Fascism is a leftwing ideology!

[stormthebeaches]

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.

I can see where your coming from but I disagree. Franco in Spain and Pinochet in Chile weren't revolutionaries. They were counterrevolutionaries reacting against change. You are correct that neither Franco or Pinochet were Conservatives, they were both Fascists.

[K. A. Pital]

I can see where your coming from but I disagree. Franco in Spain and Pinochet in Chile weren't revolutionaries. They were counterrevolutionaries reacting against change. You are correct that neither Franco or Pinochet were Conservatives, they were both Fascists.

Heh. But what is a difference between a revolutionary and a counter-revolutionary?

If a certain "revolutionary" system is installed for several decades or even several centuries, and is then destroyed, or at least there is such an attempt by right-wingers, is that still a counter-revolution or it's a right-wing revolution, and where is the principal difference?

I certainly agree fascism is regressive, but it can aim (not necessarily will, because it can enjoy support from the ruling class and then no revolution is necessary) to bring regression through the means of revolution. In reality it's a counter-revolution against the change that is deemed "incompatible" with "traditional values" or such, by the fascists. But what if the change happened long ago and has been there for generations? What if it did not come as a revolution, but came gradually - and the fascists, say, seek to abolish these changes in a violent manner and swiftly?

It seems the fascists would be initiating a regressive revolution of sorts.

[Darth Wong]

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.

Actual dictionary definition of "Left" (noun):

Main Entry: left
Function: noun
Date: 13th century

1 a : the left hand b : the location or direction of the left side c : the part on the left side d : a turn to the left <take a left at the intersection>
2 a : left field b : a blow struck with the left fist
3 often capitalized a : the part of a legislative chamber located to the left of the presiding officer b : the members of a continental European legislative body occupying the left as a result of holding more radical political views than other members
4 often capitalized a : those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order especially in politics and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man b : a radical as distinguished from a conservative position

So yes, "Left" is usually associated with advocacy of change, but that change is specifically in the direction of greater freedom or the well-being of the commoner. That's a pretty important piece of the definition which you left out.

[stormthebeaches]

Heh. But what is a difference between a revolutionary and a counter-revolutionary?

If a certain "revolutionary" system is installed for several decades or even several centuries, and is then destroyed, or at least there is such an attempt by right-wingers, is that still a counter-revolution or it's a right-wing revolution, and where is the principal difference?

I certainly agree fascism is regressive, but it can aim (not necessarily will, because it can enjoy support from the ruling class and then no revolution is necessary) to bring regression through the means of revolution. In reality it's a counter-revolution against the change that is deemed "incompatible" with "traditional values" or such, by the fascists. But what if the change happened long ago and has been there for generations? What if it did not come as a revolution, but came gradually - and the fascists, say, seek to abolish these changes in a violent manner and swiftly?

It seems the fascists would be initiating a regressive revolution of sorts.

A revolutionary is someone who acts fights the current regime or system of government. A counterrevolutionary is someone who fights against successful revolutionaries to bring back the old regime or system of government.

In my mind the difference between counterrevolutionaries and right wing revolutionaries is that the counterrevolutionaries would be reacting against change that is very recent. Franco and Pinochet would be counterrevolutionaries in my mind because they were both fighting against recent changes (democratically elected socialist governments) with a desire to return things to the stasus quo.

[Teleros]

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.

Oh I know where the terms come from, what they originally meant and so on, my point is you're talking to someone who defines these terms differently (and to be fair, it's not as if left/right wing has remained static the last 200 years anyway) - so of course there's going to be confusion, unintended or otherwise.

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.

More of an Anglosphere oddity I'd say, but yes I basically agree. Adam Smith back in the day was probably considered left-wing; today the right's adopted him.

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.

You're overlooking fascism's love affair with action and change there though. It also doesn't help that Mussolini was rather good at pragmatically cobbling together various policies and labelling them all "fascist".

So yes, "Left" is usually associated with advocacy of change, but that change is specifically in the direction of greater freedom or the well-being of the commoner. That's a pretty important piece of the definition which you left out.

No, it's usually advocated for those reasons. Which is pretty much what every revolutionary since day 1 (and I include fascists in this) has advocated .

[Iosef Cross]

So yes, "Left" is usually associated with advocacy of change, but that change is specifically in the direction of greater freedom or the well-being of the commoner. That's a pretty important piece of the definition which you left out.

What's commoner? Well, people that are at the top of the political food chain are rarely called commoner's. Hence, the right never supports him, since he is by definition, outside the status quo, and the right is the wing of the status quo.

Hence, the left supports those that are outside the status quo, by the definition of political change!

[stormthebeaches]

Oh I know where the terms come from, what they originally meant and so on, my point is you're talking to someone who defines these terms differently (and to be fair, it's not as if left/right wing has remained static the last 200 years anyway) - so of course there's going to be confusion, unintended or otherwise.

The people who define the terms differently are either stupid or dishonest for ignoring about 200 years of history. Besides, the right/left has changed somewhat but they still represent the same things in comparison to each other. The right is still about nationalism, tradition, Conservatism (or in extreme cases, regression), stability and hierarchy. The left it still about class conflict, internationalism, equality, freedom (in theory, I am aware that in practice many left wing regimes have been quite oppressive) and embracing your fellow man.

Now it is true that the modern American right wing is claiming to be about individualism and freedom but this still does not change the fact that the whole left = collectivism and right =individualism mentality is dishonest. For a start, the American right wing only favors small government when it comes to economic matters. When it comes to social values, moral values or military spending the right is happy to embrace big government.

You're overlooking fascism's love affair with action and change there though. It also doesn't help that Mussolini was rather good at pragmatically cobbling together various policies and labelling them all "fascist".

Action and change does not equal left wing. Fascism was about action and change, but it was action and change in the wrong direction (from a left wing point of view). Left wingers are about bring the nation foreward. Fascism is the opposite, its about bringing the nation backwards, to a mythical golden age in the past. Mussolini himself often brought up the Roman empire and claimed that he wanted to bring Italy back to that level of greatness.

Fascism is about nationalism, tradition, regression and corporatism. All policies that the left hates with a passion. It's stupid to claim that Fascism is a left wing ideology when it represents so many policies that the left wing despises.

No, it's usually advocated for those reasons. Which is pretty much what every revolutionary since day 1 (and I include fascists in this) has advocated.

That's not entirely true. Many of the counterrevolutionaries during the 19th and early 20th centuries were about order and stability, not freedom and equality.

Fascism doesn't claim to be about the betterment of the commoner. Fascism is about the betterment of the nation as a whole. And Fascists usually claim to be bringing order and security, not freedom, to the masses.

[Plekhanov]

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.

Are you trolling or what? Why do you keep on pushing forward absurd redefinitions of 'left' and 'right' specifically designed to frame every unpleasant regime ever as left wing?

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.

By your idiot logic North Korea is a democracy because it says so right there in the countries name.

[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.

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.

Viewing people by racial group is a rascist and hence right wing method of categorization. Additionally, social security is not left wing, unless you consider Bismark a leftist. Wealth-redistribution is leftist, a safety net is not and makes sense for conservatives to placate the working class.

[K. A. Pital]

By your idiot logic North Korea is a democracy because it says so right there in the countries name.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. If the Nazis did not act on the "left-wing" points of their 25-point programme, what is then the point of even discussing it? One's political stance should be determined by the actions, not claims.

[Teleros]

Are you trolling or what? Why do you keep on pushing forward absurd redefinitions of 'left' and 'right' specifically designed to frame every unpleasant regime ever as left wing?

Go read the first post I made: the reason the idea that fascism is left wing appears is because of those different definitions of left & ring wing.

Additionally, social security is not left wing, unless you consider Bismark a leftist. Wealth-redistribution is leftist, a safety net is not and makes sense for conservatives to placate the working class.

As I understand it, Bismarck created Germany's social security system primarily to neuter the various socialist and left-wing parties in Germany at the time.

[Darth Wong]

How could social safety nets not be a left-wing concept, when right-wingers tirelessly work to undermine them?

[ray245]

As I understand it, Bismarck created Germany's social security system primarily to neuter the various socialist and left-wing parties in Germany at the time.

That does not make it right wing. It just means that a left-wing policy is being adopted.

[Plekhanov]

Are you trolling or what? Why do you keep on pushing forward absurd redefinitions of 'left' and 'right' specifically designed to frame every unpleasant regime ever as left wing?

Go read the first post I made: the reason the idea that fascism is left wing appears is because of those different definitions of left & ring wing.

How does this justify you continually pushing absurd redefinitions of left and right throughout this thread as if it was in any way valid?

This whole debate is obviously one of definitions which is precisely why I am objecting to the redefinitions you keep on pushing.

[frogcurry]

So yes, "Left" is usually associated with advocacy of change, but that change is specifically in the direction of greater freedom or the well-being of the commoner. That's a pretty important piece of the definition which you left out.

What's commoner? Well, people that are at the top of the political food chain are rarely called commoner's. Hence, the right never supports him, since he is by definition, outside the status quo, and the right is the wing of the status quo.

This isn't really relevant to fascism though. For example, theres the Nazi belief in the ideal of the german agricultural worker, and attempts to raise the welfare of the german rural population as a whole to equivalent of the urban population. That sort of thing is hard to differentiate on the basis of just "advocacy of change" and the "change... in the direction of greater... well-being of the commoner" between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. You need another criteria to be able to say one is socialist and one is not since both had the same objective and targetted benefitors.

What seems to be defining to me about fascism is not its objectives which can be a mix of left and right wing, but its methodology and motivations. A typical left wing movement would favour wealth re-distribution, assistance or outright government intervention and management to the rural population to raise their welfare for the common social good. Which the Nazi's did do. The fascist part was that they also created what looks a bit like a caste system and divide society into those who were in the peasant farmer class and those were not (with the peasant class then given a high official status), to preserve Germanys racial and cultural character.

On the other hand as I think about it, the Chinese (communist, therefore allegedly left wing in the past) did the same thing with their rural and urban populations in the past and still have a legacy separation in law between the two. So that doesn't necessarily help... damn.

[stormthebeaches]

This isn't really relevant to fascism though. For example, theres the Nazi belief in the ideal of the german agricultural worker, and attempts to raise the welfare of the german rural population as a whole to equivalent of the urban population. That sort of thing is hard to differentiate on the basis of just "advocacy of change" and the "change... in the direction of greater... well-being of the commoner" between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. You need another criteria to be able to say one is socialist and one is not since both had the same objective and targetted benefitors.

What seems to be defining to me about fascism is not its objectives which can be a mix of left and right wing, but its methodology and motivations. A typical left wing movement would favour wealth re-distribution, assistance or outright government intervention and management to the rural population to raise their welfare for the common social good. Which the Nazi's did do. The fascist part was that they also created what looks a bit like a caste system and divide society into those who were in the peasant farmer class and those were not (with the peasant class then given a high official status), to preserve Germanys racial and cultural character.

The Communists in Russia and the Fascists in Germany didn't have the same "objective and targeted benefitors. The German Fascists aimed at improving the nation as a whole whilst the Communists in Russia aimed their efforts primarily at the working classes. Also, it is a lie to same that the Fascists were aimed at improving standards for the average working class German. They banned trade unions and were in bed with the big businesses. Just look at all the war profiteering that went on during the German military buildup.

[frogcurry]

The Communists in Russia and the Fascists in Germany didn't have the same "objective and targeted benefitors. The German Fascists aimed at improving the nation as a whole whilst the Communists in Russia aimed their efforts primarily at the working classes. Also, it is a lie to same that the Fascists were aimed at improving standards for the average working class German. They banned trade unions and were in bed with the big businesses. Just look at all the war profiteering that went on during the German military buildup.

They banned trade unions to cement their own control and eliminate political rivals as much as anything else. And even if they hadn't done it for that reason, they'd probably have had to do it eventually as part of the attempts to control german labour and prevent movement patterns of employment that were counter to either the Nazi ideals (rural to urban) or plans (military industries to civilian). Therefore I think its unreasonable to suggest that the fascists were anti-worker on the basis that they banned the unions.

That asaid, I claim they were only pro-worker in a partial sense. There was a something of a government policy to raise, by state intervention in the economy, the welfare of german citizens - and in particular german workers in certain areas of employment- which is why I referred to that since this is a fairly socialist policy. But it was always definitely a secondary priority to military ambitions and giving Germany a stronger, less dependent economy, and got overridden (sometimes quite harshly) as a result. The example given above in the last paragraph being a classic example of such a policy.

As for being in bed with big business, I think its only partially true. Some german industrialists certainly were eager for the benefits of Nazi association, and the nazis helped them out. But those not in the clique tended to suffer loss of businesses or position quite a lot, and given the terrible export situation for any german business in the 1930's being supported by a free-spending dictatorship probably was very tempting. Plus in some cases the businesses seem to have been virtually nationalised by being forced into nazi run industry groups or given strict controls and obligations to meet.

In net, I don't think I'd want to be a worker in Nazi Germany. But I wouldn't want to be an rich industrialist either. The Nazis used both equally and didn't seek to help either out, only as a secondary measure to their party agendas.

[Iosef Cross]

This isn't really relevant to fascism though. For example, theres the Nazi belief in the ideal of the german agricultural worker, and attempts to raise the welfare of the german rural population as a whole to equivalent of the urban population. That sort of thing is hard to differentiate on the basis of just "advocacy of change" and the "change... in the direction of greater... well-being of the commoner" between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. You need another criteria to be able to say one is socialist and one is not since both had the same objective and targetted benefitors.

Both were socialist. The difference between the USSR and Nazi Germany was that the first seek world/international socialism while the second was after "national socialism", get some lebensraum thought war and became isolated from the rest of the world, with a socialist national economy.

And the left, right distinction is not exactly about socialism: the left is not always socialist. Sometimes the right can be seem as the socialist side.

[stormthebeaches]

Both were socialist. The difference between the USSR and Nazi Germany was that the first seek world/international socialism while the second was after "national socialism", get some lebensraum thought war and became isolated from the rest of the world, with a socialist national economy.

And the left, right distinction is not exactly about socialism: the left is not always socialist. Sometimes the right can be seem as the socialist side.

First of all, Nazi Germany was far from socialist. They banned labor unions and allowed plenty of war profiteering during Germany's military build up. Secondly, under Stalin the USSR abandoned world socialism for "socialism in one country". That's not to say that the Soviet's weren't interesting in establishing world socialism as a long term goal but Stalin isolated the Soviet Union from the rest of the world under the belief that the capitalist nations would collapse by themselves. This policy was quite unpopular with many in the Soviet Union (Troteski) but it was the USSR's official policy.

[K. A. Pital]

Both were socialist. The difference between the USSR and Nazi Germany was that the first seek world/international socialism while the second was after "national socialism", get some lebensraum thought war and became isolated from the rest of the world, with a socialist national economy.

No, "national socialism" of the Third Reich is capitalism. If you feel Chinese "socialism" is capitalism, then the National Socialism pf the Third Reich is quite certainly nothing even close to socialism.

The USSR looked for "socialism in one country" after the "World Revolution" thesis failed in the 1920s too, but in the USSR, capitalists as a class and capitalism as a system were destroyed.

Not so in Germany, where capitalism continued to exist. National Socialism is just nationalist capitalism (i.e. the preference of domestic capitalist to the foreign one and the support of such), but it's nowhere near socialism. Means of production are in private property. Ergo, no socialism.

[Iosef Cross]

Both were socialist. The difference between the USSR and Nazi Germany was that the first seek world/international socialism while the second was after "national socialism", get some lebensraum thought war and became isolated from the rest of the world, with a socialist national economy.

No, "national socialism" of the Third Reich is capitalism. If you feel Chinese "socialism" is capitalism, then the National Socialism pf the Third Reich is quite certainly nothing even close to socialism.

The USSR looked for "socialism in one country" after the "World Revolution" thesis failed in the 1920s too, but in the USSR, capitalists as a class and capitalism as a system were destroyed.

Not so in Germany, where capitalism continued to exist. National Socialism is just nationalist capitalism (i.e. the preference of domestic capitalist to the foreign one and the support of such), but it's nowhere near socialism. Means of production are in private property. Ergo, no socialism.

Nazi Germany in the 30's was nearly socialism. It wasn't socialist in the Soviet sense, were the state is the in name owner of the factors of production: most industrial property was still in the hands of private business, but that was only in name, because in fact the State really controlled it and the "private" business was really mixed up with the state. But the state was the the factor owner of the means of production. But the degree of state control increased with time, in 1934 Germany was still a market economy, by 1944, the State sector was much larger than the market. Also the USSR too never was fully socialist, that's understandable, since they were integrated into the global economy and had a large black market.

China today by contrast, is a market economy, like the US. More capitalistic than the US in some ways.

[Samuel]

That describes crony capitalism with a large war-time economy, not socialism.

[K. A. Pital]

Nazi Germany in the 30's was nearly socialism. It wasn't socialist in the Soviet sense, were the state is the in name owner of the factors of production: most industrial property was still in the hands of private business, but that was only in name, because in fact the State really controlled it and the "private" business was really mixed up with the state.

What sort of bullshit is that? The state "controlled it"? In modern economies the state exerts control over private industrial facilities and capitalist enterprises, but "control" is not the same thing as "ownership".

Socialism and capitalism differ by the ownership of means of production. End of story. The German state was not the owner of the means of production.

...by 1944, the State sector was much larger than the market.

This is absolutely irrelevant. Many Scandinavian nations had a larger state sector than their private sector. That did not make them socialist, unless you were willing to redefine the term to suit whatever you want. If the means of production are in private property, it's not socialism no matter how hard you want to spin it.

China today by contrast, is a market economy, like the US. More capitalistic than the US in some ways.

"By contrast"? Nazi Germany and the USA had private capitals and the right to private property fully enshrined, IIRC, not to mention private banking. China has lease terms for production facilities (i.e. you don't truly own it de-jure), and no private banking to speak of - private banking also being a key feature of all higher-stage capitalist development. I think you're seriously misguided.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Nazi Germany in the 30's was nearly socialism. It wasn't socialist in the Soviet sense, were the state is the in name owner of the factors of production: most industrial property was still in the hands of private business, but that was only in name, because in fact the State really controlled it and the "private" business was really mixed up with the state. But the state was the the factor owner of the means of production. But the degree of state control increased with time, in 1934 Germany was still a market economy, by 1944, the State sector was much larger than the market. Also the USSR too never was fully socialist, that's understandable, since they were integrated into the global economy and had a large black market.

Was the U.S. war economy of World War II also a "socialist" economy? What about the Kingdom of Great Britain? If capitalism as defined by you is so purist and exclusionary it cannot even tolerate national defense, than its not a very useful system or philosophy, now is it? I doubt you could find many of your coreligionists who would agree with such an exclusionary definition. The German Reich was (in yet another example of rank incompetence) one of the last economies of the war to move to full war economy. Furthermore, the economy of the German Reich, while over-managed in schizophrenic and incompetent ways toward Nazi political aims (sometimes contradictory, such as the need for a build-up and mobilization for a quick war, and autarky and industrial autonomy and development for a long one), was fundamentally capitalistic with the private factors of production dominant (if increasingly coerced toward political aims) but essentially not state-collectivized.

The Reich was largely capitalistic in the same sense of most proto-Keynesian capital economies of the era, just with atypical political ends vs. the Italian and more so the British and American economies. The only superficial features making it seem somewhat 'state socialist' are the ways the political power centers in the NSDAP and Reichswehr/Wehrmacht conflicted with the political agendas of some sectors of capital, arguably deviating as matters of degree rather than kind from their counterparts in the other Great Power economies. The Nazi regime had big industry as one of its key constituencies, deviating strongly from out-of-power party programs toward labor and the masses' economic agenda in favor of crushing the labor and social movements in Germany and using party institutions to help rein in labor for the benefit of managers and owners, and dramatically attracting foriegn capital from the West (including the U.S.). I recommend Wages of Destruction and both The Third Reich in Power and The Third Reich at War for a nuanced and substantive treatment of Nazi political economy pre-war and wartime, as well as the political and historical events contextualizing it.

China today by contrast, is a market economy, like the US. More capitalistic than the US in some ways.

By which you mean we have some labor-democratic protections, institutions, and participation in economic and public affairs, and they have none before an authoritarian CPC-business alliance? How uncharacteristically honest of a right-libertarian.

EDIT: And Stas does a much more succinct and efficient version, as usual, before I can even get there. I agree completely.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm really thinking that Christian fundamentalism is overstated as the central public theology in North America, vis-a-vis "market" fundamentalism and its attendant historical revisionism and fabrication. From the pseudo-intellectuals of the "anarcho"-capitalist and minarchist far economic right to the seriously deluded, astroturfed far-right populist anti-government activists of the Tea Party faux-movement, its seriously eroding realistic and balanced understanding of both modern history and contemporary social and political institutions. Its almost impossible to have sincere and straightforward political discourse in the United States anymore, with basic terms such as socialism, capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, and fascism mutated beyond any recognition toward their substantive meaning.