
    I don't consider Hitler's regime to be rightist at all, regardless of whether or not he eschewed socialist principles. He still wanted to total control and the methods by which he took control were standard leftist tactics of fear-mongering, scapegoating, and blame-casting - all hallmarks of progressive liberals.

    Oh, and don't make the mistake of equating the current Republican party with rightists (or Conservatives) either. Most modern Republicans are far more centrist than any Conservative - both on fiscal as well as social policy, which is why they cave to the far-left Democrats (there are no other kind remaining). They have no moral compass, and that is why the libertarians like the Pauls and the TEA party activists have been giving them fits.

    I would echo other comments also say that you have to look at things from more than a right/left mentality. Ultimately, it is all about personal control vs government control of one's life and "pursuit of happiness". The battle is individualism (and the market) vs authoritarianism and big government. Regardless of Hitler's personal beliefs, he actively pursued the authoritarian avenue.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 11 years, 5 months ago
    "He who controls the education controls the future." Someone very evil said that. Those evil geniuses are prone to fits of truthfulness every once in a while.

    It is widely believed that Nazis were Right Wingers because graduating class after graduating class after graduating class after graduating class after graduating class have been told that Nazis were Right Wingers. "Make the lie big enough and tell it enough times and it will become truth." Another evil SOB said that.


    One of the biggest "Proofs" used that Nazis were right wingers is that Nazis and Communists hate each other. And since Conservatives hate Communists, too, Nazis must be Conservatives, right?

    The truth is that Nazis and Communists hate each other because they are basically the same thing. When the National Socialist party first arose, they *literally* walked into Communist Party Meetings and recruited them right out of their seats. For the same reason as Lions hate Hyenas on the plains of Africa, or how McDonalds hates the Wendys straight across the street, Nazis hate Communists. Because they all fight over the same sources of food. Lions wouldn't go out of their way to kill Hyenas (and vice versa) if they didn't both eat Gazelles. Nazis and Communists wouldn't hate each other if they both weren't competing for the sub-triple-digit-IQ moronic youngsters (dubbed "Useful Idiots").
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In fact, Hitler's rule-book for the Brownshirts, later turned SS, is an almost verbatim copy of Felix Dzerzhinsky's manual for the Checka, later turned NKVD and later still KGB.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bobhummel 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Very well said, strugatsky. Hitler's "National Socialist" label had a very defined meaning. National Socialism is not a nation of people loving socialism. Under any form of statism, conformity to the man-made replaces conformity to the metaphysically given; because now the man-made, right or wrong, sets the terms of behavior. Rulers such as Adolf, demand obedience at the point of a gun. Dissenters face fines, imprisonment or death. Independence in not tolerated. Independence, like all virtues, is upheld as an absolute or not at all. The paternalistic NSDAP advocated that the government will do the thinking for the people, by defining the right ideas and behavioral standards, then sending out the appropriate enforcement squads (Sturm Abteilung SA - political thugs, or Sturm Staffel SS the government thugs). The planners in matter always become totalitarian dictators.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sender47 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I will have to disagree there, anarchy can be left or right. One thing is the Individualism-Collectivism line an other the Authoritarian-Libertarian line (NOTE: understanding libertarian as freedom from authority, don't take it as the libertarian ideology, just the use of the word here) ... As an example Gandhi was both libertarian and collectivist.

    Commune the Holy Grail of Collectivism is also free of authority. (Paris commune is an example of fight between right and left anarchist about what was that)

    Just to point that out, one thing is Collectivism. Individualism and another Authoritarian-Libertarian.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re Goering - another ego running wild. Had they spent R&D time on those big lumbering bombers instead of the sexy, swift fighters, they could have done to us (via the great circle) as we did to Japan.

    The flaw with Rommel was he was *too* good - AH realized the man was a brilliant commander, and that clashed with his personal ego. Thats why he sent him to Africa, and later to Normandie to build fortresses. Had he held him close, as he did Albert Speer, and given him the trust he should have...

    Then again, Hitler was definitely NOT CEO material... he was a corporal in WW1... Created huge rallies (with the hel of others), but did not have idea 1 how to delegate authority. It - this juvenile egotism - damaged almost every aspect of the reich, and spelled their doom from the start. Had he put his faith in the Professional Military (that Germany was ALWAYS proud of) instead of wanting to bask in self-aggrandizing glory, the war would have nded MUCH differently.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    By George, I think you've got it. Whatever one wishes to label it, there are definite elements of socialism. I have said for years socialism, fascism and communism are all just variants of Marxism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 5 months ago
    As is so common today, well, not just today - the Ministry of Education has been re-writing history forever - this article starts off on incorrect assumptions and proceeds in the wrong direction as if it was factual. Of course, coming from Britain, it’s not surprising. Let's start with the very basic definition of socialism. According to Merriam-Webster, socialism is:
    1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
    b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

    Where do “ideas of racial and ethnic equality, which were supposed to be a keystone of socialism” come into this definition? In fact, the author admits that the Nazis “appease[d] the masses -- such as wealth redistribution, profit-sharing, nationalization of trusts, retirement pensions and free education” – e.g., classical socialism. According to the article, “Hitler actually opposed socialist ideas” – and not a single example of which specific socialist ideas did Hitler oppose. Just make a statement and the reader is expected to assume it to be factual.
    As well illustrated by Orwell, who observed socialism in its infancy in Spain, the Party will re-define basic concepts to make the result whatever it wants it to be. If the Party says that 2 + 2 = 5, then it is 5! BTW, the US Ministry of Education, in its Core Curriculum, says that if a “student” in a government “school” feels that 5 + 5 = 11, then 11 it is!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    World War II was replete with decisions where Hitler's ego was the defining reason for defeat. The Battle of Stalingrad is a great example. Hitler's military advisors told him to hold the lines through the winter and to wait to attack until spring. Hitler was too assured of his superiority and issued the orders to attack anyway. The Russians - better suited to fighting in the cold and defending their homes - stymied the Germans all winter and ended up destroying the majority of the attacking force.

    Another example of a military blunder was Hitler's refusal to give Rommel more support in North Africa. There was no military genius equal to Rommel in WWII - not even Patton or Eisenhower. It was only due to attrition and luck/divine providence that the Allies won at El Alamein and began to force the "Desert Fox" out of Tunisia and Libya. But the Allies needed North Africa in order to launch an attack on Italy and get it out of the war. Most military historians agree that D-Day couldn't happen until Italy had been neutralized.

    Another major player was Herman Goering - Hitler's Air Marshall. Goering eschewed the development of heavy bombers and instead focused on fighter aircraft. If Germany had built bombers similar to the American "Flying Fortresses" that decimated German manufacturing, it is entirely possible that they could have stalled the war for the months necessary to complete development of atomic weapons, which they were only months from obtaining. They might even have turned the tide in Stalingrad.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 11 years, 5 months ago
    I dispute the notion that socialist cannot be racists.

    All that socialism is, is government ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

    The supplanting of a truly free market with a system of public-private partnerships governing production, distribution and exchange is better called fascism.

    Racism seems unique to the Nazis, and to Emperor Hirohito's generals. But racism is a form of collectivism. Rand herself called racism the lowest form of collectivism known to man.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ 11 years, 6 months ago
    Another interesting excerpt from the article:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich. Some prosperous industrialists were convinced by these arguments and gave donations to the Nazi Party, however, the vast majority continued to support other parties, especially the right-wing German Nationalist Peoples Party (DNVP).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 6 months ago
    See "The Rising National Individualism" by Herbert Adolphus Miller in _The American Journal of Sociology_, Vol. 19, No. 5 (Mar., 1914), pp. 592-605. By "national individualism" the author explains that he means nationalistic socialism, as opposed to international socialism. The author relies on Pan-Slavism as his model, but applies this to other nationalist ideologies of the time. This is all beyond the simplistic Right-Left of the Estates General of the French Revolution with Royalists on the Right and Anarchists on the Left.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 11 years, 6 months ago
    I think people try too hard to classify too many things as left or right, because these are what we see in modern civilization. I honestly do not think that the terms right or left can properly be applied to a totalitarian society. People have opinions, and if you are the dictator your opinions can become law. This can easily lead to a government that can be shown as being on the left if you look at Law or Situation A and on the right if you look at Law or Situation B.

    I am also skeptical of any article or person saying that the Nazi Party was either right or left because Nazi has now become the flagship insult to any group you do not like. If you can make a believable case that your opposition has a lot in common with the Nazi Party you score points with those who lock onto that word.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by UncommonSense 11 years, 6 months ago
    I'll add my .02 to this. The farthest Right you can go is Anarchy. Absolutely no government at all. The farthest Left you go is absolute tyranny. Based on the mountains of films, biographies, personal war stories of those who witnessed the Holocaust (hint: Extremely well-planned & coordinated by Hitlers goons, not much anarchy there) & from brave German citizens who actually lived under Nazism, I think most people here can make the call on whether they fell on the Left or Right of the political spectrum. You should do additional research to find out how "free" the ordinary German citizen during the Nazi days were & how 'disorderly' things were back then.

    Ultimately though, today it's really not about "Left" versus "Right": it's about the Globalist versus the rest of us, i.e., the Commoners. The Left/Right paradigm is just a divide & conquer tactic. The Globalists use BOTH sides to achieve their goals. Need proof? Look no further than our own two-head, one-party political system, traditionally known as "Democrats" and "Republicans". Further proof can be found in what Mayer Amsel Rothschild said concerning governments: ""Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws". circa 1838.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You can find a video on YouTube of a Nazi youth rally. A series of boys gives his name and what his father does. "My father is a carpenter. He builds the people's houses... My father is a banker. He guards the people's money..." Austrian economics is a bit deeper than that. And Objectivist morality is deeper still.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo