The Nazis were Right-Wing (Part 1 of 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=TYfYMbg-HqI The Nazis were Right-Wing (Part 2 of

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkCywtE7yak Steven Crowder: "Hitler was a Liberal Socialist" DEBUNKED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmVaXA6jJgk The following could be a MAGA rally: "Socialism is the science of dealing with
the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its
meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors
held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism.
Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike
Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are
not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on
the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."- Hitler Hitler hated Social Justice like The Right does now: "Because it
seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not
built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge" Hitler thought whites were the best people and
culture in the world like the right does The minority anti-capitalist strand of Nazism (Strasserism) on which van Onselen fastens was
eliminated well before 1934, when Gregor Strasser and the Storm Trooper (SA) leader Ernst Roehm were murdered with over eighty
others in the "Night of the Long Knives." In fact, Strasserism had already been defeated at the Bamberg Conference of 1926 when
the Nazis were polling under 3% of the vote. Here, Hitler brought the dissidents back into line, denouncing them as "communists"
and ruling out land expropriations and grassroots decision-making. He heightened the party's alliance with businesses small and
large, and insisted on the absolute centralisation of decision-making - the "Fuehrer (leader) Principle."
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazismsocialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302 Nazis were not socialists in any way,
shape or form. They were industrialist capitalists, like England and America. The Nazi war machine consisted of huge factories that
were privately owned by giant corporations, like ThyssenKrupp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Anti-communism Hitler advocated for "the destruction of Marxism in
all its shapes and forms".[109] According to Hitler, Marxism was a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the world and saw
Marxism as a mental and political form of slavery. ”The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism” Mein Kampf p.535 ”In the
years 1913 and 1914 I expresssed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying
Marxism” Mein Kampf p. 155 ”Marxism itself systematically plans to hand over the world to the Jews! Mein Kampf p.382 ”The
Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the principle of nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of
numbers and their dead weight. Mein Kampf. p.60 ”We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protects free
enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order... – Adolf Hitler (Heiden, The Fuhrer, p.105. You can
have publicly owned industry and still be capitalist. Look at the American New Deal; the post-war welfare state in the UK; the
Scandinavian social democratic model, etc. Plus, capitalism is defined by capitalist relations of production, too. Or, basically any
form of Keynesian interventionism. This is besides the fact that capitalism requires the state, for the legitimation of private property
rights, and their legal enforcement. If you claim that you have the right to a piece of land, how would you back that up without a
legal framework that recognises private property rights? Likewise, the state very often has to step in, both to secure property rights,
prevent action by other classes, and nominally maintain an even playing field for competition. The primary functions of the capitalist
state are to provide a legal framework and infrastructural framework conducive to business enterprise and the accumulation of
capital. If any intervention in the market by the state is fascism, then this would lead to absurd conclusions, like saying France is
socialist. Also, this is very different from the economic formation known as state-capitalism. State capitalism is used by various
authors in reference to a private capitalist economy controlled by a state, i.e. a private economy that is subject to economic planning
and interventionism. It has also been used to describe the controlled economies of the Great Powers during World War I. The great
powers included Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia. If we follow the argument here, than the empires of all these countries
at the time bar Russia, would be socialist - if we conflate socialism with state ownership of/intervention in the market. Or, if we
follow your argument that any state intervention constitutes fascism, then all these countries would be fascist In Fascism, the state is
run as a corporate, hierarchical body, where everyone is assigned a place from which they cannot deviate. Hence, in his doctrine of
fascism, Musollini writes, 'No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside
the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single
economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to
trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise
to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are
coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16). Likewise, in Mussolini's 'The Doctrine of Fascism', 'Such a conception of
life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so called scientific and Marxian socialism, the doctrine of historic
materialism which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and
instruments resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so called scientific and Marxian socialism,[...]" Hell, Mussolini in the same
text has a section called, 'The Rejection of Marxism': 'Having denied historic materialism, which sees in men mere puppets on the
surface of history, appearing and disappearing on the crest of the waves while in the depths the real directing forces move and work,
Fascism also denies the immutable and irreparable character of the class struggle which is the natural outcome of this economic
conception of history; above all it denies that the class struggle is the preponderating agent in social transformations. Having thus
struck a blow at socialism in the two main points of its doctrine, all that remains of it is the sentimental aspiration, old as humanity
itself-toward social relations in which the sufferings and sorrows of the humbler folk will be alleviated' As the name suggests,
fascism sought to bundle the folk together, like a bundle of sticks, arguing every class had its proper place, gathering them together
for war. To quote Musollini again; '[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the
individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from
crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the
number of his fellow soldiers' This is NOWHERE NEAR what Marx was writing about when he wrote of direct democracy in the
commune, and the abolition of the state, money and classes. Mussolini, like all fascists, was a virulent anti-communist. During the
coalition period, Mussolini appointed a classical liberal economist, Alberto De Stefani, originally a stalwart leader in the Center Party
as Italy’s Minister of Finance, who advanced economic liberalism, along with minor privatization. Before his dismissal in 1925,
Stefani "simplified the tax code, cut taxes, curbed spending, liberalized trade restrictions and abolished rent controls", where the
Italian economy grew more than 20 percent, and unemployment fell 77 percent, under his influence. The full name of Adolf Hitler’s
Nazi Party, the political movement that brought him to power and supplied the infrastructure of the fascist dictatorship over which he
would preside, was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. According to
historians, the complicated moniker reveals more about the image the party wanted to project and the constituency it aimed to build
than it did about the Nazis’ true political goals, which were building a state based on racial superiority and brute-force governance.
Given that Nazism is traditionally held to be an extreme right-wing ideology, the party’s conspicuous use of the term “socialist” —
which refers to a political system normally plotted on the far-left end of the ideological spectrum — has long been a source of
confusion, not to mention heated debate among partisans seeking to distance themselves from the genocidal taint of Nazi Germany.
The debate has heated up to the point of critical mass in recent years, thanks to the rise of nationalist political movements reacting in
part to stagnant economic conditions and the perceived threat of globalism, and also in part to a flood of immigrants and foreign
refugees pouring into Europe and the United States because of war and economic crises abroad. A subset of these groups, identified
as ethno-nationalists, hold racially-tinged views ranging from nativism (the belief that the interests of native-born people must be
defended against encroachment by immigrants) to full-on, hate-mongering white supremacy. Some of the latter openly align
themselves with historical Nazism, to the point of waving swastikas, spouting anti-Semitic rhetoric, and imitating the tactics of Adolf
Hitler. Add to this mix the ascendancy of President Donald Trump, who won the 2016 election in part by courting a nativist, anti-
immigrant constituency, and whose reticent condemnation of white nationalist protesters who held a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia
that erupted in fatal violence in August 2017 drew howls of criticism from all but his most loyal supporters, and the urgency of
sorting out these political associations begins to make sense. The Nazi Problem Nobody, least of all the millions of rank-and-file
right-leaning Americans who voted for Donald Trump, wants to be lumped in with Nazis. It’s a fact, however, that Nazi-friendly
organizations, Nazi symbols, and Nazi gestures were in evidence at the disastrous Charlottesville event, whose unfortunate title was
not “Unite the Left,” but “Unite the Right.” Although the terms “left” and “right” as used in American politics can be somewhat less
than perspicuous, they are helpful in delineating the basic ideological divide between liberalism/progressivism (as embodied mainly
by the Democratic Party) on one side (“the left”), and conservatism/traditionalism (as embodied mainly by the Republican Party) on
the other (“the right”). Seen as a spectrum or continuum of ideologies, socialism/communism traditionally falls on the far left end of
this scale, nationalism/fascism on the far right. The Nazi problem comes down to this: As an ultra-nationalist, socially conservative,
anti-egalitarian and fascist ideology, Nazism naturally falls on the extreme far-right end of the political spectrum; but if it can be
successfully argued that it’s really a form of socialism, it would make more sense to place it on the far left. That being the case, it’s
becoming more and more common to encounter insistent polemics like this one published on the right-wing blog UFP News: The
Nazis were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was
indeed socialist and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist
“exploitation” by capitalists , particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their programs called for the nationalization of education,
health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They
encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth
persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape today. A similar
argument is propounded in the 2017 book The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh D’Souza, who
maintains that Adolf Hitler himself was a “dedicated socialist”: In statement after statement, Hitler could not be clearer about his
socialist commitments. He said, for example, in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of
exploitation … and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” (Actually a Strasser quote, whom Hitler killed for
being... a socialist...) However, the assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and
ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical.
What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving
their one true goal: raw, totalitarian power. Richard J. Evans: ‘It Would Be Wrong to See Nazism as a Form of, or an Outgrowth
From, Socialism’ Despite having declared, at various times, “I am a socialist,” “We are socialists,” and similar avowals, on a personal
level Hitler displayed little regard for the actual tenets of socialism, or, for that matter, socialists themselves. This excerpt from a
speech Hitler gave in 1922 (quoted in William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, published in 1960) is indicative:
Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the
nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world
surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist. And this is what came out of Adolf Hitler’s mouth on
another occasion when a comrade riled him by harping on socialism (as reported by Henry A. Turner, author of German Big Business
and the Rise of Hitler, published in 1985): Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their
pleasures, then they have their socialism. In his 2010 book Hitler: A Biography, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote that despite
putting the interests of the state above those of capitalism, he did so for reasons of nationalism and was never a true socialist by any
common definition of the term: [Hitler] was wholly ignorant of any formal understanding of the principles of economics. For him, as
he stated to the industrialists, economics was of secondary importance, entirely subordinated to politics. His crude social-Darwinism
dictated his approach to the economy, as it did his entire political “world-view.” Since struggle among nations would be decisive for
future survival, Germany’s economy had to be subordinated to the preparation, then carrying out, of this struggle. This meant that
liberal ideas of economic competition had to be replaced by the subjection of the economy to the dictates of the national interest.
Similarly, any “socialist” ideas in the Nazi programme had to follow the same dictates. Hitler was never a socialist. But although he
upheld private property, individual entrepreneurship, and economic competition, and disapproved of trade unions and workers’
interference in the freedom of owners and managers to run their concerns, the state, not the market, would determine the shape of
economic development. Capitalism was, therefore, left in place. But in operation it was turned into an adjunct of the state. For
members of the Nazi Party, in fact, defending socialism on its own terms was a risky activity which could result in ejection from the
party, or worse. Of party leader and dissenter Otto Strasser (whose similarly-minded brother, Gregor, would ultimately be
assassinated by the Nazis), William Shirer writes: Unfortunately for him, he had taken seriously not only the word “socialist” but the
word “workers” in the party’s official name of National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He had supported certain strikes of the
socialist trade unions and demanded that the party come out for nationalization of industry. This of course was heresy to Hitler, who
accused Otto Strasser of professing the cardinal sins of “democracy and liberalism.” On May 21 and 22, 1930, the Fuehrer had a
showdown with his rebellious subordinate and demanded complete submission. When Otto refused, he was booted out of the party.
The plain truth, writes Historian Richard J. Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich, was that Hitler and his party saw socialism,
communism, and leftism generally as inimical to everything they hoped to achieve: In the climate of postwar counter-revolution,
national brooding on the “stab-in-the-back,” and obsession with war profiteers and merchants of the rapidly mushrooming
hyperinflation, Hitler concentrated especially on rabble-rousing attacks on “Jewish” merchants who were supposedly pushing up the
price of goods: they should all, he said, to shouts of approval from his audiences, be strung up. Perhaps to emphasize this anti-
capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to
the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form
of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put
common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance
capital. Famously, too, antiSemitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared
himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November
traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all. What Nazism Stood For The
National Socialists completely ignored socialism’s primary aim (replacing the existing class-based society with an egalitarian one in
which workers owned the means of production) and substituted their own topsy-turvy agenda, Evans writes, “replacing class with
race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader”: The “National Socialists” wanted to unite the two
political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be
the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme
counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its selfimage as a movement rather than a party, to
its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. German historian and National Socialism expert
Joachim Fest characterizes this repurposing of socialist rhetoric as an act of “prestidigitation”: This ideology took a leftist label
chiefly for tactical reasons. It demanded, within the party and within the state, a powerful system of rule that would exercise
unchallenged leadership over the “great mass of the anonymous.” And whatever premises the party may have started with, by 1930
Hitler’s party was “socialist” only to take advantage of the emotional value of the word, and a “workers’ party” in order to lure the
most energetic social force. As with Hitler’s protestations of belief in tradition, in conservative values, or in Christianity, the socialist
slogans were merely movable ideological props to serve as camouflage and confuse the enemy. The proof was in the pudding. Not
long after acquiring the reins of power, the Nazis banned the Social Democratic Party and sent its leaders and other leftists identified
as threats to the National Socialist program to concentration camps. According to the Holocaust Encyclopedia: In the months after
Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists,
Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of
1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been
eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany. Despite continuing certain Weimar-era social welfare programs, the Nazis proceeded
to restrict their availability to “racially worthy” (non-Jewish) beneficiaries. In terms of labor, worker strikes were outlawed. Trade
unions were replaced by the party-controlled German Labor Front, primarily tasked with increasing productivity, not protecting
workers. In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose
governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature. As to the redistribution of wealth, the socialist
ideal “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was rejected in favor of a credo more on the order of “Take
everything that belongs to non-Aryans and keep it for the master race.” Above all, the Nazis were German white nationalists. What
they stood for was the ascendancy of the “Aryan” race and the German nation, by any means necessary. Despite co-opting the name,
some of the rhetoric, and even some of the precepts of socialism, Hitler and party did so with utter cynicism, and with vastly different
goals. The claim that the Nazis actually were leftists or socialists in any generally accepted sense of those terms flies in the face of
historical reality. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302 Theories Of Nazism
And Fascism ; Palingenetic Ultranationalism(Roger Griffin) Roger Griffin adopted a Weberian ideal-type methodology to define the
nature of Fascism. On this basis he criticized the typological definition of Fascism put forward by Payne. Adopting Georges Sorel's
theory of political myth, Griffin argued that Fascism can be defined in terms not of a common ideological component, but of a
common mythic core. According to Griffin, "Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is
a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." This definition combines two central components; first the palingenetic myth of
rebirth and regeneration defined as "the vision of a revolutionary new order which supplies the effective power of an ideology".
Second Fascism as "Ultranationalism" referring to a form of nationalism that explicitly rejects liberal institutions and the humanist
legacy of enlightenment. Fascism thus emerges when populist ultra-nationalism combines with the myth of a radical crusade against
decadence and for renewal in every sphere of national life . The result is an ideology which operates a mythic core celebrating the
unity and sovereignty of the whole people in a specifically anti-liberal and anti-Marxist sense. The mythic core that forms the basis of
Griffin's generic fascism is the vision of the percieved crisis of the nation as indicating the birth-pangs of a new order. The idea that
'nation' is an entity which can decay and be regenerated, implies something diametrically opposed to what libearals understand by it.
According to Griffin, Fascists felt he had been fatefully born at a watershed between national decline and national regeneration, a
feeling that alchemically converted all pessimism and cultural despair into a manic sense of purpose and optimism. His task it was to
prepare the ground for the new breed of men, the homo fascists, who would instinctively form part of the revitalized national
community without having first to purge himself of the selfish reflexes inculcated by a civilization sapped by egotism and
materialism. Anti-liberal - Griffin propounded that Fascism's call for the regeneration of the national community through a heroic
struggle against its alleged enemies and the forces undermining it. It involves the radical rejection of liberalism in all its aspects ;
pluralism, tolerance, individualism, pacifism, parliamentary democracy, the separation of powers, egalitarianism etc. Anti-
conservative - For Griffin, The centrality to fascism is a myth of the nation's regeneration within a new order implies a rejection of
illiberal conservative politics, as well as of liberal and authoritarian conservative solution to the current crisis. In other words, in the
context of fascism 'rebirth' means 'new birth' , 'a new order', one which might draw inspiration from the past but doesn't seek to turn
the clock back. However two factors have obscurred fascism's revolutionary, forward looking thrust. First, in order to achieve power
in the interwar period fascism was forced to ally itself with conservative force on the basis of common enemies and common
priorities. Second fascist ideologues frequently attach great importance to allegedly glorious epochs in the nation's past and the
heroes which embody them. They do so not out of nostalgia, but to remind the people of the nation's 'true' nature and its destiny to
rise once more to historical greatness. Charismatic form of Politics - Since to use Weberian terminology, fascism rejects both the
traditional politics of the ancien regime and the legal rational politics of liberalism and socialism, it follows charismatic form of
politics. This doesn't necessarily involve the epitome of such politics, the leader cult. All political ideologies are prone to assume a
charismatic aspect when they operate as revolutionary forces - liberalism did, for eg ; in French Revolution. It is significant, though,
that fascism remained a charismatic form of politics in the two cases where it managed to install itself in power. Fascist Socialism -
Griffin argued that, if it is core mobilizing myth of the imminent rebirth of the nation that forms the definitional core of fascism, it
follows that the various fascist negations(anti-communism, anti-liberalism etc) are corollaries of this positive belief not definitional
components. The same myth explains the recurrent claim by fascist ideologues that their vision of the new order is far from anti-
socialist. Hitler had a shadow of left way thinking. Link to Totalitarianism - In the words of Griffin, Also implicit in fascism's mythic
core is the drive towards totalitarianism. For from being driven by Nihilism or Barbarism, the convinced fascist is a Utopian,
conceiving the homogeneous, perfectly co-ordinated national community as a total solution to the problems of modern society.
Fortunately for humanity only two fascist movements have been in a position to attempt to implement their total solutions to society's
alleged woes, namely Fascism and Nazism. Heterogeneity of fascism's social support - Griffin is of the view that, Fascism has no
specific class basis in its support. If middle class were over represented in the membership of Fascism and Nazism. This is because
specific socio-political conditions made a significant percentage of them more susceptible to a palingenetic form of Ultranationalism
than to a palingenetic form of Marxism or liberalism. Fascist racism - For Griffin, By its nature, fascism is racist, since all ultra
nationalism are racist in their celebration of the alleged virtues and greatness of an organically concieved nation or culture. Fascism is
also intrinsically anti-cosmopolitan, axiomatically rejecting as decadent liberal vision of the multicultural, multi-religious, multi-
racial society. This type of fascism thus tends to produce an apartheid mentality calling for ethnically pure nation states, for
foreigners to go back, or be returned, to 'where they belong' , and a vitriolic hatred of 'mixed marriages' and 'cultural bastardization'.
Fascist Internationalism - Fascism, anti-internationalist in the sense of regarding national distinctiveness and identity as primordial
values, is quite capable of generating its own form of universalism or internationalism by fostering a bond with fascists in other
countries engaged in an equivalent struggle for their own nation's palingenesis, often againts common enemies(e.g. liberals,
communists). In Europe, this may well lead to a sense of fighting for a common European homeland on the basis of Europe's alleged
cultural, historical, or even genetic unity in contrast to non-Christian, non-Indo European(e.g. Muslims, Asian Soviet, Chinese
Communists) or degenerated ones. Within such a Europe, national or ethnic identities would, according to the fascist blueprint, be
strengthened, not diluted. Fascist eclecticism - For Griffin, an important feature of this charismatic and identificatory form of
nationalism is its eclecticism: it can be rationalised through a wide variety of regenerationist myth drawing on historical or
pseudoscientific facts. Inevitably each fascism will be made in the image or imagining of a particular national culture, but even
within the same movement or party its most influential ideologues will inevitably represent a wide range of ideas and theories
sometimes quite incompatible with each other except at the level of a shared mythic core of palingenetic Ultra-nationalism. Fascism
is thus inherently syncretic, bringing heterogeneous current of ideas into a loose alliance united only by the common struggle for a
new order. As a result there is in fascist thought a recurrent element of synthesis. Griffin argued that it is worth adding that , in its
self-creation through synthesis, fascist ideology can draw just an early on right-wing forms of thought as on forms of left wing
thought. It is also implicit in what has been said that fascism is not necessarily confined to inter-war Europe, but can flourish
wherever the stability of Western style liberal democracy is threatened by a particular conjuncture of destabilising forces.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/
Det är inte sällan som man från den kontemporära högern hör påståenden om kopplingar mellan nazismen och vänsterideologi, trots
att det då råder en allmänn konsensus som vidhåller att det rör sig om en högerextrem ideologi. Oftast förs tre olika typer av
argument fram för denna position. Det första är kopplat till etymologi: “National-SOCIALISM” . Antagandet utgår då ifrån att
socialismen är vänsterorienterad och att nationalSOCIALISMEN därför med automatik också är vara det. Det andra fokuserar på
statens inflytande: eftersom nazismen förser staten med makt då staten enligt nationalsocialismen är stor måste nationalsocialismen
vara vänster. Det tredje är lite mer sofistikerad och går ut på analyser av det tyska nazistpartiets (NSDAPs) olika uttalanden och
program som pekar på att de hade en social och ekonomisk jämlikhetstanke. I denna artikel ska jag försöka förklara hur och varför
den allmänna konsensus som råder kring att nazismen är en högerideologi är korrekt och bemöta de invändningar som görs om den
saken i högerformat. Höger och vänster För att reda ut hur det står till med nationalsocialismen i höger-/vänsterskalan måste vi börja
med att definiera höger- och vänsterteori. Uppdelningen av de politiska ideologierna i höger- respektive vänsterfack har sitt ursprung
i den franska Nationalförsamlingen där de konservativa och reaktionära politikerna satt till höger om kungen medan de progressiva
politikerna (främst liberaler, frihetliga socialister och statssocialister) satt till vänster. På församlingens vänstersidan fanns sådana
klassiska liberaler som nationalekonomen Frédéric Bastiat, den moderna anarkismens fader Pierre-Joseph Proudhon och
statssocialisten Louis Blanc. På den andra satt de som ville bevara den gamla ordningen, de konservativa och de som ville återgå till
någon ännu äldre och mer auktoritär ordning, de reaktionära. Den klassiska vänstern hade som mål att förändra samhället på ett
progressivt vis, den strävade efter ökad frihet och jämlikhet och sökte bryta med det rådande samhällets strukturella orättvisor och
hierarkier, något som än i dag kännetecknar vänsterteori. Ett fokus på att bevara etablerad ordning, traditionella värderingar och
rådande hierarkier kom att definieras som högerteori. Ytterlighetsvänstern ville förändra samhället på ett sätt som skulle innebära en
radikal förändring mot en omfattande frihet och jämlikhet (främst revolutionära socialister och anarkister) medan ytterlighetshögern
ville återskapa en tidigare ordning som var ännu mer hierarkisk med ett ännu större fokus på traditionella värderingar och normer än
den rådande samhällsnormen (främst reaktionärer och absoluta monarkister). Traditionella ideologier i skalan Var placerar man då
lämpligast socialismen? Naturligtvis till vänster. Socialismen, som bred rörelse och idéströming, strävar efter att frigöra individen
från kapitalistisk exploatering samtidigt som ojämlikheten mellan samhällsklasserna ska annuleras. Även på ett kulturellt plan segrar
jämlikhetstanken i socialismen vilken tidigt ledde till den Internationella arbetareassociationen, eller Internationalen, vars fokus låg
på internationalism och internationell solidaritet i de socialistiska strävandena där arbetarklassen sågs som en gränsöverskridande och
nationslös entitet. Även kampen för jämlikhet mellan olika kön och etniciteter blev tidigt en integrerad del i socialismen som en
naturlig följd av den grundläggande jämlikhetstanken. I socialismen, liksom i liberalismen, vann upplysningen mot traditionalismen.
Liberalismen hamnar till höger om socialismen då liberalerna inte ville gå lika långt i samhällsförändringarna men strävade
fortfarande efter frihet och jämlikhet i meningen avsaknad av strukturellt förtryck. Att göra människor friare och mer jämlika som en
“startpunkt” i livet varefter egna strävanden avgör en individs position i samhället var den liberala grundtanken. Så länge
konservativa och reaktionära krafter var dominerande i högern sågs liberalismen således som en vänsterteori. Den sågs också i vissa
fall som en mittenideologi. Till höger om liberalerna fanns då, liksom nu, de konservativa och reaktionära ideologierna och
rörelserna. Nationalsocialismen: höger eller vänster? Var befinner sig då nationalsocialismen? Hämtar den kraft av en grundläggande
ekonomisk och kulturell frihets- och jämlikhetstanke? Är den med andra ord en vänsterteori? Svaret ter sig tämligen evident – nej det
är den inte. Nationalsocialismen gjorde ojämlikheten till sin hjärtefråga. I nationen strävade man för att bevara den egna etniciteten
och man förespråkade dess överlägsenhet gentemot andra. I den meningen var den nationella identiteten socialiserad i det att
nationalismen konsoliderades av en gemensam tysk identitet; i ekonomin förespråkades en korporativ klassamarebetesmodell där
samhällsklasserna cementerades och tilldelades strukturella roller som upprätthölls av staten; i privatlivet upphöjdes traditionell
kultur och traditionella könsroller hellre än en progressiv förändring av dessa; i den internationella politiken förespråkades
militaristisk imperialism och så vidare. Nationalsocialismens målsättning var inte att upphäva hierarkier och förtryckande strukturer
men att säkerställa deras existens och armera dem. Bland annat beskriver den ultraliberala anarkokapitalisten Murray Rothbard det vi
diskuterar så här: Fascismen och nazismen var de högerkollektivistiska inrikespolitiska tendensernas logiska slutpunkt. Det har blivit
vanligt bland libertarianer, liksom hos etablissemanget i väst, att betrakta fascismen och kommunismen som i grunden identiska. Men
medan båda system onekligen var kollektivistiska skilde de sig mycket åt, sett till deras socioekonomiska innehåll. Kommunismen
var en verklig revolutionär rörelse som hänsynslöst trängde undan och störtade den gamla styrande eliten medan fascismen tvärtom
cementerade makten hos de gamla härskande klasserna. Fascismen var således en kontrarevolutionär rörelse som frös fast en
uppsättning monopolprivilegier i samhället; kort sagt, fascismen upphöjde den moderna statskapitalismen till gudastatus. Detta var
anledningen till att fascismen var så attraktiv för stora affärsintressen i väst (vilket kommunismen förstås aldrig var) – öppet och
ogenerat så under 1920- och början på 1930-talet. (Murray Rothbard, Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty) Nazismen är således
en solklar högerideologi, en extrem högerideologi, givet dess grundläggande ideologiska innehåll när det gäller allt från ekonomi till
kultur. Nationalsocialisten talar om “nationalism” där socialisten talar om “internationalism.” Nationalsocialisten talar om
“klassamarbete” där socialisten talar om “klasskamp.” Nationalsocialisten talar om “tradition” där socialisten talar om
“progressivitet.” Nationalsocialisten talar om “den ariska rasens överlägsenhet” där socialisten talar om att “alla människor är
jämlika.” Vi skulle kunna hålla på hur länge som helst men för att korta ner det hela kan vi helt enkelt säga: nazisten säger “höger”
där socialisten säger “vänster.” Bemötande av vanligt förekommande påståenden från modern höger 1. “Det heter ju faktiskt national-
SOCIALISM!” Att en företrädare för en viss ideologi kallar sin egen idé “socialistisk” innebär inte med automatik att den måste
motsvara vad den gör anspråk på att vara. I det här fallet vänsterteori. För att demonstrera vad jag menar tänkte jag att vi applicerar
samma angreppsmetodologi som vi gör med nationalsocialismen men på två andra områden: Nordkoreas officiella namn är
“Demokratiska folkrepubliken Korea”. Vore det alltför långdraget för en politisk analytiker att anta att demokratin i det förhållandet
endast är nominellt? För oss är det därför lika uppenbart att avstyrka Demokratiska Kampucheas anspråk på den demokrati de
uppenbarligen inte förvaltade. Istället kan vi hitta förklaringen till NSDAP:s “socialism” i dåtidens höger. En relativt konventionell
högerkonservativ utlöpare i dåtidens Europa var en sådan som lade stor vikt vid kollektivet, i regel i en nationalistisk och
korporativistisk mening. Joseph de Maistre företrädde en sådan position i den så kallade “kontinentala konservatismen.” Ett annat
exempel hittar vi på hemmaplan i den svenske unghögermannen Rudolf Kjellén (verksam i vad som nu är Moderaterna). Han
förespråkade en form av korporativistisk konservatism grundad i nationalism – vilken han kallade “nationalsocialism.” Termen
socialism hade som begrepp i den kollektivistiska högern en annan mening än termen hade och har i vänstern. I högern syftade den
ofta till att se samhället som en “organism” efter gammal idealistisk konservativ modell där alla delar hänger ihop och bör bevaras så
som de är eller återföras till ett tidigare “mer naturligt” tillstånd; folket och nationen stod i fokus, liksom klassamarbetet,
traditionerna och hierarkierna, i rak motsats till hur termen användes av vänstern. Med den betydelse socialismen har idag och alltid
har haft hos vänstern sedan den moderna socialismens uppkomst kan nazismen således sägas vara ungefär lika mycket socialistisk
som Nordkorea eller Kampuchea är/var demokratiskt. 2. “Stor stat = socialism” Detta är av någon obergriplig anledning ett
återkommande antagande som upprepas gång på gång i diskussionerna om såväl nazism som om socialism och givetvis speciellt i
diskussionerna om ideologiernas eventuella kopplingar till varandra. Men det är ett bakslugt påstående. En stor stat, i meningen
omfattande och/eller inflytelserik sådan, har inte nödvändigtvis med socialism att göra. En socialist kan förespråka en stat med stort
inflytande i samhället. Sådan är till exempel den klassiska socialdemokratin. Men en socialist kan lika gärna frondera staten helt och
fullt vilket ju är anarkisters och många andra frihetliga socialisters hållning. Inom den marxistiska kommunismen ses staten ofta som
ett verktyg för att uppnå måletsättningen “stats- och klasslöst samhälle”. Någon enhetlig eller ens specifik inställning till staten finns
inte inom socialismen. Socialister av olika slag täcker hela spektrat från väldigt stark stat till ingen stat alls. Vad som finns är däremot
progressivitet: om staten ska användas som ett politiskt verktyg så ska den påverka samhället i progressiv riktning. Det är åtminstone
tanken bakom statssocialismen. Hur det översattes i praktiken är en annan sak. I konservatismen och hos reaktionärerna fanns
däremot specifikt i början av 1900-talet ofta ett starkt fokus på staten; staten måste vara stark för att kunna bevara ordningen
samtidigt som den till viss del måste ge efter för allmänna intressen för att kunna vidmakthålla ordningen (för att undvika
revolutioner). Hos de traditionella konservativa och reaktionära hittar vi monarkister som vill att samhället ska styras av en enda
monark och korporativister som ser samhället som en “organism” som måste ledas av en stark korporativ stat där “de bästa” står för
styret (vilket ofta stod i motsats till demokratiskt valda ledare). Här är parallellen till Platons syn på den elitdemokratin tydlig. Det är
således återigen bland de kollektivistiska och nationalistiska reaktionärerna som de flesta beröringspunkterna med
nationalsocialismen och fascismen går att utläsa. Den stora stat som nationalsocialisterna förespråkade och upprätthöll passar som
handen i handsken med andra högerkollektivistiska tankegångar under sent 1800-tal och under 1900-talets första hälft. Det intima
förhållandet var förmodligen också en av anledningarna till att den svenska högerns ungdomsförbund, Sveriges nationella
ungdomsförbund till slut bröt sig loss från moderpartiet (nuvarande Moderaterna) tillsammans med några moderata riksdagsmän och
bildade Sveriges nationella förbund, en organisation som var en öppet pronazistisk rörelse med tillhörande “kamporganisation”,
uniformer och armbindlar. 3. NSDAP ville genomdriva socialistisk politik Detta är ett något mer sofistikerat argument än de två
föregående, men även det saknar stabil grund. Det är sant att det existerade något mer (strikt ekonomiskt) socialistiska element inom
den bredare nazistiska rörelsen men sådana aspirationer eliminerades av Hitler innan de riskerade att konkretiseras. Den socialistiska
ekonomins främsta företrädare inom partiet eliminerades under vad som kommit att bli känt som “de långa knivarnas natt”
tillsammans med stora delar av SA. Inte ens “kvasi-socialistisk” ekonomi med bibehållen rasism, traditionalism och nationalism var
alltså något som Hitler ville tolerera. Istället skulle han betrakta de socialistiska strömningarna som rivaler. Man talade ofta varmt om
jämliket och arbetarnas rätt men verkligheten var en annan. Förutom sänkta löner för de sämst betalda arbetstagarna jobbade även
miljontals människor som slavar i nazistregimens arbets- och koncentrationsläger med en vinst som gick till staten och storkapitalet. I
Fascism och klassherravälde konstaterar Gunnar Gunnarsson att “…Handelsprofitens andel av de tyska nationalinkomsterna steg från
17,4 procent år 1932 till 26,6 procent 1938″ och att “de tyska aktiebolagens kapital steg från 18,75 miljarder riksmark år 1938 till
mer än 29 miljarder vid slutet av 1942”. Det skall då kontrasteras med att “de lägsta lönerna i Hitlertyskland sjönk med mellan 25
och 40 procent (i Italien uppemot 50 procent) åren efter 1933 och att börsvinsterna gick i taket” Realpolitiken var högerpolitik. När
fackliga rättigheter avskaffades kammade storföretagen hemenorma övervinster samtidigt som de lägsta arbetarlönerna blev ännu
lägre. Staten styrdes på ett korporativt vis av NSDAP tillsammans med Tysklands storföretag och ledande kapitalister. De faktiska
reformer som genomfördes knyter naturligt an till den klassiska konservativa tanken om förändring i syfte att bevara ordningen:
genom att erbjuda befolkningen reformistiskt “bröd och skådespel” kunde man hålla fast vid den reella makten och lejonparten av
vinsterna. Vad som fördes var således inte socialistisk politik. Inte heller var det vänsterpolitik i liberal form Det var snarare en
extrem kollektivistisk och nationalistisk högerkonservativ/reaktionär politik i linje med vad man kan förvänta sig av en sådan. Emilia
Princeton, gästskribent Politifonen. Relaterad läsning: Hitlers politiska historia startade efter första världskriget. Under kriget var
Hitler ordonnans och korpral. Vi krigsslutet 1918 tog han anställning i Münchens armédistrikt som spion åt det tyska Riksvärnet, det
som återstod av den tyska armén efter nederlaget. Hitlers uppgift var att spionera på vänstern och fackföreningsrörelsen. Hitlers
första uppdrag var att 1919 överta ledningen för det lilla högerpartiet, Tyska Arbetarpartiet, Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. På partiets
möten hetsade Hitler grovt mot kommunister, socialister, fackföreningsmän och judar. Han var en utomordentlig demagog som kunde
konsten att hetsa upp åhörarna. Han drog till partiet gamla yrkesmilitärer, underbefäl och officerare vilket gav partiet en militär profil.
Hitler tog snart över ledningen av partiet. Han döpte om partiet till Nationalsocialistiska Tyska Arbetarpartiet – NSDAP och antog ett
program som bestod av extremnationalistiska principer och en starkt antisocialistisk, antisemitisk grund. Åren därefter
karakteriserades av stor massarbetslöshet och stor social oro. Hitlers hatpropaganda drog till sig anhängare och partiet växte.
Konfrontation med kommunisterna och socialisterna var ett av partiets mål som alltid stog överst på dagordningen. Hitler gav Ernst
Röhm, en gammal officer, uppdraget att organisera partiets privatarmé SA, Sturmabteilung (stormavdelning), som nazisterna använde
vid attacker mot kommunisternas partimöten och partilokaler