Glen Beck links the Left to Hitler
 

I am astounded (though I shouldn't be) that this kind of drek is being espoused on the public airwaves.

Pure insanity.

Ah the Reductio ad Hitlerum. Stay classy, Beck.

He godwinned on TV. Holy shit.

This would be funny, except that there are people out there buying this hook, line, and sinker.

:expressionless:

This would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

I predict mostly uninformed emotional responses... but how was Hitler not a leftist?

Regarding the clip (key-word "clip") - specifically, historically, and in context to the entire show (which I saw), how were they incorrect? Why were they discussing the evolution of groups like the Nazis and relating to current trends erupting or being repeated in Europe? This was part of a greater examination of the progressive movement from the 1800's to the present.

Myth: Hitler was a leftist
But really, this seems a better discussion for TFP politics or knowledge.

I think the pertinent question is "how was Hitler a leftist?"

And sooner or later some whack jobs going to buy it then walk into a museum and shoot people.

People on the right think we're fascists because we believe in taxation and a medium sized federal government or something.

The thread refers to a clip from the Glenn Beck Show where at one point parallels were examined regarding leftists (progressives) and Nazis. Apparently, the question you pose was already addressed on the show (hence the thread). So based on "leftist" concepts, politics, etc., how was Hitler not a leftist?

I didn't say he wasn't an insane leftist. That distinction should be noted... but a hard-core leftist still the same.

It's like we all have multiple personality disorders: we are, at the same time, effete effeminate bleeding hearts who wouldn't even slap Osama if he walked by us and we cry "racism" all the time, overly sensitive PC police that we are AND we also support an aggressive expansionist military who massacre minorities in the name of the fatherland (when we are not using them as slave labor to support big capitalist conglomerates).

In any case, can this thread be a double Goodwin? A Goodwin on a thread about calling others nazis?

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

except that there wasn't a single coherent argument there: "racism refers to race, which is a collective, and lefties are also concerned with a collective, so they are racists, and therefore nazis. Lefties want a more progressive tax code so they want to control you, just like the nazis controlled the jews." Really?

This whole "collectivist" vs "individualist" distinction is nearly useless in this context, especially coming from a douchebag like Glenn Beck, mister 9/12. proud of American traditions, and therefore as much of a "collectivist" as any lefty.


But the litmus test, I think, is simply asking any nazi around whether they think of themselves as leftist or rightist.

Come on Will... I think we're talking about the extremes here... not the average, where most of us agree on more than less. Words like fascist, socialist, communist, progressive, conservative, liberal and libertarian, all have specific and different meanings. I believe most, like in religion, have no clue regarding the history and core philosophies of the political movements they subscribe. Unfortunately, some really bad guys came along and gave certain social concepts a really bad image (mass murder, racial purity, concentration camps), and it's understandable to want to divert those stereotypes on to their political adversaries. Did I mention that Hitler was also insane?

---------- Post added at 01:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 AM ----------

So what have you said that has anything to do with the thread or demonstrating how Hitler was not a leftist?

The litmus test is to list Leftist concepts and Nazi concepts, then see where they match or differ. It's that simple.

One simple thing: Hitler wasn't a collectivist.

To Simplify:
The Russian experiment with Communism (in the flavour of Lenin/Stalinism) was about collectivizing all industry and agriculture (with a good helping of leader worship, purges, etc.).

The German experiment with Fascism (in the flavour of Nazism) was about consolidating political power in the hands of a supreme leader. Free enterprise was still active and many individuals profited greatly through public funds as well as trade. Capitalism flourished under Hitler.


There are more distinctions to be made but this is probably the easiest and most relevant to the current climate's issues.

Other than pointing out the gaps in the logic of the video, and in return asking how was Hitler a leftist?

otto: The assertion that Hitler and Naziism was a left-wing movement flies in the face of pretty much all historical understanding. I think most of us find Glen's assertion of it unconvincing.

Here's my real question. If he hadn't said that, would you still be saying it? And if so, on what basis? If I said the sky was green, we'd all agree that flies in the face of the common understanding. Doesn't mean I couldn't SAY it, but for anyone to take me at all seriously, I'd have to satisfy a certain standard of proof and demonstration of what I'm saying. This is a WHOLE LOT like that. Burden of proof is on the radical new notion, not the standard, generally-held understanding. That's called Scientific Method, for one thing, and it's also how academic historical discourse is done.

So please answer the question--is it your view that Hitler was a leftist? What makes you say that? Also, it'd be useful to define the terms you're using ("leftist", "Nazi", "Fascism", etc). In the absence of some support for that on your part, there's nothing to do but dismiss this assertion.

Nazism:

• Fascism (radical and authoritarian nationalism, opposes class conflict)
• Militarism
• Antisemitism/racism
• Homophobic
• Critical of Catholicism
• Anti-capitalist, yet corporatist

Leftism:

• Ranges from Keynesian economics to nationalized economics (central planning)
• Concerned with class politics
• Social progress (e.g. abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, multiculturalism, opposition to the death penalty, legal recognition of same-sex marriage, distribution of contraceptives, public funding of embryonic stem-cell research, and the right of women to chose abortion)
• A complex relationship with religion due to social issues
• Green politics (environmentalism)
• Anti-globalization and Third-worldism

(If you don't mind Wikipedia summaries. We can always expand on this.)

But, I'm saying: the burden of proof is on the diverging assertion. That Hitler was "leftist" is, compared to most understandings of history, WAY from left field. So that's the assertion that needs to get proven here. It's on you, otto. You don't get to sit back and say, "how his he NOT?" You actually have to show us something here, or this conversation gets thrown away, like about 90% of what Beck says.

Glen Beck fell of the brain wagon many years ago. He sold his soul to right because frankly, the right has all the money when it comes to radio and television like this.

I think a better question than "How was Hitler not a leftist?" is "How is Glen Beck not a sensationalist?"

I don't call myself a leftist because I don't think the label is as good as progressi or liberal, but I'm certainly what you'd call a leftist. I vote with more liberal candidates, I don't believe in hard-line collectivism, but I do believe that collectivism has a serious role to play in a fair and equal society. I believe religion has no place in government, I'm not a big proponent of the Second Amendment, I believe in social justice, I support unions (for the most part), and I believe in welfare. I'm not a history expert, but I'm aware of the roots of many of my political beliefs and I've studied people that came before me that shared them. I'm a big fat leftist. Am I like Hitler or the Nazis, simply without mental illness or emotional instability? That seems to be what you're suggesting.

Someone needs to retake PoliSci 101

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ticalspace.gif
Talk:Political spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Absolutely not. The Glenn Beck clip came from a show where they looked at how some ideologies have been carried to extremes. The OP focused on the clip where discussed how even a left-leaning philosphy can be distorted to mosterous potential. They were talking about various trends showing potential to reach "boiling points". Hitler was not a capitalist. He was nationalist/socialist (nazi's - national socialist's party)... a brutal totalitarian that took social planning a bit too far.

The problem, otto, is that in this clip the right is equated with individualism, meaning a value of rights, freedoms, dignity, while the left is equated with collectivism, which leads to racism. This is a ridiculous argument. It implies that the right-wing politics is completely devoid of racism, and that the left does not value rights, freedoms, and dignity.

You don't think authoritarianism or populism/collectivism exists in right-wing ideologies?

No...any individual is capable of distorting an ideology and influencing others. Progressivism is the "leftist" ideology that they are referring to. Read about the Fabian Society, prominent members, philosophical ideas like racial and intellectual purity, and social engeneering. Woodrow Wilson was a scary guy.

The National-Socialists were Socialists the same way the Tories were advocates of Tori Spelling. The same way you might want to drive a DeSoto through South Dakota. They sound somewhat similar, and yet there's actually no connection there.

The Nazis were hard-line anti-communist, anti-socialist and anti-liberal. They could be described as collectivist, but only in a moral or ethical sense. They were free-marketeers all the way. There's really no way such a political philosophy could be called "leftist".

This is the best thing I've ever read. Better than Tolstoy.

Yeah, I wonder who'll use this as their next signature....

OK...so explain how the Nazi's where free-marketeers an not socialists?

No. I don't need to, because what I'm saying is the prevailing understanding of how the history of it worked. I don't have to explain it--anyone who's taken a history course covering modern Europe knows it. It's on YOU to support your assertion that they were Socialists, because that's what diverges from what people generally know/think.

Go ahead. Cite a source. I'm waiting. Have been for days. I'm open to anything substantive you have to say--anything SUPPORTED. So far it's utterly unsupported, and any time somebody says, "Well, gee, otto, that's not what most people think", you blink your doe eyes and ask them to explain, as if THEIR assertion is the one that's out of nowhere.

Please explain how they WERE socialists. Something beyond their name, please.

I think the confusion stems from the Nazi party's own confused views of socialism. They were opposed to it, they didn't like the word, they wanted to support the middle class, they felt Marxism wasn't a good enough socialism, they didn't want the name attached to the party, then they did want it attached to the party.... it's all really wishy-washy. This is the kind of thing you get when you have a racist agenda at your core and you try to do what you can to subject people to it.

Basically, the Nazis were a nationalist party that criticized capitalism because they wanted to wrest power from the Jews, and yet they wanted the best for the Aryans. So they used what they liked from capitalism and what they liked from socialism, never really properly employing either. The bottom line is that they were a nationalist totalitarian regime.

What makes them far right wing was their penchant for strict hierarchies and their ability to hold supreme authority over public order. (Think of the right's opposition to the ideologies stemming out of the French Revolution.) Socialism doesn't like that. Socialism would rather remove this.

First of all, your "everyone knows" premis is empty. What have you brought to the conversation?

What kind of source do you need? Just look up references to socialism and see if there are no commonalties. You've also left out the other component of nationalism. The Nazis where also a flavor of fascism. This can be complicated. It's okay to be frustrated...especially if you're beliefs are based in herd-mentalty premis.

Ease up... we're just having converation.

Second time:
Myth: Hitler was a leftist

Seriously, all the information you need is in that link. Arguments, citations, and a supported conclusion.

Intersting article. Well sourced and nicely written.

I'd like to suggest looking at the Google book preview for Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. Reading the whole book would help put it all together, but there's enough there to give you an insight on my perspective. I believe this is close to the Glenn Beck angle as well.

Also, remember that my position is not that the Nazi's were socialists, but inspired by core-leftist ideoologies...although highly perverted.

Actually, there is a fair amount of stuff in the Nazi party platform that we would identify as leftish (and a lot that is not, and a lot that is kooky and a lot that is repellent). For instanceconsider these left-sounding parts of the Nazi party platform:I'm not saying this to contend that the Nazis were lefties or, for that matter, that lefties are Nazis. What I'm saying is that the labelling of Nazis as "right-wing" - which a fair number of people around here do reflexively - is far from conclusive, especially if one defines "right" and "left" in the same way that Americans do.

From Wikipedia

Rush, Cheney, GW "Cletus" Bush, Hannity, Palin, Beck, O'Reilly, etc should all be boxed up and sent off to Antarctica ASAP. They are totally insane and I'm tired of their crap. Let them preach to the penguins!

If you look at the picture up in my previous post, there are two ways to get to fascism. You can either go so far to the left you end up there (through government forcing things for 'the common good') or you can go so far to the right you end up there (only believers in God can be Americans, only straight people can have the full rights, if you fail for any reason you will become broke).

What would have been interesting is if Germany had never invaded other countries (or just the basic countries around them (Poland, Denmark, Austria, ...) Not France or Russia. If they didn't have to do it through military means, and were able to convince those people that life is much better in Germany, what would have happened?

Nice... Very left... very Hitler-like.

Oh. I see what you did right there...