The origin of the wrong idea that the nazis were lefties

[vanguard96]

As far as I know, the first person who started this bad idea that national socialism was left-wing was Ludwig von Mises. He worked in the fascist Austrian government, but when nazism became a disaster, it became better for the right to throw nazism to the left.

Most Nazis were originally socialists. They were national - not international. All are authoritarian.

Hitler wanted all the socialist goodies - central bank, government schools, nationalized (de-facto) of key industries, and the destruction of capitalism.

There are MANY MANY quotes on this subject. Mises and Hayek just popularized it at a time which frankly was very hostile to laissez faire capitalism.

At the end of the day Hitler, Lenin, Stalin were closer than many think and Mises was one of the few advocates of liberalism (classical 18th and 19th century version) and capitalism at a time when so many were either socialist or nationalist. It was a dire time for the world and the 1930's in the US and UK was a very red decade. It is telling that Mises, a Jew himself is considered a fascist.
 

[vanguard96]

Quotes from Hitler - per the Libertarian Republic:

Hitler may have publicly denounced Marxism, because of his war against the hated Soviet Union, but privately he always admitted that he was at heart a left-winger. He once said to Otto Wagener that the problem with the politicians of the Weimar Republic was that they “had never even read Marx.”

He believed that the problem of German Communists was that they didn’t understand the difference between principles and tactics. He referred to them as mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun.”

He stated plainly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx.

If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites – and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose.” “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?

We must “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution”.

"Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” 1927

"What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish we shall be in a position to achieve.”

Also planks of the National Socialist party:
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations

Even though he did not like the Communists and did not care for the Soviet Union he was thoroughly socialist, an unorthodox one but one that had different tactics to achieve many of the same goals.

Naturally a socialist will blanch at it but when you see it in black and white it is harder to spin it...

Rip down those Lenin and Che statues - they are no heroes.

[vanguard96]

Hitler named it the National Socialist Party in part to tick off and confuse the other socialist and communist parties in Germany at the time and pick off more of their voters. They were a far right party but emphasized the re-invigoration piece during the Wiemar years and then focused on nationalism of war industries and/or collusion with them and other industries in the pre-war and war years.

So some leftist ideas but mostly right, the darkest econ ideas of the Nazis weren't even that left but more dark, slave labor, camps, forced servitude, etc. That doesn't really fit in with any ideology except barbarianism.

Yes, it wasn't really uncommon for minor far-right parties at the time NSDAP was still forming to use terms "socialist", "revolutionary" or "working", trying to capitalize on increased left-wing sentiments post WWI.

Putting everything else aside, there were elements within the NSDAP that were clearly to the left economically, with a very anti-capitalist zeal. I'm talking about those element that were purged in 1934. After Hitler allied himself with plutocrats, and then made up with Reichswehr generals, there was nothing remotely "left-wing" to speak of.

People tend to sometimes confuse big spending, something Nazis did, with "left-wing" ideology. It's idiotic simplification.

Good to acknowledge the origins were left wing economically - a number of the quotes are from the 20's and early 30's...

This is a lot of what Hayek and Mises mention the strong origins from socialism and not disagreeing with the ideals of Marx & Lenin just the methods.

Definitely statism and anti-free markets. Anti-liberal (in terms of individual rights classical liberalism) in its outlook.

If one wasn't a power player or did not fall in line with their direction then extremely harsh terms would be applied.

For example Auto Union and Mercedes  in the mid 30s were de facto nationalized brands.

Hitler himself in 1933 was announcing car programs.
The racing program which developed some of the world's fastest cars (268 mph top speed) was a government project.

They also used forced labor of concentration camp and POW to make military vehicles much like the Soviet use of Japanese POWs in Siberia from 1945-50 to build railroads.

[vanguard96]

Leftist economic garbage nonetheless and had the commies had their way still millions would have died - maybe not the same mix but a horror of state control no doubt.

[vanguard96]

Per Joseph Bederansky and quoted: "Large segments of the Nazi Party staunchly supported its official socialist, revolutionary, and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and an economic revolution when the party gained power in 1933. Many of the million members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) were committed to the party's official socialist program."

Regardless of the nationalist populist origin of Volkisch, economically and in terms of the value of the collective over the individual and the common good were socialist in orientation.

[vanguard96]

You're biased because the current concept of "economic rightism" as codified by Thatcher and Reagan did not really exist in the time. Hitler operated in the context of the Great Depression and World war 2, two situations which created an extraordinary amount of governmental power. But what Sibb is saying is that "government having a lot of power" or "lots of money being spent" is not a very useful indicator of left wing politics, otherwise you end up with patent absurdities (e.g. It would place the Democratic-Republicans to the right of Jefferson; it would class most powerful monarchs as socialist).

Left-wing economics especially then means redistribution of capital and power to the working classes. The Nazis had no interest in that.

So you're saying the spectrum is relative to the politics of the context? Sorry, but that's a bit too fluid and reductionist for my liking. I respectfully disagree; the Nazis are easy to categorise on a modern political scale and just because some of their actions contradict the notion of a left-wing party, doesn't disprove the idea that they were left-wing.

If that's not left-wing then I don't know what is.

I don't think you need to tell us that you don't now what left-wing means.

Cute.

Socialists and leftists have their own huge biases and blind spots and for the last 45-50 years have been keying on the fluid nature of truth as a means to justify their failed system. This is a classic example of post modernist politics.

Hence 'real socialism has never been tried' and the Western imperialists are typically to blame for pretty much anything else that is not blamed on a single accepted compromised figure like Stalin who they cannot make any excuses for. This is used to shift the blame from earlier figures like Trotsky and Lenin, and even Mao, Castro & Che for some. The amount of 'whataboutery' is immense. I mention the death tolls of their own people killed in the name of socialism - and they say 'but capitalism ...."

Of course, the views in earlier posts about 'economic rightism' ignore the 19th century liberal movement where for instance Frederic Bastiat was considered a part of the left wing in the French assembly but now would be considered right wing economically speaking if one wants to use the right and left terms.

In the 30's and 40's in particularly the two prevailing political views were socialism and nationalism. Individual rights largely took the backseat especially in regards to economic issues. In this maelstrom the views of figures of the times like Hayek, Mises, Rand, and others were very small islands in a sea of collectivism.

If one is inclined to be able to twist words as the left has continually done we could also contend that increased government support of companies with tax breaks, incentives, propping up of failing companies, award of special contracts and provisions, provision of monopoly power, and such is not 'crony capitalism' or 'capitalism' but instead 'bourgeois socialism' as Pareto mentioned in the late 1890's and can show disdain for it like we do for both 'proletarian socialism' and the New Left.

We can also see the public-private relations of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy in a limited sense bear a closer resemblance to the worst fears of where the US will head with its largest companies like Google, Boeing, Raytheon, and GE and their increasing participation in the advancement of US national security goals particularly as foreign wars and mass surveillance continue at these high levels. The Italian state was for its time not openly racist and there was a mutual admiration between FDR and Benito Mussolini. Fascist in and of itself does not mean racist.

[vanguard96]

You're biased because the current concept of "economic rightism" as codified by Thatcher and Reagan did not really exist in the time. Hitler operated in the context of the Great Depression and World war 2, two situations which created an extraordinary amount of governmental power. But what Sibb is saying is that "government having a lot of power" or "lots of money being spent" is not a very useful indicator of left wing politics, otherwise you end up with patent absurdities (e.g. It would place the Democratic-Republicans to the right of Jefferson; it would class most powerful monarchs as socialist).

Left-wing economics especially then means redistribution of capital and power to the working classes. The Nazis had no interest in that.

So you're saying the spectrum is relative to the politics of the context? Sorry, but that's a bit too fluid and reductionist for my liking. I respectfully disagree; the Nazis are easy to categorise on a modern political scale and just because some of their actions contradict the notion of a left-wing party, doesn't disprove the idea that they were left-wing.

If that's not left-wing then I don't know what is.

I don't think you need to tell us that you don't now what left-wing means.

Cute.

Socialists and leftists have their own huge biases and blind spots and for the last 45-50 years have been keying on the fluid nature of truth as a means to justify their failed system. This is a classic example of post modernist politics.

Hence 'real socialism has never been tried' and the Western imperialists are typically to blame for pretty much anything else that is not blamed on a single accepted compromised figure like Stalin who they cannot make any excuses for. This is used to shift the blame from earlier figures like Trotsky and Lenin, and even Mao, Castro & Che for some. The amount of 'whataboutery' is immense. I mention the death tolls of their own people killed in the name of socialism - and they say 'but capitalism ...."

Of course, the views in earlier posts about 'economic rightism' ignore the 19th century liberal movement where for instance Frederic Bastiat was considered a part of the left wing in the French assembly but now would be considered right wing economically speaking if one wants to use the right and left terms.

In the 30's and 40's in particularly the two prevailing political views were socialism and nationalism. Individual rights largely took the backseat especially in regards to economic issues. In this maelstrom the views of figures of the times like Hayek, Mises, Rand, and others were very small islands in a sea of collectivism.

If one is inclined to be able to twist words as the left has continually done we could also contend that increased government support of companies with tax breaks, incentives, propping up of failing companies, award of special contracts and provisions, provision of monopoly power, and such is not 'crony capitalism' or 'capitalism' but instead 'bourgeois socialism' as Pareto mentioned in the late 1890's and can show disdain for it like we do for both 'proletarian socialism' and the New Left.

We can also see the public-private relations of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy in a limited sense bear a closer resemblance to the worst fears of where the US will head with its largest companies like Google, Boeing, Raytheon, and GE and their increasing participation in the advancement of US national security goals particularly as foreign wars and mass surveillance continue at these high levels. The Italian state was for its time not openly racist and there was a mutual admiration between FDR and Benito Mussolini. Fascist in and of itself does not mean racist.

State Capitalism and State Socialism are also alternative words that come to mind to describe the same kind of state sponsored entities, monopolies, subsidies etc etc etc.

But the point of the thread if one wants to attack statism, then attack statism. That is far easier then trying to label every non-libertarian as a socialist, which leads to Hitler and I guess Louis XIV being labeled as socialist, which is pretty ridiculous.

I would also note on the matter of relativism. I think there are some moral values that are absolute, but at the same time like Truman quoted me in his signature, there are no angels in history. And taking an absolute standard leads one to throw them all in the trash, and that is bad because there are lessons to be drawn from historical figures. Relativism makes sense in the case of the Civil War period, because everyone was racist compared to today, you cannot take the critical lesson without judging actions in relation to the existing paradigm.

Libertarians often do this with Coolidge on protectionism and immigration and give him a free pass on those issues.

Coolidge of course kept Hoover despite already showing interventionist tendencies as Treasury Secretary.
He's far from perfect in his handling of the Mississippi flood as well as some less than savory restrictions on Southern and Eastern European immigration numbers. However judging by the standards of the day he kept away from the KKK, improved recognition of native Americans and had dialogues with black business leaders.

When compared to Wilson, Harding, Hoover, and FDR he comes out pretty good overall.

And I did say "if"we're free to twist definitions around then in a worst case scenario what is happening could lead to a fascist government which does not necessarily mean ethnic cleansing...

It's not too late.

[vanguard96]

You're biased because the current concept of "economic rightism" as codified by Thatcher and Reagan did not really exist in the time. Hitler operated in the context of the Great Depression and World war 2, two situations which created an extraordinary amount of governmental power. But what Sibb is saying is that "government having a lot of power" or "lots of money being spent" is not a very useful indicator of left wing politics, otherwise you end up with patent absurdities (e.g. It would place the Democratic-Republicans to the right of Jefferson; it would class most powerful monarchs as socialist).

Left-wing economics especially then means redistribution of capital and power to the working classes. The Nazis had no interest in that.

So you're saying the spectrum is relative to the politics of the context? Sorry, but that's a bit too fluid and reductionist for my liking. I respectfully disagree; the Nazis are easy to categorise on a modern political scale and just because some of their actions contradict the notion of a left-wing party, doesn't disprove the idea that they were left-wing.

If that's not left-wing then I don't know what is.

I don't think you need to tell us that you don't now what left-wing means.

Cute.

Socialists and leftists have their own huge biases and blind spots and for the last 45-50 years have been keying on the fluid nature of truth as a means to justify their failed system. This is a classic example of post modernist politics.

Hence 'real socialism has never been tried' and the Western imperialists are typically to blame for pretty much anything else that is not blamed on a single accepted compromised figure like Stalin who they cannot make any excuses for. This is used to shift the blame from earlier figures like Trotsky and Lenin, and even Mao, Castro & Che for some. The amount of 'whataboutery' is immense. I mention the death tolls of their own people killed in the name of socialism - and they say 'but capitalism ...."

Of course, the views in earlier posts about 'economic rightism' ignore the 19th century liberal movement where for instance Frederic Bastiat was considered a part of the left wing in the French assembly but now would be considered right wing economically speaking if one wants to use the right and left terms.

In the 30's and 40's in particularly the two prevailing political views were socialism and nationalism. Individual rights largely took the backseat especially in regards to economic issues. In this maelstrom the views of figures of the times like Hayek, Mises, Rand, and others were very small islands in a sea of collectivism.

If one is inclined to be able to twist words as the left has continually done we could also contend that increased government support of companies with tax breaks, incentives, propping up of failing companies, award of special contracts and provisions, provision of monopoly power, and such is not 'crony capitalism' or 'capitalism' but instead 'bourgeois socialism' as Pareto mentioned in the late 1890's and can show disdain for it like we do for both 'proletarian socialism' and the New Left.

We can also see the public-private relations of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy in a limited sense bear a closer resemblance to the worst fears of where the US will head with its largest companies like Google, Boeing, Raytheon, and GE and their increasing participation in the advancement of US national security goals particularly as foreign wars and mass surveillance continue at these high levels. The Italian state was for its time not openly racist and there was a mutual admiration between FDR and Benito Mussolini. Fascist in and of itself does not mean racist.

State Capitalism and State Socialism are also alternative words that come to mind to describe the same kind of state sponsored entities, monopolies, subsidies etc etc etc.

But the point of the thread if one wants to attack statism, then attack statism. That is far easier then trying to label every non-libertarian as a socialist, which leads to Hitler and I guess Louis XIV being labeled as socialist, which is pretty ridiculous.

I would also note on the matter of relativism. I think there are some moral values that are absolute, but at the same time like Truman quoted me in his signature, there are no angels in history. And taking an absolute standard leads one to throw them all in the trash, and that is bad because there are lessons to be drawn from historical figures. Relativism makes sense in the case of the Civil War period, because everyone was racist compared to today, you cannot take the critical lesson without judging actions in relation to the existing paradigm.

Libertarians often do this with Coolidge on protectionism and immigration and give him a free pass on those issues.

Coolidge of course kept Hoover despite already showing interventionist tendencies as Treasury Secretary.
He's far from perfect in his handling of the Mississippi flood as well as some less than savory restrictions on Southern and Eastern European immigration numbers. However judging by the standards of the day he kept away from the KKK, improved recognition of native Americans and had dialogues with black business leaders.

When compared to Wilson, Harding, Hoover, and FDR he comes out pretty good overall.

And I did say "if"we're free to twist definitions around then in a worst case scenario what is happening could lead to a fascist government which does not necessarily mean ethnic cleansing...

It's not too late.

Yes and that is a relativist comparison in the context of history, hence the "Compared to".


Well there is always the danger when you concentrate wealth and power, that it can lead to corruption and worse. It is better to decentralize and split up power bastions, which our Constitution went to great lengths to try to do in terms of power. At the same time, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few Wall Street banks, is also dangerous and regulations that contribute to that should be abolished, and in a few select instances, the establishment of new ones to avoid such concentrations. Like perhaps and limit on the % of market share a single investment bank can have and greater enforcement of anti-trust laws. Though I doubt you would approve of the latter one, I think you would of the former. Banking is somewhat different from other industries, because bank failures can ripple through the economy.

You are right I don't think setting a percentage limit would be ideal.

A lot of power is due to political favors & preferential treatment garnered through lobbying. It would be ideal to reduce its scope so that people object not only to Trump's Charlottesville stance and applaud business leaders not solely for leaving the presidential council but object also to the idea that these big corporations should be able to directly garner government favor.

Does anyone think those companies are going to work for small and midsize businesses when meeting the president?

FWIW with regard to the original topic of the thread, Tom Woods & Lew Rockwell on a recent Tom Woods podcast called Nazi Germany's economics a sort of hyper-Keynesian, third-way system. They didn't mention Hayek or Mises either.

I, for one find Rockwell too gloomy and doom-laden though obviously as a supporter of capitalism, I find his work in setting up the Mises Institute has been monumental, exposing a lot of historical writing dating back centuries - from across a broad spectrum of ideas from Ricardo, Smith, Locke, Mill, Bentham, Bastiat, Mises, Menger, Rothbard, and others. Whatever my views on his own stances are offset by the full library of free articles and e books from the original authors.

I like Tom Woods especially with Bob Murphy when they dissect Paul Krugman's platitudes in The NY Times. And he's got a good economic history perspective. Lately, especially on social media he has been very reactionary especially post-Charlottesville. Still, he's a largely positive voice in the liberty movement.

I am not a big fan of Hans Hermann Hoppe though who was a close follower of Murray Rothbard - so much so that he followed him to Vegas. He stands out for his strong position on freedom of disassociation to the point of forcible removal. It seems to attract people who do not seek out an exchange of ideas, let alone goods and services.

Seeing the people who are more provocative  types and Georgist single land use tax advocates or so-called "thick" libertarians argue is headache-inducing at times.

Seeing these squabbles I can understand the Objectivist / Ayn Rand Institute criticism of a lack of clarity of what libertarianism is.

But still I bristle at comments I see when someone cherrypicks one person's comments and say "that's why I am not a libertarian anymore". Would they say the same about Democrats or Republicans based on one person?