Is Nazism left-wing?

[Gustaf]

A lot to respond to here:

Gully: I think you misunderstand me. You say "the Post-Weimar right" I said "traditional right" I don't think proving that Nazism belongs to the former refutes my point that it didn't belong to the latter. I could go into more detail but I'm not sure that it is necessary.

Al: yeah, the traditional right did follow the Nazis' lead. Again, I'm not convinced that it affects the point I was making - that they didn't belong to that traditional right but was a new entity. The reason while I added my bit about the how the voters tended to be voters of the right (and I could have mentioned Farben et al like you did in that context as well) was precisely to show that I'm aware of that part. When I say Nazism didn't belong to the traditional right, I don't mean in terms of interest or power politics, but ideologically and in style.

To put it in very crude terms: would Hitler have been a leading figure of the German right during Bismarck? I think not. He also would not have been a leading figure in any liberal movement either. In that sense, Nazism in temperament and ideology has very little to do with either conservatism or liberalism.

Earth: you make an excellent argument when you say the left/right dichotomy explains Nazism. I've no idea how to refute it. I also see that you've taken to quoting me out of context to smear me, which is also absolutely fascinating. Once you have something intellectually honest and logically consistent to add to the discussion, just let me know and I will respond to you.

Something I forgot to mention yesterday is of course that the key problem with Wormguy's argument is that the things he mention weren't cornerstones of Nazi ideology. Those were militarism, anti-semitism, racism and so on. These things certainly are not part of the traditional left in any way and is why I'd say no to the question in the thread title. To an extent you can say that they're similar to aspects of conservatism, but certainly not to liberal tradition.

My opinion is simply that Nazism contains too many tenets that are antithetical to core principles in the other traditional ideologies which makes it silly to group Nazism with any of them. Unless you take an extremely marxist perspective on politics. Which you may, but I don't, and it's a whole new debate, really.

Oh, and Opebo: royalist is the best codeword for fascist in human history. Just so you know.

[Gustaf]

I would add that I think there are two somewhat different debates going on here.

What Al and Gully seem to be arguing is that Nazism represented the right in post-Weimar Germany. That, I'd agree with and I think my first post indicates that. What I think me and Wormguy are discussing is a more global, long-term view of the right and left and whether Nazism fits nicely into any of them (I don't think it does, he seems to think that it does in the case of the left).

I'd say Franco's fascism has a much stronger case for being right than Hitler's national socialism for instance.

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.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

When the Bolsheviks took power in Russia, they promptly set to work purging all the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries.  Does that mean they aren't left-wing`

No. Bolshevikism had definite roots in radical pre-1917 thought, not just Marxism but Russian Radicalism as well. Nazism had none of these things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Possibly. But this like the above point isn´t even relevant. On this you should probably Al´s post on the Marxist parties in Weimar Germany.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But that proves nothing. One would more likely look at who was voting for the Nazis and who helped them into power and those overwhelming conservatives. And conservatives, whatever their personal distastes, rarely did anything of significance to topple the Nazi government until 1944 which probably tells you something...

[quoteFurthermore, the decline in real wages for workers can be explained by three rather obvious factors:

a. Far-left nutcase economic policies tend to depress real wages.[/quote]

Mind giving me an example of the Nazis´"far-left nutcase economic policies". One example. Please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Workers´wages went down during the period 1933-1939 which was supposedly the economic miracle period of the Nazi regime (read: massive bubble based on military spending) - that was already well passed the worst the depression. The United States started to grow again in 1933 (or was it 1934? One of those years anyway) for example. Obviously the war hardly helped workers conditions either. But Al´s point is significant, one of the first things the Nazis did in power was destroy all independent socialist organizations and trade unions. This follows the pattern of European fascism elsewhere (I can´t wait for "Was a Franco leftist?" thread) and like elsewhere this was backed by conservative organizations (@Gustaf: The post-weimar right was in part especially in the DNVP the party of the pre-Weimar conservatives.. and DNVP and Nazi votes iirc were pretty interchangable in large parts of Germany).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This ´centrally-planned´economy was dominated by private interests. Exhibit A: IG Farben.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then for consistency we should describe the Nazis as extreme-right, no? As that keeps up with historical continuity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. They didn´t borrow. They were.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes because the previous one was infected socialists, communists, jews, the disabled, the racially inferior and other people which were responsible for the stab-in-the-back (ie. The reason Germany lost WWI). Now, If you wish to argue that the German Kaiserreich was a radical left-wing regime, well go ahead, I´m not going to stop you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That Opebo is reactionary has been long agreed upon by nearly everyone of sense on the boards for a long time...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Not even close. How do you explain the strong connection between the Conservative vote and the Nazi vote? That the conservatives helped and then kept the Nazis into power[qm] That Nazism was clearly linked to conservative organizations in Germany such as, say, The Fatherland Party and so on. Oh, and you haven´t mentioned once any policy of the Nazis that could be described as extreme leftist - all we have had is smearing and arbitrary accusations.

[minionofmidas]

could Hitler have been a leading Tory politician in the UK in the 1930s? I very much doubt that.

No - it was a far too exclusive club, the offspring of incestuous backwoods Lower Austrians would have been quite inacceptable. But he could have been if England had lost the war. Easily. Even as is, most of the leading Tories were rather taken by his government's record.
His politics are not the reason why he couldn't have been, his class is.

[Gustaf]

could Hitler have been a leading Tory politician in the UK in the 1930s? I very much doubt that.

No - it was a far too exclusive club, the offspring of incestuous backwoods Lower Austrians would have been quite inacceptable. But he could have been if England had lost the war. Easily. Even as is, most of the leading Tories were rather taken by his government's record.
His politics are not the reason why he couldn't have been, his class is.

I know you think you did a gotcha here, but that was actually part of my reasoning.

[minionofmidas]

I know you think you did a gotcha here,

Not really.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good.

[Hash]

Yes. Fascism has left-wing roots and we all know it.

I would insult you badly if you weren't 10.

[angus]

If you don't understand that 'the Left' in Weimar Germany meant 'the two 'Marxist' parties (the SPD and the KPD), their subcultures (which were, especially in the case of the SPD, astonishingly well-developed. During the early years of the Depression the SPD actually ran alternative welfare systems in some of their strongholds such as Leipzig, to say nothing of all the clubs and societies. Even funerals, at least early on) and the 'Marxist' trade unions, and that the Nazi party explicitly defined itself against these parties, subcultures and trade unions, then you have no business expecting your opinions on Nazism to be taken at all seriously by anyone with more than a basic grasp of the subject.

This deep hostility to the Left was also reflected in Nazi policies when they took power. The SPD, the KPD and the unions were persecuted relentlessly, many of their leading members were imprisoned in camps and many were eventually murdered. Meanwhile, Nazi economic policies actually resulted in a decline in working class wages and living standards, workers had effectively no rights, and various large industrial concerns did extremely well out of the Nazis. IG Farben is the poster boy of the mutually beneficial relationship between Party and Business (literally; as their profits swelled, so to did donations to the NSDAP... and government contracts), but there were others.

Now that's more like it.  Actually, what I was thinking, too, was that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  That is, defined by their hostility toward Marxism, they must be at the opposite end of the spectrum.  But that still fails to define a rightist agenda within the NSDAP.

True, they held that the Aryan race was supreme.  This biological racism is a long-held tradition, and I think we can identify that with traditionalist rightism.  Second, they sought expansion in the east (some would say reclaiming old German lands), in order to secure economic growth.  That, too, might be associated with rightist tendencies.  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?!

[Earth]

Earth: you make an excellent argument when you say the left/right dichotomy explains Nazism. I've no idea how to refute it. I also see that you've taken to quoting me out of context to smear me, which is also absolutely fascinating. Once you have something intellectually honest and logically consistent to add to the discussion, just let me know and I will respond to you.

I see you're bitching like you always do, instead of addressing my post above. When you want to act like a big boy, the post will be there.

[Beet]

The Italian fascists were very right-wing (anti-communist, anti-union) as well. Further, they were authoritarian (top-down authoritarian), and nationalist.

The Nazis' support of community interests and cradle to grave programs: first, because of their (relatively greater) racism and sexism, to put it mildly, they obviously didn't support this for the whole community, only a part of the community. So one must qualify the statement that they supported 'community interests'... they supported the interests of certain communities, defined in a certain, racial and patriarchal way. I suppose the one way in which Nazism was not as far Right wing as possible was its embrace of the German working class. Under this umbrella encompasses the said cradle to grave programs. However, it should be noted that by the 1930s there was no major political party anywhere in the world that did not include the working class, and nor is there anywhere in the world today in any of the countries where there is a capitalist or blood-lineage ruling class (the latter very few) any actual ideology that does not include it. Hence, this did not actually make Nazism further left than any other contemporaries. It only makes Nazism further left than Bourbon France. In other words the Nazis accepted and engaged in modern politics. They wed together modern politics, which was before fascism the exclusive domain of the left (e.g., which would form the basis for the late 19th century fears among some of the middle class that universal manhood suffrage would lead to Marxist triumph), and right-wing politics.

[minionofmidas]

For example, the Nazis supported a wide variety of cradle-to-grave programs.  

That just means that they were more Conservative than Liberal (original terms alert). I mean, so did Bismarck.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's just another way of saying "it's all the Jews' fault".

And I wouldn't quite equate "national interests" and "community interests". Seems to me that's not nearly the same thing. People are part of many communities, but nations are defined in silly binaries (into which most people never quite fit. They are an artificial construct.)

The nazis were not (until they came to power) an establishment conservative party, of course. They were more a discontented conservative grassroots rebellion.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, that's true. Though most published stuff on electoral patterns in the Weimar Republic is seriously flawed, based on dubious statistical models that fail to understand that towns and cities are internally diverse!

The thing to remember here is, of course, that not all workers voted for Socialist parties before 1918 or between 1918 and 1933 either.

[angus]

For example, the Nazis supported a wide variety of cradle-to-grave programs.  

That just means that they were more Conservative than Liberal (original terms alert). I mean, so did Bismarck.

sure, we could say that they were not Classical Liberal, I'd agree, but then that also supports the idea that they were of the "left" (American terms alert.)   And if we said that they were conservative based on extending Bismarck's idea of social programs, then that would also suggest leftism.

Also, the Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance

That's just another way of saying "it's all the Jews' fault".

Yes, that's how I always read that as well, but if they saw the Jews as bearded goldkeepers, and wanted to redistribute that gold to themselves and their friends, then they remind me of the Soviet.  I think that's more evidence in favor of a Yes vote.

And I wouldn't quite equate "national interests" and "community interests". Seems to me that's not nearly the same thing. People are part of many communities, but nations are defined in silly binaries (into which most people never quite fit. They are an artificial construct.)

The nazis were not (until they came to power) an establishment conservative party, of course. They were more a discontented conservative grassroots rebellion.

Okay, call it national interests.  Either way, it precludes self-interest or individualism as a prime motivator, so it seems like a leftist ideal.

Let's be honest:  our teachers have never veered from the official view that Nazis are rightists and Communists are leftists.  And we have never questioned them.  Till now, that it.  But with the question hanging out there, why not try to be objective about it?  Let's evaluate their ideologies and their tactics.  It seems to me that they borrowed from both left- and right-wing philosophies and tactics.  They were militaristic, just as any self-respecting authoritarian regime should be, whether it's Leftist or Rightist.  They were idealistic, but idealism isn't limited to rightist idealism, there can be leftist idealism as well, and idealism that doesn't necessarily lend itself to the false left-versus-right dichotomy.  Actually, that's where I'm leaning at the moment.  That they really can't be neatly classified as Right or Left in our modern sense.  So that'd be a No vote.

[Beet]

The issue here is obviously semantic. angus, although is not a caricature libertarian, shares with caricature libertarians the belief that libertarianism occupies one of the two poles of the Left-Right spectrum (indeed has argued this for years), and hence by extension that the essence of the political spectrum is where you stand on the question of individualism. Obviously, the others, including myself, disagree.

[angus]

The issue here is obviously semantic.

It always is.

The rest of your post seems reasonable as well.  But then that just leaves us with "I'll stick with my reality and you stick with yours."

Before we can have any debate, we must define terms.  You'd have to give us a good definition of "left wing" before we can answer the question "Is Nazism left-wing?"  Of course, you might also want to extend the courtesy of defining Nazism, but I think it's okay to presume some knowledge on the part of the posters herein regarding its definition.  Absent any such definition of terms, there can be no correct answer.  The is why the information insert that comes with your credit card is seventeen pages long instead of one page long.  It has sixteen pages of definitions preceding one sixteen-word sentence.  And mortgages are even more verbose.  And there's a good reason for all that verbosity.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The thing to remember here is, of course, that not all workers voted for Socialist parties before 1918 or between 1918 and 1933 either.

And the areas where there was obvious large-scale electoral movement from the Left to the Nazis were not exactly typical. Many had also seen decent votes for right-wing protest parties in the past. Which is a bit of a 'so, yeah' moment.

[Beet]

Wikipedia says "Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social changes to create a more egalitarian society", and this is the definition I have gone with for several years (not because of wikipedia o/c, I dont think Ive ever looked that up until today ).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You'd have to give us a good definition of "left wing" before we can answer the question "Is Nazism left-wing?" 

Left and Right are subjective concepts rather than objective reality. Well, mostly, anyway. I have already given what is basically the standard definition of 'Left' in Germany between industrialisation and 1933:

'the Left' in Weimar Germany meant 'the two 'Marxist' parties (the SPD and the KPD), their subcultures (which were, especially in the case of the SPD, astonishingly well-developed. During the early years of the Depression the SPD actually ran alternative welfare systems in some of their strongholds such as Leipzig, to say nothing of all the clubs and societies. Even funerals, at least early on) and the 'Marxist' trade unions

To be on the Right is to be against the Left. To be virulently against the Left is to be on the extreme Right. Or at least that was how things were traditionally defined in Europe.

The thing is, and this is why I hate these threads, no credible historian of this period thinks that the Nazis were anything other than on the extreme right. Not one. Hardly anyone at the time thought the Nazis were anything other than on the extreme right.

[angus]

support for social changes to create a more egalitarian societytoday

Then No.  End of debate in that case.

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

We could obviously continue debate if we agree upon this definition.

'the Left' in Weimar Germany meant 'the two 'Marxist' parties (the SPD and the KPD), their subcultures (which were, especially in the case of the SPD, astonishingly well-developed. During the early years of the Depression the SPD actually ran alternative welfare systems in some of their strongholds such as Leipzig, to say nothing of all the clubs and societies. Even funerals, at least early on) and the 'Marxist' trade unions

That's pretty specific.  In your very narrow definition, they are of course not Left-wing.

The thing is, and this is why I hate these threads, no credible historian of this period thinks that the Nazis were anything other than on the extreme right. Not one. Hardly anyone at the time thought the Nazis were anything other than on the extreme right.

angels' advocate = wimp.  Anyway, where's the fun in that?

Also, I think you secretly enjoy troll threads on some level.  A guilty passion, so to speak.  Or perhaps you see it as your duty to alleviate misapprehension and to discourage the propagation of commonly uttered falsehoods.  This forum has no mission statement on its introductory page, but we can assume a mission.  Something like:  "To report and analyze election results and to foster understanding of politics, mostly of the United States, but also of the world, through reasoned debate and discussion."  That accepted as a mission of this forum--we could quibble about the specifics, but if you accept that general premise--it becomes obvious that troll threads such as this one do enlighten us by challenging us and forcing us to analyze our understanding.

[Beet]

support for social changes to create a more egalitarian societytoday

Then No.  End of debate in that case.

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

We could obviously continue debate if we agree upon this definition.

True, though the meaning of "radical" and "conservative" then come into question. At the most reductionist, radical equals maximum change, while conservative means minimal change. I can't agree with that definition. I mean, who was more left wing, Boris Yeltsin circa 1991 or Leonid Brezhnev circa 1975? By that definition Yeltsin was more left wing since he was in favor of more dramatic changes. Yet Brezhnev was the communist.

Anyway, Merriam Webster themselves seem confused. According to their thesaurus (not dictionary), leftism means "a political belief stressing progress, the essential goodness of humankind, and individual freedom."

But I agree, this is an interesting discussion. Upon further thought, certain elements associated with the Left cannot be reduced down to a belief in egalitarianism (congrats, you have just changed my mind on a belief I have had for years). For example, what of the Left's faith in the goodness of human nature, its seemingly dashed historical belief that a modern utopia could be constructed? One does not need to be an optimist or a humanitarian to be egalitarian.

So I suppose I come closer to Al's view... it is an inherently subjective question and guided solely by historical markers of what was considered such-and-such at various points in history. By that standard, your original definition could be valid in certain times and places.

[The Mikado]

Left and Right are clearly subjective terms that are only really useful looking in a society at a certain point.  They aren't words you can divorce of all context and have a Platonic "Left-wing" or "Right-wing."

[Gustaf]

Earth: you make an excellent argument when you say the left/right dichotomy explains Nazism. I've no idea how to refute it. I also see that you've taken to quoting me out of context to smear me, which is also absolutely fascinating. Once you have something intellectually honest and logically consistent to add to the discussion, just let me know and I will respond to you.

I see you're bitching like you always do, instead of addressing my post above. When you want to act like a big boy, the post will be there.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to refute. Going over your post:

1. I've never read Liberal Fascism.

2. I'm not Wormguy.

3. I mentioned the racism in my last post, I just did not think it was essential to the point I was making.

4. Doesn't seem to contradict me.

5. Merely an assertion.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see any argument you're advancing going against any of my arguments in a convincing way.

[Earth]

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

[Gustaf]

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

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

[opebo]

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.