Are Nazi's Left Wing or Right Wing?

[vickersvimy]

I would say that if anything they are extremist centrists because they are both fascist and communist/socialist.

 

[ctiger2]

I define left as freedom and right as authoritarian. Our govt (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc) is right authoritarian. Nazis would be hard right. Rand is middle left. Ron is hard left. Greg Brannon is hard left. Cruz/Lee are middle right. Larken Rose is hard hard left.

Individual liberty on the left VS Collectivist Statist Centralized Control on the right.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I define left as freedom and right as authoritarian. Our govt (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc) is right authoritarian. Nazis would be hard right. Rand is middle left. Ron is hard left. Greg Brannon is hard left. Cruz/Lee are middle right. Larken Rose is hard hard left.

Individual liberty on the left VS Collectivist Statist Centralized Control on the right.

 

[Snew]

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.

If I had to use a left/right scale, I'd tend to agree with this post.

complete decentralization of power <----------------------------------> concentrated State power

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

If I have to define left and right this is how I define them.

The Left favors more government intervention. A pure Left-Wing would resemble Oceania in George Orwell's 1984.

The Right favors less government intervention. A pure Right-Wing society would be Anarchist.

 

[acptulsa]

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

This is a good place to insert a two-dimensional Nolan Chart.

We ought to all carry copies of that chart. tptb hate that chart.

Except as propaganda, except as a way to limit choices and narrow thinking, except as propaganda, a left/right one dimensional scale is effing worthless.

 

[DamianTV]

I would say that if anything they are extremist centrists because they are both fascist and communist/socialist.

Asking the wrong question. A better question to ask would be do they support MORE or LESS Govt?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

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.

What is the difference between "big government force" and "(small?) government force"?

Is advocating "small government force" not also "leftist action"? If not, why not?

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

Where would you put Kropotkin on your spectrum?

 

[milgram]

I agree there should be (at least) two axes used to compare differing ideologies. Political Compass puts left/right on a strictly economic scale.

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

Yeah the auotbahn was a big public works project. It wasn't even used very much initially.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

You must have been blind then. He wrote article after article and give speech after speech about the Constitution. I wasn't the only one here who have posted a whole page worth of links illustrating this in the past.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I define left as freedom and right as authoritarian. Our govt (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc) is right authoritarian. Nazis would be hard right. Rand is middle left. Ron is hard left. Greg Brannon is hard left. Cruz/Lee are middle right. Larken Rose is hard hard left.

Individual liberty on the left VS Collectivist Statist Centralized Control on the right.

I'm not sure how you came up with that. But, it doesn't really matter as long as people are consistent. It sure is a complete opposite of the spectrum laid out by the video I posted though.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I agree there should be (at least) two axes used to compare differing ideologies. Political Compass puts left/right on a strictly economic scale.

Yeah the auotbahn was a big public works project. It wasn't even used very much initially.

There are a variety of things wrong with your diagrams. Number one is that libertarian <> anarchist. Number two, which is beyond laughable, is that you have the commie, Mandela, as more libertarian than Margaret Thatcher. ROFLMAO

 

[LibertyEagle]

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.

You are not a child. You grew up in this so-called "tyranny" and you had the chance to make more of yourself in this country than most had in any other country in this world. Whether you took advantage of that opportunity is yours to own. It's true that things have been getting worse gradually for many years and after 9-11, by leaps and bounds. But, for quite many years and more than a few generations, Americans had a more free life, with more opportunity, in this country than most anyone else in the world.

You seem to believe that if we were to have your vaunted anarchy, poof, the sun would be shining and the birds would be singing and no one would ever have to bat an eye to ensure that it didn't swirl down into a cesspool. And that is naive beyond all belief. So, how about you stop the constant BS that ooooo ooooo the country isn't as free as when it was first founded. No shit sherlock. Enough people didn't stay vigilant, educated and last, but not least, moral.

 

[jkr]

L00ks
like
BOTH
2 me
...

 

[erowe1]

You must have been blind then. He wrote article after article and give speech after speech about the Constitution. I wasn't the only one here who have posted a whole page worth of links illustrating this in the past.

Reread what I wrote. I don't claim that he rarely talked about the Constitution. Of course you're right. He did write article after article and give speech after speech about it. Given that fact, it's all the more strange that in spilling so many words talking about it, he so rarely praised the document. In fact, it would be an interesting study for someone to pore over everything we have on record from Ron Paul saying anything about the Constitution, and count out all the times he said something positive about it, something negative about it, or something neither positive nor negative about it, and see if he said more positive things or more negative things.

I talk about the Constitution a lot too. And I say pretty much the same things about it that Ron said and still says. Like Ron Paul, I'm a champion of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that I believe it's legitimate.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Reread what I wrote. I don't claim that he rarely talked about the Constitution. Of course you're right. He did write article after article and give speech after speech about it. Given that fact, it's all the more strange that in spilling so many words talking about it, he so rarely praised the document.

I talk about the Constitution a lot too. And I say pretty much the same things about it that Ron said and still says. That doesn't mean that I believe it's legitimate.

You are splitting hairs. He talked about it in the positive, erowe, and you know that. So, what are you trying to do here? Are you playing some kind of game?

 

[erowe1]

You are splitting hairs. He talked about it in the positive, erowe, and you know that. So, what are you trying to do here? Are you playing some kind of game?

Of all those times he talked about it, he rarely said anything positive about it.

I grant that he did once. Maybe even more than once (although I have only ever seen one clear example out of all the thousands of times he mentioned the Constitution).

But he also sometimes said negative things about it.

In fact, I'd like to go back and find that one time that he said something about it being almost inspired by God (or whatever words he used) and look more into the context to figure out if there's a good explanation for why he would say that.

I'm not playing a game. I think you are, if you're really trying to argue that all those times Ron Paul talked about the Constitution somehow count as praise of it.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Of all those times he talked about it, he rarely said anything positive about it.

I grant that he did once. Maybe even more than once (although I have only ever seen one clear example out of all the thousands of times he mentioned the Constitution).

But he also sometimes said negative things about it.

In fact, I'd like to go back and find that one time that he said something about it being almost inspired by God (or whatever words he used) and look more into the context to figure out if there's a good explanation for why he would say that.

I'm not playing a game. I think you are, if you're really trying to argue that all those times Ron Paul talked about the Constitution somehow count as praise of it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/ron-paul/

 

[Saint Vitus]

Read Mein Kampf. Hitler absolutely despised communists and liberal-democrats (socialists) of his time period. Of course he was still a statist, but the term National Socialism is misleading. William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich does a good job of explaining the meaning and history of the term National Socialism. Hitler was a statist, but not a socialist.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

There are a variety of things wrong with your diagrams. Number one is that libertarian <> anarchist. Number two, which is beyond laughable, is that you have the commie, Mandela, as more libertarian than Margaret Thatcher. ROFLMAO

Libertarianism taken to its conclusions is anarchism, yes. Furthermore, that graph has both an economic and a social axis. The social axis is authoritarian/libertarian, and the economic axis is left/right.