Are Nazi's Left Wing or Right Wing?

[FloralScent]

Has there ever been a Communist Regime that didn't use Nationalism?

When Stalin needed cannon fodder he gave it plenty of lip service.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You'd have to establish what each wing stands for.

I've been called a radical leftist and a right wing extremist. Both are labels that statists use to label people with their game of politics. It's always based on cherry-picking issues rather than solid principles.

Pretty much.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

When Stalin needed canon fodder he gave it plenty of lip service.

To this day, WWII is called "The Great Patriotic War" in Russia.

 

[FloralScent]

I've been called a radical leftist and a right wing extremist.

I get that a lot.

 

[FrankRep]

Leftists are internationalists. The Nazis were definitely not that.

Leftists can be Nationalists or Globalists.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Leftists can be Nationalists or Globalists.

This is true. But "left" socialism tends more toward Globalism in my experience. "Right" socialism tends toward nationalism.

 

[pcosmar]

They are lefties.

Depends on the scale.

are authoritarians left? and liberty Right? That would make anarchists the extreme right wing..

It would also put Republicans on the left with the Democrats. and Libertarians would be right wing.

Unless the scale is reversed of course.
Who decides that?

 

[pcosmar]

Has there ever been a Communist Regime that didn't use Nationalism?

There has never been a communist regime. (communism can not possibly exist in the real world)
There are socialist dictatorships,,that call themselves communist. But they are not communist. It is just another form of authoritarianism.

 

[Neil Desmond]

They're far right on the socialism political spectrum, the so-called "false left-right" political spectrum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

 

[Sanguine]

Define left and right. If you were to define the left as increasingly supportive of public (not state) ownership, and the right capitalist and more private (again, not the state as an institution) ownership, then the Nazis would be centrist. That being said, using the left-right paradigm is absolutely pointless due to the conflicting ideologies that would be grouped to either side (Lenin and Gandhi, Rand and Pinochet, Hitler and Greens).

 

[Ronin Truth]

The socialists love that they can sometimes (dishonestly) dominate and define the linear political spectrum, left, right, and center.

Left = communists, right = Nazis (National Socialists ) and other assorted fascists, center = social democrats and other assorted and sundry flavors.

Where ever you are ..... that's socialist.

Doesn't leave much room for any other folks or philosophies now does it? That's the bamboozle.

 

[Christian Liberty]

this^^ If we draw a more proper paradigm with "pure liberty" on the left and "pure tyranny" on the right, Nazis are pretty far right.

Why do this, though? Why not put "Pure liberty" on the "right" and "Pure tyranny" on the "left"? Its just as arbitrary, IMO.

Right now, it seems like most people who support limited government would describe themselves as "right wing". Why they would do this, I don't really know. I'd rather be called a right-wing extremist than a left-wing extremist, but I don't really know why that is the case. I probably still have a little bit of conservative tradition in me yet, despite being an anarcho-capitalist.

You really need more than a 1D spectrum to really make any meaningful distinctions. I guess you could have a 1D spectrum with total liberty on one side and total tyranny on the other (I'd refrain from using terms like "left" and "right") but then... where do you put social conservatives who are mostly libertarian like Chuck Baldwin? Or, even more extreme, somebody like the late R.J. Rushdoony?

Or how do you compare different types of hardcore statists? I mean, you could say, and I'd tend to agree, that there's no meaningful distinction between a Nazi like Hitler and a communist like Stalin. But, what about somebody like Dennis Kucinich, or John McCain? They're both authoritarians, but in very different ways. They aren't "The same" anyway you look at it. And that's just two examples.

You'd have to establish what each wing stands for.

I've been called a radical leftist and a right wing extremist. Both are labels that statists use to label people with their game of politics. It's always based on cherry-picking issues rather than solid principles.

Yeah, pretty much.

This is true. But "left" socialism tends more toward Globalism in my experience. "Right" socialism tends toward nationalism.

Again with those terms, do they really mean anything?

Define left and right. If you were to define the left as increasingly supportive of public (not state) ownership, and the right capitalist and more private (again, not the state as an institution) ownership, then the Nazis would be centrist. That being said, using the left-right paradigm is absolutely pointless due to the conflicting ideologies that would be grouped to either side (Lenin and Gandhi, Rand and Pinochet, Hitler and Greens).

Calling the Nazis "Centrist" shows that this is absurd.

The socialists love that they can sometimes (dishonestly) dominate and define the linear political spectrum, left, right, and center.

Left = communists, right = Nazis (National Socialists ) and other assorted fascists, center = social democrats and other assorted and sundry flavors.

Where ever you are ..... that's socialist.

Doesn't leave much room for any other folks or philosophies now does it? That's the bamboozle.

Yep.

 

[FrankRep]

Left = communists, right = Nazis (National Socialists ) and other assorted fascists, center = social democrats and other assorted and sundry flavors.

Where ever you are ..... that's socialist.

Communists, Socialists, Fascists, and National Socialists are all Left-wing.

Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and Anarchists are Right-wing.

 

[erowe1]

Communists, Socialists, Fascists, and National Socialists are all Left-wing.

Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and Anarchists are Right-wing.

First of all, all communists, socialists, fascists, and national socialists are constitutionalists. They love constitutions. Constitutions are wonderful tools for them. See the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Soviet_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_North_Korea
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/gary-north/conspiracy-in-philadelphia/

N.b. that all of the above constitutions belong to states that bill themselves as "republics" and claim to speak on behalf of "the people." Of course not a single one of them was actually created by "the people," nor do any of them derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

Second of all, except for that caveat, I don't mind your description. However, it could just as well be flipped around, such that what you called left could instead be called right, and vice versa. This way of applying the labels left and right would correspond to the historical meanings of liberal and conservative, where liberal implies the advancement of liberty, and conservative implies the conservation of the older power structures that inhibit liberty (such as those who occupy the pinnacles of those power structures tend to enshrine in their constitution).

All that said, for practical reasons, given the way these terms have evolved in the English language, and the political realities of today, not the least of which is my desire to see Rand Paul become president, I prefer your labels. So, as an ardent enemy of the state (all states, everywhere, at all times), I count myself as a conservative stalwart, and I have no compunction about keeping a straight face while I cherrypick foregone enemies of the state who were similarly inclined, some of whom were Republicans (especially those associated with the so-called "Old Right"), and holding them up as examples of the "conservatism" the Republican party should go "back" to. Hence my sig.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Communists, Socialists, Fascists, and National Socialists are all Left-wing.

Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and Anarchists are Right-wing.

It's a real shame that you chose not to read for comprehension nor quote my entire post. Here I'll give you another chance.

The socialists love that they can sometimes (dishonestly) dominate and define the linear political spectrum, left, right, and center.

Left = communists, right = Nazis (National Socialists ) and other assorted fascists, center = social democrats and other assorted and sundry flavors.

Where ever you are ..... that's socialist.

Doesn't leave much room for any other folks or philosophies now does it? That's the bamboozle. ​

You're welcome.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think that there's a clear definition of "left" or "right," so the entire discussion is pointless.

To me, if you advocate the use of big government force, then you are advocating a leftist action. I prefer to look at things as individual actions in this day and time, but I do think categorized forms of government can easily be defined on a left-right spectrum.

 

[LibertyEagle]

First of all, all communists, socialists, fascists, and national socialists are constitutionalists. They love constitutions. Constitutions are wonderful tools for them.

He was clearly talking about the U.S. Constitution, erowe. Come on, you knew that.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The socialists love that they can sometimes (dishonestly) dominate and define the linear political spectrum, left, right, and center.

Left = communists, right = Nazis (National Socialists ) and other assorted fascists, center = social democrats and other assorted and sundry flavors.

Where ever you are ..... that's socialist.

Doesn't leave much room for any other folks or philosophies now does it? That's the bamboozle.

Not really, because what you said made no sense. What you seem to be espousing is what the left has been selling though.

I think the video I posted up above explains it well.

 

[Christian Liberty]

To me, if you advocate the use of big government force, then you are advocating a leftist action. I prefer to look at things as individual actions in this day and time, but I do think categorized forms of government can easily be defined on a left-right spectrum.

That's fine, but you could just as easily call it a "rightist" action. I understand the pragmatic reasons for calling it leftist, considering the liberty movement is doing much more in the GOP than in the Democratic Party, but I'm not sure why calling it leftist is necessarily "correct."

erowe1 got it exactly right... again.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That's fine, but you could just as easily call it a "rightist" action. I understand the pragmatic reasons for calling it leftist, considering the liberty movement is doing much more in the GOP than in the Democratic Party, but I'm not sure why calling it leftist is necessarily "correct."

Clearly, you didn't watch the video.

Left and right is on a spectrum. On the far left edge is total government control; on the far right is no government whatsoever.

erowe1 got it exactly right... again.

Nope. The U.S. Constitution is very different than constitutions in other countries, or than the UN's "constitution" for that matter. If you are going to judge a book by the cover so readily, you must also believe that the republic that our founding fathers gave us was little different than Red China's republic. /s