Fascism is a leftwing ideology!

[stormthebeaches]

I've been seeing this idiocy on the internet more and more often and I am turning to this board for advice on how to best crush it. I have tried pointing out that the right/left divide originally came about after the French Revolution, with the leftists calling for equality and freedom and the rightists claiming to represent order. I explained that the left is usually thought of as progressive whilst the right is about keeping the current order or going back to "the good old days".

All I got in response is, left wing=big government. Fascism=big government. Therefore fascism is left wing.

I tried pointing out that Fascism endorses nationalism, corporatism, imperialism and racism. All things that left wing thinkers like Marx despise on the grounds that they are tools to distract the workers with. But to no avail.

So, can anyone help me out here?

[Samuel]

All I got in response is, left wing=big government. Fascism=big government. Therefore fascism is left wing.

Point out that the military would also fit under the definition of "left wing". After all, the armed services in any other context would be counted as inefficient totalitarian statists.

[MarshalPurnell]

Fascism classically claimed to represent a "third way" other than Left or Right. It did not embrace class warfare like the Left, or deny it like the Right, but intended to use the power of the State to transcend it. In theory the all-encompassing State represented the reconciliation of the interests of workers and industrialists alike, maintaining private property while the government directed it to the benefit of the nation as a whole. It organized on a nationalist basis, and embraced militarism as a part of the exultation of struggle as a metaphysical principle. It was not necessarily racist, though obviously the Nazi Party and Mussolini's later emulation of Jewish laws colors the record; fascist parties in Brazil and Finland promoted the idea of national diversity as strengthening, though. Classical Fascist rhetoric was directed against the staid, old "plutocratic" powers and denounced unbridled capitalism as much it denigrated Marxism as economically clumsy and disgracefully anti-nationalist.

In power most Fascist governments acted as right-wing authoritarians. But that tends to raise the question of what a "real" Fascist government was. Mussolini during his march to power was much more radical and hostile to "reactionary" elements like the monarchy and industrialists than he was in power, but Il Duce remained answerable to Victor Emmanuel II until 1943. His Salo Republic hearkened back much more to the original, radical Fascist ideology than his years in power in Rome. Hitler was right-wing, though his hatred of monarchist institutions and attitudes, and willingness to subordinate the economy to his personal vision, muddies the waters a bit. Franco was unquestionably right-wing, and so traditionalist and conservative it raises real questions as to whether or not he can legitimately be considered a fascist of any kind, and certainly wasn't one after WWII. Almost no one really considers Salazar or Horthy to be fascist, and the royal dictatorships of the Balkans and the rule of Metaxas in Greece bear some resemblance without really being anything more than orderly, nationalist authoritarian governments. On the other end, there can be made an argument that Juan Peron in Argentina was both a fascist and left-wing in his economic and social policies, though I would consider Peronism to be too idiosyncratic to bear much on other considerations.

So it really depends. In practice Fascism tends to resemble right-wing authoritarianism. In theory it seeks to be another pole on the political axis, and Fascist governments have acted against "reactionary" elements and "capitalism," though rarely with the energy devoted to the (more threatening) left-wing workers' movements and Communist agitation. Since almost all Fascist governments took power with the cooperation of conservative elites rather than seizing it in a revolution the drift to the right was probably inevitable. So in practice Fascism has been right-wing even if it theoretically could be an alternative force. Of course this is overthinking it. People use fascism to mean "stuff I don't like." It isn't taken seriously as an ideology, and given the credible argument that Mussolini was just pulling ideas out from a grab-bag of positions to build a power base, perhaps it shouldn't be. That's still a major debate among historians.

[Darth Wong]

I've been seeing this idiocy on the internet more and more often and I am turning to this board for advice on how to best crush it. I have tried pointing out that the right/left divide originally came about after the French Revolution, with the leftists calling for equality and freedom and the rightists claiming to represent order. I explained that the left is usually thought of as progressive whilst the right is about keeping the current order or going back to "the good old days".

All I got in response is, left wing=big government. Fascism=big government. Therefore fascism is left wing.

So Sweden, with its expensive cradle-to-grave social programs, is more fascist than Iraq under Saddam Hussein, which had a much smaller government with far less extensive social programs?

If there's one aspect of "big government" which is very consistently correlated with fascism, it's a military buildup. Hmmm ... what is the one sort of "big government" that right-wingers love?

[Vympel]

This bullshit comes from that moron Jonah Goldberg's idiotic book, Liberal Fascism. There are many detailed takedowns of this supremely stupid book all over the internet, google that you should find some stuff if you need more involved rebuttals for something that absurd.

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

In my opinion, the distinction between left and right concerns the distribution of socioeconomic power rather than simple government size. The left tends to favor greater socioeconomic egalitarianism, whereas the right favors a more hierarchical society. Notice that the conservatives are only bothered by those government programs that are intended to equalize society. Also notice how fond libertarians and conservatives both are of capitalism, an inherently hierarchical system.

Using this definition, not only would fascists definitely qualify as right-wing, so would Marxists like Stalin and Mao. They both believe in a rigid hierarchy with the few dominating the many. By contrast, extreme leftists would be people like anarcho-socialists, who believe in abolishing capitalism, the state, and hierarchical institutions in general.

[Marcus Aurelius]

In my opinion, the distinction between left and right concerns the distribution of socioeconomic power rather than simple government size. The left tends to favor greater socioeconomic egalitarianism, whereas the right favors a more hierarchical society. Notice that the conservatives are only bothered by those government programs that are intended to equalize society. Also notice how fond libertarians and conservatives both are of capitalism, an inherently hierarchical system.

Using this definition, not only would fascists definitely qualify as right-wing, so would Marxists like Stalin and Mao. They both believe in a rigid hierarchy with the few dominating the many. By contrast, extreme leftists would be people like anarcho-socialists, who believe in abolishing capitalism, the state, and hierarchical institutions in general.

Marxist-Leninists believed in strong central government, but they also believed in economic egalitarianism. So I find your conclusion that Stalin And Mao were right-wing incompatible with your earlier assertion that the left favors socioeconomic egalitarianism. While it is true that Stalin and Mao forgot the social part in their government, they nevertheless maintained at least publicly that eventually the strongly hierarchical system would become unnecessary and true communism would we both economically and socially egalitarian system.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. Also, while Stalin and Mao constructed very harsh, hierarchical governments, they were also far more open to the idea of talent permeating from the lower classes into the upper one, and at least paid lip service to the idea of trying to raise the masses out of the life of subsistence farmers.

So if we're talking about socioeconomic power there's a problem, because Mao and Stalin concentrated social power ruthlessly, while spreading economic power widely.

[Illuminatus Primus]

In my opinion, the distinction between left and right concerns the distribution of socioeconomic power rather than simple government size. The left tends to favor greater socioeconomic egalitarianism, whereas the right favors a more hierarchical society. Notice that the conservatives are only bothered by those government programs that are intended to equalize society. Also notice how fond libertarians and conservatives both are of capitalism, an inherently hierarchical system.

Using this definition, not only would fascists definitely qualify as right-wing, so would Marxists like Stalin and Mao. They both believe in a rigid hierarchy with the few dominating the many. By contrast, extreme leftists would be people like anarcho-socialists, who believe in abolishing capitalism, the state, and hierarchical institutions in general.

Marxist-Leninists believed in strong central government, but they also believed in economic egalitarianism. So I find your conclusion that Stalin And Mao were right-wing incompatible with your earlier assertion that the left favors socioeconomic egalitarianism. While it is true that Stalin and Mao forgot the social part in their government, they nevertheless maintained at least publicly that eventually the strongly hierarchical system would become unnecessary and true communism would we both economically and socially egalitarian system.

Why should we take the public declarations of a self-appointed governing elite anymore seriously than we do for the American GOP or other politically-self-justifying elites? Oppositionists and later fall-outs from the Russian Revolution openly criticized the Bolshevik Party as having no purpose other than to maintain power and its relative position in society, having vacated all genuinely socialist positions and out-rightly destroyed revolutionary democratic and egalitarian institutions. One ends up in quandaries where one has to differentiate between the propagandistic claims of elites in power and the intellectual classes that serve them, be they traditional-conservative, fascist, state capitalist democratic, or Leninist in character, and sincere intellectual positions and aims, and also the reality of eventually implemented state policy behind both ostensibly sincere abstract theory and cynical elite propaganda.

[Teleros]

Whether fascism is left or right is going to depend a lot (obviously) on your definition of left & right wing. Having read Liberal Fascism and so on, here's a (probably) fairly accurate list of left & right wing ideas from say author Jonah Goldberg's point of view (and yes, I agree that several of these are strange bedfellows, but anyway):

Left Wing: Bigger government, greater focus on groups than individuals (including society or the nation in general), greater focus on equality, "less free" market.
Right Wing: Smaller government, greater focus on individuals than groups, greater focus on tradition (which is where religion comes in), "more free" market.

You may disagree, and I know it's a very brief list, but just wait a minute and keep reading.

Look then at the Nazi 25 point program. They're vague though, but anyway if you take the above definitions of left- and right- wing, then yes, the nazis were left-wing, or at least more left-wing than right-wing. Point #11 could've come straight out of Das Kapital, and there are a fair few other things typically thought of as left-wing today (take #15 or the state education in #20).


The first counter of course is "that's not what ______ means", be it left-wing politics, right-wing politics or even fascism (which, as Goldberg points out, correctly I think, comes in many different forms beyond simple nazism). With regards to the OP, I'd suggest finding someone who either understand the subject better or who can at least agree to debate with you using an agreed starting point (like say the above).

The second is to agree, but point out that Ayn Rand lolbertarianism or David Friedman's anarcho-capitalism nonsense would be just as damaging to an economy / world order / whatever... it's just that so far we've yet to have such types take over a major country. Yes, extreme left-wing politics like fascism and communism can be had, but a rational person would agree that extreme right-wing politics would be just as bad.

The third, related to the second, is simply "so what?". Leaving aside highly partisan election year politics and such for a minute, does it honestly matter whether we call something left or right wing? Surely it's the actual policies and practices that need to be looked at. I imagine most of the SDN posters reading this will support some level of old age welfare, the abolition of child labour, and equal rights for citizens. The fact that all those points are on the nazi 25 point program is, or should be, irrelevant. There's a reason "guilt by association" is a classic fallacy after all.

Finally, play the game yourself. If the other guy's an ardent GW Bush supporter, point out that Bush was actually a left-wing president, or that patriotism is arguably a left-wing trait and the armed forces are left-wing organisations what with their group > individual focus. The smart opponents will catch on, the stupid ones will provide an amusing spectacle (and like most Trektards today, it's not like you're really expecting to convert them after all).

[Plekhanov]

Whether fascism is left or right is going to depend a lot (obviously) on your definition of left & right wing. Having read Liberal Fascism and so on, here's a (probably) fairly accurate list of left & right wing ideas from say author Jonah Goldberg's point of view (and yes, I agree that several of these are strange bedfellows, but anyway):

Left Wing: Bigger government, greater focus on groups than individuals (including society or the nation in general), greater focus on equality, "less free" market.
Right Wing: Smaller government, greater focus on individuals than groups, greater focus on tradition (which is where religion comes in), "more free" market.

You may disagree, and I know it's a very brief list, but just wait a minute and keep reading.

Look then at the Nazi 25 point program. They're vague though, but anyway if you take the above definitions of left- and right- wing, then yes, the nazis were left-wing, or at least more left-wing than right-wing. Point #11 could've come straight out of Das Kapital, and there are a fair few other things typically thought of as left-wing today (take #15 or the state education in #20).

Why would you look at the 25 points but not look at to what extent they actually tried to implement them? If we simply accept Nazi propaganda at face value are we also going to declare the East Germany was Democratic because after all that's what it's propaganda said?

[Samuel]

1-8, 19, 23-24 are blatantly and extremely rascist. 9 and 10 are meaningless. 11-14, 18 are anti-wealthy. 15, 20-21 are social safety net. 16 and 17 are pro-business. 21 and 22 are militistic.

Additionally 9, 10, 18, 19, 23, 24 and 25 are the blueprint for setting up a totalitarian state. I should note that the measures against the wealthy were almost certainly to be used against the jews. Germany did not implent 11 to 14 or 18 in any general sense to my knowledge as they would have resulted in the nation abolishing capitalism .

[Darth Wong]

Why the fuck is anyone bringing up the Nazis? Of all the western nations, America was the most supportive of the Nazis during their rise to power. You would think Americans would be self-conscious about using that particular example.

Besides, the average American right-winger's worship of all things military would fit right in with Nazi Germany. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Americans like to downplay the fact that the particular kind of "big government" espoused by fascists invariably includes a strong emphasis on the military. Why? Because that's precisely what characterizes American politics right now, and nobody wants to see the parallel.

[Samuel]

Why the fuck is anyone bringing up the Nazis? Of all the western nations, America was the most supportive of the Nazis during their rise to power. You would think Americans would be self-conscious about using that particular example.

Besides, the average American right-winger's worship of all things military would fit right in with Nazi Germany. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Americans like to downplay the fact that the particular kind of "big government" espoused by fascists invariably includes a strong emphasis on the military. Why? Because that's precisely what characterizes American politics right now, and nobody wants to see the parallel.

It isn't like the copied their eugenics program off the US... never mind. Is there a fascist nation the US didn't support? With the goal of containing communism I can't think of one we turned down as an ally.

[Darth Wong]

I'm also curious why anyone takes the 25-point program at face value when it sounds pro-labour but we know for a fact that Hitler outlawed trade unions.

[ThomasP]

Regarding fascism as a political ideology, I've read to this essay by Umberto Eco several times in the past:

Eternal Fascism: 14 Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt

I'm not a political scientist nor a historian, only an interested layman, but that reads fairly true to my eye; fascism is really nothing but an assorted collection of social engineering tools (including the beloved nationalism and anti-intellectualism) and, for lack of better phrasing, macho bullshit.

The list in that essay overlaps far more with the modern right than any left-wing viewpoint I've ever come across.

[Teebs]

Why the fuck is anyone bringing up the Nazis? Of all the western nations, America was the most supportive of the Nazis during their rise to power. You would think Americans would be self-conscious about using that particular example.

Do you have an article or something on that? It sounds quite interesting, I was aware that the UK and the USA had pretty pro fascist elements in the population and in government, but I never really looked at the extent and it's the kind of topic I like to read about.

[Ilya Muromets]

Why the fuck is anyone bringing up the Nazis? Of all the western nations, America was the most supportive of the Nazis during their rise to power. You would think Americans would be self-conscious about using that particular example.

Do you have an article or something on that? It sounds quite interesting, I was aware that the UK and the USA had pretty pro fascist elements in the population and in government, but I never really looked at the extent and it's the kind of topic I like to read about.

Well, this site summarizes the rise of American fascism. Mind you, I'm not sure how sound it is, but it seems objectively written and decently researched for the most part. Can anyone else with better knowledge of history vouch for this?

[Teleros]

1-8, 19, 23-24 are blatantly and extremely rascist. 9 and 10 are meaningless. 11-14, 18 are anti-wealthy. 15, 20-21 are social safety net. 16 and 17 are pro-business. 21 and 22 are militistic.

Ah, but 1-8 essentially means viewing people first by what group they belong to, and as "group > individuals" is left-wing, it makes the nazis more left-wing. 11-15, 18, 20 & 21 are as you said either anti-wealthy or social security, both of which tend to be considered left-wing as well.
Like I said, you've got to define your terms first.

Why the fuck is anyone bringing up the Nazis? Of all the western nations, America was the most supportive of the Nazis during their rise to power. You would think Americans would be self-conscious about using that particular example.

I'm British . Also, the nazis have a nice convenient list of things they like (ok, allegedly like), which is helpful when posting at 3am.

Besides, the average American right-winger's worship of all things military would fit right in with Nazi Germany. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Americans like to downplay the fact that the particular kind of "big government" espoused by fascists invariably includes a strong emphasis on the military. Why? Because that's precisely what characterizes American politics right now, and nobody wants to see the parallel.

Do you have an article or something on that? It sounds quite interesting, I was aware that the UK and the USA had pretty pro fascist elements in the population and in government, but I never really looked at the extent and it's the kind of topic I like to read about.

Goldberg goes on a fair bit about this; eg how FDR, I think it was, was told to tone down some of his policies due to people lumping him together with Mussolini & Hitler. Of course in this debate its a rather suspect source, but American 20th Century history isn't my strong point, so if anyone else has more info it'd be helpful.

Anyway, WRT the nazi program, the point was more to show where Goldberg et al were coming from with their conceptions of left and right.

[stormthebeaches]

Ah, but 1-8 essentially means viewing people first by what group they belong to, and as "group > individuals" is left-wing, it makes the nazis more left-wing. 11-15, 18, 20 & 21 are as you said either anti-wealthy or social security, both of which tend to be considered left-wing as well.
Like I said, you've got to define your terms first.

The idea that the left wing = collectivism and the right wing = individualism is a complete myth that ignores almost 200 years of history. The right/left divide originally came about after the French Revolution, with the revolutionaries being left wingers and the pro-monarchy, counterrevolutionary crowd being right wingers. The whole right wing = individualism is a very recent invention, and even then it is not completely accurate. The modern right wing may be small when it comes to economic matters but it is huge when it comes to social values, moral values and military spending.

Do you have an article or something on that? It sounds quite interesting, I was aware that the UK and the USA had pretty pro fascist elements in the population and in government, but I never really looked at the extent and it's the kind of topic I like to read about.

I too would like a link on this. I find it had to believe that FDR supported the rise of Hitler considering how FDR wanted the US to enter the war against Hitler a lot sooner but the isolationists prevented him from doing so. I'd say that us Brits did more to support Hitler's rise considering many members of the British government wanted to use Hitler as a shield against Communism.

Unless of Wong means individual Americans and American businesses.

[Darth Wong]

I'm talking about Americans as individuals, not FDR.

[Iosef Cross]

The classification of left or right wing depends on the meaning of left and right.

The classical definition of left is that leftists are open to change. The left is the wing of change. While the right is the wing of conservatism. The ones that want things to stay the way they are now (or were in the past!).

In that sense, Fascism can be regarded to be leftist when applied to present democratic capitalist nations. Since they are the movement of change. However, since the meaning of right or left is determined by local conditions, Fascism could be considered right wing in some societies.

[Iosef Cross]

Whether fascism is left or right is going to depend a lot (obviously) on your definition of left & right wing. Having read Liberal Fascism and so on, here's a (probably) fairly accurate list of left & right wing ideas from say author Jonah Goldberg's point of view (and yes, I agree that several of these are strange bedfellows, but anyway):
Left Wing: Bigger government, greater focus on groups than individuals (including society or the nation in general), greater focus on equality, "less free" market.
Right Wing: Smaller government, greater focus on individuals than groups, greater focus on tradition (which is where religion comes in), "more free" market.

The left wing association with "less free" market and the right wing association with "free market" are only North American historical oddities. That's because the US historically was more free marketish than other nations, hence, right wing meant conserving this fossil of the classical liberal tradition.

But the classical liberal tradition was the left of its day, when they were battling with the right of the time, the defenders of the ancient regime, with wished to preserve the old regime and block the emergence of the modern market/industrial/urban society.

[K. A. Pital]

The classification of left or right wing depends on the meaning of left and right.

The classical definition of left is that leftists are open to change. The left is the wing of change. While the right is the wing of conservatism. The ones that want things to stay the way they are now (or were in the past!).

In that sense, Fascism can be regarded to be leftist when applied to present democratic capitalist nations. Since they are the movement of change. However, since the meaning of right or left is determined by local conditions, Fascism could be considered right wing in some societies.

That is only if you define "right" as conservative. But why? That makes no sense.

In a left-wing nation (for example, Chile) the revolutionary can be the right-wing, because he seeks to destroy the left-wing order and place his own instead.

Same applies in a way to the Spanish Civil War - Franco was not the "conservator". He was conservative in the sense that he was willing to unite with retrogrades and the clergy who hate all social progress; but he was not conservative that he wanted to preserve the government. Quite the opposite, he sought to destroy and replace it.

Revolutionary character of a movement does not speak much about whether it's left or right, in my view.

[stormthebeaches]

The classification of left or right wing depends on the meaning of left and right.

The classical definition of left is that leftists are open to change. The left is the wing of change. While the right is the wing of conservatism. The ones that want things to stay the way they are now (or were in the past!).

In that sense, Fascism can be regarded to be leftist when applied to present democratic capitalist nations. Since they are the movement of change. However, since the meaning of right or left is determined by local conditions, Fascism could be considered right wing in some societies.

No, this definition still does not make Fascism left wing. You are correct that the left wing is usually thought of as the progressives whilst the right wing is thought of as Conservatives. However, right wing ideology is not just limited to Conservatism. It can also be about regression, bring things back to a mythical golden age. This is one of the principle tenant of Fascism, a desire to bring the nation back to "the good old days".

The regressive ideologies of Fascism is one of the reasons why it is a right wing ideology.