Spanish socialists get $500 million cash infusion from American capitalist system.

[Nessus]

Freudian slip.

Why equate liberalism with conservatism? Conservatism wants to preserve existing structures and norms. In cases where those structures and norms are liberal, then conservatism will be very similar to liberalism. But in cases like Germany, where the old status quo was nationalist and authoritarian, it's not surprising that many conservatives would support illiberal parties.

I don't think it's fair to classify fascism as either left wing or right wing. After all, it was meant to be the "third way". It was right wing socially, while generally left wing economically, traits that are shared by most nationalist parties today.

Which is kind of what I said several posts back. Okay, I think we're converging to an agreement, so I'd just like to point out as one last thing that the raison dêtre of Nazism was to combat Bolshevism, arguably the most left-wing ideology ever implemented. The whole crusade against Bolshevism was argued to be about preserving European culture and free enterprise, even if said enterprise was expected to abide by the nation-state. And it's certainly not at all clear how much the enterprises themselves could sway the nation state. If you knew an SS guy, it could go a long way, and that's just how business operates, right?

[Loki]

Which is kind of what I said several posts back. Okay, I think we're converging to an agreement, so I'd just like to point out as one last thing that the raison dêtre of Nazism was to combat Bolshevism, arguably the most left-wing ideology ever implemented. The whole crusade against Bolshevism was argued to be about preserving European culture and free enterprise, even if said enterprise was expected to abide by the nation-state. And it's certainly not at all clear how much the enterprises themselves could sway the nation state. If you knew an SS guy, it could go a long way, and that's just how business operates, right?

And the main enemy of Bolsheviks in the USSR were Social Revolutionaries. Left-wing groups have a lengthy history of fighting each other. Mussolini went after communists after when he was in his socialist phase; the communists in Germany hated the socialists as much as they did the nationalists.

It is true that Nazis were claiming to defend Western culture against Communism, and it is true that this stood to benefit German businessmen, but do you really think the Nazis cared about free enterprise? It seems to me they cared more about destroying an ideology they believed was created and dominated by Jews (and to a lesser extent, Slavs). To the extent that the Nazis went after after socialists, it was because the latter were political opponents, not because they were somehow offended by their ideology.

[Nessus]

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. The early movement activists loathed the communists for their atheism, and the socialists for their lip service to democracy. The nebulous nature of the top Nazi brass's views doesn't allow for a coherent interpretation (just look at Goebbels and Streicher, to pick an example), but the SS apparatus at least was very connected with German business. And the point is that the German businessmen who helped the Nazis into power obviously thought they had something to gain by doing so, otherwise they wouldn't have done it, right?

[Loki]

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. The early movement activists loathed the communists for their atheism, and the socialists for their lip service to democracy. The nebulous nature of the top Nazi brass's views doesn't allow for a coherent interpretation (just look at Goebbels and Streicher, to pick an example), but the SS apparatus at least was very connected with German business. And the point is that the German businessmen who helped the Nazis into power obviously thought they had something to gain by doing so, otherwise they wouldn't have done it, right?

But neither atheism nor democracy are left-wing policies (they generally don't fall within either side of the political spectrum)...

The main political force in Germany were socialists and communists. The alternative to Nazism was thus socialism/communism, not liberalism. Again, not surprising that the businessmen would go for what was to them the lesser of two evils.

[Nessus]

The tragedy of Weimar was that no one genuinely wanted a democracy. So as you say, each interests opted for the brand of authoritarianism that'd benefit them. And a whole host of cultural stuff. But either way, Nazism was the anti-thesis to the active left-wing forces, and proceeded to destroy them as soon as they got into power. The fact that people like doctor Goebbels held economically leftist, if racist, ideas doesn't make Nazism leftist. If we have to look at someone or -thing to define Nazism for us, it would be Hitler, for he was Nazism. And he wasn't leftist.

[CitizenCain]

Source wanted. Employee theft is a rife form of sabotage now.

If you don't know the difference between theft and sabotage, there's very little any source can do to help you out. In the general case, a thief wants to enrich himself, a saboteur wants to harm his victim.

And that's enough remedial... information... for today, I think.

If we have to look at someone or -thing to define Nazism for us, it would be Hitler, for he was Nazism. And he wasn't leftist.

So, you're trying to define Nazism by the head individual to prove it's not a collectivist philosophy? Yeah, that's completely honest and productive. Clearly communism wasn't a left-wing philosophy either, given that ol' Uncle Joe was more interested in his own power and well being than the plight of the proletariat.

[Nessus]

So, you're trying to define Nazism by the head individual to prove it's not a collectivist philosophy? Yeah, that's completely honest and productive. Clearly communism wasn't a left-wing philosophy either, given that ol' Uncle Joe was more interested in his own power and well being than the plight of the proletariat.

I'm not saying it wasn't collectivist, indeed one of the reasons I like Nazism is the collectivist nature. The point was, there were so many conflicting under-currents within Nazism that if we have to pin down one ideological line, it must be Hitler's, since he was the ultimate authority of Nazism. My point to Loki was that Nazism arose from rightist circles and was intended as a defense against leftism (in the form of Bolshevism).

A figure like Thomas Jefferson would agree with Santorum on several points, but we don't think Jefferson was as loathsome as we think Santorum is; it doesn't benefit understanding one iota to look at things in hind-sight and label them accordingly. To understand what happened, and why, we must place things in context.

Indeed, the guy with hind-sight has perfect vision, and his sole eye is located much farther from his nose than you'd think...

[CitizenCain]

... which conveniently misses or ignores Hitler's underlying motivations, which were not based in left-right political ideology, but rather in self-interest and racist ideology.

You can try to blame Hitler on the right-wing, and classify him as such if it makes you feel better about your own political views (I'm guessing as to your motivation here, and that seems to be the only sensible explanation), but that really won't change anything or address the simple fact that it doesn't matter, for how the line between left and right wing vanishes for all practical purposes (and even most academic ones too), as authoritarianism increases. At some point it ceases mattering which side you came from, when the net result is that all serve the supreme and unquestioned ruler of all things.

[Nessus]

My only motivation is to understand. It is my current understanding that left-wing thought (inasmuch as the terms make historical sense; was Ceasar right-wing? The question doesn't seem meaningful) has killed more people and caused more abject human misery than right-wing thought. I am honestly curious about Nazism (and to a lesser extent Communism) as a phenomenon, it's not some political yard-stick. Of course I always find Lewk's insistence on the Leftism of Nazism as a political tool without any analysis behind it, so you're free to think him right and I wrong, nothing lost nothing gained.

[CitizenCain]

My only motivation is to understand.

In that case, you need to separate the ideology from the head man. To some [large] extent they are linked, yes, but powerful tyrants always seek more power, and it is human nature to want "more," even if that conflicts with their ideology. Lying and hypocrisy is in the nature of politicians, no? So we shouldn't be surprised when their actions serve to enrich themselves rather than advanced their professed ideology.

And while Nazism was certainly about Hitler to a large degree, it wasn't entirely about him either. He had millions of supporters and dozens of high-level guys who helped shape the philosophy, and in the absence of Hitler, one of them steps up and continues things along - these popular movements have an inertia of their own, independent of the particular front man or puppet master pulling on the strings of the mob.

Of course I always find Lewk's insistence on the Leftism of Nazism as a political tool without any analysis behind it, so you're free to think him right and I wrong, nothing lost nothing gained.

Well, nice to hear you're not doing what I thought you were, in that case.

[Nessus]

Ouch. Now we're headed into really muddy (ie. dick-swinging) territory.

On one hand, out of the totalitarian alternatives explored in the past century, Nazism was definitely the most leader-centric (I don't have any idea whether Mussolini was more or less important to his boys), and the Führerprinzip style of management ensured that Hitler always had a key role of definer and arbiter.

On the other, the influence of Borrman et al on Hitler, particularly towards the end, and the intrigues by the various clicks near the end, eh.

I do disagree with you on the fundamental point, however; without Hitler, the movement would have died. That doesn't make him any kind of super-man as per his movement's ideas, it just makes him uniquely suited to the precise accident of conditions found at the tail end of Weimar. It's so hard to make any statements like these without risk of falling into sounding like Sonderweg type idiotic statements, so I hope you don't again assume the worst

[CitizenCain]

Ouch. Now we're headed into really muddy (ie. dick-swinging) territory.

On one hand, out of the totalitarian alternatives explored in the past century, Nazism was definitely the most leader-centric

Not really... look at NK. (Cult of personality dictatorships and like that there.) Even of the "big" totalitarianisms, that kind of center on the leader is utterly common-place, and even normal. I mean, why exercise such complete and utter control over millions of people if not to force yourself to be the center of their worlds? Totalitarianism being highly leader-centric is almost tautological.

I do disagree with you on the fundamental point, however; without Hitler, the movement would have died.

<shrug>

Not a fan of that [great man] theory of history... though I am curious as to why you think Nazism would have died without Hitler. You don't think the other top Nazis would have carried the movement on, if for no other reason than to expand their wealth and power? Pretty much what happens in every other dictatorship and totalitarian system. The king is dead, long live the king and all that.

[Enoch the Red]

Not a fan of that [great man] theory of history... though I am curious as to why you think Nazism would have died without Hitler. You don't think the other top Nazis would have carried the movement on, if for no other reason than to expand their wealth and power? Pretty much what happens in every other dictatorship and totalitarian system. The king is dead, long live the king and all that.

I don't think Nessie is saying that the National Socialist party would have fallen from power following Hitlers death, rather that they never would have achieved ascendancy in the Wiemar Republic without him.