The Nazis - Left, Right or Both?

[Erich von Manstein]

This is a question with an answer that I took for granted following roughly 16 years of indoctrination in America's public schools system. It wasn't until I began focusing on educating myself that I began to restudy the problem (especially about the time the Left began comparing Bush and the Republican Party to Hitler and the Nazis) and discovered that the answer wasn't so clear after all. Arguments can be made for all sides, after all.

The most common answer (at least here in America) is that the Nazis were a right-wing organization. This view is especially prevalent in the grammar school system (K-12). The basic argument is that the Nazis were ardent nationalists, the type of ilk who believed in racial purity and whatnot. These beliefs have been labelled "right-wing" and logic dictates that Nazi ideology was extreme right-wing as a result. After all, the Nazis were rabidly anti-Communist. If Communism is considered a Leftist bastion then what does that make their most ardent foes? While these points are valid, it only scratches the surface of Nazi ideology. Which brings us to...

Nazis as Leftists? This is a belief that was originally espoused by such economists as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek (both who fled from the Nazis) and Milton Friedman. Lately it is most frequently espoused by classical liberals and minarchists. After all, the term "Nazi" was just a nickname for "National Socialist German Workers Party," a name that seems more apt for politics in Soviet Russia than central Europe. Long before he was actively working to eradicate Jewry, Hitler was focusing on make-work programs (to end unemployment), universal health care, the nationalization of industry, an interventionist approach to the economy and large public works projects. Indeed, he even practiced the most common attribute of socialism - taking from the few (wealthy Jews, in this case) and given to the masses (the German people). The list could continue for quite some time, but you get the idea - as dictator, Hitler enacted the ideals that are generally considered to be the hallmarks of socialism.

Where does that bring us? Well, using the common (albeit quite flawed) x-y axis used in politics, the Nazis, by combining attributes of both the Left and Right, would end up as...centrists? Moderates? Obviously this can't hold true. At minimum, it would be necessary to guage them on a cross axis, i.e.,



Of course, this meagre axis still leaves out quite a few other important variables, such as isolationism-interventionism, open society-closed society, etc. Obviously it cannot be considered adequate.

And so I ask you, my esteemed fellow posters: on a political spectrum, where does fascism belong? On the one hand, fascism was forumlated by an ardent socialist by the name of Benito Mussolini. On the other hand, it expended itself fighting Communism. Obviously any post comparing extremist political parties can be a fire hazard, so I ask that any potential posters refrain from flaming and instead focus on discussing the intellectual attributes of such kinds of party politics. I pose this question not to prove a point, but rather because I myself am undecided and especially curious as to how Europeans view this, although any geographical viewpoint is welcome.

[Armfelt]

The problem with that compass is that it lacks a third axis, a social one. And socially they were very conservative and in tolerant. Therefore my answer is the worst of both worlds.

[Kscott]

The problem with that compass is that it lacks a third axis, a social one. And socially they were very conservative and in tolerant. Therefore my answer is the worst of both worlds.

I agree.

Economically they were left wing.

Politically they were right wing.

Socially they were right wing.

You should not try to generalize more than that, though a 2 to 1 score is why they are more often than not considered right wing.

[JP226]

They were leftwing socialists pure and simple.

[Wilhelm von Nassau]

They were leftwing socialists pure and simple.

I agree, the only reason why Nazi's are called rightwing is because of their intollerance against minorities and their racist ideas. (Allthough Hitler had very good contacts with the grand-mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al Husseini). Hitlers economical policy was quite left.
And btw why is hate only associated with rightwing? The RAF (no not the Brittish air force) for example and a lot of "eco-terrorism" groups, all left wingers, commit crimes of violence against other people. Not from a racist motive but from a difference in ideology. I won't press this point to far, but the word racism means nothing to me. Aren't all people equal? The word racism only indicates their is a difference between people, and therefore means discrimination, to me at least. Maybe you should see the South Park episode in which Chef tries to change the South Park flag becaus it should be discriminating. Then you'll get my point.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

They were leftwing socialists pure and simple.

I love it when people make declarations about a complex historical and political question and then loftily proclaim it to be "pure and simple". I guess simple (if wrong) pronouncements appeal to many people - something Hitler exploited brilliantly.

The original "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" that Hitler's Reichswehr masters sent him to infiltrate in September 1919 did have some "socialist" attributes, aimed to appeal to a voter base of workers and to undermine the appeal of the communists. Hitler retained only a few of these ideas - nationalised health care for example - and quite a bit of the socialist rhetoric, but most vestiges of the party's original socialist elements were sidelined when he took over leadership of the Party in July 1921, pushing aside founders like Anton Drexler, who actually did have some genuine (if rather muddled) socialist ideals.

Now he was sole "fuhrer" of the NSDAP, Hitler still espoused "national socialism" in his speeches, but exactly how this brand of "socialism" was to work in practice was left highly undefined. It was this vagueness when it came to policy which led more mainstream conservative politicians, nationalists and industrialists to regard the Nazis as a useful popular movement which was safely anti-Communist and vehemently nationalist but easy to manipulate politically. They soon learned they were wrong.

Once Hitler rode to power on the backs of these conservative and industrialist sponsors and became dictator of Germany the vague "socialism" of the early Nazi Party did not lead to any great implementation of socialist economics. Some industries were nationalised - largely ones required for rearmament or ones which resisted other elements of Nazi economic policy. Other industries which had been nationalised under the Weimar Regime were returned to private ownership, particularly the financial sector. Rather than applying collectivist economic policies, the Nazis rewarded their industrialist backers by banning trade unions and organising government sanctioned cartels and monopolies.

There remained some elements in the Party which still clung to some socialist ideals, particularly Ernst Rohm and his SA cronies. It was this ideological difference that was one of Hitler's motivations for his bloody purge of the SA in 1934. After that the "Socialist" aspect of the NSDAP was largely rhetorical lip-service and some collectivist policy aimed at (i) keeping the masses happy and (ii) oiling the wheels of industry.

Recently, however, some elements on the right of politics have played fast and loose with the complex history of the evolution of the Nazi Party, seized on the word "socialist" in its name and on some of Hitler's (early) rhetoric and tried to pretend the Nazis were a "left wing party". This ignores the fact that it rejected most key aspects of anything that could be regarded as politically left wing, embraced a hyper-nationalism and extreme conservatism, cosied up with big business, banned trade unions and merrily killed hundreds of thousands of real socialists, communists and civil libertarians. To pretend that this wholly conservative and reactionary organistion was "left wing" in any real sense is pure fantasy.

Still those articles appeared on Free Republic - a site which rarely intersects with the real universe as it careens wildly into an imaginary alternative dimension where Bush is noble and wise and things in Iraq are just peachy.

[wilpuri]

The Nazis were left-wing in the sense that they were at least theoretically distributionist.

If you want to know about the socialist side of national socialism, look up strasserism.

[Last Roman]

They were leftwing socialists pure and simple.

if there were such thing as "leftwing" simple left vs right became obsolete loooong ago

they were a collectivist and authoritarian party

your post is just an attempt to insult "leftists" (which I use very loosely and with some hesitation)

[Sturmbringe]

I am finding myself in the rather awkward position to have to correct a Social Democrat again in matters of doctrine. *coughs* *coughs*

Communism is extreme-left.

Communism per se, is not "extreme-left". Stalinism was. The way Trotski, Kropotkin, and Bakunin is interpreted by certain leftist grupuscules today, makes those petty groups "extreme-left".

@ThiudareiksGunthigg:

Please excuse my rather petty grammar nitpicking.

fuhrer Rohm

Because of the concept of the "umlaut" in Germanic languages, words like Führer and names like Röhm when written in English language, need an additional "e" to accurately render their spelling.

"Fuehrer" "Roehm"

Peace

[PacSubCom]

nm

[RZZZA]

nazi's are radical leftwing, but the KKK is extreme right wing conservative imo, their social views at least are, even though theyre born from the last vestiges of southern democratic party.

(the KKK was actually born in Indiana, which isnt the south, but it IS one of our more crappy states)

[Big War Bird]

(the KKK was actually born in Indiana, which isnt the south, but it IS one of our more crappy states)

The Klan was first organized in Tennessee and later reconstituted in 1915 on top of Stone Mountain, Georgia.

And Indiana is the best state in the Union.

[Feliks]

Go far enough on both sides and their methodology gets more and more similar.

[Erik]

If Communism is considered a Leftist bastion then what does that make their most ardent foes?

Communism is extreme-left.
And Nazi's are extreme-right.

Their extreme opinions make them both very difficult to place on the traditional political compass.
But if you must place them somewhere the only sensible thing is to place the communists left to the most left-wing mainstream parties, and the Nazi's right to the most right-wing mainstream parties.
This would at least prevent the most bloodshed.
And looking at more modern neo-Nazi parties it's clear that they always feel much more comfortable sitting at the far right than at the far left of the room. (again to prevent unnecessary bloodshed)

The problem is: nobody wants to get associated with either of them.
And that's why you hear right-wing people place them on the left-wing, even if this goes against all facts and logic.
To give you a famous quote:

Fascism will come to America, but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism.

I think that pretty much sums up the current trend amongst the far-right of calling Nazi's and Fascists left-wing.

After all, the term "Nazi" was just a nickname for "National Socialist German Workers Party," a name that seems more apt for politics in Soviet Russia than central Europe.

Seems, but not so.
"Socialists" was just a very popular term at that point in history, so populists like Hitler adopted the term for strategic reasons.
He also adopted some of their more popular ideas, but purely for strategic purposes, not because he came from the same ideology.
Anyone left from center (socialists and communists alike) were always considered the enemy by the Nazi's and vice-versa.

On the one hand, fascism was forumlated by an ardent socialist by the name of Benito Mussolini.

No, he used to be a socialist.
But at a certain point he came to the conclusion that he was completely wrong about socialism, and he became very strongly opposed to it.
Fascism was in fact his counter to socialism.
And again: socialists were the fascists biggest enemies from the start.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

No, he used to be a socialist.
But at a certain point he came to the conclusion that he was completely wrong about socialism, and he became very strongly opposed to it.
Fascism was in fact his counter to socialism.
And again: socialists were the fascists biggest enemies from the start.

Well no. he did not used to be a socialist and then say to himself " you know I'm completely wrong and now will start fascism to counter it". Fascism grew out of his socialist beliefs. He was the secretary of the Socialist party. In fact he was first called "Il Duce" when he was a member of the Socialist party. He believed that the proletariat should unite into one bundle or "fascio" before seizing power in a revolution. This is the beginning of the fascist movement. Using the economic power that would be given to him under socialism and combining an Italian nationalist ideology is what fascism truly is.

[Last Roman]

Well no. he did not used to be a socialist and then say to himself " you know I'm completely wrong and now will start fascism to counter it". Fascism grew out of his socialist beliefs. He was the secretary of the Socialist party. In fact he was first called "Il Duce" when he was a member of the Socialist party. He believed that the proletariat should unite into one bundle or "fascio" before seizing power in a revolution. This is the beginning of the fascist movement. Using the economic power that would be given to him under socialism and combining an Italian nationalist ideology is what fascism truly is.

Mussolini's corporatism is slightly different than socialism. That said, both are collectivist economic ideologies, the difference is who that collected wealth goes to.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Mussolini's corporatism is slightly different than socialism. That said, both are collectivist economic ideologies, the difference is who that collected wealth goes to.

I can agree with that. Edit: but theoretically for Socialism.

Anyways fascism, Communism, and Nazism are on the opposite sides of the spectrum when you throw in Free enterprise.

[Erik]

I can agree with that. Edit: but theoretically for Socialism.

Anyways fascism, Communism, and Nazism are on the opposite sides of the spectrum when you throw in Free enterprise.

Free enterprise liberals are more centrists, or at most just slightly to the right of center. (The most pro free market party in the Netherlands, D66, actually counts themselves amongst the leftists)
The true right-wing is authoritarian, just like the true left-wing.
The only difference is that the left wing preaches equality, and the right-wing inequality.
Remember the whole idea behind the left/right devision was to put the Nobility and those loyal to them at one end, and the commons at the other end.

Since Nazi's wanted to bring back the lineage based upper class and lower class devision they belong in the same camp as the previous nobility (=the right-wing).

The Nazis did what many of the democratic parties of Europe at the time did and adopted some communist elements while generally disassociating themselves from the ideology. However, these elements did not last them being in power and by 1935 few traces of socialism could be found in Germany. The central planning of the economy was done indirectly, through fostering relationships between the government and corporations, rather than through direct control, and the extensive social safety net which is the hallmark of all far left thought disappeared in favor of a "if you can't work you don't deserve to live" philosophy. By the late 30s, I see nothing to associate them with the socialists.

True.
And most present-day "right-wing" parties have adopted far more "socialist/communist" policies than the Nazi's did.

If you are going to count the Nazi's as left-wing based on their "socialist policies" then you should also count parties such as the British Conservatives and the American Republicans as left-wing/socialist based on their policies.

[RusskiSoldat]

The Nazis did what many of the democratic parties of Europe at the time did and adopted some communist elements while generally disassociating themselves from the ideology. However, these elements did not last them being in power and by 1935 few traces of socialism could be found in Germany. The central planning of the economy was done indirectly, through fostering relationships between the government and corporations, rather than through direct control, and the extensive social safety net which is the hallmark of all far left thought disappeared in favor of a "if you can't work you don't deserve to live" philosophy. By the late 30s, I see nothing to associate them with the socialists.

The Nazis were left-wing in the sense that they were at least theoretically distributionist.

However, their policy set out to distribute assets believed to be unfairly seized from the German people (i.e. those held by Jews) rather than all property, as was advocated by communists of the time (with the socialists being far more pragmatic).

[JP226]

they were a collectivist and authoritarian party

and what were communists?