Can someone explain to me how the National Socialist German Workers' Party is considered far right on the political...

Economically the Nazis were centrist capitalists. They are often called far-right due to their social ideas of the racial purity and subjugation and destruction of foreign and inferior people.

Hitler's main pre-war economic planner was a banker.

Is it not the purpose of an active government that of maintaining power (authority). Unless you mean the means that the NAZIs went to control.

Also, all forms of socialism fails without nationalism. This holds true if you consider the EU as a nation state

Wasn't Hitler also Jewish? Or is that just a myth? Needless to say, my point being is that he is hypocritical regardless.

Are you implying that individualism is good?

You have received $0.02 from Koch Industries. Keep up the good work!

the term "right-wing" is meaningless and shouldn't exist. "right-wingers"are either status-quo proponents or reactionaries with a task of containing progressivism.

This

Because how they ACTED was completely at odds with their pseudo-leftist election promises.

Is the point was trying to make an incorrect one? Or are you just attempting to deflect the argument because it hits too close to home for you?

Did they both not run on the premise that a group of people stole a nations wealth, identity, etc., from the people?

Albeit Hitler took it to the next level by associating financiers with being predominantly jewish.

"Libertarian", especially fucking Objectivism, would be "Serfdom" for the overwhelming majority of people.

If you take Eugenics out of the picture, would socialist of today not be similar? Or I guess you could replace Eugenics with Identity politics, and then the similarities become more apparent. See how fast a staunch socialist will silence you if you have a differing viewpoint.

The difference is that Hitler dehumanized his enemies by calling them subhumans and depriving them of any human dignity.

Ah, and the OP's intentions are revealed. To show that Socialism just means all authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

autism

Calling any detractor "Xenophobe", "homophobe", "Whitesplaining" or "Racist" doesn't imply similar connotations?

No.

I believe that no perfect, true form of any ideology can exist successfully.

I just don't understand the love for the progressive movement.

I don't go after the American far right, because that's too easy of a target

Care to elaborate on that opinion? Those ad hominems are often used as a be all end all to discredit an opposing viewpoint.

Some progressive would say that people who "hate" are subhumans. Then your teetering into thought policing.

The only acceptable response so far

Those criticize one's behaviour, not the person itself. There's nothing dehumanizing about it.

Labeling doesn't necessarily imply dehumanization, it is something that often happens between polarizing sides.

The difference, however, is that Hitler took a big step from mere labeling by actively denying human and political rights to his opponents, issuing laws to legitimize his notions against them, seizing their property, sending them into force labor, and killing them in an industrial fashion.

I can jive with that.

I guess I am making my arguments based on my perceived future state analysis. Using current trends of said polarizing social behavior (slippery slope).

ya caught me

Most of those planks were normal issues that all major countries had to address in some form.

>Outlawing profits from interest rates (usury).
That never happened, sorry.

States providing opportunity (not the private market), banning interest rates on loans, nationalizing the private market, the state dividing profits, increasing welfare, state controlled real estate, prosecuting financiers, free higher education, and nationalized healthcare

are all proposals that seem to only exist on the "left" side of the spectrum. Which is why I ask why the NAZIs are considered far right

No need to apologize, my man. If it didn't come to fruition, then so what?

It is still listed within The 25-point Program of the NSDAP.

So why the fuck do people categorize Nazis on the top right of those political compasses? Shouldn't it be top left?

I believe that the EU is basically NAZI Germany (i.e. the socialists) winning WWII. Economically speaking, that is. Seriously, eugenics is really what people get so hung up on, and can distract from the underlying message.

With that said, given the migration crisis, is it not safe to project an eventual pushback of the current social policy? Are there not protests going on outside of G20 right now, and are those protests not "anti-globalization"? Is there going to be a shift back to national socialism that results from this migration? I'm talking 3-5 years down the line, when we see the true results from the influx of such an abrasive culture. There is bound to be a clash, if not now, then surly the next generation.

That's the argument I am trying to make.

When looking at the Nazi party historically, it seems that people lose sight in the fact that Nazis represent socialism run amok

Yes they're centre-left, only with racist tendency. The conservatives and reactionaries hated them, IIRC (because 'muh Prussian nobility', etc.).

>All citizens must have equal rights and obligations
you've got to be fucking kidding me OP
>We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
this is just retarded and certainly not left-wing in any way
>We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
wow how enlightened and liberal. kill everyone "whose activity is injurious to the general interest". that's the absolute definition of liberty if I ever heard it

Because everyone was doing it at the time. If there was a different party in power they would be doing it also. The times dictate politics, politics do not dictate the times.

I concede to your first point, unless mental gymnastics are used surrounding the use of "obligation". But nonetheless that is definitely the weakest link.

Old age welfare, and welfare of any regard is literal socialism. If you don't know that, then I question your intellect. Right Winger's would argue that it is one's personal responsibility to save your personal/private income for retirement.

Thirdly, I interpreted this as mainly targeting usurers and profiteers (i.e. bankers making money off of the usury from loans). That interpretation would not fall under a free market. That said, the national criminals bit is clearly a universally agreed upon notion.

1 out of 3. Step it up next time.

Hitler did not care about this program.

>Old age welfare, and welfare of any regard is literal socialism.
Was Bismarck a socialist?

I see what you did there, and I respect you for that. I don't know, man... I would label it as ironic. That Bismarck invented the first welfare state in order to keep socialists from power.

Does this change what I have to say about welfare - given this ironic detail about the man who started welfare and why he did? No. But it's nice trivia for political/economic humor nonetheless.

Chauvinism, puritanism (albeit a very weird one), social darwinism, strong hiearchy, racism, aggressive militarism and nationalism

There's more to politics than just economics

He is, by the American definition of socialism.

>There's more to politics than just economics
But is it not safe to say that the underlying economy dictates a country's social policy?

Hitler used certain groups of people as scapegoats for Germany's economic trouble. That is how he was able to successfully demonize and persecute, by getting a whole country to blame them for their economic woes.

I mean, is there not a correlation between a country's economic outlook and their social state?

I guess this has become more or less a devil's advocate question at this point.

Couldn't aggressive militarism and nationalism be marked down as wanting to spread the ideology of socialism?

>But is it not safe to say that the underlying economy dictates a country's social policy?
Correlates yes, dictates no. Only Marxists equate culture and economy.

>Couldn't aggressive militarism and nationalism be marked down as wanting to spread the ideology of socialism?
Nope, they were spreading blood, not ideology.

Fair enough, then.

So where do you personally put Nazis on the proverbial political spectrum? Far right, I assume - for the reasons you listed?

>human rights
well, now i know that you're going about it all wrong

>Chauvinism
>puritanism (albeit a very weird one)
lol I won't bother with this one schlomo
>social darwinism
like everyone else at the time?
>strong hiearchy
yeah that's why a common soldier became the führer right
>racism
like everyone else at the time too?
>aggressive militarism
you would too when your country was irresponsibly wrecked by the great powers
>nationalism
lol yeah, fuck off schlomo

Collectivist pleb

>yeah that's why a common soldier became the führer right

He got lucky.

>Far left and far right are both extremist authoritarian collectivists and are against individualism and free markets.
/thread

Do Americans really believe that if a government provides you basic services and doesn't let you die in the street it's a leftist socialist nightmare?

Yes, not even joking.

Yes. A lot of that kind of thought comes from cold war era propaganda.

That painting is evil, user.

It has a smug aura, it mocks me.

I don't like it.

Cutting to the chase. I like it. Possibly one of the few acceptable answers so far. 200 points.

The reason being, that if the government provides certain services, then that becomes the interest of the government.

America was founded upon the principles that the government stays out of private lives and business. So effectively breaking out of the social contract.

For example, say if Healthcare is nationalized, then your lifestyle becomes national interest. Will more risk taking activities become taxed higher, or even outlawed - due to the government's need to cut costs on Healthcare?

Look at some of the measures taken in France, for instance. Where refills on soda have been outlawed, and cigarettes are absurdly taxed. Could there exist a slippery slope of increasing regulation.

I get the argument for - that yeah a healthy populace is a good thing. But is it right to have the government dictate to you - through taxes and laws - how you live your life? That in of itself is sacrificing your freedom of choice and lifestyle.

Kek

I'm in the wrong demographic. It's a reference to the television show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I wanted to keep the references to Nazis desrete in the OP, to avoid immediate derailment by pol

And most people who are thankfully not in charge would do the same. Both left and right.