• 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
This is just a viewpoint without basis, it ignores once again the perspective of removing the worker/proletariat from the constraints of Monarchy and the bourgeoisie.

It is a viewpoint based on facts - and what the Bolsheviks actually did, from the day one of horrendous rule. It does ignore the cheaper editions of their propaganda textbooks.


Get in touch with US poli-sci definitions, come to an understanding as an American, if you are using American terms living in America.

As an American living in America, I call BS when I see it. The current "US poli-sci" definitions are not just meaningless - they are corrupting, because they distort perception of the phenomena we are trying to understand. All the statist "liberals", radical reformist "conservatives", reactionary "progressives", crony capitalist "free marketers", etc, etc running around should tell you something about the condition of our "poli-sci".
 
It is a viewpoint based on facts - and what the Bolsheviks actually did, from the day one of horrendous rule. It does ignore the cheaper editions of their propaganda textbooks.
To you there is no differentiation between Marx, Lenin, the Bolsheviks or Stalin. It is all the same, just as the left/liberals gets lumped in with them.




As an American living in America, I call BS when I see it. The current "US poli-sci" definitions are not just meaningless - they are corrupting, because they distort perception of the phenomena we are trying to understand. All the statist "liberals", radical reformist "conservatives", reactionary "progressives", crony capitalist "free marketers", etc, etc running around should tell you something about the condition of our "poli-sci".
I'm just getting sick of your editing and lumping together any and all. This is getting so entirely pointless because you refuse to understand history or a common poli-sci understanding.
 
Then you confuse matters even more by claiming Stalinist Communism was NOT as restrictive as what US Liberals want, this is a total falsehood, a viewpoint void of basis.

OK, now you just begin lying preposterously (when anyone can read the thread and see that you are lying) - claiming that I have said something so totally absurd that I cannot imagine any explanation except that you are tired and wish to end this conversation by provoking an angry reaction. No need for that. Simply adieu will do.
 
And just to finish this off, you call yourself "libertarian-right" which signifies a free market ideology with a conservative social viewpoint. If you truly felt yourself to be "libertarian", you would have left it as that...but you didn't.
 
To you there is no differentiation between Marx, Lenin, the Bolsheviks or Stalin. It is all the same, just as the left/liberals gets lumped in with them.

Every Bolshevik is a Marxist, but not every Marxist is a Bolshevik. Lenin and Stalin were Bolsheviks - and mass-murdering mega-criminals.

Nobody tries to "lump liberals in with them". Stop making things up.
 
And just to finish this off, you call yourself "libertarian-right" which signifies a free market ideology with a conservative social viewpoint.

No, it signifies the absence of mutualist and anarchist ideas "left-libertarians" are playing with.
My "conservative social viewpoint" includes support for gay marriage, rejection of drug prohibition, no to death penalty, etc.
 
No, it signifies the absence of mutualist and anarchist ideas "left-libertarians" are playing with.
My "conservative social viewpoint" includes support for gay marriage, rejection of drug prohibition, no to death penalty, etc.
FFS...yes, anarchists don't support gay marriage, legalization......sigh. Not only are your views on US liberals messed up, but so are your views on anarchists.
 
Um, when you had been saying over and over again how the left is "grouped together with communists and fascists".

Communists and Fascists being an extreme part of the left doesn't mean that American social-democrats are the same Communists and Fascists.
Introducing (more) logical fallacies is not going to fix the shoddiness of your argument.

But indeed, before we reduce ourselves to exchanging insults without any content - take care.
 
Nobody tries to "lump liberals in with them". Stop making things up.
Uh huh..
I am talking about ideological kinship (between US liberals and Stalinist Communists) and resulting absolute blindness in the face of overwhelming evidence of the Communist regime's criminality.
 
FFS...yes, anarchists don't support gay marriage, legalization......sigh. Not only are your views on US liberals messed up, but so are your views on anarchists.

Oh, I see. You simply cannot make logical constructs. A form of dyslexia, I presume. If somebody says that he is not an anarchist, and then says - in response to a suggestion that he is a social conservative that he is not - in your mind it means that he just accused anarchists of being social conservatives. Remarkable.
Well, bye now.
 
Uh huh.. Ideological kinship

Yes, of course. The American socialists were sympathetic to the proclaimed "socialist experiment" in Russia, and remained blind to its obvious totalitarian character for much longer than would be excusable. Doesn't mean they were totalitarian themselves, or as close to Stalinism as Fascism and Nazism, on that Nolan chart.
 
Fascists being an extreme part of the left
They are not:

51312d1316043811-nolan-chart-political-quiz-you-all-jfk.jpg
 
Yes, of course. The American socialists were sympathetic to the proclaimed "socialist experiment" in Russia, and remained blind to its obvious totalitarian character for much longer than would be excusable. Doesn't mean they were totalitarian themselves, or as close to Stalinism as Fascism and Nazism, on that Nolan chart.
I'm afraid you just keep jumping all over the map, you have not been able to hold a consistent viewpoint or set of definitions, and your context removing editing is just an extension of your consistent dishonest debate technique. See ya, don't wanna be ya (and I mean it).
 
In a tradionalist political science sense, Fascism is generally regarded as "right wing" to an utter extreme. Attempting to compare it as some kind of analog or similar thing to modern american conservatism would be like trying to compare a mid-major Basketball team with the Chicago Bulls of the 90's. It's an emotional bit of hyperbole used as a political bludgeon without regard to common sense.

Take the standard Nolan Chart that's often referenced, or just take the general mindset of it. I prefer it to the standard "left" / "right" idea. Everythings based off a two part scale in terms of Economic Freedom and Social Freedom (or the focus on community vs focus on individual).

Here's a general view of it

nolan_chart.png


In this, Facism would be in the lower portion, probably in the bottom right portion of that section.

Here's a very interesting take on some of the various types of ideologies commonly thought about in the U.S. as well as the extreme ends for each side.

51312d1316043811-nolan-chart-political-quiz-you-all-jfk.jpg

Putting fascism on the scale between capitalism and totalitarianism would be correct only if capitalists were leaders in the fascist government, and they were not. They took direction from the fascists, which were former socialists. They had some state authority in Italy, but almost none in Germany. Fascism is being put far to the right with ideolgies that share none of its key features such as welfare, central control of the economy and the monitary system, government health care, and guaranteed employment. It ought to be over to the left with ideologies that advocate those features. Mussolini invented totalitariansim, so to seperate fascism from this is misleading.


Mussolini:
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
 
But again, this is no argument that they were leftists.

It's only an argument that the Right shares some perverse political inclinations.

On the one side you have an ideology that advocates central control of the economy and the monitary system, government health care, cradle to grave welfare, guaranteed employment, abolition of class differences, high and progressive taxation, and seizure and redistribution of land and wealth.

On the other side you have an ideology that advocates a free market with a minimum of government involement, a gold standard, no government involement in industry beyond policing, private charity, low taxes, respect of traditional class divisions, and respect and protection of private property.

There is simply no question that fascism belongs in the first classification above. To which do leftist ideologies belong?

All else is meaningless as ideologies only have meaning in terms of the policies they inspire and justify.
 
On the one side you have an ideology that advocates central control of the economy and the monitary system, government health care, cradle to grave welfare, guaranteed employment, abolition of class differences, high and progressive taxation, and seizure and redistribution of land and wealth.

On the other side you have an ideology that advocates a free market with a minimum of government involement, a gold standard, no government involement in industry beyond policing, private charity, low taxes, respect of traditional class divisions, and respect and protection of private property.

There is simply no question that fascism belongs in the first classification above. To which do leftist ideologies belong?

All else is meaningless as ideologies only have meaning in terms of the policies they inspire and justify.
You are wrong on some important points, Spengler like Mussolini, were corporatists, where the corporation is not owned by the party but where the production is focused towards best use.

And the fascists in Germany were VERY interested in keeping traditional German hierarchy in place, to the the extreme of eliminating Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, gays....intellectuals and any other "degenerates" out of the German gene pool.


You, like the other guy, are a bit confused when it comes to Fascism vs Marxism.
 
All else is meaningless as ideologies only have meaning in terms of the policies they inspire and justify.

Exactly one of the points I"ve been making...and which no one will even countenance, much less respond. So it's gratifying that you hold to a similar viewpoint.

That said, again, we can take a regime that is more or less universally considered of the political Right (and even admired by some, to their shame): Pinochet.

"The policies [he] inspire[d] and justif[ied]" were quite obviously of statist repression and authoritarianism. Whatever brutally cold illogic that Hayek, Thatcher and some Chicago-School acolytes might summon in his defense, he wasn't even supportive of "free markets": repressing people who disagree is by definition government intrusion into those markets.

So the political right, in this case (and far from the only case, notably throughout Central and South America throughout much of the 20th century) was certainly not concerned about freedom...except of course for oligarchs, who were the "natural rulers."

So yes, "respect for traditional class divisions" was unquestionably a hallmark of the right-wing state terror. This should be a condemnation, not an accolade.

But minimum government involvement? :) Nope.

As you say, ideologies' meaning is delineated by behaviour, not by claims...certainly not the claims made on this thread, which elevate the ideals as more real than reality...a stance that takes some discipline to maintain.
 
Again, the only difference between US conservatives and most fascists is the marginal difference in social freedoms, and as I said, there are lots of cons promoting the restrictions of social freedoms on groups outside of theirs. Bircherism is alive and well within the US right wing, Palin and the tea bags are just a few steps away from Stormfront.

Lol this is amusing. So y'all are willing to take ownership of Stalin and the communists? Mao Zedong too?
 
Lol this is amusing. So y'all are willing to take ownership of Stalin and the communists? Mao Zedong too?

If by "ownership" you're asking whether I consider such regimes to have been leftist...my answer is the same: yes, with an admixture of other ideologies stirred into the pot.
 
Fascism is statism, they are the same thing. Both left and right are statists.

When I saw this thread, that was my reaction. Thank you for saving me the trouble of responding.
 
Exactly one of the points I"ve been making...and which no one will even countenance, much less respond. So it's gratifying that you hold to a similar viewpoint.

That said, again, we can take a regime that is more or less universally considered of the political Right (and even admired by some, to their shame): Pinochet.

"The policies [he] inspire[d] and justif[ied]" were quite obviously of statist repression and authoritarianism. Whatever brutally cold illogic that Hayek, Thatcher and some Chicago-School acolytes might summon in his defense, he wasn't even supportive of "free markets": repressing people who disagree is by definition government intrusion into those markets.

So the political right, in this case (and far from the only case, notably throughout Central and South America throughout much of the 20th century) was certainly not concerned about freedom...except of course for oligarchs, who were the "natural rulers."

So yes, "respect for traditional class divisions" was unquestionably a hallmark of the right-wing state terror. This should be a condemnation, not an accolade.

But minimum government involvement? :) Nope.

As you say, ideologies' meaning is delineated by behaviour, not by claims...certainly not the claims made on this thread, which elevate the ideals as more real than reality...a stance that takes some discipline to maintain.

So what are you claiming that Pinochet represents? He's not fascist. Too many elements of fascism are missing from his regime. There's no welfare, there's no redistribution of land, there's no government health care, there's no effort to abolish class differences, he did not maintain labor unions but abolished them, and the government didn't attempt to control private businesses but instead supported neoliberal economic policies, almost the exact opposite of fascism. He certainly was authoritarian.

Pinochet more closely resembled populist dictators like Saddam Hussein and Ferdinand Marcos.
 
Again, the only difference between US conservatives and most fascists is the marginal difference in social freedoms, and as I said, there are lots of cons promoting the restrictions of social freedoms on groups outside of theirs. Bircherism is alive and well within the US right wing, Palin and the tea bags are just a few steps away from Stormfront.

Conservatism could not be any more different from fascism. Conservatives don't support any of the government policies that fascists advocated, which includes high and progressive taxation, an all powerful central government in control of the economy and the monetary system, government health care, cradle to grave welfare, central control of unions, redistribution of land, and abolishing class distinctions. Not even if you consider social conservative policies do you even get close to fascism. In fascism children were educated and indoctrinated by the state, similar to communist education. Devotion to the state replaced religious devotion.

Any group advocating policies that say "no" to what the little boys and girls of the left want to do when they want to do it is called fascist. It's puerile and ignorant.
 
Make it 4 or 5, whatever.

But the govts current owners will never allow the libertarian govt they have convinced you is ideal.

If we had a libertarian government then there would be no government favors to sell in the first place. Statism is a central requirement of corporatism. You can't have corporatism without statism.
 
Back
Top Bottom