Crosswords1 min 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.
Jim360 - “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.”
Nazi's were and are on the political left. Fascism is a leftist ideology. Totalitarianism is a leftist ideology.
Prove me wrong by logic and reasoning. I dare you.
Nazi's were and are on the political left. Fascism is a leftist ideology. Totalitarianism is a leftist ideology.
Prove me wrong by logic and reasoning. I dare you.
"Nazi's were and are on the political left... Prove me wrong by logic and reasoning. I dare you."
Difficult to 'prove' some(?) past events. { ¦¦ ¬ (#)
https:/
Difficult to 'prove' some(?) past events. { ¦¦ ¬ (#)
https:/
Jim360 - “Totalitarianism is neither left nor right, but part of the extremes of either political wing.”
I agree. Totalitarianism can be practised by both sides of the political spectrum. But in saying that you're attempting to divert the narrative. And you know it.
What I said was that the Nazi's were and are and remain on the political left. Fascism is a leftist ideology. Totalitarianism is a leftist ideology.
And that remains a fact and no amount of obfuscating hand-waving can erase that reality. The political left (in the form of Benito Mussolini) endorsed and codified fascism. Hitler was a fascist and idolised Mussolini specifically because he was a socialist and a totalitarian. Hitler was a far-left fascist. He was on the left of the political spectrum. To believe otherwise is idiotic and to deny reality.
And the proof of the pudding is in the lengths that those on the political left (and I include you in that) go to disassociate themselves with Hitler and the Nazis. The entirety of the mainstream media fall over themselves to say that Hitler was on the 'far-right'. Most people believe that Hitler was a 'far-right' extremist because of the mainstream media's propaganda. The exact opposite is true.
And you and people like you, lie to us all when you deny the origins of the Nazis. What is the matter with you? Why is so hard to admit the truth? That Hitler was a leftist extremist and a totalitarian barbarian?
Why do you lie? Do you get off on telling lies? Please tell me. I really want to know.
I agree. Totalitarianism can be practised by both sides of the political spectrum. But in saying that you're attempting to divert the narrative. And you know it.
What I said was that the Nazi's were and are and remain on the political left. Fascism is a leftist ideology. Totalitarianism is a leftist ideology.
And that remains a fact and no amount of obfuscating hand-waving can erase that reality. The political left (in the form of Benito Mussolini) endorsed and codified fascism. Hitler was a fascist and idolised Mussolini specifically because he was a socialist and a totalitarian. Hitler was a far-left fascist. He was on the left of the political spectrum. To believe otherwise is idiotic and to deny reality.
And the proof of the pudding is in the lengths that those on the political left (and I include you in that) go to disassociate themselves with Hitler and the Nazis. The entirety of the mainstream media fall over themselves to say that Hitler was on the 'far-right'. Most people believe that Hitler was a 'far-right' extremist because of the mainstream media's propaganda. The exact opposite is true.
And you and people like you, lie to us all when you deny the origins of the Nazis. What is the matter with you? Why is so hard to admit the truth? That Hitler was a leftist extremist and a totalitarian barbarian?
Why do you lie? Do you get off on telling lies? Please tell me. I really want to know.
To accuse me of lying, you'd have to presume that I was a guardian of the truth. Which, I have to admit, is kind of flattering, but it's clearly not meant in that way now, is it?
Maybe it's a definition clash. How are you defining left- and right in this way?
For example, can we agree that left-wing politics tends to emphasise social equality, whereas right-wing politics tends to accept the idea of a natural hierarchy -- say, because competition must have a winner. Moderate right-wingers would then merely allow society to keep this hierarchy as a natural consequence of the human condition, and far-right politicians would seek to actively impose and emphasise that. Hence the doctrine of a superior "Aryan" race in Nazism.
The contradiction in Communism is that it seeks to destroy the hierarchy, but of course can only do that by installing some superiors, who sit above everything in order to preserve the equality.
Those are the traditional and still-accepted definitions. It's possible and indeed likely that Nazism borrowed or stole some other elements of leftist politics, but I'd submit, and most commentators would agree, that this was really a front.
The situation is more complicated in Mussolini's Italy, in ways I can't claim to fully appreciate yet. But this goes back to the start: you can't accuse me of lying without assuming that I knew the truth already. That's a presumption, and a fairly aggressive and rude one.
Maybe it's a definition clash. How are you defining left- and right in this way?
For example, can we agree that left-wing politics tends to emphasise social equality, whereas right-wing politics tends to accept the idea of a natural hierarchy -- say, because competition must have a winner. Moderate right-wingers would then merely allow society to keep this hierarchy as a natural consequence of the human condition, and far-right politicians would seek to actively impose and emphasise that. Hence the doctrine of a superior "Aryan" race in Nazism.
The contradiction in Communism is that it seeks to destroy the hierarchy, but of course can only do that by installing some superiors, who sit above everything in order to preserve the equality.
Those are the traditional and still-accepted definitions. It's possible and indeed likely that Nazism borrowed or stole some other elements of leftist politics, but I'd submit, and most commentators would agree, that this was really a front.
The situation is more complicated in Mussolini's Italy, in ways I can't claim to fully appreciate yet. But this goes back to the start: you can't accuse me of lying without assuming that I knew the truth already. That's a presumption, and a fairly aggressive and rude one.
If you want to know how far totalitarianism can go, look to the Albanian recent past & you could read the testimony of one Tanas Spasse in a book entitled, 'To the Lake: a Balkan Journey of War & Peace', - an Albanian who now works as a boatman on lake Ohrid, "His family was torn apart with vicious intent, he was brought up in a series of prison camps where the children had to eat worms: at one camp the inmates staged a revolt & were each given a further sentence of 1,700 years".
The writer, Kapka Kassabova, repeats this in text just to show it isn't a misprint; 'one thousand & seven hundred years'...
The writer, Kapka Kassabova, repeats this in text just to show it isn't a misprint; 'one thousand & seven hundred years'...
Jim “To accuse me of lying, you'd have to presume that I was a guardian of the truth. Which, I have to admit, is kind of flattering, but it's clearly not meant in that way now, is it?”
You seem to have a problem with logic and logical reasoning. I don't have to presume you're a "guardian of the truth" to conclude that you're telling fibs. That's actually quite a bizarre statement but not one that is wholly surprising.
You then go on to waffle a great deal without saying anything of any consequence. Just more proverbial hand waving.
The facts remain:
1. Fascism was/is a left wing concept, codified by Mussolini.
2. Hitler was a socialist and a fascist.
3. Fascism has always been a totalitarian ideology, born of the left.
It's a shame that your political ideology is aligned with fascism. You have my sympathies.
You seem to have a problem with logic and logical reasoning. I don't have to presume you're a "guardian of the truth" to conclude that you're telling fibs. That's actually quite a bizarre statement but not one that is wholly surprising.
You then go on to waffle a great deal without saying anything of any consequence. Just more proverbial hand waving.
The facts remain:
1. Fascism was/is a left wing concept, codified by Mussolini.
2. Hitler was a socialist and a fascist.
3. Fascism has always been a totalitarian ideology, born of the left.
It's a shame that your political ideology is aligned with fascism. You have my sympathies.
// I don't have to presume you're a "guardian of the truth" to conclude that you're telling fibs. //
Not so. If I didn't know what the truth was, then I'd be wrong, rather than lying. There's a difference.
As to the rest of your post, some discussion it has turned out to be! I've offered a definition of left- and right-wing that is almost universally accepted amongst political scientists and politicians. If you disagree then maybe explain why, rather than stating the "facts", as you see them -- of which at least two are disputable; although, as you might have seen from my earlier post, if you'd taken time out from insulting it, the third about Mussolini less so. Which obviously kills and doesn't even pretend to attempt a discussion.
There's no way in which my politics aligns with fascism; nor am I a liar; nor do I have a problem with logical reasoning. On that last point, I assume you are familiar with the fallacy of ad hominem?
Not so. If I didn't know what the truth was, then I'd be wrong, rather than lying. There's a difference.
As to the rest of your post, some discussion it has turned out to be! I've offered a definition of left- and right-wing that is almost universally accepted amongst political scientists and politicians. If you disagree then maybe explain why, rather than stating the "facts", as you see them -- of which at least two are disputable; although, as you might have seen from my earlier post, if you'd taken time out from insulting it, the third about Mussolini less so. Which obviously kills and doesn't even pretend to attempt a discussion.
There's no way in which my politics aligns with fascism; nor am I a liar; nor do I have a problem with logical reasoning. On that last point, I assume you are familiar with the fallacy of ad hominem?
Hi Jim,
You say: “There's no way in which my politics aligns with fascism; nor am I a liar; nor do I have a problem with logical reasoning. On that last point, I assume you are familiar with the fallacy of ad hominem?”
Yes, I am familiar with the logical fallacy of the ad hominem. To whit, attacking your opponent personally rather than addressing their arguments.
Unfortunately for the narrative you want to spin, I haven't actually indulged in the ad hominem attack. Instead, what I have done is point out the flaws in your reasoning and suggested that you're knowingly telling lies about the roots of fascism in order to exonerate the political left of any blame for it. In doing so, I'm not accusing you of being a fascist – I actually don't believe that for one moment – but the cold, hard truth is that the political left gave birth to fascism whether you like that fact or not. That's what I meant when I said that your politics aligns with fascism and that you are a liar. You're denying the truth about the origins of fascism. And you are doing so because it offends your sensibilities.
Let's be honest about this. The political left have form in this area. For example, a great many Americans – both Republican and Democrat – believe that the KKK are a right wing (ie. Republican) creation. In actual fact, the KKK were created by the Democrats in the south of the USA who wanted to keep their slaves. Now, magically, the KKK are seen by almost everyone as a creation of the far right. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The far left always oppresses the populace it governs by using fascistic methods (ie. censoring the press, eradicating free speech in general, encouraging and carrying out violent suppression of anyone who dares to defy the orthodoxy, etc.).
If you doubt this, try to think of a modern day, right wing government that oppresses its people in ways that could be reasonably described as fascist.
Then try to think of a modern day, left wing government that oppresses its people in a fascistic manner...
You say: “There's no way in which my politics aligns with fascism; nor am I a liar; nor do I have a problem with logical reasoning. On that last point, I assume you are familiar with the fallacy of ad hominem?”
Yes, I am familiar with the logical fallacy of the ad hominem. To whit, attacking your opponent personally rather than addressing their arguments.
Unfortunately for the narrative you want to spin, I haven't actually indulged in the ad hominem attack. Instead, what I have done is point out the flaws in your reasoning and suggested that you're knowingly telling lies about the roots of fascism in order to exonerate the political left of any blame for it. In doing so, I'm not accusing you of being a fascist – I actually don't believe that for one moment – but the cold, hard truth is that the political left gave birth to fascism whether you like that fact or not. That's what I meant when I said that your politics aligns with fascism and that you are a liar. You're denying the truth about the origins of fascism. And you are doing so because it offends your sensibilities.
Let's be honest about this. The political left have form in this area. For example, a great many Americans – both Republican and Democrat – believe that the KKK are a right wing (ie. Republican) creation. In actual fact, the KKK were created by the Democrats in the south of the USA who wanted to keep their slaves. Now, magically, the KKK are seen by almost everyone as a creation of the far right. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The far left always oppresses the populace it governs by using fascistic methods (ie. censoring the press, eradicating free speech in general, encouraging and carrying out violent suppression of anyone who dares to defy the orthodoxy, etc.).
If you doubt this, try to think of a modern day, right wing government that oppresses its people in ways that could be reasonably described as fascist.
Then try to think of a modern day, left wing government that oppresses its people in a fascistic manner...
Amber Rudd has just been “no platformed” from the Oxford Union because she was presiding over the Home Office when the recent Windrush immigration scandal popped. The fact that she had absolutely nothing to do with the sandal (a Labour ***-up) and that she has been a vocal supporter of women's and immigrant's rights for decades, apparently means nothing to these students.
They censor her right to speak because they assume they're not going to like what she says. They have no way of knowing what she was going to say since she never had a chance to say it but they believe it will cause them 'offence' so they ban her from speaking.
Now, who does that remind you of? A group of people who actively try to prevent those with opinions they don't like from speaking in a public forum? Hmmm...
Oh yeah. The Nazis did that. In the 1930s, Nazi thugs would turn up at speaking events they disapproved of and tried to get those events cancelled by shouting obscenities, creating a commotion and deliberately starting fights in an attempt to descend the gathering into a melee; basically using every fascistic tactic in the book to prevent the speaker from speaking.
Sound like familiar tactics? Of course it does. It's the exact same tactics the far left use today in order to censor speech they don't approve of.
They censor her right to speak because they assume they're not going to like what she says. They have no way of knowing what she was going to say since she never had a chance to say it but they believe it will cause them 'offence' so they ban her from speaking.
Now, who does that remind you of? A group of people who actively try to prevent those with opinions they don't like from speaking in a public forum? Hmmm...
Oh yeah. The Nazis did that. In the 1930s, Nazi thugs would turn up at speaking events they disapproved of and tried to get those events cancelled by shouting obscenities, creating a commotion and deliberately starting fights in an attempt to descend the gathering into a melee; basically using every fascistic tactic in the book to prevent the speaker from speaking.
Sound like familiar tactics? Of course it does. It's the exact same tactics the far left use today in order to censor speech they don't approve of.
You've pointed out nothing other than your own opinion.
The problem with your point about Democrats/Republicans is that it views politics in the US as static. It is true that Democrats were the ones opposed to the anti-Slavery movement and the origins of the KKK, but it is also true that the two major parties have shifted. This is why the Republicans now enjoy broad support across the South of the US where once it was the home of the Democrat Party. That shift in support is related to a shift in policies, a shift in alignment, that broadly took place in the middle of the 20th Century.
It's not difficult to think of either oppressive right-wing or oppressive left-wing governments: in the latter category you would have North Korea and China, of course; in the former you can count Orban's Hungary or Erdogan's Turkey. I'm sure there are more examples you can come up with; but regardless, these are extremes and don't or shouldn't be used to disparage left-/right-wing politics as a whole.
I've still yet to see an answer to how you define left- and right-wing politics, though. And here I mean defining the normal, rather than the extreme, versions.
The problem with your point about Democrats/Republicans is that it views politics in the US as static. It is true that Democrats were the ones opposed to the anti-Slavery movement and the origins of the KKK, but it is also true that the two major parties have shifted. This is why the Republicans now enjoy broad support across the South of the US where once it was the home of the Democrat Party. That shift in support is related to a shift in policies, a shift in alignment, that broadly took place in the middle of the 20th Century.
It's not difficult to think of either oppressive right-wing or oppressive left-wing governments: in the latter category you would have North Korea and China, of course; in the former you can count Orban's Hungary or Erdogan's Turkey. I'm sure there are more examples you can come up with; but regardless, these are extremes and don't or shouldn't be used to disparage left-/right-wing politics as a whole.
I've still yet to see an answer to how you define left- and right-wing politics, though. And here I mean defining the normal, rather than the extreme, versions.
Latest Posts
Home & Garden2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Food & Drink21 mins ago