2021-05-03 21:48:49 UTC
It was leftists who fought and defeated Hitler in WW2 and continue to do
so against all Fascist dogs, while rightists like you sided with the Nazis
and the Axis powers.
Fascism, Nazism and Conservatism
European fascism drew on existing anti-modernist conservatism, and on the
conservative reaction to communism and 19th-century socialism.
Conservative thinkers such as historian Oswald Spengler provided much of
the world view (Weltanschauung) of the Nazi movement.
In Britain, the conservative Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald
Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and part of the Conservative Party
supported closer ties with Nazi Germany.
When defeat in World War II ideologically and historically discredited
fascism, almost all Western conservatives tried to distance themselves
from it. Nevertheless, many post-war Western conservatives continued to
admire the Franco regime in Spain, clearly conservative but also fascist
in origin. With the end of the Franco regime and Portugal's Estado Novo in
the 1970s, the relationship between conservatism and classical European
fascism was further weakened.
Militarism is perhaps the most striking similarity between Fascism and
contemporary American conservatism. Of course, there are many liberals in
America who support the military and even call for increased military
Even so, American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the
military than American conservatives. It is often said that
Neoconservatives, like Hitler, see the military as a paradigm for problem
solving (even in situations that may render militarism impractical or
The relationship of fascism to right-wing ideologies (including some that
are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives
and their opponents. Especially in Germany, there is a constant exchange
of ideology and persons, between the influential national-conservative
movement, and self-identified national-socialist groups.
In Italy too, there is no clear line between conservatives, and movements
inspired by the Italian Fascism of the 1920s to 1940s, including the
Alleanza Nazionale which is member of the governing coalition under
premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative attitudes to the 20th-century
fascist regimes are still an issue.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<One of the most frequent arguments used in favor of the notion that Hitler
and the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) were
leftist is the fact that they used "sozialistische" in the party's title.
The party's appropriation of the term was a sick lie.
Generally there have been three broad economic variations in terms of
ownership of production: aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owns the
land and productive wealth; capitalism, in which a broader range of
private individuals own the means of production; and socialism, in which
everyone owns and controls the means of production.
As traditionally understood, these three variations roughly fall into a
right, center, left pattern as well - with authoritarian, dictatorial
regimes and absolute monarchs on the extreme right; corporate/capitalist
oligarchies right of center; free enterprise with widespread private
ownership more or less in the middle; labor republics or social
democracies in which the workers partially own and primarily control the
means of production left of center; and utopian communist societies where
everyone owns everything and there is essentially no private property on
the extreme left. In short, the more limited and narrow the ownership and
control of production, the further right. The more widespread such
ownership and control, the further left.
By calling themselves "National Socialists", the NSDAP was attempting to
woo the left-wing citizenry merely by coopting the terminology. The
"national" combined with the "sozialistische" implied that the nation as a
whole would control the means of production. During his rise, Hitler
exploited social unrest by promising workers to back labor unions and
increase the standard of living. The reality was quite different: the
Nationalsozialistische party only represented nationalists, as defined by
the NDSAP and represented by the ruling elite, not the nation as a whole.
And it was only a corporate oligarchy which owned much of anything. Under
the National Socialists in Germany, the system of government was a
combination of aristocracy and capitalism (extreme right and centrist).
The workers, "the people", owned and controlled nothing - as they would
under socialism or any left-wing government.
Private German businessmen owned and controlled the means of production -
and answered to the National Socialist Party. The NDSAP "Charter of
Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers and established
the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and dictated that the
owner "makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters
concerning the enterprise".
Contrary to their promises, the NDSAP outlawed trade unions, collective
bargaining, and the right to strike. They formed the "Labor Front" which
replaced the old trade unions and which did not represent workers - and
workers' wages fell by 20-25%. Industries, trusts, and military production
were not nationalized and remained in the hands of private owners under
the control of the party. Granted, the NDSAP did nationalize a few
utilities - such as the railroads - and created a few public works
programs such as the construction of the Autobahn. But these were
primarily in order to facilitate the war industry and such
"nationalization" did not mean that these were owned by the people, but by
the government - and were built with materials which fed back into the
capitalist oligarchs. The German National Socialists, like the Italian
Fascists, were corporatists.
How much control did "the people" have under the NDSAP in terms of running
the government? Virtually none. A central principle of the party was
Führerprinzip - "the leadership principle". The National Socialists did
not have party congresses in which policy was discussed and determined -
there were no dissenting voices heard, no compromises or concessions made.
What mattered most was what the leader thought and decreed. Those whose
opinions differed from those of der Führer either maintained silence or
The hierarchical nature of the corporatism espoused by the NDSAP, with der
Führer at the pinnacle, supported by a capitalist oligarchy is in direct
opposition to the egalitarianism espoused by socialism and other leftist
political schools of thought. The National Socialists were anti-
egalitarian in every sense and had an elitist view of society in which the
superior individual - the übermensch - would emerge on top. So, in terms
of social/governmental structure and economics, the National Socialists
cannot be considered "socialist" by any stretch of the imagination.
I will grant that the totalitarian extremes of the NDSAP can be compared
to the totalitarian extremes of, say, Stalinism - but that does not make
Hitler any more left-wing than it does Stalin. Both were variations on the
aristocratic (or its extreme, monarchic) systems - systems representing
the far right. It can much more easily be argued that Stalin was right-
wing than it can that Hitler was left-wing. In fact, I'd say that the
latter cannot be argued at all.
But what of the social policies of the NDSAP? In the thread in which this
discussion arose, I cited the late Steve Kangas who composed a lengthy
essay addressing this whole issue. In it, he identifies a number of
principles, opposing rightist ideals and leftist ideals. These include
(but are not limited to) the following:
Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
He goes on - and I won't reiterate his arguments here - to demonstrate
that Hitler and the NDSAP leaned, often heavily, toward the right, often
far right, in every single instance. Many of these leanings are obvious to
anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of National Socialist policies
and history. Again, for those in doubt, I'd recommend checking out the
He also discusses National Socialist foreign policy in terms of militarism
vs. pacifism. It should suffice here to quote from Mein Kampf:
If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd
unity which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless
be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different
course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have
obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging,
whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of
tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a
master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture.
That may sound like a "real man" - but it sure as hell doesn't sound like
So: in terms of economics, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of
government structure, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of social policy,
the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of militarism, the NDSAP was right-
wing. I fail to see how anyone can possibly argue that the Nazis were