It' not "almost as though" but they are meaningless terms (and harmful to political discussion in my view). American politics likes to force every issue into the "liberal" or "conservative" category but reality is much more subtle.
Read it, then tell me if you still don't understand why these people might get classified as left-wing. They implemented quite a few of these points too, by the way. You can say whatever you want about Nazi's but they are by far the most successful leftist party in history, and quite a few "left-wing" rights today were first implemented by Nazi Germany. Big example : pensions. Scholarships (of the for-the-needy kind, not for-the-really-smart kind). There's many examples.
That said, it is beyond obvious that they are not comparable to today's left wing.
As hard as it is to understand today, the left-wing was very much anti-immigrant in the 1930's. But it's just one of many historical facts that have changed. What I still find hard to believe, is that it's the democrats were the pro-slavery anti-black side of the aisle.
Some choice cuts :
(the first parts are anti-versailles, and some anti-immigration)
7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
(8-9 are anti-immigrant)
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
You'll note, however, that many of those platform points were polar opposites to policies enacted in practice once the Nazis came to power.
War profits continued (indeed, Nazis who tried to actually push for getting rid of the profit motive were quickly removed from their posts and marginalized).
"Unearned" income continued. The Nazis even maintained the gold standard for international trade long after the other major economies had devalued their own currency, and much of the mobilization of their wartime economy came via inventive capitalist measures from the Reichsbank, Reich Economic Ministry, military-economic departments of the Oberkommandowehrmacht, and more.
Likewise the trusts were not only not nationalized (at least, at any great scale), but businesses and industry were forced to join specified cartels based on their market sector. It was through these cartels that the Reich enforced economic policy.
Most of the "left wing" economic policies that were enacted were emulated using good old standard "right wing" methods. Markets remained; instead of centrally planning economic output directly, the Reich simply regulated the market such as to achieve mostly the desired effect. Instead of banning refrigerators outright, the Reich simply failed to import enough iron ore to make civilian goods once the priority list for Wehrmacht and export needs had been filled.
Chemical plants that were absolutely essential for the Reich's strategic needs were contracted to companies like IG Farben with profit guarantees and profit sharing agreements, methods that would be perfectly accept to almost any right-wing economist.
There were state industries too (Junkers, a strategic industry expansion program, a steel/coal production cartel, etc.) so it's not as if Nazi Germany didn't have traditionally left-wing attributes to it. But nor was it lacking in traditionally right-wing attributes or methods.
All of these methods were means to an end, as opposed to being taken from either a left-wing or right-wing palette of options because they were left- or right-wing.
Your making the point that because they weren't outright communist, they must have been right-wing. I agree that they weren't communists, I disagree with the conclusion you draw from that.
Most trusts were nationalized, just nazi style : their management was replaced or forced to obey party rule, mostly by threats. Yes that doesn't technically qualify as nationalization, but for all practical intents it boils down to the same thing. It is most definitely not a laissez-faire policy.
> Most of the "left wing" economic policies that were enacted were emulated using good old standard "right wing" methods
We're talking about the introduction of pensions, scholarships, unemployments payment increases, job guarantees, ...
> Chemical plants that were absolutely essential for the Reich's strategic needs were contracted to companies like IG Farben with profit guarantees and profit sharing agreements, methods that would be perfectly accept to almost any right-wing economist.
You left out the part where the party threatened to imprison (or worse) management if they did any orders that weren't for the government. Frankly, if a party with a thorough reputation for excessive use of violence that is in control of the government threatens prison if you don't sign a contract ... would you consider that free enterprise or laissez-faire ?
I agree that the methods used were not full-blown communist. The state was in absolute control, that was the goal, the means and what happened on the ground. Calling this right-wing policy is lunacy.
The way I see left, right, far left, and far right is this :
left: communist-lite policies. Try to achieve the same aims as communists, trying to avoid the worst inefficiencies of that by having market-based policies, with judicious application of direct government intervention and regulation. Example: Obamacare.
right: laissez-faire policies. Try to achieve (mostly) the same aims as communists, doing as little as possible to achieve those aims. If something needs to be done at all, don't let the government do it itself.
far left: outright communist policy. Put the government in direct control of everything, and have a direct reporting chain into the government for everything that happens. Government intervention is the only thing allowed to exist.
far right: don't try to achieve anything at all using the state. Anarchism.
On this scale, Nazis fall under "far left". They never had the time to really get to full-blown communism but they made great progress in that direction.
I think your definition of the left-right axis is almost designed to make the Nazis belong in the far left, which is still (thankfully!) a fringe opinion.
Populism alone is not left-wing.
Your definition of left/right doesn't include aspects of the far right such as anti-labor measures (while calling themselves a "worker's party", the Nazis actually destroyed worker rights, which made them appealing to the industrial elite), and extreme racism. The Nazis also used the power of the state in a distinctly right-wing way: as a way to safeguard business and the property rights of the wealthy.
I appreciate the difference between what people claim they'll do and what they actually do given the chance. However at least in the case of the Nazis I'd like to point out the war. During this time in history, Germany, the Soviets and America destroyed worker's rights. We all know why. Does this indicate how they were aligned ? A little, but there are many other things far more important.
It keeps baffling me how offensive people find the idea that the far left was leaning towards racism and the far right was the more tolerant side of aisle during this period. Things change. Is this really so hard to imagine ? Everyone knows that the Vatican, for example, is very much for equality between races and has actually stood by this stance when politically inconvenient, just like they stand behind their (somewhat lunatic) anti-birth-control stand today. Given that, and the similar attitude of other religions, is it really so hard to believe that when public opinion turns racist (as I'm hoping people are still capable of realizing that it did), populist parties will turn with it, including leftist parties. Conservatives, as the name implies will be more constant, and will resist this change on both sides. Right now they're anti-immigration, because they're more so than the "big" left party, but not by much. That can change in a heartbeat, and if history is any guide, it will.
You know those old movies where you see rich women react to black people as if they were smelly insects ? Those movies are quite realistic and, like today, rich women are rather unlikely to be conservatives. Those people were part of the left. There was a time, not that long ago, when that was the norm, the social and popular thing to do. I bet most black adults can enlighten you to these facts if you're confused.
Everytime some range of immigrants starts lowering pay for a large group of workers, racism becomes popular, for obvious reasons. 1930 in Europe was like 2009, on the Mexican border, for people without a degree, only worse to the point where they actually feared starving to death on a regular basis (especially in Germany, where there were a few regions where there actually was starvation). Is it really so hard to comprehend that under those circumstances, sentiment will turn racist ? Doubly so given that the majority of taxes was going to foreignors ?
People -- or rather, myself, since I can't speak for everyone -- do not find it offensive as much as nonsensical. The far right was never tolerant, by any definition of far right. Racism is also inherently not a trait of the far left. When we find a leftist government/organization enacting extreme racist policies such as mass imprisonment, deportation or execution, we know there's something deeply wrong with it, and we usually denounce it ("how can they call themselves leftists if they do this!"). But the same policies by a far right government would surprise no-one.
I'm willing to concede many points, for example:
- That some branches of the left can be "conservative" at times, if we define conservative to mean "staying with the satus quo". For example, if the status quo is a leftist society. Also, individual people may be conservative as a general attitude towards life, regardless of political ideologies.
- That some groups historically called leftists were so in name only, or had right-wing traits at the same time.
- That the more extremist left and right wing at times are cosmetically very similar, especially when their discourse is at its most strident.
But the Nazis were far-right, paying only lip service to worker's rights. Most Western entrepreneurs were also anti worker's rights, which is why they initially saw Nazis in a very good light. They were definitely not "more tolerant" than the left.
I do not consider the Vatican or the Church as right-wing organizations, by the way. More like conservatists, which I have already agreed is a more broad classification. There exist sub-groups within the Church which belong to the extreme right, of course.
> When we find a leftist government/organization enacting extreme racist policies such as mass imprisonment, deportation or execution, we know there's something deeply wrong with it, and we usually denounce it ("how can they call themselves leftists if they do this!").
Strange. I must have missed that when it came to
1) First and foremost, Che Guevara. Allow me to quote him
"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese. And the two ancient races have now begun a hard life together, fraught with bickering and squabbles. Discrimination and poverty unite them in the daily fight for survival but their different ways of approaching life separate them completely: The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."
Clearly being a racist murderous bastard does not preclude any leftist credentials. I would argue that if you checked the newspapers in the 1930's and 1950's-60's-70's you will find that similar reverence existed in the left for Hitler (up till July 1941, guess what happened at that moment), and Stalin, even when it was known that Soviets did the extermination camp thing.
Other examples that come to mind
2) the Soviets (against Jews, homosexuals, tatars, ...)
3) The open racism of Egypts various socialist government parties (religious, sexist and ethnic). Most glaringly, the left's support for the arab spring even when it got taken over by the muslim brotherhood, who is not merely racist, but genocidally so.
More generally, you'll see a lot of examples of this in the middle east.
4) The open racism in China, before (and even during) the latest pro-pseudo-capitalism era. And yes, this was while China was doing the Nepal thing.
Again, not just China, but a lot of Asian countries enjoyed this leftist support.
So forgive me for stating the obvious here : the left has a specific agenda, and is certainly willing to accept open racism in people it reveres, racist policies and even racist genocides to some extent, as long as they advance the cause.
I am more of a European-style leftist (meaning I find the democrats nowhere near the centre of the political spectrum), but I have very few illusions on this. I have been a party member at one time (student days ...) and after a while I was forced to conclude that while, yes, it was far-fetched that these people would ever be given the chance for genocide, but
1) there was a (granted, small) group always talking about it. Mostly about Jews and/or Israel
2) after a while I started to believe them.
3) these people were not just tolerated, but actually had high status. Some were part of the "core" of the party.
4) obviously, most people in the party were very much opposed to actually implementing this. Unlike this loud group however, they were not willing to sacrifice anything for that.
Now this will get dragged down to what can and cannot be considered the true Left :(
I won't discuss China, the Soviet Union, Che Guevara (where is that quote from, btw?) or anything of the sort here. It simply is not possible or suitable to debate this in a forum like hackernews. Call it a cop out if you want :)
However, I'll say I disagree with your fundamental assertion, that the Left is willing to tolerate open racism when it suits their needs. Racism stands directly against what the Left stands for. Of course corrupted leftist movements, often leftist in name only, are free to forget leftist ideals, just as religious organizations sometimes forget their founding principles.
But let me place emphasis on this: if a leftist movement turns racist, this is a serious contradiction that must be pointed out. If a rightwing movement is racist, there is no contradiction and its intended audience will applaud it; racism and discrimination are cornerstones of rightwing thought. It is a mistake for a leftist movement to tolerate a racist ally when it would temporarily help heir cause, but this is never a mistake for a rightwing movement because racism is often part of its core ideology.
By this definition, which I think is mainstream, it's impossible to consider the Nazis a far left movement. I believe there is an ideological intent to conflate the two extremes, left and right, which says less about them than about the people doing the conflating...
Sure, they had some left-wing traits. And they had some right wing traits too: The belief that Germany is a special country is pretty similar to today's conservatives belief that the US is exceptional and blessed by God.
My point was that by figuring out whether the Nazis were left or right wing nothing is learned. There are left wing and right wing democracies and there are left and right wing dictatorships. Left wing governments have killed a lot of people and so have right wing governments.
