• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Fascism Right Wing?

Is fascism left or right wing?

  • Left

    Votes: 18 20.2%

  • Right

    Votes: 46 51.7%

  • Neither

    Votes: 16 18.0%

  • Description sucks

    Votes: 9 10.1%
  • Total voters
    89
beserkeleven said:
Fascism is socially right wing. It is total government control over social policies. .
Click to expand...

In this case, Communism is also right wing. Under Stalin or Mao, government had total control over social policies.


beserkeleven said:
Communism is total left wing economics where the economy is regulated by the government.
Click to expand...

But if you pick a particular timeframe - for example, the New Economic Policy of Lenin, in the 1920s - you see overall government control with private enterprise allowed and to some degree encouraged, although always "kept on a short leash". Just like in the Nazi Germany or in the Mussolini's Italy.

Differences are in emphasis and in the phase of development, not in the essence of ideologies.
 
What if...? said:
Or simply reduce the financial influence of the groups usurping the govt we have.

The cleverest thing ever done is convincing us that the govt THEY select is our problem, NOT that they are selecting who we get to vote between.

Money picks our candidates in the Wealth Primaries.

So the very ones who complain the most are the ones who picked our politicians in the first place.
Click to expand...

OR we can reduce the size and influence of the government. The problem isn't who is buying the government, its that the government has that much power in the first place.
 
ReformCollege said:
Corporatism is fascism and the anti-thesis of free markets.
Click to expand...

Which largely don't exist, for good reason, in a pure form.

But I voted neither. Let's not take a fascism's singularity and autonomy. It can be Bonn from both the left and the right, but eventually stands alone as its own system.
 
Cyrylek said:
Definitions vary.
In my book, "the Left" means "proponents of government control over economic activities and society at large".
Click to expand...
Half correct, liberal/left has generally wanted more control of economics, but on the social scale want more individual freedoms. Right/conservatives on social issues have trended toward less individual freedom, more towards authoritarianism.
 
DaveFagan said:
Fascism is the Right wing orgasm of Corporations running the gov't and is pretty much what we have in the USA right now. Big Energy, Banking, Big Pharma and Chemical corporations rule the roost. US Gov't trying to promote GMO seeds for Monsanto. "Too big to fail" bailouts for banksters. Wars to get control of Energy resources. Healthcare bills passed to take care of Big Pharma. We need to discuss starting wars for good business profits.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. It could more accurately be described as being the other way around. Rather than destroying the upper classes and seizing their wealth, as Communism does, Fascism instead co-opts big business into the machinery of the state through the influence of the ruling party.

A contemporary example of this phenomena is the, "Communist in name only," government of modern China. Private property and entrepenuership are technically allowed, but they are all subject to strict government oversight, and membership in the ruling party is basically required to have any chance of breaking into the market whatsoever.
 
Fascism is authoritarian on the social scale (it is NOT interested in freedom of the individual) and is very corporate on the economic scale, govt dictating what corporations will produce. The fascist symbol is represented by the leather strap (govt) wrapped around a bundle of sticks (corporations) with an axe (the military).

500px-Fascist_symbol.svg.png


Of course it is right wing, if you had a basic poli-sci course a person wouldn't need to ask such a question.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Half correct, liberal/left has generally wanted more control of economics, but on the social scale want more individual freedoms. Right/conservatives on social issues have trended toward less individual freedom, more towards authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

So, the extremely socially conservative Stalinists are not "the Left"?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Fascism is authoritarian on the social scale (it is NOT interested in freedom of the individual) and is very corporate on the economic scale, govt dictating what corporations will produce. The fascist symbol is represented by the leather strap (govt) wrapped around a bundle of sticks (corporations) with an axe (the military).

500px-Fascist_symbol.svg.png


Of course it is right wing, if you had a basic poli-sci course a person wouldn't need to ask such a question.
Click to expand...

How about...together we stand as strong, united. You know... its harder to break a bundle of sticks than a single stick. And if you put enough sticks in a bundle, you can't even break them with an axe because the axe bounces back...

That seems a bit more proper than your... interpretation.
 
Cyrylek said:
So, the extremely socially conservative Stalinists are not "the Left"?
Click to expand...
Stalin was a totalitarian, he twisted Leninist ideology into a form of "Red fascism".

You have gone from the general (which is what I was correcting) to specific leadership.

Again, liberalism is a movement towards individual freedom on social scales, whereas conservatism is a move toward authoritarianism.
 
Rainman05 said:
How about...together we stand as strong, united. You know... its harder to break a bundle of sticks than a single stick. And if you put enough sticks in a bundle, you can't even break them with an axe because the axe bounces back...

That seems a bit more proper than your... interpretation.
Click to expand...
It isn't "my" interpretation, and many ideologies have used the bundling of separate units together to create a mass greater in strength than the individual unit.

"The original symbol of fascism, in Italy under Benito Mussolini, was the fasces. This is an ancient Roman symbol of power carried by lictors in front of magistrates; a bundle of sticks featuring an axe, indicating the power over life and death. Before the Italian fascists adopted the fasces, the symbol had been used by Italian political organizations of various political ideologies (ranging from socialist to nationalist), called Fascio ("leagues") as a symbol of strength through unity."
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Fascism is authoritarian on the social scale (it is NOT interested in freedom of the individual) and is very corporate on the economic scale, govt dictating what corporations will produce. The fascist symbol is represented by the leather strap (govt) wrapped around a bundle of sticks (corporations) with an axe (the military).

500px-Fascist_symbol.svg.png


Of course it is right wing, if you had a basic poli-sci course a person wouldn't need to ask such a question.
Click to expand...

You realize that this symbol goes all the way back to before the rise of the Roman Republic, right? I kind of doubt that the symbolism you describe here is wholly accurate.

Fasces
 
Personally, I really don't care if it's left wing or right wing as too many times in arguments such as these people try to pin on one side that they were the side that the Nazis identified with and imply that all of that side are Nazis and its complete BS.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You have gone from the general (which is what I was correcting) to specific leadership.
Click to expand...

But if the vast majority of specific leftist leaderships manifest extreme social conservatism - as was the case with the Communist regimes in the 20th century - doesn't it become a "general feature"?

The very idea that we can neatly separate economic freedoms and social ones is silly: they are interdependent. Freedom of choice is freedom of choice. The real - "classical" - liberals ('libertarians' in modern American usage) are proponents of freedom of choice, and as such "right-wing", if we want to be logical and admit that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are varieties of the collectivist, statist ideology that belong on the Far Left, and nowhere else.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Which largely don't exist, for good reason, in a pure form.

But I voted neither. Let's not take a fascism's singularity and autonomy. It can be Bonn from both the left and the right, but eventually stands alone as its own system.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to make it as free as possible.
 
By the way, the Fascist "corporatism" had nothing to do with capitalist corporations. The idea was that government, workers and entrepreneurs form some kind of equal-partnership fusion collectives. In reality, of course, it was a fig leaf for government domination on every level.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/138442/corporatism
 
Last edited:
Cyrylek said:
But if the vast majority of specific leftist leaderships manifest extreme social conservatism - as was the case with the Communist regimes in the 20th century - doesn't it become a "general feature".
Click to expand...
And since liberals have come to reject the totalitarianism of Stalinism, I don't know what your point is, you were wrong about liberals wanting less social freedoms and you just can't accept that.

The very idea that we can neatly separate economic freedoms and social ones is silly: they are interdependent.
Click to expand...
They are, but the freedom to monopolize does not equal freedom for all economically....hence the reason liberals tend towards more regulation of markets where an individual is more free in an economic sense.


Freedom of choice is freedom of choice. The real - "classical" - liberals ('libertarians' in modern American usage) are proponents of freedom of choice, and as such "right-wing"
Click to expand...
Libertarians want total freedom in economics, which has attracted the right wing in large measure towards those ideas, but as I showed above, that does not necessarily lead greater economic freedom for everyone.


if we want to be logical and admit that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are varieties of the collectivist, statist ideology that belong on the Far Left, and nowhere else.
Click to expand...
Except that in reality the first two were brothers pitted ideologically against the third from the early 1900's to '45. Beyond that, Communism began as a freeing of the worker from the monarch... and then the bourgeoisie....but became authoritarian without much in the way of liberal characteristics. I still don't know why you can't face up to your original error.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
And since liberals have come to reject the totalitarianism.
Click to expand...
.

Actual liberals - of course. The American Left was widely sympathetic with the 'Soviet experiment'.

Gimmesometruth said:
the freedom to monopolize does not equal freedom for all economically .
Click to expand...
.

Of course. And while actual liberals (libertarians) promote free market, leftists promote various degrees of state monopolism or crony capitalism.


Gimmesometruth said:
Except that in reality the first two were brothers pitted ideologically against the third from the early 1900's to '45. .
Click to expand...

Rather, three brothers engaged in sibling rivalry. (When not ripping Poland apart together). Ideological differences were marginal, and mostly on the level of slogans, not practical policies.


Gimmesometruth said:
Communism began as a freeing of the worker from the monarch.
Click to expand...

Communism had nothing to do with it. The Leninists staged a violent putsch against the forces that ended monarchy in February of 1917.

Gimmesometruth said:
became authoritarian without much in the way of liberal characteristics. .
Click to expand...

It was totalitarian from the beginning, in theory and in practice.


Gimmesometruth said:
I still don't know why you can't face up to your original error.
Click to expand...

Because there's no error. The label "liberal" in application to the Left makes no sense whatsoever, that's the source of confusion.
 
Last edited:
The notion that left-wing politics versus right-wing politics is determined by the degree of government interference in the economy is a fallacy-- and borderline absurd. Look at American politics, for example. The difference between Conservative and Liberal isn't the degree of interference, but rather the supposed beneficiaries of it.

The difference between the Left Wing and the Right Wing isn't control, it is hierarchy. The Right Wing believes that, whether by natural talent or by learned discipline, some people are just better than others, and that those people rightfully deserve positions of power, influence, and respect within society; they believe that the strong should be rewarded for their superiority and that the weak should be coddled as little as possible. This is what unites the authoritarian Fascists, the traditionalist Conservatives, and the Libertarians. The Left Wing believes that people are all more or less equal, that everyone deserves a seat at the table and a voice in the conversation; they believe that the underprivileged will naturally elevate themselves if given the means to do so. This is what unites the liberal individualist Progressives and the collectivist Socialists.

Calling Fascists "Left Wing" and comparing them to Socialists is as foolish and misguided as allowing Social Conservatives to get away with calling themselves small-l libertarians.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
The Right Wing believes that, whether by natural talent or by learned discipline, some people are just better than others, and that those people rightfully deserve positions of power, influence, and respect within society; they believe that the strong should be rewarded for their superiority and that the weak should be coddled as little as possible. This is what unites the authoritarian Fascists, the traditionalist Conservatives, and the Libertarians.
Click to expand...

This is not true at all for the Fascists (the nation is one big happy family, with extensive welfare support for the weak), and not true for libertarians either (we aim at limiting "positions of power", not placing the "worthy" individuals there)

Viktyr Gehrig said:
The Left Wing believes that people are all more or less equal, that everyone deserves a seat at the table and a voice in the conversation; they believe that the underprivileged will naturally elevate themselves if given the means to do so. This is what unites the liberal individualist Progressives and the collectivist Socialists..
Click to expand...

Not true at all for the Communists - who actively denied any "seat at the table" to anyone but the "chosen class" of the "proletariat" (in reality - the state bureaucracy), while the assumption of equality is shared by libertarians - and many conservatives as well.
 
Cyrylek said:
.

Actual liberals - of course. The American Left was widely sympathetic with the 'Soviet experiment'.
Click to expand...
Um, possibly only the basic ideas of freedom for workers, but I'm a liberal have have no illusions about Stalin.

.

Of course. And while actual liberals (libertarians) promote free market, leftists promote various degrees of state monopolism or crony capitalism.
Click to expand...
Sigh, rhetoric without merit. You are still wrong about liberals wanting less social freedoms.




Rather, three brothers engaged in sibling rivalry. (When not ripping Poland apart together). Ideological differences were marginal, and mostly on the level of slogans, not practical policies.
Click to expand...
Um, Italy wasn't involved in Poland, and the ideologies of Lenin were different from Mussolini/Hitler....but I think I already conceded on Stalin as a Red fascist. I hope you don't think that the fights in the streets of Berlin in '32 were just imaginary.




Communism had nothing to do with it. The Leninists staged an violent putsch against the forces that ended monarchy in February of 1917.
Click to expand...
FFS...what do you think Marxism and Leninism was? Hint: It was Communism.



It was totalitarian from the beginning, in theory and in practice.
Click to expand...
Freeing workers from the monarchy and the bourgeoisie....was totalitarianism? Not at its root, Leninism had some totalitarian characteristics, but Stalinism reflected his paranoia, that was when it became totalitarian.




Because there's no error. The label "liberal" in application to the Left makes no sense whatsoever, that's the source of confusion.
Click to expand...
No, it is just you that is confused, you keep jumping over the basics ideas (liberalism is a move towards greater freedom of the individual) and associate the absolute worst with liberalism.....and think you have one an argument.

Again, liberals desire greater freedoms for the individual, specifically from a social aspect.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
The notion that left-wing politics versus right-wing politics is determined by the degree of government interference in the economy is a fallacy-- and borderline absurd. Look at American politics, for example. The difference between Conservative and Liberal isn't the degree of interference, but rather the supposed beneficiaries of it.
Click to expand...

Because the "left-wing", statist component is strong on both sides. The "supposed beneficiaries" - that's about slogans and marketing.
 
Cyrylek said:
Because the "left-wing", statist component is strong on both sides. The "supposed beneficiaries" - that's about slogans and marketing.
Click to expand...

That I will readily grant you.
 
Much of this ahistorical view of fascism is the fault of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" which has "reopened a debate" that was never actually occurring.

It's merely another chapter of the Cold War residue. The formula--and this is scarcely a simplification--is: Right-wing = good; Left wing =bad.

If one holds with enough religious fervour to the correctness of such vapid formulae, then yes, of course the fascists must be "left wing." (I've had debates with folks who insist that the most conservative of arch-conservatives, the theocratic Islamists, are also "left-wingers." :) )

Scholars of fascism, while rebutting the simplsitic "left/right paradigm as it pertains to fascism, nevertheless take issue with the notion of its "far left" genesis and directions:

Roger Griffin's blog: Review: Liberal Fascism

History News Network

History News Network


As the second author here, Matthew Feldman posits that the "debate," if anything, is little more than "a useful barometer of the so-called "culture wars" in the contemporary United States."

And that's about where this "Fascism is left-wing" notion stands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom