amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Don't you get the Red Star in Moorhead?Odin2006 said:
Why is racism associated with Right-Wing ideology?
- Thread starter CaptainF
- Start date
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
An excellent well informed postFredLC said:Well, first, I evoke Godwin's law, so we all loose.
After, I say that we can all settle that the Nazis were a nightmare, period. - can't we?
As for this aspect of debate, here is my take: as many said, the old, french revolution "girondinos" VS "jacobinos" (sp?) usage of the terms "left" and "right" has turned into something confusing and utterly useless, because now they exemplify two very wide non-connected spectres of ideology, which can co-exist.
IMHO, the spheres are as pointed before in this thread, and as well in the political compass, a cartesian quadrant:
economical:
collectivist (apoteosis: communism) <----------> individualism (apoteosis: objectivism), in the X axis;
Social:
libertarian (apoteosis: anarchy) <----------> authoritarian (apoteosis: fascism), in the y axis.
Hence, we have the USSR and the Nazi scoring diametrically opposed grades in the economical axis - the first being collectivist (or theoretically aimed at communal achievements), the second one being very individualist (aimed at individual sucess, even if not afraid to use the public machine to enable that sucess - see the "mein kampf" quotes I brought previously).
At the same time, their score is virtually identical in the social axis - both being highly authoritarian.
The issue of confusion is, than, simple: Everybody recognizes that the URSS was leftist, and that Nazi German was an evil regime. Than, liberals (who like to identify as "left"), places look on the economical aspect of the Nazis to realize it was not a collectivist regime, and add to that, they see how conservative their values were, identifying it, than, as a right-winger regime (IMHO, correctly).
On the other side, the conservatives (or "right" by their naming choice) like to lump this other world evil in the lap of liberals. For that, they put an emphasis on the social scale, incorrectly assuming that every form of collectivism is necessarily dictatorial. So, in graphic terms, we have:
Y axis (+)
authoritarian
|
|
(1) X-, Y+ | X+, Y+ (2)
X axis (-) - collectivism ---------+-------- individualism - x axis (+)
(3) X-, Y- | X+, Y- (4)
|
|
libertarian
Y axis (-)
(1) - URSS, soviet block in general
(2) - Nazi Germany, south-america dictatorships
(3) - No Example - (Gandhi?), theoretical build of marxist communism
(4) - Modern Social Democracies
As a matter of fact, I've seen right wingers simply deny even the theoretical validity of the quadrant 3, what is cleraly an opinion based on misunderstanding of these theories and in political passion, and specially, a taste for the also undue linkage between economical freedom and social freedom, what is disproved by the tinest knowledge of world history.
Anyway, as for me there is no inherent link between collectivism and authoritarian regimes, and because the defining trait of a leftist regime is it's alignement in the economical axis, it is quite clear that Nazi Germany was a rightist regime.
Nazi's interference in economy was very real, but it happened because of the nature of authoritarism, that preaches involvement of the authorities in everything. Clearly, though, they done it to incourage their supposed übbermensch to shine, and to help them excell, not to engage in redistribution, as a leftist doctrine would dictate.
In all fairness, it was not capitalist also. Luiz is very right to say that the Nazis hated it as much as capitalism. Their sense of values, in many aspects, remember a form of chivalry - they valued super-able and all achieving individuals who should rule, but who were willing to sacrifice for a cause - what is not the profile of a capitalist, which seeks profit, not ideology.
Hence, I can't do but laught when i see these naive debates in which each side wishes to place the blame of the nazis in the other side. If they knew what they are talking about, they'd know that their narrow qualification is non-applicable.
Regards.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
I suppose I should take the bullet, since I opened the can of worms responding a troll (and on top of it, posting a John Heartfield collage).FredLC said:Well, first, I evoke Godwin's law, so we all loose.
Furthermore, I am evidently not everybody, since I don't consider the USSR as leftist for reasons I already have stated.
Evil me.
FredLC said:
Laugh, but don't choke.
I suppose I don't know as much about this as you, but I think the naivity is more on the side on those who refuses to see the class policies of Nazism, which clearly proves their capitalist-friendliness, all lofty phrases, Nietzsche-allusions and Wagner operas aside.
It is easy to see a clear pattern: a symbiosis between fascists/nazists and capitalists. The perspective as fascism as capitalisms answer to the progress of organized labour is in my opinion a rewarding one.
Of course the fascist/nazi will have some bad words to say about the capitalist, but in the real word he will still make him his bedfellow.
And it is also of course true that the capitalist mainly seeks profit.But usually he is smart enough to align with those who can help him get this profit whatever silly notions they may have about war, race, fatherland, and whatever silly uniforms they will wear,, as long as they are also able to break the sculls on union leaders and create what posters here usually call a "business-friendly environment". This holds even today.
Hence, I can but cry when somebody flings around all sort of quadrants and fancy models, but fails to look at the concrete historical facts.
luceafarul said:I suppose I should take the bullet, since I opened the can of worms responding a troll (and on top of it, posting a John Heartfield collage).
Furthermore, I am evidently not everybody, since I don't consider the USSR as leftist for reasons I already have stated.
Evil me.
And here was I, naivelly supposing that by placing myself among the loosers – as in “we all loose” – I’d avoid irritated comebacks.
I am in a bit of a hurry, hence I’ll have a better look on your opinion on URSS on this thread before I assess it. Nevertheless, could it be that you put the emphasis on the social scale?
luceafarul said:
Don’t worry, I’m quite experienced in laughting at misconceptions, I ain’t in any kind of jeopardy for doing that.
And, look, when Nazis – Hitler, at least – spoke of his mythical superman, he did not thought of rich man (or not necessarily, though his supermans tended to be rich. When I read his book, one aspect that called my attention was his disdain for success which were merely on finances, whithout any involvement on warfare or public services (he placed utmost value on those engaged in public duties that rose above the masses due to accomplishments).
One of the sentences that I do remember, when he spoke of the “criminal internacional finances”, is that he very much hated the “jews from the banks, who think they can seat on chairs side by side with great achievers”. Quite really, being rich was for him a sign of greatness, but not by a longshot the most important one, and certainly not the defining trait of personal value.
.luceafarul said:
Indeed, but because the Nazi ideology considered communism a much worse enemy – and you know what they say about the enemy of my enemy.
There is more to it as well. There was a stupidity in their doctrine, in the sense that their factories would eventually work powered by ideology and love for the nation, and not for profit like it was “still happening”. Chances are that if the Nazis had survived, they would be in for a disapointment, when they acknowledge that capitalism was not only a tool they could get rid after the interest was lost 9and communism destroyed). That would be, probably, the moment when their true ideas about it would appear unclouded.
luceafarul said:
Yeah, there were whole-hearted capitalists in the nazi chambers, indeed. They were not, however, the idealogues of the regime. As you said, they were only seizing opportunity, as they would in the soviet union and even in Marx utopia, should chance arise in these places.
After that… I am under impression that you shot back at me, and that these “quadrants and fancy models” is your way of pointing to me that I am as naïve and narrow-minded as those I pointed fingers at (maybe more). Well, I guess I deserve criticism from those who felt criticized by my post, it’s only fair.
Nevertheless, mind me – my criticism was toward, not those who have their theories about what URSS and Nazi germany are, but at those who without thinking too much about it try to throw it in the lap of the opposition. AGAIK, that is not your profile, Luceafarul, though I haven’t read your opinion with attention yet.
Not that I don’t disagree with your opinion that the URSS isn’t lefitist, because I really do. But it does not instantly means I trhow you into the crowd of the unaware of the theme.
Regards
.This is where I think you go wrong. Fascism in general does not pay much attention to the individual. All that matter is the state(or, in the case of Nazism, the race).FredLC said:
Both Nazism and communism share a profound anti-individualism.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
Well, it might be a problem that you put everybody else there as well, wouldn't it?FredLC said:And here was I, naivelly supposing that by placing myself among the loosers – as in “we all loose” – I’d avoid irritated comebacks.
Anyway, don't worry. You are one of the posters here I respect the most, but I must admit I found you a bit on the haughty side this time (And as a pre-emptive strike, I have twice been called an arrogant bastard on this board).
I am a bit short of time myself so just to present a Reader's Digest version; to me typical tenets of the political right is hierarchy, authoritarianism and chauvinism, all of those quite typical of the USSR. Furthermore, the means of production in the USSR was not owned by the public, but by the state. Workers was exploited, and had virtually no rights. To me, the USSR was just the czar regime painted red.
I worry a lot. People my age who doesn't have no brain and certainly no heart.Don’t worry, I’m quite experienced in laughting at misconceptions, I ain’t in any kind of jeopardy for doing that.
I could say a lot about this and the links between for instance Social Darvinism and laissez-faire economy and the ideological fathers of fascism, but as a historian I am much more interested in judging the three by its fruits.
Some years ago I wrote a thesis about this very topic, based upon the works among others Guerin, Togliatti, Palme Mott and Neumann. Of course, that is impossible to find now, being on the hard disk on my old PC. To make a long history short, I must just repeat: rhetorics is less important than actions. And those regimes typically favoured the possessing classes (or rather the most powerful segments of it; the German Nazis for instance was favoured by the heavy industry and the landowners, while the light industry was more sympathic towards the Social Democrats) against the people. One might also wonder of course,as one always must with political programs and tractats, how much of the ideology that was based on real conviction, and how much was propaganda and rhetorics.
Yes, but the interesting point is why they regarded communism as their arch-enemy.
I am sorry, but to paraphrase Henry Ford; "Contrafactual history is bunk".
Yes. But I really think that there is some ideological link anyway since capitalism in my opinion is basically anti-democratic.
Just peruse the burgeoisie newspapers from the period; being against democracy was quite fashionable (For instance, a Norwegian newspaper suggested Hitler as acandidate for the Nobel Peace Prize).
Your last sentence above strikes me as absurd, I must shamefully confess.
No, to quote and old Norwegian musical theater song: "It is not what he says, it is the way he says it".After that… I am under impression that you shot back at me, and that these “quadrants and fancy models” is your way of pointing to me that I am as naïve and narrow-minded as those I pointed fingers at (maybe more). Well, I guess I deserve criticism from those who felt criticized by my post, it’s only fair.
Something in that last paragraph ticked me off.
That said, I am always critical to anybody dealing with politics and omitting that ugly 5-letter word beginning with c, especially when considering an era as Europe in the 30s.
And yes, it is fair.
I am quite familiar with people not reading my posts, I seem to have a PR problem...
Anyway, about the USSR I think that the problem for many is that its ruling elite as well as that one in the West had an objective interest in defining it as a leftist regime. Thus many now authomatically place it there on the political scale. I would like to expand on this, but right now I have other pressing business.
Have a nice evening.
Xenocrates
Deity
yeah I'm at a loss as to why people put Hitler on the right and Stalin on the left. This is a big red herring. IMO right and left are about competition vs cooperation. Darwin could and has influenced both equally, and the societal implications were strong.
Racism and Capitalism are linked by social Darwinism. Communism wasn't because while the elite were all white there were poor of every race.
Racism and Capitalism are linked by social Darwinism. Communism wasn't because while the elite were all white there were poor of every race.
Red Stranger
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,678
Erik Mesoy said:
So I said Neil Cavuto and Brit Hume are liberals and that makes me a partisan troll. But the original post accuse right wingers of being racist and it's not
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Red Stranger said:So I said Neil Cavuto and Brit Hume are liberals and that makes me a partisan troll. But the original post accuse right wingers of being racist and it's not
I did NOT accuse them of being racist you silly man.
I merely was asking why in public thinking, racism=right wing.
You conservatives...take things too personally.
blackheart
unenlightened
Red Stranger said:
Ok, I will put this in very clear phrasing.
The media is SENSATIONALIST, not liberal or conservative.
And these radio stations you mention, are they the sort that are fringe stations with people who talk 24/7? Because you can hardly count those as national media outlets.
Xenocrates
Deity
number of guys trying to answer the question < number of guys running the same old argument based on American 'politics'.
Every thread turns into this set-piece drama, come on guys keep standards up.
Every thread turns into this set-piece drama, come on guys keep standards up.
aneeshm
Deity
Odin2006 said:
Then you've got capitalism all wrong . The free market , coupled with laws against fraud by corporations , is capitalism .
Odin2006
Apolytonian
aneeshm said:
No, capitalism = the means of production are controlled by investors and run for the investors' benefit. Markets and central planning are just different ways of distributing goods and services, the market is a type of rationing based on supply and demand and is usually the best type for most industries in peacetime. What you posted is what right-wingers IDEALIZE capitalism to be, not what it really is. You do not have a capitalist economy just because you have a free market, capitalism requires corporations with shareholders. I suggest you look up stuff on Market Socialism, "Free Market" does not equal "Capitalism".
Eukaryote
Deity
I think a facist for the people goverments belif is that the people are too stupid and immature to run the country so a mature person must run the goverment, however these people may spread the word that some rases are inferioir and since there is not a strong sense of equality in facism nothing is there to stop the rasism.
The far left however are always striving toward liberty and equality which causes rasist belifs to be dissmissed.
The far left however are always striving toward liberty and equality which causes rasist belifs to be dissmissed.
Considering that the political spectrum has been rapidly changing since the fall of Communism, I dont think you can consider Racism to be solely a right-wing phenomenon anymore.
The Left-Right scale is becoming more of a Collectivism-Individualism scale where the Left wing are adopting a nationalist stance on issues such as free trade, workforce immigration and (European) integration. The xenophobic parties that are popping up in Europe most often have economic policies resembling those of Social Democrats, and they appeal to the working class, stealing votes from Social Democrats.
As for Nazi-Germany - by todays standards, their economic policies are clearly left-wing, and I dont think anyone can deny that. It contained strict wage controls, interest rate ceiling, harsch penalties for engaging in black market activities, greatly reduced international trade, nationalised industry, very little competition (cartels), massive public works projects and no right to strike or even to quit a job. This is way more extreme than any European Social Democrat could even dream of suggesting today.
Capitalism is characterised by a high level of private ownership and little regulation. If you claim that it is something else (such as "the dream system for a Capitalist") then you have just invented a new Ism - dont call it Capitalism.
The Left-Right scale is becoming more of a Collectivism-Individualism scale where the Left wing are adopting a nationalist stance on issues such as free trade, workforce immigration and (European) integration. The xenophobic parties that are popping up in Europe most often have economic policies resembling those of Social Democrats, and they appeal to the working class, stealing votes from Social Democrats.
As for Nazi-Germany - by todays standards, their economic policies are clearly left-wing, and I dont think anyone can deny that. It contained strict wage controls, interest rate ceiling, harsch penalties for engaging in black market activities, greatly reduced international trade, nationalised industry, very little competition (cartels), massive public works projects and no right to strike or even to quit a job. This is way more extreme than any European Social Democrat could even dream of suggesting today.
Capitalism is characterised by a high level of private ownership and little regulation. If you claim that it is something else (such as "the dream system for a Capitalist") then you have just invented a new Ism - dont call it Capitalism.
The Tollan
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 418
Different people have different definitions of what is right and what is left ergo there are different types of left-right scales. I would not say they are a dime a dozen however the existance of divergent views is proven by this thread (abundant proof already existed).
It is a bit like the argument over what modern liberalism should mean and what modern conservatism should mean.
Some are more mainstream and accepted than others yet multiple views still exist.
Some of the more popular models are:
Right=More focus on individualism, Left=More focus on collectivism
Right=Less statism, Left=More statism
Right=Free market, Left=More socialist oriented
Right=Less equality, Left=More equality
Some people like to use the terms conservative and liberal for multiple very different ideas. People who do this usually say that there are different types of conservatives and liberals. Right and left do not necessarily equal conservative and liberal though. Conservatives and liberals are not always opposites either.
It is a bit like the argument over what modern liberalism should mean and what modern conservatism should mean.
Some are more mainstream and accepted than others yet multiple views still exist.
Some of the more popular models are:
Right=More focus on individualism, Left=More focus on collectivism
Right=Less statism, Left=More statism
Right=Free market, Left=More socialist oriented
Right=Less equality, Left=More equality
Some people like to use the terms conservative and liberal for multiple very different ideas. People who do this usually say that there are different types of conservatives and liberals. Right and left do not necessarily equal conservative and liberal though. Conservatives and liberals are not always opposites either.
My opinion here:
Nazism is right-wing because it was never intended to be some form of 'power to the people' movement. It originated in the ideal of the restoration of Germany to how it used to be, and aimed to cleanse society of 'impurities'. This is somewhat more conservative as it's more retrospective than anything else, looking back at how Germany used to be strong and what would need to be done to make Germany strong again. Overwhelmingly, Nazi domestic policy was aimed towards engineering restoration, not equality.
On whether or not it was actually a left wing socialist state or a right wing conservative state, it's up to personal interpretation. I doubt looking at the overall picture you could claim the Nazi's were left-wing, with the removal of personal freedoms, abolishing the trade unions, destruction of democratic institutions, etc. I usually base my opinion of ideology on their goals, as opposed to their immediate actions, and in the cases of a confused ideological goal you can resort to assessing the overall trend of the actions taken to suggest an ideology.
On the original posters topic - racism is linked explicitly to the far right-wing groups and not the left-wing due to the implications of conservation of society in the more conservative groups. A 'foreign' peoples presence goes against the extreme-conservative agenda of maintaining the greatness of the home people and they can be a scapegoat for any failing in the country as the leading majority creates an image of what the ideal citizen/resident of a country should be and the foreigners do not fit.
Nazism is right-wing because it was never intended to be some form of 'power to the people' movement. It originated in the ideal of the restoration of Germany to how it used to be, and aimed to cleanse society of 'impurities'. This is somewhat more conservative as it's more retrospective than anything else, looking back at how Germany used to be strong and what would need to be done to make Germany strong again. Overwhelmingly, Nazi domestic policy was aimed towards engineering restoration, not equality.
On whether or not it was actually a left wing socialist state or a right wing conservative state, it's up to personal interpretation. I doubt looking at the overall picture you could claim the Nazi's were left-wing, with the removal of personal freedoms, abolishing the trade unions, destruction of democratic institutions, etc. I usually base my opinion of ideology on their goals, as opposed to their immediate actions, and in the cases of a confused ideological goal you can resort to assessing the overall trend of the actions taken to suggest an ideology.
On the original posters topic - racism is linked explicitly to the far right-wing groups and not the left-wing due to the implications of conservation of society in the more conservative groups. A 'foreign' peoples presence goes against the extreme-conservative agenda of maintaining the greatness of the home people and they can be a scapegoat for any failing in the country as the leading majority creates an image of what the ideal citizen/resident of a country should be and the foreigners do not fit.
Why is it that left-wingers insist in claiming that racism is a feature of the right, while right-wingers, instead of saying that it is a feature of the left, argue that racism can be found anywhere in the political spectrum? Should I infer that lefties like to call names more?
Get over it folks. Nazi Germany was not uber Capitalist at all, and furthermore racism existed before and continued to exist after the fall of the Third Reich. Leftists have often expressed racist views. Karl Marx made racist statements. The Soviet Union was full of anti-semites. That doesn't mean however that racism is part of the left-wing ideology. Just as there is nothing inherently racist about right-wing ideology (unless one defines right-wing ideology in a very pernicious manner).
Do I deny that right-wingers have made lots of racist statements throughout history? Nope. Why can't the other side acknowldge it too? When will leftists drop the "holier-than-thou" attitude and come out of their moral pedestal?
There are good and bad people in all parts of the political spectrum. I don't think that my political opponentes are (necessarily) evil, I think that they're wrong.
Get over it folks. Nazi Germany was not uber Capitalist at all, and furthermore racism existed before and continued to exist after the fall of the Third Reich. Leftists have often expressed racist views. Karl Marx made racist statements. The Soviet Union was full of anti-semites. That doesn't mean however that racism is part of the left-wing ideology. Just as there is nothing inherently racist about right-wing ideology (unless one defines right-wing ideology in a very pernicious manner).
Do I deny that right-wingers have made lots of racist statements throughout history? Nope. Why can't the other side acknowldge it too? When will leftists drop the "holier-than-thou" attitude and come out of their moral pedestal?
There are good and bad people in all parts of the political spectrum. I don't think that my political opponentes are (necessarily) evil, I think that they're wrong.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
Because racism has its ideological roots on the right, and because the rights endorsing of hierarchy and inequality creates a more friendly climate for racism.luiz said:
That is not the same as to say that every person on the political right is a racist, and I have most certainly never implied such a thing.
No. I am used to be called a lot both here and other places by political opponents, and I doubt that I am exclusive in this aspect.
I think it was.
True, but then most right-wingers or reactionairies are not Nazis.
Unfortunately yes.
Karl Marx was cetainly not ahead of his time in everything, and his personality has some traits that I find not very nice, to say the least. But his political philosophy does not contain any racism.
I already stated that I can't see much left with the USSR, so no need for any further comment.
Of course not.
No, but that is not the point. Ideologies with clear racistic components belongs to the right. That does not preclude that: 1) There are right-wing ideologies that does not contain racistic components. 2) There are individuals who prescribe to leftist ideologies who can be racists.
For reasons stated above.
I suppose that is a rhetorical question.
I don't feel like sitting on a pedestal, but there is a connection between racism and reactionary ideologies, no matter how one tries to wriggle out of it.
Well said.
I regard this exactly the same way myself.Similar threads
