Was Hitler economically left wing?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Leftwing, IMO.

They typical leftist counterargument to this is to claim that he abolished unions. Actually he didn't, he replaced the independent labour unions with a single nationalized labour union that all Germans workers were part of, the German Labour Front. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front

Since independent labour unions were also abolished by the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, communist China etc., I don't think this disqualifies Hitler from being considered economically left wing. Nor does the militarist emphasis of his economic policies disqualify him seeing as the USSR and FDR's America pursued similar military buildups.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Hitler's economics were authoritarian and pro-Hitler. It's about as simple as that. Economic policies, as well as Nazi social policies, were all about instituting their backwards impression of "order" and "purity" and so on and maintaining their power.

The single nationally instituted union doesn't even resemble any other form of independent labor unions. The context in your comparisons is also incredibly important and you over-look it, as intent of an action matters more than the action itself in determining what, precisely, it is.

It was a way to control employment, and those in employment (which was very common in Nazi Germany, as they attempted to institute strict controls over healthcare and education, as well as other things, to keep Jews from being educated or being in the health sector) and nothing more. It wasn't really "left wing" or "right wing." It just was what it was, to further Nazi goals.

[Yelnoc]

Nazism was a form of Fascism differentiated by racial bigotry, not economics.  Fascism supports a "third-way" economic policy known as corporatism.  Thus, his economic policies do not truly fit into the "right" or "left," sparking debate like  this thread.  The biggest lesson learned from this is that our concepts of a left-right continuum are severely flawed and a new model is needed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh for God's sake. No.

This issue seems to be raised on the forum a couple of times every year and I'm now tired of bothering to refute it in any detail, so I'll just note a couple of points:

1. No credible historian of the twentieth century believes that the Nazi regime in general or Hitler in particular were 'left-wing' in any respect. This includes some rather right-wing economic historians who specialise in aspects of Nazi economic policy, so this is not an example of a notoriously lefty profession closing ranks.

2. Nazi economic policy was geared entirely towards rearmament (which was achieved via an extraordinarily complicated form of fraud) and not towards any remotely left-wing (however defined) objective. Contrary to what is frequently asserted, the standard of living for the working class in Germany actually declined during the pre-war Nazi period as wages were kept under tight control by means of... well... authoritarian rule.

3. German industrialists (most of them) did remarkably well out of the Nazi regime and this was intentional (more so, in some ways, than in contemporary economies). The examples of Krupp and IG Farben are well known, but they were merely extreme examples of a more general pattern. The close relationship between capital and the regime was good for both of them; as profits soared, so did corporate contributions to the Nazi Party (why, yes. This was a rather corrupt regime).

4. A Trade Union controlled by the government is not a Trade Union.

Fundamentally, you can only argue that 'Hitler was economically left wing' if you define 'economically left wing' as 'prepared to intervene in the economy in order to make it grow'. Which is absurd.

[J. J.]

Initially, the Nazis were exceptionally left wing and anti-big business; they initially proposed eliminating department stores, even those owned by non-Jews.  Generally, it was SA that was this radical.  When that faction lost power (1934), the Nazis economic moved more to the right, but still left of center.

Even if you factor out the "Aryanization," the Nazis were still left wing, and probably sightly to the left, economically, of the New Deal in the late 1930's.  Even prior to WW II, there was massive intervention and control of the economy, and of the segments of the economy not involving the Jews.

The Nazis could never be called right wing, economically, at any point during Hitler's reign.  The actual ideology was of small businesses and small farms.

[Liberté]

Leftwing, IMO.

They typical leftist counterargument to this is to claim that he abolished unions. Actually he didn't, he replaced the independent labour unions with a single nationalized labour union that all Germans workers were part of, the German Labour Front. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front

Since independent labour unions were also abolished by the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, communist China etc., I don't think this disqualifies Hitler from being considered economically left wing. Nor does the militarist emphasis of his economic policies disqualify him seeing as the USSR and FDR's America pursued similar military buildups.

I'm simply going to quote what I said in another thread on the subject:

Let us see how historian William Shrier, a first-hand eyewitness to the establishment of the Third Reich, interpreted Hitler's 'laborism'. From page 233 of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, according to Shrier, while the National Socialists may have used 'laborist' or unionist rhetoric, the application of that rhetoric in practice entailed, first, the centralization of labor unions and then the rendering subservient of them to the employers.

Hitler "replaced the independent labor unions" in order to subordinate the independent labor unions to the managerial class.

Even prior to WW II, there was massive intervention and control of the economy, and of the segments of the economy not involving the Jews.

This is not particularly 'left-wing'. Otto von Bismarck, the premiere conservative of the 19th century, created the first welfare state in modern history. And I'm quite left-wing economically and adamantly oppose government intervention in the economy, including welfare.

[Liberté]

Also, I'd like to note that Heinrich Brüning, the most "American conservative" chancellor of the Weimar Republic (as he was the least economically interventionist) used the government to break up some of the big Junker estates and distribute their holdings to the underclass. The association with a lack of State intervention in the economy with right-wing policies is quite recent.

[opebo]

rightwing

[Insula Dei]

Corporatist.

[minionofmidas]

The DAF was not a "trade union" controlled by government a la the Soviet Bloc (which, of course, are no trade unions either as they served very few of trade unions' traditional functions - but then the Soviet Union's economic policies weren't sanely describable as left wing, whatever the rhetoric. As some western Communists noticed, to their horror, as early as the 1920s. And mostly kept mum about.) It was run by the employers - not just de facto; officially - and served none of trade unions' traditional functions.

[J. J.]

Even prior to WW II, there was massive intervention and control of the economy, and of the segments of the economy not involving the Jews.

This is not particularly 'left-wing'. Otto von Bismarck, the premiere conservative of the 19th century, created the first welfare state in modern history. And I'm quite left-wing economically and adamantly oppose government intervention in the economy, including welfare.

Bismarck actually introduced old age pensions to Germany and set the retirement age at 65.  Further, he tended to be protectionist.  He was, certainly for his time, left of center economically.  In England, at the same time, you had laissez-faire Conservatives that were the majority of the party (though it lead to the party split).

[Liberté]

He was, certainly for his time, left of center economically.  In England, at the same time, you had laissez-faire Conservatives that were the majority of the party (though it lead to the party split).

Your mistake lies in accepting the narrow, myopic American definitions of 'right' and 'left' wholesale and trying to retroactively apply them to German history.

What was Bismarck's goal in establishing the welfare state in Germany? This libertarian site suggests it was the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody who understands Bismarck as a politician considers him 'left-winged' in any respect. That he was more economically interventionist that the British Tories is a given; so was the French ancien regime, and nobody can accuse King Louis of being "to the left" of the Tories of the nineteenth century.

The same applies to both Bismarck and Hitler. German conservatism had always implicitly accepted government intervention in the economy because, once Prussia came to dominate the Landtag and then Germany, they foisted their economic model upon the rest of the country. And Prussia had always seen collusion between the Junkers and the civil government, as well as a powerful military economy.

This tradition of 'conservative Statism' proved useful in Germany in helping to undermine the SPD and the socialists by "buying off" the workers who were loyal to them. While the means used to achieve this might be (erroneously, in my opinion) identified as being 'on the Left' within dogmatic American discourse, the end sought by them was most certainly 'on the Right'.

Bismarck and Hitler were economic interventionists and authoritarians. That does not, however, make them 'left-winged' in the slightest.

EDIT: British laissez-faire economics was not always considered 'conservative' either, given that the main rhetorical reason for repealing the Corn Laws (to use one example) was to free the British working classes from the burden of wage deflation. It was 'to the Left' of the physiocrats and the mercantilist who had been the main economists of the late Middle Ages. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

A mix of both.

On one hand, Hitler nationalized some stuff.

On the other hand, big corporations were favored, and had somewhat of a symbiotic relationship with the government. Hitler gets weapons, the factory owners make money. Meanwhile, small businesses and labor unions were crushed.

Therefore, Nazi economic ideology is really something which wouldn't fit well on a standard left-right axis, but would certainly be considered authoritarian.

[The Mikado]

One of these days, one of these threads will send our Al on a murderous rampage.

[Marokai Backbeat]

One of these days, one of these threads will send our Al on a murderous rampage.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

[J. J.]

Your mistake lies in accepting the narrow, myopic American definitions of 'right' and 'left' wholesale and trying to retroactively apply them to German history.

That, however, is how the question is phrased.

What was Bismarck's goal in establishing the welfare state in Germany?

His goal makes no difference.  His actions do.

Nobody who understands Bismarck as a politician considers him 'left-winged' in any respect. That he was more economically interventionist that the British Tories is a given; so was the French ancien regime, and nobody can accuse King Louis of being "to the left" of the Tories of the nineteenth century.

Actually, after 1871, that is debatable.  He certainly was no longer reactionary.

The same applies to both Bismarck and Hitler. German conservatism had always implicitly accepted government intervention in the economy because, once Prussia came to dominate the Landtag and then Germany, they foisted their economic model upon the rest of the country. And Prussia had always seen collusion between the Junkers and the civil government, as well as a powerful military economy.

This tradition of 'conservative Statism' proved useful in Germany in helping to undermine the SPD and the socialists by "buying off" the workers who were loyal to them. While the means used to achieve this might be (erroneously, in my opinion) identified as being 'on the Left' within dogmatic American discourse, the end sought by them was most certainly 'on the Right'.

Bismarck and Hitler were economic interventionists and authoritarians. That does not, however, make them 'left-winged' in the slightest.

Bismarck were far more to left, economically, than his opposites in England at the time, possibly the French, though I'm less familiar with 19th Century French economic policy.  Again, the "ends" don't make a difference, but the "means" do.  Almost every leader has the first priority of staying in power.

Here is the original 1920 Nazi platform:  http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf

All companies nationalized, full employment, profit sharing, forbidding real estate to be rented for profit.  That is not right wing.

(Of course they later said, "Let's just do that to the Jews.")

[Liberté]

That, however, is how the question is phrased.

And the question is poorly phrased. Within the historical context in which they lived, both Adolf Hitler and Otto von Bismarck were understood clearly as men of the Right, albeit not the traditional German Right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His goal makes all the difference. That's like arguing Bill Clinton was on the Right when he signed welfare reform - despite the fact that his goal was to prevent a far more radical reduction of welfare benefits by the Republican Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the material and political situation had changed. What was conservative in the German Confederation could no longer be conservative in the newly-minted German Empire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet the Tories (really the Liberals) in England of the time - the free-traders altogether - were to Bismarck's "Left", socially speaking. They supported free-trade in the main because of the benefits it brought to the new industrial class, as evidenced by some of the rhetoric being thrown around during the repeal of Comstock.

The same holds in France, where the free-traders were engaged in a much more riotous battle against the tattered remains of the mercantilist and protectionist conservatives of the ancien regime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've read it before. That platform was the product of a number of Nazi minds - Feder being the most predominant - and was written when Hitler was still nominally only the NSDAP's propaganda minister.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is 'right-wing' changes from era to era. The French monarchy enacted similar such laws to prevent the rising of the bourgeoisie.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Liberte is right about a mistake of applying modern, especially American, terms to those times.

By the way, in Weimar Republic the mainstream rightist forces rejected laisse-fairism. And, also by the way, the modern, mainstream right in Europe does as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One of these days, one of these threads will send our Al on a murderous rampage.

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

I like the area I live in too much for that. You all better hope that I never read such a thread elsewhere though...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The DAF was not a "trade union" controlled by government a la the Soviet Bloc (which, of course, are no trade unions either as they served very few of trade unions' traditional functions - but then the Soviet Union's economic policies weren't sanely describable as left wing, whatever the rhetoric. As some western Communists noticed, to their horror, as early as the 1920s. And mostly kept mum about.) It was run by the employers - not just de facto; officially - and served none of trade unions' traditional functions.

Yes. This as well. Absolutely.

He was, certainly for his time, left of center economically.

'Certainly', you say? That's an interesting choice of word. So... how, exactly, are you defining 'left of centre economically'?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Laissez-faire Conservatives? In Britain? In the Nineteenth Century?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

His goal makes no difference.  His actions do.

A ridiculous argument that - as far as I'm aware of - no credible historian of Germany in that period (or of social policy!) has ever actually made. It's also worth remembering that the social security system created by Bismarck in an (utterly unsuccessful, as it happens) attempt to blunt the rise of the SPD would not be described by anyone as a 'welfare state' if it existed today. For one thing, it only covered a minority of the population and didn't include unemployment payments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think that word means?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Being in favour of more state intervention in the economy than the people running Britain and France in the late nineteenth century is not saying a lot!

And, in any case, has little to do with any reasonable definition of 'left' and 'right' both at the time and now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Beyond irrelevant.

[Salaz]

The one great thing about National Socialalism was it stance against usuary but it was really Gottfried Feder who came up with the great economic ideas. Hitler sold out because wanted the backing the elited and big corporations.

[© tweed]

whenever we get one of these threads I look forward to reading Al's posts.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Hitler didn't really care about economics. He wanted to establish and expand the supremacy of the Germanic master race. All government policies were ultimately designed to serve this goal. It was irrelevant to him whether these policies could be defined as "right-wing" oder "left-wing", as long as they got the job done. Ultimately, he didn't really give a  about the interests of  entrepreneurs or the working class either, as long as the members of both groups were 100% Aryan.

[All Along The Watchtower]

For Christ's sake, no. Hitler not only supported/was supported by German industrialists and stressed the protection of private property rights, he was fervently hostile to Communism, Social Democracy, and anything else that could threaten the "natural order" of German society.

The "Socialism" part of National Socialism was marketing. More specifically, Hitler himself said that Nazi "socialism" had NOTHING to do with Marxism.  Opposition to laissez-faire  capitalism by the Nazis had more to do with the fact that the Communist Party in Germany was very powerful in the late 1920s/early 1930s, and left-wing movements in general were strong. They needed the support of the people to get into power. It was an ideological stance that was practical.

However, once in power, except for those businessmen and financiers who had the misfortune of being Jewish or were perceived to be "disloyal", big business in Germany did well under the Nazis.