Replies

Wow! What a tremendous absence of knowledge and research exists in this thread. It is hardly worth the bother, but here is a quick explanation of why the Nazi's were "right-wing" based upon the traditional left/right paradigm. That paradigm stems from the struggles between the British Parliament and Monarchy and from the writings upon which the American Constitutional system is based. In the case of the former, Edmund Burke wrote in favor of the monarchy, arguing in essence that society should rely upon and revere those institutions that had previously served that society as a foundation for civil order and peace, even though some defects might exist within those institutions. For Burke, that meant that political power would reside in an aristocracy and a monarchy with the King's power being unchecked except by tradition. Burke's theory became known as conservatism. Opposed to conservativism, were political philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes that believed in very limited government held in check by a free market, a Constitution and a representative parliament. The theories of these writers became known as Liberalism.

The left/right paradigm that developed from these competing theories had liberalism on the left of the line and conservatism on the right. Liberalism assumed the need for radical change whereas conservativism assumed the need to retain the established order.

As time has passed, the term liberalism has lost its' original meaning. In many ways, most of us at FreeRepublic are classical liberals.

In any event, under Nazism, the national symbols of a culture are raised to a religious status, the state is granted the position of the King, as if its position were ordained by God, and private property is left in the hands of individuals favored by the omnipotent State. So, in essence, Nazism is conservativism taken to the extreme. It takes the people's culture that has heretofore bound that people together and elevates that culture to a religious level while establishing a favored aristocracy served by faceless serfs and slaves. There is no check on the power of the King at all. Hence, Nazism falls to the far right on the traditional paradigm.

On the other hand, communism is considered the complete overthrow of traditional institutions--the parliament, the church, the executive--and their replacement by a completely new system whereby the state owns all property but its' power is held in check by the communist party, representing the working class. As the society passes through the stage of socialism, and into a stage where manufacturing can meet the needs of all persons within the society, the society enters into the stage of communism, where the state whithers away, because the only decisions to be made are decisions of production and distribution. With the existence of only one class, and there being no need to redistribute limited resources, there remains no need for a state, which is only organized force used to keep a ruling class in power. Hence, with no state at all, communism falls at the far left of the traditional paradigm.

This said, I find the traditional paradigm somewhat useless in the modern world. A more useful paradigm would be one that measures the real social and economic freedom of the peoples that live under various political and economic systems. Under such a paradigm, Nazism, Communism, and Islamicism, would all fall at one end of the line, let us say the right since historically in the social sciences the right has meant a powerful state or king, meaning little freedom, and libertarianism would fall at the far end of the left.

I hope this sheds some light on the topic, and the terms, as they are thrown around quite a bit without definition. One thing is certain though. The Nazis did not nationalize any industries except those owned by Jews, and these were soon passed, even given, to favored capitalists in the fatherland. The extent to which a Fascist state is involved in the economy is that it will typically break unions and/or supply slave labor for factory owners. In exchange, it expects to receive the manufactured goods that the state requires, and it expects to receive them timely.

"In any event, under Nazism, the national symbols of a culture are raised to a religious status, the state is granted the position of the King, as if its position were ordained by God, and private property is left in the hands of individuals favored by the omnipotent State. So, in essence, Nazism is conservativism taken to the extreme. It takes the people's culture that has heretofore bound that people together and elevates that culture to a religious level while establishing a favored aristocracy served by faceless serfs and slaves. There is no check on the power of the King at all. Hence, Nazism falls to the far right on the traditional paradigm."

Hmm...still sounds like the Democratic party to me...ala Animal Farm. I enjoyed your post though...Locke and Hobbs sound like Libertarians.

Regardless of what side of the spectrum the Nazis fall on, there's no denying they had some similarities with the more extreme elements of today's Democratic party. "fag" used to be a term for something tedious and tiring. Come home from work and say you're "fagged", and be prepared for everyone to look at you like you're Jack Tripper.

You hit the nail on the head. I agree with everything you said (except your claim that the original meaning of 'liberal' has been lost and your follow up use of "classical liberal").

In the past, when ever I have read one of these silly articles, with all usual ignorant comments that follow, I just let it be. But your reply has brought me out of a month long self imposed exile from FR. It really was quite good.

For the sake of a little substance, I should like to add that the ultra right wing collectivist Hitler, states quite clearly in Mein Kampf what the "socialism" in National Socialism stands for. His use of the word in the party name, has nothing to do with any government goals or policies. It "stands for the social idea of the movement." Unlike fascists (who viewed the state as an ends), nazis saw the state only as a means (servant or tool), to be used by the movement for achieving their racial collective society that celebrates the strong individual "who stands strongest alone."