Is Nazism left-wing?

[Earth]

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.

[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.

[Earth]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Earth]

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

[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.