Most Important Reactionary Political Leader of the Twentieth Century?

[Duckelf]

Who do you consider to be the most important reactionary political leader of the twentieth century? By this I mean someone who held back the march of the left (making them reactionary) and who had actual significant political power for at least a time (so no philosophers or political theorists). This thread is mainly a response to the Greatest Hero in Western-European History? thread as I thought that the question was far too broad to be properly answered. Hopefully the topic of this thread will be more clear.

[The Ripper]

Haha, you actually included Mannerheim? His importance for Finland cannot perhaps the over-stated, but.. ;)

[Duckelf]

Haha, you actually included Mannerheim? His importance for Finland cannot perhaps the over-stated, but.. ;)
I included him because I have long admired him.Though I voted for Franco as he probably had more of a universal influence.

[Lars]

I understand the question to mean which reactionary leader had most impact in the 20th century.

Hitler did. :/

(Gustaf Mannerheim did indeed a tremendous job for the Finnish people)

[Duckelf]

I understand the question to mean which reactionary leader had most impact in the 20th century.

Hitler did. :/

(Gustaf Mannerheim did indeed a tremendous job for the Finnish people)
That is not exactly what I meant. I was essentially asking which Reactionary political leader was most successful in halting the march of the left in the twentieth century.

[Vasconcelos]

Mussolini, he was the basis for all autoritharian (fascist or close to it) Western European regimes. Remember he got to power in 1922, that's just 4 years after WWI had ended.

If no Mussolini had existed, odds are Franco, Hitler, Salazar or others wouldn't have anyone to base/inspire themselves in, while climbing to power. In fact we might never had heard of them. Hitler himself was fascinated by Mussolini, until he became a bit of a pain in the back as WW2 closed in.

I'm not saying anyone else wouldn't do it, but possibly not them, and possibly not in the same way.


Also, why not Communist leaders? Stalin was massively important too, more than quite a few of the ones listed here.

[Duckelf]

Also, why not Communist leaders? Stalin was massively important too, more than quite a few of the ones listed here.
Because Stalin was not reactionary.

Also, your post reminded me that I forgot Salazar... Quite a big mistake.

I also can not understand why so many people are voting for Hitler. It is because of him that the right has been defeated.

[antonio]

Agree on Mussolini. But I voted for de Gaulle for being the only one (from the majority I know) which still had a "popular" image among vaste not-much politically-culturized sectors (specially outside France, Frenchie Leftist I bet they regard him as a lighter Franco) which know just the Resistance Antinazi icon.

Another relevant one was your compatriot Salazar, not only for being one of the more educated and skilled (f.e. on practical grounds like Economics) whilst a uncomplexed reactionary, but because of the fact he considered being a colonial power esential part of Portugal life. Curiously, after all the buzz of Socialist Revolution, Democracy, etc...the fact is Portugal is by no means stronger than Estado Novo era, in fact nowadays it's more colonized than colonizator.

[Harcos]

Hitler did. :/

????

He was a progressive socialist revolutionary, not reactionary.


Mussolini,.

???? What the...


Agree on Mussolini.

:confused:


Who do you consider to be the most important reactionary political leader of the twentieth century? By this I mean someone who held back the march of the left (making them reactionary).

.. and yet you don't have Churchill in there?

[Duckelf]

.. and yet you don't have Churchill in there?
No, because I do not think that he could be considered a reactionary, in the sense of having held back the left. Certainly not in the way Franco or Mannerheim did.

[Harcos]

No, because I do not think that he could be considered a reactionary, in the sense of having held back the left. Certainly not in the way Franco or Mannerheim did.

He didn't hold back the National Socialists?

Mannerheim and Franco were indeed reactionaries, but not Adolf Hitler, nor Mussolini.

I don't think you get my point. The National Socialists were LEFTIST. You people are too hung up on the 'far-right' label the allies have shoved down our throats since 1945.

If you define reactionary by fighting the leftists, then you'd also have to include Stalin.

[Duckelf]

He didn't hold back the National Socialists?

Mannerheim and Franco were indeed reactionaries, but not Adolf Hitler, nor Mussolini.

I don't think you get my point. The National Socialists were LEFTIST. You people are too hung up on the 'far-right' label the allies have shoved down our throats since 1945.

If you define reactionary by fighting the leftists, then you'd also have to include Stalin.
:rolleyes2:

[Joe McCarthy]

If 'important' is meant to be successful, then it's easily Franco or Pinochet. Franco especially was a cautious, competent ruler. Salazar gets honorable mention, but the downside is that he ruled over illiterate peasants and made little effort to remedy that. Perhaps that was intentional though, as education breeds discontent.

Hitler though will win any poll he's included in, from history's greatest mustache to best candidate to impersonate in a costume ball.

[Vasconcelos]

Salazar gets honorable mention, but the downside is that he ruled over illiterate peasants and made little effort to remedy that. Perhaps that was intentional though, as education breeds discontent.

It was, he said that an illiterate and ignorant people was easier to control. Everyone could study until the 4th grade, but over that it wasn't really that easy to have access. My father had to move from his little village in the Beira to Lisbon to have access to a proper school and later, University.


He'd be a very good ruler if he had given the right to education ro everyone, he was at least excellent with economics, but all the money was on the hands of only a few.
He also managed to save a ridiculously large amount of gold.

[Troll's Puzzle]

Neither Hitler or Mussolini were reactionaries (although perhaps mussolini worked out that way, due to his failings). Bah gawd! this disrespect nearly makes a hardliner like me want to boycot the poll and throw my toys out the window :bored0: :angryw

instead I voted, and for Franco, because he deserves to win the poll. I would say the 'best' reactionary leaders were:
1) Franco, 2) Thatcher; probably Ronnie Ray gun deserves a mention.

Franco is the reactionary leader par excellence. He had a mustache (this is VITAL). He was able to yoke the energy of the radical right (falange) and resources & ascendant appeal of the radical right leaders (Hitler, Mussolini) when he needed to, and supress the left, who were running out of control in Spain in the 30's. Then, he exausted the radical right by reshuffling it out of existance, and stiffed the Fascists in WWII, saving his own regime and it's enduring respectibility, and stamping his status as a conservative very clearly (Hitler reconised this, when he said that he wished he had supported the reds rather than Franco!!). Then presided over a conservitive, catholic, authoritarian (= uber reactionary)regime for decades. I don't love him but he's better than what came after, I suppose...

#2 Thatcher, because by the criterea of the threadd, 'restraining the left' she deserves a high ranking (although she left a worse legacy then Franco!); Reagan, and Pinochet for that matter (who was propped up by Reagan & Thatcher) were trailing in her wake ideologically.

[Troll's Puzzle]

.. and yet you don't have Churchill in there?

Anthill no way belongs on the poll

he wanted to hold back 'the left', but instead ended up with half of europe under the 'iron curtain'. I dislike using left-right terminology, but the regimes he helped defeat are usually called 'far right'; the benifitting side was the 'far left'. He inadvertantly advanced the forces of Communist Socialism, so is a non starter.

Meanwhile at home, he was voted out of office immediately after WWII and replaced by the dreaded leftie Labour Party, who kicked off the first round of mass immigration, amongst other things.

As a prospective 'reactionary hero who held back the left', he done shite really, innit

[Harcos]

How can more than half of the votes have gone to progressive revolutionary leftists such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in a thread named: Most Important Reactionary Political Leader of the Twentieth Century?

I advice you to edit out those two from the poll, or for a moderator to lock this thread, because this is just ridiculous. Else why don't you just throw in a Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Mao in the poll aswell?


:rolleyes2:

What an intelligent and well-thought reply.


Anthill no way belongs on the poll

he wanted to hold back 'the left', but instead ended up with half of europe under the 'iron curtain'. I dislike using left-right terminology, but the regimes he helped defeat are usually called 'far right'; the benifitting side was the 'far left'. He inadvertantly advanced the forces of Communist Socialism, so is a non starter.

Meanwhile at home, he was voted out of office immediately after WWII and replaced by the dreaded leftie Labour Party, who kicked off the first round of mass immigration, amongst other things.

As a prospective 'reactionary hero who held back the left', he done shite really, innit

We, National Socialist always were and will always be revolutionary, collectivist, socialist and progressive. Yet we are labeled as rightists and reactionaries by the media and the dumb masses of modern society ( obviously includes most people in this thread ).

But why?

As we are not conservatives, reactionaries nor capitalists! We are the opposite! So how can we be reactionaries, and on the right, let alone the 'far-right'?!

I'm in need of a proper, intelligent explanation, because this is just beyond stupid nonsense.

[The Ripper]

Wasn't Hitler that dude who purged the socialist wing out of his party?

To call the NSDAP either "reactionary" or "revolutionary" is to simplify. The NSDAP appealed to several segments, both revolutionary and reactionary, and Hitler was far from the most socialist/revolutionary in the party.

[Vasconcelos]

Insulting people like a little kid will get you far, amirite?
Oh you're 18. Ok.

[Troll's Puzzle]

We, National Socialist always were and will always be revolutionary, collectivist, socialist and progressive. Yet we are labeled as rightists and reactionaries by the media and the dumb masses of modern society ( obviously includes most people in this thread ).

But why?

As we are not conservatives, reactionaries nor capitalists! We are the opposite! So how can we be reactionaries, and on the right, let alone the 'far-right'?!

I'm in need of a proper, intelligent explanation, because this is just beyond stupid nonsense.

Firstly I don't belive in 'left-right' so it's almost pointless for me to try and use it, but Fascists are generally regarded as 'the right' by just about anyone who regards themselves as 'the left' (excluding the small number of nsers/fascists who want to call themselves 'left'!!), and since the only 'value' those terms have is predicated on widley held sentiments, that's frankly all that is needed as far as i'm concerned.
Otherwise, Fascism has features like anti-egalitarianism, elitism, not standing for the abolish of property or being fundamentally anti-market, not being anti family but quite the opposite; etc, etc; to distinguish it from the left of its time, and the also the 'original' left, eg:

The initial cleavage at the time of the French Revolution was between supporters of absolute monarchy (the Right) and those who wished to limit the king's authority (the Left)
Certainly they sound more like the 'right' than the 'left', in that case. ('the leader is always right' :wink)

I agree, though, that they shouldn't be considered as 'reactionaries' in their attitude and ultimate goals.

meanwhile, Hitler didn't think of himself as 'right' or 'left' either; you should probably follow his example and cease and desist with your attempts to brand him as 'left' and just forget those terms altogether

[Harcos]

Wasn't Hitler that dude who purged the socialist wing out of his party?

To call the NSDAP either "reactionary" or "revolutionary" is to simplify. The NSDAP appealed to several segments, both revolutionary and reactionary, and Hitler was far from the most socialist/revolutionary in the party.

The Röhm putsch was a power-struggle between Hitler, and the leading figures of the Sturmabteilung, Röhm, Heines and the Strassers et cetera who opposed the Führer prinzip and supported a more decentralised state, and had nothing to do with any anti-socialist feeling. Röhm had simply too much power of the Sturmabteilung. He was not loyal and was a threat, hence he had to go, else the opposite would of happened and Röhm would of become the Führer, abolished the Heer and replaced it with the Sturmabteilung, much to Hitlers dislike. All top echelon National Socialists were self-proclaimed socialists and through their actions, both pre-Röhm putsch and afterwards.

I'll let them speak for themselves:

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I've always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once." --Adolf Hitler

"We are Socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions. In the future there must be no ranks or classes, and you must not let them begin to grow in you!" --Adolf Hitler

"I'm a German Communist." --Goebbels

"National Socialism is the German Left!" --Goebbels

"My dear citizens! We are living through a National Socialist revolution. We emphasize the term 'socialist' because many speak only of a 'national' revolution. Dubious, but also wrong. It was not only nationalism that led to the breakthrough. We are proud that German socialism also triumphed. Unfortunately, there are still people among us today who emphasize the word 'national' too strongly, and who do not want to know anything about the second part of our worldview, which shows that they have also failed to understand the first part. Those who do not want to recognize a German socialism do not have the right to call themselves national." - Göring

"Once again the hammer will become the symbol of the German worker and the sickle will become the sign of the German farmer." --Hitler


Insulting people like a little kid will get you far, amirite?
Oh you're 18. Ok.

.. so you did not insult me now then, did you?


Certainly they sound more like the 'right' than the 'left', in that case

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

''This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedoom.''

Do those quotes sound leftist to you?

Well they better, because they are written by Engels.

What ultimately determines the Left-Right spectrum is economics and social deeds and aims, the rest have little to no meaning.


not fundamentally anti-market

How? Companies could remain in private hands as long as it complied with the state ordinances. If it failed to meet this agenda it got fully nationalised. Price controls, wage controls, job security, investment controls, production quotas and trade was directed by the state.

All economy was directed by the state!

Now lets have a look.

A free market is when the state doesn't direct the economy of the enterprise.
A planned economy is when the state directs the economy.

NS Germany was the latter.


Fascists are generally regarded as 'the right' by just about anyone who regards themselves as 'the left'

There is no hatred like fraternal hatred. Why did Trotskyites oppose Leninists, why was there a Sino-Soviet split? They were all equally leftist, in their own way, eventhough it wasn't fully acknowledged by their opponents.

[Brynhild]

How can more than half of the votes have gone to progressive revolutionary leftists such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in a thread named: Most Important Reactionary Political Leader of the Twentieth Century?

First of all, who gives you the right to determine another person's opinion?


I advice you to edit out those two from the poll, or for a moderator to lock this thread, because this is just ridiculous. Else why don't you just throw in a Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Mao in the poll aswell?

That, to me, is a rather totalitarian demand to silence everybody who disagrees with you. And we know how that idealism has panned out. :rolleyes2:

[Vasconcelos]

.. so you did not insult me now then, did you?

No,I called you a kid, which you are. If you're offended by it, well..

[Troll's Puzzle]

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

''This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedoom.''

Do those quotes sound leftist to you?

Well they better, because they are written by Engels.



I don't give a fuck who said them, or how you think they should sound to me

quotes like that are a dime-a-dozen amongst 'rightists' and 'reactionaries' as well; probably much more common, actually. What point are you trying to make? there is one, yes? (since engel's desire to annex parts of France has nothing to do with my post, nor does it counter any of my unanswered points regarding why fascism might be regarded as 'right' by peiople who use taht term?)


What ultimately determines the Left-Right spectrum is economics and social deeds and aims, the rest have little to no meaning.

I'm glad we have an expert here to put this vexed question away once and for all :D

although once you remove "economics ' and the extremely nebulous-sounding 'social deeds and aims', I do wonder what of politics might be left at all anyway :icon_ask:


How? Companies could remain in private hands as long as it complied with the state ordinances. If it failed to meet this agenda it got fully nationalised. Price controls, wage controls, job security, investment controls, production quotas and trade was directed by the state.

All economy was directed by the state!

no, not "all the economy" was not directed by the state

& even america was fiddling with price and rent controls as recently as the late 70s
many western countries had industries under national control, amongst other things, and it was only the 80's that 'free market' ideology and privitisation really got in full swing, at least here.
and developing asian countries had many of those too (in particular, investment controls and job security). But they were all 'market economies'


Now lets have a look.

A free market is when the state doesn't direct the economy of the enterprise.
A planned economy is when the state directs the economy.

NS Germany was the latter.

this is good, I can't wait until you find out about 'mixed economies' so we can add a further dimension to your penetrating in depth analysis :D


There is no hatred like fraternal hatred. Why did Trotskyites oppose Leninists, why was there a Sino-Soviet split? They were all equally leftist, in their own way, eventhough it wasn't fully acknowledged by their opponents.

I can't be bothered anymore although it's worth remarking in passing that Hitler's admiration for the British Empire and american frontier history, and utter hatred of bolshevism makes him a very strange 'brother' of the communists :D
also that to mention that 'anti-communism' was a prime reason for many of the people who joined the fascists, and fascism was anti-'class war', while communism/marxism are all about the class war

[Harcos]

First of all, who gives you the right to determine another person's opinion?

They were self-proclaimed progressives, so if you want to blame anyone, then blame them. Even if I would determine them as non-reactionaries without any proof, then what gives you lot the right to determine them as reactionaries? All persons in the poll have been determined as reactionaries by the person who created this thread and further by those who vote for them, so how does that make it any different? Double-standards?


That, to me, is a rather totalitarian demand to silence everybody who disagrees with you.

Well perhaps because I am totalitarian, but not so surprisignly you democrats aren't much different.


And we know how that idealism has panned out. :rolleyes2

Yes, because democracy turned out to be great.


No,I called you a kid, which you are. If you're offended by it, well..

As I'm officialy an adult, and labour like any other adult, then yes I'm offended.

[Osweo]

Because Stalin was not reactionary.
Ah but he was, in his way, and Russia is better off for it.

If you define reactionary by fighting the leftists, then you'd also have to include Stalin.
If we understand 'leftists' as those who want to utterly dismantle tradition, the family, national icons and even national sentiment altogether then this is quite correct. Stalin threw the radicals into the meat grinder that they'd built themselves, and got back to a rough and ready sort of Tsardom. Because of that, the Russians enter the 21st Century with more in common with their 19th Century predecessors than can be said for the English or Germans or whoever. The point of 'Reaction', is to curb destabilising radical forces. Stamping radicalism down so that it springs up again all the MORE powerful cannot qualify.

Therefore, the Georgian wins. ;)

[Breedingvariety]

A free market is when the state doesn't direct the economy of the enterprise.
A planned economy is when the state directs the economy.
There are no free markets in the world right now. Just a notice.

[Harcos]

I don't give a fuck who said them, or how you think they should sound to me

quotes like that are a dime-a-dozen amongst 'rightists' and 'reactionaries' as well; probably much more common, actually. What point are you trying to make? there is one, yes? (since engel's desire to annex parts of France has nothing to do with my post, nor does it counter any of my unanswered points regarding why fascism might be regarded as 'right' by peiople who use taht term?)

Exactly, that is my point. It doesn't matter how people 'sound'. Those quotes might aswell have been Adolf Hitlers, if I said they were then you'd have called him a rightist reactionary, but when I say they were of Engels then you start excusing yourself.

Fascism is not right wing. If you see nationalism and traditions as 'rightist' then you must include Engels too, or Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il et c.

I've already explained why Fascism isn't rightist in another thread, and I don't like repeating myself, but since it seems necessary..

The Fascists could not have been rightist, in the modern conservative/reactionary sense, as it, like National Socialism, opposed reactionary monarchism and conservative Catholicism, and its will to build up a new social order, while gloryfying revolution ( March on Rome ) et c.

The 1919 Fascist election manifesto, for example, contained policies of worker control of industry, confiscation of war profits, abolition of the stock exchange, land for the peasants and abolition of the Monarchy and nobility.

Mussolini centralised the control of the industry, and declared it a corporatist state, which itself could be seen as syndicalist. This state ensured social justice and gave the workers substantial control of industry. There was also big expansion of public works and a great improvement in social insurance measures. He set up a worker organisation, much like the Strenght through Joy organisation of the National Socialist German Labour Union, which gave workers advantages they never before had. He also combated public health disorders with great efficiency, and set up big welfare organisations.

Mussolini was also a prominent Marxist theoretician and was part of of Italys Marxist party, and because of him, Italy had in the 30s arguably the most comprehensive welfare state in the world. He also justified continued private enterprise on Marxist grounds ( there must be capitalism before there can be communism et c. ).

It should also be noted that what later came to be known as Fascism was in fact essentially the same as what was known as Progressivism prior to WW2.

British Fascism also took a great stand against Reaction, as can be heard loud and clear by their party anthem, Comrades The Voices: Against vested powers, Red Front, and massed ranks of reaction

Which itself is a vague translation of the German Die Fahne Hoch, and is played at the same tune: Comrades shot by the Red front and reactionaries March in spirit in our ranks.


I'm glad we have an expert here to put this vexed question away once and for all

although once you remove "economics ' and the extremely nebulous-sounding 'social deeds and aims', I do wonder what of politics might be left at all anyway

There is still the notion of internationalism vs nationalism, democracy or anarchy vs totalitarianism, multiculturalism and heterogeniety vs homogeniety, materialism vs sprituality, et c. left. People associate the left with the former, and the right with the latter, while completely ignoring that that would make most so-called Communist nations rightist aswell.

What defines the left-right spectrum is down to economics and social values, ie collectivism vs individualism, progression vs conservatism, revolution vs reaction, nationalisation vs privatisation, socialism vs capitalism.. National Socialist Germany was undeniably to the left of all these.


no, not "all the economy" was not directed by the state

this is good, I can't wait until you find out about 'mixed economies' so we can add a further dimension to your penetrating in depth analysis

All enterprise was owned and controled by the state, except in name only. That was the only way to keep capitalists in work and service for the Reich.

It was not a 'mixed economy', as all economy, trade et c. was owned and regulated by the state!

"All production activities were directed by the Reich-Ministry of Economics. No enterprise was free to deviate in the conduct of its operation from the orders issued by the government." --Ludwig von Mises, on NS German economy.


I can't be bothered anymore although it's worth remarking in passing that Hitler's admiration for the British Empire and american frontier history, and utter hatred of bolshevism makes him a very strange 'brother' of the communists
also that to mention that 'anti-communism' was a prime reason for many of the people who joined the fascists, and fascism was anti-'class war', while communism/marxism are all about the class war

He did not have utter hatred for Bolshevism. The socialist states of Germany and the Soviet Union were initially allies ( The fuel in the German Panzer as they rolled in to France was Soviet fuel! ) untill the Soviets' imperial ambitions threatened the interest of Germany, ie the liquidation of the Baltic states, and it's quest to further liquidate Finland, Romania, and Bulgaria. Adolf Hitler was convinced that the Soviets would strike at Germany at some point, and decided to take the initiative. As the Führer explained hismelf, ''When i see the enemy levering his rifle at me I am not going to wait till he presses the trigger. I would rather be the first to press the trigger!''

Artur Axmann, the NS youth leader, recalling a conversation with Goebbels in the Hitler bunker on Tuesday, May 1, 1945, said:

"Goebbels stood up to greet me. He soon launched into lively memories of our old street-fighting days in Berlin-Wedding, from nineteen twenty-eight to thirty-three. He recalled how we had clobbered the Berlin Communists and the Socialists into submission, to the tune of the "Horst Wessel" marching song, on their old home ground.

He said one of the great accomplishments of the Hitler regime had been to win the German workers over almost totally to the national cause. We had made patriots of the workers, he said, as the Kaiser had dismally failed to do. This, he kept repeating, had been one of the real triumphs of the movement. We Nazis were a non-Marxist yet revolutionary party, anticapitalist, antibourgeois, antireactionary....

Starch-collared men like Chancellor Heinrich Bruening had called us the "Brown Bolsheviks," and their bourgeois instincts were not wrong. ''

Yes, Fascism and National Socialism is anti-class war. That's primarily where we differ from Marxism, we reject its class-war tendencies and internationalism. Marxism is basically the capitalism of the working-class.

In National Socialism, all citizens - peasants, workers and intellectuals unite for a pure and healthy society!

Both Marxism and National Socialism seeks forth to liberate the proletariat from the chains of capitalist slavery but with significantly different methods. Marxists preach about class-war, whereas Hitler wanted to abolish social classes and root out class-consciousness and unite the entire folk. Hence the slogan: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer!

[Eldritch]

Haha, you actually included Mannerheim? His importance for Finland cannot perhaps the over-stated, but.. ;)

I would actually count Mannerheim as a serious contender, on that list and given the parameters set by the OP.

Admittedly, I don't think I know enough of the biographical details/life achievements of all the hard-asses on the list.

[Peasant]

On Hitler being a 'Lefty':


In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.
http://www.rense.com/general77/Hitlersmm.html

EDIT: Now I see that Rense.com is a bit of a conspiracy site. But simmilar things are written in other books.

A source from good old wikipedia:


Because he could not safely discard the National Socialist Program of the Nazi Party — without provoking voter mutinies — Adolf Hitler, by force of personality, definitively closed all such ideologic discussion.[11]

[11] Henry A. Turner, German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Oxford University Press, 1985. p. 82.

[Joe McCarthy]

Anthill no way belongs on the poll

he wanted to hold back 'the left', but instead ended up with half of europe under the 'iron curtain'. I dislike using left-right terminology, but the regimes he helped defeat are usually called 'far right'; the benifitting side was the 'far left'. He inadvertantly advanced the forces of Communist Socialism, so is a non starter.


Without Churchill's intervention during WW2 France would likely have fallen to Communism. FDR, in his usual myopic view of reds, wanted to back the French Communist Party and sideline de Gaulle. Churchill can be thanked for frustrating this idiotic scheme.


Ah but he was, in his way, and Russia is better off for it.

If we understand 'leftists' as those who want to utterly dismantle tradition, the family, national icons and even national sentiment altogether then this is quite correct. Stalin threw the radicals into the meat grinder that they'd built themselves, and got back to a rough and ready sort of Tsardom. Because of that, the Russians enter the 21st Century with more in common with their 19th Century predecessors than can be said for the English or Germans or whoever. The point of 'Reaction', is to curb destabilising radical forces. Stamping radicalism down so that it springs up again all the MORE powerful cannot qualify.

Therefore, the Georgian wins. ;)

You should study Stalin a mite closer, mate. It's true he wasn't as radical as the Left Opposition, but this guy bulldozed churches, destroyed Russian religious symbols, and did more than any single man to annihilate Orthodoxy. That Russia is now a nation of atheists is due primarily to his efforts.

[antonio]

Stalin treated Orthodox church -at least the part not accepting his supreme authority(same way Chistian kings like Henry VIII did)- not worse than he treated deviationism inside PCUS/SUCP, ethnic minorities, etc...so, at least, he was not a furibund atheist, in fact probably it was not even atheist at heart but simply an strict orthodox follower of Marxism-Leninism...he even becomes iconized at some churches today. :D

Pd. I must confess since infance I had certain sympathies (dont ask me why) for this Georgian dude.


It was, he said that an illiterate and ignorant people was easier to control. Everyone could study until the 4th grade, but over that it wasn't really that easy to have access.


OK, but at Spain we're currently at opposite extreme, here there're a big lack of blue-collar workers due to the fact that aprox. 50% of youth are graduated and (maybe a Spanish singularity) with no will at all to being underemployed, lack which is being covered by mainly unproffesional, dumb, dirt...third world inmigrants. How nice!



My father had to move from his little village in the Beira to Lisbon to have access to a proper school and later, University.
He'd be a very good ruler if he had given the right to education ro everyone, .

I saw a certain contradiction in it: your father was worth a proper higher education...and finally get it, no matter the lack of policies supporting access to it: for me plain socialdemocratic bullshit (at least in most cases). In fact I can add samples from my family which reinforces my stand: I have a grandgrandgrandfather which was serving in a richer house from early years till they noticed he got talent and decided to finance his Medicine studies. Obviously I had also counterexamples, but at that time, maybe were not clear like some decades after the advantages of a higher education.

Ps. And you know Salazar himself raised from a humble family, so he known very well it was possible.

[Joe McCarthy]

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


As for the Russian Orthodox Church, Soviet authorities sought to control it and, in times of national crisis, to exploit it for the regime's own purposes; but their ultimate goal was to eliminate it. During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled. Believers were harassed and persecuted. Most seminaries were closed, and publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 in existence prior to World War I.



It was Soviet policy to eliminate religion, and Stalin's regime promoted atheism in Soviet schools.

[antonio]

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



It was Soviet policy to eliminate religion, and Stalin's regime promoted atheism in Soviet schools.


But you're talking mainly about Lenin(died at mid 20's) time: i bet Lenin was a more hardliner guy than Stalin about Christian religion...for not to talk about Jewish-born Trotsky.

[Groenewolf]

Alto all the names in this list can be considered reactionary in parts of their policies (some more then others), the most reactionary is the only non-European (or of such decent) in this list.


But you're talking mainly about Lenin(died at mid 20's) time: i bet Lenin was a more hardliner guy than Stalin about Christian religion...for not to talk about Jewish-born Trotsky.

Stalin most likely was a bit softer on the issue because most people where not so willing to fight and die for communism.

[Brynhild]

They were self-proclaimed progressives, so if you want to blame anyone, then blame them. Even if I would determine them as non-reactionaries without any proof, then what gives you lot the right to determine them as reactionaries? All persons in the poll have been determined as reactionaries by the person who created this thread and further by those who vote for them, so how does that make it any different? Double-standards?

Opinions are like arseholes - everybody has one.


Well perhaps because I am totalitarian, but not so surprisignly you democrats aren't much different.

Well, I'm not a totalitarian, and I don't dictate the terms of how other people should exist to anyone. Nor am I a democrat, and it was presumptious of you to say so.


Yes, because democracy turned out to be great.

A damn sight better than any dictatorship demanding me to do as I'm told.


As I'm officialy an adult, and labour like any other adult, then yes I'm offended.

You haven't earned your adult stripes yet, and you have a long way before you can ever say you can.

[Harcos]

Opinions are like arseholes - everybody has one.

Sure, but why do you chose to attack me for mine, and not the others, who determine them as reactionary, and who outnumber me 10 to 1? Bias.


Well, I'm not a totalitarian, and I don't dictate the terms of how other people should exist to anyone. Nor am I a democrat, and it was presumptious of you to say so.

Judging from your comment you seem like a typical democrat.

If you don't wan't to dictate other people, then why do you attack me, and my views, if you hold on to the belief that I have the right to have them?

Again, typical democrat.


A damn sight better than any dictatorship demanding me to do as I'm told.

Isn't democracy doing the exact same thing, demanding us to live in this decadent society? I don't want to live in a democracy, yet it is imposed on me! I am dictated to live in this society. Hypocrite.


You haven't earned your adult stripes yet, and you have a long way before you can ever say you can

Why is that? Care to elaborate?

[Troll's Puzzle]

Exactly, that is my point. It doesn't matter how people 'sound'. Those quotes might aswell have been Adolf Hitlers, if I said they were then you'd have called him a rightist reactionary, but when I say they were of Engels then you start excusing yourself.

Fascism is not right wing. If you see nationalism and traditions as 'rightist' then you must include Engels too, or Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Kim Jong-Il et c.

I've already explained why Fascism isn't rightist in another thread, and I don't like repeating myself, but since it seems necessary..

and i've already told you that I don't seek to use these terms myself, and don't think of fascism as right or left, and neither did several important fascists, including hitler. are you comprehending or just ranting? never mind, to make it clearer i will preface all references to 'right' and 'left' with 'so called...' to make clearer my feelings on this issue


The Fascists could not have been rightist, in the modern conservative/reactionary sense, as it, like National Socialism, opposed reactionary monarchism and conservative Catholicism, and its will to build up a new social order, while gloryfying revolution ( March on Rome ) et c.

yes, fascism was revolutionary, not reactionary. However, it had elements of what is regarded as 'rightism', as well as 'leftism'; in fact it's a good case study of why not to use the terms left and right (something key fascist leaders seemed to recognise, as I said again), as they are grotesquely oversimplistic and lead to dumbness (as epitomised by the american so-called 'right' calling obama a 'fascist' and drawing pics of him looking like hitler, because he's doing 'left wing' things).


Mussolini was also a prominent Marxist theoretician and was part of of Italys Marxist party, and because of him, Italy had in the 30s arguably the most comprehensive welfare state in the world. He also justified continued private enterprise on Marxist grounds ( there must be capitalism before there can be communism et c. ).

The intellectuals of fascism were post-marxist and rejected marxism. Some were involved in younger years but they developed intelectually; Mussolini declared marxism was 'dead'; Marinetti and Vecchi burned down the office of Avanti! (the major socialist newspaper), squadristas went around beating up commies, and the Fascist party thwarted a brewing attempt at a general strike (a favorite contemporary tactic of the so-called 'left') and set about crushing the antinational socialists, the so-called 'left'.

did mussolini explicitly justify private enterprise on marxist ground? can you show me where? i'm curious, I can't belive it, unless it was during his marxist days, in any case, justifying private enterprise on 'marxist grounds' seems impossible in itself (unless he was only saying that to try and win over dumb 'reds')

it reads to me like you're getting most of this from anti-fa works by the american so-called 'right' (you've quoted mieses later), eg. that shit 'liberal fascists' book by a capitalist american j00 of the so-called 'right', and who like to 'big up' the 'marxist'/so called 'leftist' heritage of it to distance themselves from it, and to foist the term 'fascism' (which is nothing more than an insult today) onto their opponents instead ( i get this idea because you follow the ridiculus idea that Fascism and Communism's mutual hatred is 'fraternal!!!!!'). For a counterbalancing view of fascist intellectual development, I suggest AJ Gregor's excellent book 'Mussolini's Intellectuals'

It's worth mentioning the influence of Vilfredo Pareto on Mussolini during this change. Pareto was an important economist and sociologist (the term 'pareto efficiency' is still used in modern articles/books on economics). Pareto was definitely pro-market and pro-free trade, and an early proponent of the kind of walrasian equilibria theories that have become the bane of economics ever since. Mussolini attended Pareto's lectures and said that he was a key figure in his transformation away from Marxism.
Pareto's famous 'Elitist' sociology is also worth mentioning as an obvious influence on Mussolini, Fascism, and as a point of key difference to the egalitarianism of Marxism and socialism.

Usually, it's members of the so called 'right' (in the american sense) who like to point out Musso's 'marxist' credentials, to try and push him away from themselves and identify him as a member of the so called 'left' (which is bad, in their opinion); likewise, the so called 'left' likes to hype up the so called 'right wing' parts of fascism to slur their enemies (eg Bush), and push it away from themselves


British Fascism also took a great stand against Reaction, as can be heard loud and clear by their party anthem, Comrades The Voices: Against vested powers, Red Front, and massed ranks of reaction

Mosley was pro-monarcy, however, at least in slogan - unfortunately (he's by far my fav. fascist leader otherwise) (Mussolini ended up this way too; he failed to enact just about any of those 'progressive' reforms you mentioned; again, perceptive man that he was, Hitler recognised this failing of italian fascism to achieve it's goals, and said that if they had allowed 'reds' - ie the so-called 'left', to run wild and depose the king first - then stage the fascist fightback and take over an italy with no king and pope - they would have been better off).


There is still the notion of internationalism vs nationalism, democracy or anarchy vs totalitarianism, multiculturalism and heterogeniety vs homogeniety, materialism vs sprituality, et c. left. People associate the left with the former, and the right with the latter, while completely ignoring that that would make most so-called Communist nations rightist aswell.

all the more reason to abandon useless 'left-right' binary football fan style classification then, and compare movements/ideologies as they stand on those and other 'notions', and judge them as they stand on this or that, rather than whether they are so called 'right' or so called 'left'.


All enterprise was owned and controled by the state, except in name only. That was the only way to keep capitalists in work and service for the Reich.

It was not a 'mixed economy', as all economy, trade et c. was owned and regulated by the state!

"All production activities were directed by the Reich-Ministry of Economics. No enterprise was free to deviate in the conduct of its operation from the orders issued by the government." --Ludwig von Mises, on NS German economy.

Mises was an extremist capitalist j00, whose followers usually are strongly so-called 'right' wingers who want to push fascism as a so called 'left', socialist movement, because they hate it and hate to it being seen as 'right' when it's so different to what they belive.

Likewise, Trotsky, Gramasci, etc... were extremist communist j00z who wrote against fascism calling it a force of reactionary capitalism etc, etc.

the bottom line is it is not true that all economic activity was centerally planned in NS germany, as it was in the USSR. However, more came under state control as time went by, because Hitler was planning for war, not because he was ideologically against private enterprise.

There is nothing that necessitates complete state control of the economy in Fascism (unlike communism/marxism, with it's extreme economic determinism), and in the case of NS germany - Hitler made various statements, sometimes in favour of private enterprise, sometimes in favour of more state control. It wasn't until Goring took over from Schacht as govt. economist, with a mandate to build the country for war, that the state gradually became all-important and encompassing economically. In other words, it was a means to an end. Allied states also took increased state control with the means to the end of fighting the war.

fortunately I can quote from wiki for more specific details

During the 1936 economic crisis, the German government was divided into two fractions with one (the so-called "free market" fraction) centering around the Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht and the Price Commissioner Dr. Carl Friedrich Goerdeler calling for decreased military spending and a turn away from autarkic policies, and another fraction around Göring calling for the opposite. Hitler hesitated for the first half of 1936 before siding with the more radical fraction in his "Four Year Plan" memo of August.[27] Historians such as Richard Overy have argued that the importance of the memo, which was written personally by Hitler, can be gauged by the fact that Hitler, who had something of a phobia about writing, hardly ever wrote anything down, which indicates that Hitler had something especially important to say.[28] The "Four-Year Plan Memorandum" predicated an imminent all-out, apocalyptic struggle between "Judo-Bolshevism" and German National Socialism, which necessitated a total effort at rearmament regardless of the economic costs.

the fundimental point is, for hitler, and for fascism in general, there is no need for the economy to be soley for the market (as in lassez-faire), or soley ruled by the state (as in communism).
The good of the state (and hence the nation) can be served by whatever means at whatever time


He did not have utter hatred for Bolshevism. The socialist states of Germany and the Soviet Union were initially allies ( The fuel in the German Panzer as they rolled in to France was Soviet fuel! ) untill the Soviets' imperial ambitions threatened the interest of Germany, ie the liquidation of the Baltic states, and it's quest to further liquidate Finland, Romania, and Bulgaria. Adolf Hitler was convinced that the Soviets would strike at Germany at some point, and decided to take the initiative. As the Führer explained hismelf, ''When i see the enemy levering his rifle at me I am not going to wait till he presses the trigger. I would rather be the first to press the trigger!''

Hitler consistantly demonstrated an antipathy to the USSR and desire to invade it since long before he was in power. The fact that soviets were 'allies' when france was invaded was just a temporary political convenience, not the long term goal (which for Hitler, had always been lebensrelm in the east and the defeat of communism)



Yes, Fascism and National Socialism is anti-class war. That's primarily where we differ from Marxism, we reject its class-war tendencies and internationalism. Marxism is basically the capitalism of the working-class.

once again, in marxism and communism the class war is fundamental to the world view. this 'sole point of difference' represents a massive difference in philosophy and system.
Part of what makes marxist 'intellectuals' and 'historians' so dumb is the fact that they cannot see or accept anything other than class interest as of importance.

it's facile to call Marxism 'capitalism for the working class'. The aim is not merely to apporiate the capital of the capitalists and transfer it and its profits to the working class, but to abolish private property altogether. This means the forming of a radically different kind of society, not just one in which the property and profits of one class is passed to another.


In National Socialism, all citizens - peasants, workers and intellectuals unite for a pure and healthy society!

Both Marxism and National Socialism seeks forth to liberate the proletariat from the chains of capitalist slavery but with significantly different methods. Marxists preach about class-war, whereas Hitler wanted to abolish social classes and root out class-consciousness and unite the entire folk. Hence the slogan: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer!

yes, class harmony is a good thing, class war is treason. I would just add also 'men and women' :thumb001:(I won't add 'gay or straight' for controversy reasons, although I feel that way about that issue as well ;)).

and yes, marxism and fascism both seek a 'different' path to capitalism. However, we shouldn't lose sight that both aim for different ends, as well as different means.

[Grumpy Cat]

From a purely historical standpoint, Hitler.

Don't really have much to expand on what's already been said.

[Radola]

I voted for Pilsudski. The reason is simply: He stopped the "Communistic flood" which was threatening at least a huge part of Europe. And the reason number two is: He isn´t well known. Not as much as he deserves.
Without Pilsudski in the poll, I would vote for Franco. One of the smartest leaders of the twentieth century, if not the smartest.