Rjan:
I accept that a tendency toward “social engineering” (actually, political and economic transformation of a progressive nature) is more characteristic of left-wing leaders - that’s why I say Stalin and Mao can be fairly described as left-wing, because their agenda was transformative.I don’t accept that an abhorrence of nationalism defines the left at all. Stalin argued for “socialism in one country”, Mao for “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. Castro was himself a national revolutionary who was happy to adopt a socialist agenda, once it became apparent which superpower’s side his bread would be buttered on, and when it became apparent what effects economic sanctions would have on the Cuban economy. Tony Benn was strongly socialist but had significant nationalist sympathies.
As for the Nazis, they were clearly nationalist - the fact that they were expansionary and imperialist does not mean they wished to see the German nation dissolve, nor does war against and conquest of other nations characterise them as “internationalists”. What the Nazis lacked was any concept of socialism - they were strongly anti-Marxist and thoroughly illiberal, and it is this that characterises them as far-right.
You say I “airbrushed the socialist part of the title”, but of course I did completely the opposite and tackled it head on, you silly person!
I am suggesting Hitler resisted and merely tolerated the word “socialist” in the title, because he is on record as such.
I also accept that “worker” was part of the title, but that is not inconsistent with the fact that Hitler was working class, and a decorated war hero to boot, and his organisation was a grassroots one. But so are gangsters and mafiosi - the mere fact that someone is working class does not make them a socialist, or make them sympathetic to the working class in general. Many working class people are quite content with the structure of society, and simply feel that the roles within it have been improperly distributed (and they want to join the ranks of the exploiters) or that the incumbent elite are incompetent or corrupt on account of their personal bad character or disloyalty. A war hero like Hitler could quite reasonably have taken that latter view in the 1920s. Hitler’s agenda was not to overhaul or transform Germany society, but to restore it’s former prestige and autonomy - the very things he’d valorously risked his life to defend in WW1.
Hitler also supported zionism and the creation of a Jewish nation (this is what Ken Livingstone got into trouble for saying), not because of any sympathy with or support for Jews, but as a rational way of removing Jews from German society, and perfectly consistently with his nationalist outlook. His racist and pro-Aryan views were not radical in the day, but simply taking common sense to it’s logical conclusion. It’s not unheard of even nowadays to hear people casually expressing the view that the poor are breeding rather too much, and that elements of society have bad character on account of their breeding rather than their rearing. Nor is it uncommon to hear, amongst the far-right, that Muslims are breeding rather too much, or that the country is “full” and facing a Malthusian crisis.
As for your same old bs that nationalist means fascist that would by definition obviously have to apply to Michael Collins too. In which case it’s clear that Nationalist means centre and Hitler was of the far left just like Stalin.With Hitler having used the Nationalist logo as an electoral trick.Just like Corbyn is using the Labour one to impose a far left Socalist agenda and Sturgeon is using the Nationalist one to impose her Socialist agenda and the DDR called themselves ‘democrats’.Also followed by the LibDems calling themselves ‘democrats’ while,like Sturgeon,also standing for the EUSSR federal dictatorship.
Nationalist does not necessarily mean “fascist” - it would depend on the context whether they are being conflated. As I say, Castro was a nationalist much more than he was a socialist - a nationalist revolutionary leader - but he was not a fascist. By all accounts he was pretty moderate in ideological terms, until he was forced to lurch to the left and forge an alliance with the Soviets, by the behaviour of the Americans.
Generally speaking, nationalists are more likely to be fascists if they are in control of what are already the strongest nation-states of the world, whereas nationalists in weaker nations tend to be left-wing resistance or transformative movements (i.e. tend to be resisting other colonial or imperial nations, or attempting to build up a strong central state and national identity for the first time). In Stalin and Mao’s cases, industrial development and proletarianisation was their primary agenda, in order to bring forward their economic capacity.
The SNP is a centre-left party (it was originally a centre-right party), whose popular support is defined mainly by their resistance to the Tories and Blairites at Westminster.
I don’t have much to say on the rest of your post that I have cut, except to say I reject its analysis, mostly.
Firstly the definition and very idea of a Third Reich/Greater German Reich and the first steps in it’s creation ( ironically,unlike the bs establishment script,that being firstly all about the takeover of western Europe ) in the form of the puppet regimes such as Vichy France and Hitler’s plan to install Edward V111 as head of the UK one in that regard ) proves that Hitler was no Nationalist.He wanted a centralised German dominated European Federation of subservient non sovereign puppet states without National borders similar to the EU.
While Stalin,like Lenin,was all about the expansionist and similarly anti nation state idea of the Soviet Union certainly not limiting the Soviet Socialist takeover of government to just Russia.IE it’s what Socialists do they can’t help themselves because they are ideologically programmed towards Borg like one size fits all centralised government with you also clearly having nailed your colours to that typical Socialist anti Nation state agenda.
As for Benn yes,like Shore and Hoey now,he was a Nationalist.Remind us what happened when Labour ran into the same old ideological Nationalist v Socialist contradictions that we see now.Oh wait he was comprehensively defeated by Callaghan’s anti Nation State rabble.On that note I’ll say it again Nationalist means centre not right.While Socialist means far left.While Heath,Thatcher,Major,Blair and Cameron all fit the description of the far right.With ironically Socialist,being all about power not what’s good for the people and as a result often being naturally attracted to the far right.Which is why the far right Blairites have always found a welcome in the Labour Party because the far left and the far right are both exploitative in nature and all about wanting power for the sake of power.With the Socialist tendency towards social engineering and anti nation state ideology being a key asset to them in that aim.
So there we have it for the clarification of the Winseer type vote far left = Stalin,Hitler,Mao,Callaghan,Jinping,Sturgeon,Cable,Merkel.While far right = Thatcher, Blair,Nixon,Bush,Obama,Macron,May.While centre = Benn,Shore,Michael Collins,Hoey,Orban and Batten.But with the jury being out regards Putin and Trump in that regard but with all the signs being at least Putin is a Nationalist,unlike Stalin.
I’d guess that the voting masses finally understanding and getting those definitions correct would be a game changer regarding the political landscape and the direction of future election results.While also explaining the Machiavellian tactics being employed by the ‘far right’ establishment and their far left allies in maintaining their power base v the unarguably centre Nationalist groups.