Is Nazism left-wing?

[k-onmmunist]

Yeah but we need a better way of measuring this sorta thing man.

[Gustaf]

Hm. Basically, I don't really agree that right-wing = conservatism. I don't see how liberalism, in the more classical sense, would fit into the political spectrum then and given that it's the dominant ideology in the Western world that seems like a short-coming to me.

I see the connection between conservatism and Nazism but I don't think the radical, future-looking properties of National Socialism fits that nicely into traditional conservatism. Sociologically speaking, yes. The conservativeS in Germany embraced Nazism as a reaction to the events after WWI. In ideological terms, however, I think Nazism is essentially a different ideology from that of traditional conservatism. I guess you could call it an adaptation to the Weimar society but I'm wary of such re-definitions. National Socialism wasn't about preserving or defending something. It was a radical movement which wanted to change society in a dramatic fashion. Certain parts of this were about returning to older things but it was not essentially about returning to the good old days. That largely separates it from traditional European conservatism, in my opinion. It's a subjective evaluation though, obviously.

I know I'm not really adding much in the above but I don't know if there is much left to argue over there. You seem to think that the similarities are larger than the differences, I view it the other way, but it seems to be a difference in evaluation or perception rather than in ascertaining facts.

As regards left and right, I don't really see much use in it. Perhaps if you use it as a short-hand for more or less socialist, etc, but I don't really view it as a very useful tool for understanding ideology.

[Earth]

Hm. Basically, I don't really agree that right-wing = conservatism. I don't see how liberalism, in the more classical sense, would fit into the political spectrum then and given that it's the dominant ideology in the Western world that seems like a short-coming to me.

We have to view it as something, pardon the phrase, fluid. Ideas generally championed by classical liberalism would, today, fall into the right wing category, even though they represented a shift from the dominant thinking of their day. The entire scale has to shift depending on the historical time frame, and the ideology of the then-status quo.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I honestly haven't read all six pages of this thread, but here's what I generally infer: Nazis are authoritarian.

They support a centrally planned economy and eugenics (Left, as I see it)

They support warfare and are xenophobic (how leftists see the Right)

[Hash]

Nazis are authoritarian.

wow, what a fascinating insight!

[Earth]

They support a centrally planned economy and eugenics (Left, as I see it)

Eugenics is a hallmark of the right wing, not the left. Even if people like Sanger supported it. Politically, it's been used by the right.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Nazis are authoritarian.

wow, what a fascinating insight!

I know, right?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

They support a centrally planned economy and eugenics (Left, as I see it)

Eugenics is a hallmark of the right wing, not the left. Even if people like Sanger supported it. Politically, it's been used by the right.

I heard that Winston Churchill supported it, but in more recent years, I've heard of more radicals on the left talk about, especially in regards to abortion. And, now I may be mistaken here, but I may (or may not) have heard that Woodrow Wilson supported it. True? or no...

[Earth]

I don't know, but how does that clash with my point? Neither of them were leftists.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I don't know, but how does that clash with my point? Neither of them were leftists.

Woodrow Wilson?

[Frink]

I don't know, but how does that clash with my point? Neither of them were leftists.

Woodrow Wilson?

...was not a leftist.

Few Presidents have been as active in their opposition to "the left" as Wilson.

[angus]

They support a centrally planned economy and eugenics (Left, as I see it)

Eugenics is a hallmark of the right wing, not the left. Even if people like Sanger supported it. Politically, it's been used by the right.

German eugenics schools predate the NSDAP, and the eugenics movement there, as in the United States, was rather politically diverse.  The German Society for Race and Hygiene was founded over a hundred years ago and was made up of technocrats, some of whom were predisposed to leftist political leanings and some of whom were rightists.  The American Eugenic Society is not quite as old but it also had a sociopolitically diverse membership.

I disagree with both of you:  eugenics is the hallmark of neither the right nor of the left.

In fact, the only reason we're still having this debate is that the original poster still hasn't given us his version of what constitutes the "hallmark of the left."

[angus]

My tenth-grade teacher did this exactly.  She drew the circle on the board and talked about it.  It was Ms. Joost.  There were minor differences.  E.g., "European socialists" didn't appear on it.  Reagan did.  As did Nazis, somewhere near fascists.  Also, it was upside down from yours, with the center being at the top, but it was essentially the same type of tool.  Far left and far right come together.  Two things:  (1) the circle made sense at the time, still does.  I assume it's standard fare in high school history classes and it's a good thinking/teaching tool.  (2) We're left with "Nazis are rightists" because our teachers say they are.  That's the official academic position and no one dares question it, till now.  It's the second point that explains the majority of responses in this poll, I think.  

There's a minor (third) point you could make if you buy into the political matrix type model, which is that not only does the linear model fail, but also, apparently, the circular model fails as well.  Thus is motivated the invention of the co-ordinate type systems of political classification to separate left-versus-right issues from the anarchy-versus-authority issues.  But I suppose back in 1983 no one had thought of these co-ordinate political quizzes, so you can't blame Ms. Joost for that.  This circle was probably cutting edge teaching at that time. 

[Earth]

I disagree with both of you:  eugenics is the hallmark of neither the right nor of the left.

That's nice, but it's unfortunately wrong. Eugenics, and forced sterilization programs were not initiated by the left, but by conservative elements.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A belief in eugenics was pretty widespread in 'educated' circles from the birth of popular Darwinism until news emerged of what the Nazis were actually doing. It certainly wasn't the property of any single ideology; it certainly had its conservative advocates (including most of the many crypto-reactionary 'anti-politics' intellectual reactionaries of the inter war years; D.H Lawrence, say. Ah... why did one of the greatest writers in the English language have to be quite such a self-loathing sh!t at the same time...) and practitioners, but there was support from the bourgeois/crankish wing of socialism as well (infamously so in the case of Sweden where that type of socialist was unusually influential within the wider movement) and from liberals. Perhaps especially from liberals, at least in Britain. The sub-eugenicist fetish of 'national efficiency' was the driving force of the Asquith government, for example.

[angus]

I disagree with both of you:  eugenics is the hallmark of neither the right nor of the left.

That's nice, but it's unfortunately wrong. Eugenics, and forced sterilization programs were not initiated by the left, but by conservative elements.

They were initiated by technocrats.  This is well established.  The founders of the German eugenics movement, for example, were salaried professionals, some of whom leaned socialist and some capitalist, but all of whom decried the declining fertility of the professional class.  I agree that this idea was co=opted by, and fit well into, the Nazi model of the ideal race some thirty years hence, but the eugenics movement there did not start with rightists.  In fact, they fought with neophytes who were more interested in "unscientific" racism.  A number of Jewish geneticists, for example, were eugenicists, and not all of them were rightists.  And there were Catholics and protestants as well.  It is very important not to confuse traditional eugenicists with the Nazis.  As a matter of fact, the American Psychiatric Institute published the work of eugenicists in their journals regularly for a period at the turn of the 20th century, and the articles did not touch upon sociopolitical issues one way or the other, except as they related specifically to eugenics.  

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I disagree with both of you:  eugenics is the hallmark of neither the right nor of the left.

That's nice, but it's unfortunately wrong. Eugenics, and forced sterilization programs were not initiated by the left, but by conservative elements.

Certainly you're not talking about the modern, pro-life type of Conservatism that I'm part of.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I disagree with both of you:  eugenics is the hallmark of neither the right nor of the left.

That's nice, but it's unfortunately wrong. Eugenics, and forced sterilization programs were not initiated by the left, but by conservative elements.

Certainly you're not talking about the modern, pro-life type of Conservatism that I'm part of.

Of course no one is talking about how things are now. Out damn presentism.

[angus]

I disagree with both of you:  eugenics is the hallmark of neither the right nor of the left.

That's nice, but it's unfortunately wrong. Eugenics, and forced sterilization programs were not initiated by the left, but by conservative elements.

Certainly you're not talking about the modern, pro-life type of Conservatism that I'm part of.

probably no more than you were referring to the ultrapolitically-correct type of Progressivism that so many "left-wing" Americans are a part of. 

I think we can stipulate as Al says.  This is all ancient history, thus the semantics problems inherent herein.  Too bad we don't all speak Latin, so we could have an unambiguous debate.  Damn living languages!

[Gustaf]

Sweden has a proud (well) eugenic tradition. Our state-run eugenic institute existed until the 70s, actually. We took that away about the same time as we decriminalized homosexuality and legalized abortion. All of which I think we did after the US (though not by much of a margin, of course).

I think it is odd that one would define right-wing as conservative. From a Swedish perspective that really makes no sense at all, since our right is mostly liberal rather than conservative.

[angus]

I think it is odd that one would define right-wing as conservative. From a Swedish perspective that really makes no sense at all, since our right is mostly liberal rather than conservative.

Many aspects of modern US politics are odd.  We certainly have a liberal Right in the US, and they're well-represented in this forum, but the traditionalists have been so successfully courted by the Republican party (over a 40-year period beginning in about 1968) that many Americans instinctively associate the Right with conservative values.  The GOP has now an odd marriage between Individualists and Traditionalists (to use Daniel Elazar's terms), in which we find find one wing of the party exploiting the other.  Given the comments of the talking heads on US television, I'm not sure that any of this is well understood.  

Much of the problem stems from the fact that our highest elected office, the President, requires an outright majority of the votes of electors to win, and not just a plurality.  Over the years this majority requirement has evolved a two-party system.  This two-party system is superimposed on the three political cultures, and it has created some odd marriages, in longish cycles lasting decades.  At one time you could identify the GOP as encompassing the Moralists and Individualists, leaving only the Traditionalists to the Democrats.  (Look at all those early 20th century election maps where the South is solidly Democrat and all other regions are Republican.)  At other times (1930s, 40s, and 50s) the Moralists and Traditionalists banded together leaving only Western states reliably Republcan.  

Anyway, I agree with much of what you posted in this thread about Nazis.  It's an unorthodox view, certainly by American standards, but it's an interesting and informed one.  I voted NO in the thread, but I was strictly saying that it wasn't Left.  No one should infer that Not Left equals Right.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, that mostly my reasoning too. As I said, I don't really like the terms left and right when it comes to discussing ideology anyway.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The way I see it, there are two ways of measuring if an ideology is "left-wing" or "right-wing."

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.

Depends. For example, most of the pre-WWII right in Europe was rejecting laisser-fairism, just as most of the major European right parties are rejecting it now.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The leaders of the major WW2 powers were in some shape or form leftists. FDR/Churchill (Fabian Socialists) Hitler (Nationalist Socialism) Stalin(Communism) so indeed Nazism is emphatically left wing. In fact, Hitler got some of his ideas from American Progressives/Racial Supremists. That's why Hitler loved the idea of eugenics.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Leaving out the obvious stupidity of asserting that Nazism is left-wing, the idea that Churchill was left-wing is new and fun.

You're definitely a keeper.