According to some people, any decent human being is “far right”. But, who cares? ‘Sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you’ is unknown these days, and people even have breakdowns over names,

I'm glad to see that someone else other than me gets it correct about the Nazis!

And the silliest thing about Australia, is that it is the only place in the world where Liberals are called ‘conservatives’, some of them even ‘far right’.

If I feel the need to put a name to most people these days, it's wa.ker.

This article is textbook historical revisionism. The fantasy that Nazism and fascism weren’t far-right because they borrowed socialist language or Mussolini once edited a socialist paper is kindergarten-level history.

Historians classify fascism and Nazism as far-right not because of economic tinkering, but because of their defining traits: ultranationalism, racial hierarchy, militant traditionalism, violent anti-egalitarianism, and contempt for democracy.

Yes, the Nazis called themselves “National Socialists.” North Korea calls itself a “Democratic People’s Republic.” Names aren’t definitions. In reality, the Nazis banned unions, murdered socialists, crushed class solidarity, and built a racial state.

That’s not “left” - it’s the very blueprint of the far-right.

Mussolini’s early socialist ties are equally irrelevant. Fascism was not socialism’s cousin but its executioner, propped up by monarchists, industrialists, and ultranationalists terrified of the left.

Leyonhjelm’s “far-right means nothing” is mere special pleading. If history’s most infamous far-right regimes were indeed far-right, then the label clearly means something.

Try calling a skinhead neo-Nazi a "lefty" and see how many teeth you have left afterwards.

WTF?

ttbn is at it again I see: "but names will never hurt you’ is unknown these days, and people even have breakdowns over names".

All this from the person who calls others on OLO "liars" when confronted by facts that hurt his feelings, abuses others and calls them names rather than address their comments.

I am right in believing that ttbn once said "ttbn" stands for "try to be nice"?

You can't make this stuff up.

WTF?

The author says: "(Far right)... is a word used by the left, primarily intended to be derogatory."

Labels of this type are often used as a way to end an argument/discussion when facts, evidence and logic are eroding an unsupported belief.

It gets to the absurd level when we get a poster on OLO saying that the woke left needs to wake up. Could there be anything more meaningless?

Gawd ! We're staring the annihilation of this Nation in the eye yet some Woke are more concerned about Left, Right & extremes for both. Does the Left or rather Woke Left ever think how far Right the silent invaders are ? The ones that are in the process of outbreeding us & our authorities are silly enough to pay them to do so. No-one even mentions the this ultra extreme Right moment building up here as it is in England.

Hitler said that “the whole of National Socialism was based on Marx."

Hitler said that the only difference between National Socialism and Communism was that the former was nationalist and the later internationalist.

But what would Hitler know about Nazism!!?

mhaze,

So suddenly we’re happy to take dictators at their word? You’ve obviously never read Mein Kampf. Hundreds of pages - more devoted to spewing vitriol at Marxists and Marxism than even at Jews.

Hitler never hid his contempt for Marxism. He called it “Jewish poison,” blamed it for Germany’s collapse, and promised to eradicate it root and branch.

And that’s exactly what he did.

Within months of taking power, the Nazis smashed unions, outlawed socialist and communist parties, jailed their members, and murdered Marxists in droves. Whatever throwaway line you want to cherry-pick, the reality is that Nazism defined itself by destroying the Left.

That’s why historians don’t rely on “what Hitler said” in some dubious snippet. They judge by doctrine and deeds. And on both counts Nazism sits firmly on the far-right: ultranationalist, authoritarian, violently anti-egalitarian, and obsessed with hierarchy and race.

This is yet more historical revisionism from you.

You confusing Marxism with Bolshevism.

Pretty funny that you start of saying we shouldn't take Hitler at his word and then try to claim we should take Hitler at his word. Again no substance...just assertion.

mhaze,

Nice try, but Hitler didn’t distinguish Marxism from Bolshevism in the way you’re pretending.

In Mein Kampf he denounced “the Marxist poison” over and over again, lumping socialism and communism together as enemies. And his policies followed suit: unions banned, socialist/communist parties outlawed, and Marxists jailed or murdered.

As for your “taking Hitler at his word” line, the difference is simple. I’m not cherry-picking one stray quote and treating it as gospel. I’m pointing to Hitler’s sustained anti-Marxist rants across his writings and the Nazis’ actual record in power.

Words and deeds matched. That’s substance.

Which is more than can be said for leaning on a single out-of-context line while ignoring everything Hitler wrote and everything the Nazis did.

How the terms "Left" and "Right" came to mean completely different things in different countries can make an interesting academic research study, but the fact is, somehow they did and it is thus nonsensical to translate "Left"/"Right" from one country to the next!

In Israel's example, political views range from "socialist" (or even "communist") to "revisionist" on the socio-economical axis and from "orthodox" to "secular" (with "religious" and "traditional" in between) on the Torah-observance axis, and as immigration and similar issues which dominate Australian politics are practically undisputed there, the terms "Left" and "Right" were reserved solely for describing the attitude towards the neighbouring non-Jewish people, "Left" meaning "accept them as equals and respect their land" and "Right" meaning "take their land and get them the hell out of our sight, live or dead".

You claim to have read Mein Kampf. Perhaps you need to read it again.

"In Mein Kampf he denounced “the Marxist poison” over and over again,"

He never uses the phrase "Marxist poison" in Mein Kampf. Just making it up again.

"I’m pointing to Hitler’s sustained anti-Marxist rants across his writings and the Nazis’ actual record in power."

No. You're asserting these rants. But Hitler was opposed to Bolshevism which he saw as Jewish and a threat to Germany. AAgain you're confusing two similar but not identical terms. Easily done if you're research involves a 5 minute Google search.

Yes, Hitler attacked the Bolsheviks and Russia since it was the home of Bolshevism. But the nuance there was that he wasn't attacking Marxism. Nuance....now there's a concept that is entirely alien to you.

I see we’ve started on the semantic nitpicking, mhaze.

//He never uses the phrase ‘Marxist poison’ in Mein Kampf. Just making it up again.//

Hitler’s own words:

“The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature … this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man.” (Mein Kampf, Vol. I, Ch. 11).

In the German text he refers to Marxism in terms of Gift (poison). English editions word it as “pestilence” or “plague.” Nitpicking vocabulary doesn’t erase the point: he ranted against Marxism as a poison.

//Hitler was opposed to Bolshevism … but he wasn’t attacking Marxism//

Wrong.

Hitler saw Bolshevism as simply Marxism in Russian form. He called Marxism “the spiritual father of Bolshevism” and blamed it for the collapse of Germany. And he didn’t just attack Bolsheviks in Russia, he denounced Marxism in German trade unions, in the press, in education, and vowed to eradicate it everywhere.

//Nuance … now there’s a concept that is entirely alien to you.//

The only “nuance” here is Hitler’s propaganda convenience. Sometimes he blurred the terms, sometimes he separated them, but in every case he treated both as mortal enemies. And his actions left no room for ambiguity: unions banned, SPD and KPD outlawed, communists and socialists jailed or killed.

That’s annihilation, not nuance.

So yes, I’ve read Mein Kampf. The seething hatred of Marxism runs through it. You don’t do that to your ideological cousins. You do that to the enemies you’re determined to wipe out.

Try downloading a PDF of an English translation and run through it with Ctrl+F if you don’t believe me.

I dare you.

I remember watching Stephen Fry, where he interviewed Bolsanaro when he was in Congress, before he was elected President. The thing that struck me most and which I remember vividly was Fry talking candidily to the camera after the interview out in the street, where Fry said of Bolsanaeo "I think that is the most evil person I have ever met"

"In Mein Kampf he denounced “the Marxist poison” over and over again,"

“the Marxist poison”...in quotes and all...you know like it was a quote. "Over and over again".

Now? Oh well, he never actually said that, just things that are somewhat similar if you squint and put on your (communist) red glasses.

This constant willingness to distort the facts in the search for what you consider to be a victory. You should be constantly accompanied by a fact checker but I have neither the time nor the inclination.

"Try downloading a PDF of an English translation and run through it with Ctrl+F if you don’t believe me."

I have a hard copy version, a digital version (on my Kindle) and an original German version given to me by a dear Russian friend back in the 1990s when, following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, such things were being sold on the streets of east Germany for pennies.

Its my opinion the terms far right and far left are outdated and belong back in 18th century. I agree with the 'Horseshoe Principle' where extremists with one set of values tend to find commonality with those they claim to oppose, with their set of values Fascism and Communism are examples of radical extremism having a common goal of total totalitarian control. I don't believe that Hitler and Stalin were all that different in their aims of domination of society by the state. Extremism cannot gain traction unless there is radical social disorder, the Russian Revolution, like the French Revolution before it, didn't happen by chance, there was a ground swell of mass discontent in society against the established order, and the radical element was able to articulate and exploit that discontent. The social conditions have to be right for extremist to gain the ascendancy. There is no danger of radical revolution in Australia as the reasonably well off egalitarian society wont allow for extreme ideologies to gain traction.

mhaze,

I take it you've given up on trying to prove that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of lefties, and are now simply trying to attack my credibility.

//“the Marxist poison”…in quotes and all…you know like it was a quote.//

Right. Because plagues and pestilence are so much better than poison.

The point isn’t which synonym you prefer - Hitler repeatedly depicted Marxism as a mortal toxin or epidemic, not a legitimate doctrine.

//Now? Oh well, he never actually said that, just things that are somewhat similar if you squint and put on your (communist) red glasses.//

You know you’re moving up in the world when you’ve been promoted from “poison” to “a fatal epidemic disease.”

//This constant willingness to distort the facts…//

What’s distorted?

I quoted Hitler directly and even flagged the translation variants. You, on the other hand, haven’t produced a single passage to back your claim that he wasn’t obsessed with Marxism itself. Instead you’ve shifted from “he meant only Bolshevism” to “he didn’t use those exact two words” to “you’re a distorter.”

That’s not fact-checking, that’s dodging.

//I have a hard copy, a Kindle, and an original German version…//

Perfect.

Then you can confirm firsthand that Hitler targets Marxismus by name all through Mein Kampf. And we know it wasn’t just talk - once in power, the Nazis dissolved free trade unions (2 May 1933) and outlawed other parties (14 July 1933), annihilating the Left at home, not just “Russian Bolshevism.”

Owning multiple editions doesn’t strengthen your case if you never quote from them.

By the way, you still haven’t offered a shred of evidence that Nazism was left-wing. All you’ve done is quibble over wording while ignoring the fact that Hitler and the Nazis defined themselves by crushing Marxists, communists, and socialists.

That silence speaks louder than your nitpicking.

Hi Paul1405

I agree with your point about the horseshoe nature of ideology and the parallels between fascism and communism, especially the varieties practiced by Hitler and Stalin. Interestingly, while libertarianism is definitely not in that statist mode, it also has its left-wing parallel in anarchism, sharing suspicion of the state and radical commitment to individual liberty. From my observation anarchism never had much of a place in the Australian political scene but it was a colourful part of the left spectrum in my distant youth in the UK, and historically has sometimes been a significant idea in European political thought.

I think there can be a place for polemic and name-calling in robust political debate (in these forums you have described the Israeli government as “Nazi” and I have called Hamas and the Iranian regime “Islamofascist”). But for more nuanced debate it may be best to use ideological labels that the person being labelled is happy to own. I have known many people who cheerfully self-describe as libertarian, anarchist, Trotskyist, conservative etc, and when using these terms there is a shared and accepted understanding of what they mean. Other terms are seldom used as self-descriptions and almost always used as insults or to denigrate an ideology the user disagrees with – e.g. “cultural Marxist” and “Neo-liberal”, In these cases, Leyonhjelm may have a point – the labels tell you more about the people using them than the people they are directed at.

What would any of you know what Hitler said or thought ? All you have to fall back on is English speaking World propaganda !
They did it then & they do it now. The English speaking World has been on a path to nowhere for many decades, just look at them now ! The Germans have gone as silly as the British. The only once who still have control over their senses are Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Argentinians & a couple of Scandinavian Nations.
Listen to them !

The article by this Leyonhjelm wet is insulting. The National Socialist cause was never about socialism in the Marxist sense. It was about blood, soil, race, and nation. To call us “leftists” is a lie and an insult.

Hitler and the Party destroyed socialism and communism because they were Jewish tools to weaken our people. We banned their unions, executed their traitors, and built a racial state that protected the German Volk. That was not socialism. It was nationalsm, discipline and strength.

The AfD today carries some of that spirit. They stand up against mass immigration, against the dilution of German identity, and against the globalist elites who want to erase borders. This is not “far-right” in the way the media sneers. It is the natural instinct of a people who want to survive.

Normally, an association fallacy is when you smear your opponent by tarring them with some unsavoury figure or ideology.

What the right does with Nazism is almost the mirror image:

- They know the Nazis are universally reviled (often regarded as the worst regime in modern history).
- They know Nazism is historically and academically classified as far-right.
- But because that association tarnishes their own side, they scramble to reassign it to the left.

It’s like committing an association fallacy against themselves. They accept the “Nazis = worst evil” premise, but instead of grappling with the fact that Nazism grew from the far-right, they play a game of rhetorical hot-potato:

“Not ours, yours!”

That’s why they obsess over the word “Socialist” in the NSDAP name. It’s the only thin reed that lets them throw the association somewhere else, even though Hitler himself explained that he redefined “socialism” as national unity, not Marxist class struggle.

If Stalin had called his system “National Capitalism” while murdering kulaks, I doubt we’d see anyone on the right bending over backwards to claim him as one of their own. Funny how that “logic” only runs one way.

The irony, though, is that they don’t even need to do it. The crimes of Nazism don’t stick to modern conservatives any more than Stalin’s crimes stick to modern progressives.

Trying to disown Nazism is only necessary if you’ve already accepted the fallacious premise that today’s right must carry that stain.

"I take it you've given up on trying to prove that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of lefties,"

Quick says JD. Now that I've outed as making up quotes, let's go back to the beginning and try to do better this time.

First as regards Mein Kampf. I don't propose to offer quotes from to prove my point since its irrelevant. Remember that it was written a full decade before the Nazis gained power and 12 years before they really started to implement their socialist policies.

This is a precis of a much longer post I made a few years back on a different site...

The full name of the party—"National Socialist German Workers’ Party" (NSDAP)—explicitly included "socialist," reflecting an intent to appeal to working-class voters and differentiate from traditional capitalism. Adolf Hitler and other leaders, such as Joseph Goebbels, expressed opposition to capitalism, with Goebbels stating he would prefer Bolshevism over capitalism. This rhetoric positioned Nazism as a redefinition of socialism, combining it with nationalism to create a "national community" (Volksgemeinschaft) where individual interests served the state.

While private ownership nominally existed, the Nazi government exercised substantive control over what was produced, how, and at what prices, reducing owners to "government pensioners" , effectively turning private businesses into extensions of government policy.
This "socialism on the German pattern" reflected socialist systems by prioritising state planning over market freedom, even if it differed from Soviet-style full nationalisation. Businesses that resisted were seized, and owners replaced with Nazi loyalists, blurring the line between private and public.

In 1933, the Nazis nullified constitutional protections for private property (Article 153 of the Weimar Constitution), allowing expropriation without due process for "public welfare." These measures reflected socialist central planning, where property rights were subordinated to collective (national) needs.

The party's platform included several policies that echoed socialist ideas like state intervention for wealth redistribution, worker collective ownership, while rejecting Marxist internationalism.

Nazi ideology emphasized "the common good before the private good," contrasting with capitalist individualism. Hitler’s vision was a "German socialist" society with a planned economy where entrepreneurs acted as state representatives.

You haven't outed anyone, mhaze.

//Now that I’ve outed [you] as making up quotes…//

You nitpicked over an inconsequential difference of wording. Speaking of which:

“...the elimination of the Marxist poison from the body of the nation.” (Mein Kampf, Murphy translation, p. 551)

Here you go:
https://greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf

Because, let face it, you don't reeeeally have a copy of Mein Kampf, do you?

//...since [Mein Kampf is] irrelevant.//

Yet you spent all of yesterday on what Hitler “said,” now tossed his book aside because it undercut you. Ideology written in the 1920s shaped the 1930s. You don’t get to dismiss the blueprint because it predates the house.

//...(NSDAP)—explicitly included "socialist," reflecting an intent to appeal to working-class voters and differentiate from traditional capitalism.//

- Notice how you had to smuggle in your own gloss: "...and differentiate from traditional capitalism."
- Volksgemeinschaft = ultra-nationalist anti-class myth, not left egalitarianism.
- Cherry-picking Goebbels' early Strasserite flirtations ignores that he later toed Hitler’s line. And Hitler crushed the Strasser wing in 1934.

//Private ownership but state control reduced owners to ‘government pensioners’.//

That is dictatorship, not socialism. Socialism means worker or public ownership. Under Nazism, ownership and profits remained private, provided you obeyed. Coercive corporatism is not left-wing.

//Businesses seized; owners replaced with loyalists.//

That is patronage and authoritarian capture, not socialism. Swapping in party cronies is not collective ownership.

//1933: Article 153 nullified, allowing expropriation for ‘public welfare’.//

And who got expropriated? Political and racial enemies. Allies in big business thrived. Confiscation as persecution or war prep is not worker redistribution.

//Platform echoed socialist ideas—redistribution, worker ownership.//

The 1920 program was agitprop. In power, Nazis did the opposite: smashed unions, banned strikes, froze wages, and handed industry to loyal industrialists. Rhetoric is not policy.

//Common good before private good; entrepreneurs as state reps.”

That is fascist corporatism: the state directs, capital executes, profits stay private. “Common good” meant racial-national goals, not egalitarian redistribution.

So, you still haven’t shown Nazism was left-wing. What you’ve described is authoritarian corporatism. Crushing unions, outlawing Marxists, and purging the Strasserites is not a left-wing project.

Try again.

John

Comparisons with Nazism and Stalinism are not recent attempts to smear the left (or right). In 1944, when both Hitler and Stalin were still in power, Hayek pointed out that fascism and communism were not ideological polar opposites, but had much in common. Both are collectivist ideologies that elevate the perceived group interest above the rights and freedoms of the individual. In both cases that group interest was crystalised in the ideology and actions of a single party that became the sole legitimate political entity. Both relied heavily on state control of the economy and society. Both had contempt for liberal democratic values. Both were rooted in a sense of collective grievance that fuelled hatred for the perceived class/race/national enemy that was used to justify oppression and the use of force. Both wanted to overthrow the status quo, and considered it legitimate to achieve that through violence. They hated each other and wanted to destroy each other. But they were like each other in many respects.

Proponents of 1940s style communism and fascism are pretty rare in western countries nowadays. But the modern ideologies that are often labelled “far left” or “far right” often have things in common with them - contempt for contemporary western culture, a sense of collective grievance based in group identity, a sense of betrayal by perceived elites; trashing established institutions and norms of behaviour; indifference to the rule of law; contempt for democracy; the cult of personality; excusing political violence.

It may be inaccurate to describe modern political movements as Nazi or Stalinist, but where there are points of similarity it is usually a bad sign.

Rhian,

I don’t disagree with you. Hayek was right that fascism and Stalinism shared authoritarian traits, and the “family resemblance” of totalitarian systems is real enough. Both crushed liberal democracy, elevated the party above the individual, and used violence to enforce conformity. On that level, yes, there are parallels.

Where I’d draw the line, though, is between similarities of method and differences of ideology. Stalin’s communism abolished private profit and built a class-based internationalist project; Nazism preserved profit, relied on big business, and pursued a racial-nationalist vision.

Both were brutal, but they were brutal in different directions.

And that’s why I’ve pushed back so hard on mhaze’s framing. It’s one thing to say “fascism and Stalinism had common authoritarian features” - I think most of us here would accept that - it’s another thing altogether to say “Nazis were left-wing.” That’s not a sober analysis of authoritarianism, it’s a rhetorical trick to smear the modern left.

So yes, I take your point on the dangers of movements that echo those traits today. But we should be careful not to let that sensible warning get blurred into the attempts of mhaze et al. to collapse everything into “the left = Nazis,” or the broader trope where left = authoritarian and right = liberty.

That’s what this is ultimately about for them, and it’s where the history gets misused.

Thanks for the article- Got to love "Chainsaw" Argentina's President, Javier Milei. The guy the Woke / Marxist's love to hate. Woke Marxist's seem to create slavery in the name of freedom- "The Chainsaw " Javier Milei freed them from the yoke of overspending.

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Left-Right-Political-Spectrum/dp/0197680216

By Oxford University Press.

Even Foxy put out a link (from Caltech) a while back talking about the fallacy of defining the political landscape as a simplistic Left/ Right dichotemy- conveniently (for Woke/ Marxism) relegating founding Traditionalist views to extremism.

There is the Political Spectrum Wikipedia article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Using the Left/ Right dichotemy seems to be a function of lazy stupid thinking by media journalist's and pretend academics and hanger onners.

John

I agree with almost all you say, but with one important difference. I think the methods of both Hitler and Stalin were rooted in their ideologies, and the similarity of method reflects some similarity of ideology. Both had collective totalitarian ideologies that elevate the perceived interests of the group above the interest and rights of individuals. This was the basis for their ruthless suppression of opposition and dissent. Both had agonistic worldviews based on conflict between groups that makes oppression of the perceived enemy not just a necessity but a virtue. This was the basis of the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews and Stalin’s treatment of the kulaks. They did similar things for similar reasons.

They are not the same, though, and I agree with you that much label-calling today fits the definition of association fallacy. That’s why I like Paul’s horseshoe image – it doesn’t say the far right and far left wind up in exactly the same place, but pointing in the same direction. I think that also fits my comparison of “far right” libertarians and “far left” anarchists. “Far right” may be a valid description of Leyonhjelm’s ideology, but in some ways his worldview is closer to my old anarchist mates than Hitler or even Sussan Ley.

Reading some of these comments is a clear indicator of the stupidity of indoctrination educated Westerners !

Good posts John and Rhian,

One thing is for certain, you can't be a half decent despot unless you have good old fashioned "class enemy" real or imaginary. For Pol Pot the class enemy were people who wore glasses, for the Kudos Kid here, its all those billions of Woke/Marxists running around the place.

Just on the author of this article, David Leyonhjelm, and his claims to be a libertarian,. Leyonhjelm used the falsely named Liberal Democrat Party to gain political advantage. He fooled many into voting his way, but came unstuck when exposed as a fraud, he's neither liberal or democratic.

Rhian,

I think you’re right to emphasise how both Hitler and Stalin subordinated the individual to the “group.” That’s the shared authoritarian method Hayek was describing, and it’s a useful reminder.

Where the distinction matters, though, is which group each ideology elevated. For Stalin it was the proletariat, defined in economic terms. For Hitler it was the Aryan Volksgemeinschaft, defined in racial-national terms. Both crushed individual liberty, yes, but in different ideological directions.

That’s why I’m cautious about calling them one category and labeling it “collectivist.” It flattens important differences and drifts back into the oversimplification that “collectivism = left, individualism = right.”

The Nazis weren’t collectivist in the socialist sense; they were collectivist in the racial sense. Calling both simply “collectivist” is like saying a cult and a trade union are the same because they both value loyalty to the group - technically true at a distance, but misleading in substance.

So yes, there’s a family resemblance, but also a real divergence. Both matter if we want clarity.

And to clarify, I wouldn’t call Leyonhjelm “far-right.” Given his anarcho-libertarianism, you’d need the two-dimensional map to place him accurately. The horseshoe works for showing how extremes mirror each other, but it doesn’t capture someone like David, who sits outside that authoritarian arc altogether.