Crosswords6 mins ago
Fascism: Left Wing Or Right Wing?
36 Answers
Proposition: Far from being right wing, Fascism is a left wing creation. Discuss.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Some facts and definitions.
Fascism - “A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”; “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control”.
Nationalism - “Loyalty and devotion to a nation”; “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups”
Some examples of nationalist nations: China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, USA, and many, many more.
China – Communist, Authoritarian, Nationalist
North Korea – Communist, Authoritarian, Nationalist
Cuba – Communist, Authoritarian, Nationalist
Russia – Communist, Authoritarian, Nationalist
USA – Capitalist, Non-Authoritarian (only country in the world where free speech is enshrined in legislation), Nationalist.
Great Britain – Capitalist, pseudo-free speech, Nationalist (?)
Notable Nationalists and Fascists:
Benito Mussolini – Socialist. Self-confessed Fascist.
Adolph Hitler – Socialist. Self-confessed Fascist.
Given all of the above, can someone explain to me how Hitler was right wing? I hear it time and time again that Hitler was a right wing Fascist. This, despite the fact that he was a self confessed socialist. Even the name, Nationalsozialismus (National Socialism) – contracted to NAZI – shows that the party was socialist and therefore, of the left wing persuasion.
Fascism - “A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”; “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control”.
Nationalism - “Loyalty and devotion to a nation”; “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups”
Some examples of nationalist nations: China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, USA, and many, many more.
China – Communist, Authoritarian, Nationalist
North Korea – Communist, Authoritarian, Nationalist
Cuba – Communist, Authoritarian, Nationalist
Russia – Communist, Authoritarian, Nationalist
USA – Capitalist, Non-Authoritarian (only country in the world where free speech is enshrined in legislation), Nationalist.
Great Britain – Capitalist, pseudo-free speech, Nationalist (?)
Notable Nationalists and Fascists:
Benito Mussolini – Socialist. Self-confessed Fascist.
Adolph Hitler – Socialist. Self-confessed Fascist.
Given all of the above, can someone explain to me how Hitler was right wing? I hear it time and time again that Hitler was a right wing Fascist. This, despite the fact that he was a self confessed socialist. Even the name, Nationalsozialismus (National Socialism) – contracted to NAZI – shows that the party was socialist and therefore, of the left wing persuasion.
A few thoughts:
1. Maybe your model, where the 'left' and the 'right' are diametrically opposed, is a false one? Back in my teaching days, my best friend's political views were generally well to the left of Lenin and my own views were generally well to the right of Hitler but we agreed on most things, largely because our agreed model of political thought was a circular one (rather than a linear one), where 'far left' and 'far right' were essentially one and the same.
2. Your suggestion that the USA is the only country to enshrine free speech within its legislation (or should that be 'constitution'?) is a false one. The South African Bill of Rights enshrines free speech within law, Hong Kong's 'Basic Law' is similar in this respect, all EU states are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights (which provides a right to free speech) and so on.
3. Right-wing extremism in this country seems to thrive best within areas that traditionally vote Labour. Indeed, in the absence of any of their 'own' candidates, it's probably far more likely that many members of the National Front, the British National Party or Britain First would actually vote for a Socialist candidate than for a Tory one!
1. Maybe your model, where the 'left' and the 'right' are diametrically opposed, is a false one? Back in my teaching days, my best friend's political views were generally well to the left of Lenin and my own views were generally well to the right of Hitler but we agreed on most things, largely because our agreed model of political thought was a circular one (rather than a linear one), where 'far left' and 'far right' were essentially one and the same.
2. Your suggestion that the USA is the only country to enshrine free speech within its legislation (or should that be 'constitution'?) is a false one. The South African Bill of Rights enshrines free speech within law, Hong Kong's 'Basic Law' is similar in this respect, all EU states are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights (which provides a right to free speech) and so on.
3. Right-wing extremism in this country seems to thrive best within areas that traditionally vote Labour. Indeed, in the absence of any of their 'own' candidates, it's probably far more likely that many members of the National Front, the British National Party or Britain First would actually vote for a Socialist candidate than for a Tory one!
Buenchico - “Maybe your model, where the 'left' and the 'right' are diametrically opposed, is a false one?”
No. It isn't. They are diametrically opposed. One is in favour of large, ever-expanding governmental control and the other isn't.
Buenchico - “Your suggestion that the USA is the only country to enshrine free speech within its legislation (or should that be 'constitution'?) is a false one... [EU states are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights].”
No It isn't. We don't have free speech in the UK. There are things I could say in public in this country that I would be arrested for but if I said the same things in the USA, I would be exempt from prosecution. Please don't pretend that this is not so. To do so would be to embarrasses yourself.
Buenchico - “Right-wing extremism in this country seems to thrive best within areas that traditionally vote Labour...”
Thereby proving my point. The extreme left are extremists, fascists and authoritarians.
No. It isn't. They are diametrically opposed. One is in favour of large, ever-expanding governmental control and the other isn't.
Buenchico - “Your suggestion that the USA is the only country to enshrine free speech within its legislation (or should that be 'constitution'?) is a false one... [EU states are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights].”
No It isn't. We don't have free speech in the UK. There are things I could say in public in this country that I would be arrested for but if I said the same things in the USA, I would be exempt from prosecution. Please don't pretend that this is not so. To do so would be to embarrasses yourself.
Buenchico - “Right-wing extremism in this country seems to thrive best within areas that traditionally vote Labour...”
Thereby proving my point. The extreme left are extremists, fascists and authoritarians.
Zacs-Master
I googled it. It says nothing about whether the Nazis were far left or far right. They are/were far left and the mainstream media and others have tried to distance themselves from this fact for generations for obvious reasons.
But truth matters. Because one ignores historical truths at ones peril. If you can't recognise your ideological enemy then you're not prepared. And the far left have, for the most part, hidden their fascistic past under the guise of “the far right”. But it is they who are the real enemies of freedom and democracy.
A prime example of this is in the USA. The Democrat party is seen by many as the party of tolerance and acceptance. But the Democrat party were the progenitors of the KKK. They were the slave owning racists. A fact that they try and hide now. Astonishingly, a great many people in the USA think that the KKK were a Republican creation. Many in the USA think that Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat as he is credited with freeing the slaves. He was a Republican.
The political left has a well documented history of distorting and hiding its own despicable past by laying the blame for its atrocities at the feet of their right wing opponents. It's all smoke and mirrors. The left always blame their political opponents for the very thing they themselves are responsible for.
I googled it. It says nothing about whether the Nazis were far left or far right. They are/were far left and the mainstream media and others have tried to distance themselves from this fact for generations for obvious reasons.
But truth matters. Because one ignores historical truths at ones peril. If you can't recognise your ideological enemy then you're not prepared. And the far left have, for the most part, hidden their fascistic past under the guise of “the far right”. But it is they who are the real enemies of freedom and democracy.
A prime example of this is in the USA. The Democrat party is seen by many as the party of tolerance and acceptance. But the Democrat party were the progenitors of the KKK. They were the slave owning racists. A fact that they try and hide now. Astonishingly, a great many people in the USA think that the KKK were a Republican creation. Many in the USA think that Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat as he is credited with freeing the slaves. He was a Republican.
The political left has a well documented history of distorting and hiding its own despicable past by laying the blame for its atrocities at the feet of their right wing opponents. It's all smoke and mirrors. The left always blame their political opponents for the very thing they themselves are responsible for.
Jim360 - “Just because the Nazis called themselves socialist doesn't make them so.”
Yes it does. It really does. Particularly if their political manifestos were socialist in nature, which they were. As an example, the Nazi manifesto says (amongst many other things) that:
* We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
* We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
* We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose.
I think it's reasonable to say that when someone or some group propose socialist policies, espouse socialist agendas, say that they are socialists and carry out socialist programmes, then it's pretty safe to assume that they're socialists. To further emphasise the point, here is an essay written by Joseph Goebbels himself in 1932. In it, there is a section titled, “Why Are We Socialists?” whereby he explains explicitly that the Nazis are socialists and the reasons for this:
https:/
Your argument seems to be that a person isn't what they say they are if you disagree with their assertion. That's a very weak argument, particularly if the person (or group) in question acts in a way that demonstrates that their conviction is genuine.
The Nazis were socialists and fascists. Ergo, they were on the far left of the political spectrum. No amount of hand waving or misdirection can change that fact. It may not be a fact you particularly like but facts don't care about your feelings.
Yes it does. It really does. Particularly if their political manifestos were socialist in nature, which they were. As an example, the Nazi manifesto says (amongst many other things) that:
* We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
* We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
* We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose.
I think it's reasonable to say that when someone or some group propose socialist policies, espouse socialist agendas, say that they are socialists and carry out socialist programmes, then it's pretty safe to assume that they're socialists. To further emphasise the point, here is an essay written by Joseph Goebbels himself in 1932. In it, there is a section titled, “Why Are We Socialists?” whereby he explains explicitly that the Nazis are socialists and the reasons for this:
https:/
Your argument seems to be that a person isn't what they say they are if you disagree with their assertion. That's a very weak argument, particularly if the person (or group) in question acts in a way that demonstrates that their conviction is genuine.
The Nazis were socialists and fascists. Ergo, they were on the far left of the political spectrum. No amount of hand waving or misdirection can change that fact. It may not be a fact you particularly like but facts don't care about your feelings.
Fascism is a word and words can be understood in different ways by different people e.g. socialism, communism, democracy,religions, god.....
Fascism could be right wing, left wing or no wing.
The day the Nazi manifesto ( 25-point Program) you mention was launched was the same day the German Workers' Party (DAP)
became the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP/Nazi).
I am not sure if any 'profit-sharing' went on, maybe that happened to Nazi cronies, the steel industry was nationalized and the banks.
" It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party."
http://
https:/
The 25-point Program of the NSDAP is frightening tyranny
https:/
Fascism could be right wing, left wing or no wing.
The day the Nazi manifesto ( 25-point Program) you mention was launched was the same day the German Workers' Party (DAP)
became the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP/Nazi).
I am not sure if any 'profit-sharing' went on, maybe that happened to Nazi cronies, the steel industry was nationalized and the banks.
" It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several State owned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party."
http://
https:/
The 25-point Program of the NSDAP is frightening tyranny
https:/
You asked a very similar question once before and adopted a rather aggressive stance with your respondents, if you don’t mind me saying so. I’m not really sure that it matters whether you call fascism left or right. There’s more than one type.
I suppose there are people who refuse to believe that anything “right wing” can be bad and therefore fascism can’t be pigeonholed as that. But that only serves as a possible explanation for asking the question.
Fascism is generally seen as being nationalistic, communism as internationalist. And yet Stalin was perhaps a genuine “national socialist” as he believed in patriotic socialism - supposedly. So maybe he was a “fascist”
But it’s more interesting to look at the nature of these ideologies I think rather than look to label them.
I suppose there are people who refuse to believe that anything “right wing” can be bad and therefore fascism can’t be pigeonholed as that. But that only serves as a possible explanation for asking the question.
Fascism is generally seen as being nationalistic, communism as internationalist. And yet Stalin was perhaps a genuine “national socialist” as he believed in patriotic socialism - supposedly. So maybe he was a “fascist”
But it’s more interesting to look at the nature of these ideologies I think rather than look to label them.
Indeed. Virtually the same question:
https:/
https:/
Few things with birdie are ever discussions. He offers a debate topic and then immediately lays into people who disagree with him. I knew this topic sounded familiar. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now, to describe the Nazis as in any meaningful sense of the left.
The only important point to add is that "right" and "far right" are vastly far apart than right and left, in the same way that "far left" and left should have nothing to do with each other. Whether that's because of a horseshoe view of politics, or because far-anything is about totalitarianism, is a point for political scientists.
The only important point to add is that "right" and "far right" are vastly far apart than right and left, in the same way that "far left" and left should have nothing to do with each other. Whether that's because of a horseshoe view of politics, or because far-anything is about totalitarianism, is a point for political scientists.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago