What is your thought on this? I've always seen Nazism as authoritarian left wing ideology rather than ideology from the right. There are some socially conservative elements in Nazism, but economically, Nazism is ultra left wing. (anti-globalization, anti-economic liberalization, massive Govt bureaucracy, etc.) New NYT best seller on the matter: "n the book, Goldberg argues that contrary to conventional wisdom, fascist movements were and are left-wing. ' Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning Liberal Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is from: FASCISM, An Anthology, edited by Nathanael Greene (Library of Congress Catalog Number: 67-30582). My own old falling apart copy was published in 1969, but there was this one opening line in the Preface which caught my attention; "Fascism is like a completely successful operation: the patient dies and all his illusions are removed." (Angelo Tasca) Mussolini seemingly defined Fascism himself. And until a guy remembers WHO wrote it, and WHO ELSE picked up the ball and ran with it, Fascism sounds almost like a "good thing". Oh, BTW Mussolini in his original writings places the word itself un-capitalized in quotation marks. I don't think even HE was quite sure if the word was apropo! "Fascism uses in its construction whatever elements in the Liberal, Social, or Democratic doctrines still have a living value; it maintains what may be called the certainties which we owe to history, but it rejects all the rest. That is to say, the conception that there can be any doctrine of unquestioned efficacy for all times and all peoples. Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century or Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains; and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Right, a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State." (p. 43) Or how about this from Mussolini’s speech at the Fascist assembly five years (1929) into his control: "For us Fascists, the State is not merely a guardian, preoccupied solely with the duty of assuring the personal safety of the citizens; nor is it an organization with purely material aims, such as to guarantee a certain level of well-being and peaceful conditions of life; for mere council of administration would be sufficient to realize such objects. Nor is it a purely political creation, divorced from all contact with the complex material reality which makes up the life of the individual and the life of the people as a whole. The State, as conceived of and as created by Fascism, is a spiritual and moral fact in itself, since its political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation is a concrete thing: and such an organization must be in its origins and development a manifestation of the spirit. "The State is the guarantor of the security of both internal and external, but it is also the custodian and transmitter of the spirit of the people, as it has grown up through the centuries in language, in customs, and in faith. And the State is not only a living reality of the present, it is also linked with the past and above all with the future, and thus transcending the brief limits of individual life, it represents the immanent spirit of the nation. The forms in which States express themselves may change, but the necessity for such forms is eternal. It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of the mission and welds them into unity; harmonizing their various interests through justice, and transmitting to future generations the mental conquests of science, of art, of law and the solidarity of humanity. It leads men from primitive tribal life to that highest expression of human power which is Empire: it links up the centuries the names of those of its members who have died for its existence and in obedience to its laws, it hold up the memory of the leaders who have increased its territory and geniuses who have illuminated it with glory as an example to be followed by future generation. "When the conception of State declines, and disunifying (sic) and centrifugal tendencies prevail, whether of individuals or of particular groups, the nations where such phenomena appear, are in their decline."(pp. 43-44) I (Clint) have looked at the phenomenon of Fascism from a number of angles, and one thing that always strikes me is that "Fascism/Nazism" was really a movement of exuberant "youth" without any true geo-political or diplomatic experience. Mussolini loved his fast motorcycles, Hitler loved fast cars (although he never learned to drive), and Franco loved his brother’s fast planes. Quite a young "daredevil" type of men. However when remembering their own combat experiences they missed the camaraderie and found themselves wondering "why" had they done it only to see the world overrun by the "masses" of the socialists and communists. Those men also saw themselves as diametrically opposed to "godless socialism/communism", while protecting the "working classes" from the moneyed interests of the bankers and exposing the press as liars controlled by those moneyed interests, read Jews in the case of Hitler’s Nazism. Hitler had always been violently opposed to any socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. He was also quite certain that Bolshevism was a Jewish conspiracy as it existed in the USSR. However, politically, socialism was a popular political philosophy (and word) in Germany after the "Great War". And "glorifying" the State over the individual is (at its core) a socialist concept. He and Mussolini would choose to elevate the military over the common worker as the epitome of "honor" however. Socialism's popularity is reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), which was the largest political party in Weimar Germany before the rise of the NSDAP. Hitler, "redefined" socialism by placing the word "National" in front of it. He claimed National Socialism was only in favor of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans, into Germany must end and only some specific immigration out of Germany would be allowed. Hitler not only "redefined" socialism, he made independent worker’s unions illegal ( this pleased the manufacturing hierarchy to no end), he also arranged it so that the workers were nearly the "legal property" of the companies for whom they worked! They could not strike, quit, or change addresses without the approval of their companies. Socialism/communism on the far left do end up colliding with fascism on the far right if they are pursued to their extremes. It would seem to myself they have one core difference. Fascism used militarism and the "glory" of it as its core value (the right of might) from the start, and socialism/communism didn’t; at least not initially.
Whether left or right, it is extreme. I see Political parties as a circle and where the extreme left and the extrem right meet you could put the Nsdap.
I see it more or less as Skipper does. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I dislike them both equally.
It is an amalgamation of leftist and right wing thought.Nazism is neither left or right--it's both at the same time.
Inspite of their conversative social and nationalist overtunes, the NSDAP did not see themselves as upholders of an old order. They see themselves, with justification, as revolutionaries bent on creating a new society. Which makes it very, very hard to apply the simple left/right litmus test on them, especially considering the "left" Nazis in the early days.
Left and right are simply constucts which fit certain situtations. I agree with others who maintain that fasciism is another animal.
Very interesting. Goldberg's new book is quite long and spends a lot of time trying to make the argument that Fascism is from the Left. It has received a lot of publicity.
We need to define left and right, and that's nearly impossible, if we assume left=change, right=conservative both fascism an socialism are left, if left=statalism and right=individualism then theoretical socialism, with it's plan to end of national states, would be extreme right while the extreme statalism of the nazis is left, if left=internationalism and right=nationalism then we have the fascists at the right and socialists at the left and so on. IMO left and right are useful labels to define political fences only in a democracy, and even there they often fail, for example, globalization is the "leftist" concept of internationalism applied to trade while it's rough opposite protectionism is the traditional right wing nationalistic approach, but we label the no-globals "left" . Most dictarorships in practice owned more more to the personality of the individual dictator than to ideology, the individual ideas and personality (or madness) of Mussolini, Franco , Hitler, Peron, etc. counted for a lot more than any ideological framework.
Not certain that Nationalism is specific to the right. For instance Serbia in the 1990s with the National Communist government. I however agree that the NSDAP was originally a workers party and recruted among the working class before it recruted in other circles.
The Nazis weren't on the left or right. Hitler hated communists, liberals, or any notion of racial or sexual equality. He also held in utter contempt the Hohenstauffen Dynasty, the Prussian aristocracy, the landlord and the old military elite. As burndirt's excellent post point out, there is a certain strand of exhuberant iconclasm to the facist movement, and their love of machines and their cult of "Volk" heroism makes it difficult to characterize them as either liberals or conservatives.
maybe , but hating everyboy could also be a definition that would fit to an anarchist and the love for the "Volk" could be communist related.
I think this is the best description I have seen thus far. Both fascism and communism (in practice, not theory) are totalitarian regimes. In both, individuals are subservient to the state, while some more "knowledgeable" elite determines what is best for all. The theoretical underpinnings of each may be different, but the practical application of both is similar. The fascists traded on the fear of foreigners, Jews, and communists to forge an alliance with the old line nationalists and industrialists. The concept of a circular political spectrum, rather than a linear one, is a useful construct, so that far left and far right meet at totalitarianism. But, even as TOS points out, the construct weakens when we begin identifying specific goals of left and right. Much depends on the original definition of left and right, and that is notoriously difficult to do. The cult of the leader is not foreign to either extreme (else why would Lenin's body be preserved?), it's just more openly stated in the fascist tradition.
Definitely I call it dictatorship- nothing to do with what´s in the party name really, just a camouflage. Just like what Uncle Joe did, dictatorship,too. My thoughts on this.
Kai; The Writer Grossman did some comparing and contrasting of Stalinism and Hitlerism and found them similiar. Wasn't it Hitler who boasted that he could turn a Communist into a Fascist in twenty minutes flat? Weren't they both just ideological frameworks that allowed criminal elements to seize and expand upon absolute power? No thank you on either count! JeffinMNUSA
The way I understand it popular celebration comes from legal institution. Forget everything else and look at law, Nazism is conservative in the extreme (to the extent of celebrating mediaeval values) whilst Communism is revolutionary in the extreme (to the extent of completely altering the economic powerbase of the nation). One of the very first pieces of legislation introduced by Hitler was beheading as a form of corporal punishment. You just don't get any more conservative than that. He even lined the final walk with a praetorian guard, furthermore stylised on the Arthurian court. He even all but publicly declared "off with their heads." Hitler was a single minded attempt to leap back to the mediaeval kingdoms of Red Beard's time, in thought, word and deed. Mussolini had the same theme, his was to renew the old Roman empire. Conservative is virtually defined by these two, rather than the other way around.
Just ran across an excellent essay on Fascism, and its common traits through the years by Dr. Lawrence Britt. Goto: *Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism I could see no area which didn't define Fascism/Nazism to a tee! And unfortunately a great number of the traits of the recent American past.
