patriotism?

[Traitorfish]

On the economic axis (left - right) Stalin is communist.

But on the social axis (up - down) Stalin is fascist.

That is abject nonsense.

Fascism is not direction on the graph, it's area

Any definition of "fascism" that can be boiled down to a range on two comically over-homogenised dimensions is a bad, bad definition.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think that image is the be-all-and-end-all of political ideologies. Absolute dictatorship is not the only thing that makes a fascist.

Fascism (play /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics. Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.

So there's similarities there, but it's not quite the same.

 

[Domen]

Stalin is "authoritarian" on that axis.
Fascism is not direction on the graph, it's area

Hitler is "authoritarian" too (if "fascism" is an area, then apparently "authoritarian" is a direction).

If "fascism" is aj area, then Stalin is exactly in the middle between "fascism" and "communism" ("communism" is also an area in such case).

If "fascism" was extreme right - as you claim - then it should be located in a different part of this graph (on this graph "fascism" is not in the extreme right but in the center of the economic axis) and Margaret Thatcher would be more "fascist" than Hitler himself, if fascism was "extreme right":

Spoiler :

 

[red_elk]

If "fascism" was extreme right - as you claim - then it should be located in a different part of this graph

Yes, it should be.

 

[Domen]

Yes, it should be.

But then it means that Margaret Thatcher is indeed more fascist than Hitler?

Interesting.

============================

Not even mentioning Rick Santorum and that other guy with hard to spell name:

Spoiler :

Fascist as hell!

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, because from that perspective Thatcher would be an ultraconservative and Hitler would have been even further to the right. You are comparing apples with oranges.

There is no general agreement on how to label various ideologies. A single axis system is far different from one which uses 2 or even 3 different axes.

 

[red_elk]

But then it means that Margaret Thatcher is indeed more fascist than Hitler?

Really? I don't think so.

 

[Domen]

Hitler was not conservative at all. No totalitarianism has anything to do with conservatism.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes he was. It's hard to pin down the exact definition, but a conservative's natural reaction to a problem in society is to look for a traditional solution or to 'go back to the old ways'. Hitler's politics were nearly all about going back to what he felt was a lost Germany which was strong and virtuous; you can see that purely though his propaganda.

 

[Domen]

I don't agree.

The "New Germany" - Thousand Years Reich - Hitler was building, had not much to do with the "Old Germany". Apart from being strong.

And building a strong state is a goal of any totalitarianism.

If sticking to your point of view, we could say that Stalin was also a conservatist - because his goal was also to build a strong state again.

you can see that purely though his propaganda.

In his propaganda he didn't refer much to the old, Imperial Germany.

In fact he actually refered more even to the Ancient Germanic tribes and to Scandinavian Vikings / Mythology.

But he was basically building a new state. Which had not as much in common with the old one as you indicate / claim / think.

 

[Ailedhoo]

For starters: I like to note this thread has been hyjacked by an argument. Was this thread suppose to be about patriotism?

Two: Hitler was not a socialist. He was a ecomonic centralist one could argue.

 

[Flying Pig]

But he was basically building a new state. Which had not as much in common with the old one as you indicate / claim / think.

The point is that he felt he was appealing to old values, traditional virtues, and things like that - a progressive, being the opposite of conservative, would have instinctively looked for a new way to address the problem and talked about breaking new ground, rather than tearing up recent changes as a betrayal of the 'pure' German way of life, as Hitler did.

 

[Domen]

would have instinctively looked for a new way to address the problem

Well, gas chambers was quite an innovative / new way to address the Jewish problem (which dated back to 19th century in Germany).

as a betrayal of the 'pure' German way of life

IIRC, Hitler was mostly believing in the Aryan race and Aryan way of life - which included not only Germans (not just Germans were considered Aryan).

The point is that he felt he was appealing to old values, traditional virtues, and things like that

The purity of race, the theory of inferior and superior races, etc. - those were old, traditional German values? I don't think so.

rather than tearing up recent changes

But for Hitler criticizing recent changes was just a tool of propaganda to gain support of the German society.

And this would allow him to get power, which in turn would allow him to introduce his own changes.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Once again: this thread has been hyjack!

Godwin's Law been broken to its finest level!

 

[Flying Pig]

The purity of race, the theory of inferior and superior races, etc. - those were old, traditional German values? I don't think so.

He thought they were. I'm not arguing that Hitler was sane; I am arguing that he was not a progressive. However I do feel this has become rather like talking at a brick wall for both of us.

 

[Domen]

He thought they were.

No, he was well aware of where these ideas came from. And they all had their origins in late 19th century ideologies. Those ideologies were by no means conservative - and they all claimed that their research (which explained which races are superior, which inferior, etc.) was purely scientific.

Racism originated from (pseudo-)science and from cult of (pseudo-)science.

I am arguing that he was not a progressive

But are you doing this because you strongly believe that all progress is good?

And you strongly believe that all conservatism is bad? I have such an impression.

However I do feel this has become rather like talking at a brick wall for both of us.

I'm not refering to you at the moment - but I have an impression that some people have a tendency to associate bad things in history with what they consider as bad, which still exists nowadays. Conservatism nowadays has mainly negative connotations, so people claim that Hitler must have been conservatist.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Remember when this thread was about patriotism?

 

[holy king]

no. ...

 

[kochman]

Yes he was. It's hard to pin down the exact definition, but a conservative's natural reaction to a problem in society is to look for a traditional solution or to 'go back to the old ways'. Hitler's politics were nearly all about going back to what he felt was a lost Germany which was strong and virtuous; you can see that purely though his propaganda.

Hitler was quite radical... He used nationalism to get people to back his plan, but he was no conservative.

However, it's probably impossible to classify him since he was completely insane.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Hey. Hey guys. I've got an idea.

Let's... oh, wait for it, this is brilliant... not talk about Hitler.