Is Fascism Right Wing?

Gimmesometruth · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
Considering that the Soviet Communism and metastases had conquered half of the world and defined the content of ideological struggles for a century, who is a "true leftist" then? Two dudes in Amherst, Massachusetts smoking dope and quoting Proudhon to each other?

Since Soviet Communism, by your own admission, devolved into totalitarianism, I have no idea why you keep pointing to it as representative of left/liberalism. 2 guys smoking weed in Amherst are certainly not equivalent to Stalin. If anything they are anarchists, much closer to your "libertarianism".

Cyrylek · May 22, 2013

Gimmesometruth said:
Well there we are again, not only do you have your own vocabulary, but your own alternative history where the Bolsheviks did not split from the Mensheviks in 03 and were not the the "majority" in name or number.

You claim that the Communists (Bolsheviks) were the force behind the February Revolution. There were not. The imaginary chain of events is yours, not mine.

Gimmesometruth said:
The years of Lenin were occupied by 6 years of civil war in defeating the Whites,.

Translation: 6 years suppressing resistance to his brutal totalitarian regime - the "Whites" being conservatives, liberals, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and just plain anyone with an ounce of conscience and humanity left.

Gimmesometruth said:
once Stalin took over in 22 he tossed out Lenin's New Economic Policy.

Not true. The NEP continued until 1929, and Stalin was a huge proponent of the NEP, as a tactical, temporary move - in contrast to some resistance from the less pragmatic Trotsky. From contemporary writings of Lenin, it is 100% clear that the "Stalinist" collectivization and industrialization was the eventual goal.

By the way, the NEP, with the State controlling everything but allowing a good deal of private and cooperative business activities is very similar to the economic setups of the Fascist and Nazi polities. And the convergence continued, when the Nazis had declared their Four-Year Plan and made Goering an economic dictator in 1938. We will never know, but the mixed socialist economy ("military Keynesianism") of the early Nazi period could have been just a phase, like the NEP, on the way to the Soviet-style State domination.

Cyrylek · May 22, 2013

Gimmesometruth said:
You can hijack the term "libertarian" and apply it to your brand of Classic Liberalism.

I don't hijack anything. The term "liberal" was hijacked by the American social democrats. We were sort of edited out of existence. Yes, "libertarian" sounds awkward, and immediately suggests some kind of dogmatic radicalism, but that's what we are stuck with.
The liberals of continental Europe, like the members German FDP or Polish OP call themselves libertarian when talking to Americans, to avoid any misunderstanding.

Gimmesometruth · May 22, 2013

I just have to rip this apart, it is too rich in your mixed up definitions

Cyrylek said:
Definitions vary.
In my book, "the Left" means "proponents of government control over economic activities and society at large".

Wrong, left/liberals are for great social freedom and restrictions on total free markets.

The Stalinists being the ultimate "far Left": using our weird contemporary language, "extremely liberal economically, extremely conservative socially".

How in the world do Communists, particularly Stalinists, get described as "economically liberal"? They wanted total control of all economic conditions, no private profiting, no free market. Stalinists were totalitarian.

The Nazis were a bit milder on the economic side, and the Fascists substantially less aggressive on both counts, but all three ideologies sit squarely in the "advanced Left" corner.

If the Nazi's were more open economically, yet still as restrictive on social matters as Stalinists, that shifts them to the right.

Cyrylek · May 22, 2013

Gimmesometruth said:
Maybe you can get on the same page with us and examine the "political compass" above....

I object to some "zone markings" there, but you should notice the world "neoliberalism" hovering over the "libertarian" tip, on the left. That's how the European socialists call classical liberals/libertarians, with the implied "Oh no, we thought you are dead and buried!"

The Stalinists will be at the bottom of the chart, where personal and economic freedoms come to the minimum. The Nazis a tad higher, to the right; the Fascists still a little higher, by both measures. But all three clustered together neatly. I call this zone "far left", you can call it something else.

274ina · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
Ribbentrop was not beaten up and run out after signing agreements with the Stalinists and designing a plan for joint attack on the countries of Eastern Europe.

Of course, regimes like those two turn onto each other sooner or later: there can be only one absolute master. But the same is true for the internal power struggles within the certified Communist camp: Stalin murdered Trotsky and his surrounding; the Soviets and the Maoists became bitter enemies; the Khmer Rouge was eventually taken out (thank god for the lesser evils) by the Vietnamese Communists...

THe actions with the USSR had nothing to do with the internal actions of the NSDAP and brown shirts.

And remember what happened to the USSR are few months later.........

Gimmesometruth · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
You claim that the Communists (Bolsheviks) were the force behind the February Revolution. There were not. The imaginary chain of events is yours, not mine.

They were the MAJORITY, that is what Bolshevik refers to. They WERE Coummunist. To say that Communism had no influence upon the Russian Revolution (and YOU did) is just a complete misreading of history.

Translation: 6 years suppressing resistance to his brutal totalitarian regime - the "Whites" being conservatives, liberals, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and just plain anyone with an ounce of conscience and humanity left.

"In the Russian context, White had three connotations:

Political contra-distinction to the Reds, whose revolutionary Red Army supported the Bolshevik government;
Historical reference to absolute monarchy, specifically united under Russia’s first Tsar, Ivan III (1462–1505), styled “Albus Rex” (“White King”); and
Sartorially, some White Army soldiers wore the white uniforms of Imperial Russia."

Not true. The NEP continued until 1929, and Stalin was a huge proponent of the NEP, as a tactical, temporary move - in contrast to some resistance from the less pragmatic Trotsky. From contemporary writings of Lenin, it is 100% clear that the "Stalinist" collectivization and industrialization was the eventual goal.

By the way, the NEP, with the State controlling everything but allowing a good deal of private and cooperative business activities is very similar to the economic setups of the Fascist and Nazi polities. And the convergence continued, when the Nazis had declared their Four-Year Plan and made Goering an economic dictator in 1938. We will never know, but the mixed socialist economy ("military Keynesianism") of the early Nazi period could have been just a phase, like the NEP, on the way to the Soviet-style State domination.

"Stalin pushed for more rapid industrialization and central control of the economy, contravening Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP). At the end of 1927, a critical shortfall in grain supplies prompted Stalin to push for the collectivisation of agriculture and order the seizure of grain hoards from kulak farmers.[33][39] Nikolai Bukharin and Premier Alexey Rykov opposed these policies and advocated a return to the NEP, but the rest of the Politburo sided with Stalin and removed Bukharin from the Politburo in November 1929. Rykov was fired the following year and was replaced by Vyacheslav Molotov on Stalin's recommendation"

Cyrylek · May 22, 2013

Cardinal said:
Not really. Fascism is well understood to be generally hostile to left wing principles.

The Fascism is very poorly understood, if we go by the constant confusion of the Fascism with the Nazism, even on this thread. And, as this thread also testifies, there's a wide range of opinions on what are the "left wing principles", exactly.

Dooble · May 22, 2013

ReformCollege said:
Its more so a horseshoe. The far right and the far left are a lot closer to each other then they are to the respective moderates on either side.

Except that the Right espouses individual liberty and the Left doesn't.

Gimmesometruth · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
I don't hijack anything. The term "liberal" was hijacked by the American social democrats. We were sort of edited out of existence. Yes, "libertarian" sounds awkward, and immediately suggests some kind of dogmatic radicalism, but that's what we are stuck with.
The liberals of continental Europe, like the members German FDP or Polish OP call themselves libertarian when talking to Americans, to avoid any misunderstanding.

You are living in the US, stop using confused Euro definitions/translations of American poli-sci terms. If you claim to be libertarian, then you have both free market and socially liberal ideology. If you don't have socially liberal viewpoints, then you are a US conservative.

Cyrylek · May 22, 2013

Gimmesometruth said:
Since Soviet Communism, by your own admission, devolved into totalitarianism ".

Not devolved - started off as such. Never been anything else but totalitarianism.

Gimmesometruth said:
I have no idea why you keep pointing to it as representative of left/liberalism. .

No, you are the one who keeps bringing up "left/liberalism". I never use the word "liberalism" in this way - not without the quotation marks.

I am talking about "Left" as defined by the actual experience of the 20 century. Everybody agreed, for decades, that the Soviets and their client regimes around the world are "the Left". Now out of sudden they are "not representative", event though the polities they have created had embraced 95% of all people who ever called themselves (sincerely or not) "Left".

Dooble · May 22, 2013

What I don't understand is, why does the Left put up with billionaire/multi-millionaire liberals? Shouldn't you all be earning the exact same wage, with nice big, fat, healthy tax rates on your pay stubs?

Gimmesometruth · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
I object to some "zone markings" there, but you should notice the world "neoliberalism" hovering over the "libertarian" tip, on the left. That's how the European socialists call classical liberals/libertarians, with the implied "Oh no, we thought you are dead and buried!"

The Stalinists will be at the bottom of the chart, where personal and economic freedoms come to the minimum. The Nazis a tad higher, to the right; the Fascists still a little higher, by both measures. But all three clustered together neatly. I call this zone "far left", you can call it something else.

LOL....we call that area occupied by the Stalinists: TOTALITARIANS. I have been making this point to you for EVAH. It is not "socially liberal", it is not "economically liberal", just as I have been telling you. I hope you can come around to accepting that we do describe politics via a scale of economic freedom in conjunction with a description of social freedoms.

Cyrylek · May 22, 2013

Gimmesometruth said:
I

How in the world do Communists, particularly Stalinists, get described as "economically liberal"? They wanted total control of all economic conditions, no private profiting, no free market. Stalinists were totalitarian.

Exactly my point. The American expression "economically liberal" is absolutely idiotic, as it is used to describe socialist policies generally hostile to economic freedoms. (While, of course, nowhere as radical, usually, as what Communists did).

American "liberals" are not liberals. We, so-called libertarians, are.

Deuce · May 22, 2013

Dooble said:
Except that the Right espouses individual liberty and the Left doesn't.

No, that's what right-wing propaganda has convinced you of. You're thinking authoritarian - libertarian, not left-right.

Cyrylek · May 22, 2013

Gimmesometruth said:
I hope you can come around to accepting that we do describe politics via a scale of economic freedom in conjunction with a description of social freedoms.

I don't have to come around: I was there all the time. And actual liberals ("libertarians") - those scoring very high on both scales - are not "the left", not socialists, and the very polar opposite of the Communists, the Nazis and the Fascists.

Ikari · May 22, 2013

Gimmesometruth said:
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.

This ain't limited to the GOP. The whole of the Republocrats are a fascist party. Huge government, large personal interference, little regard to rights, infinity war, corporate capitalism, etc. The status quo is one of fascism and the Republocrats push and support the status quo.

Dooble · May 22, 2013

Deuce said:
No, that's what right-wing propaganda has convinced you of. You're thinking authoritarian - libertarian, not left-right.

You're using pointless subsections. When it comes right down to it, you're either Right, Left, or on the Fence.

Cardinal · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
The Fascism is very poorly understood, if we go by the constant confusion of the Fascism with the Nazism, even on this thread. And, as this thread also testifies, there's a wide range of opinions on what are the "left wing principles", exactly.

Why would I opt for the confused opinions of people on this board when I have nearly all the world's dictionaries at my fingertips?

The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism.

Home : Oxford English Dictionary

an 'anti-ideological' and pragmatic ideology that proclaims itself antimaterialist, anti-individualist, antiliberal, antidemocratic, anti-Marxist, is populist and anticapitalist in tendency, expresses itself aesthetically more than theoretically by means of a new political style and by myths, rites, and symbols as a lay religion designed to acculturate, socialize, and integrate the faith of the masses with the goal of creating a 'new man';"

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (there's a whole slew of definitions there, actually, but anti-marxist and anti-left principles are predominant

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

source: my apple computer's on board dictionary (take that as you will)

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

a political movement or system characterized mainly by a belief in the supremacy of the chosen national group over all others, and in which there is, typically, state control of all aspects of society, a supreme dictator, suppression of democratic bodies such as trade unions and emphasis on nationalism and militarism.

www.chambersharrap.co.uk"

any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc

Definition of fascism | Collins English Dictionary

a very right-wing political system in which the government is very powerful and controls the society and the economy completely, not allowing any opposition. Fascism was practised in Italy and Germany in the 1930s and 40s.

fascism - definition of fascism by Macmillan Dictionary

a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed

Fascism noun - definition in British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

fascism - definition of fascism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

All of these definitions included descriptions of right wing principles taken to an extreme. All other definitions just focused on the totalitarian aspect, but none at all on singularly left wing principles because it's understood that the extreme of left wing principles is communism.

Gimmesometruth · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
Not devolved - started off as such. Never been anything else but totalitarianism.

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.

No, you are the one who keeps bringing up "left/liberalism". I never use the word "liberalism" in this way - not without the quotation marks.

I am talking about "Left" as defined by the actual experience of the 20 century. Everybody agreed, for decades, that the Soviets and their client regimes around the world are "the Left". Now out of sudden they are "not representative", event though the polities they have created had embraced 95% of all people who ever called themselves (sincerely or not) "Left".

Notice something? You have to keep editing out the context of my comments. You do this to change the context of my comments. I was speaking of Stalinist as compared to 2 kids in Amherst, as you were. Now you have tried to change this to "left". The left/liberals were/are not admires of Stalin, especially in present terms as described. So stop with the dishonest editing, stop with the dishonest argument. Get in touch with US poli-sci definitions, come to an understanding as an American, if you are using American terms living in America.

Gimmesometruth · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
I don't have to come around: I was there all the time. And actual liberals ("libertarians") - those scoring very high on both scales - are not "the left", not socialists, and the very polar opposite of the Communists, the Nazis and the Fascists.

And yet you just got close to understanding that the US left/liberals (and the most extreme,...socialists) are not the totalitarian Stalinist/Communists nor are they the more economically liberal Fascists.

Again, look at the diagram, learn it, understand it.

Cyrylek · May 22, 2013

Gimmesometruth said:
You are living in the US, stop using confused Euro definitions/translations of American poli-sci terms..

Unfortunately, in this particular case our definitions are confused (rather: perverted), not theirs. Why call people who are reliably anti-liberal on economic and role-of-the government issues liberals? I have nothing against socialists and social-democrats as an organic part of our political process; I just wish they would stop calling themselves "progressives" and "liberals", when there's precious little progressive or liberal in what they are offering.

Gimmesometruth said:
If you claim to be libertarian, then you have both free market and socially liberal ideology.

Yep. Both economically liberal and socially liberal, as in : liberty. Simply "liberal" would do. But no: People who are indifferent or hostile to economic liberties are somehow "liberal". Nonsense.

(And of course both kinds of freedom are interconnected and inseparable. What use freedom of speech, for example, if the government controls the businesses that print and broadcast?)

Cyrylek · May 22, 2013

Gimmesometruth said:
And yet you just got close to understanding that the US left/liberals (and the most extreme,...socialists) are not the totalitarian Stalinist/Communists.

When did I ever say that they are?

Gimmesometruth · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
Exactly my point. The American expression "economically liberal" is absolutely idiotic, as it is used to describe socialist policies generally hostile to economic freedoms. (While, of course, nowhere as radical, usually, as what Communists did).

American "liberals" are not liberals. We, so-called libertarians, are.

You are just mixed up, and you are locked into this silly error. When I say "economically liberal", it means just that, someone who believes in free markets. I don't, I freely admit that I believe in restricting markets since they can be "gamed" by those with lots of economic power. You are confusing it with Liberal economics, where Liberals do want restrictions on markets.
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.

Gimmesometruth · May 22, 2013

Cyrylek said:
Unfortunately, in this particular case our definitions are confused (rather: perverted), not theirs. Why call people who are reliably anti-liberal on economic and role-of-the government issues liberals? I have nothing against socialists and social-democrats as an organic part of our political process; I just wish they would stop calling themselves "progressives" and "liberals", when there's precious little progressive or liberal in what they are offering.

Since you leave out the social scale and have the view that "free markets" lead to greater economic freedom for the masses, I'm not surprised you are confused.

Yep. Both economically liberal and socially liberal, as in : liberty. Simply "liberal" would do. But no: People who are indifferent or hostile to economic liberties are somehow "liberal". Nonsense.

I'll remind you that Hayek was a great admirer of Pinochet, so even this bastion of Libertarianism had some pretty f'ed up ideas on social freedom.

(And of course both kinds of freedom are interconnected and inseparable. What use freedom of speech, for example, if the government controls the businesses that print and broadcast?)

What is the use of "freedom of speech" when the mass media is controlled more and more by monied interests?

Even "Freedom of speech" has limitations and restrictions, it is not absolute.

Is Fascism Right Wing?

Is fascism left or right wing?

Left

Right

Neither

Description sucks

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Outer space potato man

Respected On All Sides

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes