Is Nazism left-wing?

[angus]

We've been over this territory enough. The answer is an extremely loud 'no'.

True, but the thread yielded wormyguy's incisive analysis.  I'd have instinctively voted yes, since that's what we were all taught in school.  Over and over.  Say it with me class:  Nazis represent the extreme right and the Soviet represents the extreme left.  I can remember Mister Southerland saying that.  I can remember Miss Joost saying that.  And later, as a university student, I remember Doctor White saying that.  If something gets said often enough, it must be true.

But this is the political debate thread, and I've seen no successful rebuttal to Wormyguy's comments, and frankly I can't think of a really compelling one myself.  I'll give it a day or so, but if there's no good rebuttal I"m going to go with yes.

[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?!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.  

[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!

[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.