Was Hitler economically left wing?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Basically what Progressive Realist said.

Also, you can't be really economically left wing and ruthlessly suppress unions at the same time.

And on a side note, even mainstream rightist forces in the Weimar Republic were rejecting a classical laissez-faire ideology (much as mainstream right in the contemporary Europe).

[tpfkaw]

Well, if you put Murray Rothbard at one end and Karl Marx at the other, it's fairly obvious which side of center the Nazis come down on.

[courts]

For Christ's sake, no. Hitler not only supported/was supported by German industrialists and stressed the protection of private property rights

Yeah when I hear Nazis I normally think 'defenders of private property.'

[All Along The Watchtower]

For Christ's sake, no. Hitler not only supported/was supported by German industrialists and stressed the protection of private property rights

Yeah when I hear Nazis I normally think 'defenders of private property.'

Read some of what Hitler actually said about private property rights.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, Hitler was a Libertarian.

[Хahar 🤔]

Well, if you put Murray Rothbard at one end and Karl Marx at the other, it's fairly obvious which side of center the Nazis come down on.

Really, being an idiot ought to be a bannable offense.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, if you put Murray Rothbard at one end and Karl Marx at the other, it's fairly obvious which side of center the Nazis come down on.

Really, being an idiot ought to be a bannable offense.

So sad to see your time here come to an end.

[Marston]

Hitler was Hitler. He stands on his own stage. He pursued the economic agenda that benefited him the most. There were no underlying economic principles to it. If forced, I would describe him as economically an authoritarian/corporatist leader, however.

[Phony Moderate]

Well, if you put Murray Rothbard at one end and Karl Marx at the other, it's fairly obvious which side of center the Nazis come down on.

Really, being an idiot ought to be a bannable offense.

So sad to see your time here come to an end.

Stop trolling.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, if you put Murray Rothbard at one end and Karl Marx at the other, it's fairly obvious which side of center the Nazis come down on.

Really, being an idiot ought to be a bannable offense.

So sad to see your time here come to an end.

Stop trolling.

You totally made up a story about Jeb Bush re-considering a run for President with a fake link accompanying your post and you're telling me to stop trolling? Brilliant.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's really curious to see how this thread is made :
- Half of posts like Al's and Jfern's that make developed, simple and uncounterable argument proving that Hitler was nothing even remotely close to "left-wing".
- Half of people who keep saying "yeah, of course he was, duh !" without giving any argument or giving arguments that have already been proven wrong, and totally ignoring previous arguments.

[republicanism]

I've a question too:
Who was more libertarian: Charlemagne or Attila?

Seriously, if a historian ever reads this thread he will cry out in pain. You can not discuss history like that.

[Hash]

I've a question too:
Who was more libertarian: Charlemagne or Attila?

Seriously, if a historian ever reads this thread he will cry out in pain. You can not discuss history like that.

I think Attila might have voted for RON PAUL!!1111!

[J. J.]

His goal makes no difference.  His actions do.

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

Basically, that is what most say, regarding Bismarck.  He changed after 1871, being supported by more liberal parties.  For Bismarck, after the Franco-Prussian War, there was a sea change.  I think just about everyone did notice it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have to take a look at Bismarck in his time.  He was by no means a conservative, economically after the Empire was formed.

As for the initial Nazi Party manifesto, it is relevant to the underlying ideology.  There was not any great love for big business or large landowners.  Hitler abandoned it, and that was partly responsible for the "Night of the Long Knives."  He supported business when it was in his interest, but there was no great love for it.

[republicanism]

You have to take a look at Bismarck in his time.  He was by no means a conservative, economically after the Empire was formed.

Bismarck was a 19th century conservative straight out of the textbook. He opposed parliamentarianism, he criminalized unions and the worker's movement, and he was a staunch monarchist.

The difference between him and some more stubborn conservatives in his time is, that he was smart.
For example he implemented universal male sufferage - but just to keep the liberal bourgeoisie down with the help of conservative poor peasantry.

And what is "economically conservative" even supposed to mean in the 19th century?

Defending the privileges of landlords and gentry? Bismarck did so.
High tariffs? Bismarck implemented such.

His cooperation with the moderate liberals in the 1870s was just a temporary solution forced by the fact that Old Conservatives were unwilling to deal with him, because they still opposed the formation of the Empire.
As soon as conservatives accepted the status quo and became a party supportive of the Empire, he sided with his true political camp again.

[Gustaf]

It's really curious to see how this thread is made :
- Half of posts like Al's and Jfern's that make developed, simple and uncounterable argument proving that Hitler was nothing even remotely close to "left-wing".
- Half of people who keep saying "yeah, of course he was, duh !" without giving any argument or giving arguments that have already been proven wrong, and totally ignoring previous arguments.

I don't think Jfern has a) ever made a developed and uncounterable argument on anything or b) even posted in this thread. Your post does not stand.

[© tweed]

You have to take a look at Bismarck in his time.  He was by no means a conservative, economically after the Empire was formed.

Bismarck was a 19th century conservative straight out of the textbook. He opposed parliamentarianism, he criminalized unions and the worker's movement, and he was a staunch monarchist.

The difference between him and some more stubborn conservatives in his time is, that he was smart.
For example he implemented universal male sufferage - but just to keep the liberal bourgeoisie down with the help of conservative poor peasantry.

And what is "economically conservative" even supposed to mean in the 19th century?

Defending the privileges of landlords and gentry? Bismarck did so.
High tariffs? Bismarck implemented such.

His cooperation with the moderate liberals in the 1870s was just a temporary solution forced by the fact that Old Conservatives were unwilling to deal with him, because they still opposed the formation of the Empire.
As soon as conservatives accepted the status quo and became a party supportive of the Empire, he sided with his true political camp again.

smart dude.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's so nice not to have to worry about refuting large sections of horror because someone else has done so already.

So just a little bit to deal with:

As for the initial Nazi Party manifesto, it is relevant to the underlying ideology.  There was not any great love for big business or large landowners.  Hitler abandoned it, and that was partly responsible for the "Night of the Long Knives."  He supported business when it was in his interest, but there was no great love for it.

Let's take this in little sections.

1. Nazi underlying ideology = virulent nationalism/militarism, an especially nasty take on popular racial theories, anti-semitism (part of the former but enough of an issue, obviously, to deserve a mention on its own) and anti-socialism, combined with weird fetishes regarding leaders, action, and so on. Everything else was window dressing or a cynical attempt to win support (both electorally and in terms of powerful individuals and interest groups). If you think Hitler or any other leading Nazi gave a sh!t about whatever drivel the party adopted as its platform in its early years, then you should probably avoid further comment on the issue. Because there is just a little bit of a consensus over this.

2. Yes, the Nazis did not have much in the way of 'great love' for big business or for large landowners (or, indeed, for anyone other than themselves. Trite, I know, but essentially true). They weren't even vaguely hostile to them though, and formed a mutually beneficial (in the short term) relationship with both, especially the former. Which is what matters. Not what was in some badly written platform that wasn't even relevant when it was drafted.

[Torie]

Big business put Hitler in power pressuring Hindenburg to appoint him chancellor even after his lackluster electoral showing where his share of the popular vote dropped from the previous election, because of their fear of Marxism and social disintegration. Talk about a Faustian bargain!

[J. J.]

You have to take a look at Bismarck in his time.  He was by no means a conservative, economically after the Empire was formed.

Bismarck was a 19th century conservative straight out of the textbook. He opposed parliamentarianism, he criminalized unions and the worker's movement, and he was a staunch monarchist.

Yet he modeled the German constitution on the US Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Encouraging, successfully, German manufacturing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And how exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As did the governments of Britain, not to mention the US.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why weren't the Old Conservatives supportive?  Because Bismarck was well to the left of them.

[J. J.]

Let's take this in little sections.

1. Nazi underlying ideology = virulent nationalism/militarism, an especially nasty take on popular racial theories, anti-semitism (part of the former but enough of an issue, obviously, to deserve a mention on its own) and anti-socialism, combined with weird fetishes regarding leaders, action, and so on. Everything else was window dressing or a cynical attempt to win support (both electorally and in terms of powerful individuals and interest groups). If you think Hitler or any other leading Nazi gave a sh!t about whatever drivel the party adopted as its platform in its early years, then you should probably avoid further comment on the issue. Because there is just a little bit of a consensus over this.

2. Yes, the Nazis did not have much in the way of 'great love' for big business or for large landowners (or, indeed, for anyone other than themselves. Trite, I know, but essentially true). They weren't even vaguely hostile to them though, and formed a mutually beneficial (in the short term) relationship with both, especially the former. Which is what matters. Not what was in some badly written platform that wasn't even relevant when it was drafted.

Absolutely not window dressing to the SA, who wanted a "Second Revolution."  There was an element of the Nazi Party that put "socialist" and "workers" into NSDAP.  Now, Hitler was not part of that element, and that element lost out, violently, in 1934.  I've made that distinction.

However, Hitler was not wedded to "big business" either.  He used it when convenient, but it wasn't too important.  You had people like Schacht and Hugenberg forced out (although they both help Hitler get in). 

[republicanism]

Yet he modeled the German constitution on the US Constitution.

There are hardly any similarity between the German constitution of 1871 and the US Constitution. Only thing they have in common is, that both constituted a federal state, but besides that, nothing.

Encouraging, successfully, German manufacturing.

That's a very special definition of economic conservatism.

And how exactly?

Take the high tariffs on rye and wheat for example.
There was no economic importance for them (in fact they had a very bad influence on the working class, as basic foods became more expensive), except for keeping a completely out-dated social class, the Prussian Junker, who relied on large-scale agriculture that became more and more inefficient and technically backwards, alive. Bismarck was one of them, and he tried (successfully) to conserve them as a political force against liberalism, socialism, democracy, progress in general.
He also ensured with the reform of the county law of 1872 that the Gutsbezirke, local administrative divisions in which the local landlord was the judicial, police and often church authority and that bare any local government, continued in existence. If I remember correctly, about 1/4 of the Prussian population still lived in a Gutsbezirk around 1900.

Why weren't the Old Conservatives supportive?  Because Bismarck was well to the left of them.

Basically because they were ultra-royalists, and Bismarck broke the old dynastic legitimacy of Hannover and some other noble houses by annexing them and making them Prussian provinces. Also because German nationalism was, before 1871, a political goal of the liberals and democrats, not of the conservatives.

If in your mind this makes Bismarck "more left" than the ultra-royalist Prussian conservatives, fine, I'll give you that point.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's really curious to see how this thread is made :
- Half of posts like Al's and Jfern's that make developed, simple and uncounterable argument proving that Hitler was nothing even remotely close to "left-wing".
- Half of people who keep saying "yeah, of course he was, duh !" without giving any argument or giving arguments that have already been proven wrong, and totally ignoring previous arguments.

I don't think Jfern has a) ever made a developed and uncounterable argument on anything or b) even posted in this thread. Your post does not stand.

Sorry, it was Progressive Realist. Both have an I-CA avatar so I confused.

[J. J.]

Yet he modeled the German constitution on the US Constitution.

There are hardly any similarity between the German constitution of 1871 and the US Constitution. Only thing they have in common is, that both constituted a federal state, but besides that, nothing.

I think suffrage was identical, for example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a very special definition of economic conservatism.
[/quote]

Well, in some countries there was hostility to this new activities, because it drew workers from the land.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Take the high tariffs on rye and wheat for example.
There was no economic importance for them (in fact they had a very bad influence on the working class, as basic foods became more expensive), except for keeping a completely out-dated social class, the Prussian Junker, who relied on large-scale agriculture that became more and more inefficient and technically backwards, alive. Bismarck was one of them, and he tried (successfully) to conserve them as a political force against liberalism, socialism, democracy, progress in general.
He also ensured with the reform of the county law of 1872 that the Gutsbezirke, local administrative divisions in which the local landlord was the judicial, police and often church authority and that bare any local government, continued in existence. If I remember correctly, about 1/4 of the Prussian population still lived in a Gutsbezirk around 1900.
[/quote]

Tariffs were common, including in the US, so that is not an issue.  I am to familiar with the 1872 law, though wasn't similar the role of landed gentry and nobility in Britain at the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically because they were ultra-royalists, and Bismarck broke the old dynastic legitimacy of Hannover and some other noble houses by annexing them and making them Prussian provinces. Also because German nationalism was, before 1871, a political goal of the liberals and democrats, not of the conservatives.
[/quote]

That might have been a factor in Hanover, but Hanover was never known as a conservative bastion.  Further, some of that occurred in 1815.

In the same period, Bismarck was anti-colonial.  Britain was of course holding and expanding its colonial holdings and greater colonial support was growing in the US.

I'm not saying Bismarck was an enlightened 19th Century liberal, but he wasn't, either for German or the world, the ultra rightest political leader either.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Kinda both.

I believe in the horseshoe theory--at some point, the far left and the far right aren't all that different.