Believe it or not, the Nazi’s hated capitalism. Them, like Karl Marx, believe Judaism is capitalism and capitalism is Judaism. Hitler, hating the Jews (along with Karl Marx) would adopt socialism for his economics.
Believe it or not. Communists and nazis were 95% similar to eachother It was the politicians who called them different ideologies, mostly russian politicians
@@casematecardinal western Europeans are the ones invented the damn thing, and they are way too arrogant to admit its faults, especially when the alternative is the US. I wouldn't hold my breath.
@@rewbossby that model, normally the nazis weren't considered either left or right - mostly central and only slightly right-leaning - but very far authoritarian
@@joeyhardin5903 They outlawed collective bargaining and almost completely dismantled the welfare system. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't go that far, and there's no way she was a centrist.
@@rewboss But they also nationalised the railways, appealed to the working class, nationalised religion and even established a form of universal credit for blue collar workers. They had elements of both the left and right, but it was their extreme authoritarian stance that made them evil, not their economic alignment
@@joeyhardin5903 They didn't actually nationalize the railways: they were already nationalized (and had been since 1920) but had a special status because they were being used to pay reparations for WW1, and the Nazis basically just revoked that special status. Appealing to the working class is just what any party has to do if it wants a chance of getting elected (Trump is currently appealing to the working classes, and he's definitely not left-wing by any definition). They didn't "nationalize religion" (that's not a thing), but they were working on replacing Christianity with a kind of personality cult centred on the Führer, which is merely despotism which left-wing despots and right-wing despots alike indulge in. The "universal credit" you refer to is probably the charity they had to hurriedly set up when demolishing the welfare state backfired on them, but of course it was aimed at furthering the white supremecist cause and helping ensure the demise of all "non-Aryan" races in Germany.
@user-gu6ps6ed6l do you want to explain that comment a bit more? It sounds like you might think my original comment was intended as whataboutism in defense of nazism. If that is so, I would like to vehemently disabuse anyone of that notion.
But they arent conservatives eather and dont need to be, there can be other ideals than those two😂 Conservative socialists? Un-catholic and anti-religion conservatives? The list goes on, on both sides.
@@iirosiren5120the nazis are an authoritarian totalitarian dictatorship that you could called fascist which means they are conservative far right racist. This is greatly resumed and not accepted by all historian especially on what's fascism.
@@squirrel287That adheres to absolutely zero definition of what a conservative is, bud. They entirely uprooted and pushed an entirely new form of government, ideology, and beliefs onto a society. They didn't attempt to conserve (key word!) the culture and traditions that preexisted. By your same definition, all communist regimes and basically everyone is a conservative.
@@squirrel287Conservative far right at that time would have been monarchist. Also conservative is just well conservative. A chinese communist is conservative in his country aswell as an arab religious fundamentalist is in his. The nazis were all but conservative they were progressive.
As someone who read "mien kamf" (no im not a nazi don't get any funny ideas) I recall reading that Hitler used the world "socialist" in the party name because we wanted it to appeal to both right and left wings even though he hated communists just as much as jews.
Anton Drexler founded the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Worker’s party ) and Hitler later ousted the party leaders and took it over.
He wanted to call it the social Democratic Party or some Thing but a higher up in the party gave the socialist idea I read it somewhere I believe it was on a Wikipedia article but I thought that was interesting
@@abundelofweedsYes, thats what i was going to say. Im not sure if that guy was actually a socialist but he was really into the whole ethnic national socialism thing
Most people agree n**i bad, but left wing people say n**i bad because they are right wing and right wing people say n**i bad because they are left wing.
That is a simplistic view and without explanation why its bad is easier to comite the same mistakes, that unfortunately imo is already happening (thanks usa and Russia) the past is already to distant for young people that easier to put rose color glasses on,besides that they are a interesting and crazy bunch in a weird way
@@omgnowairlyI mean that is true Then again conflict and division is a good thing as it’s a sign of a proper free democracy rather then an tyrannical system that doesn’t allow such discourse
@@austinveno6743 there isn’t a Democratic Party There is a democrat party and a republican party It sounds like democracy but democrat doesn’t mean democracy
@@jurbglurbez3489 Yeah sure. Nazi's were far left winged, not right wing as were communists. Thats because as different as the two are they have one thing in common, total government control. Thats why the far, FAR left are Nazi's and Communists. And for people who are wondering, that would make far, FAR right people Anarchists since they don't want any government control. But thats pushing as far as you can go in either direction.
@@jurbglurbez3489 all of the comments replying to you were deleted lol. Like yeah I called Nazis left winged but I also called Anarchists right wing so idk why youtube is getting mad.
You could also mention that the Nazis only called themselves that because the Socialists were their biggest opponents, which they battled in street fights, and that they actually put Socialists into camps as one of their first group of victims.
@@A_C_E_R... Also, another of their early victims were the trans. Look up Magnus Hirschfeld (14 May 1868 - 14 May 1935). He already did experimental sex--reassignment ops.
th-cam.com/video/0-hDmm2itO0/w-d-xo.html#t=99 A certain former WW1 soldier was a spy who infiltrated a ring-wing party, the Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei (German Workers' Party). He added two words to its name, and we all know the rest...
It never was, it was aways a very specific definition that was created based on the geography of a specific location. It's a mere arragement of classifications that outisde of that context is extremely vague and as we see it can be made to fit anything
The issue is more that left and right wing is a binary spectrum to try and judge about 20 different things Generally we use left and right to discuss collectivism vs individualism but that still doesn’t do a good job. We actually are dealing with a really good example. The party in question checks every single box of a collectivist society. They only differ form what’s traditionally called socialism in one area (national identity). But that one area is not necessarily right wing either.
@@galacticnovastudios I doubt whether you can call something a collectivist society if it defines its very identity against the existence of a supposedly evil Other. It would always need some scapegoat to push out of said collective, making the "collective" quite unstable, to say the least.
@@hannahschneyder6651 tell that to Marx, his entire idea was to scapegoat individuals and push them out. Even in modern day political discourse its the left wing who use these tactics and blame societies problems on “white cisgender men”
@@jgomo3877 unlike the early days all edits on Wikipedia are sited from REPUTABLE sources. Just because YOU dont like what it says, doesn't mean its wrong.
@dynamitedingo8183 You say "reputable", I say snopes fact checking is "reputable" too; doesn't mean it isn't swayed by huge amounts of political biases. It's the world we live in - a post truth society indeed, where there no longer exists a truth; only a series of agreed lies.
People need to read about the concept of the Volk considering how even “ethnic Germans” was an arbitrary description that was just used by the Nazis to discriminate against anyone they didn’t like
It wasn't arbitrary at all. Nuanced? Sure. But they definitely followed racial lines that harkened back to the earliest categories of european tribes. Etc, The Germanic tribes, the Celtic tribes, Slavic, among others. @@juancorujo4726
Yes. It's a Nationalistic version of Socialism focusing on control of the economy for the Nation as opposed to the international form of Socialism represented by Marxist Communism in the USSR. All people have to do is read their agendas and economic policies.
Javier Milei, Argentina's new president, is a right-wing libertarian; his ideology is close to anarcho-capitalism, at least on principle, although he's probably going to have to settle for something that looks more like a minarchy. He wants to deregulate as much as he can, reduce the size and influence of government (a policy often criticized as a "night-watchman state", because the government does little more than arrest people when they commit crimes), and at the same time institute some very right-wing economic policies. I'm not sure why Argentina would want to elect a president who publicly expresses his admiration for Margaret Thatcher, but then he gets most of his support from people too young to remember the Falklands War.
@@rewboss I’m familiar with milei I just disagree with the idea that anarcho-capitalism is compatible with libertarianism or the concept of liberty. A capitalist systems needs an oppressed class, a class that is actively being denied liberty. Someone like milei is anti liberty to the core. I’m not so sure a lot of women are feeling very free over there right now.
@@Sbeeyuiik Well, that's a hardcore left-wing take. There are quite a few capitalist and mixed economies around that seem to be quite successful at reducing the wealth gap and securing workers' rights. The Nordic model is generally held up as a good example. I don't think anarcho-capitalism could do that, but it is a political school of thought that actually exists, and Milei is having a shot at putting it (or something similar to it) into practice. I predict he will ruin the country's economy and fall from grace very quickly, because anarcho-capitalism is a stupid idea and Milei is a stupid man, but it's an idea. Basically, libertarianism isn't necessarily about making sure everyone is freed from everything: it's about "small government", i.e. reducing government intervention to a minimum and allowing society to, in effect, police itself. That's what free-speech advocates mean, for example, by "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences" -- i.e., the government can't put you in prison if you say something out of line, but your boss can fire you. It is true that in reality this creates the ideal conditions for bullies to assert their dominance and deny the vulnerable their basic rights and freedoms, but this is a problem of _anarchism,_ whether capitalist or socialist, and one that anarchists endlessly debate.
@@rewboss It’s a very left wing take but I feel validated in what I’m saying especially *because* of the stark contrast between something like the Nordic model and Argentina. As you said, something resembling market socialism is successful at *reducing* wealth inequality and labour rights, while Milei is barrelling towards catastrophe. I agree he’s very very stupid, and that an-cap ideology is bound to fail. But I believe it’s bound to fail exactly because of my previously stated position, that it is built on shaky-ground and has internally conflicting ideas that make the entire ideology incoherent. I guess a lot of my disagreement with something like a political compass stems from the broad definitions/oversimplification of the terms used. I say libertarianism and the right are incompatible and maybe that’s my own oversimplification and someone in a different position from me will disagree or having a less strict idea on what the concept of liberty is. Anyways I love you videos, feel free to reply again but I do fully understand your perspective.
Thank you so much for that! I lost count of how many times i tried to explain this to people, myself... Next on the list, "How democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive"... 😅
Absolutely! Me too. So many times…..usually with imbecilic Americans! When you’re finished explaining the Democracy and Republic thing to them…..can I watch you try to explain to them how a Monarchy and a Democracy are also not mutually exclusive please? 😂😂😂
Its the blame game and spite. The nazis were 3rd position end of story but people from the left and right can't pull punches. The reason why people come to these false conclusions is the complex part. Hitler basically took bribes from big business as the country was in economic turmoil and every cent of money for the government was needed, and big business didn't want to be nationalised or regulated more. People take the letter as evidence of hitler being a Capitalist! i guess stalin was a capitalist also.
It's really not complicated. The Nazis called themselves socialist because socialism was popular at that time, but not popular enough for people to understand that "national socialism" is an oxymoron.
@@johndescy7904 an oxymoron is a composite of opposites. Nationalism is the advocation for a ethnic or cultural state, Socialism is advocating for the government to enact equality and equity using its powers. These are not opposites or incompatible at all. Its just a newish phenomenon due to the pressures of democracy around the world, creating the artificial pressure in the populace for muh free stuff with the extra ingredient being nationalism which as we see due to history; kinda happened wether you like it or not.
they are definitely *not* moderate. The question is only if they're just strongly right wing, or right wing extremist. no sociologist on the topic, thinks that they're moderate@@mrakz03
In order to define whether something is "left-wing" or "right-wing" one has to define what these terms mean. Historically, being "left-wing" was completely different from what people nowadays mean when they say "left-wing". And even modern interpretations of "left-wing" are different among people, with some equating "left-wing" and "liberal", for instance.
In the original sense (french revolution) It was left wing for anti-monarchists and right wing for those who supported a constitutional monarchy After communism gained prevelance through the XX century, the left wing became associated with communism and the right wing with anarcho-capitalism But as people from both sides started creating propaganda to lump various opponents into one side of the political spectrum the term got muddier and muddier with eventually even liberals (traditionally considered right wing) are sometimes called leftists by conservatives I personally like the capitalist/socialist spectrum for the labels, which would put nazis probably in the center-right, just a very xenophobic and authoritarian flavor of the center-right. There was massive privatization and union busting by the nazis but also under nazi rule, private companies would have price controls when it came to government contracts, though they were still for-profit and there were even less protections for workers from being exploited
@@jmca_power "and the right wing with anarcho-capitalism" If you don't mind, do you have a source for that, I don't usually hear this interpreted in this way
The left wants to reform or abolish capitalism, the right wants to maintain or expand it. Just look at who the burgeoisie is supporting and who they demonize and you will see who is leftand who is right. Nazism was fundamentally a counter-revolutionary movement that grew at the same time communists was gaining space in Germany, economically it was very good for corporations and the white burgeois class massively supported and profoted from it.
@davigurgel2040 it wasn't that good for corporations. Many of the goverment contracts were done at a fixed price, and the goverment had control of many of the raw materials so they had a big say on which companies got to stay on business and which didn't
I am mad but not shocked to learn Nazi was not a complete word and is in fact a shorthand for an actual name, because if American school systems ever brought that up, they’d have a lot of explaining to do
For starters if you’re school “didn’t teach you that” what you meant to say is you forgot. And what does knowing what Nazi stands for change anything? It doesn’t, btw. It was a rhetorical question
Uh, unless you’re still in high school at some weird non-educational school, you were definitely told what Nazi stood for. Schools were teaching how bad communism was during the red scare, so they jumped on any chance they had to paint socialism in a bad light, and socialism never regained popularity from there. I graduated not even 10 years ago and I was taught what it stood for. I guess it’s just unbelievable that it’s not taught, and I can’t see any reason for it honestly.
@@thingswhynot I am also curious what you guys did for your history classes during the WW2 section because in my school we never had that. We have maybe a week of learning about the Holocaust every year, but because my school system was weird we had to bump up what sections kids were learning so by the time I was in junior year we were learning about Vietnam not WW2. And maybe this is my fault because I didn’t take a history class senior year because I had enough credits to graduate without a final year of history since 4 years was not required for any core class other than English. Apologies if my education was fucked up but on the plus side I learned it now so that’s cool
Another major failing when it comes to teaching about the nazis is that people tend to focus exclusively on the human rights violations rather than also discussing the economic and social policies they implemented. But it becomes really obvious why they don’t because it’ll lead to some pretty uncomfortable realizations.
The economic and social policies they implemented were very right-wing: they forced the unions to disband (no, the DAF was _not_ a union and didn't even pretend to be one), privatized as many state enterprises as they could, made deals with the capitalist classes, expected women to stay at home and make babies, dismantled the welfare state as part of their belief in Social Darwinism, and so on.
@@rewboss Exactly my point. Americans would realize that outside of actively running mass death camps, there’s functionally no difference between them and us
@@armando5846 Yup. Germany might have lost the war but fascism and it’s baby cousins in liberalism, neoliberalism, neocolonialism, won and are thriving.
@@armando5846I mean, not to have a “well actually 🤓” moment, but isn’t that what the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is? That kinda sounds like a mass death camp with extra steps to me.
Non Stop! Also in German and Religion class. There are so many topics put aside just to talk about the eeeeevil Nazis. And most absurd about is that I learned in one Seminar at the University more about it than in a whole year in school.
Socialist, or here "National socialist" just implies that the government was a people's government or "Volkspartei", just as the Communist party in the USSR was.
Socialism is a system where means of production (such as factories, shops, etc) are collectively run by the working class rather than a minority rich class. Nazis, despite their name, very much practiced the latter, which is capitalism. Ie, the former is democratization of economic society, the latter is simply capitalism in decay trying to keep its power.
Oh, they were socialists, of course. And so were the Fascists, the Legionaries, the Synarchists, and the Integralits. But not Marxist socialists. Never make that assumption.
Communism and socialism are different things, although some argue that socialism is a transitional stage to communism. But of all the countries that have ever claimed to be communist, only one can be argued to have been literally communist: that was Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea, which attempted to abolish private property, money, and the markets -- things that under communism are not supposed to exist. So... yeah, most regimes that have claimed to be communist weren't communist. (The results, of course, were disastrous. Even now Cambodia is one of the world's poorest and least developed nations.)
@@rewbossCambodia was capitalist and was funded by the CIA. I mean you can debate the first one, but not the second one, the CIA did fund them. They overthrew the previous socialist government and then were liberated by socialist vietnam. Socialism is the transitional phase to communism. Marx never really outlined how this is done, so others like Lenin had to do it themselves, with very strange policies in the USSR changing all the time, from War Communism to the NEP. Also, Cambodia is a really stupid example for communism even if it was communist, humans lived in communes for hundreds of thousands of years.
@@tempejkl socialism from mainstream perspective is the voluntary transition of a white independent nation to (((their))) puppet, a form of socialism where the people will never have a glimpse of it unless you are going by the talmudic definition of person also humans can't have been living in communes for hundreds of thousands of years if the universe was created 6000 years ago
@@tempejkl i am rewriting this for the forth time, anti-white censorship is so fucking annoying socialism from mainstream perspective is the voluntary transition from an independant white nation to a ✡puppet (if this is wrong, go ahead and say it yourself without being censored). this famous form of socialism also just so happens to be the form of socialism where the people will never have a glimpse of it. unless you are going by the talmudic definition of a person also, humans did not live in communes for hundreds of thousands of years; that's not possible, the universe was only created 6ooo years ago (they don't like the opinions of people who believe in the opposite god of satan so even that number is censored)
@@tempejkl Pol Pot tried to outlaw everything that defines capitalism and Kampuchea was capitalist? And we don't know that humans lived in what we would recognize as "communes" for hundreds of thousands of years. Our knowledge only goes back as far as the invention of writing, and the earliest examples of writing we have include records keeping track of people's property.
That's a horrible attempt to connect race-based Naziism with modern American and European concerns about immigration and illegal immigration. It's fallacious conflation.
The clue isn't in the name, it's in their absolutely socialist leftist ECONOMIC POLICY. Yes, the nazis had right wing xenophobia, but they ALSO had left wing anti-capitalist class struggle. It was left wing socialism, but for one race. That's why they considered themselves neither left nor right, thus the fascist "third way," and why they're difficult to classify. The economy was left. Their immigration and citizenship policy was right-wing. Why is this so hard for people to accept? We need to get over this "they can't be left wing because the left is good!" BS. They can be both, open your mind and stop thinking with feelings.
Communism hasn't actually occurred, but socialism absolutely has been carried out. The USSR was socialist. Vietnam, Cuba, early China were socialist. If a revolutionary effort must be perfect, and if its results must be perfect, in order for it to qualify as socialism, then true capitalism has, by that metric, never been practiced.
Of course. This is why we can judge by actions. Like abolition of private property, central planning, nationalization of industries, rent and price controlls, subsidies for workers... You know, if it's named Duck, looks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, it is still a duck no matter the color.
The system we use to describe political idealogical ideas is fundamentally flawed. I've learned that if someone says they are left or right wing (especially outside of America) you have absolutely no idea what they actually believe.
Not an ounce of economics in sight. Just people living on the internet, spreading the shallowest points and opinions on the most brainrotting TH-cam feature.
I’m perfectly fine with admitting the nazis were in fact somewhat socialist, as what made them socialist isn’t what makes them baddies. It was the holocaust.
Nazis were the farthest reaction to socialism possible. Going by the “it’s when the government does stuff” definition, the Nazis privatized nearly every industry other than the war industries, and the state itself was ran by the same ceos and corporate owners that existed in Weimar Germany. Socialism is - an economic system / mode of production where the working class collectively runs the means of production (such as factories and shops), instead of it being controlled by a small class of individuals (including the state). While state industries may exist, they are only generally for large necessities and are democratically ran through union and council functions.
@@turbosoggyleninistOk so the difference is in nazi germany the corporation owners jumped on the train and became politicians while in the soviet union they were shot and replaced by others. Different faces same result who cares?
@@turbosoggyleninistseems you were lied to , nazi germany "privatisation" was them giving firms over to party members, they callled it synchronisation , Nazi germany had extensive welfare system that regulated prices of goods, working hours, rent costs , vacations and others ,Nazi leaders cooperation with ceos is also mostly a mith ,they directly ordered companies what to produce, how quickly, flow of resources , Access to slave and free labour . Most CEO and businessman didnt support NSDAP untill hitler took power ad chancelor in 1933 , they preffered the other right wing party that was friendly to their interests , Saying that nazis werent socialist because they went after marxists makes no sense when 1 nearly every socialist movement in history purged other socialist factions 2 socialism isnt marxism, marxism/communism is an outgrowth of socialism that introduces class conflict in to it
@@rewboss That's why migration problems should be solved by deporting illegals, normal border security and well, stuff like that, not by literally exterminating people you don't like. But yeah, it's pretty hard right now, the world is in constant wars, waves of migrants and stuff like that. It's good that some of them come legally, the problem is when a boat with 1000+ people comes to your shore.
What? Those are completely different situations and making a blanket statement for all of them is disingenuous garbage. I guess anticolonial struggles are all bad too then? You're a hack. Stop acting like your educating people
Because if there's no immigration rent would be lower, wages would go up, crime rates would go down, and we would live in a high trust society. (((Western governments))) would never allow that.
Because if your country is doing terrible shit and it's own citizens don't have the power to change it, then it's up to other countries to right wrongs. When countries like N. Korea and the US have forms of mass destruction and, in the case of the US, unparalleled military power, these countries can basically violate every human right without consequence.
The fundamental difference between fascism and communism is ownership of the meas of production. In fascism, the means of production are privately owned but controlled by the government, usually through strict regulation. In communism, the means of production are both owned and controlled by the state. They are two side of the same socialist coin. I completely understand the left wanting, desperately, to distance itself from fascism as far as possible, but the claims are disingenuous at best.
excuse me? my brother in christ, fascism is liberalism under siege. I interpret it as a hyper-militant neoliberalism. Fascism is not a socialist system - in fact if you ACTUALLY look at the ACTUAL policies of the Nazis, not just the aesthetics or whatever Dennis Prager vomited out last week, then you might notice how almost everything was privatized. The whole dictatorial thing about Nazi leadership? That was liberalism under siege. It was the final possible impulse to protect capitalism. True supporters of capitalist liberal democracies should sing the praises of fascism because at the very least it crushed communism at home. of course, it was invariably and incredibly corrupt and functionally just a giant ponzi scheme, but that's just entrepreneurial innovation for you.
Communism is a classless, moneyless society. The means of production being owned and controlled by the state is more state capitalism than anything. Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. Fascism and Socialism are not even close to being similar.
@@turbosoggyleninistthe government determined how much businesses produced and what they could produce. This is not a free market (capitalism) a government ran market is state capitalism which is a form of socialism effectively.
No it wasn’t. They en masse handed over industries to private interests in exchange for shoring up support for the party. The term privatization became known specifically because of what they did
Dont fall for this crap, hes using 2 deffirent criteria to define left and right, by defineing parts of a single paradigm under different contexts he's falsly equivocating the nazi's and the modern "right". At the time the nazis saw the communists as enemies, but that can be used as evidence saying the nazis were right or left, look at what they actually did with theyre industry and political freedoms. Using an economic definition the left is for a controlled market, the nazis had a controlled market, doesnt mean they were perfectly socialist by the utopian standard, but they were infact socialist
The Nazis destroyed worker unions and privatised industries that were in the hands of the state before. Economically, that's right wing. And what do you mean by "controlled market?". If you actually mean a "regulated market", then yes, every developed government regulates the market to different extents. The stock market is a regulated market for example. So is the US economy.
@hannahk.598 a "free market" regulates itself, vote with your dallor. A controlled market is regulated by 1 power, the state. The nazis didn't privatize, they consolidated the unions in Germany into the workers front. And every "privately owned" business had be owned by a ethnic german, and most had nazi party member put in power. Saying nazi industry is private is like saying Russian and American satellite states have democracy
@@hannahk.598 They destroyed PRIVATE unions as all socialist states do. Lenin did the same thing, noone is calling him capitalist. You cannot have private unions in worker's state, that would mean that state is not a worker's state. Unuons were forced to join DAF or were disbanded. Nazis privatized nothing. They abolished orivate property, natiinalized factories, often kicked out owners on a whim and replaced them with commisars. There was no privatization, everyone either was part of the party, which meant being part of the state, or was directlt controlled by it and could be replaced on a whim. Unless you refer.to the shares, whcih they did releaded to gain more money, but wete essentially worthless, as Nazis did not recognized either stockholds as valid (just like Marx they believed it is a jewish idea) and there was no private property either way, shareholders were meaningless and had no controlm over any firm, but the state had such controll. As ofr "regulated market", NSDAP introduced central planned economy, so... very capitalistic of them.
This was all a pretense to bash Melei. In a sudden instant I realize poster is a dipshit. I wonder how often he tries to Shoe horn in bad takes like this and we just don't notice.
Not enough truehistory being taught in schools for the last dee ade so now its a novelty 😮youre doing a great job explaining this to the deprived minds of today🎉
Except right and left wing is based upon freedom and how economy is structured. And not if you like or dont like foreigners. Racism is not politics. But the value of the hours and days in your life with regards of who gets to get the benefit of ownership of it, IS.
The Nazis sold loads of state enterprises to their capitalist friends, banned collective bargaining, and dismantled the welfare system. How are these policies (among many others) even remotely left-wing?
@@rewboss In socialism, the means of production are EITHER owned by the state, or someone cooperating with the state. So as long as it is owned by a company abiding by the states rules with regards of structure and/or taxation, it is by definition a sort of socialism.
@@rakerholm Uh, no, that's not true. It may be that the means of production are owned by the state on behalf of the workers, but decisions are made by the workers themselves through the unions -- or at least, an attempt is made to maintain that fiction. The Nazis didn't even pretend that's what they were doing: Robert Ley, the leader of the German Labour Front, very explicitly stated that only employers should be empowered to make decisions, and the government outlawed collective bargaining. Companies abiding by the state rules is just "the rule of law": the more control a government exerts the more authoritarian it gets, but it can be authoritarian right-wing we much as it can be authoritarian left-wing. Less government control just means it moves in the libertarian direction: Javier Milei is an example of a right-wing libertarian, while Noam Chomsky is an example of a left-wing libertarian.
@@rewboss Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist. This in itself is a contradiction and a oxymoron. You cant both be libertarian and advocate for denying people to own their own stuff and time/life. You should read up on Milton Friedman.
@@rakerholm I think you're confusing two very different things. Noam Chomsky believes the workers should own and run the means of production, so that makes him a socialist. He also believes this can be achieved by ordinary people getting organised and defying government, and that government should be got rid of by peaceful means if possible, by violent revolution if necessary, so that makes him a libertarian. You're just confused because the loudest voices on the American right are, or claim to be, libertarian, so that's leading you to assume that the right wing is libertarian and the left wing is authoritarian.
Well put. "For the people" is a line often used by political extremists. But those referenced people always turns out to be a far smaller group than dogmatically proclaimed.
I told a colleague once; that the tendency to authoritarianism or even totalitarianism is not about the degree of commitment to the belief system, rather it is related to the degree of uptightness or dogmatic mindset. the instigation of the conversation was religiosity which she thought always meant dogmatic, but it applies to any belief system; including socialism, democracy, etc. the reason why “far” anything similarly have a tendency to autocracy, is because autocratic impulses come from the uptightness that they have in common, not the belief system.
So basically they employ the same methods to achieve similar goals but their propaganda is different. Forgive me but I dont really see the difference. Thats like saying manchester united and PSG are nothing alike even though they are both football clubs…
@@MultiSaintsfan123 Soviets: -loved a command economy -liked a good ethnic cleansing -militarist -totalitarian -progressive/anti establishment before coming to power Nazis: -liked a command economy -loved a good ethnic cleansing -militarist -totalitarian -progressive/anti establishment before coming to power Forgive me but where are the meaningful differences? Does it matter when the economy gets commanded by the state, the country led into war, minorities persecuted and you a boot in your face if you dare to speak up who the propaganda deems the enemy and their reasoning for it? They change it as it suits them so its meaningless. Totalitarian=Totalitarian who cares about the rest?
Volksgemeinschaft was a concept central to nazi ideology and it was in essence collectivist. Left wing=collectivist Right wing= individualist National socialist describes nazi ideology perfectly, unsurprisingly.
From what I recall fascism isn't ether left or right wing, rather it's reactionary, a hate/dislike of what came before, seeing it as weak and a disgrace and a belief that with might that can be fixed/overcome. What leaning it ends up having is down to the leadership who have historically favoured militarism and specific ethnic groups. It wasn't always about 1 pure ethnic group, that was just the nazis when other facists found out/where told about the 1 pure ethnic thing they thought the nazis where mad or on drugs or a mix of the 2. The other fascist movements where about the people of the nation as a whole, all italians/ all Spanish as long as you weren't communist then you where fine.
Omg i can't handle these conversations anymore. I argued with my uncle over whether China is communist because they call themselves communist. Fun fact: they are not communists.
This political take, kind of reveals a dangerously narrow understanding of what Left and Right Wing means. If my options are merely between who to blame for all of my problems, I have no options. This is a very europian view of politics which show's a lack of understanding of meaningful political differences, and clearly highlight's why both of these ideaologies are more alike than not. If this is you idea of far-right and far-left, than your just narrowing political discourse to cut out alternative perspectives.
If you are connected to Germany but either live abroad or have a lot of international connections you can not escape the Nazi issue. I am a German who has lived outside of Germany my entire live and it is constant background noise to everything I do. It was pretty bad when I was a kid- now I mostly ignore it
A contemporary carricature that I have unfortunately never found was described to me as Left picture: A SA speaker in front of a podium talking in front of workers. Behind him, the party name: "national-SOZIALISTISCHE deutsche ARBEITER-Partei" Right picture: Same SA speaker, same podium, but the audience is nationalistic upper class. The party name is rendered as: "NATIONAL-sozialistische DEUTSCHE arbeiter-Partei".
That is a common misunderstanding. The NSDAP, when it came into power, was still a private organisation, more or less tied to the constitution of the Weimar Republic, and not nearly as total in power as they themaleves would've liked. This was a major hurdle to their consolidation of power, as the NSDAP existed as a "state within the state", if you will, but not as the state proper. So, being unable to touch government property, the nazis "privatized" nationalized industries and organisations, only to replace their management with Nazi party members for to gain control over these industries. This is a major element of the "Gleichschaltung".
@@dangerjoe8911 'After the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized. The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.' The Nazis were responsible for the term' privatisation' from the 'reprivatizerung'. I know the entire history. You have read lies.
@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074This does not negate my point at all. The nazis prided themselves, for their version of socialism, on not entirely abolishing private property. Yet they privatized the industries - to members of the nazi party. It's not that hard to understand. Private property to the Nazis meant that something is owned by a member of the Volksgemeinschaft - which to them was not anybody, but an ideologically reliable, racial german at best a member of the NSDAP.
The clue is that Goebbels said, that they were inherently left and despised the bourgeoisie and saw them inherently as their opponents. They focused on ethnicity but only as a concept to overcome and to then implement a socialist system, that's why they built a strong state and implemented left policies.
@@shanquelmondecesions4525 Look it up, you can find it everywhere 🤡 Because they made socialist politics. They collectivised, uniformed and rationalised every part of the economy and society and literally had quotas etc. Read a history book for God's sake
No, you're wrong. all authoritarian dictatorships are left-wing. I would argue that true liberalism is closer to the right than the left, the belief that all people are deserving of liberty is not a left-wing virtue. Therefore the Nazis were left-wing. As I recall the political axis used to be labelled 'Authoritarian' (complete government control) on the extreme left, and 'Anarchy' (no government) on the extreme right
It's an interesting side note that the fascists started out as broad tent populist parties that gradually eliminated the socialist wing, but kept the name for branding purposes.
This is where the idea of putting any political organisation on a left-right scale breaks down imo, they tend to just do whatever they want being dictatorships and all that, rather than adhering to some policies that are considered socialist, capitalist or whateverist.
Just a humorous idea. Has anyone actually considered just ASKING a National Socialist what their political leaning is? I'm pretty sure it's the only political stance where it seems to be acceptable to never consult about their own beliefs.
They were asked. Their voters were overwhelmingly conservative, right-wing people. The Nazis sat in the German parliament between the right-wing Christian party and the right-wing Nationalist party. The Nazi literature kept saying they were right wing, wanting to bring back Germany's glory days... By every metric, they were right wing.
@archapmangcmg not disagreeing. I'm just saying, when it comes time to discuss NatSoc ideology, why does everyone always grab an ADL spokesperson rather than going to a gym and finding a guy with an SS tattoo.
@@KokNoker Most people do nothing like "grab an ADL spokesperson". Frankly, I had no clue who you meant and had to look it up. It's pretty much ONLY in America that this "Nazis were really left wing!!!!" myth exists and it's clearly (to outsiders) just Republican lying to distance themselves from Nazis despite them agreeing on quite a lot. Better to go to an actual historian, or several to reduce errors, than to either Jews or Nazis for an accurate understanding. Let them do their jobs.
So in the US the left wing party uses ethnic struggle as well. I don't think simply using "ethnic struggle" can automatically mean you are right wing. You can be left wing and also use ethnic struggle. It's the politics of the movement that matters.
I dunno man, I see a lot of talk on the political left nowadays about certain racial groups as problematic, and it seems like making this one distinction the determining factor between "political left" and "political right" is incorrect (at the very least).
Amazing as it may seem, in the 1930s, being "socialist" was a very popular word seen as a good thing by most voters. It was just being used as a buzzword by the Nazis, like the equivalent of calling something the "Democratic Liberty Freedom Party" today.
Because we've forgotten that fascism was not right or left. 'The Facist Third Way' was a selling point of fascism during the interwar years because it blended socialism and nationalism, the right and the left. The attempt of the ideology was to take the best of each to make a third ideology out of both of them. If you asked Hitler if he was right or left he would laugh in your face because he didn't subscribe to the classic double-sided coin mentality of politics and neither did the ideology he followed. It's the wrong question.
I feel for history buffs and creators who have to hear and deal with questions like this lol. It’s almost like people on the internet need to understand that GIAGANTIC and COMPLEX things like political systems a crossed over 100 hundred years of culture and existence cannot just be jammed and lumped together because they use the same words in their name. Insane idea I know but maybe just maybe the world is more complicated than “They used the word socialism so that means left” like those word narrow it done so little as to what a party or government is about.
You just classified the CDU, SPD and nearly 90% of the Weimaer parliament as as far right wing. Nazis had the same voting group as the communist mainly workers. Right parties in the time of the Weimaer Republik get their votes from merchants, Industrialists and aristocrats. Most of these groups abhorred Hitler as an "Emporkömmling" and would never vote for him. Universities and Intellectuals in the 60's changed the narrative because they didn't want to have the same idology. And it sticked. Just to give you an idea. Name one right wing party which supports the idea of building the Autobahn in that timeframe.
Using “socialist” in the name was pure marketing. Socialism can be defined as ownership by the workers of the means of production. There is more to it but that will suffice for a YT comment. If that’s not the goal, it’s not socialism.
Fun fact: nationalism and pro-war attitude were popular amongst socialist movements during the inter-war period. When the italian revolutionary syndicalist movement started being anti-war(because italy was the victor in the great war), he left and founded the fascist party.
The simplest way that people always seem to overlook is an understanding that the nationalist movements following the fall of monarchies called themselves often and repeatedly the third position pulling ideals from both the right and the left. The national socialists were absolutely willing to apply socialist programs but they believed that it would only work in a homogeneous society where people were of like mind and like ethnicity. They didn't believe that the core population should pay socially for people who were not invested in the welfare of the country
A lot of times a group or company will use a "socially acceptable" term that aligns with their actual ideal or purpose, not because they're actually that type of group but because you won't support a group that called it self a slaughter house for domestic animals or a group that openly said they're terrorists when introducing themselves to the world.
The bad assumption at the base of this is that everything in on a line. It's more than one dimension. The Nazis hated the communists, the communists hated the Nazis, but both were totalitarian.
I think we should be clear in our distinction between economically right vs. left and culturally right vs. left. The two are always conflated. Nazis were economically left-wing (to some degree), but culturally far-right.
He makes the claim that nazis and leftists are different by focusing on their only difference, while ignoring the 99% of the rest which is identical. If you use interchangeably the terms race and class, left and nazis are practically the same. In terms of both ideology and practices.
Mussolini, the father of fascism was a staunch leftist who was just happened to also be incredibly patriotic. Giovanni Gentile who ghost wrote the Doctrine of Fascism (credited to Mussolini) was hugely inspired by Marx as was Mussolini. Hitler however took classical Fascism and added in the racial purity, antisemitism and esotericism, rebranding it as National Socialism. The irony being that “National Socialism” is a far more fitting name for Mussolini’s ideology. In my opinion Mussolini and Gentile’s classical fascism most definitely belongs to the left, Hitler’s batshit rebrand however is absolutely a product of the right.
Yeah, Gentile (who was a philosopher) studied Marx (who was a philosopher) and disagreed with him (because that's how philosophy works), while Mussolini was thrown out of the Socialist Party because his ideas were so out of whack with the official party line. The Doctrine of Fascism clearly states that fascism stands in opposition to socialism, which has failed and is dead, and that it is a right-wing movement. And yes, I have read it.
Left and right wing is a topic of economic policy, nothing else. It such a great disservice to intellectual honesty to try and conflate authoritarianism with either the left or right wing. This video is flat out misinformation.
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
"I don't want to talk about the Nazis, but you seem to want to." Welcome to the internet, and modern society
And now far-righters on the internet call center-left labour parties Nazis
Godwin's Law
its the loud minority really
I don't ever do this but damn I wasn't expecting this comment to get so many likes. So thanks
Well, the British and US-Americans are fascinated and obsessed with fascism.
Believe it or not, the Nazis would sometimes lie
Believe it or not, their actions often proved what they said.
@achocolatebiscuit5087 self report 🚨📮🚨
Believe it or not, the Nazi’s hated capitalism. Them, like Karl Marx, believe Judaism is capitalism and capitalism is Judaism. Hitler, hating the Jews (along with Karl Marx) would adopt socialism for his economics.
Believe it or not. Communists and nazis were 95% similar to eachother
It was the politicians who called them different ideologies, mostly russian politicians
@@SebastiansSebastian-fc4pj
Hitler put Communists in concentration camps.
Above all, Americans should be taught what socialism really is. They don't seem to understand it.
I think its the western Europeans who need to learn. The US has had a lot of interaction with socialists. From Cuba to Venezuela and beyond.
@@casematecardinal western Europeans are the ones invented the damn thing, and they are way too arrogant to admit its faults, especially when the alternative is the US.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
And from within. We’ve had a long history of progressivism and labor movements.@@casematecardinal
@@casematecardinal Western Europe had much more contact with socialism..
@@Drheims nearly none of the influential modern liberals or progressivists in the USA is socialist.
Everyone talks about left wing and right wing, but no one talks about up wing and down wing.
Call them "authoritarianism" and "libertarian", and you have one of the more popular models of the political spectrum.
@@rewbossby that model, normally the nazis weren't considered either left or right - mostly central and only slightly right-leaning - but very far authoritarian
@@joeyhardin5903 They outlawed collective bargaining and almost completely dismantled the welfare system. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't go that far, and there's no way she was a centrist.
@@rewboss But they also nationalised the railways, appealed to the working class, nationalised religion and even established a form of universal credit for blue collar workers. They had elements of both the left and right, but it was their extreme authoritarian stance that made them evil, not their economic alignment
@@joeyhardin5903 They didn't actually nationalize the railways: they were already nationalized (and had been since 1920) but had a special status because they were being used to pay reparations for WW1, and the Nazis basically just revoked that special status. Appealing to the working class is just what any party has to do if it wants a chance of getting elected (Trump is currently appealing to the working classes, and he's definitely not left-wing by any definition). They didn't "nationalize religion" (that's not a thing), but they were working on replacing Christianity with a kind of personality cult centred on the Führer, which is merely despotism which left-wing despots and right-wing despots alike indulge in. The "universal credit" you refer to is probably the charity they had to hurriedly set up when demolishing the welfare state backfired on them, but of course it was aimed at furthering the white supremecist cause and helping ensure the demise of all "non-Aryan" races in Germany.
It's almost like having a single spectrum is a really bad way to compare political philosophies...
I have seen another axis where it's something like autocratic vs libertarian. But yeah, it isn't talked a lot.
It is but it's often used for convenience.
You're right. Politics are a remarkably complicated subject that cannot really be defined by a linear 'us vs. them' argument.
It's like saying Nazis aren't evil or weren't evil because of you know their political belief.
@user-gu6ps6ed6l do you want to explain that comment a bit more? It sounds like you might think my original comment was intended as whataboutism in defense of nazism. If that is so, I would like to vehemently disabuse anyone of that notion.
believing Nazis are leftists because they're socialist is like believing they're Buddhist because their flags had swastikas
But they arent conservatives eather and dont need to be, there can be other ideals than those two😂 Conservative socialists? Un-catholic and anti-religion conservatives? The list goes on, on both sides.
Im neather eather, or someone could say that i pick the best ideas from both sides but thats not really true eather.
@@iirosiren5120the nazis are an authoritarian totalitarian dictatorship that you could called fascist which means they are conservative far right racist. This is greatly resumed and not accepted by all historian especially on what's fascism.
@@squirrel287That adheres to absolutely zero definition of what a conservative is, bud. They entirely uprooted and pushed an entirely new form of government, ideology, and beliefs onto a society. They didn't attempt to conserve (key word!) the culture and traditions that preexisted. By your same definition, all communist regimes and basically everyone is a conservative.
@@squirrel287Conservative far right at that time would have been monarchist.
Also conservative is just well conservative. A chinese communist is conservative in his country aswell as an arab religious fundamentalist is in his. The nazis were all but conservative they were progressive.
As someone who read "mien kamf" (no im not a nazi don't get any funny ideas) I recall reading that Hitler used the world "socialist" in the party name because we wanted it to appeal to both right and left wings even though he hated communists just as much as jews.
Anton Drexler founded the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Worker’s party ) and Hitler later ousted the party leaders and took it over.
He wanted to call it the social Democratic Party or some
Thing but a higher up in the party gave the socialist idea
I read it somewhere I believe it was on a Wikipedia article but I thought that was interesting
Hitler didn’t name the nazis
@@abundelofweedsYes, thats what i was going to say. Im not sure if that guy was actually a socialist but he was really into the whole ethnic national socialism thing
Youve read it but you still got the name wrong
You'd think 'Nazi bad' would be a very politically sound take, but here we are. This comment section is a mess.
The argument is more like nazi bad and left bad, But leftist not taking responsibility for the fuck ups.
Most people agree n**i bad, but left wing people say n**i bad because they are right wing and right wing people say n**i bad because they are left wing.
i think that's just too simple. you have to understand the reasons they are bad, because there are A LOT of reasons.
The issue is not "nazi bad", is "nazi bad therefore they're right-wing"
That is a simplistic view and without explanation why its bad is easier to comite the same mistakes, that unfortunately imo is already happening (thanks usa and Russia) the past is already to distant for young people that easier to put rose color glasses on,besides that they are a interesting and crazy bunch in a weird way
a good rule of thumb is that if "democratic" is in the name of a country, then it's not democratic.
if "united" is in the name...
@@omgnowairlyI mean that is true
Then again conflict and division is a good thing as it’s a sign of a proper free democracy rather then an tyrannical system that doesn’t allow such discourse
The communist definition of democratic is different from the Sane peoples definition
Does that also apply to the democratic party in the United States?
@@austinveno6743 there isn’t a Democratic Party
There is a democrat party and a republican party
It sounds like democracy but democrat doesn’t mean democracy
My favorite pastime is going into random shorts videos, going through their comment section, and reading the paragraph long arguments in the replies.
Does anyone feel like stirring the pot ?
@@jurbglurbez3489 Yeah sure. Nazi's were far left winged, not right wing as were communists. Thats because as different as the two are they have one thing in common, total government control. Thats why the far, FAR left are Nazi's and Communists. And for people who are wondering, that would make far, FAR right people Anarchists since they don't want any government control. But thats pushing as far as you can go in either direction.
@@jurbglurbez3489 sure
Me too 🍿
@@jurbglurbez3489 all of the comments replying to you were deleted lol. Like yeah I called Nazis left winged but I also called Anarchists right wing so idk why youtube is getting mad.
You could also mention that the Nazis only called themselves that because the Socialists were their biggest opponents, which they battled in street fights, and that they actually put Socialists into camps as one of their first group of victims.
Very true the adidge does go "first they came for the communists"
@@A_C_E_R... Also, another of their early victims were the trans. Look up Magnus Hirschfeld (14 May 1868 - 14 May 1935). He already did experimental sex--reassignment ops.
@@A_C_E_R...facts
th-cam.com/video/0-hDmm2itO0/w-d-xo.html#t=99
A certain former WW1 soldier was a spy who infiltrated a ring-wing party, the Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei (German Workers' Party). He added two words to its name, and we all know the rest...
that's correct.
Right wing and Left wing are no longer useful terms. They mean multiple things to multiple people.
It never was, it was aways a very specific definition that was created based on the geography of a specific location. It's a mere arragement of classifications that outisde of that context is extremely vague and as we see it can be made to fit anything
Well, blame Red Bull. You need both wings to actually fly. 😊
The issue is more that left and right wing is a binary spectrum to try and judge about 20 different things
Generally we use left and right to discuss collectivism vs individualism but that still doesn’t do a good job.
We actually are dealing with a really good example. The party in question checks every single box of a collectivist society. They only differ form what’s traditionally called socialism in one area (national identity). But that one area is not necessarily right wing either.
@@galacticnovastudios I doubt whether you can call something a collectivist society if it defines its very identity against the existence of a supposedly evil Other. It would always need some scapegoat to push out of said collective, making the "collective" quite unstable, to say the least.
@@hannahschneyder6651 tell that to Marx, his entire idea was to scapegoat individuals and push them out. Even in modern day political discourse its the left wing who use these tactics and blame societies problems on “white cisgender men”
I like the format of explaining things that can be researched in one google search, but people are too lazy to do it and instead make some assumptions
Because Wikipedia and its like are reliable sources, and not a place where people fight political battles through edits.
@@jgomo3877 unlike the early days all edits on Wikipedia are sited from REPUTABLE sources. Just because YOU dont like what it says, doesn't mean its wrong.
@dynamitedingo8183 You say "reputable", I say snopes fact checking is "reputable" too; doesn't mean it isn't swayed by huge amounts of political biases.
It's the world we live in - a post truth society indeed, where there no longer exists a truth; only a series of agreed lies.
@@jgomo3877"Wikipedia and its like" =/= literally the entire Internet
@@pureteddybear_ The whole of the Internet? When has the Internet ever agreed on anything other than cats?
'National socialism' is specifically socialism for 'the Nation'. Which in the context of Nazi Germany meant ethnic germans.
People need to read about the concept of the Volk considering how even “ethnic Germans” was an arbitrary description that was just used by the Nazis to discriminate against anyone they didn’t like
@juancorujo4726 this is entirely the reason people hate nationalists, yes, thank you.
It wasn't arbitrary at all. Nuanced? Sure. But they definitely followed racial lines that harkened back to the earliest categories of european tribes. Etc, The Germanic tribes, the Celtic tribes, Slavic, among others. @@juancorujo4726
Yes. It's a Nationalistic version of Socialism focusing on control of the economy for the Nation as opposed to the international form of Socialism represented by Marxist Communism in the USSR.
All people have to do is read their agendas and economic policies.
@@juancorujo4726 are you going to say Europeans don't exist next?
I say this as an American, we really need to cover the political compass in more detail in our classes
The political compass is idiotic. There’s no such thing as a right wing libertarian. They are antithetical.
Javier Milei, Argentina's new president, is a right-wing libertarian; his ideology is close to anarcho-capitalism, at least on principle, although he's probably going to have to settle for something that looks more like a minarchy.
He wants to deregulate as much as he can, reduce the size and influence of government (a policy often criticized as a "night-watchman state", because the government does little more than arrest people when they commit crimes), and at the same time institute some very right-wing economic policies.
I'm not sure why Argentina would want to elect a president who publicly expresses his admiration for Margaret Thatcher, but then he gets most of his support from people too young to remember the Falklands War.
@@rewboss I’m familiar with milei I just disagree with the idea that anarcho-capitalism is compatible with libertarianism or the concept of liberty.
A capitalist systems needs an oppressed class, a class that is actively being denied liberty. Someone like milei is anti liberty to the core. I’m not so sure a lot of women are feeling very free over there right now.
@@Sbeeyuiik Well, that's a hardcore left-wing take. There are quite a few capitalist and mixed economies around that seem to be quite successful at reducing the wealth gap and securing workers' rights. The Nordic model is generally held up as a good example.
I don't think anarcho-capitalism could do that, but it is a political school of thought that actually exists, and Milei is having a shot at putting it (or something similar to it) into practice. I predict he will ruin the country's economy and fall from grace very quickly, because anarcho-capitalism is a stupid idea and Milei is a stupid man, but it's an idea.
Basically, libertarianism isn't necessarily about making sure everyone is freed from everything: it's about "small government", i.e. reducing government intervention to a minimum and allowing society to, in effect, police itself. That's what free-speech advocates mean, for example, by "freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences" -- i.e., the government can't put you in prison if you say something out of line, but your boss can fire you.
It is true that in reality this creates the ideal conditions for bullies to assert their dominance and deny the vulnerable their basic rights and freedoms, but this is a problem of _anarchism,_ whether capitalist or socialist, and one that anarchists endlessly debate.
@@rewboss It’s a very left wing take but I feel validated in what I’m saying especially *because* of the stark contrast between something like the Nordic model and Argentina. As you said, something resembling market socialism is successful at *reducing* wealth inequality and labour rights, while Milei is barrelling towards catastrophe. I agree he’s very very stupid, and that an-cap ideology is bound to fail. But I believe it’s bound to fail exactly because of my previously stated position, that it is built on shaky-ground and has internally conflicting ideas that make the entire ideology incoherent.
I guess a lot of my disagreement with something like a political compass stems from the broad definitions/oversimplification of the terms used. I say libertarianism and the right are incompatible and maybe that’s my own oversimplification and someone in a different position from me will disagree or having a less strict idea on what the concept of liberty is.
Anyways I love you videos, feel free to reply again but I do fully understand your perspective.
Usage of left/right is a failure of describing policy in the first place.
Policies do not exist on one single spectrum.
They can its not deliberately oversimplified to keep the blame game going.
Thank you so much for that!
I lost count of how many times i tried to explain this to people, myself...
Next on the list, "How democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive"... 😅
Absolutely! Me too. So many times…..usually with imbecilic Americans!
When you’re finished explaining the Democracy and Republic thing to them…..can I watch you try to explain to them how a Monarchy and a Democracy are also not mutually exclusive please? 😂😂😂
Like, for example, in the People's Democratic Republic of Korea
@@myrix_dev
More like in the USA, where a surprising number of people believe they're not living in a democracy, "because republic".
Luckily the latter problem doesn't exist in Italy as Italy is called a democratic republic
@@Sleeping_Insomiacyea those people are stupid, idk why one would even want to claim such a stupid thing
The problem is oversimplification of a much more complicated topic.
Its the blame game and spite.
The nazis were 3rd position end of story but people from the left and right can't pull punches.
The reason why people come to these false conclusions is the complex part. Hitler basically took bribes from big business as the country was in economic turmoil and every cent of money for the government was needed, and big business didn't want to be nationalised or regulated more.
People take the letter as evidence of hitler being a Capitalist! i guess stalin was a capitalist also.
It's really not complicated. The Nazis called themselves socialist because socialism was popular at that time, but not popular enough for people to understand that "national socialism" is an oxymoron.
@@johndescy7904 an oxymoron is a composite of opposites.
Nationalism is the advocation for a ethnic or cultural state, Socialism is advocating for the government to enact equality and equity using its powers.
These are not opposites or incompatible at all.
Its just a newish phenomenon due to the pressures of democracy around the world, creating the artificial pressure in the populace for muh free stuff with the extra ingredient being nationalism which as we see due to history; kinda happened wether you like it or not.
@@finlaymcdiarmid5832 No, Socialism is international by definition. Please educate yourself.
@@johndescy7904 no communism is... which is only a slice or socialism as a whole.
"I don't want to talk about Nazis, but you seem to want to."
What?! Can't we have one normal family dinner Uncle Jim???
I´ve always liked uncle Jim, and now I AM the same kind of uncle
I love this comment. It had me creased up.
This comment section is filthy
Only W comment here
yeah, my guy here just stated seemingly obvious faxs, but then you open the comment section.....
Yeah lotsa Nazis and Nazi apologists
Yeah. I hate *insert your party name here* and love (I’m not even gonna type it but it starts with n)
@@beans1557 Lefties love to call people Nazis while acting like them. Reminds me of conservative preachers screaming about gay people.
In Norway, Fremskrittspartiet (The Progress Party) is not progressive, but far right.
Ideology != name, also proven by "National Gathering".
Love that you used "!=" for not equals lmao, programmer background?
@@santanuroy3329 yes
Fremskrittspartiet is NOT far-right 🤣🤣🤣 they are very moderate
they are definitely *not* moderate. The question is only if they're just strongly right wing, or right wing extremist. no sociologist on the topic, thinks that they're moderate@@mrakz03
@@mrakz03 what party was Anders Behring Breivik part of, and who were his targets?
In order to define whether something is "left-wing" or "right-wing" one has to define what these terms mean. Historically, being "left-wing" was completely different from what people nowadays mean when they say "left-wing".
And even modern interpretations of "left-wing" are different among people, with some equating "left-wing" and "liberal", for instance.
In the original sense (french revolution)
It was left wing for anti-monarchists and right wing for those who supported a constitutional monarchy
After communism gained prevelance through the XX century, the left wing became associated with communism and the right wing with anarcho-capitalism
But as people from both sides started creating propaganda to lump various opponents into one side of the political spectrum the term got muddier and muddier with eventually even liberals (traditionally considered right wing) are sometimes called leftists by conservatives
I personally like the capitalist/socialist spectrum for the labels, which would put nazis probably in the center-right, just a very xenophobic and authoritarian flavor of the center-right. There was massive privatization and union busting by the nazis but also under nazi rule, private companies would have price controls when it came to government contracts, though they were still for-profit and there were even less protections for workers from being exploited
@@jmca_power
"and the right wing with anarcho-capitalism"
If you don't mind, do you have a source for that, I don't usually hear this interpreted in this way
@@eve_avery I meant to write "capitalist" there, (I blame auto-correct)
The left wants to reform or abolish capitalism, the right wants to maintain or expand it. Just look at who the burgeoisie is supporting and who they demonize and you will see who is leftand who is right.
Nazism was fundamentally a counter-revolutionary movement that grew at the same time communists was gaining space in Germany, economically it was very good for corporations and the white burgeois class massively supported and profoted from it.
@davigurgel2040 it wasn't that good for corporations. Many of the goverment contracts were done at a fixed price, and the goverment had control of many of the raw materials so they had a big say on which companies got to stay on business and which didn't
I am mad but not shocked to learn Nazi was not a complete word and is in fact a shorthand for an actual name, because if American school systems ever brought that up, they’d have a lot of explaining to do
For starters if you’re school “didn’t teach you that” what you meant to say is you forgot. And what does knowing what Nazi stands for change anything? It doesn’t, btw. It was a rhetorical question
@@uncannyvalley3190 👀👀👀 um.....ok, weirdo
Uh, unless you’re still in high school at some weird non-educational school, you were definitely told what Nazi stood for. Schools were teaching how bad communism was during the red scare, so they jumped on any chance they had to paint socialism in a bad light, and socialism never regained popularity from there. I graduated not even 10 years ago and I was taught what it stood for.
I guess it’s just unbelievable that it’s not taught, and I can’t see any reason for it honestly.
@@thingswhynot yes, actually that is exactly what happened. I’m in an art school. As in a college, I graduated high school last year
@@thingswhynot I am also curious what you guys did for your history classes during the WW2 section because in my school we never had that. We have maybe a week of learning about the Holocaust every year, but because my school system was weird we had to bump up what sections kids were learning so by the time I was in junior year we were learning about Vietnam not WW2. And maybe this is my fault because I didn’t take a history class senior year because I had enough credits to graduate without a final year of history since 4 years was not required for any core class other than English. Apologies if my education was fucked up but on the plus side I learned it now so that’s cool
Another major failing when it comes to teaching about the nazis is that people tend to focus exclusively on the human rights violations rather than also discussing the economic and social policies they implemented. But it becomes really obvious why they don’t because it’ll lead to some pretty uncomfortable realizations.
The economic and social policies they implemented were very right-wing: they forced the unions to disband (no, the DAF was _not_ a union and didn't even pretend to be one), privatized as many state enterprises as they could, made deals with the capitalist classes, expected women to stay at home and make babies, dismantled the welfare state as part of their belief in Social Darwinism, and so on.
@@rewboss Exactly my point. Americans would realize that outside of actively running mass death camps, there’s functionally no difference between them and us
@@armando5846
Yup. Germany might have lost the war but fascism and it’s baby cousins in liberalism, neoliberalism, neocolonialism, won and are thriving.
@@armando5846 Pretty sure we're not too far off from those.
@@armando5846I mean, not to have a “well actually 🤓” moment, but isn’t that what the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is? That kinda sounds like a mass death camp with extra steps to me.
"I don't want to talk about them"
- me, after 4 years of non stop history classes talking about them
Non-Stop?
Non Stop! Also in German and Religion class. There are so many topics put aside just to talk about the eeeeevil Nazis. And most absurd about is that I learned in one Seminar at the University more about it than in a whole year in school.
@@soundscape26 pretty much.
I don't think it helps the cause but actually desensitizes people
@@educatedsloth8973What additional stuff did you learn? Did they mention that Hitler was technically a V-Mann as well?
@@muellerhans nope, the teaching focus was very specific, maybe because I went to a School named after Anne Frank.
Socialist, or here "National socialist" just implies that the government was a people's government or "Volkspartei", just as the Communist party in the USSR was.
Socialism is a system where means of production (such as factories, shops, etc) are collectively run by the working class rather than a minority rich class.
Nazis, despite their name, very much practiced the latter, which is capitalism.
Ie, the former is democratization of economic society, the latter is simply capitalism in decay trying to keep its power.
As opposed to whose government? The aliens'???
And yet they went after the communists in their country first
not volksparty, workers party and friekorps
ironic because it was, functionally, a bonapartist dictatorship on behalf of capital.
Oh, they were socialists, of course. And so were the Fascists, the Legionaries, the Synarchists, and the Integralits.
But not Marxist socialists. Never make that assumption.
Is this like a satire of a quintessential leftard? How can this be real?
Elaborate
As a German, thank you. This kind of bullshit is getting popular in Germany too an im so mad about it
Das kommt davon, wenn man alles und jeden als Nazi bezeichnet. Ihr radikalisiert diese Leute.
Weil es stimmt!
Seiner Erklärung war lächerlich, mach die Hausaufgaben und du wirst ziemlich schnell merken dass der Name Programm war!
You’ve picked a war with TIK history now
Tik is an idiot he can stay mad
i agree, if communists call themselves socialist that doesn't make them socialist
Communism and socialism are different things, although some argue that socialism is a transitional stage to communism. But of all the countries that have ever claimed to be communist, only one can be argued to have been literally communist: that was Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea, which attempted to abolish private property, money, and the markets -- things that under communism are not supposed to exist.
So... yeah, most regimes that have claimed to be communist weren't communist.
(The results, of course, were disastrous. Even now Cambodia is one of the world's poorest and least developed nations.)
@@rewbossCambodia was capitalist and was funded by the CIA. I mean you can debate the first one, but not the second one, the CIA did fund them. They overthrew the previous socialist government and then were liberated by socialist vietnam.
Socialism is the transitional phase to communism. Marx never really outlined how this is done, so others like Lenin had to do it themselves, with very strange policies in the USSR changing all the time, from War Communism to the NEP.
Also, Cambodia is a really stupid example for communism even if it was communist, humans lived in communes for hundreds of thousands of years.
@@tempejkl socialism from mainstream perspective is the voluntary transition of a white independent nation to (((their))) puppet, a form of socialism where the people will never have a glimpse of it unless you are going by the talmudic definition of person
also humans can't have been living in communes for hundreds of thousands of years if the universe was created 6000 years ago
@@tempejkl i am rewriting this for the forth time, anti-white censorship is so fucking annoying
socialism from mainstream perspective is the voluntary transition from an independant white nation to a ✡puppet (if this is wrong, go ahead and say it yourself without being censored). this famous form of socialism also just so happens to be the form of socialism where the people will never have a glimpse of it. unless you are going by the talmudic definition of a person
also, humans did not live in communes for hundreds of thousands of years; that's not possible, the universe was only created 6ooo years ago (they don't like the opinions of people who believe in the opposite god of satan so even that number is censored)
@@tempejkl Pol Pot tried to outlaw everything that defines capitalism and Kampuchea was capitalist?
And we don't know that humans lived in what we would recognize as "communes" for hundreds of thousands of years. Our knowledge only goes back as far as the invention of writing, and the earliest examples of writing we have include records keeping track of people's property.
You are literally rhe first person in my experience to try and rationally explain this like your listener had cognition.
Thanks for that.
That's a horrible attempt to connect race-based Naziism with modern American and European concerns about immigration and illegal immigration. It's fallacious conflation.
“Concerns about immigration” the way you simplify racism to make it sound innocent and seperate from Naziism. Comedic
The clue isn't in the name, it's in their absolutely socialist leftist ECONOMIC POLICY. Yes, the nazis had right wing xenophobia, but they ALSO had left wing anti-capitalist class struggle. It was left wing socialism, but for one race. That's why they considered themselves neither left nor right, thus the fascist "third way," and why they're difficult to classify.
The economy was left. Their immigration and citizenship policy was right-wing. Why is this so hard for people to accept?
We need to get over this "they can't be left wing because the left is good!" BS. They can be both, open your mind and stop thinking with feelings.
Can you give examples or sources for their economic policy being actually socialist or left-wing?
They arrested union leaders and killed political opponents
Doesn't sound very left wing
Just because something SAYS it's socialist or communist doesn't mean it is. By definition neither has been truly practised in government.
Communism hasn't actually occurred, but socialism absolutely has been carried out. The USSR was socialist. Vietnam, Cuba, early China were socialist. If a revolutionary effort must be perfect, and if its results must be perfect, in order for it to qualify as socialism, then true capitalism has, by that metric, never been practiced.
@@ThatCamel104 I don't think you understand. Maybe look into it a bit more and you'll see my point.
Of course. This is why we can judge by actions. Like abolition of private property, central planning, nationalization of industries, rent and price controlls, subsidies for workers...
You know, if it's named Duck, looks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, it is still a duck no matter the color.
@@yourgodemperorofeverything1354 Try actually reading political theory before talking about it.
@@bicumber I did. Nazis were socialists and implemented socialist policies. They were not marxists, but socialism is older than Marxisn so...
The system we use to describe political idealogical ideas is fundamentally flawed.
I've learned that if someone says they are left or right wing (especially outside of America) you have absolutely no idea what they actually believe.
Not an ounce of economics in sight.
Just people living on the internet, spreading the shallowest points and opinions on the most brainrotting TH-cam feature.
Based
If you think the Nazis were leftist, I think you would have the courage to say that in front of the neo-Nazis... try it, I want to see

Nazis believed the state owned everyone and everything, including the means of production.
There's also the economic basis, where they were quite happy with capitalism, something a socialist is not keen on
"get rid of the rich" is very ambiguously worded
The Nazis were left. They went so far to the left, that they reappeared on the far right at the end.
I’m perfectly fine with admitting the nazis were in fact somewhat socialist, as what made them socialist isn’t what makes them baddies. It was the holocaust.
They werent. Private property was not abolished - not socialist
Nazis were the farthest reaction to socialism possible.
Going by the “it’s when the government does stuff” definition, the Nazis privatized nearly every industry other than the war industries, and the state itself was ran by the same ceos and corporate owners that existed in Weimar Germany.
Socialism is - an economic system / mode of production where the working class collectively runs the means of production (such as factories and shops), instead of it being controlled by a small class of individuals (including the state). While state industries may exist, they are only generally for large necessities and are democratically ran through union and council functions.
@@turbosoggyleninistOk so the difference is in nazi germany the corporation owners jumped on the train and became politicians while in the soviet union they were shot and replaced by others. Different faces same result who cares?
@@turbosoggyleninistseems you were lied to , nazi germany "privatisation" was them giving firms over to party members, they callled it synchronisation , Nazi germany had extensive welfare system that regulated prices of goods, working hours, rent costs , vacations and others ,Nazi leaders cooperation with ceos is also mostly a mith ,they directly ordered companies what to produce, how quickly, flow of resources , Access to slave and free labour . Most CEO and businessman didnt support NSDAP untill hitler took power ad chancelor in 1933 , they preffered the other right wing party that was friendly to their interests ,
Saying that nazis werent socialist because they went after marxists makes no sense when
1 nearly every socialist movement in history purged other socialist factions
2 socialism isnt marxism, marxism/communism is an outgrowth of socialism that introduces class conflict in to it
@@turbosoggyleninist username checks out
How is ridding foreign influence over your country a bad thing?
Because it has in the past always led to disaster, whether it's Nazi Germany, Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia.
@@rewboss That's why migration problems should be solved by deporting illegals, normal border security and well, stuff like that, not by literally exterminating people you don't like.
But yeah, it's pretty hard right now, the world is in constant wars, waves of migrants and stuff like that. It's good that some of them come legally, the problem is when a boat with 1000+ people comes to your shore.
What? Those are completely different situations and making a blanket statement for all of them is disingenuous garbage. I guess anticolonial struggles are all bad too then?
You're a hack. Stop acting like your educating people
Because if there's no immigration rent would be lower, wages would go up, crime rates would go down, and we would live in a high trust society. (((Western governments))) would never allow that.
Because if your country is doing terrible shit and it's own citizens don't have the power to change it, then it's up to other countries to right wrongs. When countries like N. Korea and the US have forms of mass destruction and, in the case of the US, unparalleled military power, these countries can basically violate every human right without consequence.
I was so glad to see this because I have made the exact same point with literally the same example many times.
Thank you for addressing this. It bothers me so much when the right claims that Nazis or Fascists are left wing.
they are.
The nazis R about big govt. thats wjy they R lefties. the right is about small govt. property rights and individual freedom.
The fundamental difference between fascism and communism is ownership of the meas of production. In fascism, the means of production are privately owned but controlled by the government, usually through strict regulation.
In communism, the means of production are both owned and controlled by the state. They are two side of the same socialist coin.
I completely understand the left wanting, desperately, to distance itself from fascism as far as possible, but the claims are disingenuous at best.
excuse me? my brother in christ, fascism is liberalism under siege. I interpret it as a hyper-militant neoliberalism. Fascism is not a socialist system - in fact if you ACTUALLY look at the ACTUAL policies of the Nazis, not just the aesthetics or whatever Dennis Prager vomited out last week, then you might notice how almost everything was privatized. The whole dictatorial thing about Nazi leadership? That was liberalism under siege. It was the final possible impulse to protect capitalism. True supporters of capitalist liberal democracies should sing the praises of fascism because at the very least it crushed communism at home.
of course, it was invariably and incredibly corrupt and functionally just a giant ponzi scheme, but that's just entrepreneurial innovation for you.
totally agree. both are just control by government.
Communism is a classless, moneyless society. The means of production being owned and controlled by the state is more state capitalism than anything. Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. Fascism and Socialism are not even close to being similar.
It's crazy, how people actually believe that Nazis were left💀
well the Confederates were, so that's good enough for me.
Economically they were!
Do the research they were textbook antikapitalists!
Look at their political programm as a start!
This guy is a simplifier of the highest order!
They believed the state owned everyone and everything, including the means of production
Bruh.
I thought the title was the war thunder meme:
"You got a hole in your left-wing!"
I think need something to fix my eyes
Attempting to be informative, whilst being biased is inherently stupid😂
Yes, but their policy was socialist.
The economy in Nazi Germany was democratically ran by the working class? That’s new to me
@@turbosoggyleninistthe government determined how much businesses produced and what they could produce. This is not a free market (capitalism) a government ran market is state capitalism which is a form of socialism effectively.
No it wasn’t. They en masse handed over industries to private interests in exchange for shoring up support for the party. The term privatization became known specifically because of what they did
Dont fall for this crap, hes using 2 deffirent criteria to define left and right, by defineing parts of a single paradigm under different contexts he's falsly equivocating the nazi's and the modern "right". At the time the nazis saw the communists as enemies, but that can be used as evidence saying the nazis were right or left, look at what they actually did with theyre industry and political freedoms.
Using an economic definition the left is for a controlled market, the nazis had a controlled market, doesnt mean they were perfectly socialist by the utopian standard, but they were infact socialist
The Nazis destroyed worker unions and privatised industries that were in the hands of the state before. Economically, that's right wing.
And what do you mean by "controlled market?". If you actually mean a "regulated market", then yes, every developed government regulates the market to different extents.
The stock market is a regulated market for example. So is the US economy.
@hannahk.598 a "free market" regulates itself, vote with your dallor. A controlled market is regulated by 1 power, the state. The nazis didn't privatize, they consolidated the unions in Germany into the workers front.
And every "privately owned" business had be owned by a ethnic german, and most had nazi party member put in power.
Saying nazi industry is private is like saying Russian and American satellite states have democracy
I used to be a hard lefty communist, then I realized they lie through they're teeth to gain power. It's always about power.
@@hannahk.598 They destroyed PRIVATE unions as all socialist states do. Lenin did the same thing, noone is calling him capitalist. You cannot have private unions in worker's state, that would mean that state is not a worker's state. Unuons were forced to join DAF or were disbanded.
Nazis privatized nothing. They abolished orivate property, natiinalized factories, often kicked out owners on a whim and replaced them with commisars. There was no privatization, everyone either was part of the party, which meant being part of the state, or was directlt controlled by it and could be replaced on a whim.
Unless you refer.to the shares, whcih they did releaded to gain more money, but wete essentially worthless, as Nazis did not recognized either stockholds as valid (just like Marx they believed it is a jewish idea) and there was no private property either way, shareholders were meaningless and had no controlm over any firm, but the state had such controll.
As ofr "regulated market", NSDAP introduced central planned economy, so... very capitalistic of them.
This was all a pretense to bash Melei. In a sudden instant I realize poster is a dipshit. I wonder how often he tries to Shoe horn in bad takes like this and we just don't notice.
Not enough truehistory being taught in schools for the last dee ade so now its a novelty 😮youre doing a great job explaining this to the deprived minds of today🎉
I am a jew and I condemn hamas and those who stand with them
Oh wow, I used to understand "left" and "right" very wrong, thank you for this explanation!
Except right and left wing is based upon freedom and how economy is structured. And not if you like or dont like foreigners. Racism is not politics. But the value of the hours and days in your life with regards of who gets to get the benefit of ownership of it, IS.
The Nazis sold loads of state enterprises to their capitalist friends, banned collective bargaining, and dismantled the welfare system. How are these policies (among many others) even remotely left-wing?
@@rewboss In socialism, the means of production are EITHER owned by the state, or someone cooperating with the state. So as long as it is owned by a company abiding by the states rules with regards of structure and/or taxation, it is by definition a sort of socialism.
@@rakerholm Uh, no, that's not true. It may be that the means of production are owned by the state on behalf of the workers, but decisions are made by the workers themselves through the unions -- or at least, an attempt is made to maintain that fiction.
The Nazis didn't even pretend that's what they were doing: Robert Ley, the leader of the German Labour Front, very explicitly stated that only employers should be empowered to make decisions, and the government outlawed collective bargaining.
Companies abiding by the state rules is just "the rule of law": the more control a government exerts the more authoritarian it gets, but it can be authoritarian right-wing we much as it can be authoritarian left-wing. Less government control just means it moves in the libertarian direction: Javier Milei is an example of a right-wing libertarian, while Noam Chomsky is an example of a left-wing libertarian.
@@rewboss Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist. This in itself is a contradiction and a oxymoron. You cant both be libertarian and advocate for denying people to own their own stuff and time/life.
You should read up on Milton Friedman.
@@rakerholm I think you're confusing two very different things. Noam Chomsky believes the workers should own and run the means of production, so that makes him a socialist. He also believes this can be achieved by ordinary people getting organised and defying government, and that government should be got rid of by peaceful means if possible, by violent revolution if necessary, so that makes him a libertarian.
You're just confused because the loudest voices on the American right are, or claim to be, libertarian, so that's leading you to assume that the right wing is libertarian and the left wing is authoritarian.
Well put. "For the people" is a line often used by political extremists. But those referenced people always turns out to be a far smaller group than dogmatically proclaimed.
I told a colleague once; that the tendency to authoritarianism or even totalitarianism is not about the degree of commitment to the belief system, rather it is related to the degree of uptightness or dogmatic mindset. the instigation of the conversation was religiosity which she thought always meant dogmatic, but it applies to any belief system; including socialism, democracy, etc. the reason why “far” anything similarly have a tendency to autocracy, is because autocratic impulses come from the uptightness that they have in common, not the belief system.
Never has it even been better spoken. I'm sick of having to tell people that the nazis were not left wing
So basically they employ the same methods to achieve similar goals but their propaganda is different. Forgive me but I dont really see the difference. Thats like saying manchester united and PSG are nothing alike even though they are both football clubs…
It takes a special kind of stupid to watch this entire short and arrive to the conclusion "they're both the same"
@@MultiSaintsfan123
Soviets:
-loved a command economy
-liked a good ethnic cleansing
-militarist
-totalitarian
-progressive/anti establishment before coming to power
Nazis:
-liked a command economy
-loved a good ethnic cleansing
-militarist
-totalitarian
-progressive/anti establishment before coming to power
Forgive me but where are the meaningful differences? Does it matter when the economy gets commanded by the state, the country led into war, minorities persecuted and you a boot in your face if you dare to speak up who the propaganda deems the enemy and their reasoning for it?
They change it as it suits them so its meaningless. Totalitarian=Totalitarian who cares about the rest?
Volksgemeinschaft was a concept central to nazi ideology and it was in essence collectivist.
Left wing=collectivist
Right wing= individualist
National socialist describes nazi ideology perfectly, unsurprisingly.
From what I recall fascism isn't ether left or right wing, rather it's reactionary, a hate/dislike of what came before, seeing it as weak and a disgrace and a belief that with might that can be fixed/overcome. What leaning it ends up having is down to the leadership who have historically favoured militarism and specific ethnic groups. It wasn't always about 1 pure ethnic group, that was just the nazis when other facists found out/where told about the 1 pure ethnic thing they thought the nazis where mad or on drugs or a mix of the 2. The other fascist movements where about the people of the nation as a whole, all italians/ all Spanish as long as you weren't communist then you where fine.
Fascism is clearly right wing.
Right wing = elitism. Fascism is brutal elitism = 100% right wing.
Omg i can't handle these conversations anymore. I argued with my uncle over whether China is communist because they call themselves communist. Fun fact: they are not communists.
Its never communist if it does bad. ha ha.
I'm noticing a trend of people saying fun fact and then failing to deliver any fun.
This political take, kind of reveals a dangerously narrow understanding of what Left and Right Wing means. If my options are merely between who to blame for all of my problems, I have no options.
This is a very europian view of politics which show's a lack of understanding of meaningful political differences, and clearly highlight's why both of these ideaologies are more alike than not. If this is you idea of far-right and far-left, than your just narrowing political discourse to cut out alternative perspectives.
If you are connected to Germany but either live abroad or have a lot of international connections you can not escape the Nazi issue. I am a German who has lived outside of Germany my entire live and it is constant background noise to everything I do. It was pretty bad when I was a kid- now I mostly ignore it
You lost me with your ponytail.
A contemporary carricature that I have unfortunately never found was described to me as
Left picture: A SA speaker in front of a podium talking in front of workers. Behind him, the party name: "national-SOZIALISTISCHE deutsche ARBEITER-Partei"
Right picture: Same SA speaker, same podium, but the audience is nationalistic upper class. The party name is rendered as: "NATIONAL-sozialistische DEUTSCHE arbeiter-Partei".
I think the confusion comes the fact that we call socialists "left-wing and conservatives "right-wing" despite them not being mutually exclusive lol
They were Far-right. The NSDAP brought back private-property. They privatised all industry at a time when everyone else were nationalising theirs.
That is a common misunderstanding.
The NSDAP, when it came into power, was still a private organisation, more or less tied to the constitution of the Weimar Republic, and not nearly as total in power as they themaleves would've liked. This was a major hurdle to their consolidation of power, as the NSDAP existed as a "state within the state", if you will, but not as the state proper.
So, being unable to touch government property, the nazis "privatized" nationalized industries and organisations, only to replace their management with Nazi party members for to gain control over these industries.
This is a major element of the "Gleichschaltung".
@@dangerjoe8911
Another lie.
@@dangerjoe8911
'After the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized. The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible.'
The Nazis were responsible for the term' privatisation' from the 'reprivatizerung'. I know the entire history. You have read lies.
@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074This does not negate my point at all.
The nazis prided themselves, for their version of socialism, on not entirely abolishing private property.
Yet they privatized the industries - to members of the nazi party.
It's not that hard to understand. Private property to the Nazis meant that something is owned by a member of the Volksgemeinschaft - which to them was not anybody, but an ideologically reliable, racial german at best a member of the NSDAP.
The clue is that Goebbels said, that they were inherently left and despised the bourgeoisie and saw them inherently as their opponents. They focused on ethnicity but only as a concept to overcome and to then implement a socialist system, that's why they built a strong state and implemented left policies.
Source for that Goebbles quote? How was the Nazi government socialist? What leftist policy was implemented?
@@shanquelmondecesions4525
Look it up, you can find it everywhere 🤡
Because they made socialist politics.
They collectivised, uniformed and rationalised every part of the economy and society and literally had quotas etc. Read a history book for God's sake
No, you're wrong. all authoritarian dictatorships are left-wing. I would argue that true liberalism is closer to the right than the left, the belief that all people are deserving of liberty is not a left-wing virtue. Therefore the Nazis were left-wing. As I recall the political axis used to be labelled 'Authoritarian' (complete government control) on the extreme left, and 'Anarchy' (no government) on the extreme right
This is so well explained that it healed my sinus infection
It's an interesting side note that the fascists started out as broad tent populist parties that gradually eliminated the socialist wing, but kept the name for branding purposes.
They believed the state owned everyone and everything, including the means of production
This is where the idea of putting any political organisation on a left-right scale breaks down imo, they tend to just do whatever they want being dictatorships and all that, rather than adhering to some policies that are considered socialist, capitalist or whateverist.
Just a humorous idea. Has anyone actually considered just ASKING a National Socialist what their political leaning is? I'm pretty sure it's the only political stance where it seems to be acceptable to never consult about their own beliefs.
They were asked. Their voters were overwhelmingly conservative, right-wing people. The Nazis sat in the German parliament between the right-wing Christian party and the right-wing Nationalist party. The Nazi literature kept saying they were right wing, wanting to bring back Germany's glory days...
By every metric, they were right wing.
@archapmangcmg not disagreeing. I'm just saying, when it comes time to discuss NatSoc ideology, why does everyone always grab an ADL spokesperson rather than going to a gym and finding a guy with an SS tattoo.
@@KokNoker Most people do nothing like "grab an ADL spokesperson". Frankly, I had no clue who you meant and had to look it up.
It's pretty much ONLY in America that this "Nazis were really left wing!!!!" myth exists and it's clearly (to outsiders) just Republican lying to distance themselves from Nazis despite them agreeing on quite a lot.
Better to go to an actual historian, or several to reduce errors, than to either Jews or Nazis for an accurate understanding. Let them do their jobs.
This depends enormously on how you define left vs right.
So in the US the left wing party uses ethnic struggle as well. I don't think simply using "ethnic struggle" can automatically mean you are right wing. You can be left wing and also use ethnic struggle. It's the politics of the movement that matters.
I dunno man, I see a lot of talk on the political left nowadays about certain racial groups as problematic, and it seems like making this one distinction the determining factor between "political left" and "political right" is incorrect (at the very least).
Amazing as it may seem, in the 1930s, being "socialist" was a very popular word seen as a good thing by most voters. It was just being used as a buzzword by the Nazis, like the equivalent of calling something the "Democratic Liberty Freedom Party" today.
They also used a different definition of ”socialist”, basically one who loved his nation and race would be a socialist
Because we've forgotten that fascism was not right or left. 'The Facist Third Way' was a selling point of fascism during the interwar years because it blended socialism and nationalism, the right and the left. The attempt of the ideology was to take the best of each to make a third ideology out of both of them. If you asked Hitler if he was right or left he would laugh in your face because he didn't subscribe to the classic double-sided coin mentality of politics and neither did the ideology he followed. It's the wrong question.
Its like that quote from Hitler said "our socialism has nothing to do with marxian economics"
I feel for history buffs and creators who have to hear and deal with questions like this lol. It’s almost like people on the internet need to understand that GIAGANTIC and COMPLEX things like political systems a crossed over 100 hundred years of culture and existence cannot just be jammed and lumped together because they use the same words in their name. Insane idea I know but maybe just maybe the world is more complicated than “They used the word socialism so that means left” like those word narrow it done so little as to what a party or government is about.
You just classified the CDU, SPD and nearly 90% of the Weimaer parliament as as far right wing.
Nazis had the same voting group as the communist mainly workers. Right parties in the time of the Weimaer Republik get their votes from merchants, Industrialists and aristocrats. Most of these groups abhorred Hitler as an "Emporkömmling" and would never vote for him. Universities and Intellectuals in the 60's changed the narrative because they didn't want to have the same idology. And it sticked.
Just to give you an idea. Name one right wing party which supports the idea of building the Autobahn in that timeframe.
Using “socialist” in the name was pure marketing. Socialism can be defined as ownership by the workers of the means of production. There is more to it but that will suffice for a YT comment. If that’s not the goal, it’s not socialism.
Fun fact: nationalism and pro-war attitude were popular amongst socialist movements during the inter-war period. When the italian revolutionary syndicalist movement started being anti-war(because italy was the victor in the great war), he left and founded the fascist party.
by he i assume you mean mussolini, because its not clear from your comment
The simplest way that people always seem to overlook is an understanding that the nationalist movements following the fall of monarchies called themselves often and repeatedly the third position pulling ideals from both the right and the left. The national socialists were absolutely willing to apply socialist programs but they believed that it would only work in a homogeneous society where people were of like mind and like ethnicity. They didn't believe that the core population should pay socially for people who were not invested in the welfare of the country
A lot of times a group or company will use a "socially acceptable" term that aligns with their actual ideal or purpose, not because they're actually that type of group but because you won't support a group that called it self a slaughter house for domestic animals or a group that openly said they're terrorists when introducing themselves to the world.
The bad assumption at the base of this is that everything in on a line. It's more than one dimension. The Nazis hated the communists, the communists hated the Nazis, but both were totalitarian.
This has to be the most nonsensical midwittery every conceived
Thank you for schooling us at the end.
Why?
Another thing to mention was that before the failed artist joined it did have socialist values, though they were abandoned as they raised to power
I think we should be clear in our distinction between economically right vs. left and culturally right vs. left.
The two are always conflated.
Nazis were economically left-wing (to some degree), but culturally far-right.
He makes the claim that nazis and leftists are different by focusing on their only difference, while ignoring the 99% of the rest which is identical. If you use interchangeably the terms race and class, left and nazis are practically the same. In terms of both ideology and practices.
"There are fundamental differences. The far left USUALLY concentrates..." So its not a fundamental difference if its only usual.
The problem is people are thinking in black and white. They were both Left on some issues and Right on some issues.
They called them selves socialists because they thought what they were doing was socialism.
People tend to forget that left and right only relate to financial freedom. Nothing more nothing less.
And just like that he called republicans maxis. Just took about 25 twists and turns in logic to get there.
Mussolini, the father of fascism was a staunch leftist who was just happened to also be incredibly patriotic. Giovanni Gentile who ghost wrote the Doctrine of Fascism (credited to Mussolini) was hugely inspired by Marx as was Mussolini. Hitler however took classical Fascism and added in the racial purity, antisemitism and esotericism, rebranding it as National Socialism. The irony being that “National Socialism” is a far more fitting name for Mussolini’s ideology. In my opinion Mussolini and Gentile’s classical fascism most definitely belongs to the left, Hitler’s batshit rebrand however is absolutely a product of the right.
Yeah, Gentile (who was a philosopher) studied Marx (who was a philosopher) and disagreed with him (because that's how philosophy works), while Mussolini was thrown out of the Socialist Party because his ideas were so out of whack with the official party line. The Doctrine of Fascism clearly states that fascism stands in opposition to socialism, which has failed and is dead, and that it is a right-wing movement.
And yes, I have read it.
Left and right wing is a topic of economic policy, nothing else. It such a great disservice to intellectual honesty to try and conflate authoritarianism with either the left or right wing. This video is flat out misinformation.