Are Nazi's Left Wing or Right Wing?

[erowe1]

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

So was I. Notice my 4th link.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Leftists are internationalists. The Nazis were definitely not that.

Good point. One of the reasons the Nazis went to war with the Soviets, IIRC.

"Everybody wants to rule the world."

 

[Christian Liberty]

@LibertyEagle- I've watched your video before. I agree with a lot of it, but there are some things that should be pointed out.

I agree wholeheartedly with the video that fascism, communism, and other forms of hardcore authoritarianism really belong in the same spot on the political spectrum. However, deciding that these are both "left" as opposed to "right" is purely arbitrary. And second of all, Rothbardian anarchism and other forms of anarcho-capitalism are ignored entirely. The video maker, like most people, doesn't even consider that such a system can possibly exist.

Now, I know the meanings of terms evolve over time, but honestly, I don't think the meaning of terms has truly evolved to the point where "right wing" really means "Less government" in the minds of the average person. The average person would probably say that anti-war positions are "left wing" and that legalizing drugs is a "Left wing" position. Yet that cutting taxes or repealing gun laws is "right wing". None of this really makes any sense to me, which is why the left/right spectrum should be disregarded entirely. But, if you want to say that all of these four things are "right wing", that would be in opposition to how most people use their terms, and just as arbitrary as calling them all "left wing" positions.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Nothing more useful than a scale that has authoritarian socialism on both ends of the spectrum. Well, it's brilliant from a propaganda perspective.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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.

I've seen it. I didn't watch it just now, but I've watched it before. I addressed it in my previous post.

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

I understood, and acknowledged, that FrankRep was talking about the US constitution. And I tend to agree that true constitutionalists (much of the Tea Party does NOT fit in this category), libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists are different degrees along the same scale. I just don't see why its necessarily "right wing". I think that's just as arbitrary as calling all of them "left wing."

Mind you, the average person thinks about fiscal issues more than anything else, and the "right wing" Republicans are perceived as being more free market oriented than the Dems (Even if this is probably false at least half the time) so that might be the reason why.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So was I. Notice my 4th link.

So, you believe the U.S. Constitution is on the same level as all the others you posted links to? And you WANT Rand Paul to be President? Seriously? Keep it up, bud, because if any but the fringe sees crap like this, they will run as far away from Rand Paul as they can get. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Ron Paul spent an inordinate amount of time high-fiving the Constitution and his supporters were off tearing it down and making him look like crap, every chance they got. Just peachy. This is one of the reasons why I hardly ever come here anymore. It's toxic here.

 

[erowe1]

So, you believe the U.S. Constitution is on the same level as all the others you posted links to

Not the same level. But it is the same kind of thing. It may differ in degree, but not in what it essentially is.

You don't think that "We the people" actually authorized all that stuff in the Constitution, like it claims, do you? If you do, you're deluded. If you don't, then you pretty much agree with me.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Not the same level. But it is the same kind of thing. It may differ in degree, but not in what it essentially is.

You don't think that "We the people" actually authorized all that stuff in the Constitution, like it claims, do you? If you do, you're deluded. If you don't, then you pretty much agree with me.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again

 

[Christian Liberty]

Ron Paul spent an inordinate amount of time high-fiving the Constitution and his supporters were off tearing it down and making him look like crap, every chance they got. Just peachy. This is one of the reasons why I hardly ever come here anymore. It's toxic here.

Depends on what you're comparing to.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and what we have is a government way out of control. If the government limited itself to what the constitution specifically authorizes, we'd be a heck of a lot better off. Not even close.

When comparing the constitution to the articles of confederation, I would say the articles of confederation are better.

I can recognize that some States are less bad than others without supporting any of them.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Depends on what you're comparing to.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and what we have is a government way out of control. If the government limited itself to what the constitution specifically authorizes, we'd be a heck of a lot better off. Not even close.

When comparing the constitution to the articles of confederation, I would say the articles of confederation are better.

I can recognize that some States are less bad than others without supporting any of them.

Oh sheesh. A piece of paper laying out boundaries is only as good as We the People demand that it be followed and stay educated and involved. We didn't.

The Articles of Confederation had plenty of problems too.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh sheesh. A piece of paper laying out boundaries is only as good as We the People demand that it be followed and stay educated and involved. We didn't.

The Articles of Confederation had plenty of problems too.

The 1780s and 90s (and a while into the 19th century) saw the most educated and involved generations in history (the system produced some of the best educated people in the world, as de Toqueville recorded). That didn't stop the tyranny. You need to find a better causation factor than that.

 

[erowe1]

Ron Paul did not spend much time high fiving the Constitution. I remember one time when he said something about believing it was great, and even that it was almost so great as to be inspired by God. I disagree with him about that. But of the hundreds of hours of talking he did in his campaigns, and all his Texas Straight Talks, and his books, aside from that one moment of weakness, I don't recall him ever praising the Constitution.

He did call himself the champion of the Constitution that one time. But I don't have a problem with that. I'm a champion of the Constitution too, and in the same sense that Ron Paul is, which is this: when a politician takes an oath promising never to support any use of government power beyond the things enumerated in the Constitution, I demand that they keep that promise.

Now, whether those things that are enumerated should be done is another story. And if you think about it carefully, Ron Paul definitely did not champion policies of the federal government doing all of the things that are enumerated. He even supported amending the Constitution to make it authorize less for the federal government.

 

[erowe1]

The Articles of Confederation had plenty of problems too.

Now you're speaking my language.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I have come to think of the left-right spectrum in terms of concentration of power. From a historical perspective, the right has always been associated with "order" (monarchies and other authoritarian forms of government). This would place both Hitler and Stalin on the far right, despite Stalin's lip service to left-wing economic order. Any system of government places as much power in as few hands as possible. This is the hallmark of conservatism. Modern liberals and progressives like to pretend they are leftists, but they're ultimately not opposed to the prevailing order.

I consider myself firmly a leftist for these reasons. I'm simply mindful of conservatism as it has historically been defined.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh sheesh. A piece of paper laying out boundaries is only as good as We the People demand that it be followed and stay educated and involved. We didn't.

True. But the Constitution does not advocate the abolition of the State, so I don't 100% agree with it.

The Articles of Confederation had plenty of problems too.

Sure. But it supported a smaller central government than the US Constitution. That the states weren't perfect (small s, in this case) wasn't the AoC's problem to fix.

Ron Paul did not spend much time high fiving the Constitution. I remember one time when he said something about believing it was great, and even that it was almost so great as to be inspired by God. I disagree with him about that. But of the hundreds of hours of talking he did in his campaigns, and all his Texas Straight Talks, and his books, aside from that one moment of weakness, I don't recall him ever praising the Constitution.

He did call himself the champion of the Constitution that one time. But I don't have a problem with that. I'm a champion of the Constitution too, and in the same sense that Ron Paul is, which is this: when a politician takes an oath promising never to support any use of government power beyond the things enumerated in the Constitution, I demand that they keep that promise.

Now, whether those things that are enumerated should be done is another story. And if you think about it carefully, Ron Paul definitely did not champion policies of the federal government doing all of the things that are enumerated. He even supported amending the Constitution to make it authorize less for the federal government.

I agree.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Now you're speaking my language.

You do know that I didn't deny this, right?

 

[erowe1]

You do know that I didn't deny this, right?

I guess. I was just pointing out how refreshing it was to see LE take the view that even when you take a constitution that's better than the one we have now, like the AOC, it still wasn't good enough. Things like that give me hope that she'll come around.

 

[compromise]

They are mostly nationalists with a mix of American "right wing" and American "left wing" views. There are a lot of obviously far left-wing Nazis like the Strasserists, who were virtually racist Bolsheviks. Hitler and the more mainstream wing of the Nazi Party were more moderate, they would probably agree largely with the Progressive Caucus of the US Democratic Party today on economic issues, but at the time, they'd be well in line with the rest of the highly economically interventionist European old right (High Tories, Bonapartists, the original Gaullists, Pan-German League/DNVP, monarchists, etc).

 

[Christian Liberty]

I guess. I was just pointing out how refreshing it was to see LE take the view that even when you take a constitution that's better than the one we have now, like the AOC, it still wasn't good enough. Things like that give me hope that she'll come around.

I agree with this too. The ideal is no State at all.

 

[Sanguine]

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

I was using a quick definition to mark the "left" and "right". Though representing political stance through a one-dimensional figure only gives a shallow (and nonsensical) representation that is often done through arbitrary sorting, I'm just working with the system that some still try to use. By my rules of sorting between the sides, fascism would be in the centre, along with Keynes and some Greens.