3 ms·
Your making the point that because they weren't outright communist, they must have been right-wing. I agree that they weren't communists, I disagree with the co
by waps 12y ago
Your making the point that because they weren't outright communist, they must have been right-wing. I agree that they weren't communists, I disagree with the conclusion you draw from that.
Most trusts were nationalized, just nazi style : their management was replaced or forced to obey party rule, mostly by threats. Yes that doesn't technically qualify as nationalization, but for all practical intents it boils down to the same thing. It is most definitely not a laissez-faire policy.
> Most of the "left wing" economic policies that were enacted were emulated using good old standard "right wing" methods
We're talking about the introduction of pensions, scholarships, unemployments payment increases, job guarantees, ...
> Chemical plants that were absolutely essential for the Reich's strategic needs were contracted to companies like IG Farben with profit guarantees and profit sharing agreements, methods that would be perfectly accept to almost any right-wing economist.
You left out the part where the party threatened to imprison (or worse) management if they did any orders that weren't for the government. Frankly, if a party with a thorough reputation for excessive use of violence that is in control of the government threatens prison if you don't sign a contract ... would you consider that free enterprise or laissez-faire ?
I agree that the methods used were not full-blown communist. The state was in absolute control, that was the goal, the means and what happened on the ground. Calling this right-wing policy is lunacy.
The way I see left, right, far left, and far right is this :
left: communist-lite policies. Try to achieve the same aims as communists, trying to avoid the worst inefficiencies of that by having market-based policies, with judicious application of direct government intervention and regulation. Example: Obamacare.
right: laissez-faire policies. Try to achieve (mostly) the same aims as communists, doing as little as possible to achieve those aims. If something needs to be done at all, don't let the government do it itself.
far left: outright communist policy. Put the government in direct control of everything, and have a direct reporting chain into the government for everything that happens. Government intervention is the only thing allowed to exist.
far right: don't try to achieve anything at all using the state. Anarchism.
On this scale, Nazis fall under "far left". They never had the time to really get to full-blown communism but they made great progress in that direction.
- mpyne 12y ago> Your making the point that because they weren't outright communist, they must have been right-wing. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. And after re-reading, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the point I actually made. In fact I tried to make it pretty clear with the last sentence. But perhaps it would be simpler to note that the Nazis were not simply a left wing group without confusing substantiation.
- the_af 12y agoI think your definition of the left-right axis is almost designed to make the Nazis belong in the far left, which is still (thankfully!) a fringe opinion. Populism alone is not left-wing. Your definition of left/right doesn't include aspects of the far right such as anti-labor measures (while calling themselves a "worker's party", the Nazis actually destroyed worker rights, which made them appealing to the industrial elite), and extreme racism. The Nazis also used the power of the state in a distinctly right-wing way: as a way to safeguard business and the property rights of the wealthy.
- waps 12y agoI appreciate the difference between what people claim they'll do and what they actually do given the chance. However at least in the case of the Nazis I'd like to point out the war. During this time in history, Germany, the Soviets and America destroyed worker's rights. We all know why. Does this indicate how they were aligned ? A little, but there are many other things far more important. It keeps baffling me how offensive people find the idea that the far left was leaning towards racism and the far right was the more tolerant side of aisle during this period. Things change. Is this really so hard to imagine ? Everyone knows that the Vatican, for example, is very much for equality between races and has actually stood by this stance when politically inconvenient, just like they stand behind their (somewhat lunatic) anti-birth-control stand today. Given that, and the similar attitude of other religions, is it really so hard to believe that when public opinion turns racist (as I'm hoping people are still capable of realizing that it did), populist parties will turn with it, including leftist parties. Conservatives, as the name implies will be more constant, and will resist this change on both sides. Right now they're anti-immigration, because they're more so than the "big" left party, but not by much. That can change in a heartbeat, and if history is any guide, it will. You know those old movies where you see rich women react to black people as if they were smelly insects ? Those movies are quite realistic and, like today, rich women are rather unlikely to be conservatives. Those people were part of the left. There was a time, not that long ago, when that was the norm, the social and popular thing to do. I bet most black adults can enlighten you to these facts if you're confused. Everytime some range of immigrants starts lowering pay for a large group of workers, racism becomes popular, for obvious reasons. 1930 in Europe was like 2009, on the Mexican border, for people without a degree, only worse to the point where they actually feared starving to death on a regular basis (especially in Germany, where there were a few regions where there actually was starvation). Is it really so hard to comprehend that under those circumstances, sentiment will turn racist ? Doubly so given that the majority of taxes was going to foreignors ?