Over at the UK Guardian, writer Nick Cohen – a long-time scion of the British liberal left, and no fan of either George Bush or Tony Blair – asks an important question:
(W)hy is the world upside down? In the past conservatives made excuses for fascism because they mistakenly saw it as a continuation of their democratic rightwing ideas. Now, overwhelmingly and every where, liberals and leftists are far more likely than conservatives to excuse fascistic governments and movements, with the exception of their native far-right parties. As long as local racists are white, they have no difficulty in opposing them in a manner that would have been recognisable to the traditional left. But give them a foreign far-right movement that is anti-Western and they treat it as at best a distraction and at worst an ally.
After 9/11, a lot of smart people said that irony was dead. They were wrong of course: It had just taken a short nap.
The premise of this question is completely wrong, flawed. People consistently forget that fascism, such as Nazism, was a far LEFT movement in the first place. Nazism was a SOCIALIST movement, not conservative. The only thing further left than Nazism in pre-WWII Germany was communism; it’s important to remember that Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact early in WWII.
Conservatism, traditionally thought of as a right wing movement, whereas fascism is a far left movement, exceeded in its “left-ness” only by communism. It is much more closely aligned with “liberalism” than anything else, ie., redistribution of wealth.
Mr. Cohen of the Guardian needs to do better research before he asks another question. It is very understandable that left thinking people (liberals in our political world) would also be apologists for, or even ally themselves with fascsism. The farthest thing from fascism is a strong, independent thinking conservative.
Please read the history of fascism, pre-WWII Germany and Russia. Hitler’s National SOCIALIST Party was not anywhere near right wing!
I’m with Peter. It’s nice that Cohen’s beginning to see the light, and it’s hard to be consistent in your thinking over a lifetime, but I ain’t buying that all was morality and righteousness while, say, a hundred million people got killed off by the eternal boot-to-the-face of tyranny.
The list of those who got it then and get it now are few, but they are worth considering; guys like Adam Michnik, Vaclav Havel, Hitch, et cet.
Cohen could have used some Jeane Kirkpatrick earlier on, perhaps.
Piling on the “liberal left” seems to be a frequent sport here, within these confines. And that’s fine, I suppose. Nevertheless, I did find Cohen’s article interesting and thought provoking.
But what left my mouth agape were PeterGunn’s incredibly untrue comments – Nazism a “far left movement?” Fascism a “far left movement?” Absolutely preposterous!
Perhaps PeterGunn makes the common mistake of believing the word “Socialist” in the name of the Nazi party had something to do with Socialism. But nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler and the Nazis hated the socialists . . . and hated the liberals, the intellectuals, and the Jews. And they hated and greatly feared communism. They blamed the liberal left and the Jews in part for Germany’s loss in WWI. Indeed, the Nazi party arose and grew out of a collection of earlier, various right-wing groups. Liberals certainly were not welcome.
Fascism in the political spectrum is also generally considered, right-wing . . . although it is somewhat contradictory, in that it may contain some liberal along with conservative elements.
Finally, the word “socialist” in Nazi Germany had a somewhat different meaning than we normally understand it. Certainly Nazism had nothing to do with socialism. It is generally thought that using the word Socialist in the name National Socialist German Workers’ Party would appeal to a greater number of Germans, and thus build Nazi party support.
[All this is not a knock on the Right or conservatives. It was just the way it happened.]
I don’t know what history reading PeterGunn was recommending, but most all will support what I have posted. Liberals are blamed for many ills; but never until now have I heard them blamed for fascism or Nazism. Just incredible.
Now that’s an interesting complaint. “Never until now”, eh?
At risk of incurring the wrath of Godwin’s Law, I offer my congratulations for getting out from the rock you’ve been living under.
I’ll use this National Socialist explanation from Iron Shrink:
Now, I’ll easily grant that Nazism was more than merely a single aspect of ideology, but a look at the twenty-five points of the National Socialist Program (wikipedia link) has a lot of points ripped straight from leftist ideals.
Fascism has a similar interest in placing the state above the citizen, as well.
This lack of understanding is key to some of the support, tacit or otherwise, well-meaning leftists have given to tyranny over the decades.
As an aside, I think perhaps it may be effectively argued that classical liberalism has not as much to do with leftism as some would think…
Oh, and.
It’s by no means inconcieveable that slightly different groups will hate each other intensely despite similar wiewpoints. Just look at how a fellow failing to hew to the party line over at, say, dKos, or Gutfeld at Huffpo, gets vilified (A link from the Freepers? Quelle horreur!). Groups like to make bitter enemies out of people who don’t show sufficient loyalty to the creed.
So, fliterman, you say “fascism in the political spectrum is also generally considered right wing”. Well, that’s exactly why philosophers and dictators alike, don’t accept nor always believe what is “generally considered” … as true.
What is true is as Chap quotes so very well:
“there was little difference between National Socialist Party and the Communist Party of Russia.” Indeed, they did have and wanted to implement many of the same ideas for governing people.
It would seem that your angst is merely of admitting to being left, only to find some of your close neighbors quite objectionable.
I am speaking of philosophy and history and you’re concerned with names? Far left ideals and policies were true for both Communism and Fascism. If you’re arguing today’s left doesn’t have greater regard for the group (collective, commune, etc.) than the individual (privacy, conservative, local and small governments), what are you saying?
Of all the political parties in pre-WWII Germany, the ONLY party further left on the scale than the National Socialists was the Communist Party. No “blame” is attached, but incredible as it may seem to you, today’s liberals espouse causes very similar in principle to those of both the Communist and Nazi Parties of the mid-20th Century.
One more thing is true, fliterman: politics do make for strange bedfellows.
Thanks, Chap!
FWIW, I’m with fliterman. I was taken aback at PeterGunn’s assertion, and also at Chap’s support for same. One good Wiki link deserves another, Chap. This discussion maintains fascism is generally defined as being on the far right of the political spectrum. That’s the way I was taught, and I still believe it. Just a quick quote from the link:
The majority view among both scholars and the general population is that fascism is part of the far right. Fascists themselves sometimes claimed to be right-wing (but not far right), and other times claimed to be a “third force” that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether (see International Third Position). They never identified themselves as left-wing, and usually reserved the term “leftism” for their enemies.
The Cohen article(s) are lengthy but are a damned good read. I didn’t find much, if anything, I disagreed with. Well, except for all the “valid” arguments Leftists could have used to denounce Bush/Blair.
Have I tumbled down a Lewis Carrollean rabbit hole, where reality is distorted at the pleasure of its inhabitants? It would seem so, as historic “right” is labeled “left” here.
As with any economic or political ideology ?
Have I tumbled down a Lewis Carrollean rabbit hole, where reality is distorted at the pleasure of its inhabitants? It would seem so, as historic “right” is labeled “left” here.
As with any economic or political ideology – except in their extreme, purest form – there are always some small flecks of an opposing thought or ideology mixed in with the predominant ideology. Posters here seem to excessively value these small flecks of leftist thinking contained in Nazism and fascism while being totally in denial regarding their overwhelming, right-wing structure.
Here are some Wikipedia quotes and links that support the fact that Nazism and fascism were far more “right” than “left.”
“[Hitler's Nazi Party was called the National Socialist German Workers' Party, or NSDAP] “The NSDAP grew out of smaller political groups with a nationalist, far right orientation that formed in the last years of World War I.”link
“Various far right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism.” link
“With the communists eliminated, right-wing parties dominated the election. The Nazis obtained 43.9%.” link
“Fascism is generally considered right-wing, although some scholars dispute that classification.” link
“Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism.”link
And if those quotes don’t lead you to believe Nazism and fascism are more “right” than “left,” consider the title of John Weiss’s book: “The Fascist Tradition: Radical Right-Wing Extremism in Modern Europe”
I hope to avoid for my own part?Ǭ
I hope to avoid for my own part the apparently ineluctable temptation to cast blanket and sneering aspersions upon “the inhabitants” who, it ought to be noted, are mostly carrying on this debate in a spirit of intellectual reason and mutual respect - really, fliterman, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable but it seems you just won’t take a hint.
I think this discussion does illuminate the fact (not for the first time) that extremist political ideologies of every slant tend to share much more in common than they do in opposition. You can go so far right, in other words, so as to be far left, ultimately – the reverse is also true. You may label tyranny as “left,” or you may label it as “right,” but in the end you are making a distinction without a difference, a choice that may or may not be psychologically revealing.
It’s true that one form of government looks to aggrandize power for elites at home through seizing ownership of the means of production before collectivizing internationally while the other seeks power through the exploitation of nationalist impulses to achieve approximately the same goal in the forceable direction and pillage of ostensibly capitalist industry, but what is really on display is the end result of unfettered access to power by those who earnestly believe that more skulls must be cracked for the greater good.
For the masses laboring under tyranny’s oppressive boot, it matters little whether the sole is stamped with a swastika or a hammer and sickle – it is in either case monstrously unjust. It’s worth pointing out as well that both ideologies were not just secularist, but actively hostile to established religions: It’s much easier to build your proper cohort of heartless killers if all means of spreading both reward and punishment are in the arms of the state.
What is really interesting, and what the author of the Guardian article was attempting to point out, is that the European liberal left (at least) has lost its way if their policies in effect are to support the continuation of tyrannical fascistic regimes, which is what I would call the Iraqi Ba’athists even if they do self-identify as a socialist/collectivist party.
The other interesting point – to me anyway – is that while the attempts by committed communist partisans in recent history to “build socialism” resulted in mass slaughter on a scale that even the blood-thirstiest of fascists could only envy, somehow the latter end up getting the shorter end of history’s stick.
Perhaps that’s because, to many on the left at least, the communists hearts were in the right place. Pity about the kulaks.
My father was conservative. Therefore it follows, according to fliterman, he must have been “right wing” and kin to Facists.
Seems sort o’strange that he went out of his way to kill a bunch o’Nazi’s in WWII ain’t it?
IMO, this type o’thinking is all hogwash ginned up by years of conditioning by university “intellectuals”.
What about just doing the “right thing”? Or is that too “simple”, as in simpleton? Like GW or myself of course…
IMho, political science ain’t a science, especially the variety thet “teach” nowadays.
b2
Yes lex, tyranny is indeed tyranny. It is neither “left” nor “right. It is easy to identify, easy to understand, and easy to hate. As it should be hated. And it is equally detestable by both classical liberals and conservatives.
That is why both our liberal fathers and our conservative fathers ?
Yes lex, tyranny is indeed tyranny. It is neither “left” nor “right. It is easy to identify, easy to understand, and easy to hate. As it should be hated. And it is equally detestable by both classical liberals and conservatives.
That is why both our liberal fathers and our conservative fathers – or Russian Communists for that matter – had no qualms about killing Nazis. But it is rare for an ideology-based regime to be black and white . . . or as extremely tyrannical.
A large part of the problem is that too many want to reduce complex socio-politico-economic proclivities and ideologies into simple black and white, good and bad boxes – so they can easily distinguish between the good guys and bad guys without thinking.
Unfortunately, complex movements and ideologies are rarely that simple to identify or easy to define. And this may explain why some here were so repulsed to learn the genesis and precepts of fascism and Nazism tended more toward right-wing ideologies than left wing.
And as far as your statement that, ” You can go so far right . . . so as to be far left, . . .” I’ll just let you rethink that for awhile before I would ever begin to comment.
Another common problem is that many confuse, or attempt an apples-to-oranges comparison of political systems, with economic systems. For instance, it is not uncommon for people (thanks to the Cold War) to believe the opposite of communism – in essence, an economic system – is democracy, which is a political system. [Naturally, the extreme opposite of communism is laissé faire capitalism – and both failures in their purest form.]
Nor must a communistic economic society necessarily have a totalitarian form of government – witness the Amana Colonies experiments in Iowa and others elsewhere, last century.
While many economic systems and political systems may seem to go hand in glove, it is not necessarily true. It is possible to have a liberal form of government with a conservative economic system, and vice versa.
For me, I am most happy to be a left-leaning liberal capitalist, who enjoys his extensive freedom, and has defended that freedom for his democratic republic. But my personal ideologies are always flexible, and embrace both moderate, left and right wing thought.
What is interesting though is how easily the European leftists in the Guardian article were caught off guard and confused, just as some posters here were, when their beliefs were challenged.
Having changed my political-socio-economic leanings many times, I can understand. But do I agree no sane person can honestly ever support tyranny in any form.
Heh.
You ever hear of the Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto?
Here is a way out of your rabbit hole, fliterman, as we discuss the fact of just how difficult it is to pin a label of any kind on someone and make it so. As a matter of fact, George Orwell once said: “fascism is nothing more than an insult that various groups use against their political opponents.” It seems that you employ the use of shock and dismay to degrade, for which you have already been cited.
My reading lead me to Reference.com, Fascism and ideology. There is a large treatise there for you to read, including the quote below that is central to my point. I suppose you’ll have another expression of amazement, but here goes:
“The definition of LEFT and RIGHT are quite fluid. There are a number of conservative and libertarian scholars who argue that fascism was actually a LEFT-wing movement — among them Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and John T. Flynn. Their argument is based on a view of the political spectrum that equates LEFT with support for increased government power and RIGHT with opposition to the same. (Can you think of current political analogies?) Under this view, fascism would be left-wing and anarchism, for example, would be right-wing. …there are many other competing interpretations of the left-right spectrum.”
Other prominent scholars who would not simply call fascism a right-wing ideology include Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer and Weber. These are but some of my references.
So… pop back up out of that rabbit hole and take a whiff of reality. Sometimes it bites!
re: “rabbit holes,”etc.
Not for nothing, but we have gone some way towards asking fliterman to obey the rules of the house, and take issue with arguments rather than arguers. We owe him the same courtesy in return, I believe.
I must admit that I seem to be missing the point of how or why the the origins of facism are really relevant to the original irony posted by Lex. But given the fact that I recently witnessed and was involved in a very similar disagreement in another online group as to whether facism was a product of the left or the right, with both sides “authoratively” quoting why their position was the correct one, I believe that I can now very authoratively state that the true political origins of facism are very much in dispute by “learned scholars”, with the discussion of said origins often serving as quite a useful tool in the game of scapegoating whichever particular political ideology a person disagrees with. It appearing that all most “civillized” individuals can agree on is how detestable the ideology, itself, is as witnesesd by the fact that no present day ideology wishes to take credit for it.
Having made and pondered these scholarly observations, I think I shall now dive head first into the rabbit hole and publish the same in Wickepedia so that others may authoratively quote me.
~ stepping away from the mircrophone