« Stating the obvious: Wingnuts lie | cuchulain's Blog | Sotomayor, Lindsay Graham, and "inspiration" »
Enduring myth: Hitler was a leftist
In the wake of the Tiller shooting, and the Holocaust memorial killing, I'm seeing a recurring meme coming from the right. It seems to be getting mainstream legs. I also think it just may be an aspect -- perhaps subconsciously -- of the resurgence of the right in recent decades.
Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck, the Red State site, etc.
Their claim that Nazism, Fascism and Hitler all come from the left.
In a sense, this gets them off the hook. In their minds, anyway.
When (and where) I was growing up, it was a rare person indeed who openly called themselves a righty. The sting and taint of Hitler, Nazism, Fascism and WWII were still too apparent. I think people were embarrassed to openly say they were on the same side of the political spectrum.
So, what to do? Completely alter the meaning of well-established terms. Turn things on their heads. Up is down. Left is right. Night is day, etc.
Some knew better, but pushed the meme anyway, and their ignorant supporters were more than willing to follow. What a burden lifted from their shoulders!! No more Hitler, Nazism or Fascism to deal with!! They could be proud and loud once again, and push their reactionary agenda without bringing up ugly ghosts!
Go to just about any blog with a thread that hooks into this, and you'll find large numbers of righties pushing this lie. They can't support it, but they push it. About the only thing they have to go on, of course, is the name.
But what's in a name? There have been hundreds of political parties, if not thousands, in modern times that include terms they have no business including. Totalitarian parties that have "democratic" in their party name, or "people's" or "freedom", etc. Remember Orwell and Newspeak?
Our Congress passes bills all the time with titles that are just about in direct opposition to the content of those bills. Variations on the theme of "Clear Skies Initiative".
But since "socialist" is in the name the Nazis decided to use, that's enough "evidence" for the right.
Problem is, Hitler and the Nazis, in speech after speech, law after law, deed after deed, went after socialists, liberals and communists with a vengeance. They attacked them, imprisoned them, exiled or killed them. They were adamantly against the left and everything it stood for, and said so repeatedly. They despised the left. Anyone who thinks that name is proof needs to dig deeper. They need to google for quotes by Hitler and those who worked for him. They need to read history about the Third Reich and how it actually operated.
They should also think about other historical facts. Like how leftists from around the world flocked to Spain to fight the Fascists there. Franco and Mussolini were allies of Hitler. Hitler often stated his admiration for Mussolini and his Fascist movement.
Also: Workers never controlled the means of production in Germany. Hitler went after union workers, syndicalists with a vengeance. Capitalism thrived in Germany under Hitler. He imported -- by force, coercion and lies -- millions of foreign workers to help German industry prosper and grow. Treated them like hell. But the big industrialist took major profits and kept them,
Germany under Hitler was the opposite of a "worker's paradise".
America seems to be in the midst of more crazy talk than in the past, and it's been mainstreamed. Progressives need to be aware of this and counter it with facts, evidence, and confidence.
Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck, the Red State site, etc.
Their claim that Nazism, Fascism and Hitler all come from the left.
In a sense, this gets them off the hook. In their minds, anyway.
When (and where) I was growing up, it was a rare person indeed who openly called themselves a righty. The sting and taint of Hitler, Nazism, Fascism and WWII were still too apparent. I think people were embarrassed to openly say they were on the same side of the political spectrum.
So, what to do? Completely alter the meaning of well-established terms. Turn things on their heads. Up is down. Left is right. Night is day, etc.
Some knew better, but pushed the meme anyway, and their ignorant supporters were more than willing to follow. What a burden lifted from their shoulders!! No more Hitler, Nazism or Fascism to deal with!! They could be proud and loud once again, and push their reactionary agenda without bringing up ugly ghosts!
Go to just about any blog with a thread that hooks into this, and you'll find large numbers of righties pushing this lie. They can't support it, but they push it. About the only thing they have to go on, of course, is the name.
But what's in a name? There have been hundreds of political parties, if not thousands, in modern times that include terms they have no business including. Totalitarian parties that have "democratic" in their party name, or "people's" or "freedom", etc. Remember Orwell and Newspeak?
Our Congress passes bills all the time with titles that are just about in direct opposition to the content of those bills. Variations on the theme of "Clear Skies Initiative".
But since "socialist" is in the name the Nazis decided to use, that's enough "evidence" for the right.
Problem is, Hitler and the Nazis, in speech after speech, law after law, deed after deed, went after socialists, liberals and communists with a vengeance. They attacked them, imprisoned them, exiled or killed them. They were adamantly against the left and everything it stood for, and said so repeatedly. They despised the left. Anyone who thinks that name is proof needs to dig deeper. They need to google for quotes by Hitler and those who worked for him. They need to read history about the Third Reich and how it actually operated.
They should also think about other historical facts. Like how leftists from around the world flocked to Spain to fight the Fascists there. Franco and Mussolini were allies of Hitler. Hitler often stated his admiration for Mussolini and his Fascist movement.
Also: Workers never controlled the means of production in Germany. Hitler went after union workers, syndicalists with a vengeance. Capitalism thrived in Germany under Hitler. He imported -- by force, coercion and lies -- millions of foreign workers to help German industry prosper and grow. Treated them like hell. But the big industrialist took major profits and kept them,
Germany under Hitler was the opposite of a "worker's paradise".
America seems to be in the midst of more crazy talk than in the past, and it's been mainstreamed. Progressives need to be aware of this and counter it with facts, evidence, and confidence.
Advertisement
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
Do we need to know more about how these characters think? They regard Orwell's "1984" as a how-to guide.
June 13, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. Orwell analyzed it and predicted it. Sad that it's become so mainstream.
June 13, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're lost in some assumption about what "right wing" means. Those who wear that proudly are usually anti-government or at least favor minimal government. Libertarians and strict Constitutionalists who dislike Federalist interpretations... So they think the opposite of them must be leftists.
What Hitler brought to Germany certainly doesn't look "right wing" in that sense.
The problem is trying to force things into a one-dimensional "left vs. right" scenario. Some reasonable conservatives add the notion of Statism. Communism, "Hitlerism", and Fascism all reek of Statism, and are opposed to individual sovereignty (and personal responsibility).
What is a leftist anyway, if not a statist -- a progressive non-statist? Does that make libertarians progressives?
Hitler was a progressive of a sort, at least for awhile. He brought a kind of progress to Germany. What he did with it was terrible. Is there anything worse that a Statist Hawk?
June 13, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's not true that "right wing" has meant "anti-government" in the past. At least not primarily so. Nor is it that the traditional definition of "conservative" has meant "anti-government".
It's always been about what KIND of government is deemed appropriate for them.
They have loved strong, authoritarian government when it comes to issues of "law and order", empire, wars, the military in general. It's part of their pool of major, inherent contradictions and conflicts. They have also been, traditionally, in favor of a strong Church/State connection, and typically revere an authoritarian, hierarchical church structure.
Conservatives and the right sided with the British Empire, in its battle with the American revolutionaries.
Moving back to the present:
The "war on drugs" is a big thing for "conservatives" and the right. The "war on terror" is a big thing for conservatives and the right. Both things require Big Government, tons of money, and a loss of individual freedom and individual liberty. They require "statist" methods and procedures.
Bush's illegal surveillance program was and is still supported by most conservatives and the right. That's Big Government by definition, and statist.
It's yet another myth that "conservatives" are really anti-government or even for smaller government. They just despise "liberal" government and programs we progressives want installed. When it comes to their own pet things, they want government to remain huge and powerful.
June 13, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing what I actually wrote and my initial point so here it is in slightly different order:
"So they [some right wingers] think the opposite of them must be leftists."
This is a stab at an explanation for where "Hitler was a leftist" comes from (in addition to those who merely offer stupid bullshit as if it were serious).
"Those who wear that proudly are usually anti-government or at least favor minimal government. Libertarians and strict Constitutionalists who dislike Federalist interpretations... "
I'm not talking history where labels do shift radically from era to era and case to case. I'm pointing out what I consider to be a significant component of "the right". I also didn't use 'conservative' in my comment but you spent a lot of words talking about that word. I'm happy to stipulate that the Bush era failed many on the left and the right.
I don't know any significant current righties who are loudly calling for bigger government. Yes, there are military hawks on the right, but that's a Constitutionalist thing, "provide for the common defense".
June 14, 2009 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification. But I still disagree with your premise. And I think you're falling for myths, especially here:
It doesn't matter that they're not explicitly saying they want Bigger Government. It's implicit in their core beliefs, philosophies, desires and even policy decisions. It's also a fact that government grew at a faster rate under Bush than under any previous Dem president since LBJ. Government, in fact, from Reagan on grew faster under so-called "conservative" rule.
And you can't excuse the military explosion under Republicans (with full right-wing support) by citing the Constitution. "Providing for the common defense" has nothing to do with expanding the American empire, or the Military-Industrial Complex. Nothing in the Constitution tells us we should have thousands of military bases (officially and not so officially) around the world. Nothing in the Constitution says we need to spend more on Defense than the rest of the world combined.
That's the very definition of "Big Government".
And, again, the right and "conservatives" in general loves them some "war on terror" and some "war on drugs" and a whole panoply of wars on various things they deem offensive.
That takes "Big Government". No way around it. They might not be asking for it by name, but their desires, strategies, and policies REQUIRE Big Government.
Also: Even though both parties do this to their vast shame, it's really a Reagan core principle and beloved by the right and "conservatives":
Outsource and privatize government functions. Thing is, this actually EXPANDS government in the worst possible way. It puts taxpayers on the hook for inflated parts and service costs, when government employees could do the job for a fraction as much. You may not be adding government employees to the books for doing services, etc. But you are creating permanent cash cows that EXPAND the role of government in the private sector. The government becomes the private sector's source, its cash cow and another not so nice term beginning with a B. When the private sector owns government, it's not being reduced in size or scope. It's just being played, owned, run, expanded, used. And taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
Best example is in Iraq. We have twice as many contractors there as we do soldiers. The military used to do its own cooking, cleaning, laundry, logistics, security, etc. But it's being privatized all too quickly. That means the same exact duties soldiers once did, are now being done for ten times as much by private firms. They take their cut, their profit, pay their corporate officers millions of dollars, and taxpayers see costs skyrocket.
Government hasn't shrunk in the process. It's grown bigger. It's now the handmaiden to new private interests, a "partner" with them, at a much higher cost to taxpayers.
"Shrinking" government would mean you get rid of those private contractors, too. You don't start unnecessary, illegal and immoral wars. You don't carry on a completely futile war on drugs. And you don't expand the surveillance powers of the Executive.
Bottom line: I don't care what conservatives call it. I care about what they actually do. They want Big Government by definition.
June 14, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"contractors" are not private if they are funded or directed by the government, military or not, but I already said that Bush alienated many on both the left and right so I don't get why you're going on and on about the problematic policies of his era. The advantage in principle of hiring contractors is that they are nominally easier to scale back when you don't need them. Of course there's a multiple irony in that, too.
Until you show that the people who are calling Hitler a leftist are predominantly or entirely mainstream Bushites, my point stands that there are significant elements on the "right" who didn't like Bush's excesses and who have a basis for their labelling.
I've just started reading _Liberty And Tyranny_ to get a feeling for "the other side"... but I've heard 'statism' used before and it's definitely aimed at big government, left or not left.
June 14, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's completely, patently untrue.
The private contractors in Iraq go in as private entities, receive their checks as private entities, and leave as private entities. They make ginormous profits, their CEOs (like the slimeball Erik Prince) make huge profits and take huge cuts as private entities, and the government generally has little control over there, beyond herding cats.
Just because a company receives a check from the taxpayer, doesn't mean they change their status as a company. Not one of those companies will alter their tax status, or change corporate bylaws, or change their listing into a "public" entity of some kind, and the government gets no shares or stake in them.
They remain private. They just grab our tax dollars, rip us off, and move on.
The private sector, the Establishment, has a vested interest in seeing the government grow. It means more money, power and influence for them. It means their cash cow keeps producing more and more milk.
June 14, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your ability to totally miss the point is noted.
You might as well argue that civil servants are not government employees because they are private citizens. The point is that there is a big difference between Iraqi or private interests paying the contractors, and US government paying the contractors.
The "contractors" are obviously not civil or military service employees, but they feed directly from and get their directions from the government, and thus are not engaged in strictly private sector business.
The larger point is that it's one thing to remove troops from Iraq, but if you leave a pile of heavily armed "contractors" aka "mercenaries" behind, the troop withdrawal isn't for real.
June 15, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your inability to notice that I am not missing anything, I'm disagreeing with the point you're trying to make . . . . is duly noted.
Again, you're wrong. Those contractors are not government employees. They are private contractors. That's their official status. That's what they are on the books. Officially.
BTW, I bumped into an excellent take down of Goldberg's bogus thesis from his Liberal Fascism, which is where a lot of this garbage comes from.
Here are several links. David Neiwart has done exhaustive research on the subject, and much of it is online.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/liberal-fascism-response.html
http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/17/calling-out-jonah-goldberg/
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history
June 17, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, EDS,
Think about how the right and "conservatives" in general screamed bloody murder when we progressives protested Bush policies. Government policies. To them, when their boys are in power, being against government policy is being anti-American.
They don't really start getting into the "anti-Government" vibe until they are ousted from power.
But, back to Hitler, Nazism and Fascism. There was nothing about their rule that even remotely connects with liberal/progressive beliefs or values. It's all anathema to us.
OTOH, it syncs up pretty well with the hard right's demonization of liberals, socialists, communists, gay people, feminists, immigrants, ethnic minorities, etc. etc. Lines up pretty closely.
Hitler picked several groups to demonize and attack. For today's far right, substitute Muslims for Jews and you pretty much have the rest of it already set.
No amount of lies coming from Jonah Goldberg, Red State, Glen Beck etc. will change history. If we look at the pitched battles of the 20s, 30s, and 40s, it was understood that they were in direct opposition with the left. It was understood that the left was in direct opposition with them.
June 13, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They don't really start getting into the "anti-Government" vibe until they are ousted from power. "
Not quite. But it's natural to complain louder the farther things are from your ideals, so it's plausible that many middle conservatives barely complained about Bush even if they were only happy that Gore or Kerry didn't get in. And Party loyalty does tend to suppress dissident voices, but don't confuse the right wing with radical anarchists either.
There are plenty on the right who have been anti-big-government for a long time, in Congress or not, leaders or not. You can look at the also-rans in the last election; Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and others come to mind for starters.
June 14, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole concept is an example of upside down thinking.
Mussolini started as a socialist politician, and Stalin as a student of a religious seminary, so Fascist was leftist and Communism, theocratic?
Were they CAME FROM is less important as were they ARRIVED. For example, the fact that David Horowitz was a Black Panther does not make him progressive or leftist, but allows to conjecture that while his views were shifting from left to right, he started as a big jerk and there, in the big jerkdom, he remained.
Much more neglected aspect is that a usual evil politician does not start a day thinking: what is a new evil thing that I could do today? More usually, he or she has some twisted concept of what is good for the people, or, in more universal value system, good for humanity. And how can you get your twisted concepts? In part, starting with something not twisted.
To give a relatively innocent example, Nazis had a program of building a national system of divided highways, perhaps the first such program in the world. And Republicans duly copied that idea. To bolster national defense, no less (a goal that Hitler would approve). With such pedigree, is the interstate system evil? Is the transportation committee fascist? (Perhaps they are anti-Semitic, as they deal almost exclusively in pork, rather than, say, showering pastrami over their home districts.)
In some ways, Republicans are opposite of Fascists. Fascists wanted their leader to be a genius, Republican want their leader to be a moron with "good gut instincts". Fascists wanted trains to run on time, Republicans hate trains. Fascists advocated sound nutrition, Republicans advocate junk food. Not all differences are for the better, I am sorry to say.
And not all similarities are for the worse.
June 13, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting response.
They say Mussolini did make the trains go on time, etc.
Apparently, he was pretty tough on the Mafia, too.
Still, I think Nazism and Fascism are the worst of the worst. The right needs to acknowledge its connection with those ideologies and distance itself from them. They need to admit that both ideologies are hard-right and move on.
June 13, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hitler only used the word 'socialism', because he believed that it was a right-wing term, and one that was identical to 'nationalism', hence national socialism:
..."1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. - Hitler, April, 1921
June 19, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink