XPost: alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.politics.trump, sac.politics   
   XPost: alt.politics.republicans, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.poli   
   ics.socialism.democratic   
   From: athinker@gopfags.net   
      
   [But what about Hitler supporting lefty things like Gay Marriage,   
   immigration, equality for non-whites and non-Christians and Pacifism?   
   What about all those Neo Nazis, KKK and white supremacists who protested   
   with ANTIFA all those times?   ]   
      
      
   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.   
      
   [...]   
      
   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’   
      
   [...]   
      
   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:   
      
   [...]   
      
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)