Was nazism really left wing just like communism?

Now I'm confused.

I learned in history class that Nazism was a far right movement.

But now someone told me that Nazi means National Socialism.

And that it was the "Worker Party"

Can we settle once for all if it was a left or right wing movement?

Other urls found in this thread:

americannaziparty.com/news/archives.php/


archive.is/ome51
differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/the-differences-between-socialism-and-national-socialism/
archive.is/80pgh
archive.is/7CUMq
youtube.com/watch?v=JdS6fyUIklI
m.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

How about you learn about actual Nazi policies instead of trying to fit them into left or right?

Socially it was far right, economically it was mid left.

It was third position, so both and neither...

It depends on your metrics.

If you use left and right to describe the two major camps of European politico-philosophical thought (left's progress vs. right's tradition), you'll find that nazism belongs to the right wing.

If you use the contemporary scale (pic related), where the left wing indicates economic planning and the right wing indicates a free market, then nazism falls pretty much in the center. This is reflective of nazi intellectuals who identified with the so-called "third position", so perhaps it's more accurate to call nazism a radically centrist ideology.

Nazism most certainly doesn't emphasize social progress, nor does it emphasize a completely centrally planned economy, so calling it left-wing is incorrect.

...

It all boils down to private property essentially

LEFT WING PARTS:
Nazism is collectivist.
And it's socialist.
The left wing components equate to far left.

RIGHT WING PARTS:
But it's also socially conservative.
And extreme nationalist.
It's not socially far right in terms of Jewish conspiracy or genocide however. That is neither a left nor right component.
The right wing components of it make it far right because of the nationalist extremism.

It balances out to be a centrist ideology.

This is a slide thread!

MBMC TONIGHT! GET IN HERE, FAGGOTS
>MBMC TONIGHT! GET IN HERE, FAGGOTS
MBMC TONIGHT! GET IN HERE, FAGGOTS
>MBMC TONIGHT! GET IN HERE, FAGGOTS
MBMC TONIGHT! GET IN HERE, FAGGOTS

Nazis where far right as they represented German nationalism and glorified German history and culture.

Communism (soviet) was a rejection of history (imperialism) and culture, in order to give property to the working class (peasants)

Nazis believed in privet property but that it should be used for the good of the state (for war). the Soviets rejected privet property, and no one owned anything, the government told you what you could own, where you could work, and what you can do and say.

But the Nazi's also rejected capitalism as it was seen as a Jewish invention (Usury) and lead to multiculturalism and diversity.

Keep in mind Germany was also an Ethnostate at the time and this helped the Nazis case for power as Germany was till German, unlike the USA or USSR which had hundreds of differed nationalities in them.

culturally Nazis where more right wing, making them Nationalist, but economically where Socialist, hence the title "National Socialist"

Here it is in a nutshell, after the war European and Soviet socialists didn't want to be equated with the Nazis. So they started distancing themselves from it and started claiming it was actually a right wing philosophy rather than a left one. And thats all there really is to it.

...

Left/right-wing dichotomy has NOTHING to do with collectivism v.s. individualism. It was used to divide the ancien regime governments from the more enlightened regimes. Guess what, property rights and free trade are enlightenment concepts and so are LEFT WING.

Right wing means hierarchical while leftwing means egalitarian. Natsoc is strictly hierarchical and so is pretty much as right wing as you can get without being an absolute monarchy.

I don't know why this concept is so hard for people to understand. Do they not have history class in America?

>Now I'm confused.
both used to be about empowering the workers, none of them used to be against nationalism. Because they were about the nation, there was no globalism back then.

Then the cultural revolution came in the 70s, fucked everything up, Socialism / marxism was destroyed and became elite-shilling and globalism.

Nat-Soc is nationalistic so it should appeal to the people inside a nation,

where socialism does not appeal to anyone, it larps as appealing to other nationals but its really just a cover to grab more cash for the rich while they fill the countries with migrants who will vote for them.

Marxism as a theory is 50% useful because it helps any capitalist society grow by giving workers more money to spend, but when its no longer internally, when they spend too much money internationally the problem begin.
This only happens with immigrants tho.

tl.dr socialism is cancer, nat-soc is not as cancerous.

It's in the name really... nationalistic socialism.

The eagle has two wings, a right one and a left one.

No, Commies hate wealth where as Nazis hate other ethnic groups

Similar in Pragmatics different in ethos

>private property
it used to be extremly controversial even for socialists

without any form of private property all of society will collapse.
property being food/water/medicine as well as other things.
So socialism is kind of an appeal to a false ideal which can never be achieved, even if the people want to, which they obviously dont because socialism is de facto no about empowering people, its about keeping people away from power.

Nationalism is much better because of the level of social mobility. But the elites hate it ofc, they have the most to loose.

If you are deluded by semantics, you are stupid.

>Commies hate wealth
that's a kind of a larp, the russians elites and friends of Stalin who became multibillionaires during ussr did not hate money

Not to be a that guy, but they weren't real Commies...

An actual communist dislikes the idea of wealth. Yes communist regimes breed people who take advantage of the system but a true zealot doesn't believe in the right to "own" property

It's two sides of the same collectivist authoritarian coin.

Socially right wing. Politically left wing

>An actual communist dislikes the idea of wealth
yeah, but i'm not sure there is such a thing as a real commie, most of them are just snake-oil salesmen trying to steal power and wealth

a lot of people say they are, especially those who have a lot of money, but i have never come across anyone who would give away their wealth or power to the people just like that.

The intellectual precursors of naziism were very, very interested in command economies (look up ARPLAN), Hitler and his gang of low IQ thugs largely abandoned this train of thought to borrow money from the jews and prop up disloyal snake capitalists.

Imagine there is a door, in which there are two guards. One of the guards always tells the truth, and the second one always lies.
Nazis and Communists are exactly like this scenario. Never believe what Communists say.

Communists can also be extreme nationalists, the only taboo is white nationalism, because white nationalism would kick them out 100% of the time.

...

"An actual communist" is a jew manipulating a country. Everyone else is their puppet.

>white nationalism
Literally an anglo-american chauvinist and imperialist ideology, completely nonsensical if not outright destructive if applied to the tribes of Eurasia.

...

Nazis were Lefties, all the way. The Left is simply defined as rights by force. The left believes that rights should be forced upon people. What those rights are and how they articulate themselves is trivial. The fundamental trait of the Left is to impose a government on society, to organize society by government.

arendt and nolte categorized them together because they were totalitarian, revolutionary and constructivist.

it always depends whether you're viewing them from marxism, liberalism, conservatism or reaction

Marxism is best defined as trying to self-identify as everything good, just to fleece others.

I just came for larper mental gymnastics

Hey faggot, are you 15 or something?
>National Socialists
>Nat Soc
>Nazi
Jesus, how poz'd are the public schools these days?

they were centrists, which is of course why they both side claims they were on the other.

Not to mention, the Nazi party controlled speech, behavior, brought brute force to those that disagreed with their views, and confiscated firearms so the people could not protect themselves against an oppressive government that reached massive and rapid expansion.

New-age American Liberalism is National Socialism, re-branded to fit the SJW movement with safe-spaces, doxxing of opposition, control of speech, and the perceived yet false narrative of oppression at the hand of conservatives; who literally want to end big government, give more rights the people, and let people keep their means to defend themselves from an oppressive government.

The massive irony is that these dumbasses only find the government oppressive when that government doesn't fit their social narrative, only then do guns become a necessity and should be used for the defense of a free people.

More over, as soon as the "oppressors" are defeated, the lefties want to surrender all their rights to the government and give unlimited power while simultaneously dismantling capitalism. Capitalism has its faults but last I checked, I'm not hunting domestic animals and boiling leather shoes to fill by stomach with something, nor is my government prosecuting people for smuggling food to feed children.

If you want socialism, live in a socialist country. It's as simple as that.

>Was nazism really left wing just like communism?
"As a National Socialist, how would you define the difference between a National Socialist and a Communist?" - Rocky J. Suhayda
americannaziparty.com/news/archives.php/
archive.is/ome51

The Differences Between Socialism and National Socialism
differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/the-differences-between-socialism-and-national-socialism/
archive.is/80pgh

How National Socialism is Different from Marxist Socialism
archive.is/7CUMq


The real question is, why would you create this thread, asks those questions and then abandon your thread?

>the absloute state on nu/pol/
Nazis were socially far right and economically center right
They privatised alto of business while nationalizing the more important infrastructure
Also OP stop falling for stupid memes
You don't have to fit for the left or right
Nazis were supposed to break the 2D world of politicls with the third position

It's collectivist with a lot of similar policies but one of the least known similarities is the school of thought they are basically two off-shoots of, which is Hegelianism.

Left/right is so pointless and bullshit these days anyway but they're more similar to eachother than to Libertarianism or American Conservatism.

>Can we settle once for all if it was a left or right wing movement?
It's neither. It's the truth.

>Nazis were supposed to break the 2D world of politicls with the third position
Pic related.

> server not found
lol it was sad day but they were spastics anyway. I enjoyed hearing the perspective at least.

>New-age American Liberalism is National Socialism,
Why Americans such fucking awful posters here
A over bearing government doesn't mean ant soc you nigger
It has other political ideas that modern US is vilotenlty against

These discussions are hilarious because they always center on these debates about theoretical political systems that have never existed. Who gives a shit if Hitler or Stalin or whoever said they supported some philosophy?

In reality what we have are two dictators, what the fuck does the rest matter. What does it even mean to be left or right wing when both governments are a little minority doing whatever they want? These words dont fucking mean anything. Is an absolute monarch a Socialist if he mandates higher wages to curry favor with the working class?

And it's not just these two either, literally every actual government you can find follows the exact same pattern- it's a little group with all the power doing what they want. I can't believe people seriously fall for this shit.

More right wing because the base of it was tribalism and being in line with nature, rather than going against it by spreading resources to the less worthy. They had socialistic policies but weren't outright socialist by any means. The party being named that was more of an appeal to workers.

Hitler and Stalin have political theory based around how they ran their country you idiot
Hitler and Stalin ran their countries for around a decade or more
Which was around enough for a modern debate to fall back to what they did if we don't know a point

>little minority doing whatever they want
Can you show proof that Stalin and Hitler didn't have polar support
During the last 5 year plan before the babrossa Stalin was moving the economy to a more consumer based system

Popular*

I know, what Hitler did made more sense than what Stalin did, but in what sense are either of their actions 'left' or 'right' wing. It seems like a mixture of Machiavellian and idiotic tendencies in both cases

It was third position

What does them having support matter?

I think what he means is that it's always a small group of people with the power making the decisions?

Socially right, politically very left.

If you go by the libertarians idea of left wing and right wing, it is clearly on the left.

If they had popular support then that would mean the policies of the state represented what the people wanted
There isn't a minority

Then he should realize that government will always contain a minority unless you go anarcho syndalcislt or communist

or it means they brainwashed them. or that the public are dumbasses. or whatever. It is extremely unlikely that it actually means they are acting in the interest of the public at large

Watch this it will explain it to you.
Republic vs. Democracy - What Is The Real Form of the U.S. Government
youtube.com/watch?v=JdS6fyUIklI

Two sides to the same coin.

That may seem so from the outside
But both had a consisitan ideology that both more or less stayed loyal to
It's a bit long for me to type out but you don't see Stalin suddenly privatizing the state for lols or Hitler trying to suddenly great a elgatiranain state

> literally every actual government you can find follows the exact same pattern- it's a little group with all the power doing what they want. I can't believe people seriously fall for this shit.
I think he gets it....

The thing with claiming brainwashing is that is always a 2 way thing
For the person you are calling brainwashed your the brainwashed one so...that's a tricky thing to call
But even then the govt was able to prove to the masses that what they are doing is just there for they have support from the masses
So it shows that they have support from the majority
Idk what you want here
Democracy?

Yes
That's true
A government will always contains a minority, how on earth can you create a efficient methods that involves everyone into a government decision making

Nazis were the original SJWs

embarrassing really

...

Go choke on a dick Mussolini

Alt right is a fucking disgusting embrasement to the right
If thaysbteue thays nigger behaviour

>Nazis were the original SJWs

/thread

>A over bearing government doesn't mean ant soc you nigger

I take it you're saying that an over-bearing government is not National Socialism? If you are, then that's wrong. The left requires an over-bearing government to implement whatever political ideas it has about society. A mantra of the Left is that facets of society should be regulated by government. Regardless if the rhetoric is about equality or supremacy, the end is always the same: government regulates it. The Left, including Nazism, is about controlling everything. The political ideas do not matter, they can easily change with the wind. What does matter is how they are implemented and what is intended as it relates to governance. The Left is about rights by force. And that force must permeate through everything, regulating it with force, in order to fulfill the Left's appetite for rights.

which subscription do you guys have?

Has anyone asked Spencer what his economic views are?

Honestly I don't care. I just don't believe in this stuff. Ty for your replies though

not an argument. i accept your defeat. move along, kikes.

ashkeNAZI were red flag socialist as every political movement started by the Rothshilds

You just are using a new methods to distinguish the left and right
Or you applying the economic idea of left and right to social rights
Both ends of spectrum wants total control of social ideas
While the left demands egalitarian ideas the right demand heriarchy
Don't confuse athrourty as being unique to one side

No. Bzzzt. Wrong.

Socially it was *totalitarian*, meaning in large part that there was no concept of a private sphere. Gleichschaltung. Everything belonged to the state. This is remarkably similar to the idea, common in leftwing circles, that "the personal is the political". The same thought animates the Communist belief that anyone who disagreed with the reigning interpretation of Marxism was an "enemy of the people". When there is no distinction between public and private, dissent from the public (political) orthodoxy is heresy. This is the hallmark of totalitarian societies and was commonplace to both National Socialism and International Communism.

The only important meaning of right wing society is "throne and altar", i.e. religion, specifically, in the West, Roman Catholicism, though not exclusively so. The Nazis were happy to coopt Roman Catholicism (and many Roman Catholics were delighted by the Nazi program), but National Socialism was in no way right wing in the original and important sense mentioned above. In no sense did it view itself as a religious movement. The Fuehrer was not a religious prophet but a new sort of man. There was little room for anything we recognize as God in this formulation.

Ofc Nazi Germany wasn't a theocracy
But tradition and culture was central to their ideology
Which is the opposite for the internationals commies

Are you mentally retarded?

The Nazis explicitly formulated their justifications of the Holocaust in terms of progress.

The Jews were like roaches. Their extermination was an unsavory business but necessary for the future glory of mankind. Their grandchildren would look back at their heroic efforts and praise them for bringing about a new phase in the history of mankind.

You have to be literally retarded not to recognize the progressive impulse in this.

kys kike.

Np
always happy to debate on politics
Doubt he has any concrete ones that doesnt shift form what hip and cool
Or worse he could be a normal capitalists

>The Nazis explicitly formulated their justifications of the Holocaust in terms of progress.
I'm pretty their efforts were justified too, then

Extermination was progress for humankind but anti semtism is not the progressive side on the political side
Antisemitism is a ancient belief

OP, the folks trying to describe NAZI's as "social right" are buying in to the modern liberal idea that leftists are "for the people" and rightists are bad, bad humans. "Social Justice" is just a Marxist tactic to undermine modern capitalist societies. They don't give a shit, they will just say anything to assume the reigns of power. Alas - humanities' burden there.

"Left" and "Right" are now, and always have been about economics. "How so?" Well, every modern "for the peeepulz" social program requires money pilfered from the population, and central control. So 'Social left" equates to the communist/marxist/socialist economic model, and has exactly zilch in common with improving the lives of people.

Everything else is window dressing. Read up on the French Revolution. They were "for the people", right up until it became more convenient to just chop heads than deal with disagreeable individuals.

The Nazi's were explicitly an arm of the left tied to Marxist ideals, allied with the relatively new idea of fascism lifted from Mussolini. Hitler makes this point explicitly clear in his writings and speech manuscripts. They were allies with other leftists right up until they became a problem. Research "night of the long knives", the name give to the purge of individuals too troublesome to the Nazi party.

Keep reading and research it yerself. There is snake oil for sale.

Winner winner chikken dinner.

...

What on earth are you on about
Since the inception the left and right dicotemy from imperial France the right was always for the heorarcy and left for the people
But reading the rest of your essay of drool I am guessing what ever i say will just get deflected by your shield of stupid

>another non argument
stay defeated shill

>You just are using a new methods to distinguish the left and right

There are no "new methods" in my analysis. This 100% pure political science This is how the left has been defined since the French Revolution. This is an old school, by the book, analysis. The Left is about using force to govern the rights of the people.

Ideas about the economy, or class, or anything that looks political, revolved on the axis of one question: HOW OUGHT PEOPLE BE GOVERNED? Those on the left said it should be by force. The right said it should be passive. The left wants full control of social ideas, the right wants full protection social ideas. There is no horseshoe about this. Stuff about the economy, egalitarianism, hierarchy, social ideas, etc. that is all rhetoric to sell the form of governance.

Basically it boils down to "what do you mean by the terms right-wing and left-wing?" As you can see by the previous responses in this thread, there are several ways to slice this pie. Instead of worrying about it being right or left, maybe you should consider what about it was good or bad. To the degree that various definitions of right-wing are good (respecting personal liberty, maintaining traditions that are proven to work, etc.) the Nazis were terrible right-wingers. That doesn't mean they were left-wing, unless you take a rather narrow view of what "left-wing" means. Were the Nazi's coddlers of minorities? No. Were they in favor of open borders? Hell no. Did they assertively push forward the gay agenda? No. They were lousy left-wingers, too. Basically they sucked, their shit didn't work, and they lost. Find more competent heroes.

Which part of chopping heads was "for the people"? I get lost in my drool covered shield of stupid.

Kinda like "dichotomy" and "hierarchy".

m.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA

I’m skipping all the bs answers to give it to you blunt. Yes, fascism is socialism by nationality, communism is socialism by communes. See video for source.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA

Chopping the heads of the nobility that oppressed the people
>as Americans enter a thread all intelligence disappeares

>Since the inception the left and right dicotemy from imperial France the right was always for the heorarcy and left for the people

The Right was about defense of divine right, the Left was about controlling that right. The 'for the people' was preached to turn the masses into a force, Left had no viable army to begin with.

The left /right divide is a distraction, but as this is a one post by op thread i suppose it was just regular spamming

At least it made for some discussion
Which is rare on post trump/pol/

Divine right to rule that is
The left didn't believe in a monarch the right did

I'd be inclined to agree, but you've made my point. What you are talking about are the differences between 'liberal' and 'conservative' and not 'left' vs. 'right'. These are often aligned, but it ain't necessarily so.

>larper
>kekistani flag

Checks out.