Political Trivia - Left versus Right

[[)roi(]]

yup, 2, but too far dadaway right and you get to insane shit like ayn rand.

Morality and ethics doesn't occur by happenstance -- they learned traits; hence rule of law in protection of civl liberties, free speech, ... has to be paramount. Neither classical liberalism, liberal conservatism or plain old conservatism shares anything in common with Ayn Rand's objectivism; some of her more wacky beliefs exist funny enough on both ends of the political divide.

 

[EmJay]

As I said you are misinterpreting the Laffer Curve. US is the richest country and their corporate rates are around 20% ignoring of course the democrat states with their high state taxes, similarly personal income tax.

I also told you that Arthur Laffer was involved in definng these rates; the economist after which the Laffer Curve is named; hence he should know far better than any second hand source, including Wikipedia.

Similarly Nordic countries have low corporate taxation; the difference between them and the US is on the personal taxation side, which while offering more tax revenue for services has directly retardedd the liquidity wrt consumer spend, which impacts the supply side of their economy. That's a choice their citizens made -- personally I prefer the US model where I get to choose how I spend more of my money.

SA is a perfect example of a country not even considering the Laffer Curve or supply side economics; when they need more taxes, their solution is to increase taxes and thereby further stifle an already depressed economy, coupled with over burdensome regulations and corruption -- it's why SA's growth has been consistently declining and why no inroads are being made into reducing unemployment.

I am not misinterpreting anything. The Laffer Curve is a theory, and maximum taxation points are an ESTIMATE. Those estimates are fundamentally based on very thin and simple assumptions. This effect cannot even be reasonably confirmed either.

I agree with you that low taxes are good, but governments should not be looking to maximize revenue. They should be looking at ways to maximize service delivery per R/$ they collect.

 

[Urist]

I agree with you that low taxes are good, but governments should not be looking to maximize revenue. They should be looking at ways to maximize service delivery per R/$ they collect.

Efficiency is difficult in an environment without incentive, their goal is to spend their budgets... their incentives are individual performance bonuses that they get mostly regardless of their performance. The altruistic incentive of serving the population is nonexistent when serving a population that hates the government such as ours. All that remains is the satisfaction that comes from good work ethic, and we all know what work ethic is like in our public service.
Separation of the public service and the politicians they serve is very necessary, unfortunately with rampant cadre deployment that is not a thing either. Only thing i can think of from the top of my head is if the public service could somehow have competition, we've got so many private sector companies doing the job that the public service is being paid for with our taxes... private security, private education, private health etc. And instead of seeing them as competition they see them as an industries that makes their jobs easier.
Perhaps we should have tax refunds when we employ these private sector companies, refunds that come directly from the pockets of the operational budgets of these public service entities that are not doing their jobs properly.

 

[[)roi(]]

I am not misinterpreting anything. The Laffer Curve is a theory, and maximum taxation points are an ESTIMATE. Those estimates are fundamentally based on very thin and simple assumptions. This effect cannot even be reasonably confirmed either.

I agree with you that low taxes are good, but governments should not be looking to maximize revenue. They should be looking at ways to maximize service delivery per R/$ they collect.

Aren't all theories assumptions and hence open to challenge (i.e. scientific method from Aristotle's time?)
Plus even as Arthur Laffer openly stated the Laffer Curve is really nothing new; because a similar conclusion was posited in the 14th century by Ibn Khaldun, Today, for some of us this would seem like a bit of common sense; but simply looking at SA government; the last thing that comes to mind is an over abundance of common sense.

Maximising tax revenue is only what a certain group of politicians do; funny enough the same bunch that believe its only government that can provide a cure all; but anyone who has had to rely on a government for anything knows that's a pitcher that spills more water than it holds.

In the case of the US; reducing tax % resulted in more tax revenue (the opposite of what the critics said)
-- who would have thought that lower taxes, with more available capital, more investment, more people working, etc. would somehow produce more tax revenue.

 

[[)roi(]]

The altruistic incentive of serving the population is nonexistent when serving a population that hates the government such as ours.

How strange is it that a population "that hates the government" has consistently kept them in power for over 25 years.

 

[[)roi(]]

Ok here's my left / right grid:

1. Classical Liberalism - Right
2. Liberalism - Left
3. Progressivism - Left
4. Conservatism - Right
5. Socialism - Left
6. Fascism - Left
7. Communism - Left
8. Nazism - Left

Obviously number 6 and 8 do not tally with what many have been told.

We (all) agree that socialism and communism are on the left, but we're told to ignore the "Socialist" and "Workers' Party" in the Nazis name
-- they're far-right we're told... but has anyone provided irrefutable proof of this?

Looking at Wikipedia; we're told:

Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism is the ideology and practices associated with the Nazi Party—officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP)—in Nazi Germany, and of other far-right groups with similar ideas and aims. Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its creed.

We also are told that because Hitler during the "The Night of the Long Knives" murdered people from the KPD (Stalinist Communist Party of Germany; the same bunch that create ANTIFA); Is definitive proof that Hitler was not a socialist.

This picture is also used as definitive proof that Nazis were not Marxists because Hitler's Brown Shirts marched around with banners calling for the "Death to Marxism".

You are then required to assume that Socialism and Marxism are bedfellow ideologies and therefore any opposition to Marxism is an opposition to Socialism.

Whammy! definitive proof that Nazis were not socialists, and therefore must be far-right... but how does one leap from "not being socialists" to "far-right". Is it just a given that all bad things are on the right and all good things are on the left -- who ever provided proof of that?

Naturally I don't agree with any of that; Hitler was a socialist, and so too were the authors of Fascism; Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile.
The proof of this exists; and you'd be surprised to know that a huge amount of effort has gone into hiding these facts.

Before I start sharing these facts; I'd like to give you an opportunity to add more proof that substantiates these claims
i.e. that Nazis are Fascists, and Fascists are far-right.

I'll start posting the proof to dispute these claims either later tonight or tomorrow.

 

[EmJay]

Ok here's my left / right grid:

1. Classical Liberalism - Right
2. Liberalism - Left
3. Progressivism - Left
4. Conservatism - Right
5. Socialism - Left
6. Fascism - Left
7. Communism - Left
8. Nazism - Left

Obviously number 6 and 8 do not tally with what many have been told.

We (all) agree that socialism and communism are on the left, but we're told to ignore the "Socialist" and "Workers' Party" in the Nazis name
-- they're far-right we're told... but has anyone provided irrefutable proof of this?

Looking at Wikipedia; we're told:




We also are told that because Hitler during the "The Night of the Long Knives" murdered people from the KPD (Stalinist Communist Party of Germany; the same bunch that create ANTIFA); Is definitive proof that Hitler was not a socialist.

This picture is also used as definitive proof that Nazis were not Marxists because Hitler's Brown Shirts marched around with banners calling for the "Death to Marxism".

You are then required to assume that Socialism and Marxism are bedfellow ideologies and therefore any opposition to Marxism is an opposition to Socialism.

Whammy! definitive proof that Nazis were not socialists, and therefore must be far-right... but how does one leap from "not being socialists" to "far-right". Is it just a given that all bad things are on the right and all good things are on the left -- who ever provided proof of that?

Naturally I don't agree with any of that; Hitler was a socialist, and so too were the authors of Fascism; Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile.
The proof of this exists; and you'd be surprised to know that a huge amount of effort has gone into hiding these facts.

Before I start sharing these facts; I'd like to give you an opportunity to add more proof that substantiates these claims
i.e. that Nazis are Fascists, and Fascists are far-right.

I'll start posting the proof to dispute these claims either later tonight or tomorrow.

Now this is one complicated topic. I do see the need of the Left to push all extreme and bad behaviours into the Right (it's happening right now with Antifa vs Boogaloo Boys). Everything is Nazism. But I don't think the Nazis were socialists. They said they were, but did not act like it. We put too much focus on the Left vs Right dichotomy, when we should be looking more at authoritarian vs libertarian.

 

[[)roi(]]

Now this is one complicated topic. I do see the need of the Left to push all extreme and bad behaviours into the Right (it's happening right now with Antifa vs Boogaloo Boys). Everything is Nazism. But I don't think the Nazis were socialists. They said they were, but did not act like it. We put too much focus on the Left vs Right dichotomy, when we should be looking more at authoritarian vs libertarian.

As I said; what's needed is proof.
There is a lot of conjecture; and that's not proof -- if you have some proof then please share it.
Authoritarian is a trait; not an ideology... libertarianism will come into the discussion in due course.

Let leave current events out of this; as they don't change history.

 

[[)roi(]]

Fascism - Part 1
Benito Mussolini was a leading socialist; his father was also a socialist; he split from the socialists after a disagreements over World War I. By 1919 the Socialist party in Italy was essentially dead.

Encyclopedia Britannica
In 1919 at the Bologna Congress the left took leadership of the party, joined the Communist International (Comintern), and attempted revolutionary upheaval. After an enormous wave of strikes, demonstrations, and factory occupations in 1919–20, a reaction set in. The party was crushed by fascist squads and by its own failure to carry out an effective reform program or to foment a revolution. While the majority of the party retreated, the left broke away to join the Italian Communist Party.

Italian Socialist Party | political party, Italy

Italian Socialist Party, former Italian political party, one of the first Italian parties with a national scope and a modern democratic organization. It was founded in 1892 in Genoa as the Italian Workers’ Party (Partito dei Lavoratori Italiani) and formally adopted the name Italian Socialist Party

www.britannica.com

After splitting with the Socialists he denounced orthodox socialism; the form of socialism that was derived from Marxism; he stated that he was now a nationalist socialist; the perception of the failure of orthodox socialism in the light of the outbreak of World War I was not solely held by Mussolini; other pro-interventionist Italian socialists such as Filippo Corridoni and Sergio Panunzio had also denounced classical Marxism in favour of intervention.

The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism
This doctrine was written as a joint effort between Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. Gentile like Mussolini was also influenced by the German idealist and materialist schools of thought – namely Karl Marx, Hegel, Fichte and Nietzsche. They both were politically left.

The doctrine was first published in the Enciclopedia Italiana of 1932, the part of the article written by Mussolini was published for the first time in Italy as an essay in 1935 by Vallecchi. Jane Soames translated the part of the article written by Mussolini in 1933; this was the first authorised English translation; authorised by Mussolini and he also verified that the translation was correct.

Wikipedia
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of marxism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of marxism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the Right, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

Let's compare that to the translation by Jane Soames; which was published in:

• The Hogarth Press, October 1933; Day to Day Pamphlets No. 18
• The Living Age, November 1933
• The Challenge to Liberty 1934 by President Herbert Hoover.

Page references for scans of original publications.

• Day to Day Pamphlets No. 18 -- page 19 to 20.
• The Living Age, November 1933 -- page 241
• The Challenge to Liberty 1934 -- page 66

Here is an extract of the Mussolini authorised translation.
I've highlighted the discrepancies with Wikipedia.

Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains; and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was the century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State.

The most obvious and glaring discrepancies are:

• "the century of marxism, liberalism, democracy" <=?=> "the century of Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy"
• "a century tending to the Right" <=?=> "a century of the Left"
• "this is the 'collective' century" <=?=> "the century of collectivism"

Wikipedia is a community led effort; however when challenged on the incorrect translations they argue that Jane Soames somehow got it wrong; even though Mussolini authorised the translation and verified it before it was published.

The implication that its a mistranslation is false; because the word left appeared twice in the doctrine.

• Day to Day Pamphlets No. 18 -- page 7.
• The Living Age, November 1933 -- page 235 (first page)

a Left Revolutionary movement also appeared, which thought never getting further than talk in Italy, in Russian Socialistic circles laid the foundations of bolshevism, ...

This confirms that Jane Soames was not confused about the Italian words for “Right” and “Left.”
This is also obvious since the political Right is considered “reactionary” and the political Left is referred to as “revolutionary.” -- as wikipedia even confirms:

Similarly the words Reactionary versus Revolutionary

Wikipedia
The word reactionary is often used in the context of the left–right political spectrum, and is one tradition in right-wing politics. In popular usage, it is commonly used to refer to a highly traditional position, one opposed to social or political change.

This is not the case for Revolutionary; as wikipedia also confirms:

Wikipedia
A conservative is someone who generally opposes such changes. A reactionary is someone who wants things to go back to the way they were before the change has happened.

According to the goals of the revolution they propose. Usually, these goals are part of a certain ideology. In theory, each ideology could generate its own brand of revolutionaries. In practice, most political revolutionaries have been either anarchists, communists, or socialists.

It also appears in this paragraph in the doctrine.

Yet the Fascist State is unique, and an original creation. It is not reactionary, but revolutionary, in that it anticipates the solution of the universal political problems which elsewhere have to be settled in the political field by the rivalry of parties, the excessive power of the Parliamentary regime and the irresponsibility of political assemblies; while it meets the problems of the economic field by a system of syndicalism which is continually increasing in importance, as much in the sphere of labour as of industry: and in the moral field enforce order, discipline, and obedience to that which is the determined moral code of the country.

 

[[)roi(]]

Fascism - Part 2
Continued from part 1...

Collectivism
Collectivism is also not a word associated with the right. i.e. "the century of collectivism"

Wikipedia
Collectivism was an important part of Marxist–Leninist ideology in the Soviet Union, where it played a key part in forming the New Soviet man, willingly sacrificing his or her life for the good of the collective. Terms such as "collective" and "the masses" were frequently used in the official language and praised in agitprop literature, for example by Vladimir Mayakovsky (Who needs a "1") and Bertolt Brecht (The Decision, Man Equals Man).]

You can find more on this here, including links to all the scans of these three publications .

Steps you may want to try to verify this:

1. As part of you own experiment I suggest googling for "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism" in order to compare how many of the text accessible translations are a match to the Jane Soames translation that was approved and verified by Mussolini.
2. Next try to Google for "The Living Age, November 1933" -- most US universities keep an online archive of these: Let me know if you find any that are accessible; strange enough most of the publications are, but the period around 1933 appears locked from public view?
3. I suggest reading the Doctrine; which in Mussolini's own words describe a system that is as close to socialism as it gets... plus on page 20 he states:
   • "It is a perfectly logical deduction that a new doctrine can utilize all the still vital elements of previous doctrines. No doctrine has ever been born completely new, completely defined and owing nothing to the past; no doctrine can boast a character of complete originality; it must always derive, if only historically, from the doctrines which have preceded it and develop into further doctrines which will follow. Thus the scientific Socialism of Marx is the heir of the Utopian Socialism of Fourier, of the Owens and of Saint-Simon; thus again the Liberalism of the eighteenth century is linked with all the advanced thought of the seventeenth century, and thus the doctrines of Democracy are the heirs of the Encyclopedists."

Next
There's more to come; we'll examine the notion that when Hitler was calling for the death to marxism, and that Mussolini's rejection of orthodox socialism (Marxism) did not imply they were not socialists. Also why did Hitler have so much disdain for Marxism, when arguably it's relatively similar to Socialism.

 

[EmJay]

As I said; what's needed is proof.
There is a lot of conjecture; and that's not proof -- if you have some proof then please share it.
Authoritarian is a trait; not an ideology... libertarianism will come into the discussion in due course.

Let leave current events out of this; as they don't change history.

I am trying to have a casual discussion, and you want proof? Ok, then.

Ideologies will either be free or authoritarian. My point is that the left vs right axis is one we should stop obsessing over and rather promote tolerance to ideas and find a way to balance the sides to learn to live together. This can only be done with people who are not authoritarian.

What are you even talking about re leaving out current events? Of course current events are applicable because they cause the Overton window to shift.

Since you want proof, here is another opinion on why the political compass is flawed.

The Political Compass Test is Garbage

In theory it's a decent but flawed idea. || Tom Joyce

www.splicetoday.com

Sorry - who are you? Are you from MyBB?

 

[[)roi(]]

I am trying to have a casual discussion, and you want proof? Ok, then.

Proof that Nazism and Fascism are on the right?
What's not casual about "if you have some proof then please share it."

The Political Compass Test is Garbage

In theory it's a decent but flawed idea. || Tom Joyce

www.splicetoday.com

Why are you quoting the compass; I certainly never said I agree with it?

Sorry - who are you? Are you from MyBB?

...becoming personal? why?

 

[EmJay]

Proof that Nazism and Fascism are on the right?
What's not casual about "if you have some proof then please share it."


Why are you quoting the compass; I certainly never said I agree with it?


...becoming personal? why?

I didn't say they were not on the Right. I was just playing with the idea that while they called themselves the National Socialists, they were not really about socialism. Whether this puts Nazism on the left or right, I have zero idea. What I do know that is if you look at any extremism, the extremists straddle both sides often and don't clearly fall anywhere. This ultimately points to the failures of the political compass test which are discussed in the article I linked. We don't have all left leaning or all right leaning beliefs.

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist

A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions.

www.vox.com

He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.

There is a lot more in the article. I am also cognizant that Vox.com are extremely biased and left wing, so they would not present any evidence to balance out this discussion, which is par for the course with Vox.

I am just wondering about your link to MyBB, as your posts seem very familiar.

 

[[)roi(]]

I didn't say they were not on the Right. I was just playing with the idea that while they called themselves the National Socialists, they were not really about socialism. Whether this puts Nazism on the left or right, I have zero idea. What I do know that is if you look at any extremism, the extremists straddle both sides often and don't clearly fall anywhere. This ultimately points to the failures of the political compass test which are discussed in the article I linked. We don't have all left leaning or all right leaning beliefs.

The left / right spectrum is used regularly by the left to insinuate that everything bad in this world derives from the right. They are the one's who have stated Nazism and Fascism are on the right.

Hence this debate simply uses the classifications they have chosen to use. No worries if you have any proof either way.

Adolf Hitler was not a socialist

A Republican representative described Adolf Hitler as a socialist and compared Democrats to Nazis. Sadly, Rep. Brooks is far from alone in his opinions.

www.vox.com

I am also cognizant that Vox.com are extremely biased and left wing, so they would not present any evidence to balance out this discussion, which is par for the course with Vox.

You said it. I certainly would never use them as a source.

However ignoring that; I've taken this from the interview they referenced:

Hitler vs Strasser, The Historic Debate of May 21st and 22nd 1930 – Otto Strasser

Mister Hitler rejected this opinion very quickly: “Unlike people such as the wealthy Count Reventlow, I am socialist. I started as a simple worker, and today still, I do not allow my chauffeur to receive another meal than me. But your socialism is Marxism pure and simple. You see, the great mass of workers only wants bread and circuses. Ideas are not accessible to them and we cannot hope to win them over. We attach ourselves to the fringe, the race of lords, which did not grow through a miserabilist doctrine and knows by the virtue of its own character that it is called to rule, and rule without weakness over the masses of beings.”

This plays into my next post which will focus specifically on the presumption that Nazis were not socialists.
Nationalism is a trait which like capitalism can exist on both ends of the spectrum, for example: China's CCP are Nationalists, same with North Korea, the USSR, ...

I am just wondering about your link to MyBB, as your posts seem very familiar.

Keep this civil or simply choose not to engage.

 

[EmJay]

Keep this civil or simply choose not to engage.

You really need to lighten up. This is not meant as an insult. It's pure curiosity.

 

[[)roi(]]

You really need to lighten up. This is not meant as an insult. It's pure curiosity.

No worries.

 

[Textile Guy]

I think she is right about the guy on the left ..........

 

[biometrics]

Are you from MyBB?

Most members are from MyBB and other SA forums.

 

[[)roi(]]

Most members are from MyBB and other SA forums.

Exactly and there's a reason why we left MyBB.

 

[[)roi(]]

Hitler was a socialist
There are many on the left who have long tried to distance themselves from Nazism, and the fact that the name Nazi is an acronym for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers' Party.

We're told to just ignore the word Socialist and the words Workers' Party; it's a red herring they say -- because Hitler was "far right" because he was fascist and because they say so.

...but as I have already proved Fascism is an ideology "of the left"; created by two socialists during a time when socialism was despised by Italians. When challenged with these facts, most leftists will try to at first attack the evidence; then when they realize they can't -- they resort to the red herring argument; that Hitler only masqueraded as a socialist to win the vote, and when he won he murdered Marxists (the night of the long knives) -- proving in their mind that he hated socialists and therefore must be "far right" because all "far right" hate socialists.

The notion that there could be a warring between opposing leftists ideologies is never broached, even though it most certainly happened in Itally between the socialists and the fascists. Why would Hitler hate Marxism for any other reason they argue?

A clue can be found in Hitler’s 1920 “Why We Are Anti-Semites” speech; which funny enough is another historical document that the left have gone to lengths to conceal and/or denounce. Why?

...because it explains why Hitler didn't like Marxism, and more importantly why he opposed any notion that Marxists were true socialists, for example:

Yes, one of the foundations of our strength is being destroyed, namely the ethical concept of work, and that was the brilliant idea of Karl Marx to falsify the ethical concept of work, and the whole mass of the people who groan under the Capital are to be organized for the destruction of the national economy and for the protection of international finance-and-loan capital.

The words "falsify" and "for the protection of international finance-and-loan capital" are the clues to what Hitler thought about Marxism. That it was being used as a bait and switch tactic by those in finance-and-loan capital.

...but there's a far greater underlying reason Hitler hated Marx;

Marx was not religiously but ethnically Jewish. His maternal grandfather was a Dutch rabbi, while his paternal line had supplied Trier's rabbis since 1723, a role taken by his grandfather Meier Halevi Marx. His father, as a child known as Herschel, was the first in the line to receive a secular education.

...and after one reads Hitler's 1920 speech it's hard to not accept that Hitler openly hated Jews and everything about them -- he regarded them as lazy people who used conniving tactics to indebt the workers, businesses and countries with promises of easy money, to which they tied loan and interested terms that would make it difficult to ever repay the debt, allowing them to live permanently off the hard work of others.

As for socialism; it's a false dictum to group everything about socialism with Marx; the concept of socialism existed long before Karl Marx in France, and much longer than even that, for example:

How Imperial Socialism Shattered the Roman Empire and Led to Feudalism | Will Durant

The Edict was, until our time, the most famous example of an attempt to replace economic laws by governmental decrees. Its failure was rapid and complete. Tradesmen concealed their commodities, scarcities became more acute than before, Diocletian himself was accused of conniving at a rise in...

fee.org

Hitler was a socialist but not the Marxist kind; because he believed Marx had perverted the ideology. He saw himself as the historical kind of socialist; even going to great length to link it with socialism from the Roman era.

Leftist propaganda
Although historians refer to Hitler‘s August 1920 speech ―"Why We Are Anti-Semites" ― as famous, the text of that speech appears almost nowhere on the internet, nor in supposedly all-comprehensive collections of Hitler speeches.

Why?

Maybe it has to do with Hitler making the direct connection between socialism and anti-Semitism, a prejudice that goes back to the beginning of the European socialist movement. Or perhaps it is because Hitler‘s hatred of the Jewish race was due to their egoistic attitude to work, meaning that they were capitalistic—working in banking, finance capital and interest-charging lending. Or that Hitler was very supportive of what he called "social justice."

Remind me again which political side uses the term "Social Justice"; and which side groups people by identity politics, because like Hitler they believe we are defined by our group. e.g. all whites are evil.

Some quotes from Hitler‘s speech:

Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!

Thus we can see the two great differences between races: Aryanism means ethical perception of work and that which we today so often hear – socialism, community spirit, common good before own good. Jewry means egoistic attitude to work and thereby mammonism and materialism, the opposite of socialism.

Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice,…

There comes a time when it will be obvious that socialism can only be carried out accompanied by nationalism and antisemitism.

Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income.

We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.

This is the reason why leftists have gone to great lengths to hide this speech... because not only does it confirm why Hitler hated Marxism, it also confirms at great length why Hitler was a socialist, and why it's silly to ever argue that he was "far right" because he murdered Marxists, or because his brownshirts walked around with signs calling for a "death to Marxism".

The next red herring they use is Nationalism; I.e. Hilter couldn't be "on the left" because he was a nationalist.... but that's just obviously stupid, because two things as I proved can be true at the same time; Hitler could be a socialist and hate Marxism, and similarly Hitler could be a socialist and a nationalist. China is nationalist, so too North Korea, etc.

Nationalism is a way of thinking that says that some groups of humans, such as ethnic groups, should be free to rule themselves. Nationalists think that the best way to make this happen and avoid control or oppression by others is for each group to have their own nation.

Translation of Hitler's 1920 speech
"Why We Are Antisemites" - Text of Adolf Hitler's 1920 speech at the Hofbräuhaus.

"Why We Are Antisemites" - Text of Adolf Hitler's 1920 speech at the Hofbräuhaus | Carolyn Yeager

Hofbrauhaus interior where Hitler spoke National Socialist German Workers Party Public meeting in the Great Hall of the Hofbräuhaus Friday 15 August 1920 Adolf Hitler ~~Why We Are Antisemites~~ Translation from German by Hasso Castrup (Copenhagen, Denmark), January, 2013, exclusively for Carolyn...

carolynyeager.net

German historical document containing Hitler's 1920 speech.
Translation from German by Hasso Castrup (Copenhagen, Denmark), January, 2013, exclusively for CarolynYeager.net from the original published in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1968_4.pdf

One cannot read Hitler's speech and not acknowledge he hated Jews, he was a socialist and a nationalist, and that he was very open about this. Leftist hide / deny the existence of these historical documents because it proves that the rotten ideologies have to a greater degree existed on the left of the political spectrum.

As for the night of the long knives; the Nazis murdured all those Hitler saw as a threat to his power, including Conservatives, Liberals, and Marxists -- another fact that leftist ignore, or they simply fail to mention.

Classical liberalism and conservatism share many common values, and none of those have anything in common with socialism, Marxism or anything on the left. The Marxists were never liberal; they hated liberals as much as the Nazis; the proof is that they worked in collaboration with the Nazis to overthrow the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic.

Today leftists have in a bait and switch tactic marketed themselves as liberal; but that's more propaganda used to recycle the innately rotten ideologies of socialism and communism -- when in reality nobody who really extols the virtues of classical liberalism would have had anything to do with Marxism.

Again if you have proof to counter and / or to further substantiate this, then please share.