I’ve often pointed out that the Nazis were not of the Right, but of the Left. (The giveaway, of course, being the word “Socialism” in their full name.) I’ve been challenged on the view by people on the Left who simply won’t accept that the Nazis were a variation of Marxism, not conservatism. To reiterate my point about the Nazis, I’d like to direct you to this American Thinker article that provides detail after detail about the Nazis’ socialist roots.
Filed under: Bits and Pieces | Tagged: 102, 126, 611 |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
Aside from the ultra-nationalist, indeed ultra-ethnocentrism of Nazis, they are littel different from the Marxists in theory and the Communists/Socialists in practice. Only the truly dim-witted refuse to see it.
Thus … the Left can’t see it!
I haven’t read widely in this area, but from what I’ve seen, the man who made this point best was Erik von Kuehneldt-Leddihn in his masterful book, “Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot.” Erik was a classical European liberal in the old sense of those words; it’s a shame his work is not better known.
I, for one, have never been able to follow the logic that puts the Nazis on the right. I honestly don’t get it.
For one thing Book, the German Worker’s Party was revolutionary in tone. There is no such “conservative” organization that is also revolutionary. Like the Left often squirts around, conservatives wish to uphold the status quo. Then why did Hitler want to upset and remove the status quo, eh?
I’ve been writing about this subject recently on my blog.
This interview with the core Nazi members might provide more light on what they believed and why
Nazis were Marxists, through and through. Although Nazi condemned Bolshevism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Russia, and although the Nazis often bickered and fought with Fascism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Italy, Hitler and his ghastly accomplices were always and forever absolutely committed to that which we have come to call the “Far Left.” Nazis were Marxists.
It is very simple when all told. Stalin ordered the assassination of Trotsky, when Lenin died. Lenin recommended that Trotsky be the heir to the Bolshevist revolution, since Trotsky made for a better leader than Stalin, in Lenin’s opinion. Stalin disagreed and thereby purged Trotsky and consolidated power. He also purged the military, something to the effect of 80% at general rank, and proceeding down the roll.
Family squabbles inside revolutionary movements are always nasty. Hitler and Stalin were bound to try to eliminate each other. The Nazis just moved first.
It is also why the Left likes to call neo-cons “Trotskyites”. They see you as wanting to spread an ideology to the world, like Trotsky did, and they far prefer Stalin’s more domestic and cautious approach. Such historical connections provide very nice clues as to the real truth behind the veil of illusion.
The logic is simple, Tap. The Communists and Marxists never forgave the Nazis for betraying them. Like family members, they can hold quite a grudge through the years for something that happened decades ago. Also, it is convenient for the Left to disassociate themselves from Nazism and fascism, whom they first helped bring to power. Without socialism, Nazism would not have had the grassroots support to achieve power.
That is, after all, what the entire point was to buying the votes of the German volk. By pointing them towards a foreign and domestic enemy, the Jews, they are able to consolidate power and grow their party. It was the Jews in financing and banking, after all, that must be purged to make the German nation strong again. It was Jewish blood that brought the giantic scale Aryans down to human scale, through piggish interbreeding.
The Left buys votes in the same manner. And just in the same manner, do they support the Islamic Jihad and Islamofascists. It is fascism’s gateway to power, through socialism’s weakening of the society at large.
The same applies to Sunni AL Qaeda and Al Sadr Shia. They, on the surface, are supposed to hate and kill each other. However, the reality is that these two groups need each other. Without Al Qaeda killing Shia civilians, Al Sadr would never be able to get the support he needed through promising protection against the Sunnis. Without Al Sadr and the Shia threat, AL Qaeda would be hard pressed to gain the support of their Sunni benefactors. Now that the Sunnis look towards American Army and Marines for protection against the Shia, they no longer need will support Al Qaeda.
These political realities were something Machiavelli and Byzantine rulers already knew of. Only neophytes thought that politics and human nature had changed with the coming of the socialist paradise of the common man.
Far more Americans would “get it” if American high schoolers were required to read Friedrich von Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” or “The Fatal Conceit”
A Nobel-Price winning economist of the Austrian School, he lived through the rise of both Nazis and Marxists in Europe and saw them clearly for what they were: same thugs, different gang colors.
If nothing else, they should read “Road to Serfdom” so they know why it is that Lefty/Democrats would put them on the road to economic and political ruin. Oh well.
Careful Danny. The thought police might be able to trace you with such comments as this.
Oh, I understand WHY they would want to place them on the right side of the political spectrum. I’ve just never been able to make a lick of sense out of why they say they should be there.
It’s perfectly clear to me that socialism or communism is to the left of our ‘Liberals’. Their policies are a clear exaggeration of the same policies (not exaggerated very far anymore) our ‘Libs’ would like to institute. Same principles, just taken further.
I don’t see the same thing on the other side. What principles of the right are extended to create Nazism?
The Left fears the use of violence unsanctioned by the UN and international writ. The paleo-con allies of the Left believe that isolationism is a good thing because American power is only diluted by staying in foreign countries such as Japan, German, Kosovo, etc.
I think that is an even easier question to answer. Nazism used the legitimate grievances of the German population to ascend to power. The Treaty of Versailles was crippling and Germany’s economy was in shambles. Hitler gave Germans back their pride, when Germans were facing a long period of being humiliated and taken advantage of. Hitler also linked up with disaffected military units from WWI, that thought they were backstabbed with the armistice.
To the Left, this is exactly how Bush behaves. This is exactly what the wing nuts say happened in Vietnam, that “we were stabbed in the back at home”. No, this is true, they do believe this. At least, those who are responsible for more than chanting “Bush Hitler” slogans, that is.
The right prefers a strong security and punishment of criminals.
If you read this interview with Himmler and company, you will see that he favored efficiency, military strength, and the crushing of criminals. Just like the right, in the Left’s eyes.
Link
The underlying reality is simple. The only way to defeat fascism, like Islamofascism, is to undercut their grassroots support. And the only way to do that is to provide the best security, pride, and stability to those grassroots tribes and organizations. Like the Sunnis, which Petraeus has targeted with his COIN strategy. If you are able to provide security, pride, and stability better than that which the fascists can provide, like Hizbollah in Iran/Syria/Lebanon, then fascism is no threat. The Left’s undercutting of trust in civilization, patriotism, pride, and self-respect via multiculturalism will be the gateway for fascism.
They will never acknowledge this dirty secret, Tap. That is why they accuse the right of trying to stop fascism, of being fascists. Because they cannot tell the difference between a just ruler crushing crime and maintaining order and law and Mussolini making the trains run on time.
Be sure to check read this particular quoted link.
He proceeded to outline the Twenty Five Points of the German Workers’ Party, its political platform, which included; the union of all Germans in a greater German Reich, rejection of the Treaty of Versailles, the demand for additional territories for the German people (Lebensraum), citizenship determined by race with no Jew to be considered a German, all income not earned by work to be confiscated, a thorough reconstruction of the national education system, religious freedom except for religions which endanger the German race, and a strong central government for the execution of effective legislation.
The twenty five points are listed in the last link on that blog piece.
The Left sees it and chooses only what they see as being similar to what the right. It makes it more convenient for them to deny that it was always socialism that paved the way for revolutionaries, such as Hitler, to gain power.
Sorry, I pasted the wrong bolded piece. My comment below Tap’s, was addressed to Tap:
I don’t see the same thing on the other side. What principles of the right are extended to create Nazism?