Nazism Based on Marxism

[carlfense]

Carlfense: How can being anti-capitalist be right wing. How can massive economic control be right wing. Right wing generally, with a few exceptions, is tied to conservatism. Nazis were opposed to conservatism, not just Communism and liberalism. Conservatism is based on a free-market system with as little regulation as possible. The Nazis were opposed to that. I doubt all political scholars agree that Nazism is far right. Maybe liberal ones do. Wasn't there plenty of militarism in the Soviet Union? The Nazis apparently combined Lutherism with paganism, but it has been said, including in the Wikipedia, that the Nazis were generally anti-religious. Sorry, I can't agree with you.

An example of a right-wing dictatorship perhaps would be Iran and when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan. Islamic law and the law of the state appear to be all one. (Edit: Thank you Carlfense for not personally attacking me. It's so easy to do, and you took the high road. )

It can be right wing because if the Nazis have policies that can be attributed to both right wing and left wing politics you have to look at where the majority of the ideology falls. You can claim that Nazis were left wing because they were anti-capitalist . . . but I can come right back and say they were right wing because they hated communism. You can claim that Nazis were left wing because they had environmentalist policies (which IMHO, is a silly claim . . . both left wing and right wing political factions can agree that we should reduce pollution) . . . and I can claim that Nazis were right wing because they were nationalistic, patriotic, and militaristic. How many hippies do you see waving American flags out in the streets? I don't see any . . .

 

Anyways, the majority of Nazi ideology was right wing, even though it contained some elements that are today considered to be left wing. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the story.

[Spartness]

Carlfense said: "Nazis were right wing because they were nationalistic, patriotic, and militaristic. How many hippies do you see waving American flags out in the streets? I don't see any . . ."

 

 

I know I told you I was done, but here is one final thought. And then I will close on this. The Soviet Union was very militaristic weren't they? Didn't in reality the Soviet Union have nationalism? The right is less radical about the environment than the left. Haven't you heard about far left groups like Earth First who wanted us to stop driving cars? When have right wingers ever gone that far? The Nazis were quite radical about their environmental views, although they contradicted themselves with there war machine. And their animal rights views were quite radical considering they value them more than humans. Right wingers value humans over animals.

 

Dude, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Let's talk about something we can agree on like the Huskers.

[carlfense]

Carlfense said: "Nazis were right wing because they were nationalistic, patriotic, and militaristic. How many hippies do you see waving American flags out in the streets? I don't see any . . ."

 

 

I know I told you I was done, but here is one final thought. And then I will close on this. The Soviet Union was very militaristic weren't they? Didn't in reality the Soviet Union have nationalism? The right is less radical about the environment than the left. (1) Haven't you heard about far left groups like Earth First who wanted us to stop driving cars? When have right wingers ever gone that far? (2) The Nazis were quite radical about their environmental views, although they contradicted themselves with there war machine. (3) And their animal rights views were quite radical considering they value them more than humans. (4) Right wingers value humans over animals.

 

Dude, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Let's talk about something we can agree on like the Huskers.

 

(1) Of course I've heard of Earth First. The Nazis didn't go that far. From the book How Green Were the Nazis?: "The Nazis created nature preserves, championed sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature." Wow. I guess the Nazis were real eco-terrorists.

 

They created nature preserves . . . oh wait . . . our national parks were largely created by Teddy Roosevelt who is about as right wing of a president as we've ever had.

 

They championed sustainable forestry . . . wait . . . our own logging companies actively promote sustainable logging?! Hmmm...

 

They curbed air pollution. This sounds like Earth First . . . minus the no cars business and eco-radicalism.

 

They built the autobahn? So . . . this is supposedly similar to a group who wants us to give up our cars? Doesn't jive, does it?

 

(2) Actually, the Nazis were not at all radical with their environmental views. If anything they were ahead of their time.

 

(3) No, the Nazis did not value animals more than humans. The Nazis thought a specific group of people, the Jews, were less than human. They did not value German people more than animals. That's simply incorrect.

 

(4) I'll assume you meant "left winger value animals more than humans" instead of "right wingers value animals more than humans." The "left wingers" you speak of who value animals more than humans are such a small group of people that they are almost entirely insignificant. Sure, there are PETAs and ALFs out there . . . but they are hardly associated with the "left" or the Democratic party.

 

I'm more than willing to talk about the Huskers. However, if you keep making further arguments about Nazis being Left Wing I'll continue to cite facts to disprove that claim. Ball's in your court.

[VA Husker Fan]

Carlfense: How can being anti-capitalist be right wing. How can massive economic control be right wing. Right wing generally, with a few exceptions, is tied to conservatism. Nazis were opposed to conservatism, not just Communism and liberalism. Conservatism is based on a free-market system with as little regulation as possible. The Nazis were opposed to that. I doubt all political scholars agree that Nazism is far right. Maybe liberal ones do. Wasn't there plenty of militarism in the Soviet Union? The Nazis apparently combined Lutherism with paganism, but it has been said, including in the Wikipedia, that the Nazis were generally anti-religious. Sorry, I can't agree with you.

An example of a right-wing dictatorship perhaps would be Iran and when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan. Islamic law and the law of the state appear to be all one. (Edit: Thank you Carlfense for not personally attacking me. It's so easy to do, and you took the high road. )

So were the right-wing Iran or the Afghani Taliban pro-capitalist? I don't think so. You can't just say anti-capitalist cannot be right wing.

[Spartness]

Carlfense: How can being anti-capitalist be right wing. How can massive economic control be right wing. Right wing generally, with a few exceptions, is tied to conservatism. Nazis were opposed to conservatism, not just Communism and liberalism. Conservatism is based on a free-market system with as little regulation as possible. The Nazis were opposed to that. I doubt all political scholars agree that Nazism is far right. Maybe liberal ones do. Wasn't there plenty of militarism in the Soviet Union? The Nazis apparently combined Lutherism with paganism, but it has been said, including in the Wikipedia, that the Nazis were generally anti-religious. Sorry, I can't agree with you.

An example of a right-wing dictatorship perhaps would be Iran and when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan. Islamic law and the law of the state appear to be all one. (Edit: Thank you Carlfense for not personally attacking me. It's so easy to do, and you took the high road. )

So were the right-wing Iran or the Afghani Taliban pro-capitalist? I don't think so. You can't just say anti-capitalist cannot be right wing.

 

The anti-capitalist element would be left with a otherwise far-right leaning dictatorship. You can have elements of both in a government. In this case, the right out-weighs the left. As for Carlfense, I still see the left out-weighing the right in Nazi Germany. Regardless of your arguments, the larger the government is the more left leaning the government is. As for the Nazis, they were a giant government. The smaller the government, the more right wing it is -- with the exception of a dictatorship ruled by clerics like in Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan. The U.S. Democratic Party would be to the right of the Nazis -- as much as conservatives complain about them having big government, it doesn't have nearly as much control as the Nazis had. The key word is government intrusion. The more government intrusion there is, except in the case of religion, the more left it is. Sorry, I am having trouble ending this debate.

[sarge87]

Carlfense: How can being anti-capitalist be right wing. How can massive economic control be right wing. Right wing generally, with a few exceptions, is tied to conservatism. Nazis were opposed to conservatism, not just Communism and liberalism. Conservatism is based on a free-market system with as little regulation as possible. The Nazis were opposed to that. I doubt all political scholars agree that Nazism is far right. Maybe liberal ones do. Wasn't there plenty of militarism in the Soviet Union? The Nazis apparently combined Lutherism with paganism, but it has been said, including in the Wikipedia, that the Nazis were generally anti-religious. Sorry, I can't agree with you.

An example of a right-wing dictatorship perhaps would be Iran and when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan. Islamic law and the law of the state appear to be all one. (Edit: Thank you Carlfense for not personally attacking me. It's so easy to do, and you took the high road. )

So were the right-wing Iran or the Afghani Taliban pro-capitalist? I don't think so. You can't just say anti-capitalist cannot be right wing.

What gives you the idea the Iranian government or the Taliban are anti-capitalist.

 

Iran sells their oil on the capitalist market. Not? Iran has cell phones, computers, internet, satellite TV, ect.....

 

The Taliban didn't just give their opium and heroin away. They sold it on the open market. Capitalism in action, even if it is illegal.

 

Reality vs. rhetoric.

[sarge87]

I know I told you I was done, but here is one final thought.

They created nature preserves . . . oh wait . . . our national parks were largely created by Teddy Roosevelt who is about as right wing of a president as we've ever had.

Spartness, If you create a thread with a provocative topic as this, be prepared to take on all-comers. The hit and run tactic doesn't work in this forum.

 

 

Carlfense......Roosevelt a right winger? You almost had to owe me a keyboard over that statement. Pepsi + keyboard = not good

 

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive through and through - a Republican in name only. He was the John McCain of his generation.

 

Roosevelt was an over regulating, big government type, who presided over one of the largest unconstitutional confiscations of private land in the name of conservation. His "speak softly but carry a big stick" mantra is the most egregious symbol of government tyranny over the private sector to only be surpassed by his fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When he couldn't get enough votes for the Republican nomination in 1912, Roosevelt took his ball and went home to create the Bull Moose Party, a progressive offshoot as a spoiler, which gave the presidency on a silver platter to the Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

[VA Husker Fan]

Carlfense: How can being anti-capitalist be right wing. How can massive economic control be right wing. Right wing generally, with a few exceptions, is tied to conservatism. Nazis were opposed to conservatism, not just Communism and liberalism. Conservatism is based on a free-market system with as little regulation as possible. The Nazis were opposed to that. I doubt all political scholars agree that Nazism is far right. Maybe liberal ones do. Wasn't there plenty of militarism in the Soviet Union? The Nazis apparently combined Lutherism with paganism, but it has been said, including in the Wikipedia, that the Nazis were generally anti-religious. Sorry, I can't agree with you.

An example of a right-wing dictatorship perhaps would be Iran and when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan. Islamic law and the law of the state appear to be all one. (Edit: Thank you Carlfense for not personally attacking me. It's so easy to do, and you took the high road. )

So were the right-wing Iran or the Afghani Taliban pro-capitalist? I don't think so. You can't just say anti-capitalist cannot be right wing.

What gives you the idea the Iranian government or the Taliban are anti-capitalist.

 

Iran sells their oil on the capitalist market. Not? Iran has cell phones, computers, internet, satellite TV, ect.....

 

The Taliban didn't just give their opium and heroin away. They sold it on the open market. Capitalism in action, even if it is illegal.

 

Reality vs. rhetoric.

OPEC isn't exactly the best example of free market capitalism, and Iran's oil industry is state owned, not privately held.

 

All I'm saying is that you can't just look at one or two aspects and match it to one of our parties or claim that makes it left wing or right wing.

[carlfense]

OPEC isn't exactly the best example of free market capitalism, and Iran's oil industry is state owned, not privately held.

 

All I'm saying is that you can't just look at one or two aspects and match it to one of our parties or claim that makes it left wing or right wing.

Bingo. You have to look at the totality of the ideology and see where the bulk of it lies.

[carlfense]

I know I told you I was done, but here is one final thought.

They created nature preserves . . . oh wait . . . our national parks were largely created by Teddy Roosevelt who is about as right wing of a president as we've ever had.

Spartness, If you create a thread with a provocative topic as this, be prepared to take on all-comers. The hit and run tactic doesn't work in this forum.

 

 

Carlfense......Roosevelt a right winger? You almost had to owe me a keyboard over that statement. Pepsi + keyboard = not good

 

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive through and through - a Republican in name only. He was the John McCain of his generation.

 

Roosevelt was an over regulating, big government type, who presided over one of the largest unconstitutional confiscations of private land in the name of conservation. His "speak softly but carry a big stick" mantra is the most egregious symbol of government tyranny over the private sector to only be surpassed by his fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When he couldn't get enough votes for the Republican nomination in 1912, Roosevelt took his ball and went home to create the Bull Moose Party, a progressive offshoot as a spoiler, which gave the presidency on a silver platter to the Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Roosevelt also was an immensely patriotic and nationalistic leader who drastically increased military spending. He was most definitely a conservative.

 

As an enormous fan of both hunting and our national parks . . . I like him.

 

Here's a good article on the subject. It does an excellent job of explaining why the whole "RINO" thing is erroneous.

 

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/articles/2008-Fall/full-Boot.html

"Teddy Roosevelt’s philosophy is not for everyone. He represented one strain of conservatism among many—a reformist strain of which Benjamin Disraeli was the other leading exponent. But it was conservatism nonetheless. Attempts to read him out of the conservative canon have no more persuasive power than attempts to exclude John McCain. Indeed, the energetic brand of conservatism that both men embody fits the temper of our times better than the anti-government rhetoric that defined the conservative movement of a decade ago. Some of the most influential tomes on Republican reform, by the likes of Newt Gingrich, David Frum, and Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, argue that the Grand Old Party needs to fashion itself more in TR’s image and less in Barry Goldwater’s and Robert Taft’s. The creed of these modern-day conservatives intentionally echoes Roosevelt’s: “It is not my intention to do away with government,” he said in his first inaugural address. “It is, rather, to make it work.”"

 

Also, regarding the bolded section: I love how random internet posters will toss around the unconstitutional claim about anything they happen to disagree with. The Supreme Court of the United States, who has the FINAL say on the matter, says it is constitutional. I would venture a guess that they researched the matter a bit more fully than you have.

[jnkyrdoff6]

The Supreme Court of the United States, who has the FINAL say on the matter, says it is constitutional. I would venture a guess that they researched the matter a bit more fully than you have.

 

I agree with everything you said except for parts of this. It is constitutional, but then doesn't the constitution also give the government the ability to do whatever it sees is in the best interest of the nation? When people throw out "unconstitutional" claims, I think they mean that something is opposed to the spirit of the constitution. Also, I'm not so sure that the Supreme Court's decisions always hinge fully on research. I WOULD VENTURE A GUESS that political favors, and other things that are unseen to the naked eye, factor in more heavily than you've given them credit for.

 

I'm trying to have a discussion, not a heated debate. I know you'd school me in a heated debate. I'm not a political scholar or anything.

[Husker_x]

The Supreme Court of the United States, who has the FINAL say on the matter, says it is constitutional. I would venture a guess that they researched the matter a bit more fully than you have.

 

I agree with everything you said except for parts of this. It is constitutional, but then doesn't the constitution also give the government the ability to do whatever it sees is in the best interest of the nation? When people throw out "unconstitutional" claims, I think they mean that something is opposed to the spirit of the constitution.

 

No, the government cannot do whatever it sees is in the best interest of the nation. The government may not limit the freedoms put forth in the constitution. Many on the left believe that things like restricting free speech and the press with nonsense like the 'fairness doctrine,' and restricting gun ownership are in the best interest of the country. In which case the people have the right and sacred duty to hoist the finger and send them packing.

 

The entire concept of our government is that it cannot do whatever it wants. We would call that a tyranny, and unfortunately our government flirts with the idea far too often.

[jnkyrdoff6]

The Supreme Court of the United States, who has the FINAL say on the matter, says it is constitutional. I would venture a guess that they researched the matter a bit more fully than you have.

 

I agree with everything you said except for parts of this. It is constitutional, but then doesn't the constitution also give the government the ability to do whatever it sees is in the best interest of the nation? When people throw out "unconstitutional" claims, I think they mean that something is opposed to the spirit of the constitution.

 

No, the government cannot do whatever it sees is in the best interest of the nation. The government may not limit the freedoms put forth in the constitution. Many on the left believe that things like restricting free speech and the press with nonsense like the 'fairness doctrine,' and restricting gun ownership are in the best interest of the country. In which case the people have the right and sacred duty to hoist the finger and send them packing.

 

The entire concept of our government is that it cannot do whatever it wants. We would call that a tyranny, and unfortunately our government flirts with the idea far too often.

 

I agree, but in Article I, Section VIII, I believe, it says something like, the government has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution...powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States." So, all I'm saying is don't loose interpreters often use this to do whatever they want?

[hosker]

Those secular progressives who compare conservatives to Nazis have no idea what they are talking about. Hitler clearly was left. Progressive's socialist beliefs are a bit (edit) closer to Nazism. (Edited out video. Carlfense is correct that I contradicted myself by saying I don't trust the media but yet I do trust a You Tube video. Unfortunately, I'm unable to edit the title of this thread.)

 

 

I did'nt read this thread, just the edited OP. But i don't see how you would be contradicting yourself by trusting a youtube video(with some research/verification, ofcourse) but not trusting the cooporate media.

 

The internet is the only form of mass communication that isn't restricted by the FCC/cooporations(for now). Beyond that, it isn't pushing a cooporations beliefs/agenda 24/7. You'd be insane to trust the cooporate views of CNN and Fox over a person's views, through youtube..... obviously though, everything should be taken with a grain of salt, and verified.

 

just my 2cents

[Spartness]

Spartness, If you create a thread with a provocative topic as this, be prepared to take on all-comers. The hit and run tactic doesn't work in this forum.

 

Sarge87: Sorry if I'm acting dumb here. But why are you saying my tactics are hit and run? Please send me a personal message because I won't see it on this thread. Yes, it was my bad when I said I was done and I continued on, but I promise this one is it for me. I want to leave before it gets personal.

 

Carlfense: Listen. It comes down to one big picture. I didn't need to bring up the little things. Nazi Germany, as you pointed out, was a totalitarian state, and it wasn't based on religious law. It couldn't have been more massive government. The bigger the government, with its additional intrusions, the more left it is. So any further argument you want to present or try to disprove, it doesn't matter -- it was clearly left. The totalitarian element outweighs anything else. End of story. As I said, I won't be back here -- only on the huskerboards. Bye.