quote:

Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:

some of the tenets of the National Socialist German Workers Party Platform:

"We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
"We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
"We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
"We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
"We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores,
"The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education
"The State must ensure that the nation's health standards…

in short: "To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states."

hitler on gun control: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."

hitler and abortion: When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year.

fascism is a form of totalitarianism where private property doesn't really exist and the power is concentrated in corporations owned and operated by the state.

any of those things sound familiar??

[the point being they are all recognizably left positions by today's standards]

quote:

According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite conservatism and capitalism on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left (social liberalism), sometimes on the right (classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are classified as centrists or moderates. Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is known as syncretic politics.

Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between sociocultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community).

For almost a century, social scientists have considered the problem of how best to describe political variation...

Hans Eysenck began researching political attitudes in Great Britain. He believed that there was something essentially similar about the National Socialists (Nazis) on the one hand, and the Communists on the other.

Dissatisfied with Hans J. Eysenck's work, Milton Rokeach developed his own two-axis model of political values in 1973, basing this on the ideas of freedom and equality, which he described in his book, The Nature of Human Values.[24]..

Despite his criticisms of Eysenck...Rokeach also postulated a basic similarity between communism and nazism, claiming that these groups would not value freedom as greatly as more conventional social democrats, democratic socialists and capitalists would, and he wrote that "the two value model presented here most resembles Eysenck's hypothesis."[24]

To test this model, Milton Rokeach and his colleagues used content analysis on works exemplifying nazism (written by Adolf Hitler), communism (written by V.I. Lenin), capitalism (by Barry Goldwater) and socialism (written by various socialist authors)…

In excerpts from...

Socialists (socialism) — Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 2nd
Hitler (Nazism) – Freedom ranked 16th, Equality ranked 17th
Goldwater (capitalism) — Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 16th
Lenin (communism) — Freedom ranked 17th, Equality ranked 1st

[you see Nazism shares qualities with both stereotypical left and right]

quote:

Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics an philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies;

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

TIME Magazine is still an alt left publication to this day

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

TIME Magazine is still an alt left publication to this day

Time is about as mainstream as it's humanly possible to get.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

yet the nazis did not meet the most basic definition of socialism.


a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Their economy was regulated by a dictator, and the military-industrial complex..............hey, wait a minute, like the USA!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

yet the nazis did not meet the most basic definition of socialism.


a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Their economy was regulated by a dictator, and the military-industrial complex..............hey, wait a minute, like the USA!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

TIME Magazine is still an alt left publication to this day

Time is about as mainstream as it's humanly possible to get.

In your mind any mag that has praised Hitler is mainstream

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

sorry---this is the same in essence to a recent conversation over understanding the word "fascist" or "fascism."

there are learned scholars saying X and learned scholars saying Y. its no different with Nazi's being "left" or "right." each side disowns them.

the nazi's abrogated peoples' rights to the point of incredible violence and so the question is---who is most like doing that today? or framed another way---despite the aforementioned "disowning", who, under different circumstances, would find themselves willing to have a regime like the Nazi's.

my money's on the left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
That's so funny. Some time ago I read a book written by a Priest that taught at Loyola University. He compared socialism to national socialism right down the line. I'll have to see if I can find the book for you tweak since all of your ability to think appears to just be reciting propaganda you've read, I have it around here somewhere. But, as I've noticed just recently, any surface search of the topic on the Internet will get you only the leftist pap as spouted here by you and milesnmiles. Which certainly will do for your ability to think and understand. But if you actially look for scholarly research not mired in leftist propaganda, which I know you won't do tweak, you'll see other facts...which I do understand you're adverse to accepting tweak.

Anyway the basic differences in the political systems were few, mainly one was nationally oriented and one was internationally oriented. When the German/Soviet pact broke apart upon Hitler's invasion, Stalin was quoted to say that socialism and national socialism are extreme opposites. Lefties have hung their hat on that quote ever since. There was very little difference in the systems but as you know, lefties don't usually need or want facts to rest their ideas upon. Which, tweak, you are a shining example of.

Oh, I know lefties scream to this day that national socialism is opposite of socialism, making it from the right. But, it's just not intellectually honest. Too, as Aylee mentioned, there are hundreds of socialist groups out there all claiming they are the only true socialists and the others are not. An easy example of that is the Stalin purge and subsequent murder of Trotsky because Trotsky advocated making socialism democratic. I guess you could say, since Stalin purged him, that Trotsky was a rightist for wanting to integrate democracy into socialism, but you'd be wrong again.

The point is, no matter how hard you stomp your pretty little foot, or click your heals three times and wish the propaganda in your head was fact, your facts are drek, to quote another source.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Two minutes looking on the web tweak. Give me another five minutes and I could grow the list, but I know with your limited intellectual capacity it wouldn't serve any purpose.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology

quote:

Historian Zeev Sternhell asserted that Fascism, which developed first in France, had “discovered the nation as a revolutionary agent” in an approach to rebel against the “old world conservatives, against the aristocrats, and the bourgeois and against social injustice,” in the theory that the nation would never be complete until it had “integrated the proletariat.”[9]With assistance from French Marxist Georges Sorel and social nationalist Maurice Barrès, [B]fascism sought to “fuse socialism with nationalism,” in order to create a new socialism “for the whole collectivity and a nationalism” that would be the “messenger of unity and unanimity.”[9][10] According to Sternhell, Fascist ideology “was a revision of Marxism and not a variety of Marxism or a consequence of Marxism,” with substantial contributions coming from “French and Italian Sorelians”, and “theoreticians of revolutionary syndicalism” who had made Fascism “a new and original revision of Marxism.”[11]Historian A. James Gregor concurred with Sternhell, writing that Fascism’s most underpinning ideological guidance rose from the “collateral influence of Italy's most radical ‘subversives’ — .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Two minutes looking on the web tweak. Give me another five minutes and I could grow the list, but I know with your limited intellectual capacity it wouldn't serve any purpose.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology

quote:

Historian Zeev Sternhell asserted that Fascism, which developed first in France, had “discovered the nation as a revolutionary agent” in an approach to rebel against the “old world conservatives, against the aristocrats, and the bourgeois and against social injustice,” in the theory that the nation would never be complete until it had “integrated the proletariat.”[9]With assistance from French Marxist Georges Sorel and social nationalist Maurice Barrès, [B]fascism sought to “fuse socialism with nationalism,” in order to create a new socialism “for the whole collectivity and a nationalism” that would be the “messenger of unity and unanimity.”[9][10] According to Sternhell, Fascist ideology “was a revision of Marxism and not a variety of Marxism or a consequence of Marxism,” with substantial contributions coming from “French and Italian Sorelians”, and “theoreticians of revolutionary syndicalism” who had made Fascism “a new and original revision of Marxism.”[11]Historian A. James Gregor concurred with Sternhell, writing that Fascism’s most underpinning ideological guidance rose from the “collateral influence of Italy's most radical ‘subversives’ — .

Any one else notice that he skipped over 3/4 of the acticle that disagreed with his beleifs to try and find something, anything that might look like it agreed with what he was saying?
:-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

yet the nazis did not meet the most basic definition of socialism.


a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Their economy was regulated by a dictator, and the military-industrial complex..............hey, wait a minute, like the USA!!!

Yes, national socialist left means of production in the hands of owners but controlled what and when they were allowed to produce. They allowed the owners to be agents of the state. Which is just another form of the government owning the production. As stated before, there are many forms of socialism and if all you read is leftist publications you won't ever get beyond the fact that owners were allowed to own but had no power to defy state production requirements. And that is where, basically, all leftist discussions on the topic stop because it's a big butt hurt for leftist to acknowledge Hitler was on their side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics an philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies;

https://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

the short of all that being, Nazism defies a simple left/moniker.

besides which, apart from an academic exercise, the designation only matters so much as who is behaving in such a way today so as to head down that path.

again, my money's on the left. you comrades think you are immune from it just because you want to lay Nazism wholly at the right's feet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Although i agree with your feelings about the whole trans situation, i would think a true alt left would want to institute communism.