Is there anything left of The Left?

[Ludicus]

We are talking about two states with almost identical... on what socialist is before embarrassing yourself with posts that lack knowledge on subject matter.

Maybe you should stop praising nazism, that's what you are doing over and over again, in a not so subtle way. Sadly, it's not just you.Others are doing the same.
------
On 18.9.2019 the majority of the European Parliament approved a resolution to to equate fascism and communism, minimizing and justifying the crimes of nazi-fascism.
Here, JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on the importance of European

It is a false equivalence. The Jacobin hits the nail on the head, The End of Anti-Fascism - Jacobin

The European Parliament has condemned communism as equivalent to Nazism. Based on a fantasy reading of history, the motion smears all “radicalism” as “totalitarian” — and dismisses the moral superiority of those who fought fascism.

As Primo Levi once put it, even Alexander Solzhenitsyn did not describe anything akin to Treblinka or Chelmno — yet this motion presents “communism” as simply genocidal. Building on Hungarian and Polish anti-communism as well as “anti-totalitarian philosophy,” the European Parliament motion condemns not just Stalinist atrocities, but the entire experience of state socialism — and even the communists who opposed Stalin — as equivalent to the Nazis and their death camps.

In a cogent article on the “Heritage of Totalitarianism,” Owen Hatherley evokes the Memento Park in Budapest, a “graveyard” of monuments to Hungarian Stalinism. There’s the boots of the statue of Stalin, felled by the revolution of 1956, but so, too, Soviet war memorials, and even the tribute to the International Brigades, the social-democrats and communists who went to fight fascism in Spain — now condemned as just so many totalitarians. In 1989, Orbán (1) praised Imre Nagy, the Communist leader executed in 1958 because he stood up to the Soviet Union — in 2018, he had his statue torn down as just another monument to totalitarianism.

If communism really were equivalent to Nazism, this would be rather like burning copies of Schindler’s List.

(1) Ah, Orban...historically speaking, key conditions connected with the emergence of totalitarianism were increasing xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism, and hostility toward elites and mainstream political parties.
Today, the ideology of American and European white supremacists portrays "whites as victims";we are seeing the emergence of racist and autocratic illiberal regimes in eastern Europe. History repeats itself.
In fact, it's not possible to equate communism and Nazism. Nazism and communism are not the same.

Communism is a utopian political idea that we can eventually abolish private ownership of the means of the production, own everything collectively, run everything democratically. But... it's easy to slip into a totalitarian logic and to begin eliminating anyone who is on "the wrong side of history".
-------
The neonazi sentenced to life for Charlotville murder ( 419 years) sent message which included a photo of Adolf Hitler to his mother, to demonstrate he expected a violent confrontation at that white nationalist rally in Charlottesville. In fact, Nazism in theory and practice is the hell.

The derogatory term "Rhineland bastards" was coined in the 1920s to refer to the 600-800 mixed-race children who were the result of those relationships.




White nazi Germans were afraid of miscinization because they believed that it would "taint" the purity of German blood. Many multiracial children were sterilized and taken from their mothers to become wards of the state.
There is nothing new here...How American Racism Influenced Hitler | The New Yorker

In 1928, Hitler remarked, approvingly, that white settlers in America had "gunned down the millions of redskins to a few hundred thousand". When he spoke of Lebensraum, the German drive for “living space” in Eastern Europe, he often had America in mind.
Racism, including racial antisemitism (prejudice against or hatred of Jews based on false biological theories), was always an integral part of German National Socialism (Nazism).

An antisemitic illustration from a Nazi film strip. The caption, translated from German, states: "As an alien race Jews had no civil rights in the middle ages. They had to reside in a restricted section of town, in a ghetto."
------
Many black people who lived in Germany under the Nazi regime were persecuted, alienated and murdered during this period. The Nazis viewed them as a threat to the purity of the Germanic race. Nazi propaganda posters, showing friendship across racial groups, referred to "a loss of racial pride".



---

Hitler's Influence in the US Was Greater Than You May Think | Time

And still is. Democratic socialism is peaceful, anti-racist, democratic.

[Heathen Hammer]

Maybe you should stop praising nazism, that's what you are doing over and over again, in a not so subtle way. Sadly, it's not just you.Others are doing the same.

I'm praising "nazism" by pointing out that Third Reich was a typically socialist regime? That's a strange and self-contradicting line of reasoning for someone who is constantly promoting champagne socialism on this board.
it is important to understand that Lenin was just as bad as Stalin and Hitler - him and Trotsky were genocidal demagogues, who wanted to achieve world domination at all costs.

[DaVinci]

@ep1c_fail

One can appreciate the way you lay out your analysis with the according theme.
However, i would like to ask once more for your concrete thesis in this matter.
And therefor ask for a thesis summary paper on an academical level.
It would be great to have that as pdf attachment here by you.
Afterwards we and of course also you could send that paper to diverse universities from all over the world, their politology/history departments, for a possible peer review process.

What do you think, is this a valuable suggestion to you?

P.S. Ofc, you are free to make that paper also as a full longform edition.

[Ludicus]

I'm praising "nazism" by pointing out that Third Reich was a typically socialist regime?

The Third reich was not a socialist regime. Their policies -and treatment of left-wing opponents- show they were not socialists in any meaningful sense.Please learn history.Were the Nazis Socialists? | Britannica

No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934. But to address this canard fully, one must begin with the birth of the party.
...By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of socialists nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front). Gregor remained the head of the left wing of the Nazi Party, but the lot for the ideological soul of the party had been cast.
Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character.

---
I have already mentioned Hitler's rejection of socialism at that 1926 meeting (in the Bamberg Conference the rhetoric of nationalism was placed at the centre of Nazi ideology at the expense of socialism), and Hitler's views on socialism in the 1930's two days debate with Otto Strasser.Primary source: Hitler vs Strasser, The Historic Debate of May 21st and 22nd 1930

In this debate, Hitler is making the case for fascism, not socialism, as he says: "To us state and race are one."Nazism was a rejection of of socialism, in favor of a state built on race and racial classifications.Nazism was a political project built on anti-Semitism, racism, and the superiority of the Aryan race.
----
Key points, excerpts,

Your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.

Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.

Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.

We must uproot the cancer of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism are antitheses

[Alwyn]

I'm not going to respond to this point by point for three reasons: (1) Most of what you've written is a recitation of your previous post

We do seem to be at a stage where we've made our arguments, neither of us is convinced by the other's points and we're repeating ourselves.

(2) Your insistence on framing socialism in accordance with your own political beliefs rather than in accordance with its historical reality is impeding your ability to argue coherently

You are, once again, misrepresenting my argument. In a previous post, I used sources to support my argument about the historical association between socialism and independent trade unions (shared origins in opposing the exploitation of workers, shared beliefs in a minimum wage, employment rights, social security and freedom for trade unions to operate and shared political activity through the participation by trade union members in socialist political parties.) I used sources to show that, historically, the Nazis banned independent trade unions and had their members blacklisted, beaten and tortured - and murdered thousands of them. My argument is based on history, yours appears to be based on an attempt to conflate socialism with Communism.

(3) You've become distracted by a contest between conservatism and socialism which isn't of particular relevance to this thread.

This is another misrepresentation. I'm not engaged in a 'contest' between them, I've argued for treating both sides in the same way, by distinguishing the normal - socialists and conservatives - from the extremes - Communists and fascists. I've shown that conservative parties use some socialist policies while remaining conservative (and vice versa). Your argument seems to be that the Nazis used some socialist policies, so they were socialist. I've argued that using socialist policies because they are popular or useful doesn't make a conservative (or extreme-right) party into a socialist one. It's understandable that you would want to dismiss as irrelevant discussion of conservativism or the extreme right, in a discussion of whether the Nazis were socialists or on the extreme right. There's a difference between what's inconvenient for your argument and what's irrelevant.

Your premise that democracy and tolerance are implicit elements of socialism - and that by extension the NSDAP ought to be disqualified from any such categorization - is false. This can be plainly indicated by acknowledging that the most significant standard bearers of international socialism throughout history (the USSR and the PRC) were of the revolutionary, authoritarian tradition rather than parliamentary form.The fact that you feel a sense of allegiance the English labour movement (which is neither Marxist nor of any contemporary global importance) is fundamentally irrelevant to this discussion.

Once again, you miss the main point of my argument, even though we agree that I've made it more than once. The history of socialism is the history of opposition to the exploitation of workers, which was done through independent trade unions, which were persecuted by the Nazis. Once again, with your references to Communist regimes, you imply that the extreme left is the norm for socialism. As before, it's understandable that you would try to dismiss evidence as irrelevant, when it's inconvenient for your argument. As I said, the history of socialism is relevant to its meaning.

That said, it is fairly straightforward to identify the NSDAP with the aforementioned revolutionary tradition once you understand the party's ideological commitment to centrally planned, collectivist solutions designed to elevate the volk via the overthrow of the international order and the redistribution of wealth and resources to the Reich. As was the case with the Bolsheviks, the essence of class struggle, international insurrection and subservience to the state was integral to National Socialist doctrine: the key divergence was the NSDAP's racialisation of class, so as to create a wholly non-inclusive form of socialism.

The Nazis used some socialist policies because they were popular or useful, just as other political parties use ideas from their opponents for the same reasons. The Nazis wanted Germany to recover from the Great Depression. Increasing spending on public infrastructure can be useful for recovering from an economic slump, as the spending creates demand for businesses, helping them to survive. The Nazis wanted to wage a major war; in such a war, central planning is normal. When mobilising for the war, Winston Churchill's government transformed Britain "from a primarily free market economy to a planned economy", because "Increasing state control of the economy was necessary to further the war effort" (The National Archives) - the British government was using some socialist ideas because they were useful, this didn't make Churchill (a conservative) into a socialist. The Nazis were ethnic nationalists; there are many ethnic nationalist parties today which are on the far right and the marchers who chanted the ethnic nationalist, Nazi slogan "Blood and Soil" were at a "Unite the Right" rally.

[Cope]

You are, once again, misrepresenting my argument. In a previous post, I used sources to support my argument about the historical association between socialism and independent trade unions (shared origins in opposing the exploitation of workers, shared beliefs in a minimum wage, employment rights, social security and freedom for trade unions to operate and shared political activity through the participation by trade union members in socialist political parties.) I used sources to show that, historically, the Nazis banned independent trade unions and had their members blacklisted, beaten and tortured - and murdered thousands of them. My argument is based on history, yours appears to be based on an attempt to conflate socialism with Communism.

This is another misrepresentation. I'm not engaged in a 'contest' between them, I've argued for treating both sides in the same way, by distinguishing the normal - socialists and conservatives - from the extremes - Communists and fascists. I've shown that conservative parties use some socialist policies while remaining conservative (and vice versa). Your argument seems to be that the Nazis used some socialist policies, so they were socialist. I've argued that using socialist policies because they are popular or useful doesn't make a conservative (or extreme-right) party into a socialist one. It's understandable that you would want to dismiss as irrelevant discussion of conservativism or the extreme right, in a discussion of whether the Nazis were socialists or on the extreme right. There's a difference between what's inconvenient for your argument and what's irrelevant.

Once again, you miss the main point of my argument, even though we agree that I've made it more than once. The history of socialism is the history of opposition to the exploitation of workers, which was done through independent trade unions, which were persecuted by the Nazis. Once again, with your references to Communist regimes, you imply that the extreme left is the norm for socialism. As before, it's understandable that you would try to dismiss evidence as irrelevant, when it's inconvenient for your argument. However, as I said, the history of socialism is relevant to its meaning.

The Nazis used some socialist policies because they were popular or useful, just as other political parties use ideas from their opponents for the same reasons. The Nazis wanted Germany to recover from the Great Depression. Increasing spending on public infrastructure can be useful for recovering from an economic slump, as the spending creates demand for businesses, helping them to survive. The Nazis wanted to wage a major war; in such a war, central planning is normal. When mobilising for the war, Winston Churchill's government transformed Britain "from a primarily free market economy to a planned economy", because "Increasing state control of the economy was necessary to further the war effort" (The National Archives) - the British government was using some socialist ideas because they were useful, this didn't make Churchill (a conservative) into a socialist. The Nazis were ethnic nationalists; there are many ethnic nationalist parties today which are on the far right and the marchers who chanted the ethnic nationalist, Nazi slogan "Blood and Soil" were at a "Unite the Right" rally.

This is mostly a verbatim reproduction of your previous posts, so I'll keep my response brief:

1. Communism (much like National Socialism) is a form of revolutionary socialism molded by Marxist philosophies. This adaptation of socialism was historically, and still is, the most dominant international expression of the ideology.

2. The view (or implication) that communism is not, or cannot be described as, socialism is categorically false. The argument that my position is faultily conflates the two is meaningless.

3. The democratic or parliamentary branch of socialism - which typically respected independent trade unionism - has appeared only sporadically in western Europe since the end of the First World War. Trying to present it as the international or "normal" standard for socialist expression is fundamentally incongruent with historical reality.

4. The claim that "the history of socialism is the history of opposition to the exploitation of workers" is a romanticized view of the ideology. It is a claim which is easily rebuffed the by mountains of innocent corpses, ruined lives and impoverished communities in the east.

5. National Socialism was a form of radical, ethnonationalistic socialism. Categorising it as a form of extreme conservatism as though it were an expression of Bismarckian autocracy characterised by Lutheranism and an adherence to Prussian monarchism, is wrong.

6. Your claims about the NSDAP's planning confuses mass-mobilisation and military strategising with economic and geopolitical objectives. The acquisition and redistribution of wealth, land and strategic resources designed to support the volksgemeinschaft and overthrow the international order was the essential element of the NSDAP's economic proposals. The enlargement of the military and prosecution of the war was merely the investment phase of this colossal, centralised-plan to revolutionise global politics.

[Alwyn]

This is mostly a verbatim reproduction of your previous posts, so I'll keep my response brief:

By misrepresenting my arguments, you put me in a position of needing to repeat them, to show what they actually are. Having put me in this position, you appear to be blaming me for repeating my arguments.

1. Communism (much like National Socialism) is a form of revolutionary socialism molded by Marxist philosophies. This adaptation of socialism was historically, and still is, the most dominant international expression of the ideology.

You are, again, implying that the extreme is the norm.

2. The view (or implication) that communism is not socialism is categorically false.

Since I've described socialism as left-wing and Communist as the extreme left, you're misrepresenting my argument, again.

3. The democratic or parliamentary branch of socialism - which typically respected independent trade unionism - has appeared only sporadically in western Europe since the end of the First World War. Trying to present it as the international or "normal" standard for socialist expression is fundamentally incongruent with historical reality.

Socialism has existed pretty continuously in western Europe since it began. That may be inconvenient for your argument, but dismissing it doesn't make it untrue. The historical reality is that socialism is the normal expression of left-wing politics and that socialism and trade unions have shared origins, beliefs and political activites.

Historically, there were strong associations between left-wing parties and trade unions in many countries. For example, in the United States, trade unions and the Democratic Party have worked together in US politics since the 1930s; in Canada, there's a historical association between the New Democratic Party and trade unions; in Australia, the Labor Party was formed by trade unionists in the 1890s; in New Zealand, the New Zealand Labour Party was formed out of previous left-wing parties and trade unions in 1916; in Spain, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party was founded in 1879 by Pablo Iglesias, a union organizer and in Italy, the Italian Socialist Party was founded in 1892 by trade unions and other left-wing groups. In Austria, the Social Democratic Party of Austria has close ties to the Austrian Trade Union Federation. It was similar in Germany: under the Nazis, where many trade unionists were targeted because of their involvement with a left-wing political party, the SPD, which was banned by the Nazis and whose members were targeted by Nazi oppression:

It is unknown just how many German trade unionists were arrested by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945 but the number was certainly in the thousands, not least because many were members of the SPD which further made them Nazi targets - National Union of Teachers, Persecution of the Trade Unionists

4. The claim that "the history of socialism is the history of opposition to the exploitation of workers" is a romanticized view of the ideology which is easily rebuffed by mountains of innocent corpses, ruined lives and impoverished communities in the east.

I provided sources to show that the history of socialism is strongly connected with the history of opposition to the exploitation of workers. With your references to Communist oppression, you are once again conflating socialism and Communism. Just as ordinary conservativism isn't responsible for the actions of authoritarian extreme right governments, ordinary socialism isn't responsible for the actions of extreme left-wing governments. There is no reason to believe that someone who believes that nurses and fire-fighters should get a decent pay rise, schools should be properly funded and that trade unions should be free to do their work would support Communist oppression, just as there's no reason to believe that someone who believes in free markets, low taxes and low regulation would support fascist oppression.

5. National Socialism was a form of radical, ethnonationalistic socialism. Categorising it as a form of extreme conservatism - as though it were an expression of Bismarckian autocracy characterised by Lutheranism and an adherence to Prussian monarchism - is wrong.

Once again, you misrepresent my argument. I haven't suggested that the Nazis 'were an expression of Bismarckian autocracy characterised by Lutheranism and an adherence to Prussian monarchism'. The Nazis persecuted trade unionists and socialist parties. The definining feature of the Nazis is not the use of some central planning during a major war - as I showed, Winston Churchill's British government used similar policies. The definiting features of the Nazis are their authoritarianism and ethnic nationalism. Authoritarianism has existed under both extreme left (Communist) and extreme right (fascist) governments. The Nazis weren't Communists and ethnic nationalism is a feature of many far-right parties.

6. Your claims about the NSDAP's planning confuses mass-mobilization and military strategising with economic and geopolitical objectives. The acquisition and redistribution of wealth, land and strategic resources designed to support the volksgemeinschaft and overthrow the international order was the essential element of the NSDAP's economic proposals. The enlargement of the military and prosecution of the war was merely the investment phase of this central-plan.

My claim doesn't confuse anything, I provided reasons why a conservative (or extreme right) party can use some socialist policies - because they are popular or useful in that situation. Germany was recovering from the Great Recession and mobilising for war; in such situations, even conservative governments - iike the government of the conservative politician, Winston Churchill - can use socialist policies because they're useful, while remaining conservatives.

[Heathen Hammer]

The Third reich was not a socialist regime. Their policies -and treatment of left-wing opponents- show they were not socialists in any meaningful sense.

Which was typical for socialist regimes to murder other socialist opponents. Of course, NSDAP's policies were typical for socialist regimes of its time.

[Alwyn]

Which was typical for socialist regimes to murder other socialist opponents. Of course, NSDAP's policies were typical for socialist regimes of its time.

It's typical of Communist and fascist regimes to murder socialist opponents - and the Nazis weren't Communists.

The ethnic nationalism of the NSDAP - their scapegoating of a minority, their 'stab in the back' conspiracy theory, their belief that their country really belonged to one ethic group and their willingness to use violence against people they demonised and blamed for their problems - is typical of far-right groups.

Their use of some left-wing policies reflects the fact that politicians found increased public spending useful for recovering from the Great Depression, and greater state control of the economy useful when mobilising for the Second World War. Central planning and higher public spending didn't make the conservative Winston Churchill into a socialist, just as it didn't make the Nazis into socialists.

[DaVinci]

Ok, ... i pull back my suggestion from above. Especially since ep1c_fail's last post shows clearly his close alignment to HH's "argument". It's utterly senseless to bring his "thesis" into a real academical discurs. Those guys can't differentiate between fascism and socialism, obviously due to a lack of politology knowledge.

[Heathen Hammer]

It's typical of Communist and fascist regimes to murder socialist opponents - and the Nazis weren't Communists.

It was a reply to a post, which asserts that NSDAP wasn't a socialist party because they repressed other socialists, ironically, just like any other socialist regime of its time. Economic policy of NSDAP also fits the conventional definition of the term, as well as being strikingly similar to that of other socialist regimes of its time.

The ethnic nationalism of the NSDAP - their scapegoating of a minority, their 'stab in the back' conspiracy theory, their belief that their country really belonged to one ethic group and their willingness to use violence against people they demonised and blamed for their problems - is typical of far-right groups.

Not really. Plenty of socialist regimes had extreme nationalism and oppression of minorities. Was Ho Chi Minh not a "real socialist" as well? What about Mao? We gotta be careful here, since we are treading into "real socialism hasn't been tried" absurdity.

Their use of some left-wing policies reflects the fact that politicians found increased public spending useful for recovering from the Great Depression, and greater state control of the economy useful when mobilising for the Second World War. Central planning and higher public spending didn't make the conservative Winston Churchill into a socialist, just as it didn't make the Nazis into socialists.

AFAIK, Winston Churchill still had elections and got voted out of the office. Lenin and Hitler would probably not allow that to happen. Lenin started a civil war and murdered millions just to stay in power.

Ok, ... i pull back my suggestion from above. Especially since ep1c_fail's last post shows clearly his close alignment to HH's "argument". It's utterly senseless to bring his "thesis" into a real academical discurs. Those guys can't differentiate between fascism and socialism, obviously due to a lack of politology knowledge.

Nah, its just modern neo-Marxists who refuse to admit their ideology's bloody history.

[Alwyn]

It was a reply to a post, which asserts that NSDAP wasn't a socialist party because they repressed other socialists, ironically, just like any other socialist regime of its time. Economic policy of NSDAP also fits the conventional definition of the term, as well as being strikingly similar to that of other socialist regimes of its time.

I answered this point already. Conservatives - and, in this case, a far-right party - sometimes use some socialist policities when they're popular or useful, this doesn't make them socialists. Higher public spending was useful to help Germany recover from the Great Depression, central planning was useful when preparing for a war - so the policies were useful.

Not really. Plenty of socialist regimes had extreme nationalism and oppression of minorities. Was Ho Chi Minh not a "real socialist" as well? What about Mao? We gotta be careful here, since we are treading into "real socialism hasn't been tried" absurdity.

I see socialism is being conflated with Communism, again. I answered this already too. I said that there are people who claim that 'real Communism hasn't been tried' and that such claims are wholly unconvincing. The Nazis weren't Communists, their ethnic nationalism is typical of far-right groups.

AFAIK, Winston Churchill still had elections and got voted out of the office. Lenin and Hitler would probably not allow that to happen. Lenin started a civil war and murdered millions just to stay in power.

This misses the point. He was a conservative leader who used socialist policies because they were useful, which didn't make him a socialist.

[Heathen Hammer]

I answered this point already. Conservatives - and, in this case, a far-right party - sometimes use some socialist policities when they're popular or useful, this doesn't make them socialists. Higher public spending was useful to help Germany recover from the Great Depression, central planning was useful when preparing for a war - so the policies were useful.

Prolonging great depression was certainly not useful for majority of population, at least on FDR's example. Like I said, the difference is that economy there was regulated less then it was in Germany of that time, and unlike Germany, they weren't as authoritarian. Britons could and did vote Churchill out of the office - not something citizens of socialist country could do in regards to Hitler or Lenin.

I see socialism is being conflated with Communism, again. I answered this already too. I said that there are people who claim that 'real Communism hasn't been tried' and that such claims are wholly unconvincing. The Nazis weren't Communists, their ethnic nationalism is typical of far-right groups.

So were North Vietnamese a "far-right" group? What about Maoists?

[Muizer]

HH just out of curiosity, can you name some organisations that you would call far right?

[Cope]

You are, again, implying that the extreme is the norm.

If the "norm" is defined as the tradition which has affected the most people, covered the largest geographical area and had the biggest impact on global history, then it is simply a matter of proper categorisation to define the Marxist-Leninist model as the socialist "norm". This, however, is besides the point. The manner in which you choose to distinguish the "extreme" from the "norm" is not relevant to the proposition being discussed. It would only be of interest if the argument being made were that Nazism represented some sort of aggregate position on the socialist spectrum - which it is not.

Since I've described socialism as left-wing and Communist as the extreme left, you're misrepresenting my argument, again.

You have criticised me (and others) for having supposedly conflated socialism and communism. Since communism is a form of socialism, the categorization of communists as socialists is valid.

Socialism has existed pretty continuously in western Europe since it began. That may be inconvenient for your argument, but dismissing it doesn't make it untrue. The historical reality is that socialism is the normal expression of left-wing politics and that socialism and trade unions have shared origins, beliefs and political activites.

Historically, there were strong associations between left-wing parties and trade unions in many countries. For example, in the United States, trade unions and the Democratic Party have worked together in US politics since the 1930s; in Canada, there's a historical association between the New Democratic Party and trade unions; in Australia, the Labor Party was formed by trade unionists in the 1890s; in New Zealand, the New Zealand Labour Party was formed out of previous left-wing parties and trade unions in 1916; in Spain, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party was founded in 1879 by Pablo Iglesias, a union organizer and in Italy, the Italian Socialist Party was founded in 1892 by trade unions and other left-wing groups. In Austria, the Social Democratic Party of Austria has close ties to the Austrian Trade Union Federation. It was similar in Germany: under the Nazis, where many trade unionists were targeted because of their involvement with a left-wing political party, the SPD, which was banned by the Nazis and whose members were targeted by Nazi oppression

1. My comment about the sporadic appearance of socialism in western Europe was a reference to its electoral performances and general subservience to liberalism/market economics, not to its entire political existence.

2. The NSDAP's eradication of independent unions and centralization of labour representation was entirely in keeping with the authoritarian Marxist-Leninist tradition. This necessarily eliminates your argument that socialist organizations must be committed to autonomous unions.

I provided sources to show that the history of socialism is strongly connected with the history of opposition to the exploitation of workers. With your references to Communist oppression, you are once again conflating socialism and Communism.

Communism is a form of socialism. Referring to Marxist-Leninism (and its successor movements) as socialist is accurate. The term socialism/socialist is not, as you appear to believe, applicable only to parliamentary/democratic expressions of the philosophy.

Just as ordinary conservativism isn't responsible for the actions of authoritarian extreme right governments, ordinary socialism isn't responsible for the actions of extreme left-wing governments.

Firstly, there is no such thing as "ordinary conservatism" or "ordinary socialism". The manifestation of both philosophies is entirely contingent on historical context. An "ordinary conservative" in 18th century Arabia is not the same as an "ordinary conservative" in modern Canada; an "ordinary" socialist in interwar Russia is not the same as an "ordinary" socialist in an English railway union. Secondly, no one has claimed that Fabianism, parliamentary socialism or the English Labour Party was "responsible" for National Socialism or that National Socialism is to be considered an "ordinary" demonstration of socialism.

There is no reason to believe that someone who believes that nurses and fire-fighters should get a decent pay rise, schools should be properly funded and that trade unions should be free to do their work would support Communist oppression, just as there's no reason to believe that someone who believes in free markets, low taxes and low regulation would support fascist oppression.

This looks like a continuation of the tangent concerning contemporary expressions of conservatism and socialism which isn't related to the question of the NSDAP's philosophy. No one has claimed that Nazism is related to the mainstream political divide in modern England or that the proponents of modern welfarism are communists.

Once again, you misrepresent my argument. I haven't suggested that the Nazis 'were an expression of Bismarckian autocracy characterised by Lutheranism and an adherence to Prussian monarchism'.

You stated that:

"I've argued for treating both sides in the same way, by distinguishing the normal - socialists and conservatives - from the extremes - Communists and fascists."

This statement seemed to imply that you believe National Socialism to be a form of extreme conservatism. I responded to it by claiming that "categorising it [Nazism] as a form of extreme conservatism as though it were an expression of Bismarckian autocracy characterised by Lutheranism and an adherence to Prussian monarchism, is wrong."

The point being made was not that you had compared Bismarckian monarchism (if such a term is allowed to exist) to Nazism, but that extreme conservatism in interwar Germany looked like Bismarckian monarchism/ardent Kaiserism not Nazism.

The Nazis persecuted trade unionists and socialist parties. The definining feature of the Nazis is not the use of some central planning during a major war - as I showed, Winston Churchill's British government used similar policies. The definiting features of the Nazis are their authoritarianism and ethnic nationalism. Authoritarianism has existed under both extreme left (Communist) and extreme right (fascist) governments. The Nazis weren't Communists and ethnic nationalism is a feature of many far-right parties.

My claim doesn't confuse anything, I provided reasons why a conservative (or extreme right) party can use some socialist policies - because they are popular or useful in that situation. Germany was recovering from the Great Recession and mobilising for war; in such situations, even conservative governments - iike the government of the conservative politician, Winston Churchill - can use socialist policies because they're useful, while remaining conservatives.

The NSDAP didn't only use "some socialist policies". Their intention of harnessing the German collective to topple the global hierarchy, destroy international capitalism, redistribute Europe's land and resources to the Reich and create an autarkic, spiritually irreproachable society was itself an expression of revolutionary Marxism which had reinvented class as a racial categorization. At its core, Hitlerism was a subcategory of socialism which understood the "people's community" through a prism of ethnonationalism.

To reduce the socialist elements of National Socialism down to the Reinhardt schemes and to claim that Churchill's temporary appropriation of a civilian, market economy for war purposes was somehow comparable to the Nazi's centrally-planned, "utopian" fantasy is to misunderstand the essence of German nationalism and its confrontation with the liberal West and Soviet Empire.

[DaVinci]

Scholars and authors of the politology and social sciences field, who are experts within the theme complex 'fascism' (in loose order):

Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne, Richard Thurlaw, Emilio Gentile, Sven Reichardt, George L. Mosse, Ernst Nolte, Ian Kershaw, Roger Eatwell, Uwe Backes, Walter Laqueur, Roger O. Paxton, Andreas Umland, Heiko Kauffmann, Helmut Kellersohn, Jobst Paul, Cyprian Blamires, Werner Loh, Wolfgang Wippermann, Matthew Feldman, Paul Jackson, Juan Linz, Eugen Weber.

Above 20 so far. And the list can be written on, if one is digging further.

Afaik, nobody of these experts shares the rather bizarre view of epic_fail, that the Third Reich was socialist, or a subform of socialism.
Epic_fail tried it hard, but there is so much shortcoming, falsification and wrong conclusion included, that one doesn't know where to start and end. And i won't take more time here with this nonsense.

Google the experts and their works to learn about fascism.
They do not see the complex field of 'fascism' in the same manner, that's not possible, as it is an ongoing debate.

However, you will find that nazism belongs to fascism, and that it falls under the category of right-extremism.

[Cope]

Scholars and authors of the politology and social sciences field, who are experts within the theme complex 'fascism' (in loose order):

Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne, Richard Thurlaw, Emilio Gentile, Sven Reichardt, George L. Mosse, Ernst Nolte, Ian Kershaw, Roger Eatwell, Uwe Backes, Walter Laqueur, Roger O. Paxton, Andreas Umland, Heiko Kauffmann, Helmut Kellersohn, Jobst Paul, Cyprian Blamires, Werner Loh, Wolfgang Wippermann, Matthew Feldman, Paul Jackson, Juan Linz, Eugen Weber.

Above 20 so far. And the list can be written on, if one is digging further.

Afaik, nobody of these experts shares the rather bizarre view of epic_fail, that the Third Reich was socialist, or a subform of socialism.

They do not see the complex field of 'fascism' in the same manner, that's not possible, as it is an ongoing debate.

Google them and their works to learn about fascism.

You will find that nazism belongs to fascism, and that it falls under the category of right-extremism.

My contention is that fascism is a form of right-wing socialism, not that the classification of the NSDAP as fascist is erroneous.

[DaVinci]

My contention is that fascism is a form of right-wing socialism, not that the classification of the NSDAP as fascist is erroneous.

"Right-wing socialism" is a "Verballhornung" (google that) of what is correctly nationalism. A fascist nationalism is ultra-nationalism. And nationalism can have, in fact mostly has, socialist elements. But the substantive remains nationalism. Because originally, nationalism derived from anti-monarchist movements aka republicans versus the old feudal order. People from the ordenary folks, carried by liberalism. As such, viewed by the proponents of the status quo as leftist at the time. It is not unnatural, that socialist elements play a role in nationalism. There was but a big paradigmen-change during the end 19th century years and much more so in the first decades of the 20th century.

Conservatism, liberalism and socialism are the three big ideologies. Fascism was a reaction of these, but carries, or can carry, elements from all of these three ideologies, which is logical. In the case of nazism it is not socialism as main driver, but ultra-nationalism. There is no doubt about that in the serious academic world. There was a so-called left wing in the NSDAP. The SA around Strasser. In 1934, Hitler, rather his SS, dissolved the SA and killed its leaders. That latest was the end of what can be named right wing socialism within that party or national socialists within the NSDAP. There is also no doubt in the academic world, that the proponents of socialism, if orthodox marxists (socialdemocrats) or leninists (communists), were opposed to nationalists. They were the main political enemy. That was left versus right, and i always thought that was established knowledge: Nationalists versus socialists (and not a subcategory socialists versus socialists). That was the reality on the streets of Germany short prior to Weimar and during Weimar. The German Freikorps played a significant role there on the side of the early reactionary far right nationalists as the militant arm. They killed diverse socialists and democrats, planned murders, not (only) wild west shootings on the streets. A precursor organisation of the nazis first militia, the SA, and then the SS (with its academic lead under the SD).

Furtheron, "national socialism" is an invention of nationalists due to being republicans aka versus the monarchy, a tiny small movement that started in the end of the 19th century. And they were in fact the guys who invented the term national socialism already in the end of 19th century. Even the terms Third Reich and Volksgemeinschaft came from those guys. And they were not the DAP or the then later NSDAP, complete different guys, who were not really amused with Hitler's movement. Hitler has stolen their terms. The NSDAP was a copycat party. That party adopted everything that worked to gain influence post WW1 and Weimar. First failed utterly, and then the Putsch, Hitler enjailed. That time he used to create his plan. When Hitler and his friends were something afterwards, then it is propaganda genies.

I was but in one boat with you, when you would say, that real-socialist regimes, or what the west, and also themselves, called communist states (Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism), share fascist properties and tendencies in their actual methods. That is what all totalitarian dictatorships unites.

[Ludicus]

My argument is based on history, yours appears to be based on an attempt to conflate socialism with Communism.
..This is another misrepresentation. I'm not engaged in a 'contest' between them, I've argued for treating both sides in the same way, by distinguishing the normal - socialists and conservatives - from the extremes - Communists and fascists.

As simple as that.Very well said.A case of, if I may say so.. virtus in medium est.

[Heathen Hammer]

HH just out of curiosity, can you name some organisations that you would call far right?

Depends on how one understand the left-right dichotomy. The key distinction is concept of individual liberty - in context of which it becomes increasingly obvious that differences between figures like Hitler, Lenin or Mao were mainly symbolic.