The word "Nazi" gets thrown around a lot, directed at both sides of the political spectrum. Which side, Left or Right, does it more accurately represent? I considered this after watching a recent "Young Turks" interview with Jonah Goldberg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVgQTjtpS4Y
Feels to me like its kinda both. The right-wing here has that insane nationalism part of Nazism down pat. The left-wing has plenty of social controls that they love to implement for their idea of a more cultured and humane society. And they both love a good invasion.
auctionguy10: The right-wing here has that insane nationalism part of Nazism down pat.
The right-wing here has that insane nationalism part of Nazism down pat.
Don't communist nations have intense nationalism?
They sure do.
Tough question.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
NAZI'sm, and usually other forms of fascism, are basically the epitome of hegemony. It's populism for the power structure, basically. Strong nationalism, very hawkish, anti-labor, pro-corporation (Corporatist economy), anti civil liberties; it's basically the Tea Party leadership without the cheap military suits or steroids/uppers (NAZI's on meth, look into it ).
EDIT: It's safer to call it right wing, but it all depends on how you define the wings. Left anti aristocracy, Right pro, or Left anti capitalism, right pro. It's basically what happens when very wealth and powerful capitalist tyrants subvert socialism from its very wealthy and powerful tyrants. Huffington says right, Beck says left. They hate/d communists, that's why I say it's safer to say right.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I recommend abandoning the Left - Right paradigm... or at least putting it in its place.... a very small place behind the back of the sofa
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Yes, what Nir said ^ ... and did I really say "basically" 3x?
Statism is statism is statism?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Haha, basically
People place it on the Right because it's pro-Property Rights (kind of.) People place it on the Left because it's interventionist and has socialist aspects to it. My axis is like this:
X-Axis: Socialism on the Left, Corporatism in the Center, Capitalism on the Right
Y-Axis: Individualism on the Top, Communitaranism in the Middle, Authoritarianism on the Bottom
So Nazism falls in the "bottom center." I do typically consider them Far-Right although I hardly think it matters to be consistent with the "Horseshoe Theory."
The word right wing has no meaning.
The word left wing is only used to refer to the Jacobins sitting in their own small corner in the French national assembly. Every violent secular radical is a Jacobin in some way, so it only describes the Ba'athist parties in Middle East and Kemalists.
On serious evaluation, Marx can not be called left-wing, because Marxism sees violence as inefficient and unproductive, and Marxists believe the fall of capitalism happens on its own without help.
And not only does the word right wing have no meaning, trying to give it a meaning would only mean, "Everybody who sat away from the Jacobins", which is mostly all people with some bare sense of decency. So there is no such thing as a right wing belief.
Strong nationalism, very hawkish, anti-labor, pro-corporation (Corporatist economy), anti civil liberties
Right, wrong, wrong, wrong, right. All you have to do is read some Hitler speeches to learn some facts.
Caley McKibbin: Right, wrong, wrong, wrong, right. All you have to do is read some Hitler speeches to learn some facts.
Why is he wrong?
See the second sentence.
For one, he is wrong becase Corporatism /= Corporatocracy. That should explain 2/3 "wrongs" Caley McKibbin referenced.
Caley McKibbin: See the second sentence.
What did Hitler speak about?
Speeches do not make policy friend. Should I have to explain this to a member of this site? And fascist policy is very much what I described.
Oh, resist; =/= != does not equal
And yes, democratism != democracy
Speeches do not make policy friend.
The policy made the speeches.
Should I have to explain this to a member of this site?
Should I have to counter Marxist revisionism to a member of this site?
For anyone interested in reading Mises's take on this, check out Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War (1944).
Here, Mises discusses the historical and ideological roots of Nazism.
Assuming a left-right paradigm (which its significance is disputed), I would place Nazism to the left. Nazi is short for National Socialism. Socialism is known to be part of the left. Hence, Nazi is part of the left.
(This is a mere etymological argument, not necessarily an ideological one.)
Wikipedia the greatest source ever says this:
Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social changes to create a more egalitarian society
Right, right-wing and rightist are generally used to describe support for preserving traditional social orders and hierarchies.
Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics
Not even close. Do you even know how politics works?
@ Epicurus ibn Kalhoun
/= is also a correct form of DNE if that's what you're saying. Irrelevant though . . .
But yes, I do suppose you could call Nazism "anti-labor" and "pro-corporation." Not because they are Corporatist policies though.
I'd say left wing, because they were strong believers in evolution/science, didn't believe in individual firearm ownership (Hitler bragged about firearm registration to the state reaching an all-time high), they were certainly anti-freedom on economic issues (far-left there), and they were partially pro-choice.
One could say they were new right, but they weren't at all true, Old Right conservatives. They were modern liberals like FDR.
No2statism: I'd say left wing, because they were strong believers in evolution/science...
I'd say left wing, because they were strong believers in evolution/science...
What do you say to people who claim Hitler was a Christian?
He wasn't a very good Christian, and he seemed to believe more in evolution than in God.
I would say Nazism can not be placed anywhere on the left-right paradigm. It was a mish-mash of extremisms some left wing, some right wing. (In this it was different from Fascism that can be safely placed on the right.)
Also we must not forget that what is left wing and what is right wing is shifting constantly. Eg nationalism was originally a purely left wing phenomena and remained more left wing than right wing until late 19th century.
If evolution is a "leftist" issue, this world is in a lot of trouble.
If I remember correctly, the Nazi's did in fact support labor unions (the Marxists actually oppose labor unions), but I know that they did not protect property rights.
Guenter Reimann 1939, on fascism: “The capitalist under fascism has to be not merely a law-abiding citizen, he must be servile to the representatives of the State. He must not insist on "rights" and must not behave as if his private property rights were still sacred. He should be grateful to the Fuehrer that he still has private property. This state of affairs must lead to the final collapse of business morale, and sound the death knell of the self-respect and self-reliance which marked the independent businessman under liberal capitalism.” Guenter Reimann “To increase his prices a dealer must have a special permit from the Price Commissar. A request for a price increase must first be certified to by the group leader; it must be accompanied by a detailed statement of necessity and other pertinent data, such as production and distribution costs.” “Backed by the General Staff of the army, Nazi bureaucrats have been able to embark upon schemes which compel the most powerful leaders of business and finance to undertake projects which they consider both risky and unprofitable.” “The disappearance of small corporations gives rise to a tendency among small investors not to risk their capital in new competitive enterprises. The larger the big corporations grow and the closer they become connected with the State bureaucracy, the fewer chances there are for the rise of new competitors.” “The Nazi government has expressly threatened the private entrepreneur with increased State coercion and reduction of personal rights and liberties unless he fulfills adequately the 'duty to produce' according to the State's demands.” “In Nazi Germany there is no field of business activity in which the State does not interfere. In more or less detailed form it prescribes how the businessman may use capital which is still presumably his private property. And because of this, the German businessman has become a fatalist; he does not believe that the new rules will work out well, yet he knows that he cannot alter the course of events. He has been made the tool of a gigantic machine which he cannot direct.”
Guenter Reimann 1939, on fascism:
“The capitalist under fascism has to be not merely a law-abiding citizen, he must be servile to the representatives of the State. He must not insist on "rights" and must not behave as if his private property rights were still sacred. He should be grateful to the Fuehrer that he still has private property. This state of affairs must lead to the final collapse of business morale, and sound the death knell of the self-respect and self-reliance which marked the independent businessman under liberal capitalism.” Guenter Reimann
“To increase his prices a dealer must have a special permit from the Price Commissar. A request for a price increase must first be certified to by the group leader; it must be accompanied by a detailed statement of necessity and other pertinent data, such as production and distribution costs.”
“Backed by the General Staff of the army, Nazi bureaucrats have been able to embark upon schemes which compel the most powerful leaders of business and finance to undertake projects which they consider both risky and unprofitable.”
“The disappearance of small corporations gives rise to a tendency among small investors not to risk their capital in new competitive enterprises. The larger the big corporations grow and the closer they become connected with the State bureaucracy, the fewer chances there are for the rise of new competitors.”
“The Nazi government has expressly threatened the private entrepreneur with increased State coercion and reduction of personal rights and liberties unless he fulfills adequately the 'duty to produce' according to the State's demands.”
“In Nazi Germany there is no field of business activity in which the State does not interfere. In more or less detailed form it prescribes how the businessman may use capital which is still presumably his private property. And because of this, the German businessman has become a fatalist; he does not believe that the new rules will work out well, yet he knows that he cannot alter the course of events. He has been made the tool of a gigantic machine which he cannot direct.”
If we define the left as anti-individualistic (collectivist) then I would have to say that national socialism belongs on the far left.
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.
Adolf Hitler: The main plank in the national socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual
Adolf Hitler: The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings
Here's another interesting quote:
Benito Mussolini: Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud
If we define the left as anti-individualistic (collectivist) then I would have to say that national socialism belongs on the far left
Nationalism and fundamentalism are left wing stances?
That's the problem w the left/right paradigm. The left and right will always define it different. So that, while you may be able to classify many/most things, there is no real distinction.
I personally see it as an anti/pro establishment divide, but I know even that classifies many of you as lefties, and I doubt you would agree.
Sometime's I want to think it's bottom up/top down.
In what sense were they fundamentalists? The national socialists saw themselves as revolutionaries, and believed that their system was the way of the future. They were neither liberal nor communist; their system was somewhere in between both extremes. They, along with many in the west (including the NYT), considered their movement to be a progressive one.
That's the problem w the left/right paradigm.
I have no problem with the left/right paradigm. It seems perfectly consistent to place collectivist ideologies on one end (those that believe that the "needs of society" supercede the needs of the individual), and individualistic ideologies on the other end (those that believe that the rights of the individual are absolute and indivisible). I think collectivists are uncomfortable with this because they don't like where they end up and the groups that they are associated with. But that's their problem. If they don't like where they end up then maybe they should rethink their positions.
There's authoritarian and there's libertarian. Some are libertarian in economics, some in civil rights. Those are the only real splits in politics. Communist, fascists, there all the same to me.
Left and right wing divisions truly make no sense whatsoever. How are you gonna put Lenin and George Orwell in the same place? Chomsky and Stalin? Hitler and Rothbard are both right wingers? George Bush and Obama are on opposite ends of the spectrum? No, it makes no sense, and has no place in reality. If anything, it's just the establishment trying to divide lovers of freedom.
That's why people like that guy who put up those quotes in that other thread see us as "Right Wingers" and not as anarchists, and yet are probably friendlier with non anarchist leftists. It's just a scheme to divide people up.
I'll take Epicurus & my libertarian socialist friends as an ally over a republican, and Rothbard & Mises over a democrat any day.
In what sense were they fundamentalists?
I mean nationalism and fundamentalism in general. They are both collectivist (we are americans/christians), yet I hardly think they fit into any current, traditional definition of leftism.
I think collectivists are uncomfortable with this because they don't like where they end up and the groups that they are associated with. But that's their problem. If they don't like where they end up then maybe they should rethink their positions.
It leaves left meaning all of human civilization, and right as scattered cultural bouts in between. I really don't think there's any good way to view it, especially concerning NAZI's, the epitome of hegemony.
Most see pro-corporation as a right wing, yet corporations in structure are anything but individualist.
It leaves left meaning all of human civilization, and right as scattered cultural bouts in between.
So? This seems perfectly consistent to me. The individualists would be the progressives and the collectivists would be the conservatives (in the grand scheme of things).
How so? How is the right to own claims to capital, and engage in production with those who are risk averse (laborers), in anyway anti-individualistic or collectivistic? Individuals choose to join natural hierarchies in order to maximize their remunerations. What's the problem?
There's authoritarian and there's libertarian. Some are libertarian in economics, some in civil rights. Those are the only real splits in politics. Communist, fascists, there all the same to me. Left and right wing divisions truly make no sense whatsoever. How are you gonna put Lenin and George Orwell in the same place? Chomsky and Stalin? Hitler and Rothbard are both right wingers? George Bush and Obama are on opposite ends of the spectrum? No, it makes no sense, and has no place in reality. If anything, it's just the establishment trying to divide lovers of freedom
Left and right wing divisions truly make no sense whatsoever. How are you gonna put Lenin and George Orwell in the same place? Chomsky and Stalin? Hitler and Rothbard are both right wingers? George Bush and Obama are on opposite ends of the spectrum? No, it makes no sense, and has no place in reality. If anything, it's just the establishment trying to divide lovers of freedom
Exactly. I'll admit I would traditionally be called a leftist. But I despise Lenin and love Orwell. Rothbard is a great thinker to me as well.
I'll take Epicurus & my libertarian socialist friends as an ally over a republican, and Rothbard & Mises over a democrat any day
Twice in one day? Be careful I don't get a big head
Hey, real recognize real.
That's completely nonsensical, no offense. Is Gordon Gecko the only true rightist?
First, just because you choose collectivism doesn't make it individualism. That's also why I don't like the individual/collective divide. There is no real place to draw the line. Only a hermit is an individualist in any true sense of the word.
Second, there's no real individual owner, no individual accountablility. Ownership in a publicly traded company is inherently placed in a collective.
Third, there are dress codes, and rules governing one's behavior.
Even if we identify with the "individualists", we still see our ideas as what is best for everyone, what creates a better standard of living. If it didn't, what would be the point?
That's completely nonsensical, no offense.
Care to explain why? Human history is pretty uniform; the individual had little to no rights, and then there was a little blip for about 150 years where philosophers made irrefutable arguments in favor of individual rights, and now we're regressing back to previous conditions. Why do the two polar ideologies need to have an equal share in human history? Humanity hasn't been around for a long time, and civilization itself is quite novel (even when compared to human history).
Is Gordon Gecko the only true rightist?
Gorden Gecko isn't real; he's a movie character. But if you want to put individualism on the right, then individuals like Adam Smith, JP Say, Mises, Hayek, Rand, etc, would be on the right.
There is no real place to draw the line.
Of course there is; I just did it. Individualism asserts that individual rights (to their property), as opposed to the "needs of society," are absolute and indivisible.
Only a hermit is an individualist in any true sense of the word.
Individualism does not, as you imply, mean living in complete isolation. The individualist supports free and voluntary cooperation and condemns coercion (as opposed to persuasion). There is nothing anti-individualistic about choosing to join a hierarchical organization in order to maximize your remuneration.
There are many individual owners who freely choose to own a small portion of the firm. They have the power to change management if they so choose, for whatever reason (they form voting blocks). If they are part of the minority, then they have the right to sell their titles of ownership. There is nothing collectivistic about this. Again, collectivism =/= cooperation.
And you can either accept such rules or not accept such rules.