Is nazi left or right wing

is nazi left or right wing

do you not know or are you just asking?
>they were right wing as fuck

is this bait

It's complicated.

They are economically leftists in the classical sense, even more keynesian than the jeynesian states, but wanted to interfere in the private sphere like the right wing does.

Meaning that they didn't wanted many liberties.

economic: right
cultural: left
social/political: right

jon snow

Phillip Cuckington
>thats you

His party was of the National Socialist Workers Party.

He was a leftist that was so far to the left, people mistake his policies as right-wing.

>economic right
My ass, Hitler nationalizing welfare programs and voicing disdain for Capitalism is left.

They called them selfs "the third way"

They were a happy medium

Left-wing economics, right-wing ideology. People only focus on their ideology though.

Economically they're centrists, definitely not hardline Keynesian. The extent of their interference was "gently" pushing the private sector to serve the public good above solely profit making. It's "socialism" in the same way fascist economics is "corporatism". Both essentially make corporations subservient to the state, but they don't control the economy in any way.

Economically centrist, socially far-right.

Actually, welfare programs were just getting started. they were born in the afterwar of ww1.
The system was to only workers, should provide for their own welfare, and in the eventually economical grow based on right perpective of economics, welfare would not be need it.

Overly simplified but this gets to the point.

People keep calling it "left wing economics" because it's not a complete free market. It's not Marxist socialism because it has socialism in the name, just as fascism isn't corporatism as we know it just because it uses the label.

It's because we'd be here all day analyzing their political stance for one post.

Neither technically as they are neither classical right (monarchists) nor are they left (classical liberal), they defy such a simplistic label.

It doesn't have to be Marxist to be Socialist, and Fascists were economic Syndicalists.

How socialist were they? I know this is literally the OP question, but if hitler had succeeded he would've had an ethnically homogeneous population that was extremely nationalistic, which seems like the only scenario where socialism could survive.

Volkisch Socialism had nothing in common with Marxist Socialism fam. Look up what Hitler defined "socialism" as, it was just a label, didn't mean he adhered to socialism as we know it.

And again, you can use whatever label you want, fascism has been called corporatism and syndicalism; bottom line is the state used its power to ensure cooperation between corporations and employees. People get too confused over labels.

You normies don't understand that Goverment can onlly be LEFT or RIGHT!!! IT'S RED VS BLUE MOTHERFUCKERS. GET WITH THE TIMES YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE

USSR was homogeneous and nationalistic, socialism still failed there.

That's before the war, after the war they seized the means of production and this change a lot, but that doesn't count cause war and sheit.

>>Yes...

They didn't follow marxist socialism but rather established their own form of Socialism like the North Koreans. They're state socialists who ran a state controlled market and had an emphasis on welfare, which is pretty leftist, but not as much as the North Koreans or the Soviets.

Lots of shit was nationalized in every nation during wartime, fucking idiot.

Well, sort of. A large portion of them would have rather not been in the USSR, i.e. The Berlin Wall. You need a nation full of willing devoted socialists

I already said National Socialism isn't Marxist Socialism.

This, we also can't forget Makhnovia (Anarcho Communist territory that existed in the USSR)

That's sort of what I referenced when I said it didn't work. People wanting to get out is a product of socialism. During WW2 everybody was incredibly nationalistic and shit, after the wartime high died people realized how fucked shit was

I am completely ignorant of what this is please school me. Also what is anarcho communism? I understand ancapism, I understand conservatism, but I don't really see how communism works without a state, it seems kindof essential to have someone collecting product and distributing it

Hitler told a confidant: "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself. That is socialism, not such trivial matters as the possibility of privately owning the means of production. Such things mean nothing if I subject people to a kind of discipline they can't escape...What need have we to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings". (Wikipedia)

In essence, you cannot own private property because you don't even own yourself. Digest THAT Nazi scum!

germanfaq here, the nazi were neither. They made many socialist laws on the one hand, but were libeterians in stuff like minimum wage

they were consertatives bout womans role, and family etc, but where greens/liberals on animal rights

they just were nazis

I don't think people wanting to get out is a product of socialism, it's a product of people who don't want to live under a socialist regime being under a socialist regime. (I'm a libertarian, just so it doesn't sound like I'm defending socialism) but I don't see how a group of willing, excited pro communists wouldn't be able to succesfully distribute wealth

Nationalised welfare isn't incompatible with the right.
Hitler didn't care about economic policy -- he said as such himself. They were going for a mixed economy, but that was just a means to an end. People focus on their ideology because that's all Nazism was.

If you're a libertarian surely you would have to understand the simple failings of a centrally commanded market. It's so stupid my econ prof took 10 minutes and that was all the time we spent on it. It took him less than 10 minutes to explain why this ideology championed by millions around the world is garbage.

National SOCIALISM

far right obv

That's the misconception about Communism. What you think of as Communism isn't, and this is a Capitalist speaking before one of you Sup Forumstards jumps me.
Communism is: a free society lacking in money, private property, a government, social hierarchy, and the workers own the means of production (factories offices and shit) and everyone lives via necessity. This society is achieved through a revolution, or what's called the Socialist Revolution. The new society will then defend itself and transition into the community that it seeks.
Anarcho-communism is communism that combines Anarchist thought with Communist thought. It isn't much different except that anarchists believe in personal property and have different ideas on what to do after the socialist revolution.

You're correct that National Socialism is really a philosophy more than anything, but we're taught jack shit about what it actually was in school. In high school I learned it was "racist" and a "police state". That was it. I think that's what user was referencing when he said we focus too much on that shit.

...

Ackshually Marx saw socialism as more of a natural progression of capitalism, not necessarily something brought about by bloody revolution as it has so many times. He believed communism would be achieved naturally, just as capitalism was.

Turns out he was fucking wrong, so people forced it.

I'm no economics major, to be clear. But I don't really see why if I got a group together, and we said "ok, we all willingly and enthusiastically will work hard consistently and distribute the bread evenly among ourselves", why that wouldn't work, with or without a state as the middleman. In fact that's just tribalism. The harder they all worked the more bread they would all equally get. The problem is people slack off or aren't proponents of the system.

But that's not what socialism is. Socialism is the government controlling the entire economy. Anarchism and Syndicalism are very valid at least theoretically, but socialism isn't.

Naturally via the class struggle that would then culminate in the revolution. Do you even commie, bro?

I don't think I'd call the Bolsheviks the working class fam. It was elites taking the place of other elites telling the masses what to do.

By "the entire economy" it seems that it would be the same system as described but just on a much grander scale. So now we're distributing bread and clothes and housing, what's the difference?

gr8 b8 m8 I r8 it an 8

Nazism was born from the Eugenics movement, just as Planned Parenthood was born from the Eugenics movement. Nazism relied on leftist policies, like universal heatlhcare.

One of the key differences between right/Repulican and left/Democrat ideologies is the question of whether the world is a fair and just place. Republicans believe the world is inherently fair and just, so the fewer laws and regulations you have the better things are. Demccrats believe the world is inherently unjust, so the more laws and regulations the better. Nazism had a similar approach, complete government control requires people voluntarily give up rights and liberties. Convincing people they're better off with fewer rights and more government control is central to both Nazism and liberal Democrat policies, so the two are still pretty closely related.

The Bolsheviks weren't communists to begin with, just a bunch of faggots who to Marxist theory to take over Russia and exact total control.

GRVIII BVIII MVIII

*who took over Marxist theory

I'm surprised you're not a commie with all the leniency you're giving it.

I guess I'll try and sum up the examples my econ prof gave; he basically broke it down into two inherent problems (economically, not to mention socially)

a) the incentive problem: in a centrally commanded economy it stifles competition and ambition, therefore people have no incentive to work harder or innovate. it basically creates stagnation.

b) the chain problem: when you have the government controlling the entire economy it becomes ridiculously complicated, meaning some underpaid jerk off on a govt paycheck is deciding how much iron should be refined, go into manufacturing, be built into ships, guns, whatever. it becomes a long chain where if one link fails the entire system breaks.

i think that summed it up

Top kek

>this is your brain on burgers

trying to frame all of history as repubs vs dems might be the stupidest thing i've read all day.

...

it seems likely that most of what you read is beyond your comprehension level. it makes sense you think it's stupid if you can't understand it.

I'm not trying to frame all of history, but there is a fundamental difference between left and right ideologies. if you believe the world is fair and just, it makes sense not to regulate or try to control it. (of course, if you have lots of money fewer regulations help you keep making money). if you believe the world is unfair or unjust, or if you want complete control (like Nazis or any fascists), you want to regulate and control as much as possible.

if that's too complicated for you, try again after you complete high school

...

The incentive problem is what I've been talking about, the incentive would still be profit, but collective profit, and maximizing collective profit would almost require the whole population to be fully on board and working, not just as much as required, but willingly to the full extent.

The chain problem just examines a dangerous aspect of socialism, and says "well this is likely to be ruined", but in an imaginary world where somehow all the numbers get crunched right ect. It wouldn't be a problem.

It does stifle innovation though, and a million other things, but it could certainly provide your bare minimums.

There's no such thing as "socially far-right". Right and left are measures of a party's thought on the organization of the state. You can be a social conservative leftist and a socially liberal right-winger. Only burgers think anything else.

i'm not even going to engage you lmao, trying to compare nazism to american liberalism is seriously the dumbest fucking thing i've ever heard. you have to be a special kind of pseudo-intellectual to believe that retardation

Right, I see what you mean.

It's like with capitalism all incentive is directed towards the individual, in communism it's directed entirely towards the state, and in national socialism it's half and half.

But yeah, I guess I'd have to circle back to what I said earlier. The USSR had a population that believed in such a thing, and it still didn't work. People realized communism wasn't all it was hyped up to be.

It's just semantics, everyone has a different fucking definition. Right usually means conservative and left usually means liberal, there's no point in derailing debates over muh dictionary definition.

Dude, have you ever wondered why we're here?

...

The USSR was never a "real" communist state. it was just a smoke screen for elites to have an iron grip on the country.

The USSR had major chain problems and government corruption, though, and again, the population was hardly willing, it was either work to some mediocre extent, barely filling your required amount (causing scarcity) or to the gulags

...

Probably. What would be different in an actual socialist state than in the USSR? I mean specifically the socialist phase of communism, not ancom.

Which is again, a problem that came about with socialism. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't have what you're describing with socialism, because people don't like it.

pic related

We're running in circles lol.
>people like socialism
>people willingly cooperate with socialism
>socialism works moderately well
>gov leaders don't abuse power
Or
>substantial amount of population dislikes socialism so that needs aren't met to the extent that they need to be
>gov leaders also abuse power
or even
>gov leaders don't abuse power
All the cards have to align just right

...

you can't be this dumb

Those images are funny but also inherently incorrect.

He's correct, communism is supposed to be a place without governments, money, bosses, private property or even social classes, and the USSR is anything but.

No, they are pretty much correct.
Name one thriving Communist country

Lol what I'm trying to say is even if people like socialism and willingly cooperate with it, it'll fail. Because it's a shit system. I think you're trying to get at something more like National Socialism.

Nazism is far right but exploited systems associated with the left in order to gain favour with those on the left.

Kinda like when Bismarck introduced social welfare program in the German Empire.

Ok, inherently was the wrong word, mostly incorrect given those images usually are referring to shit the USSR and North Korea did, and they really weren't communists.

...

/thread

No true scotsman I hear?
How many more millions of lives do we have to sacrifice before you realize this ideology is not compatible to human society?

Yes

No faggot, it's not some fallacy you looked up to sound smart, what those countries did completely contradicted Marx's philosophy.

>No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.

Literally from Wikipedia.

He is right though. They are socialists, not communists.

Except I'm not changing the definition of communism you idiot, you're repeating misconceptions because Authoritarian Socialists used the word to convince real commies to have a revolution so they could step in and take power.

Oh boy, semantics.

Oh boy, you don't understand the No True Scotsman fallacy or communism.

Time to go back to Sup Forums

>convince real commies to have a revolution so they could step in and take power.
literally echoing what a 'no-true-scotsman' is.
lol I'm done with you dude.
There's a reason why your shitty system doesn't work, and will not for the foreseeable future.

You're giving up because you can't demonstrate it

thread

It's not even my system retard, I voted Trump but I got a good education about what actual communism is in high school.
Communism: a society with no money, government, or social class, where workers own their jobs basically and everyone lives by necessity. This is what Communism is according to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founders. Every "Communist" country used/uses money, has/had a social class, has/had a government, and people don't live freely by necessity, they live by what the government says. That isn't communism retard, and if Karl Marx were alive he'd fucking stab you for being so retarded.

It's pointless.
You're going to deny anything and everything I say. Look around you, capitalism made that happen.

You're on the same realm as the flat-earthers at this point, like a religion.

You haven't constructed an argument at all, really. so why should I care about the NEET Commie on Sup Forums?

Go to sleep.

chock one up in your sad little red commie argument notepad file

This is simple, nazi, national socialist party...so you tell me who are the nazis...

I'm not that same user, but you still can't demonstrate it.

Post evidence or fuck off nigger

Nigger

You literally go on boards and scream fallacy and can't even link some good sources or make a well reasoned argument?

You must be an American

politically right wing, economically left wing

dead wing

>economically left wing
Not even. That might have been partially true until Ernst Röhm was murdered in 1934. After that they just teamed with the bourgeoisie as any far-right movement ends up doing.