Define "Left".

[Leoreth]

Facism was a political fluke that I don't feel can be accurately described on a political scale. It shares qualities from both sides of the political spectrum (or at least my interpretation of it), thus it can't fit on either side.

So, basically, it doesn't fit your definition so you discard it?

 

[Ailedhoo]

Facism was a political fluke that I don't feel can be accurately described on a political scale. It shares qualities from both sides of the political spectrum (or at least my interpretation of it), thus it can't fit on either side.

The Nazis were ecomonic centralists. Facism is on the most exstream end of the Authoriterian side of the Authoritarian-Liberaterian scale.

You are confusing right-wing with Republican conservatism. True right-wing thinkers would support the rights of both. While the American Republican party is considered right-wing, in truth it is probably left of center, although less so than the democratic party.

Err... your re-positioning the scale. The Republican Party is a Capitalist right wing party. Of course one must not confuss the ecomonic right as the domain of conservatism, for there is such things as ecomonically left wing conseratives. The Republicans are not right wing conseratives.

Although I would like to remind you that Nazi does stand for National Socialism.

By the logic of naming the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy with true people power?

The Nazis were not socialists.

 

[KaiserElectric]

So, basically, it doesn't fit your definition so you discard it?

It doesn't fit my definition so it doesn't fit my definition. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "discarding" it.

Well, for argument's sake, let's assume that your response to Crezth is valid. It isn't, even remotely, but let's just pretend it is.

I need to validate an opinion?

You're still left with the second half of my post, a picture of the one Buenaventura Durruti, a leading Spanish anarchist during the interwar period and a prominent figure in the anarcho-syndicalist CNT-FAI. These guys were anarchists, which is to say that they advocated the abolition of the state and of governments as such, and they also identified themselves as being very much on the left, further left in fact that than the Communist Party. So did their contemporaries, left and right. So how do you square this?

I would disagree with him.

I would still make the argument that anarchism is an extreme right-wing policy, while authoritarianism is an extreme left-wing ideology. As you were so willing to point out when I brought up National Socialism, people can call themselves whatever they want to.

The Nazis were not socialists.

But they did have several socialist policies.

 

[Mise]

But they did have several socialist policies.

So did Mitt Romney.

 

[Flying Pig]

Tense noted and appreciated, Mise!

 

[Cutlass]

To put it plainly, I describe Leftists as those who think the people need the government to make decisions for them, while Rightists are those who believe the people have the right to make their own decisions.

That's pretty much opposite of reality. The left does far more to give decisions to individual people and the right does far more to take decisions out of the hands of individual people. Personal choice-left, do what you are told-right.

 

[Leoreth]

It doesn't fit my definition so it doesn't fit my definition. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "discarding" it.

It's a counterexample that shows your definition isn't appropriate. You conceded this and then said "it's a fluke". The only reason why it's a fluke seems to be because it doesn't fit your definition - that's circular reasoning.

 

[Crezth]

Facism was a political fluke that I don't feel can be accurately described on a political scale. It shares qualities from both sides of the political spectrum (or at least my interpretation of it), thus it can't fit on either side.

Actually, it can be very accurately described on a political scale - it is authoritarian, anti-individualist, nationalist, and third way - the only place it doesn't fit in is into your frankly idiosyncratic left-right dichotomy that somehow can't accommodate for historical accounts of the rightiness of fascism.

I am going to regret this, but in what sense is fascism a fluke? As opposed to being a discrete, unique, reactionary (hint! hint!) movement formed in opposition to communism?

 

[KaiserElectric]

It's a counterexample that shows your definition isn't appropriate. You conceded this and then said "it's a fluke". The only reason why it's a fluke seems to be because it doesn't fit your definition - that's circular reasoning.

I consider it a fluke because fascism has several ideas that can fit on both sides of the political spectrum. (Government control of the economy and social welfare for the left, ultra-nationalism and anti-communism for the right, etc.) Granted, I think that the hatred of communism is the only thing that separates it from communism in the first place, but I digress.

(Bear in mind that I refer to communism as it was applied during Stalinist Russia, not Karl Marx's original theories.)

That's pretty much opposite of reality. The left does far more to give decisions to individual people and the right does far more to take decisions out of the hands of individual people. Personal choice-left, do what you are told-right.

Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were leftists. Clearly they were true champions of personal choice.

 

[Crezth]

I consider it a fluke because fascism has several ideas that can fit on both sides of the political spectrum. (Government control of the economy and social welfare for the left, ultra-nationalism and anti-communism for the right, etc.) Granted, I think that the hatred of communism is the only thing that separates it from communism in the first place, but I digress.

(Bear in mind that I refer to communism as it was applied during Stalinist Russia, not Karl Marx's original theories.)

Oh gosh.

First of all, economic dirigisme is different and distinct from collectivism, and fascism is more the first than the second (although essentially neither). Second of all, fascism distinguishes itself in this respect via its third way economics, which are decidedly not socialist. Third of all, there is much more that separates fascism and socialism than a mere ideological quirk: I will start with no less than the notion that fascism, as one of its principle platforms, outright rejects the class struggle.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Goddamn, there's a lot of moronic descriptions here. Allthough the thread serves the purpose of illuminating why political discussions here are so gawdawful.

Doesn't it, though? For what I was hoping this thread would do, it delivered in spades.

 

[KaiserElectric]

Oh gosh.

First of all, economic dirigisme is different and distinct from collectivism, and fascism is more the first than the second (although essentially neither). Second of all, fascism distinguishes itself in this respect via its third way economics, which are decidedly not socialist. Third of all, there is much more that separates fascism and socialism than a mere ideological quirk: I will start with no less than the notion that fascism, as one of its principle platforms, outright rejects the class struggle.

Fair enough, you have me convinced. Fascism does fit onto a scale, but I personally wouldn't consider it right-wing. Perhaps I should have said that first and not started this whole mess.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Doesn't it, though? For what I was hoping this thread would do, it delivered in spades.

How could they resist when they almost never do? It's like asking a kid who their favorite comic book villain is.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

How could they resist when they almost never do? It's like asking a kid who their favorite comic book villain is.

Light Yagami.

 

[Crezth]

Fair enough, you have me convinced. Fascism does fit onto a scale, but I personally wouldn't consider it right-wing. Perhaps I should have said that first and not started this whole mess.

Of course you wouldn't, because that would mean that you hold court with fascists.

Fascism is a reactionary movement. It is in this sense that we conceive of it as right-wing. As they say it "n France, where the terms originated, the Left is called 'the party of movement' and the Right 'the party of order.'"source

Still other views distinguish right from left according to the Hegelian usage, which can be basically summed up as whether or not you recognize the class struggle* (if you do, you're a Left Hegelian; if you don't, you're a Right Hegelian).

*A bastardization of terms, surely, and although they were certainly more relevant in 1831 when everyone was fussing about whether or not the Prussian state was the final society, you can extrapolate the thought processes quite nicely when you account for Marx's dialectical materialism as an essential offshoot of the incomplete Hegelian dialectic.

 

[Quackers]

From wikipedia:

There is some dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides.[36][37][38][39] Fascism is commonly described as "extreme right"[40][41] although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult.[42] There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[37] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[38][39] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views.

It's definitely not as simple as people are making out. Kaiser definitely has a point.
I read a bit of a hacky political book, entiltled "liberal fascism" and the first chapter basically points out there is no consensus on the correct definition of fascism and you should be extremely careful using it..

Although in my experiance the common definition of fascism is "something very, very bad ;p".

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Fascism: "What the speaker is most definitely not."

 

[Tahuti]

It's definitely not as simple as people are making out. Kaiser definitely has a point.
I read a bit of a hacky political book, entiltled "liberal fascism" and the first chapter basically points out there is no consensus on the correct definition of fascism and you should be extremely careful using it..

Although in my experiance the common definition of fascism is "something very, very bad ;p".

If Right is defined as tradition & order, Fascism is definitely Extremely Right-Wing, due to its nationalism and totalitarian mindset (which corresponds to the Rightist ideals of tradition and order respectively). However, the USSR was arguably highly nationalistic to the point of racism and authoritarian as well, so it be considered should Extremely Right-Wing as well right? Hell, why not consider the USSR fascist too? It had all the hallmarks: Ultra-nationalism, Totalitarianism, Palingenesis and Militarism.

Yet the USSR was "officially" Marxist, and since Marx advocated classless society, we all know where that places the USSR, Right? (or should I say Left?)

 

[Crezth]

It's definitely not as simple as people are making out. Kaiser definitely has a point.
I read a bit of a hacky political book, entiltled "liberal fascism" and the first chapter basically points out there is no consensus on the correct definition of fascism and you should be extremely careful using it.

Yeah, I've read that book. It's a very hacky, ignorant book and is part of a wider, more modern effort to disabuse people of the notion that fascism is right-wing. That is not to say that it does not make a good point about the syncretism of fascism, but like so many books written by pundits trying to make a political point, it ignores the nuances of liberalism and conservatism over time. In fascism's hey-day, conservatism meant supporting king and country, which fascism certainly did. It opted for an alternate tack to economics than the liberals (pro-business as they were) and the socialists (seeking to aggravate the class struggle), which is why its economic policy was called third way. But since it did not seek to replace capitalism with communism, it cannot really be accurately called "leftist." In every other sense it had a reactionary or conservative outlook.

It is worth noting that even if fascism is a right-wing philosophy, that by itself does not discredit other right-wing philosophies. Right-wing is merely a classification.

 

[Ailedhoo]

A intresting bit in a FAQ...

Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!

But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.