Why is Fascism considerd Right-WIng?

Factual Questions
21

Captain Amazing seems to be using older definitions of conservative and liberal. During the 20th century, the meanings of these terms have changed, especially in the US, and especially since the New Deal era. Liberal used to be a term that described people that supported individual liberty, including free-market capitalism. Conservative used to refer primarily to royalists in Europe.

There are many axes upon which political beliefs can be measured. In trying to simplify it into one scale, a whole lot of meaning is lost, and some people decide that their opponents are one step away from fascism.

22

The teeming millions need some pointers here.

Communism is as communism does. It’s details are set forth in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Also called Marxism. There are suggestions that Marx disavowed this when he said “I am not a Marxist.” For Republicans and Democrats alike, think of Communism as a utopian idea (like Plato’s Republic and others) that just didn’t work out and probably was never intended to. The short version of what Communism is/was: collectivising so that each may contribute as they are best able and have their basic needs met. In short, a publicly controlled economy to benefit each person in basic needs. Needless to say, it ignores human nature and has never worked. It is considered left wing. (Wings, right or left are based on which side of the parliment each faction sits on. “People’s” factions on the left and “aristocracy” on the right, and no, I do not remember which Parliment this was.)

Fascism (the name) comes from an ancient Italian tribe that put the needs of the state (city state at that time, pre-Roman) ahead of any individual interest. The principle is symbolized by a bunch of sticks bound together in something called fasces, which can be seen on the back of the dime (an insult to occupant of the obverse FDR, who was the greatest anti-fascist who ever lived). It is also the symbol of the United States Senate and may be observed behind the President of the Senate’s chair. The short version is that the needs of the state to survive and become great and to which each and every individual is to submit completely and sacrifice themselves. In our ancient Italian tribe, the tribal leader put to death his beloved son for some minor sin against the state.

Fascism in practice is an ultra-nationalistic capitalocracy, in which corporate interests are primarily pursued. It doesn’t tend to work very well. Military dictatorships usually fall into this category.

Nazism is something different entirely. The short version is that Hitler said different things at different times in order to appeal to different constituencies, but with the purpose of achieving absolute power in the state. The name of Hitler’s party was the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (or something like that). It at first appealed to extreme patriotism in the humiliating aftermath of WWI and was originally targeted to the millions of disaffected veterans (of which Hitler was one) and blaming their defeat, humiliation, unemployment and impoverishment on highly unpopular, voiceless and powerless social groups (who weren’t in a position to fight back), namely the Jews and others. Once Hitler’s movement gathered steam, me met privately with industrial leaders and assured them that he would not “nationalize” their businesses, but rather re-arm (incidentally in violation of the Treaty of Versailles) and make them incredibly wealthy, and break all unions. In short, secretly selling out the socialist part of the movement. In quick order, Nazism became fascistic in the sense that it’s real aim was to install a military dictator to benefit corporate interests. During the 30s, Hitler secretly became one of the wealthiest men in Germany.

Nazism was a distinct form of fascism because of the “leader” (furher) principle. One supreme leader would dispense with all of the wasteful disagreements and make the country great based on an almost divine will and vision. All the people would have to do was follow the cult worship of the supreme leader. (If this sounds a lot like Saddam Hussein, there is a reason for it.) While glib talkers like Herman Goering were able to make this grandiose, Nazism boils down to one super-narcissist exploiting a whole nation to the maximum extent for his (or her?) own whims. Such as world dominance. This being an aristocracy of one, it tends to be called right-wing.

During the 20s and 30s there were only half a dozen democracies in the world, and many people who studied power didn’t think that they would withstand the onslaught of either the communists or fascists, which people like Churchill believe was imminent. Churchill (half English, half American incidentally), like virtually all non-religious right Americans, was against both communism and fascism as they were assaults against liberty. One was an abuse of the power of the right, another was an abuse of the power of the left.

Democrats (I am one) are left-wing because they sit on the left side of the chamber in the metaphorical sense that they believe in one person, one vote. Rule of the people. Demos actually is Greek for the masses, and it is something of an insult by Aristotle, who didn’t particularly appreciate everybody having a vote, as not everybody had the time to sit around contemplate the issues. Athens was the “democracy” that Aristotle was criticizing.

Republicans (some of my closest relatives) are right-wing because the damn fools won’t do anything that isn’t good for business, as though that were a legitmate organizing principle. Oh no, wait. A Republic is a form of democracy by representation, much like the United States Senate. Each group is entitled to elect one or more representatives. But much like the US Senate, the representatives do not necessarily represent the same number of people, and in some instances, the underlying constituencies can be wildly disproportionate, like the US Senate. (But that is another ax to grind on another day.)

23

Yes, I am. Modern American conservatives are for the most part classical liberals (contract theory of gov’t, free market economy, universal rights of man, etc), and modern American liberals are a mixture of classical liberals and socialists. The closest thing America has had to a conservative movement was Hamilton and his Federalists.

24

However, people still associate modern conservatives with fascism when they want them to look bad.

Perhaps another reason is that some people who are considered “more conservative”, such as Pat Buchanan, are also seen as anti-semitic, and opposed to equal rights for minorities. This, in many cases, is partly the result of people equating opposition to racial quotas with racism.

25

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by DPWhite:*

I believe it was the parliament of the French Revolutionary era.

At the beginning of this messge I was despairing of reading any cogent explanations of the left/right wing difference. towards the end it got better. I would say that in modern parlance left and right wing are pretty nebulous.

The point that both Communism and Fascism as they were/are actually practiced differ drastically from the ideal.

Ideally, Fascism is the ‘corporate state’. (This does not mean the state is being run by corporations, it means that the state is constituted something like a corporation. [as I understand it. I could be wrong.]) The good of the people is subordinated for the good of the state. In practice, fascist states tended to be basically rule by gansters.

Ideally, Communism is [extreme simplification] about placing control of the state in the hands of the proletariat (the people who actually produce tangible goods). [/extreme simplification] In practice? Gansters again (more sucessful though). The Soviet Union was **not[/] a communist state. They may have called themselves communists, but they weren’t. Stalin was a jackass. He was terrible. It didn’t have anything to do with communism either. Not to say that true communist wouldn’t be a bastard, but Stalin was all about personal aggrandizement and wholesale slaughter of millions of Soviet citizens (not just Russians, but other ethnic groups living in the republics). You think Hitler was bad? Well he was, but Stalin was more sucessful at killing people.

By the way, don’t take anything of what I say seriously. I think what I am saying is fairly accurate, but I have no credentials that would convince you that I know anything about this. I think the same thing could be said for many or all of the posters thus far. (No offense, honestly, I mean absolutely no offense).

26

Whoops! I should have previewed. It was just taking so long to get to the page that I decided to chance it by just sending the message as is. Big mistake. Oh well.

27

Again though. Why is Fascism considered right wing?

Using a definition of Fascism from the dictionary, one can say that a Fascist is a person that is looking for a government that will legislate in favor of prejudice and keep the private ownership of the means of production. With the government actively removing any obstacle the companies might encounter, like those pesky unions.

Of course it is wrong to call all right wingers Fascists, the problem is that a good number who support the right wing are. This is an important difference, I can say that virtually all leaders of the right are indeed not fascists, but the reason why accusations like that become “common knowledge” is because the leadership does not make unequivocal proclamations against the fascist behavior of some of their members. (Like not condemning the use of non-Florida citizens to stop the vote counting in Florida by literally pushing people around)

Around the time L.B. Johnson signed the laws in favor of desegregation and civil rights the old democratic segregationists (fascists indeed) left the Democratic Party. But for some reason I will never understand, the Republican Party of Lincoln accepted many of the former segregationists. And now Bush (and even McCain!) decline to say anything in public against the confederate flag. But the most annoying thing is that in private or outside the media lights the leaders of the right do behave more fairly with the people. Look at Ashcroft making note that he had confirmed more black judges in his state that the former governor. When that was “revealed” many extreme rank and file members of the right popped a vein.

The reason why I bring all this is that many people think the right wing is not (In the open) actively looking to get rid politically of the fascist elements in their mist. It seems many in the right wing leadership do not appreciate the extreme members behavior, but unfortunately politics is getting the best of them to allow very extreme members to do behavior that does not even get a reprimand.
I personally say that it is unfair to call the right wing fascist, but I understand why many liberals think so.

28

And just as it is indeed unfair to say most Conservatives/Republicans whathaveyou are fascist, it is ALSO unfair to say that most Liberals/Democrats are COMMUNIST. Remember that, peeps.

:wink:

29

It is proper to call fascism “right-wing”, or on the right, because it relies on an aristocracy (corporate) as its primary true constituency, less than the whole people. (But don’t forget the ultra-nationalist or statist prong). It isn’t really all that deep an observation to say someone is left-wing or right-wing. Left-wing is a shorthand reference to a very wide constituency, right-wing is less. Whichever wing you refer to, it is more of an ad hominem argument than conveying any substantive information.

(Incidentally, for extra credit points, a “fifth-column”, now falling out of usage refers to the Spanish Civil War when one of the sides (the Republicans, the lefties as compared to the Fascists. In this case the Republicans had a wider constituency and were referred to as the left. There were four columns of troops marching on I forget what city on behalf of the Republicans (backed by Stalin), and a “fifth column” already enconsed in the local bureaucracy.)

The debate as to whether Hitler or Stalin was more evil (or Mao or Pol Pot or Idi Amin, etc. etc.) is a demeaning trivialization of the unprecendented evil they represented and which was so common in the 20th century. It is important to understand that human beings in the modern state have repeatedly fallen into this pattern when individual rights are completely overridden in search of a “common good”. The lesson is that a “common good” that does not recognize the central necessity of individual liberty is a bad thing. A very bad thing.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics claimed to be socialist, not communist. The final stage of “communism” would come about when socialism was “perfected” and the “state” would wither away as increasingly perfected socialsim rendered it irrelevant. Any objective view would put as much credence in this as psyhic hotlines.

It is definitely wrong to call all right-wingers fascists. Some right-wingers are monarchists, oligarchs, etc.

30

No, a right-winger is not at all someone who supports an aristocracy, or monarchy of any such type. Read anything, written by any well respected conservative author (Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckely, Dinesh D’Souza, etc.) or just speak to any conservative at all. I do not understand how you could possibly come to your conclusion about right-wingers, unless you construe those who are successful in Capitalism as being members of some sort of un-fair aristocracy.

Simply:
A right-winger celebrates the individual over the group.
A left-winger celebrates the group over the individual.

You will NEVER, find a right-winger who is a monarchist, oligarch, etc. That some men are greater then others by divine right, rather then ability, is completely against the grain of any modern American Conservative.

31

The strongest supporters of fascist governments have frequently been the wealthy. (Since fascism creates, in theory, a stable, business-friendly environment, where those pesky labor unions are dealt with in the harshest manner by the iron fist of government.)

In the 20th century US, the wealthy tended to support the Republican Party. Not surprising then, that prior to the outbreak of WWII, there were a fair number of folks in the conservative and Republican ranks who openly admired Hitler’s Germany (Charles Lindbergh being the most prominent example).

I believe that prior to the outbreak of hostilities, fascism also held some fascination for certain conservative members of the aristocracy in Britain (as dramatized in the film Remains of the Day).

Meanwhile, most American Democrats of the era were outspoken opponents of fascism, and proponents of the rights of workers and unions. Many American liberals made their way to Spain in the 30’s to fight against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War.

32

No. No. No. With all respect, the above posts have it correct. Right and left refer to the side of the Parliment (someone correctly pointed out French) and the right supported the aristocracy and the left the democratization and later revolution. That is in fact what it means and what educated people are referring to. American “liberals” and “conservatives” may or may not fall into these categories.

I speak to a number of conservative activists on a regular basis and exchange ideas. I in fact subscribe to some very conservative magazines (but none that involve name calling, Buckley’s rag being a nasty propaganda machine, having recently called for the assassination of the daughter of a prominent politician, it won’t come in to my house). This has nothing to do with right or left wingers. All of the American mainstream are what can be legitimately called “Classic Liberals”, both conservative and liberal, following the tradition of Dr. John Locke.

The statement that a “left-winger” celebrates the group over the individual is wrong, insulting and mere propaganda. A right winger does celebrate the rights of an individual over the group. (In debating, this would be considered a major concession, but on which side). Under the ancien regime, this meant celebrating the special rights of the individual aristocracy members over the peasants.

I respectfully disagree that I will never find a right-winger who is a monarchist, oligarch, etc. Most of right-wingers in the world are oligarchs. The logical flaw here is the assumption all American Conservatives are right-wingers and vice-versa (at least with respect to American politics.) This is not even comparing apples to oranges. It’s more like comparing Jazz to a standard transmission. Many American Conservatives are in fact committed to the principle of democracy and one person one vote, as contrasted to republican principles of each group having a vote whether based on proportional numbers or not.

As for the assertion that we will never find an American Conservative who believes in divine right over merit, (and yes, this is tongue in cheek) how do you explain W?

who is the "W"eakest link?

33

Appellation of left-wing and right-wing in this country are pretty much just insults. Most foreign observers (and Ralph Nader) cannot tell the difference between the American Left and Right. The nomenclature is really better suited to describing parlimentary systems, if useful at all anymore.

Despite the views of foreign observers or native newbies, there are very real differences between American liberals and conservatives, the range, however is narrowed by the separate legislative and executive branches and the extreme difficulty our constitution presents to changes in the law. The fact that the constitution is universally accepted makes American politics playing field the size of a basketball court on a world-wide political spectrum the size of a soccer or polo field.

In the 1980s I had the pleasure of meeting some of the Americans who fought with against the fascists in Spain with the Abraham Lincoln brigade in the 1930s. These folks (very nice people) were true left-wingers, a very small minority of Americans, and usually communists or communist sympathizers (and I mean that in the technical sense, and not as an insult.) These folks were sincere in their beliefs, and pleasant company, as misguided as I think their politics was.

34

I think the key point missing from this thread is that communism is an inherently godless organization. Therefore, someone who is trying to force their beliefs about religion on others must be fascist. How else would you explain the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Because of left wing stances on things like abortion, most devout Christians in the USA are Republicans. If they try to force other people to live under their beliefs they are fascists. I believe it is because of this that fascist is a right wing term. Unfortunately, Republicans that support little government intervention in people’s lives are apparently a dying breed. At least in my part of the USA (Utah).

35

Communism as set forth by Marx called for atheism. Marx himself was, as discussed elsewhere on this fabulous site, an anti-semetic and non-practicing Jew.

The closest communism has ever come to working was centuries before Marx set forth the philosophy. The early Christians, in fact practised a form of communism. But it was hardly athestic. (Hey, the only commune I have ever been too was in Escalon, Utah. I was visiting nearby and they had a neat Christmas Eve service. The fellow presiding claimed a direct descent from Aaron High Priest and brother of Moses, but the service was otherwise unremarkable.)

Anyway, the forcible conversion of people to another religion is a feature of religions since the dawn of history.

As a devout Christian, and an American, and a liberal, I want people to be aware that many protestants in this country strongly believe that religion and politics should not formally mix at all. Many others don’t, and are thus far more visible to the public. I think this is very dangerous.

I have taken to actually calling the growing fascist movement in this country fascists (its a fun word to say), but it was used improperly a lot during the Vietnam War protests and makes the person saying it look a bit overwrought. One of the reasons I have kept posting here is to correctly bring it back into acceptable usage.

(During the last election the point Nader was trying to make was that both of the parties were heavily controlled by corporate interests. He avoided saying we were slipping into fascism, but I think that was one of his points.)

36

There’s a confusion of definitions here that I’ve noticed in other left-wing/right-wing threads. The terms ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ seem to have taken on a different definition in the US; certainly, in Europe the traditional definitions seem more applicable.

From my own perspective, liberalism is a very wide term covering political philosophies that, at a fundamental level, promote individual freedom from state intervention. Conservatism is a philosophy that promotes the importance of history, and a reluctance to make changes to society. That’s not to say that you can’t mix and match; Margaret Thatcher was an economic liberal but socially ultra-conservative. In theory the Labour Party is economically conservative but socially liberal (the practice is, of course, different).

Sorry for the hijack, but can anyone shed any light on why/when the definitions used in the US changed from the traditional ones?