What was Hitler, Mao, and Stalin's political compass?

[George_Bonanza]

This is an improvement of a previous thread I posted which garnered a lot of flame from people who got the wrong message.

I'm confused on whether the "Big Bad 3" of the 20th century were leftist or rightist. Hitler led the Nationalist Socialist party, which in the encyclopedia was defined as anti-communist, anti-intellectual, and extremely authoritarian. How can one be socialist AND so intensely anti-communist? What the hell was he? I've heard the argument that it was all a front to win over workers and labour unions. So in the end, what was Hitler?

What about Mao and Stalin? They were communists no doubt, but were they communists in name only?

[Maple]

1. They were dictators

operating on the 'personality cult' angle.

Neither left nor right...personal power.

China has always had an emperor...for thousands of years.

Russia has always had a czar.

Habits are hard to break...so on the whole, people went along with it.

[Blue_Chill]

2. How does one create a nation on extreme views and not deny freedoms?

How can you have extremely left or right nation, a free society, and not do something to prevent the otherside from influencing goverment? In order to keep it far left or far right you will eventualy have to do something to stop the other side from tilting the scales.

In with the extreme out with the freedom.

[Maple]

3. Well now

THAT post I don't understand at all.

[Blue_Chill]

4. If you built a nation

and you wanted it to represent your left wing views or perhaps views much more left then yours. How would you keep it that way when people began to think for themselves and many developed right wing opinions.

How would you stop them from turning your left wing vision into something you despise. Because with freedom comes opposition to all views, and eventually they will want their views represented in goverment.

Thus my point is that extremism either reslts in the lack of real freedom and self rule, or a move towards center. You can not maintain a far left or far right nation without eating away at freedoms.

[Maple]

5. Well if we're talking about

China under Mao, and Russia under Stalin....neither nation was 'free' in that sense. before them.

So I doubt they noticed any difference.

Not the same thing as taking an already free nation, and then enslaving it. You'd have to do that by using propaganda, so people would happily go along with it.

Ghenghis Khan was a brutal leader, but people felt free under him, and he was neither left nor right. Certainly not in those times.

I think the problem lies with this 'left' 'right' thing....it's a product of the Cold war...and the Cold war is over. The terms are no longer valid.

[AndyTiedye]

13. The Degenerate Forms Are The Same

There isn't much difference
between a government that takes over the businesses and runs everything for the benefit of its leaders
and a bunch of businesses that take over the government and run everything for the benefit of their leaders,
except for the words they use to justify their actions.

[Matilda]

20. Agreed - there's little difference in the methodology of the

far left and the far right. Which is perhaps why it's beginning to
look as if Bush has been reading Stalin's "How to ..." manual.

[Zorra]

6. The first thing

communist dictators do when they get in power is set up what they call the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat". I don't want to go into the whole Marxist explanation of this because it never works that way anyway. What really happens is that right after they enter this phase called the RDOP, the dictators turn into right wing fascists who smoke expensive cigars and eat caviar and live in palaces and hoard all their respective countries' wealth for themselves and their politburo pals. Then they throw bones and poodle biscuits to the peasants, who work their asses off for nothing while supporting the fat, ruthless, power hungry fascist pigs that run the country. National socialist, soviet socialist, what have you, they are all authoritarian, conservative, right wing fascist pig dictatorships.

Communism sucks, fascism sucks, all totalitarianist governments suck.

A dictator by any other name is still a fu*king dictator.

And now America has one of her very own.

[0rganism]

7. Hitler's National Socialist party was far more Nationalist than Socialist

It was, however, a populist movement that drew its membership heavily from the proletariat. Then, in the "night of the long knives", the Nazi party purged its brown shirt brigades of unionists.

Mao and Stalin were authoritarians who completely betrayed the Marxist ideals they touted to gain power. By setting themselves up as supreme rulers, they counter-revolutionized the communist revolutions against aristocracy, and became, in effect, new royalty. Their communism was essentially corrupt.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. Hitler was a rightwing facist....and yes, "socialist" was thrown into...

...the name of the party to blur the edges, so to speak.

Stalin and Mao were clearly leftwing totalitarians...Mao was probably "more" true Communist than Stalin.

Definitions:

socialism:

Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

communism:

Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

capitalism:

Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

fascism:

Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

[Yupster]

11. Agree with you Media_Lies

Hitler was an extreme right-winger.

Stalin and Mao were extreme left-wingers.Collectivization of agriculture would be just one example.

To me the worst of the extreme left-wingers were the Khmer Rouge who attempted to build a true communist state from the ground up and ended up with the Killing Fields.

All it shows me is that there is extreme danger on the fringe of either side.

[DivinBreuvage]

22. NOT "thrown in to blur the edges". Nazism was in fact socialist at first.

Contrary to popular belief, Hitler neither founded the Nazi party, nor, though he quickly became the dominant personality, did he exercize unchallenged authority therein for more than a decade. It wasn't until the so-called "Night of the Long Knives" of June 30, 1934 that he definitively managed to suppress the party's powerful socialist core represented by men such as Gregor Strasser, Ernst Röhm (head of the SA or Stormtroopers), and even Joseph Goebbels (at one point an admirer of the Soviet Union), all of whom had a real problem with Hitler's lack of committment to the socialist agenda and his courting of big business. At one point the strain between socialist Nazis and nationalist or Führer Nazis became so great that it nearly split the party.

Francoise

[kodi]

9. power

.

[fabius]

10. Left, right or center, the ruling class is always...

...to a greater or lesser degree, a bunch of kleptocrats. They steal from us and in return provide some kind of stability, security, and economic framework.

Only in a democracy can the people prevent them from abusing their power to steal too much. They'll always steal some. That's why left or right wing systems with no controls, checks or balances, always tend toward oligarchy or autocracy. The economic theory behind the system is mostly irrelevant, because of basic human nature.

The exposure of malfeasance to public outrage is the only effective means of keeping it under control.

[Maple]

15. The system is the same one everywhere.

whatever you call it...feudalism.

The head cheese whether called a king, czar, emperor or president and his 'warlords' called ministers or various other titles these days.

They offer the same deal they always have...protection from other 'kings'...... and prosperity....in return for money and military service when required.

If we're lucky, we sometimes get to choose the 'head cheese'.

That's about it.

On edit: And I should add, most people like feudalism. Which is why we still have it.

[Cleita]

12. They were all right wingers.

Hitlers Socialist Worker's Party or Nazi's were a base for him to garner power. When he gained what he wanted, he didn't even give a token nod to socialists or workers thereafter. Stalin and Hitler were in partnership dividing Poland between them until they had a falling out.

It is believed that Stalin was behind Lenin's death. Even though there was the facade of a worker's paradise, he ruled with an iron fist. Mao was his pupil. None of these men where Democratic, socialistic or communist. They were tyrants every much as any king or emperor. The only thing any of them did was replace decaying aristocrats and kings with themselves and a facade of change.

[Devlzown]

There's more to politics than the

left and right wings. There are also authoritarians and libertarians. Authoritarians and libertarians exist on either side of the political spectrum. In the future, it might be more useful for Americans to ask themselves whether a politician is more of an authoritarian or a libertarian than to ask if he or she is a conservative or a liberal. I'd rather live in a country that embraces libertarian conservatism rather than liberal totalitarianism, and I'd be considered a left winger by most. For me, freedom is more important than any social programs.

[George_Bonanza]

16. Yes I realize that now

I'm beginning to wonder if it's conservatism we should be going after or authoritarianism. I'm not sure if conservatism has killed massive amounts of people like authoritarianism. All conservatism really means is fiscal tightness, doesn't it? That and timidness about social change.

[Devlzown]

17. That's what conservatism means to me.

I don't have too many problems with true conservatives -- it's these neocons I can't stand. Conservatives I know are just as horrified as I am at the direction this country is taking. Liberals and conservatives generally agree that ideaology is not important at all when freedom is at stake. I hope we all recognize our common ground before it's too late.

[Devlzown]

14. There's more to politics than the

Edit: Sorry, dupe.

[fujiyama]

18. check this link out

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

We can see that Stalin and Hitler were extreme authoritarians. They believed in absolute control over peoples' social actions. Also, no dissent was allowed. Paranoia is definetely a hallmark of these tyrants.

At the same time, Stalin imposed collectivism upon the farmers, proving to be disasterous. Hitler may have despised communism but what he created was a welfare state for all the major corporations in the nation at the time. They all aided in his machine of death and destruction.

Mao, while not on the chart is more similar to Stalin. He too was an authoritarian and favored collectivisation.

What we can conclude is that at a certain point our normal political spectrum of left and right become meaningless. Authoritarianism is the key link. They may have different goals ultimately, but their means to get there are just as ruthless and deadly. Tyrants are tyrants, though obviously a few stand out as being exceptionally bad.

The way I classify it:

I place Hitler on the top because his vision of genocide is particularly disturbing.

Stalin, right around there...His body count is just as high, if not higher.

Mao and Pol Pot are just one rung underneath.

One interesting thing is that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot used starvation as a very efficient weapon (though Hitler also did in the concentration camps...but he usually had people killed by other means). These three were responsible for great famines, killing large numbers of their own population.

[rman]

19. What's in a name?

How does the fact that Hitler was leading the "Nationalist Socialist" party, make Hitler a Socialist?

All these dictators were 'leftist' in name only since in practice they did not represent the interests of society (or the community if you will). Rather they represented the interests of themselves and their henchmen. Kinda like Bush is doing now. It doesn't really matter wether totalitarianism is arrived upon via the Left of via the Right, because totalitarianism is neither; it is not politics as usual, it is tyranny under the veil of politics.

[sweetheart]

21. Mao, Stalin and bush

Hitler is deemed evil in every regard, and IMO, the most similar to bush of the lot.

Mao and Stalin are special cases where the mass murders must be seen in the context. Mao lead the chinese "french revolution" and many were killed. To say that all the deaths of the revolution are due to an evil man is a bit simple, and though certainly i find him an evil man, the long term result of the communists in china may indeed be a modern nation that grows more tolerate of diversity than the US... so the jury's still out in one sense.

Given 20 million dead and a rather unpleasant war, stalin lead a nation to survive.. and leading a nation in war where millions are killed is never simple. Had he been a sweetie democrat, likely russia would not exist today, but as an eastern province of the german eastern reich.

These names have been removed from their historical context along with their death counts, as if these men went about with guns and individually shot all those people, and as if they were purely evil to be so complicit in mass murder.

Methinks a much greater lesson of history is to see that these were just men, and that they made mistakes like we all do in life.... and in seeing these men in how they are similar to us in the judgement seat, we learn more about our own darker natures and how they can subvert even the noblest of intentions.

Lincoln could similarly be put in the evil man list, as an authoritarian president that killed 2% of his nation's people and 140+ years later have endemic racism and repression of blacks that still borders on slavery conditions... and a national pasttime in unfettered capitalism that has created more slaves in our modern time than ever before in human history... really slaves...

Mass murder and war is wrong on all counts. Anyone who leads such an agression is a criminal, even if it is to unseat another criminal, as it was not saddam who paid for the criminal bushavik war, but 10's of thousands of civilians that the bush murderers overlook in considering what the right to life implies.