LSE Tories: "We'll only campaign against far left fascists"

[Azrael]

HOW IS NAZISM RIGHT WING

Anyone know?

 

[CyberRose]

Anyone know?

Is it something to do with what happened to the Jews under their reign?!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well intangibles like volk and a sense of national humiliation aren't rooted in economics.

They may not be rooted in the abstract theory of economics, but they were damned well-rooted in the practice of economics at that time and place.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hitler left detailed economics out of Mein Kampf, being a derranged dreamer obsessed with volk and restoring national honour.

No, he left "detailed economics" out of it because they weren't his field of endeavour, and because given the route he wished to take the NSDAP down, he knew he'd have access to better minds for the job.

Farming economic policy out to Hjalmar Schacht isn't the same thing as Nazism being rooted in economics; it's a pragmatic necessity of government.

Except that Schacht took the Nazi economy down exactly the roads Hitler wanted it taken down, involving exactly the bastions of German capital Hitler wanted to involve.
Nazism can't be divorced from it's economy, just as the economy can't be divorced from the volkische mythology and the Judenhass.

And the war-economy Germany ended up with is only coherent until such time as you run out of wars to fight, which given the size of Europe, wouldn't be very long.

Except that the core of Nazi philosophy pertained to lebensraum, to the Ostplan and expansion into previously "under-developed" territories ripe for exploitation by "Greater Germany".

 

[ViolentPanda]

pppppppppp

 

[Azrael]

No, he left "detailed economics" out of it because they weren't his field of endeavour, and because given the route he wished to take the NSDAP down, he knew he'd have access to better minds for the job.

Hitler had a field of endeavour? Beyond a midling comptetence at soldiering (personal courage aside, he lacked self-control big time) he failed at everything he set his hand to. If he had had a burning interest in abstract economic theory, I suggest he would have mouthed off about it at length. To make the understatement of the last century, this was not a rational man.

Except that Schacht took the Nazi economy down exactly the roads Hitler wanted it taken down, involving exactly the bastions of German capital Hitler wanted to involve. Nazism can't be divorced from it's economy, just as the economy can't be divorced from the volkische mythology and the Judenhass.

No, it can't be divorced, but as I usually say with these things, where's the chicken and where's the egg? Were capitalist economics an intrinsic part of Nazi "philosophy", or were they incidental, made use of to forward a pre-existing agenda. That the leadership had to organise the Night of the Long Knives to crush the movement's socialist wing suggests the latter.

Except that the core of Nazi philosophy pertained to lebensraum, to the Ostplan and expansion into previously "under-developed" territories ripe for exploitation by "Greater Germany".

True, but was that expansion rooted in hard-headed ecnomics, or misty-eyed nonsense about Volk and birthright. I suggest there are more stable ways of creating economic security than launching a pan-European war!

For Nazism to be "right-wing", capitalism has to be to it what collectivism was to communism. The most notable thing Hitler had to say on economics were predictable rants about Jewish money-lenders. True, so-called conservatives and industrialists backed him and his movement, but only because they thought it could be made their puppet. I see no love of the capitalist class amongst Nazis: just the opposite.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hitler had a field of endeavour? Beyond a midling comptetence at soldiering (personal courage aside, he lacked self-control big time) he failed at everything he set his hand to.

If that were the case, the Nazis would have never held power, even at a local level. Unfortunately or the world, you're wrong, and Hitler excelled at two things; populist social policy formation and public speaking.

If he had had a burning interest in abstract economic theory...

I've already said that he didn't, and that he accepted that there were others better able to do so.

...I suggest he would have mouthed off about it at length. To make the understatement of the last century, this was not a rational man.

Has anyone claimed he was?

No, it can't be divorced, but as I usually say with these things, where's the chicken and where's the egg? Were capitalist economics an intrinsic part of Nazi "philosophy", or were they incidental, made use of to forward a pre-existing agenda. That the leadership had to organise the Night of the Long Knives to crush the movement's socialist wing suggests the latter.

Only if you (and by "you" I mean "people who've perhaps read a couple of basic texts on the subject) believe that the "Night of the Long Knives" was only about a clash between socialist and nationalist versions of Nazi philosophy. It wasn't.
It was also very much about creating an opportunity to purge the entire party not just of the left-leaning, but of any element considered "undesirable" by Hitler and his inner circle, and of some non-party elements in general society.

If we're looking very basically at your "chicken or egg" situation, then it makes sense to examine the root philosophy for Nazism, which is fascism (which also had early left/right tensions). De Grand, in his analyses of Italian fascism, makes very plain the reactionary, conservative nature of core fascist thought, of it's use of socialist symbology to achieve a wider dissemination of it's views, of it's desire for autarky but quick subordination to, and reliance on capital in order to attain and sustain power. Much the same happened in Germany, except that the Nazis, in their version of fascism, factored in an eternal scapegoat, a catch-all bogeyman whose political and economic machinations made it possible, through that bogeyman's extermination, gave themselves a method through which to promote their philosophy as a higher duty. Capitalism and capitalist economics were intrinsic to fascism and Nazism, in order to fund the rise of the central philosophies, as well as to form part of the structure of the realisation of those philosophies.

True, but was that expansion rooted in hard-headed ecnomics, or misty-eyed nonsense about Volk and birthright. I suggest there are more stable ways of creating economic security than launching a pan-European war!

Of course there are "more stable" ways, but you need to view the situation as an outsider would have in the 1930s, not as someone in 2009. At that time, in that place, Hitler's plans not only made sense to many Germans, but had support in many European nations, volkische mythology notwithstanding.

For Nazism to be "right-wing", capitalism has to be to it what collectivism was to communism. The most notable thing Hitler had to say on economics were predictable rants about Jewish money-lenders. True, so-called conservatives and industrialists backed him and his movement, but only because they thought it could be made their puppet. I see no love of the capitalist class amongst Nazis: just the opposite.

Love is irrelevant, mutual toleration was more than enough to set Europe alight. Hatred would have meant such mutual toleration wouldn't have occurred. It did. Tens of millions died.
By the way, I doubt that there was a single industrial combine after 1935 that believed it could ride the tiger. The evidence otherwise was too great.

 

[Friedman]

It's a matter of defining terms. The Nazi movement is often unthinkingly labelled as right wing without actually defining what that means. The Nazis were afterall National Socialists by their own label, so it's fair enough for a right wing party to disassociate themselves with the Nazis by pointing to their left wing credentials in just the same way as left wing parties would point out their right wing elements.

From everything I know, the Nazi movement was more born out of frustration and fear leading to hatred and anger than any consistent and coherent ideology that could sensibly be labelled as being of the left or right.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's a matter of defining terms. The Nazi movement is often unthinkingly labelled as right wing without actually defining what that means. The Nazis were afterall National Socialists by their own label, so it's fair enough for a right wing party to disassociate themselves with the Nazis by pointing to their left wing credentials in just the same way as left wing parties would point out their right wing elements.

From everything I know, the Nazi movement was more born out of frustration and fear leading to hatred and anger than any consistent and coherent ideology that could sensibly be labelled as being of the left or right.

In which case you need to read the thread.

 

[Azrael]

If that were the case, the Nazis would have never held power, even at a local level. Unfortunately or the world, you're wrong, and Hitler excelled at two things; populist social policy formation and public speaking.

Not so sure. The Nazi Party preceded Hitler, and he almost destroyed the organisation in a madcap coup d'etat dreamt up in a Munich beer hall. If the Wiemar courts had applied the law properly, Hitler would have been beheaded after his treason conviction, and would be lucky to occupy a footnote in a dusty history book. As for public speaking, he had raw force of personality, true, but was a one-trick pony. If Wiemar Germany hadn't imploded, it's very doubtful his low-rent demagogy would have got anywhere beyond an arterial stain on a jailhouse floor.

Hitler had a lot of help doing what he did. Gregor Strasser was responsible for rebuiling the party after the disastrous Putsch, but emphasised its socialist element and had to be disposed of in the Knight of the Long Knives. Which wasn't just an attempt to bump off socialists, but that was a major part of it, and that they existed in such numbers that they had to be bumped off shows the Nazi platform wasn't inherently right wing.

This is digressing though. Mussolini was explicitly against individualism, and his "corporatist state", in using the state to harness economics for a collective end, is a rejection of laissez faire capitalism.

As for conservatism, fascists might have masqueraded as conservatives, but in reality, their attempt to impose an imagined past on the present introduced sweeping changes that were anathema to conservatism as Burke, Peel and Disraeli would have understood it.

Fascism (both Nazism and the Italian brand) treated economics a servant of the state, which is a world away from Adam Smith and the invisible hand of the market. Corporatism isn't capitalism, and the collectivism at the heart of fascism is anathema to a free market. A philosophy that seeks to expand the hand of the state into all spheres of life cannot properly be called right-wing.

 

[Azrael]

Or succinctly: Nazism was a collectivist doctrine that grave primacy to state and race, not economics. Economics were incidental to its ends, and it would adopt the economic policy it thought best suited to achieving them.

 

[Blagsta]

Wasn't fascism an attempt to end class conflict by subsuming all interests to the nation? Isn't nationalism a right wing ideology? Isn't it very innacurate to say that right wing ideas consist only of free market ideas?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not so sure. The Nazi Party preceded Hitler...

No, Anton Drexler's DAP (founded jan 1919) preceded Hitler (joined sept 1919), by about 8 months, with Hitler heavily involved in two major developments in 1920: The introduction of the "25 point programme" I posted earlier, and the name-change from the "German Worker's Party" to the "National Socialist German Worker's Party" ("Nazi" being a familiar contraction of "national socialist"). Hitler then ousted Drexler from the leadership in early 1921.
So, the Nazi party didn't precede Hitler, although a few of the ideas that turned up in the "25 point programme" were indeed Drexler's, mostly those to do with the equalisation of relations between Germany and other nation-states.

...and he almost destroyed the organisation in a madcap coup d'etat dreamt up in a Munich beer hall. If the Wiemar courts had applied the law properly, Hitler would have been beheaded after his treason conviction, and would be lucky to occupy a footnote in a dusty history book. As for public speaking, he had raw force of personality, true, but was a one-trick pony. If Wiemar Germany hadn't imploded, it's very doubtful his low-rent demagogy would have got anywhere beyond an arterial stain on a jailhouse floor.

A few points that are fairly basic agreed history:
1) The NSDAP wasn't "almost destroyed" by the failed putsch in 1923. The "core" of the organisation survived intact.
2) I suspect you're conflating state and national courts and the degree of severity they can sentence with. Hitler was tried before a Bavarian state court, that's why he served his sentence in a Bavarian state prison. He was tried for treason against the Bavarian state, not against the Weimar republic. Beheading wasn't an option, unless Weimar had wanted to get into mass slaughter of political prisoners.
3) Re Weimar imploding, it wasn't the perceived failure of Weimar that ushered in the "low-rent demagogue" (appalling turn of phrase, by the way, have you borrowed it from Paul Johnson by any chance?), it was the political conservatism and professional antipathy of the likes of vons Hindenberg, Papen and Schleicher that did that. The Weimar republic had coped with hyper-inflation. What it couldn't cope with was an economic depression and it's accompanying mass unemployment, especially not with a welfare system that ultimately put the onus on the individual municipalities of the residents for welfare provision. Weimar didn't implode so much as get pulled apart by external as well as internal influences.

Hitler had a lot of help doing what he did. Gregor Strasser was responsible for rebuiling the party after the disastrous Putsch, but emphasised its socialist element and had to be disposed of in the Knight of the Long Knives. Which wasn't just an attempt to bump off socialists, but that was a major part of it, and that they existed in such numbers that they had to be bumped off shows the Nazi platform wasn't inherently right wing.

What actually formed the major motivation for the "night of the Long Knives" had nothing to do with socialism, and lots to do with tensions between the Reichswehr and the SA (who'd been promised, in a roundabout way, that they would form the core of the Reich's new military). Hitler chose to liquidate the upper echelons of the SA to keep the general Staff of the Reichswehr happy. Everything else followed. Socialism was never a strong force in Nazism, as evidenced by the shallowness of commitments to job-creation and social infrastructure projects once the Nazis achieved national power. Rhetoric is not deed.

This is digressing though. Mussolini was explicitly against individualism, and his "corporatist state", in using the state to harness economics for a collective end, is a rejection of laissez faire capitalism.

Except, of course, that to even attempt to realise power, Mussolini had to re-order his priorities so that laissez faire capitalism took a front seat.

As for conservatism, fascists might have masqueraded as conservatives, but in reality, their attempt to impose an imagined past on the present introduced sweeping changes that were anathema to conservatism as Burke, Peel and Disraeli would have understood it.

Burke, Peel and Disraeli pre-existed the birth of fascism. For conservatives born to the same era as fascism, it was a logical extension. Pick up any political diary of a European politician of the period between 1900-1930, and see just how "mainstream" fascist ideas were with conservatives of any stripe.

Fascism (both Nazism and the Italian brand) treated economics a servant of the state, which is a world away from Adam Smith and the invisible hand of the market. Corporatism isn't capitalism, and the collectivism at the heart of fascism is anathema to a free market. A philosophy that seeks to expand the hand of the state into all spheres of life cannot properly be called right-wing.

Thing is, you're talking about fascism as theory, I'm discussing fascism in practice, as it was practiced.

 

[butchersapron]

There's been some real shocking sub-gcse ignorance being shown on this (and a couple of others in P&P) thread by a few posters - if anyone's interested in serious analysis of the class character of the nazi regime that goes beyond red-faced common sense approaches can i suggest that they have a look at some texts i've uploaded elsewhere:

National Socialism and the Working Class, 1925-May, 1933 - Tim Mason

Nazism and the Working Class 1933-93 - Sergio Bologna

Ends and Beginnings - Tim Mason

 

[ViolentPanda]

There's been some real shocking sub-gcse ignorance being shown on this (and a couple of others in P&P) thread by a few posters -

Sorry about that.

if anyone's interested in serious analysis of the class character of the nazi regime that goes beyond red-faced common sense approaches can i suggest that they have a look at some texts i've uploaded elsewhere:

National Socialism and the Working Class, 1925-May, 1933 - Tim Mason

Nazism and the Working Class 1933-93 - Sergio Bologna

Ends and Beginnings - Tim Mason

I think I'll re-read Mason's "Social Policy in the Third Reich" next week.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

The "left wing" policies that fascist parties adopt are generally only fig leaves for their real agenda.

Sounds very much like Barak Obaama.

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry about that.

And harrison, off the thread.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

And harrison, off the thread.

Ah. A thread exclusive to extremists. I'll be on my way.

But before I go.... Why do people campaign against any political ideology? Doesn't that just give them credence? If you don't like far left or far right politics, simple - don't join a far right or far left Party. Leave these guys to their opinions, and if they are wrong then they will come adrift. In my opinion, the BNP and such are just smaller arms of the bigger Partys. They all seem to mould into one.

But they don't have the same opinions as me. *STAMPS FOOT*

It doesn't matter how hard you campaign, or who you vote for - the Government still gets in. Ignore them, influence kids to not join the Army or the Police and live your own life, and the bastards will eventually lose, whatever wing they think they are.

 

[rekil]

Or succinctly: Nazism was a collectivist doctrine that grave primacy to state and race, not economics. Economics were incidental to its ends, and it would adopt the economic policy it thought best suited to achieving them.

This is rubbish too. Look up the 'What fascists offered to the establishment' chapter in Paxton's Anatomy Of Fascism. It'll point you in the direction of the speech Hitler gave to the Dusseldorf Industrialists Club in 1932 where he makes it clear that he is no threat to the interests of the assembled business types and sees nazism as being contiguous with capitalism.

 

[Azrael]

This is rubbish too. Look up the 'What fascists offered to the establishment' chapter in Paxton's Anatomy Of Fascism. It'll point you in the direction of the speech Hitler gave to the Dusseldorf Industrialists Club in 1932 where he makes it clear that he is no threat to the interests of the assembled business types and sees nazism as being contiguous with capitalism.

And Hitler's word is to be trusted?

Of course he told industrialists he wasn't a threat in 1932: he wanted their support. I've not claimed he was a threat; I claimed that Nazism isn't inherently right-wing. Provided the industrialists served the needs of the state, they were OK. Key point: served the needs of the state. That isn't laissez faire capitalism.

So, the Nazi party didn't precede Hitler […]

It's rebranding didn't, which is a different thing. (And the party it grew out of, and which Drexler founded a branch of, began in early 1918.) Hitler joined a pre-existing organization, which he proceeded to lead into a deranged coup d'etat.

1) The NSDAP wasn't "almost destroyed" by the failed putsch in 1923. The "core" of the organisation survived intact.

Well it was banned, continued as the German Party with Völkisch-Social Bloc help, and splintered. Would it have carried on if Gregor Strasser had received a proper prison sentence? And if it had, would it have got anywhere?

2) I suspect you're conflating state and national courts and the degree of severity they can sentence with.

Quite right, mea culpa. Hitler could only have received life in prison. And if Hitler had been a politically competent, he would never have attempted the madcap scheme to begin with. It's the negligence of the German courts that left him free to have another go: most rioters convicted of treason don't get that chance.

The Weimar republic had coped with hyper-inflation. What it couldn't cope with was an economic depression and it's accompanying mass unemployment, especially not with a welfare system that ultimately put the onus on the individual municipalities of the residents for welfare provision. Weimar didn't implode so much as get pulled apart by external as well as internal influences.

As it couldn't cope with exterior economic forces due to internal deficiencies, implosion is a fair term. But that's by the by: the point is that the circumstances were right for a low-rent demagogue (you think Hitler was neither?). This doesn't make Hitler skilled politically.

But this is getting us sidetracked: even if you're right, it wouldn't have bearing on the Nazi's economic predilections.

What actually formed the major motivation for the "night of the Long Knives" had nothing to do with socialism, and lots to do with tensions between the Reichswehr and the SA (who'd been promised, in a roundabout way, that they would form the core of the Reich's new military). Hitler chose to liquidate the upper echelons of the SA to keep the general Staff of the Reichswehr happy. Everything else followed.

And what contributed to these tensions? Röhm's desire for a "second revolution" against "reactionaries". Franz von Papen wasn't too fond of this, and neither was the army.

Socialism was never a strong force in Nazism, as evidenced by the shallowness of commitments to job-creation and social infrastructure projects once the Nazis achieved national power. Rhetoric is not deed.

And if I'd argued that Nazism was socialist, you'd have a point. But I haven't. I've argued it was economically indifferent, provided the state and the volk were served. The government's failure to implement socialist reforms isn't evidence that socialism was never a major force, especially when the socialist wing was swiftly butchered!

Except, of course, that to even attempt to realise power, Mussolini had to re-order his priorities so that laissez faire capitalism took a front seat.

And then progressively increased state control of business. You've just made my argument for me: fascism had an entirely pragmatic attitude to economics.

Burke, Peel and Disraeli pre-existed the birth of fascism. For conservatives born to the same era as fascism, it was a logical extension. Pick up any political diary of a European politician of the period between 1900-1930, and see just how "mainstream" fascist ideas were with conservatives of any stripe.

Which "conservatives" are we talking about, and were they conservative or reactionary? If they were proper conservatives, they should be following in the line of Burke, Peel and Disraeli, none of whom showed enthusiasm for the abolition of political liberty and custom, and sweeping internal reorganization of society.

Thing is, you're talking about fascism as theory, I'm discussing fascism in practice, as it was practiced.

The two cannot be separated. If laissez faire capitalism was at the heart of fascism, the Hjalmar Schacht wouldn't have taken a bastardized Kenysian road towards a war economy, and Mussolini wouldn't have pushed corporatism and autarky when he got the chance.

So far you've shown that, in practice, fascism wasn't actively hostile to capitalism. I've never argued otherwise. You haven't shown that laissez faire capitalism was an intrinsic part of fascist thought, or its promotion a priority of fascist practice.

Wasn't fascism an attempt to end class conflict by subsuming all interests to the nation? Isn't nationalism a right wing ideology? Isn't it very innacurate to say that right wing ideas consist only of free market ideas?

This is why I dislike splitting politics into two bipolar camps based on the seating arrangements of the French Revolution. Nationalism precedes modern economics altogether, and I really don't see that either political camp has a claim on it. Splitting into economic camps at least makes a rough sort of sense, but only a rough one.

More pertinently, the Nazi Party could never be called "conservative" (what did they conserve?).

 

[Blagsta]

Fascism in Italy certainly helped conserve the old order against working class revolution.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Full-on free market capitalism is hardly a useful point of reference because as far as I'm aware, it's never been tried anywhere.

It often forms the basis of political rhetoric, for example Pinochet, Thatcher and Reagan talked it up a lot, but in practice what they actually did was set up a relationship between the state and capitalism which was highly advantageous for elites and disadvantageous for everybody else. I don't see a radical difference between neo-liberal capitalism and Nazism in this particular respect. In both cases the state and capitalism collude for the benefit of elites and against everyone else.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

This is worth a listen:

 

[frogwoman]

Surely the essential point in which fascism can be seen as right wing is that it seeks to entrench inequality rather than do anything about it?

There is theory and critique underneath socialism - regardless of what you think of it. There are explanation as to why society is as it is. Whether you think those explanations are right or wrong is another matter.

There is nothing underneath fascism that can be compared to this, is there?

How does fascism seek to transform society? The "left-wing" discourse within fascism tends to focus on a handful of individuals, the ultra-rich, especially bankers and those involved in finance capital, rather than the capitalist system itself. The implication being that the problem lies with them rather than the system itself, that if we got rid of these people in some way the system would be fine. It's an easy mistake to make and not uniquely a "fash" idea, but its hardly a radical critique, is it??

where is the fash explanation for inequality? that some groups are inherently more inferior, or by focusing on silly racism and populism, and conspiracy theories about "the jew", or of the nation being denied a rightful place in the sun and the like. the implication being that you should forget about your own personal circumstances. trade unions and strikes are unnecessary because the nation should work together against a common enemy, class conflict being a "leftist" idea. YOUR own interests and working conditions are irrelevant when the evil enemy is working to destroy our nation so basically forget about it...

what does this have the effect of doing?

im tired and its late but i'll try and post more tomorrow ...

 

[frogwoman]

There's been some real shocking sub-gcse ignorance being shown on this (and a couple of others in P&P) thread by a few posters - if anyone's interested in serious analysis of the class character of the nazi regime that goes beyond red-faced common sense approaches can i suggest that they have a look at some texts i've uploaded elsewhere:

National Socialism and the Working Class, 1925-May, 1933 - Tim Mason

Nazism and the Working Class 1933-93 - Sergio Bologna

Ends and Beginnings - Tim Mason

cheers butchers, really interesting thanks.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's rebranding didn't, which is a different thing. (And the party it grew out of, and which Drexler founded a branch of, began in early 1918.) Hitler joined a pre-existing organization, which he proceeded to lead into a deranged coup d'etat.

Provoking a change in core ideology is hardly "rebranding".

Well it was banned...

Yes, so what? The banning of an organisation can hardly ever be mistaken for it being "almost destroyed" (your words).

continued as the German Party with Völkisch-Social Bloc help, and splintered. Would it have carried on if Gregor Strasser had received a proper prison sentence? And if it had, would it have got anywhere?

Look at the political currents of the time, and then ask yourself whether you need to have bothered with your question.

Quite right, mea culpa. Hitler could only have received life in prison. And if Hitler had been a politically competent, he would never have attempted the madcap scheme to begin with. It's the negligence of the German courts that left him free to have another go: most rioters convicted of treason don't get that chance.

Some background on his "madcap scheme" to take over the political reins of Bavaria would be the success of Gustav von Kahr's own putsch 3 years previously that led to him being head of the Bavarian government.
As for court negligence, there was no negligence. Given the social composition of the judiciary at the time, and the long affiliation of the civil service in all German states with rightist and imperial ideologies, the sentences were mild but still within the tariff for the offence.

As it couldn't cope with exterior economic forces due to internal deficiencies, implosion is a fair term.

Would you then claim that the US's economy "imploded", or that of France or the UK?

But that's by the by: the point is that the circumstances were right for a low-rent demagogue (you think Hitler was neither?). This doesn't make Hitler skilled politically.

I tend to measure political skill not by polish, but by results. Hitler achieved the results he was after.

But this is getting us sidetracked: even if you're right, it wouldn't have bearing on the Nazi's economic predilections.

Why not? Did the economic predilections of the Nazis exist in isolation from events?

And what contributed to these tensions? Röhm's desire for a "second revolution" against "reactionaries".

The main impetus for the tensions was, as I said, the knowledge among the General Staff that Rohm had been promised that the SA would replace the Reichswehr "root and branch". That means that not only the General Staff (with all their experience of strategy) being thrown out on their ear, but pretty much the entire "officer class". Even Hitler knew he'd made a promise too far, and that to allow Rohm to live and try to collect on Hitler's promise would put an end to any ambitions for expansion that Hitler had. The "socialism" of the SA was an excuse, as were the widely-publicised exposés of sexual degeneracy in SA ranks. The one exposé that undoubtedly did hold some truth were the stories of gangsterism and extortion.

And if I'd argued that Nazism was socialist, you'd have a point. But I haven't. I've argued it was economically indifferent, provided the state and the volk were served.

Hmmm, it seems to me, re-reading your posts, that you've been arguing that Nazi economic policy wasn't right-wing, not that it was "economically-indifferent".

The government's failure to implement socialist reforms isn't evidence that socialism was never a major force, especially when the socialist wing was swiftly butchered!

You're going ahistorical again.

And then progressively increased state control of business. You've just made my argument for me: fascism had an entirely pragmatic attitude to economics.

The only source I've ever read that implied that Mussolini was able to "increase state control of business" beyond implementing a few "advisory boards" that compulsorily drew members from the large industrial combines, is wikipedia, which hardly embodies "progressively increasing" state control of business.

Which "conservatives" are we talking about, and were they conservative or reactionary? If they were proper conservatives, they should be following in the line of Burke, Peel and Disraeli, none of whom showed enthusiasm for the abolition of political liberty and custom, and sweeping internal reorganization of society.

So, what your argument reduces to is a position of conservatism being an ideology based only on the philosophies of Burke, Peel, Disraeli and their ilk.

The two cannot be separated. If laissez faire capitalism was at the heart of fascism, the Hjalmar Schacht wouldn't have taken a bastardized Kenysian road towards a war economy, and Mussolini wouldn't have pushed corporatism and autarky when he got the chance.

You're missing the point. It isn't either/or, it's the fact that if you start from a platform of accepting laissez faire as a necessary component, or even as a "necessary evil", then it will allow space for laissez faire to eventually, due to the non[/]-enlightened self-interest of economic actors, subsume other strands of economy.

 

[Zachor]

Like it or not we have a worrying situation where many left groups seem to think it acceptable to align themselves with clerical fascists therefore it is in my opinion perfectly acceptable to campaign against them as this is where the greatest danger to democracy lies at the moment.

Yes parties like the BNP are a problem and do need to be campaigned against but to be frank their activities recently (shouting about sex ed is a green light for nonces etc) have shown them to be a bit thick to be quite frank. However where you have Left parties and groups who support genocidal fascists like Hamas and Hezbollah and continually make excuses for their behavour then I would say 'go for it' about giving the left fash a kicking politically.

I don't care whether the fash carries a copy of Mein Kampf or the Koran or the Bible they are still scum and need to be sorted.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Like it or not we have a worrying situation where many left groups seem to think it acceptable to align themselves with clerical fascists therefore it is in my opinion perfectly acceptable to campaign against them as this is where the greatest danger to democracy lies at the moment.

Yes parties like the BNP are a problem and do need to be campaigned against but to be frank their activities recently (shouting about sex ed is a green light for nonces etc) have shown them to be a bit thick to be quite frank. However where you have Left parties and groups who support genocidal fascists like Hamas and Hezbollah and continually make excuses for their behavour then I would say 'go for it' about giving the left fash a kicking politically.

I don't care whether the fash carries a copy of Mein Kampf or the Koran or the Bible they are still scum and need to be sorted.

Do fuck off, you awful plastic cunt.

 

[Blagsta]

Like it or not we have a worrying situation where many left groups seem to think it acceptable to align themselves with clerical fascists therefore it is in my opinion perfectly acceptable to campaign against them as this is where the greatest danger to democracy lies at the moment.

Yes parties like the BNP are a problem and do need to be campaigned against but to be frank their activities recently (shouting about sex ed is a green light for nonces etc) have shown them to be a bit thick to be quite frank. However where you have Left parties and groups who support genocidal fascists like Hamas and Hezbollah and continually make excuses for their behavour then I would say 'go for it' about giving the left fash a kicking politically.

I don't care whether the fash carries a copy of Mein Kampf or the Koran or the Bible they are still scum and need to be sorted.

oh look, it's our resident war crimes supporter

 

[Azrael]

You're missing the point. It isn't either/or, it's the fact that if you start from a platform of accepting laissez faire as a necessary component, or even as a "necessary evil", then it will allow space for laissez faire to eventually, due to the non-enlightened self-interest of economic actors, subsume other strands of economy.

So if you're an industrialist, you might have a prediliction for supporting Nazism, if X number of other factors occur in your country. Maybe so, but that doesn't make Nazism inherently "right-wing".

To clarify my argument, Nazism doesn't fit on the left/right scale, as it doesn't centre its worldview around economics in the way other creeds do. It centres its worldview on volk and the nation state, and employs economics fit for that end. My interest in arguing this is that Nazism is usually positioned on said scale to slander your opponents. Not always, but often.