Is Nazism left-wing?

[Earth]

I'm really getting tired of you. You're a chore.

Once again, the strength of your arguments...leave me breathless.

I'm just thankful I've never written, nor will ever write a sentence as utterly shallow, and meaningless as this:

It's clear that Nazism had very little to do with the traditional right. It had very little to do with the traditional left either though.

You, Gustaf, I don't care to argue with. Everyone else gets my undivided attention. You're incapable of arguing.

[minionofmidas]

Now, Mirriam Webster, which,unlike Wikipedia, is an authoritative source, defines Left as:
"a radical as distinguished from a conservative position"

Uh... what? Clarence Thomas is a leftist now?

[angus]

Uh... what? Clarence Thomas is a leftist now?

or Ron Paul is, if you prefer Beet's definition. 

Actually, I have surrendered to Al's description of the German Left, and even looked into it a bit further, and am convinced that the NSDAP doesn't really fit in with those groups.  But if I vote NO I don't want it to be based on what all my teachers have been telling me in social studies classes.  This is a debate thread, after all, and I am absolutely convinced that they borrowed both leftist and rightist ideologies to develop their philosophy.

[minionofmidas]

...which is, to a fairly minor extent, true.

It's not as if any of the Europeans on this thread needed to rely on their school teaching here, btw.

[Gustaf]

I'm really getting tired of you. You're a chore.

Once again, the strength of your arguments...leave me breathless.

I'm just thankful I've never written, nor will ever write a sentence as utterly shallow, and meaningless as this:

It's clear that Nazism had very little to do with the traditional right. It had very little to do with the traditional left either though.

No it's not as if you're the author of those bolded gems or anything:

Nazism was definitely not left wing.

Some really bright folks here read "Liberal Fascism" and now they're knowledgeable, yeah?

Have I addressed every concern?

You haven't refute a single thoughtful claim set against your silly argument. So, no.

It's clear that Nazism had very little to do with the traditional right. It had very little to do with the traditional left either though.

Considering the rabid exultation of a German 'character', hatred of communism, and extreme xenophobia it had everything to do with the right. Did everyone just up and miss the ethnic nationalism?

From a more sociological view-point it was clearly more aligned with right-wing groups in German society, even though some workers voted for them too.

Of course workers voted for them. It was a Populist movement.

My opinion has always been that Nazism is a good example of the short-comings of the left-right spectrum as a tool to analyze politics.

The left/right dichotomy explains it fairly well.

You, Gustaf, I don't care to argue with. Everyone else gets my undivided attention. You're incapable of arguing.

I've provided plenty of reasons in this thread for why I hold my position and I could provide more. You still haven't said anything to back up your stand.

You seem to think that arguing consists of making condescending assertions and then following up with personal attacks. It isn't. If you want to participate in the adult discussion that me, Al, Lewis, Angus, Beet and Wormguy are having there is nothing preventing you from going beyond throwing around insults and empty assertions.

You might for instance explain how the left-right spectrum clearly and easily explains National Socialism.

[Earth]

You might for instance explain how the left-right spectrum clearly and easily explains National Socialism.

The argument is based entirely on what people assume National Socialism has in common with the left, which is not much. In fact, it's coincidence. The left right spectrum, as often as it fails, particularly the more we apply it to the past, works here because National Socialism was not a syncretic movement, but based entirely within the extreme right's sphere.

I'll address the points:

...The first is the simplest - right-wing ideologies support systems closer to laissez-faire economics, left-wing ideologies support greater redistribution of wealth and greater central planning.  Fascism and Naziism support total government control of the economy and a vastly expanded welfare state.  They are therefore clearly left-wing, if not far-left, in this regard.

No. Fascism and Nazism (Italian Fascism contrasted with The Third Reich) were anti-capitalist in the sense that they recognized capitalism harms both the Italian State, and the German State, in so far as it altered culture, and made it subordinate to economics.

This is where a lot of the antisemitism comes in; if you believe the Jews run high finance, and have control of economics, you would be inclined to rid the private sector of their influence. They saw their idealized German culture, since the aftermath of the first world war, to be under the thumb of this Jewish capitalism that sought to break down ethnic, and racial ties to foster more wealth in the hands of the few.

Let's not make the mistake here that this stems from an egalitarian leftist principle; this aversion to wealth was strictly against minorities, and who they saw as race traitors that undermine the destiny of the German Man. Mass accumulation of wealth by authentic Germans was arguably fine.

Another point to be made here is that Nazism's fascination with the State as ultimate power was to ensure the continuation of the German race, and their High Culture, descended from ancient Aryans. If they subordinate the market to the State, because the former is too unwieldy, it would ensure their culture remained intact, and expanded.

Really, the thing Nazism shares with the left is the anti-individualist aspect, and a utopia impulse; both focus on society as a whole, but for completely different aims. German Culture is the behemoth that will save each and every man, create their warped Nietzschean Ubermensch, and everyone needs to have this as a common goal, the realization of the Germanic Will. Except here it's in racial terms.

The utopia ideal manifests itself by arguing for a future where the Third Reich overtakes the world, and more subtly, where Germans are given an environment where they can reach their full potential.

The second is a more subjective one - "left" ideologies are generally futurist and disdainful of old social orders, "right" ideologies seek to defend traditional social orders against modern encroachment.  

Which is exactly what Nazism intended to do, combat the modernist grip over their traditional culture. It was entirely based around traditional notions of society, except made more extreme.

Fascism and Naziism advocate a literal "end to history" in which all "old" thinking, culture, and artifacts would be eliminated, and be replaced by modern "new" thinking.

No. How else do you explain the neoclassical architecture, and traditional societal familial norms? You're mixing postwar Italian Fascism of the Futurist kind, which Mussolini ended up turning against, with Nazism. Not the same thing.

The aristocracy would be overthrown and the "new man" would be king.  Symbols of modernism - planes, trains, automobiles, and the military, would form the focus of their ideology.

This only applies to the Futurist, not to Fascism as a whole, and not at all to Nazism. Hitler recognized the need for a strong national infrastructure, namely to help in the idea of Leibensraum, the German living space created through mass militarization. Not to have technology replace, or help their ideology. Technology was only of a practical concern to them.

 

Hence the Nazi plans to bulldoze the entire historical district of Berlin and fill it with gigantic neoclassical monstrosities, and the Fascist plans to fill in the Venetian canals.  The Nazis even banned the use of Fraktur type in newpapers and encouraged the use of Futura.  They are therefore "left" on a cultural basis as well.

The Nazis linked modernism to this corrupting Jewish influence that swallowed their culture. This explains their banning of a typeface. None of this makes them left, but only emphasizes their extreme right, nationalistic roots.

Which brings us to the horseshoe theory.

The horseshoe theory is useful, but not in this case. You haven't shown how the left mirrors the far right.

Going back to Gustaf's post:

It's clear that Nazism had very little to do with the traditional right. It had very little to do with the traditional left either though.

As I've shown, Nazism's reactionary idealism had everything to do with the right, it only amplified the arguably dormant ideas that lay there.

From a more sociological view-point it was clearly more aligned with right-wing groups in German society, even though some workers voted for them too.

Again, this has little to do with anything; the workers voted for them because of the economic situation. Nazism built up support through their populist rallies, relying on a message that the workers could appreciate, the recreation of a prosperous Germany, for Germans. It was Xenophobia couched in optimistic language in order to solidify a support base. It was an elaboration on already held cultural ideas, the enemy to a great Germany was the Jewish influence, and their communist invention. Considering the abysmal state of the country, it was a message everyone could rally behind.

Since Wormguy cannot tell me about the left, I'll focus on this part he wrote:

The Nazis did borrow quite a bit from social conservative ideology as well.  The fact remains, however, that their plan all along was to create a radically-redefined culture they viewed as diametrically opposed to the previous one.

There was little to no modernist influence within Nazism, other than (then) recent pseudoscience to ground their ideology in something a bit more 'concrete'. Their only contribution to a new culture was the expansion of High Germanic culture mixed with racialism. It was a completely traditionally minded political experiment.

...But they borrowed from both left- and right-wing ideologies.  For example, the Nazis supported a wide variety of cradle-to-grave programs.  Also, fascism has been generally militaristic and anti-conservative, and the nazis were initially financially supported by Italian fascists.  Also, the Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance and wanted to develop a society in which community interests were placed above self-interest.  How leftist is that?!

Fascism was in fact pro-traditionalist, but the key being not traditionalist enough to ensure the Italian heritage.

Because Nazism recognized flaws within the capitalist system, taken both from popular Marxist dialog and as a reaction to what they personally saw in the aftermath of WWI, doesn't make them leftists. They used leftist critique. The way Sarah Palin considers herself to be a Feminist, by using the words.

Because Nazism was not an egalitarian movement, the only community oriented ideals they had revolved around German identity, which obviously extremely excludes anyone not fitting their German mold. Self interest in the name of racial, and ethnic purity describes the ideology. Not leftist in any sense.

[Insula Dei]

The left-right spectrum seeks to explain the differences between parties and movements in a Liberal Democracy. Nazism and Communism both reject the idea of such a form of state and as such cannot be qualified as either left or rightwing. If they appear progressive it's only because they seek to establish a new order, not because they share the liberal left's fascination with progress. If they appear authoritarian, it's because they reject the notion of individual freedom, not because they share the liberal right's disdain and contempt for the masses.
As such the terms 'Left' and 'Right' can only serve to give us a vague idea of what a Fascist state would mean. People denying that 'rightwing' best describes nazism (even if the term blatantly falls short of accurately describing what fascism actually is) are being huge hacks. They also seem to take their view of the world directly from the dictates of Chairman Beck.

[angus]

The left-right spectrum seeks to explain the differences between parties and movements in a Liberal Democracy. Nazism and Communism both reject the idea of such a form of state and as such cannot be qualified as either left or rightwing. If they appear progressive it's only because they seek to establish a new order, not because they share the liberal left's fascination with progress. If they appear authoritarian, it's because they reject the notion of individual freedom, not because they share the liberal right's disdain and contempt for the masses.
As such the terms 'Left' and 'Right' can only serve to give us a vague idea of what a Fascist state would mean. People denying that 'rightwing' best describes nazism (even if the term blatantly falls short of accurately describing what fascism actually is) are being huge hacks. They also seem to take their view of the world directly from the dictates of Chairman Beck.

what have we here, then?  Actually, that's sort of Gustaf's point.  I think.  But it would still qualify as a "no" vote.  I too voted no on the basis that "left wing" doesn't describe the NSDAP.  But don't fall into the trap of the Excluded Middle:  Not left doesn't imply right; it simply says not left.  And that's all the poll really asks, isn't it.  It mentions nothing about right.  To be (left-wing), or not to be.  That is the question. 

[Storebought]

Or, let's put it this way: could Hitler have been a leading Tory politician in the UK in the 1930s? I very much doubt that.

I don't doubt it at all.  After all, most Tories were highly sympathetic towards Mr. Hitler.

Not just Tories.

I have another idea for a 'troll' thread: Was Joseph Stalin a Communist? I say, yes.

[angus]

I have another idea for a 'troll' thread: Was Joseph Stalin a Communist? I say, yes.

Give it a shot.  It's rather like when you're in a club full of mullet-sporting, 40-something stoners and and the house band has played a couple of sets, and they come out again looking for suggestions.  You're tempted to say, "Free bird!"  On the one hand, you think everyone will look at you like you're some sort of pathetic poser shouting out the only brand with which you're probably familiar, but on the other you just know this band probably will give you the best Free Bird you've ever danced to, and here's your chance to hear a truly great and spirited rendition of that erstwhile favorite.  It all kinda depends upon the mood.  Of everyone.

So give it a shot.  This thread, after all, produced four pages of reasonably sentient posts, so you just never know.

[minionofmidas]

A Georgian nationalist with a chip on his shoulder. Who for a time was deeply involved in Bolshevik activities before they came to power, without apparently ever having a deep grasp on their "ideology" (not that you can hold that against him, frankly, Leninist ideology being what it was.) And who, when in office, pretty much killed all the Communists in Russia. But still was admired by Communists all over the western world - until they had to flee into exile in his fief and got shot.
Of course there's yet another angle... The word Communist wasn't rescued from obscurity until after the Russian Revolution, remember? In a sense asking whether Stalin was a Communist is like asking whether Jesus was a Christian (and the answer to that one would be no, emphatically so.)

[angus]

In a sense asking whether Stalin was a Communist is like asking whether Jesus was a Christian

Good attempt, but it fails.  Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and since membership in western, monotheistic religions is mutually exclusive, he obviously cannot have been a Christian.  Not to mention the fact that Christianity doesn't exist until after Christ--or at the very earliest, when Christ is in his last years--so chronologically it is an impossibility.  

Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, does not predate the existence of communism (as a philosophy.)  Also, membership in the Communist Party does not preclude other modes of thought, nor does Communist Party membership prohibit the killing of other Communists.  

I still think that question deserves its own troll thread.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The problem there is with the definition of 'Communist'; it's more of an issue than with the definition of 'Nazi' which is quite clear-cut.

[Beet]

Was Kennedy a Democrat?

[Gustaf]

Earth: I don't disagree much with your description of National Socialism in Germany, in fact I'd say much of it mirrors my thoughts on it exactly. What I don't see is how this description shows that it is right-winged. Before I respond I'd like to commend you on actually taking the effort to articulate your position here. I'm always ready to discuss if you are.

The liberal (or as Americans would say, libertarian) tradition of the right is very far removed from the ideas of racial superiority or nationalistic anti-globalization ideals that you (rightly, imo) ascribe to Nazism.

I sense that what you're arguing is more that Nazism is linked with conservatism. While I agree that there are similarities I'm not convinced that these similarities make Nazism right-winged just like I'm not convinced the similarities with socialism makes it left-winged. I believe that the foundation of traditional conservative thought, at least in Germany back in those days, were quite removed from what drove Nazism. Anti-semitism, for one thing, did not play the role in classic conservatism that it did in Nazism. Above all, the preservation of the social order and the general skepticism towards change and modernity prevalent in conservatism is rather contradicted by Nazism, which was new.

I appreciate aspects of your argument here - sure, Nazism isn't the same thing as the futurist movement in art. But I don't think you can deny that it is connected with such ideas? After all, Nazism was very much about building a new society removed from the old one, even if it provided something similar to some of the groups that had supported that old order.

That brings me to the point where I agree that the groups supporting Nazism were mostly right-wing. You seem to think that I'm making a big deal out of some of those supporters being workers, but I'm not.

What it comes down to for me is that while I see how you can argue that the nationalism is right-wing I can also see how you can argue that the anti-individualism or utopianism is left-wing. I don't see the one as distinctly more convincing than the other, and for me this highlights why the whole left-right dichotomy is misleading. There are different ideologies that have different attributes. Grouping them along a two-dimensional axis is largely fruitless, imo.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Was Kennedy a Democrat?

Yes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My politics lecturers, always stressed a failure in the linear political spectrum.

Just because the word 'socialist' is part of the full NAZI Party title, doesn't mean it's left wing. The party was founded as a nationalist party to create in essence a parallel to communism. There were socialistic tendencies, but their bitterest adversaries in the pre-1923 period were the SDP and the Communists, so... the left.

However, once Hitler took over the party changed RADICALLY. He didn't care about socialism, he had little to no sympathy for the working classes and he certainly was interested in attacking private industry in any way.

[Хahar 🤔]

That brings me to the point where I agree that the groups supporting Nazism were mostly right-wing.

This is the salient issue. The Junkers were pro-Hitler, as were the business interests represented by Hugenberg, as were other industrialists like Thyssen and Krupp. The right aided Hitler and put him in power. The left opposed him.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's no need to think of left and right as being part of a unified political spectrum (or whatever) at all. They can be used as descriptive terms and it is as descriptive terms that they're at their most useful. It also means that there's no 'problem' in categorising the Nazis.

[Хahar 🤔]

The sort of people who make a big deal about eschewing such labels are generally the sort of people that such labels do not treat kindly. Thus we get Le Pen's "ni droite ni gauche".

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I don't think the Nazis can be classified as part of the German left or American right or European centre or whatever because their political goals clearly involved a greater world view in which...

A. There was a "master race" that should be served by the resources of the earth and propagated. 

and

B. Those who were not part of the "master race" didn't just have less rights... many had NO rights... some had just enough rights to continue to live after German dominance had been achieved, but only to serve the German state. 

I understand it's a very general and broad view and leaves out a ton of other aspects to their ideology.  However, those two points are the things I see as the overall approach to politics the Nazis had and any other policy, be it redistribution of wealth, use of propaganda, or the coalitions they put together were all just small pieces of the puzzle to bring "A" and "B" into reality.

And "A" and "B".. I'm sorry my libertarian friends... are not and were not "leftist" goals at any point in history.  The Nazis were not left wing. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The liberal (or as Americans would say, libertarian) tradition of the right is very far removed from the ideas of racial superiority or nationalistic anti-globalization ideals that you (rightly, imo) ascribe to Nazism.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true. A notion of racial superiority was of critical importance to liberal ideology in the nineteenth century; it could not have lived with itself without it. Of course that's a long way away from the specific type, virulence and intensity of that notion that Nazism was built around. And of course it certainly wasn't superior to some of the other notions of superiority that nineteenth century liberals was built around (class and gender in particular), while in Nazism it counted for far more than everything else combined. But I'm a pedant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well it certainly didn't play the same role, but antisemitism was a hard to miss feature of 'classic conservatism' in Germany for as long as it existed as a mainstream ideology (that is, until the 1940s). Not that conservatism in Germany was alone in that regard.

[Earth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Before I respond, I need to make clear what I see constitutes the right. Even in America, the right can be summed up in a fairly homogeneous way; that while racial superiority, ethic nationalism, etc. are all fairly right wing, all of these things are in varying degrees fringe. The extreme right holds these views, depending on their political group. Not all of the racialists are anti-capitalist in the way Nazism was, so there's a mixture of views, from the "fairly" normal, to the outright violent.

The mainstream right belongs to this right-wing sphere, but of course, the republicans have erased almost all extreme right-wing ideas to appeal to a wide audience. The only extreme ideas they hold are either economic, for those not connected with the religious right, while the religious right themselves, more or less keep to conservative, traditional social ideas.

If we can consider the entire right wing sphere to be a scale, then the modern republicans are on the far left, while those with a violent ideology are the farthest away on the right of this scale. It's still keeping within a conservative framework, but specific ideas as to manage society are what make them distinct from one another.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By definition, all right wing ideology is conservative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Antisemitism stems from a racialist belief, which was used with their form of ethnic nationalism. Antisemitism is the extension of the idea that 'our' culture, 'our' blood, 'our' nation is under attack. So, in this way, antisemitism is the specific outlet with which this superiority is established. It's a very conservative idea taken to the extreme.

But Nazism itself was deeply hostile against modernism, and progress, unless it was done under this ethnic umbrella, i.e. "for greater Germany". The Nazis attempted to alter society so it fit their Aryan conception of reality, but the change they attempted was the exultation of Germanic tradition. A strong central authority, traditional social roles for women (who were reduced to nothing but baby-making machines), and the teaching of a doctrine that emphasized what they saw as Germanic destiny. It was also very theological. Of course, Nazi theology emphasized Aryanism, but it was none the less a spiritual movement, too.

All of these ideas fit the right wing, but done in a very extreme way. It was the reestablishment of traditional values that opposed the degrading Jewish culture they saw overtake Europe. Really, the only thing I could say about Nazism in respect to "change" was the speed with which they implemented their worldview.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's connected in the sense that both Nazi Totalitarianism and Italian Fascism wanted to place ethnicity squarely as a defining feature of political life. The line between life and death certainly in the first was blood. Italian Fascism was just as fanatical, but if I could say, were seemingly more corrupt in it's establishment of their values. Italian Fascism was much less developed than Nazi ideology.

I can't see a connection to the art movement, though. The Futurist art movement emphasized technological modernization, the eventual liberation of man through industry. This wasn't a feature of either Italian Fascism or the Nazis. The Nazi interest in technology was practical, i.e. for the military, and industry.

The only way the Nazis attempted a new society was to purge it of elements that corrupted their idealized version of history. A new society would come about by the reassertion of traditional values, but warped to make it revolve around Germany entirely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My mistake. It's worth pointing out though, the use of the word Socialism in National Socialism served to attract the disenfranchised elements of society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But there's no ideology that doesn't overall fall into one or the other. There aren't that many ideas that escape the this two-dimensional world, and the ideology has to be interally consistent to work, so more often then not, you see an ideology's main ideas stem from one place. It depends on the framework the specific idea is based upon. Anti-individualism, for instance, is shared by both Marxism and Nazism, but the big difference is in the arguments they put forth in support of anti-individualism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where do you see the use then of the left/right dichotomy?

[k-onmmunist]

Left and right don't exist except as a rather outdated and odd model of ideology.

[Earth]

Left and right don't exist except as a rather outdated and odd model of ideology.

That's just not true. Unless leftist has taken on a pejorative meaning, and altered it's definition, there are millions of self described, dictionary definition leftists, for better or for worse.