I object to the dichotomy of left and right.

I second rlumley's motion.

For anyone interested in the ultimate Statist endeavor... I give you... Facism! Yay!


But seriously though. To equate modern socialist or leftist parties in today``s Western Liberal Democracies misses the point and makes you look silly, so I hope that is not what you are doing here Ghost. :)

The ``right`` and the left`` of today are so similar that for one to call the other an example of neo-facism is to tacitly accept that one``s own ideology shares a lot with the movement as well.

Furthermore, let us not forget the role of mysticism in Nazi Ideology. There was a whole lot of inconsistent crazy shit going on there if I recall correctly.

I third rlumley's motion.

I'm not suggesting that being centre left makes you murderous, Friendly Sword, however the policies that bankrupted Nazi Germany in the 1930s do bear resemblance to modern left-wing policy.

"The ``right`` and the left`` of today are so similar that for one to call the other an example of neo-facism is to tacitly accept that one``s own ideology shares a lot with the movement as well"

Nope, because people's views vary wildly. I could (note, I do not) accuse all major parties of facism without doing that, because I disagree substantially with all of them. To my mind, they all accept the principle of dictatorship: that the state has the right to control a man when he is minding his own business, without his explicit consent. This is not to say that I think that they will actually become dictators.

@ghost

"however the policies that bankrupted Nazi Germany in the 1930s do bear resemblance to modern left-wing policy."
I learned in school the "Great Depression" bankrupted Germany...

If America is made of two wings, a left and right, then why can't we fly off together? It seems logical if we have two wings, closely similar yet key differences, we could work things out and form a Great Nation again. I will tell you why, when political officials bribe one political official for the other wing and the official accepts, if throws off the balance created and causes the nation to do things the people don't want.

Or maybe they both know that the status quo is better for them, and they try to keep it.

And Nazi Germany didn't go through the Great Depression (with the USSR). Which 'left wing' policies bankrupted them? High spending? Look at the high military spending by successive US governments, and even with their low taxes the country still isn't bankrupt.

I'd say that economically speaking, the policies of Nazi Germany where center-left, or maybe what could be called "progressive". I don't think they were too different from the "New Deal" or other tendences like the Solano Lopez in Paraguay (many years before, but you'll see the similarities) or J. D. Peron in Argentina.

It wasn't, however, far left. These movements were born as an answer to communism, not to improve it or build on it, but to avoid it, by making a "deal" between classes, what some communists call "Bonapartism". There where still big companies in Germany making big profits from the workers work (that shouldn't happen in a communist regime) although the State had a bigger portion of the country's economy in it's hands.

All in all, those center left economic policies (State participating heavily in the economy, workers getting a bigger cut of the companies profit) were actually pretty succesful, as they were in many other places.

But, socially speaking, National-Socialism was on the far right (wich is something the other regimes I mentioned didn't necesarily share). I don't think I have to elaborate on that. And yes, by that definition, socially speaking, Stalin was on the far right.

Ghostmaker-

I reject Hayek's recommendations for the same reason I reject Marx's: their prescriptions for a better world completely ignore human corruptibility.

Ghostmaker lurches further to the right!
I see this modern trend of the American right to dress up Nazi socialism/fascism as a "left wing" socialist venture as complete bollocks.

While I agree with rumley that left/right is a too simplistic prism to see a political theology in I also think one must be practical, besides the rhetoric what did the nazi do, who supported them, who did they fight against, and from that we can see that their supporters were big business, the military/military industrial complex, the elite, and socially conservative forces within germany and in europe, the Nazi were anti unions, anti minorities, and anti homosexuals.They maintained a permanent war setting to pursue imperialistic goals of expansion and enrichment of an elite few to the detriment of the lower classes. Their social appeals to the german people as Xapi has already said were conservative traditionalist and xenophobically themed.

You are wrong Sean. The Nazis were united by their belief in a nice nanny state and their voracious cult of vegetarianism. This led directly to killing Jews. Silly liberalfacist, you. ^^

@sean + 1 but:

"to the detriment of the lower classes."
The lower classes also benifited from the enrichment. Through compulsary acquisition of jews and citizen of conquered countries, the nazis also enriched the soldiers families by giving the soldiers women very high compensation for sending them to war.

“I learned in school the "Great Depression" bankrupted Germany”

Great depression occurred in early 1930s, Hitler spent in order to create jobs. When he went to war in 1939, the coffers were emptied, and his public works projects were unsustainable.

“But, socially speaking, National-Socialism was on the far right (wich is something the other regimes I mentioned didn't necesarily share). I don't think I have to elaborate on that. And yes, by that definition, socially speaking, Stalin was on the far right”

I am unconvinced by the idea that right is equivalent to nationalistic. Surely if that were the case, then we would be saying that right wingers believe in free market economics, but are also necessarily in favour of protectionism (in both goods and workers) for nationalistic reasons, which is a part of free markets.

Similarly the view of left-wing politics as being liberal is equally contradictory; this just shows how weak modern politics is- that very few people are actually consistent.

“Ghostmaker lurches further to the right!
I see this modern trend of the American right to dress up Nazi socialism/fascism as a "left wing" socialist venture as complete bollocks.”

Firstly, it has been quite a while since I first thought that Nazism was left wing- over a year...

Secondly, what, if not left wing, were the massive public works projects that were undertaken by Hitler’s government?

Thirdly, I am not part of the American right, and nor was Hayek

Fourthly, I do not mean to imply that murdering the jews is an inherent part of either left-wing or right-wing doctrine, it is contradictory to the ends of both ideologies (although I do contest that admitting the right of the state to act without the volition of the citizens being affected does permit such murder, not that that is an argument against Left-wing positions).

“While I agree with rumley that left/right is a too simplistic prism to see a political theology in I also think one must be practical, besides the rhetoric what did the nazi do, who supported them, who did they fight against, and from that we can see that their supporters were big business, the military/military industrial complex, the elite, and socially conservative forces within germany and in europe, the Nazi were anti unions, anti minorities, and anti homosexuals.They maintained a permanent war setting to pursue imperialistic goals of expansion and enrichment of an elite few to the detriment of the lower classes. Their social appeals to the german people as Xapi has already said were conservative traditionalist and xenophobically themed”

Big businesses support the intervention of the government in the economy to favour big business, which is not a right wing action.
Military action is a matter of foreign policy, and is clearly (from a glace at history) a feature of both the Left and the Right.
The elite often support the left wing. One only needs to look, in my country, at Anthony Wedgewood Benn, who was the son of a Viscount.
Being opposed to minorities and homosexuals is not a feature of right-wing politics either. That is pure slander, there is nothing right-wing about persecution, and you do yourself a discredit to suggest that persecution can be considered either as right- or left- wing.

"Great depression occurred in early 1930s, Hitler spent in order to create jobs. When he went to war in 1939, the coffers were emptied, and his public works projects were unsustainable."
Yes of course, because of building an army, but not because of left politics as you said.

"I am unconvinced by the idea that right is equivalent to nationalistic."

I didn't say that.

"Being opposed to minorities and homosexuals is not a feature of right-wing politics either."

I think it is, or at least, it was. Right wing is, in my book, about consevadurism. We want to keep things the way they are, we want the powerful to remain powerful and the weak to remain weak, and that is what slavery, appartheid, and antisemitism was about. You might ask "But the Jews were rather powerful in Germany, so conservatives should want them to remain powerful, right?" No, obviously, they were comparatibly new richs, and were therefore a pain in the ass for the "old rich".

I do, however, admit that most of the right wing has, since the '80s until today, veered towards pure classism, were they try to mantain a big gap amongst classes, away from racism, were their biggest concern was keeping blacks and in some places Jews out of the upper classes.

Extreme L, and Extreme R circle back upon each other to form a circle, or a ring. The One Ring that binds them all.

This discussion is stupid. Nazism took elements from left and right, into a rather unique blend. The only reasons I can think up to define Nazism as product of left- or rightwing ideas is 1) political: to associate one or the other with Nazism, which is slander, or 2) to prevent Nazism (or a similar system) from occuring in a given society. The problem with #2 is you can never know when you've aced against democracy or truly have prevented your society of falling into fascism. Nazism, in my opionion, isn't really comparable to any modern state, or it should be totalitarian states, like North korea. The historic context, the Hitler person, the blend of ideas... too unique to be reproduced at short order.

* acted against democracy

"Yes of course, because of building an army, but not because of left politics as you said."

Autobahns and other public works projects. Anyway, military Keynsianism is still Keynsian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Pre-war_economy:_1933.E2.80.931939

"But, socially speaking, National-Socialism was on the far right (wich is something the other regimes I mentioned didn't necesarily share). I don't think I have to elaborate on that."

I took that to imply that the nationalistic policies (among which I include include anti-semitism etc.) were, in your view, right wing.

In fact, Nazi Germany was far from conservative, as a moment's thought would suggest. Nor is your depiction of conservatism fair (and I am not a conservative):

"We want to keep things the way they are, we want the powerful to remain powerful and the weak to remain weak"

Like hell that is the case, seriously, your building up a massive straw man. I have no problem with attacking conservatism, but that really isn't a good attack on it.

Nazism/fascism is polar opposites to communism (in theory, disregard Mao, Stalin, etc as they were basically fascist). Fascism advocates class compromise, with a strong state at the top controlling everything. This assumes that the government and big business were split (IMHO they never will be). Communism is about class struggle, and how big business and government generally work together to keep the working class down.
"Big businesses support the intervention of the government in the economy to favour big business, which is not a right wing action."
It is right-wing. It is acting in favour of business, which means it is right-wing, you assume anything involving government is left-wing, which is false.

"The elite often support the left wing. One only needs to look, in my country, at Anthony Wedgewood Benn, who was the son of a Viscount."
The elite rarely support the left-wing, the majority benefit from the way things are done now. While some may have left-wing tendencies, look at say the French Revolution. Some of the richer people on the side of the revolution: Lafayette, Sieyes (part of the 1st Estate), and the Duke of Orléans. The first was a military man, and wanted is reputation rebuilt. The second was very poor, and the third was the King's brother, and would gained a lot of power from the limitation of his brother's (also the King had insulted him in front of the entire court on multiple occasions).

"I am unconvinced by the idea that right is equivalent to nationalistic."
That's why I criticise the left-right line as too simplistic. And anyway, could any American president actually come into power if he wasn't pro-free market and wasn't patriotic (but not hating his own country, just not as flag-waving as some people can get). That could apply to any head-of-state/government in the Western world.

"Secondly, what, if not left wing, were the massive public works projects that were undertaken by Hitler’s government?"
Most of it was help Germany back on its feet, and get it ready for war. And even the most free-market of governments would have to do some sort public spending if their country was screwed up as Germany was.

"Being opposed to minorities and homosexuals is not a feature of right-wing politics either. That is pure slander, there is nothing right-wing about persecution, and you do yourself a discredit to suggest that persecution can be considered either as right- or left- wing."

I agree with your last point, but generally who do you see against gay/women's/minority's rights? The right, be it protectionist or free-market.

@ghost
"Secondly, what, if not left wing, were the massive public works projects that were undertaken by Hitler’s government?"
That has nothing to do with left or right, you make yourself ridiculous by saying Hitler was a political "leftist".

Fascism: Government control of business, privately owned, is akin to, centre-leftist politics.
Communism (or rather Soviets): Government control & ownership of business, is far-left.

Indeed, there is opposition between the centre left and the far left, but not as much as between either and the far right, which is characterised by free markets.

“It is right-wing. It is acting in favour of business, which means it is right-wing, you assume anything involving government is left-wing, which is false.”

What is small government capitalism if not the extreme of right wing politics?

“The elite rarely support the left-wing, the majority benefit from the way things are done now. While some may have left-wing tendencies, look at say the French Revolution. Some of the richer people on the side of the revolution: Lafayette, Sieyes (part of the 1st Estate), and the Duke of Orléans. The first was a military man, and wanted is reputation rebuilt. The second was very poor, and the third was the King's brother, and would gained a lot of power from the limitation of his brother's (also the King had insulted him in front of the entire court on multiple occasions).”

Even so, the argument, “they must be right wing because the elites supported them” is weak, not least because the major alternative was communism (which was far-left)

“That's why I criticise the left-right line as too simplistic. And anyway, could any American president actually come into power if he wasn't pro-free market and wasn't patriotic (but not hating his own country, just not as flag-waving as some people can get). That could apply to any head-of-state/government in the Western world.”

Not pro-free market? In that I list, among others, FDR, G W Bush, Obama and no doubt many other presidents who I know little about.

Patriotism I accept as a necessary trait, although I do believe Obama to be opposed to what America was, in the view of the founders, all about, I accept that he does what he does with the intention to make a country he loves better.

“Most of it was help Germany back on its feet, and get it ready for war. And even the most free-market of governments would have to do some sort public spending if their country was screwed up as Germany was.”

Had, for instance, Hayek been in charge, he would not have advocated taking action. Of course, by the time of the depression, the damage had already been done, the capital inappropriately allocated, etc. However, the public works projects only delayed the inevitable crash- and the WW2 guaranteed that Keynes was right to say “In the long run, we’re all dead”.

“I agree with your last point, but generally who do you see against gay/women's/minority's rights? The right, be it protectionist or free-market.”


As a general rule, in Western countries, the centre-right is more likely to be homophobic and/or xenophobic and/or misogynous, true, but that doesn’t mean that it has anything to do being right wing. As I say, such things are just anti-anything, right or left.

Furthermore, in my country, the most hateful party, the BNP, is in favour of protectionism, that “British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people”, and that “a BNP government will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates”, all decidedly left-wing policies.

“That [public works projects] has nothing to do with left or right, you make yourself ridiculous by saying Hitler was a political "leftist".”

I think you’ll find that subsidising is left-wing. Furthermore, the stance I am taking is in agreement with a Nobel prize-winner. Perhaps not so ridiculous after-all?

@ghost
"Furthermore, the stance I am taking is in agreement with a Nobel prize-winner. Perhaps not so ridiculous after-all?"
What Nobel prize-winner? Keynes? I doubt he says Hitler was a leftists...you are pulling this out of your ass ghost and you know that.

"however the purpose of the increased German military spending was not to increase economic growth, but to prepare for the war of conquest that Hitler always intended to launch."
This is from your own reference ghost! It was no left policicy, it was a unique political movement, aimed towards war. I think you should read the artivles you refer too...

It is ridiculous how you came up with a thread claiming things your own sources are disproving. Why do latch on this stupid idea of Hitler beeing a leftist, while all post are also disproving your arguments? You are totally wrong, is it too hard for you to say "i was wrong and get over that?" I don´t get it...

I would write more, but I'm not in a proper state to do so:

"Not pro-free market? In that I list, among others, FDR, G W Bush, Obama and no doubt many other presidents who I know little about."
I'll grant FDR (I'm sorry if that sounds patronising), but how are Bush and Obama not pro-free market?

"Even so, the argument, “they must be right wing because the elites supported them” is weak, not least because the major alternative was communism (which was far-left)"
A conservative (economic or social) is one wants to keep things generally the way they are now. The elite are those who are at the top of society, generally through fame/power/money (those three usually come hand in hand). Therefore the elite are usually conservative, because any change could threaten their status. This also relates to why the right is *generally* more anti women/gays/minorities than the left.

Protectionism isn't a left policy. It is a nationalist one, and nationalism is generally associated with the right. Leftist (not communist) economic policies ask for more regulation, but that doesn't mean protectionism. Also, what the BNP says and does could be very different. Every government, left or right, will claim to do "what's right by the people" (or something to that effect), whether they do it or not is a different thing. Populism straddles the entire political spectrum.

"I think you’ll find that subsidising is left-wing. Furthermore, the stance I am taking is in agreement with a Nobel prize-winner. Perhaps not so ridiculous after-all?"

Not all leftists are pro subsidies, many communists are against them, because it give Western businesses a large advantage over developing countries, and it usually doesn't mean a rise in wages. Also, look at the EU and the USA. They give massive subsidies/support to their own businesses, yet they claim to pro-free market. Neo-cons are hypocrites.
As for the second sentence, it depends whether you believe in the integrity of the Nobel Prize or not (please note I'm not anti-Nobel Prize, i don't know enough about it to make a judgment).

Ghost, I'm on thin ice here but I think you are misinterpreting Hayek. He's not blaming socialism for nazism (and if he did he would be a moron) but giving us a warning. Those who see nazism as 'a mere revolt against reason' underestimate the power and popular appeal of nazism. It's like saying 'luckily we're not like Hitler'. Nazism is too dangerous to be discarded that way. Whether we like it or not, Hitler was able to sway the masses to reverence and utmost loyalty. Were it not inprobable due to the specific historical context it could happen again.

I love how Ghost accuses people of constructing straw men arguments in a thread where he assumes fascism is a center-left phenomenon. It's so brazen.

I've crashed my bike, and can't type properly, but, brief answers. Also kinda grouchy b/c of the pain. sry.


"I'll grant FDR (I'm sorry if that sounds patronising), but how are Bush and Obama not pro-free market?"

regulation

"What Nobel prize-winner? Keynes? I doubt he says Hitler was a leftists...you are pulling this out of your ass ghost and you know that."

Hayek, you ignoramus.

"This is from your own reference ghost! It was no left policicy, it was a unique political movement, aimed towards war. I think you should read the artivles you refer too..."

"Military Keynsianism", and other public works projects were well established.

"Protectionism isn't a left policy"

it is anti- free market.

"Not all leftists are pro subsidies"

but all subsidies are leftist

"I love how Ghost accuses people of constructing straw men arguments in a thread where he assumes fascism is a center-left phenomenon. It's so brazen.
"

not assumed- look at their collectivist policies, their state control & their subsidies.

"I love how Ghost accuses people of constructing straw men arguments in a thread where he assumes fascism is a center-left phenomenon. It's so brazen."

I think he is stucked with the term "National-Socialism", his brain can´t accept something with -Socialism at the end not beeing socialism at all. It will repeat in his brain forever...

"regulation"
That would mean almost every American president was anti-free market, as all had regulation of some kind. That idea is absurd. Just because one puts a few regulations on the system, doesn't make automatically anti-free market. As for the regulations put up by Obama, that's just pandering for votes: in a few years all those regulations will disappear.

"Hayek, you ignoramus."
I think he meant that Keynes was a Nobel Prize winner, but he wouldn't have agreed to Hayek's/your arguement.

"it is anti- free market."
Right-wing doesn't mean pro-free market.

"but all subsidies are leftist "
No, how so?

In fact, I agree (to a degree) with Hayek. Fascism and *Soviet* Communism IMHO are the same thing, just under different names. I can understand where Hayek got his ideas from, his main source of knowledge concerning socialism would have been the USSR, etc and the establishment would have told him the same thing. Actual communism (to say the libertarian kind would admit that there is another kind, but the ideas of communism based on freedom and equality, etc, but that's another story) isn't anything like that.

I'm sorry for your accident, hopefully it is nothing serious, and I hope you get well soon.

"That would mean almost every American president was anti-free market, as all had regulation of some kind. That idea is absurd. Just because one puts a few regulations on the system, doesn't make automatically anti-free market. As for the regulations put up by Obama, that's just pandering for votes: in a few years all those regulations will disappear"

Yes, in the modern day no-one gets elected in america by supporting the free market.

"Right-wing doesn't mean pro-free market."

my understanding is that it does in the modern day.

"In fact, I agree (to a degree) with Hayek. Fascism and *Soviet* Communism IMHO are the same thing, just under different names. I can understand where Hayek got his ideas from, his main source of knowledge concerning socialism would have been the USSR, etc and the establishment would have told him the same thing. Actual communism (to say the libertarian kind would admit that there is another kind, but the ideas of communism based on freedom and equality, etc, but that's another story) isn't anything like that.
"

Of course socialism =! communism

"Yes, in the modern day no-one gets elected in america by supporting the free market."
Is that sarcasm? I'm sorry, I'm not very good at identifying sarcasm in writing (though I like to think I'm adept at using it in speaking).

"my understanding is that it does in the modern day."
Well, then we come back to the problem with the simple left-right dichotomy

"Of course socialism =! communism"
Well, then that depends on your definition of the word socialism, though in that instance is used socialism and communism interchangeably.

I'm sorry for the long wait for a reply: I'm a very lazy person.

It is late so I did not read thread. Apologies.

I view the "left right" thing not as a line, but as a circle. If Nazism is the very extreme end of the right and communism the extreme end of the left, then they are very near each other, aren't they?

I view the political spectrum as a bunch of rotten garbage shaped like a unicorn.


From far away it looks so nice and almost too good to be true.

Then you come closer and it's all a bunch of rotten garbage, some of which is more stinky and disgusting than other parts. Nazism is represented by the bag of needles that give you HIV. Democracy is a broken microphone with loose wires that electrocutes you.

@TGM, I am not so sure if free-market economics is in itself right wing. I realize that some people view it that way, but it is missing some core ingredients. The first of which I would say is nationalism (especially if you think about right-wing politics in the 20th century). Also lacking is social-conservatism. Many libertarians are very socially progressive in many aspects.
Looking back to history, at English politics, the Whigs were radical compared to the Tories (more right wing so to speak) and they were all for free trade (which was against the interest of the landed class).

The Nazis were originally quite left-wing in their views - the very name itself, National Socialism conveys this idea. Later Hitler, perhaps for pragmatic reasons, and in order to distinguish himself from true socialists, distanced himself from this school of thought (especially with his purge of the brown shirts).

Out of curiosity before I read stuff here:

Are we discussing the political movement that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945, or are we just labeling people we don't like "Nazis" and letting the joys of the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy discredit them instead of actually debating the merits of their beliefs?

Germany 1933-45