I was a history major, and that was what we were taught. And NOT by leftist commie professors, either. I’m not trying to be nasty, but most of those who say otherwise are usually, um, “Free Republic” types. **
[/QUOTE]
Ok. I would like to see a cite for that.
My own position is that Hitler and the Fascists were neither liberals nor conservatives. They were totalitarianists. The defining ideology of fascism is putting the state above all else. The hero worship qualities of fascism basically identify the dictator in charge as the state.
For example, the Nazis put the state first, but Hitler was basically the state.
Fascist totalitarianism has nothing in common with modern concepts of liberalism or conservatism. It is purely academic that the origins of fascism derive from socialistic thought.
In practical terms, the extreme left and extreme right are indistinguishable. They both involve totalitarianism and the destruction of the individual, and more often than not millions of deaths.
Okay, I’ll have to go through my old notes and books-I really hate these kinds of debates, if only because in the past they usually lead to head-against-keyboard-slammings.
Scylla, quite honestly, I don’t think we can have this debate. I read a good deal of histories of the interwar and WWII period, and for every three authors I read, five definitions of fascism arise. Until fascism is defined, it’s kinda hard to say what it is.
While it is extremely difficult to determine whether the theory of fascism was Left, Right or none of the above (IMO, it was none of the above - fascists tended to have as much contempt for the conservatives forces as for the left forces), I think it is pretty easy to state what fascism was in practice.
And that was an extreme rightist movement. The prime economic and political beneficiaries of fascism were (besides the party leaders themselves) the old conservative, anti-democratic bloc of the military and business leaders.
This is primarily because of, initially, the need for support of these power blocs to obtain power, and, later, because it was more efficient to continue to use (and rely on) these power blocs.
Let’s keep it friendly though. I certainly do not define Fascists as left wing.
I find the argument that they are in fact right wing to be very odd as fascism is an offshoot of socialism, or rather, that fascism is a dictatorship with a socialist disguise.
I’ll copypaste my earlier post on the other thread here, previewed this time.
The two axis system on the Libertarian party website works pretty well in the fascists vs. communists debate, ie. fascists are right-authoritarian and the communists left-authoritarian, where left and right indicate economic policies.
But historically fascists are definitely right wing. Common usage of the terms alone should be enough proof of that. The strongest identifier for the fascists was their “traditional” social principles and opposition of the communists’ main ideals, which were overwhelmingly about the reversal of all economic roles and policies.
The identification is so strong that apart from a small (?) minority of people in the US, telling just about anyone that the nazis are lefties is just going to get you laughed at.
Okay, according to my college text from political history, Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present, Sixth Edition, William Ebenstein and Alan Ebenstein, in the chapter titled FASCISM,
It has always been my understanding that socialism tries to achieve equality, at least by economic means (nationalized medicine, food, industry, etc).
Thank you, Scylla, I’ll do some research on the net as well.
The word Nazi is a contraction from the German word for ‘National Socialists’, and this is a pretty good description of Hitlers policies and idealogue, that is to say that Hitler was both a Nationalist and a Socialist. Hitler himself in the early days described Nazi thinking as a form of non-Marxist socialism and he believed in socialism within one nation or more correctly for one ‘race’. His policies such as turning the unemployed into labor gangs to the build the Autobahns and also slated communisation of farms would not of been out of place within a socialist government. However his foreign policy was extremely right-wing and nationalist (as opposed to the internationalism of the communists).
And here we find the bitch with one- or even two-dimensional typologies of political ideologies: They are utterly inadequate.
I think that in fact there are a hell of a lot more relevant axes:
A. Domestic (1) Social state intervention, from an enforced conception of private morality to no such morality. (2) Political state intervention, from repudiating all political authority outside of the state to vehement defense of political rights and civil society.
These are components of the authoritarian/libertarian axis. They’re distinct; it is possible to advocate free speech and argue againt gay rights, for instance. (3) Economic state intervention, i.e. the liberal/conservative axis. (Note: The terms “liberal” and “conservative” got switched at some point–anyone know when?)
B. Foreign (4) Foreign intervention: extent (internationalism vs. isolationism) (5) Foreign intervention: means (military vs. peaceful)
C. General (6) Equality of human beings (racism etc. vs. essential equality) (7) Role of ideology in history (inevitable historical progression vs. no such progression) (8) Rank in importance of the above as considerations in the ideology. (This may be frankly impossible to agree upon when considering any movement.)
Comments? Other possible categories could include the role of a specific individual or group.
(By the way, my own view of Fascism:
(1) Interventionist.
(2) Interventionist.
(3) Interventionist.
(4) Interventionist.
(5) Military.
(6) Inequality, on racial lines, to be enforced.
(7) Deep, pervasive role of ideology in history.
(8) As a first stab, I would say 6, 7, 2, 4, 5, 3, 1.)
Hey! Guys! You can be both “socialist” and “conservative” because “socialism” and “conservatism” are extraordinarily broad terms, encompassing at least the questions I raised above.
I’m not going to get too deep into this but I think of the political spectrum as something as a horseshoe.
The farther you get from the center the more the two sides begin to bend toward each other. Hitler was right wing in the sense that he demonized the left, even though he led a party of “National Socialists.”
Extremist anything is liable to turn out quite similiar to Hitler, specifics aside.
No because conservatism means trying to stop things from changing or only changing them as little as possible. Hitler on the other hand completly uprooted German society and attempted to fundamentally change it’s nature.
Nazi is a word thatgets bandied around alot, for example the KKK are often referred to as Nazis, but while sharing many of the same ideas with Hitler, I imagine that they do not share his views on social policy.
