Was Hitler a liberal?

What do you think?

There is a book I saw at the library called Hitler’s Philosophers. Anyone have an opinion??

Ofcourse Hitler wasn’t a liberal. And neither are all philosophers liberals.

If we take the definition of liberal as one who promotes the cause of liberty (freedom), I think Hitler was not a liberal.

No, not a liberal. Sometimes simplifying things down to a binary spectrum, just left and right, is insufficient. Hitler was in some senses leftist economically. But liberalism, classically, is the types of values embodied in the American Declaration of Independence, based on inalienable, individual rights, including property rights, the equality of all men, etc . . . Modern liberalism has emphasized equality, particularly in the economic sphere, but still holds to the idea of inalienable rights and such, even even a stress on certain liberties. Classical liberals might find some of it abhorrent, but it still has its roots in liberal ideaology with influences from socialist ideology. It still tends to be very pro-business interests, though.

Hitler certainly wasn’t a liberal. He did believe in an hierarchal society but also with socialist economic policies for “true” nationals and citizens. “Protect our own.” Extreme nationalism.

Today’s definition of a liberal,while couched in promoting freedom for any and all social causes de jour,actually inhibits the freedoms we know as given to us by our Creator.

No. Fascism is ultra-conservative on the US political spectrum. Much like how communism is ultra-liberal.

My belief is that the political spectrum is circular, so that if you move too far in one direction you end up on the other end.

The Nazis called themselves National Socialists, which technically puts them in the liberal camp.

Socialists in America often think like Nazis, wanting to control every aspect of our lives.

But I think it is not useful to approach Hitler as either liberal or reactionary.

He was simply off-the-charts insane. :shrug:

Socialism and liberalism are two completely different things. They definitely were not in the liberal camp.

As for the name National Socialism, which reflects the very real socialist elements that were a part of early Nazism, it is worth noting that Hitler stripped these socialist elements from having any real influence once he came into power.So, by the time Nazis were ruling, they were really all about the nationalism and not socialist.

Yes, I know. I stubbornly go back to the root of the word. I also wonder what, if anything, conservatives are conserving. Certainly not natural resources or the environment! :wink:

Socialism wants control of our lives. It did so in Nazi Germany and it does so today in America. Don’t kid yourself that liberals are not in the socialist camp and don’t want complete control of the economy.

Hillary just today offered college students free tuition.

How socialist is that?

Hitler also wanted complete control of the schools.

I certainly wouldn’t call Hillary a nationalist or a conservative.

She is off-the-charts liberal and socialist.

See Hillary’s America.

In fairness, even right-wing parties in Europe offer free college tuition when the economy allows it. It’s not very socialist at all. Right-wing parties in Europe also support free healthcare. It might be very new to Americans, but if you step back and put it in perspective, it’s really not socialist.

Like, you do realise that it is far far cheaper for a US citizen to come over to Europe and pay full international fees than to go to college in the US? In Ireland as well, private health insurance is a fraction of the cost of the US AND we pay less excess when we get treated privately (public treatment is free, but waiting lists are long). I know you guys have the free market and dislike government involvement, but you guys then seem to end up paying far far more than you would in another country.

I guess I don’t really understand turning one’s nose up at getting something back from your taxes, especially when you are being overcharged to the nth degree.

Sneer away at the American system. We saved you several times before and will probably have to do it again.

Liberalism is about social freedom, economic freedom and small government, whereas socialism is about elevating the working classes, a regulated economy and big government. This is oversimplified ofcourse, but it’s generally true. The idea that liberals want complete control of the economy or other people’s lives is simply false.

I think the distinction between socialists, conservatives and liberals is a bit blurry in the USA, because it’s a country with just two political parties. But if you look at the largest parties in the European parliament, you’ll see a completely different picture:

1: EPP (Christian Democrats) (215 seats)
2: S&D (Social Democrats) (189 seats)
3: ECR (Conservatives) (74 seats)
4: ALDE (Liberals) (70 seats)

Each political ideology has its own political party.

:confused:
I didn’t notice any sneering.

Ah, I see. You are able to equate liberalism and socialism through a process whereby you break asunder the bonds of prescriptive meaning in order to assume control of managing the denotation of words. It is a fascinating thing when the hoi polloi rise up in revolution to cease control of the means of production of linguistic capital from the bourgeois scholars that produce dictionaries.

As a conservative I am not amused by you rejection of your place and your attempt to recklessly redistribute the linguistic authority of society. Expertise has its value and should not be disregarded, lest we descend into an abyss of anti-intellectual chaos.

Conserving in the sense of the political rhelm, means conserving out constitutional rights.Pretty sure you know that.:rolleyes:

No sneering, just offering my perspective. I’m not aware of how your country’s decision to charge large amounts of money for healthcare and education are related to any international policies that would have allowed you to “save” us, nor am I aware of any instances of Ireland being “saved” by America.

Regardless, it is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that I think your people are hard-done by and giving people back a little of what they give to the country does not equate to socialism.

Yes.

Hitler was not liberal in the classic sense of the word in allowing for other points of view as a priority.

But then many self defined liberals of today are not classic liberals either.

Hitler was socialist, not just in name but in the sense of being a western power that was anti Christian, thrived on victim politics and sought to solve all problems through an all powerful and secular authoritarian state.

The Nazi state tried very hard to have absolute control of universal medicine, morals, religion, education, social groups, business (through nationalisation and government regulation), guns/weapons, trade labour movements etc etc and sought to remove all non Nazi state groups from these areas by state dictate and if needed by state violence.

I still have enough respect for the word ‘liberal’ to not ascribe it to Hitler. But he was definitely socialist and despite the recent control of western universities by leftist academics telling us different, he was definitely on the far left of politics.

The focus on the rich German Jews not contributing to society and how the state had a right to take their wealth is the corresponding idea today of the rich, greedy 1% that needs to be taxed heavily to make a socialist utopia…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.