I've studied plenty of history and encourage you to take a look at the relationship between socialism, communism, and fascism. This is basically a continuum of increasing government control and involvement in people's personal lives.
None of this response addresses my argument. (Just for the record, and it doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, but you brought up the fact that you've studied a lot of history. I have a history degree + 45 hours of grad school--all but thesis--in political science).
Your dichotomy of Left and Right being about the degree of government control over people is overly simplistic. You need to think about this as a Euclidean plane, with one axis being social control over lives vs the other being economic control. In fact, there's an interesting test you can take. Here. I took it just now. I'll share mine if you share yours. Nazis fall on the right both economically (right authoritarian) and socially. Stalinists are left authoritarian. True, Nazis are less right economically than Stalinists are left.
If there are two unifying characteristics of socialism and communism of all stripes they are:
- Elimination of private property
- Leveling of economic classes, both in terms of political power as well as social welfare.
If there is a third plank of socialism it is internationalism, also explicitly rejected by the Nazis.
The Nazis adopted none of these main tenets of socialism. How can they be socialists if they rejected the main tenets of socialism?. Let's ask Hitler what he meant by "socialism":
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.'
So Hitler basically redefined the word "socialist" to mean the "common weal" and "patriotic." This is not what any socialist considers socialism. So, sure, by Hitler's made up definition of socialism, they were socialist. But they were not socialist by the terms that all other socialists accept: repudiation of private property, elimination of social classes and economic hierarchy, and internationalism.
Find me a Nazi embracing those main tenets of socialism. So far you have failed to do that.
The enlarged roll of the state is characteristic of leftist ideologies.
It's not about the size of the state. If it were about the size of the state, Bill Clinton would be the most right-wing president in modern times. Reagan would be a leftist. Bush (W) would be leftist. But that's absurd. It's an absurd measure of left vs right.
Anarchism being further to the right of corporatism suggests that self assembled corporate entities emerge as governing authorities.
You are talking about Anarcho-capitalism, not classical anarchism which argues that worker collectives would naturally emerge centered on democratic decision-making, not private "corporate entities."
In classical Anarchism (again, see Bakunin, in particular), "ownership" of land will essentially be abolished. You cannot have a non-hierarchical society with owners and workers. In any system of private ownership, some people must be compelled to work, rather than voluntarily joining an association or collective. That's the main point of actual Anarchism as opposed so called Anarch-capitalism (which is actually just radical Libertarianism).
Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this with you further. But please, present evidence of any Nazi anywhere at anytime repudiating private property, social hierarchy, or nationalism. It's impossible. Naziism fails to meet the three most important tenets of socialism.
More of Hitler's "socialist" views:
“Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”
“Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”
“Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”
"If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men."
I've studied plenty of history and encourage you to take a look at the relationship between socialism, communism, and fascism. This is basically a continuum of increasing government control and involvement in people's personal lives.
None of this response addresses my argument. (Just for the record, and it doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, but you brought up the fact that you've studied a lot of history. I have a history degree + 45 hours of grad school--all but thesis--in political science).
Your dichotomy of Left and Right being about the degree of government control over people is overly simplistic. You need to think about this as a Euclidean plane, with one axis being social control over lives vs the other being economic control. In fact, there's an interesting test you can take. Here. I took it just now. I'll share mine if you share yours. Nazis fall on the right both economically (right authoritarian) and socially. Stalinists are left authoritarian. True, Nazis are less right economically than Stalinists are left.
If there are two unifying characteristics of socialism and communism of all stripes they are:
- Elimination of private property
- Leveling of economic classes, both in terms of political power as well as social welfare.
If there is a third plank of socialism it is internationalism, also explicitly rejected by the Nazis.
The Nazis adopted none of these main tenets of socialism. How can they be socialists if they rejected the main tenets of socialism?. Let's ask Hitler what he meant by "socialism":
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.'
So Hitler basically redefined the word "socialist" to mean the "common weal" and "patriotic." This is not what any socialist considers socialism. So, sure, by Hitler's made up definition of socialism, they were socialist. But they were not socialist by the terms that all other socialists accept: repudiation of private property, elimination of social classes and economic hierarchy, and internationalism.
Find me a Nazi embracing those main tenets of socialism. So far you have failed to do that.
The enlarged roll of the state is characteristic of leftist ideologies.
It's not about the size of the state. If it were about the size of the state, Bill Clinton would be the most right-wing president in modern times. Reagan would be a leftist. Bush (W) would be leftist. But that's absurd. It's an absurd measure of left vs right.
Anarchism being further to the right of corporatism suggests that self assembled corporate entities emerge as governing authorities.
You are talking about Anarcho-capitalism, not classical anarchism which argues that worker collectives would naturally emerge centered on democratic decision-making, not private "corporate entities."
In classical Anarchism (again, see Bakunin, in particular), "ownership" of land will essentially be abolished. You cannot have a non-hierarchical society with owners and workers. In any system of private ownership, some people must be compelled to work, rather than voluntarily joining an association or collective. That's the main point of actual Anarchism as opposed so called Anarch-capitalism (which is actually just radical Libertarianism).
Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this with you further. But please, present evidence of any Nazi anywhere at anytime repudiating private property, social hierarchy, or nationalism. It's impossible. Naziism fails to meet the three most important tenets of socialism.